November 10, 200916 yr QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 04:33 PM) Maybe not. Enlighten me... The run right at 0, and sometimes a little in the red. The ownership of the White Sox is not in the game to make a profit. You can't expect every team to pay $200 million, which is $50-70 million over the luxury tax, which later accumulates to something like $240 mill total. When Williams finds a player that he feels does exactly what the team needs, Reinsdorf and the ownership open the purse strings. Why do you think the Sox resigned Konerko after the World Series? Dye? Buehrle? Pierzynski? Peavy? Rios?
November 10, 200916 yr QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 04:36 PM) The run right at 0, and sometimes a little in the red. The ownership of the White Sox is not in the game to make a profit. You can't expect every team to pay $200 million, which is $50-70 million over the luxury tax, which later accumulates to something like $240 mill total. When Williams finds a player that he feels does exactly what the team needs, Reinsdorf and the ownership open the purse strings. Why do you think the Sox resigned Konerko after the World Series? Dye? Buehrle? Pierzynski? Peavy? Rios? Oh okay I didn't know that. Run right at 0, and sometimes under? Hmmm... I'm a bit of a skeptic on that one, but I'll buy it since I have no proof to the contrary.
November 10, 200916 yr QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 05:41 PM) Oh okay I didn't know that. Run right at 0, and sometimes under? Hmmm... I'm a bit of a skeptic on that one, but I'll buy it since I have no proof to the contrary. I guarantee you they ran in the red last season, which is why those pursestrings are so tight coming into next season...
November 10, 200916 yr QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 04:41 PM) Oh okay I didn't know that. Run right at 0, and sometimes under? Hmmm... I'm a bit of a skeptic on that one, but I'll buy it since I have no proof to the contrary. You don't own a sports team to make money, you own a sports team to say you own a sports team.
November 10, 200916 yr QUOTE (Kalapse @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 05:45 PM) You don't own a sports team to make money, you own a sports team to say you own a sports team. Thereby getting laid more.
November 10, 200916 yr QUOTE (Kalapse @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 04:45 PM) You don't own a sports team to make money, you own a sports team to say you own a sports team. Okay so the other teams with high payrolls.... yankees.. red sox, angels, mets, cubs... all of those teams have owners that lose money every year, or are they just breaking even? Is it because they sell out every night?
November 10, 200916 yr QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 05:50 PM) Okay so the other teams with high payrolls.... yankees.. red sox, angels, mets, cubs... all of those teams have owners that lose money every year, or are they just breaking even? Is it because they sell out every night? The Yankees/Red Sox/Mets basically own their own sports network. They generate tens of millions that way. The Cubs have their own psuedo network in WGN. Those teams also draw extremely well, as you alluded to. That doesn't hurt. The Yankees have been operating in the red though for a few years recently. A few weeks ago, there was a thread here regarding a new company the White Sox have started, entitled "Silver Chalice Ventures," which will attempt to generate funds to be used for the ballclub. Apparently the Red Sox have a similar venture entitled "Fenway Sports Group." Many teams are looking to generate $ in any way possible so as to make them more competitive within the baseball industry. Edited November 10, 200916 yr by iamshack
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.