Huh?

 

The NFL is a cash cow, granted, but MLB is a solid 2nd place in total revenues. It blows the NBA out of the water. The NBA doesn't publicly admit its revenues, but a simple estimate suggests it's somewhere near $2 billion, while MLB topped $7 billion last year.

 

And although attendance is down, advertising and cable revenues, especially local franchise revenues, are soaring.

 

Revenues are a terrible comparison of viability when comparing leagues.

Revenues are a terrible comparison of viability when comparing leagues.

Tell that to the person who brought them up.

Tell that to the person who brought them up.

 

Accounting 101

 

cash flows/= revenue.

Accounting 101

 

cash flows/= revenue.

In what sense is the cash flow for the NBA greater than for MLB?

In what sense is the cash flow for the NBA greater than for MLB?

 

Its not, and it isn't going to be. That's why comparing the two is a terrible show.

Its not, and it isn't going to be. That's why comparing the two is a terrible show.

So...when I went after the claim that:

MLB doesn't really dent the cash flow like the NFL, NBA.

on the NBA part, I was right, MLB nearly doubles the NBA (maybe more now that the NBA is legitimately struggling), the revenue makes up the bulk of the cash flow in both cases, and yet I'm still wrong about something?

Every day I come to this site hoping to see a thread that says a real change has been made to the composition of this team. So disappointing.

 

Whaddya mean? Hector Santiago doesn't float your boat? (green)

So...when I went after the claim that:

on the NBA part, I was right, MLB nearly doubles the NBA (maybe more now that the NBA is legitimately struggling), the revenue makes up the bulk of the cash flow in both cases, and yet I'm still wrong about something?

 

Other than it being a comparison of unequals, yes. It is like comparing Wal-Mart and the local drug store as equals.

Other than it being a comparison of unequals, yes. It is like comparing Wal-Mart and the local drug store as equals.

And then saying that Walmart doesn't dent the cashflow like that drug store.

Are Balta and Southsider arguing? Dat's what I'm trying to figure out in this thread.

 

I wish baseball would open its books to the public BTW.

Are Balta and Southsider arguing? Dat's what I'm trying to figure out in this thread.

 

I wish baseball would open its books to the public BTW.

 

Why should they? The only exception I would accept is if they want public funding for a stadium or something like that. Otherwise it is nobody else's business, except MLB.

Why should they? The only exception I would accept is if they want public funding for a stadium or something like that. Otherwise it is nobody else's business, except MLB.

 

Cause I, the paying fan, want to know how my Sox are doing?

Why wouldn't they open the books?

Why should they? The only exception I would accept is if they want public funding for a stadium or something like that. Otherwise it is nobody else's business, except MLB.

 

You're right, but it'd be really interesting to look over, even if I have no right. I find that stuff fascinating.

Cause I, the paying fan, want to know how my Sox are doing?

Why wouldn't they open the books?

If I'm right and the Sox cleared about $25 million in profits last year, that's not the sort of thing you'd want to admit to a fanbase.

Cause I, the paying fan, want to know how my Sox are doing?

Why wouldn't they open the books?

Why would they want to? Now all their financial info would be exposed and they would have little bargaining chips in terms of deals, and every fan would be clamoring for them to spend more (most likely the case).

 

They aren't a publically traded company, they don't have to open their books.

Cause I, the paying fan, want to know how my Sox are doing?

Why wouldn't they open the books?

 

Do you plan on showing your books to everyone who wants to know how you are doing?

Do you plan on showing your books to everyone who wants to know how you are doing?

 

Nobody wants to see my books. I'm not a public figure and I'm poor.

Nobody wants to see my books. I'm not a public figure and I'm poor.

The Sox aren't a public company, they are private, therefore they don't have to show the books.

The Sox aren't a public company, they are private, therefore they don't have to show the books.

The one thing that makes it a little bit of a case here is that the state of Illinois has chipped in a ton of cash towards their ballpark.

Nobody wants to see my books. I'm not a public figure and I'm poor.

 

That's where you're wrong. You definitely have some fans just on this website alone, so of course they'd like to see your books and see how you're doing.

The Sox aren't a public company, they are private, therefore they don't have to show the books.

 

I know. I just thought they might want to cater to the customer. I don't go to games now, but we had season tickets for years when I was a kid.

 

I know there's a greater chance of me winning an Emmy than baseball teams opening their books. Forget I brought it up.

That's where you're wrong. You definitely have some fans just on this website alone, so of course they'd like to see your books and see how you're doing.

Im sure some people would love to tell him to cut spending in some areas or that he's saving too much and should reinvest that money in more Sox tickets/trips.

That's where you're wrong. You definitely have some fans just on this website alone, so of course they'd like to see your books and see how you're doing.

 

I totally want to see them.

Cause I, the paying fan, want to know how my Sox are doing?

Why wouldn't they open the books?

 

Would you care if the top dollar ticket was $30? I doubt most people would care.

 

I totally want to see them.

 

You could have at least put that in green if u meant my fans and not my books.

Edited June 27, 201114 yr by greg775