Curt v. NYYFans.com

Real World said:

I can't believe you actually buy that BS. Every team will cry about losing money when they don't. The Yankees cried too, and it's total BS. These owners make money in so many other area's, with network revenue's, merchandising, etc.

The Redsox lose money like the Yankees do.

Click to expand...

You're arguing two different things. John Henry is not losing money. New England Sports Ventures is doing quite well. The Red Sox, one of the entities owned by NESV, are losing money. They are not a cash cow.

If NESV consisted of only the Red Sox ownership of Henry, Lucchino and Werner then you could argue that NESVs profits = Red Sox profits. But that is not the case. NESV consists of a number of investors and partners who have absolutely no desire to spend their investments on the Red Sox. Do you think that the New York Times Company (who until recently owned 17.5% of NESV) gave a crap about spending money on the Red Sox? Henry cannot spend all the revenue from NESN on the Red Sox, because not all of it is his.

As far as merchandise... all teams make the same amount in merchandising. Other than merchandise purchased in stores privately owned by the team, all merchandise revenue is split up equally among all teams. Stuff purchased at mlb.com, sporting goods stores, and anywhere else will benefit the Red Sox as much as it does the Pirates.

"So basically you're saying that how much a team spends is irrelevent, since spending the most money, or more than everyone else, hasn't meant a championship."

No, what I'm saying is all the crying about what the Yankees spend is foolish; actually, what they've spend with nothing to show for it is a reason for Yankee fans to cry.

Foley said:

You're arguing two different things. John Henry is not losing money. New England Sports Ventures is doing quite well. The Red Sox, one of the entities owned by NESV, are losing money. They are not a cash cow.

If NESV consisted of only the Red Sox ownership of Henry, Lucchino and Werner then you could argue that NESVs profits = Red Sox profits. But that is not the case. NESV consists of a number of investors and partners who have absolutely no desire to spend their investments on the Red Sox. Do you think that the New York Times Company (who until recently owned 17.5% of NESV) gave a crap about spending money on the Red Sox? Henry cannot spend all the revenue from NESN on the Red Sox, because not all of it is his.

As far as merchandise... all teams make the same amount in merchandising. Other than merchandise purchased in stores privately owned by the team, all merchandise revenue is split up equally among all teams. Stuff purchased at mlb.com, sporting goods stores, and anywhere else will benefit the Red Sox as much as it does the Pirates.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry Foley, but if you believe that the Yankees lost $50-85 million in 2006, or that the Sox have lost money in 3 of the last 4 or 5 years, you need you head examined. The books are always cooked to represent the desired fiscal outlook needed for annual tax purposes. OVerall these teams make money, and lots of it. No team would operate with a negative $50-85 million annual balance. Once they've paid everyone, moved money to a separate entity, written off all their expense, they claim a loss so they don't pay uncle sam. Baseball is a billion dollar a year business. I can't believe there are intelligent fans out there who believe they lose money all the time.

Let's assume for a second that the Sox lose money and can't spend more. So then how is it that the Yankees "lose" (quotations cuz it's a load of BS) money at a more alarming rate, and still do? This would go back to my point about how the Yankees invest money into the team, with less concern on profits. It's a different organizational phylosophy than the more fiscally prudent Sox. According to the teams, they both lose money, which I personally think is beyond comical for them to say, but one still increases spending while the other doesn't.

This kinda stuff makes me laugh really. To think that the Yankees, after getting hundreds of millions in non interest gubmit bonds to build their billion dollars stadium, went back the city to say they needed more. These teams are unbelievable.

Real World said:

I'm sorry Foley, but if you believe that the Yankees lost $50-85 million in 2006, or that the Sox have lost money in 3 of the last 4 or 5 years, you need you head examined. The books are always cooked to represent the desired fiscal outlook needed for annual tax purposes. OVerall these teams make money, and lots of it. No team would operate with a negative $50-85 million annual balance. Once they've paid everyone, moved money to a separate entity, written off all their expense, they claim a loss so they don't pay uncle sam. Baseball is a billion dollar a year business. I can't believe there are intelligent fans out there who believe they lose money all the time.

Let's assume for a second that the Sox lose money and can't spend more. So then how is it that the Yankees "lose" (quotations cuz it's a load of BS) money at a more alarming rate, and still do? This would go back to my point about how the Yankees invest money into the team, with less concern on profits. It's a different organizational phylosophy than the more fiscally prudent Sox. According to the teams, they both lose money, which I personally think is beyond comical for them to say, but one still increases spending while the other doesn't.

This kinda stuff makes me laugh really. To think that the Yankees, after getting hundreds of millions in non interest gubmit bonds to build their billion dollars stadium, went back the city to say they needed more. These teams are unbelievable.

Click to expand...

the yankees can spend more because they make more period. end of story.

captain insano said:

the yankees can spend more because they make more period. end of story.

Click to expand...

Yup ... what he said ... :yeahthat:

Real World said:

I'm sorry Foley, but if you believe that the Yankees lost $50-85 million in 2006, or that the Sox have lost money in 3 of the last 4 or 5 years, you need you head examined. The books are always cooked to represent the desired fiscal outlook needed for annual tax purposes. OVerall these teams make money, and lots of it. No team would operate with a negative $50-85 million annual balance. Once they've paid everyone, moved money to a separate entity, written off all their expense, they claim a loss so they don't pay uncle sam. Baseball is a billion dollar a year business. I can't believe there are intelligent fans out there who believe they lose money all the time.

Let's assume for a second that the Sox lose money and can't spend more. So then how is it that the Yankees "lose" (quotations cuz it's a load of BS) money at a more alarming rate, and still do? This would go back to my point about how the Yankees invest money into the team, with less concern on profits. It's a different organizational phylosophy than the more fiscally prudent Sox. According to the teams, they both lose money, which I personally think is beyond comical for them to say, but one still increases spending while the other doesn't.

Click to expand...

Again, I did not say that anyone was losing money. The Red Sox as an entity are losing money, but everyone involved with them is seeing a profit. The Red Sox (and Yankees) can see a negative without anyone actually losing a cent over it. The issue is that you cannot directly apply network revenue to team revenue because the two are unrelated. The Red Sox do not own NESN. All NESNs profits go to NESV, and not all NESVs profits go to Henry. NESV is a hugely profitably enterprise, but only a portion of those profits can be attributed to Henry, ergo attributed to the Red Sox.

And the Yankees can appear to be more in the red because YES is a significantly larger profit making entity than NESN. The amount of profit from YES that George gets is much more than the amount of profit from NESN that Henry gets.

Foley said:

Again, I did not say that anyone was losing money. The Red Sox as an entity are losing money, but everyone involved with them is seeing a profit. The Red Sox (and Yankees) can see a negative without anyone actually losing a cent over it. The issue is that you cannot directly apply network revenue to team revenue because the two are unrelated. The Red Sox do not own NESN. All NESNs profits go to NESV, and not all NESVs profits go to Henry. NESV is a hugely profitably enterprise, but only a portion of those profits can be attributed to Henry, ergo attributed to the Red Sox.

And the Yankees can appear to be more in the red because YES is a significantly larger profit making entity than NESN. The amount of profit from YES that George gets is much more than the amount of profit from NESN that Henry gets.

Click to expand...

We're spinning in cirlces here, and in the end, we always end up back where we started. Regardless of how you slice it, since each team eats from the same cake, the Sox, after winning it all, pulled back on spending, while the Yankees have continuously invested their capital into putting a better product on the field (with crappy results!). You said the sox pulled back "cuz they lost money", whereas I pointed out how the Yankees claim the same. In the end, the people involved each turn a sizable prophit, and it's only the business phylosophy that differs (in principle). While the Yankees absolutely (pay attention here now people) make more money, and thus, can absolutely spend more, which is AN ADVANTAGE THEY ENJOY OVER EVERYONE ELSE, the Sox have fallen back into a certain payroll pool, by choice. They are entitled to do that, since they are a business, and are supposed to maximize prophits. I've never said that the Sox could match the Yankees spending, or that they make as much as the people in NY. I'm merely pointing out the difference in operating phylosophy, between the two organizations, when it comes to payroll. This of course, brings us back to my position on this whole business of team payroll, which is:

While the Yankees clearly enjoy a financial advantage over every team in the league, the Redsox are a have, in a team of have not's.

Real World said:

We're spinning in cirlces here, and in the end, we always end up back where we started. Regardless of how you slice it, since each team eats from the same cake, the Sox, after winning it all, pulled back on spending, while the Yankees have continuously invested their capital into putting a better product on the field (with crappy results!). You said the sox pulled back "cuz they lost money", whereas I pointed out how the Yankees claim the same. In the end, the people involved each turn a sizable prophit, and it's only the business phylosophy that differs (in principle). While the Yankees absolutely (pay attention here now people) make more money, and thus, can absolutely spend more, which is AN ADVANTAGE THEY ENJOY OVER EVERYONE ELSE, the Sox have fallen back into a certain payroll pool, by choice. They are entitled to do that, since they are a business, and are supposed to maximize prophits. I've never said that the Sox could match the Yankees spending, or that they make as much as the people in NY. I'm merely pointing out the difference in operating phylosophy, between the two organizations, when it comes to payroll. This of course, brings us back to my position on this whole business of team payroll, which is:

Click to expand...

I fail to see how the Red Sox "pulled back" on spending. Their payroll dropped a whopping 7M from 2004 to 2006, but 2007 was the highest payroll they've ever had, and 2008 was the second highest they've ever had. Their payroll has been fairly stable at around $120M-$140M. A payroll being constant is completely different than having payroll "pulled back". For comparisons sake, NYY payroll has been around $185M-$210M. So Boston and NYY have stayed in roughly their own $20M-$25M payroll range.

Where is this drastically different payroll philosophy? Boston spends until their team loses a profit, NYY spends until their team loses a profit. Because each team has owners who see profit elsewhere (namely, YES and NESN), they can afford for their team to lose a profit because they can circumvent it in other means. The major difference is that NESN is a vastly smaller entity than YES, so its profits are dwarfed by YES. Ergo, team profit can look worse because they are getting more than Boston.

Unless you honestly believe that the Red Sox are cooking the books and trying to hide money (which would be nearly impossible considering the Players Association does annual audits of such information), what makes you believe that they can spend $20M-$30M (or whatever figures) more than they do?

While the Yankees clearly enjoy a financial advantage over every team in the league, the Redsox are a have, in a team of have not's.

Click to expand...

But they're a second tier "have". And even if you wanted to argue that they could be a tier higher than the Cubs, Mets and Tigers of the world, they'd still be several notches below their main competition. And when the only member of the top tier is in their division and in direct competition with them, being a "have" isn't much of an advantage.

Foley said:

I fail to see how the Red Sox "pulled back" on spending. Their payroll dropped a whopping 7M from 2004 to 2006, but 2007 was the highest payroll they've ever had, and 2008 was the second highest they've ever had.

Click to expand...

You just explained it yourself, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Real World said:

You just explained it yourself, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

Well, the NYY payroll dropped $19M from 2005 to 2007 too. Fluctuations happen. Doesn't mean either were cutting back.