Pirates financials leaked

[monty57]

Is your arguement that owners are greedy if they take a penny out of the organization, because every last dime should go to the players?

 

That's a silly question. Do I ever make that argument? No.

 

So, the players need to get paid no matter what, but the owners are not allowed to ever get paid, even if it is simply to reimburse them for expenses they would not have had if they were not owners?

 

Players get paid according to their contract, which they negotiate with owners. Owners are allowed to get paid, depending on the circumstances. If they are given money in a collectively bargained revenue sharing agreement designed to improve the team and instead give themselves that money, then there is a problem.

To the first point, you are upset that the owners took any money out (even if it was only to pay the taxes) when the team made a profit. That's their money, and they can do what they want with it. You are arguing that it should all go to "improving the team" (i.e. somehow end up going to someone other than the owners). Your second statement "there's a problem" seems to insinuate that if an owner's team accepts revenue sharing, they cannot under any circumstance take any money from the partnership. That kind of validates why I don't think my statement was overly silly.

 

To the second point, how do you distinguish between the money they received from ongoing operations and the money they received from revenue sharing? Their team payroll is much more than they received in revenue sharing, so they did spend the revenue sharing on "improving the team."

 

Of the operating revenues, most of that appears to have stayed with the team, as the owners only took money out one year to reimburse themselves for taxes they would not have incurred had they not held ownership in the team. The remainder of the years, the owners apparently shouldered the burden of these taxes out of their own (non-Pirates related) pockets. So it appears to me that you are upset that the owners decided in one year that they would allow some of the team's excess revenue to pay a tax liability incurred solely because of the team, when every other year, the owners took the money out of their own pocket to pay for it.

 

To me, these guys appear (at least monetarily) to be doing all they can to help the team. I understand that owners of any business bear the yeoman's share of the risks, which is why they should receive most of the benefit when things pay off. These guys are bearing the financial burden, and have not taken much out for personal gain. I'm sure this isn't purely atruistic... they realize that they will benefit most if the team becomes better on the field, and the best way to do that is to sacrifice some personally now, but it seems far-fetched to believe that there is a problem with what they're doing.

[kramnoj]

That's their money, and they can do what they want with it.

 

This isn't true. They accept revenue sharing money. They can't do what they want with it.

 

You are arguing that it should all go to "improving the team"

 

That is part of the collective bargaining process with the union.

 

That kind of validates why I don't think my statement was overly silly.

 

So you admit that it was silly. Rather than try to engage in an intelligent discussion, you ask a question including words I didn't use, asking if that that was my position.

 

Their team payroll is much more than they received in revenue sharing, so they did spend the revenue sharing on "improving the team."

 

They spent some of the revenue sharing money on the team. Not all of it.

 

Of the operating revenues, most of that appears to have stayed with the team, as the owners only took money out one year to reimburse themselves for taxes they would not have incurred had they not held ownership in the team.

 

As owners of a business, they are in no way guaranteed to be compensated enough to pay for their taxes. That's an obligation they have when they own a business. If they aren't happy with that, or can't bear the burden, they should sell their stake. There is never a lack of suitors for people wanting to own a baseball team.

 

To me, these guys appear (at least monetarily) to be doing all they can to help the team.

 

It's clear that this is your opinion, but it obviously false. They aren't doing all they can to help the team. They are paying themselves money that was intended for the team.

 

but it seems far-fetched to believe that there is a problem with what they're doing.

 

It really isn't. In the late 90's the Pirates drew 1.5-1.7 million people in Three Rivers stadium. Over the last 3 years, the Pirates are drawing the same number of people. In 2000, the last year in Three Rivers, the Pirates payroll was less than $30M. In 2010, the opening payroll was $39M. Increasing payroll by $10M over 10 years is not really increasing the payroll at all. The Pirates have spent as much as $57M, but it hasn't lead to more victories than they had in Three Rivers.

 

The Pirates were managed poorly for much of their time in their new ballpark. They haven't taken advantage of the increased revenue. They are on the right path with how they approaching development, but it doesn't change that paying themselves with revenue sharing money was wrong. If the Pirates didn't feel they did anything wrong, they wouldn't have assembled local members of the press on Sunday to explain themselves. But they were clearly afraid of how it might look that they distributed money to owners when they haven't been able to put a winning product on the field since 92.

[monty57]

This isn't true. They accept revenue sharing money. They can't do what they want with it.

 

That is part of the collective bargaining process with the union.

 

But they didn't pay themselves with revenue sharing money, they paid themselves with operating revenue. The salary was more than the revenue sharing money, so all of that money went for the purpose it was meant for.

 

If you look at it any other way (i.e. the revenue money is the last money spent), then no owner whose team accepts revenue sharing would ever be able to take any money out of the team which is indeed silly.

 

Rather than try to engage in an intelligent discussion, you ask a question including words I didn't use, asking if that that was my position.

 

The Pirates spent all of their revenue sharing money plus much of the operating revenues on "improving the team." After that, they still had some of the operating revenue left over (profit). You are saying that they cannot take any of that money out for themselves, because that money also has to go to "improving the team." My question was "Is your arguement that owners are greedy if they take a penny out of the organization, because every last dime should go to the players?"

 

After reading your posts, your position seems to be that any owner whose team receives revenue sharing can never take any money out of the team, even if the team is profitable, because all of the profit has to go to "improving the team." How is that different from the question I asked?

 

They spent some of the revenue sharing money on the team. Not all of it.

 

No, they spent all of the revenue sharing money. What they didn't spend all of is the operating revenue.

 

Of the operating revenues, most of that appears to have stayed with the team, as the owners only took money out one year to reimburse themselves for taxes they would not have incurred had they not held ownership in the team.

 

As owners of a business, they are in no way guaranteed to be compensated enough to pay for their taxes. That's an obligation they have when they own a business. If they aren't happy with that, or can't bear the burden, they should sell their stake. There is never a lack of suitors for people wanting to own a baseball team.

 

To me, these guys appear (at least monetarily) to be doing all they can to help the team.

 

It's clear that this is your opinion, but it obviously false. They aren't doing all they can to help the team. They are paying themselves money that was intended for the team.

 

Well, yes, they could drain all of their personal wealth, but I think that paying millions of dollars out of their own pocket while leaving profits in the team's bank accounts is doing quite a bit for the team. You may believe my opinion to be false, but please don't act as if your opinion is more than your opinion. They didn't pay themselves with money that was intended for the team. They paid the team with money that was intended for them.

 

If you want to target the Marlins who are rumored to have spent less on payroll than they received from revenue sharing, then your argument may hold water. The Pirates don't appear to have done that. Therefore, the profits completely belong to the owners, who chose to leave most of their money with the Pirates and assume the majority of the tax revenues out of their own pockets.

[kramnoj]

But they didn't pay themselves with revenue sharing money, they paid themselves with operating revenue.

 

If they didn't accept revenue sharing, they wouldn't have had the money to pay themselves. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

 

Well, yes, they could drain all of their personal wealth, but I think that paying millions of dollars out of their own pocket while leaving profits in the team's bank accounts is doing quite a bit for the team

 

You said they were doing all they could for the team. You are now saying they are doing quite a bit. Those are different statements. Which one is your position?

[monty57]

I know you like playing on words, but simply answer this. If a team accepts revenue sharing, can the owners ever take any money out of the team (other than selling the team)? If so, when?

[kramnoj]

I know you like playing on words

 

I'm responding to the words you use in the exact context that you use them.

 

If a team accepts revenue sharing, can the owners ever take any money out of the team (other than selling the team)

 

I would think it is questionable, especially if they are playing in a taxpayer funded stadium. I would have to understand what the CBA allows for. But I don't think any owner is guaranteed money in any given year. And it is my opinion that the Pirates acted guilty by gathering the press together to spin their actions when they became aware that this report was being leaked.

[monty57]

So if it is, in your own words, questionable for a team owner who accepts revenue to ever take money out of the team, where should that money go?

 

If you will permit me to answer that for you, your posts state that you believe the money should go "to improve the team," which for the most part means to players on the major league team or the minor league affiliates. If I am incorrect in this, then please tell me where you think the money should go.

 

To recap, I asked the question: "Is your arguement that owners are greedy if they take a penny out of the organization, because every last dime should go to the players?"

 

To which you responded: "That's a silly question. Do I ever make that argument? No."

 

If you believe that it is questionable for an owner to ever take a penny out of the team, as all of the revenues should go "to improve the team," then I believe I was correct in my initial assessment of your position.

 

As for the difference between "doing all they can" and "paying millions of dollars out of their own pocket while leaving profits in the team's bank accounts is doing quite a bit for the team" I don't think that's too big a stretch and certainly doesn't change my stance. And when I said "I don't think my statement was overly silly," you're getting pretty picky if you think that changed my opinion on anything. In fact, as I illustrated above, I stand by my initial assumption... not that that matters. You are fully entitled to your opinion. It just differs from mine. I think owners should be able to make money on their investments.

[MJLiverock]

47 doesn't address what I wrote. Address the specific issues that I discussed:

 

Are the Pirates required by federal law to pay the taxes for the owners?

 

Do the Pirates pay the taxes for the owners every year?

 

If the answer to both of those questions is No, then the Pirates made a choice. And they chose to give themselves the money. True, or false?

Yes it does, it explains why they paid the taxes. They are not required by Federal Law to take money from the Pirates to pay the taxes. Just like I am not requried to use money earned from my paycheck to pay my taxes. I can use income from my investment porfolio, I can borrow the money, my mom can pay it for me.

 

The point is the the Pirates Organization created the tax liability for the ownership because of the type of legal entity it is operated as. They chose this because it made the most sense for them to limit the tax liablity as a whole. What would your argument be if the made the team a C-Corp instead of an LP? The profits would be taxed and paid out of the Pirates bank account. It is the same essential thing for what they actually did. They used and LP because that $15MM profit would have been taxed at 38% federally as a C-Corp. so the Pirates would have paid $5.7MM to the Feds. That $5.7MM would be a direct legal obligation of the Pirates and would not have been available for other purposes. As a LP the $15MM flows to the personal tas returns of the individual owners. The max tax bracket for individuals is 35%, with some tax planning say the owners got it down personally to an average of 33%, - - meaning the tax owed was $5MM- - saving the Pirates organization $700,000 by doing it this way. If they aren't going to be reimbursed for the taxes they wouldn't organize as a LP they would use the C-Corp and let the Pirates be stuck with bill.

 

Do they do it every year? I would hope so but they aren't required to. If there is a loss they wouldn't and again financial reports doesn't say tax return which can have very different numbers - - meaning they could show some sort of cash positive profits but an actual tax loss for IRS purposes. Or getting more complicated some of the partners could elect to be reimbursed for the taxes, and others who may have other losses in other business to offset the bill could elect to leave their share in the organization and treat it as a loan back to the Pirates for pay out later.

 

So no the Pirates aren't required to pay the owners taxes but the organization wouldn't be set up as it is if they weren't going to. It may actually save the team money doing it this way. People can use any asset they own to pay taxes and using the direct creator of the tax liability to pay the taxes just makes sense. If they weren't going to do this they would have set up the company different and in the end the Pirates would have less money.

 

Do they pay them every year? Don't know since the reports are not for every year and provide an imcomplete picture of the Pirates financial dealings over time. They may pay some or none or all each year and can receive loans back from partners which may be paid out later further complicting the so called Owners taking money out, especially if it is just money they put in or left in the first place.

 

True the owners paid out money to cover the taxes but probably saved the organization money by doing so.

 

To the other point someone made about salaries. Not every owner is collecting a salary from the team would be my guess. I dont' even know if Attanasio collects a salary from the Brewers but I can bet that every minority partner isn't pulling in some multi million dollar or even $100M+ salary. Most only get paid from the profits of the asset they own.

 

 

[kramnoj]

So if it is, in your own words, questionable for a team owner who accepts revenue to ever take money out of the team, where should that money go?

 

I'm pretty sure I already said this, but there are three easy answers:

 

1. It stays with the team. If they have done a good job of spending the money on improving the team, whether that be development, facilities, or major league players, and there isn't a reasonable investment that they can make at that moment, then it just stays on the books to be used in future years.

 

2. It gets returned to MLB. If the team accepts revenue sharing money and has money to pay the owners, that money can be returned to be dispersed again at a later time. After all, this revenue sharing money came from other teams. If the Pirates have left over money, it goes back to the teams from which the money it was taken.

 

3. As a good faith gesture, the Pirates offer to pay down some of the stadium debt that the local government financed. Now for the Pirates, this is not as much of a pressing concern. That stadium deal was negotiated before the current CBA. For the Marlins, as you mention, it is much more relevant.

 

 

If you believe that it is questionable for an owner to ever take a penny out of the team, as all of the revenues should go "to improve the team," then I believe I was correct in my initial assessment of your position.

 

Your question was vague. I believe that teams that run a profitable business without outside assistance should be allowed to pay themselves. Which leads to:

 

You are fully entitled to your opinion. It just differs from mine. I think owners should be able to make money on their investments.

 

Please tell me where I have said that owners shouldn't be able to make money on their investments. I don't think that owners should take money from other teams and then pay themselves with it. I think that teams should be honest with municipalities about how much money they can afford for the building in which they work. And I don't think that owners of a business are guaranteed money to pay themselves if they can't generate enough revenue to do so.

[RobertR]

I know you like playing on words, but simply answer this. If a team accepts revenue sharing, can the owners ever take any money out of the team (other than selling the team)? If so, when?

From a fan's perspective, I think it's totally o.k. for the owner to collect a profit in a year when he put a product on the field that he honestly thought had a chance at winning. But, when you field a perennial last place team AND take money out of the organization, you are pretty much breaking a covenant with the fans, taxpayers, and owners that agreed to share revenue with you. It's not like the Pirates went and signed all the prospects in Latin America that they could have. Nobody's arguing they should plow the money into crummy free agents that don't help them win. But, there's certainly an argument that the Pirates aren't doing everything they could to turn the organization around.

 

Robert

 

[monty57]

After all, this revenue sharing money came from other teams.

 

Who all need teams like the Pirates to survive in order to be able to play baseball games.

 

I think that teams should be honest with municipalities about how much money they can afford for the building in which they work.

 

I already addressed this. Municipalities have every right to demand the financials prior to giving the team anything. If the team doesn't show their financial records, then they don't get any money. However, it never gets to this, because fans lobby their elected officials to pay whatever it takes, and the municipalities cave in as soon as the team threatens to move elsewhere. If you don't like taxpayer-funded stadiums, don't be mad at the team, be mad at the "pro-team" fans who were vocal about their opinions and the government who paid the money without demanding to look at the financials.

 

Please tell me where I have said that owners shouldn't be able to make money on their investments.

 

When I asked "If a team accepts revenue sharing, can the owners ever take any money out of the team (other than selling the team)" and you responded "I would think it is questionable." The system is set up with revenue sharing so that smaller market teams/owners can exist. You don't believe they should ever be able to draw from their investments, even to pay off a liability that occured solely due to the investment.

[kramnoj]

You don't believe they should ever be able to draw from their investments, even to pay off a liability that occured solely due to the investment.

 

Why should they? What did they do to improve the business? If the owners haven't generated revenue to be self sufficient, why do they deserve to take money that they didn't generate? If they can't handle this, they have two options: improve the business so that i generates more profit, or sell it to an owner who is willing to put in the effort to improve the business.

 

Who all need teams like the Pirates to survive in order to be able to play baseball games.

 

Not really. MLB existed just fine with fewer teams. If the Pirates are a sucking chest wound of funds, and then the Pirates take the money meant to be spent on the team, then the Pirates aren't being honest. The other team owners would be better off financially by having fewer teams with which to split national revenue, and by not having to give the Pirates money because of an agreement that the Pirates may not be honoring.

 

Municipalities have every right to demand the financials prior to giving the team anything. If the team doesn't show their financial records, then they don't get any money.

 

I don't believe this to be true. I don't think the Marlins opened their books to the local government when they were saying they needed a new stadium.

[monty57]

I know you like playing on words, but simply answer this. If a team accepts revenue sharing, can the owners ever take any money out of the team (other than selling the team)? If so, when?

From a fan's perspective, I think it's totally o.k. for the owner to collect a profit in a year when he put a product on the field that he honestly thought had a chance at winning. But, when you field a perennial last place team AND take money out of the organization, you are pretty much breaking a covenant with the fans, taxpayers, and owners that agreed to share revenue with you. It's not like the Pirates went and signed all the prospects in Latin America that they could have. Nobody's arguing they should plow the money into crummy free agents that don't help them win. But, there's certainly an argument that the Pirates aren't doing everything they could to turn the organization around.

 

Robert

Robert,

 

As an owner, there are two goals. Winning on the field and maintaining profitability. Let's move away from baseball for an example: Assume there are two restaurants. One wins all kinds of culinary awards and draws crowds of people, but goes out of business because they pay their award-winning staff way too much money. The other restaurant never wins an award, but has a loyal following and stays in business for generations. Which would you rather own?

 

In baseball, not all teams are created equally. Some get a decided advantage over others, which is why revenue sharing started. I agree the Pirates have been managed poorly on-the-field, maybe they're starting to change that, but maybe not. However, other owners know that they need other teams to survive in order to hold the MLB together, so they voted in revenue sharing. The other teams realize that if they don't pay this money (and if other owners can't make any money), too many teams will go bankrupt, which isn't good for anyone. Municipalities and fans desired so strongly to have a major league team in their backyard that they were willing to put taxpayer money into a new stadium without need to look at the team's financials. Agreements were made over the financials in revenue sharing and in funding the stadium. None of those agreements (to the best of my limited knowledge) said anything about owner profitability.

 

It sucks as a fan of a smaller market team to continually watch a miserable team take the field. However, we vote with our dollars. If someone is upset that an owner is making money, that person should stop attending games or buying merchandise. If enough people do this, the owner will certainly stop making money. However, most fans love the game and their team too much to do that, and fans in Pittsburgh will continue to go into that taxpayer-funded stadium and willfully spend their money rooting on their team, all the while knowing that they are putting money into the owners' pockets.

[monty57]

You don't believe they should ever be able to draw from their investments, even to pay off a liability that occured solely due to the investment.

 

Why should they? What did they do to improve the business? If the owners haven't generated revenue to be self sufficient, why do they deserve to take money that they didn't generate? If they can't handle this, they have two options: improve the business so that i generates more profit, or sell it to an owner who is willing to put in the effort to improve the business.

 

Who all need teams like the Pirates to survive in order to be able to play baseball games.

 

Not really. MLB existed just fine with fewer teams. If the Pirates are a sucking chest wound of funds, and then the Pirates take the money meant to be spent on the team, then the Pirates aren't being honest. The other team owners would be better off financially by having fewer teams with which to split national revenue, and by not having to give the Pirates money because of an agreement that the Pirates may not be honoring.

 

Municipalities have every right to demand the financials prior to giving the team anything. If the team doesn't show their financial records, then they don't get any money.

 

I don't believe this to be true. I don't think the Marlins opened their books to the local government when they were saying they needed a new stadium.

This'll be my final post on this:

 

The MLB is making more money than ever in its history. No other owners want to see teams go away... look at what happened when Selig mentioned contraction several years back. That would financially hurt all of baseball, and every owner would make less money.

 

I'm sure the Marlins didn't open their books to the local government, but they got the money anyway. That was my point. Municipalities can't really cry about the financials when they lend the money without demanding to see the financials. Municipalities cave whenever the team threatens to move because fans scream at the government officials, and the government officials vote to spend the money. This shows that to the municipalities and the majority of the people living in the municipalities, having a team is more important than the money.

 

Those fans will continue to spend money on the team, knowing full well that the team owners are making money. Heck, if I saw Attanasio out, I'd buy him dinner, and I know he's got more money than I.

 

That said, I think we agree on most things on this site, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. Go Brewers!!

[RobertR]

I know you like playing on words, but simply answer this. If a team accepts revenue sharing, can the owners ever take any money out of the team (other than selling the team)? If so, when?

From a fan's perspective, I think it's totally o.k. for the owner to collect a profit in a year when he put a product on the field that he honestly thought had a chance at winning. But, when you field a perennial last place team AND take money out of the organization, you are pretty much breaking a covenant with the fans, taxpayers, and owners that agreed to share revenue with you. It's not like the Pirates went and signed all the prospects in Latin America that they could have. Nobody's arguing they should plow the money into crummy free agents that don't help them win. But, there's certainly an argument that the Pirates aren't doing everything they could to turn the organization around.

 

Robert

Robert,

 

As an owner, there are two goals. Winning on the field and maintaining profitability. Let's move away from baseball for an example: Assume there are two restaurants. One wins all kinds of culinary awards and draws crowds of people, but goes out of business because they pay their award-winning staff way too much money. The other restaurant never wins an award, but has a loyal following and stays in business for generations. Which would you rather own?

 

In baseball, not all teams are created equally. Some get a decided advantage over others, which is why revenue sharing started. I agree the Pirates have been managed poorly on-the-field, maybe they're starting to change that, but maybe not. However, other owners know that they need other teams to survive in order to hold the MLB together, so they voted in revenue sharing. The other teams realize that if they don't pay this money (and if other owners can't make any money), too many teams will go bankrupt, which isn't good for anyone. Municipalities and fans desired so strongly to have a major league team in their backyard that they were willing to put taxpayer money into a new stadium without need to look at the team's financials. Agreements were made over the financials in revenue sharing and in funding the stadium. None of those agreements (to the best of my limited knowledge) said anything about owner profitability.

 

It sucks as a fan of a smaller market team to continually watch a miserable team take the field. However, we vote with our dollars. If someone is upset that an owner is making money, that person should stop attending games or buying merchandise. If enough people do this, the owner will certainly stop making money. However, most fans love the game and their team too much to do that, and fans in Pittsburgh will continue to go into that taxpayer-funded stadium and willfully spend their money rooting on their team, all the while knowing that they are putting money into the owners' pockets.

Is one of the restaurants getting subsidized by bigger restaurants and the taxpayers? Where I come from, I think it's fair for money to come with strings attached. The taxpayers don't build stadiums with the promise that the team will stay in business and turn a profit, but that they'll actually be competitive. Bigger markets didn't give the money with the idea that it would be turned into profits, but that it actually would be used for competitive balance.

 

Where did I ever say that the Pirates should lose money and go out of business? There's a third option, plow money back into the organization, scouting, signing Latin American prospects, and break even. Why is that not an acceptable outcome? It's likely that the Pirates wouldn't turn a profit at all without help from the government and other teams, so what has ownership done to deserve a profit other than join a cushy cartel?

 

But, before they take a profit, bolstered from revenue sharing and a taxpayer subsidized stadium, the question has to be asked did ownership do all they could with their money, within reason, to field a competitive team, now or in the future? If the answer to that question isn't "yes" without rationalization or equivocation, then I certainly think it's fair to question how committed they are to fielding a winner.

 

One thing I don't question about Mark Attanasio is that he's spent the money to put a competitive product on the field. Yeah, things haven't worked out the last two years, but it wasn't for lack of effort. The Pirates ownership and the Marlins ownership certainly deserve to have their committment to winning questioned. And I think the leaked financials back that up.

 

Robert

 

 

[kramnoj]

No other owners want to see teams go away... look at what happened when Selig mentioned contraction several years back. That would financially hurt all of baseball, and every owner would make less money.

 

What happened was that the owners negotiated a new CBA with a higher luxury tax and more revenue sharing. In other words, it took money from higher revenue teams that could have been spent on players, and distributed it to lower revenue teams like the Pirates and Marlins. And in one year, the Pirates gave that money to themselves. But I think you were trying to make another point that isn't clear to me.

 

It's also not clear to me how the Pirates being contracted would result in every owner having less money. The opposite seems much more likely. What math are you doing to result in your statement?

[jeffy]

There's a third option, plow money back into the organization, scouting, signing Latin American prospects, and break even. Why is that not an acceptable outcome? It's likely that the Pirates wouldn't turn a profit at all without help from the government and other teams, so what has ownership done to deserve a profit other than join a cushy cartel?

 

Yep, and if the owners want out there will be someone else waiting to buy the team for more than they had paid, so in the long run they will still have some gain on their "investment". Owning a baseball team should not be seen as a real investment by the owners, they should (and I think most do) treat it as a leisure/entertainment/hobby expense...with the potential for a long term gain.

 

Attanasio has not generated profits, but were he to sell there would apparently be a gain of about 50% over the 2005 purchase price.

 

http://www.forbes.com/lis...ukee-Brewers_337147.html

 

I sure wish I had made a 50% cumulative gain on my investments over the last 5 years (instead of the 28% I did make).

 

BTW, aside from the undeserved profits the Pirate owners have taken, it appears they would triple their money over a 14 year period were they to sell, that alone translates to an 8% annualized return.

 

http://www.forbes.com/lis...urgh-Pirates_339965.html

[snyttri]

If you don't like taxpayer-funded stadiums, don't be mad at the team, be mad at the "pro-team" fans who were vocal about their opinions and the government who paid the money without demanding to look at the financials.
[/i]

I thank that is a bit like saying 'If you don't like bank robberies don't be mad at the bank robber, be mad at the bank teller who gave him the money and the security system that didn't stop him.' The owners come up with the plan to get a stadium built, take the crucial steps to get the stadium built and receive the profits from the stadium. They are more than a little responsible. It's unrealistic to expect county commissioners to win many power struggles with the oligarchy that runs professional sports and influences much of everything else.

[HiAndTight]

If you don't like taxpayer-funded stadiums, don't be mad at the team, be mad at the "pro-team" fans who were vocal about their opinions and the government who paid the money without demanding to look at the financials.
[/i]

I thank that is a bit like saying 'If you don't like bank robberies don't be mad at the bank robber, be mad at the bank teller who gave him the money and the security system that didn't stop him.' The owners come up with the plan to get a stadium built, take the crucial steps to get the stadium built and receive the profits from the stadium. They are more than a little responsible. It's unrealistic to expect county commissioners to win many power struggles with the oligarchy that runs professional sports and influences much of everything else.

No, actually what you should be mad at is the democratic process employed most often in which the citizens vote, or the elected representatives vote on building a stadium.

 

I never understood why that can cause so much hostility, and yet literally thousands of things are passed every year in which a great deal more money is spent on.

 

I have an uncle to this day who's still all fired up about the stadium tax(he's a very good guy, but he's not very.....informed to be polite). The average cost per citizens when the stadium was built was 8 dollars a year. Now I believe it's risen to 20.

 

I'm more than happy with that, and of course you get hit on various items moreso, but so be it. It's the way of the world.

[BillHall02]

I feel like it has been posted several times that the Pirates would fail to be profitable without revenue sharing. While this may be true with current revenue and payroll, it would seem obvious to me that without revenue sharing the payroll would obviously be lower. The Pirates can certainly be profitable without the help of other teams, contrary to what Kramnoj implied. What they wouldn't be is competitive on the field. That is where revenue sharing comes into play, to level the competitive field.

[RobertR]

I feel like it has been posted several times that the Pirates would fail to be profitable without revenue sharing. While this may be true with current revenue and payroll, it would seem obvious to me that without revenue sharing the payroll would obviously be lower. The Pirates can certainly be profitable without the help of other teams, contrary to what Kramnoj implied. What they wouldn't be is competitive on the field. That is where revenue sharing comes into play, to level the competitive field.

 

Where this falls down is that the Pirates haven't been competitive on the field. Which is where objections to the Pirates owners taking profits come from.

 

Heck, if I was Mark Attanasio, I'd have serious questions to ask the other owners when the CBA comes around next. The Brewers have lived up to their bargain of fielding a competitive team. The Pirates haven't. Shouldn't the Brewers be rewarded for that?

 

Robert

[endaround]

A few things. The first is that the Brewers under Attanasio have been very profitable. He has been making profits that must cause the Selig-Prieb's to drool. This is the first season where the Brewers might dip slightly into the red under Attansio being primary owner. Now much of this has come from the fact the Brewers draw exceptionally well in addition to revenue sharing. The second is that nothing really is comparable to sports stadiums. No, local governments don't take on huge projects like $500m stadiums all the time. And its it basically a handout to one business that really isn't the big in terms of employment or financial worth. Do you see the city of Milwaukee and the state of Wisconsin talking about building Harley a $500m plant? And Harley has a market cap of $5.65B compared to the Brewers being worth about $300m (I think Forbes' valuation jump around way too much since they base it on current years profit projected forward and not on what really matters, market size).

[jeffy]

The Brewers have lived up to their bargain of fielding a competitive team. The Pirates haven't. Shouldn't the Brewers be rewarded for that?

 

I like that idea, they should add a success component to the the revenue sharing formula. If you have made good use of past shared revenue, as demonstrated by success on the field (like the Brewers, Tampa, Marlins), you should get a bit more than you would otherwise. If it appears that you have not spent the money wisely, based on results, then you should get a bit less.

 

If you have failed on the field, and yet profited (like the Pirates) then you should get much less shared revenue!

 

The point of sharing revenue is to increase the competitive balance, not to create operating income for the owners.

[jeffy]

the Brewers under Attanasio have been very profitable. He has been making profits that must cause the Selig-Prieb's to drool.

 

So you are saying Mark A is a liar?

 

(Attanasio said)

"We've budgeted on a break-even basis for a number of years," he added. "This year, we budgeted for a loss. It didn't create consternation, but it raised questions among our ownership group because, fundamentally, when you think of a business, you think you budget to a profit, right? Now we budget to a loss."

 

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/brewers/90317417.html

[endaround]

Well he might not be a liar but he isn't telling the truth. "Budgeted" to can mean lots of things. The Brewers up until last year have been making 8 figure profits and last year they had a seven figure one.