jarman86
-
Posts
345 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jarman86
-
-
1 hour ago, forphase1 said:
Sure, the books of any corporation is going to be highly complicated, and no doubt there are tax shelters and clear manipulation of the numbers by accountants to get the numbers as low, or as high, as possible, depending on situation and goal. However, do wonder a few things.
1) You said this did not include revenues from other sources, such as MLB.TV, Fanatics, etc. Without diving deep into the books, we do not know if the MLB.TV numbers was included in the 'revenue streams it shares with other MLB franchises' and if the fanatics revenue was included in the 'retail' portion of the revenues listed. I'm not claiming they WERE, but I don't think we know for certain either. The information is likely out there if we care enough to dive deeply.
That is what every article has said reporting on this, that it does not include MLB revenue sharing and is only revenue from their operations.
1 hour ago, forphase1 said:2) The great thing about the Braves is that most of those numbers are available if anyone cares enough to dive into it. And no, most profits gets reported by a public company as they are taxed on said 'profits'. Now there are accounting measures that are taken to lessen profits, almost all of us do that, individuals (donations to goodwill, tax write-offs, etc) and Lord knows businesses have full divisions dedicated to taking advantage of every loophole they can. For your case in point, the compensation of the CEO is most certainly an expense for the BUSINESS entity and is not and should not be counted as a profit. The salary of business executives of Ford, Apple, Google, etc are expenses to the business entity, why should the salaries or stock based compensation to baseball executives not be treated the same way? Again, the Braves are a different beast being a publicly company, but still operate the same way. The money paid to the executives is an expense, a lessening of the business revenue in the form of payment to high executive employees. Why do you consider that written out "profit" any more than any other employee compensation? Just because it's more money?
I am aware it is an "expense," but...as stated, they are taxed on profits. So...when I see $8M in stock compensation....for someone? Maybe Freddie Freeman or Jorge Soler for all I know. It is a salary or compensation for someone that is either arbitrary or something. Being separate, I assume it was not part of a CEO's salary. So, lets say, CEO of I forget this company's name, decides he wants $50M a year for owning and "running" the Braves. He can do that, that is an expense....That is also an expense someone like Peter Angelos doesn't have to report, so that would be extra profit. So, where after all taxes and financing and rusing, there was $104M "profit" for the Braves and $20M went to CEO salary, that in any other world would be $124M profit because the Angelos or owner is getting a salary than pay. Or he does pay himself, but again, we will never know because no owner is going to release their balance sheets.
1 hour ago, forphase1 said:3) Let's assume these numbers are correct. That the Braves brought in $568M in total revenue and after expenses they ended up with a $104M profit. Now that sounds really high, but honestly that's only a about an 18.3% net profit margin and a profit percentage of 22.41%, well in line with the target numbers of other business that I know. For a few examples as to net profit margin, based on December 2021 numbers (most recent I could easily find):
Apple - 27.94%, Ford - 32.6%, Microsoft - 36.28%, Exxon - 10.7%, JPMorgan Chase - 35.51%
Point being, a 18.3% net profit margin is VERY reasonable, if not low, in comparisons to some quickly pulled other companies. Yes, clearly the industries are vastly different, but it's not like the profits the Braves made was outlandish or unreasonable based on some other well known corporations. I know the owner of my local grocery story, and they also try to keep their profits at roughly 15-25% of total revenue, though that varies greatly from product to product of course.
And 18.3% is better than rate of return on stock market, which contradicts the Poor owners line that Manfred and Co. state.
-
21 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:
You spit out your coffee easily, don't you?
The first three years can certainly be looked at as a high paid internship at a Law form. The MiLB portion would be the schooling phase, the first three years where they will make over $1.8 million dollars is the internship, and they hopefully make partner after that.Have you any experience/idea of what a "high paid internship" at a law firm is? Not livable...speaking as one who went to law school and has friends working at law firms and prestigious law firms at that. My friends who got jobs out of law school with large firms were making starting $100-150k, and I wouldn't compare them to MLB starter level quality when they were getting paid that much.
Saying a guy needs 9 years of "internshipping" or sorry.....2-6 years of schooling, and then interning is a hell of a description for a profession that brings in since we don't know what profits are, billions of revenue. And my classmates got nicely compensated for working on those large settlements beyond their regular salary. Which is what the MLBPA is trying to do. It makes sense. Only difference is if those law firms don't compensate the attorneys, they will go elsewhere. And here, the government has made MLB the only game in town. And rules limit the amount of foreign players on teams in another country, such as Japan or Korea, so they can't exactly go to other leagues in other countries.
Doesn't help me being bitter about not making as much as they do, or I guess in your case not making it to pro ball or whatever.
-
3 hours ago, forphase1 said:
Where are you getting half a billion dollars in profit? Everything I see says it was $104M. Still a great profit, but no where near $500M. https://sports.yahoo.com/champion-braves-report-huge-profits-as-mlb-claims-teams-are-bad-investments-173334889.html Now REVENUE was $568M, but revenue is NOT profit. HUGE difference. Also means owners are NOT making at least $2-300M a year as you claim as the Braves only 'made' $104M. Still stupid money, but not near the numbers you were claiming. Of course, some are likely making more than the Braves and some are likely making less. We don't know any solid numbers other than for the Braves of course.
You are right, I pulled a morning ruse.
However, lets not get confused. So that number is "ticket sales, concessions, corporate sales, retail, suites, premium seat fees and postseason revenue. Liberty Media also earns revenue from local broadcast rights and revenue streams it shares with other Major League Baseball franchises, including national broadcast rights and licensing. "
It does not include revenues from any other source, such as MLB TV, Fanatics, etc... basically it isn't the 10-12B under the MLB arm.
Payroll, largest expense, $131M would bring that down to $430M. I would assume since rent is $3.1M a year, and I would guess 6-10 for turning lights on etc... Also, the rent is most likely paid for by Suntrust, so that negates it.
Not to mention, that as a business person, you should know that lots of profit doesn't exactly get reported. $8M alone written out of "profit" for "stock based compensation." To who that went to or why? I would guess maybe CEO Maffei? But that counts as an expense and not profit.
-
1. Almost spit out my coffee seeing a poster compare first 3 years of MLB as an internship....I thought MiLB was the internship? Holy crap, a 6-9 year internship to maybe get more than a million a year? If you haven't been flushed out of sport by then.
2. While folks were focusing on Tyler Wilson's investments, I thought it interesting no one pointed out that he made almost as much in 1 KBO season than he did in 3 MLB seasons combined. That says a lot that a low level, albeit fun to watch, baseball league can throw that much money at a subpar pitcher that brings in far less revenue or profit than MLB. Granted they have on-jersey advertisers, etc... but c'mon
3. Only reason we know Braves profits is because it is a publicly traded company and has to file with the SEC. They made more than half a billion dollars last year by annual reports...in profit, from the Braves. Now, several factors are in there, but I assume, since no one is selling their franchises anytime soon, though they are valued at 1.3 to 2 Billion on average, the worst MLB owner is making at least $2-300M a year. But MLB owners won't share that info cause it is detrimental to them in negotiations.
4. No one in here has said "poor players." Most people in here that are being labeled as such are pointing out facts that revenues and generally profits have gone up and costs, the biggest cost of payroll, has gone down. As MLB is not MLB without the players. And revenues are not being shared to fans, ticket takers, Orioles sales folks, or those working in the gift shop, it is going to owners, some of whom literally could care less whether their team goes 0-162 or never sees a world series, or players, some of who may be playing for that BIG contract and never trying after that.
I saw something the other day that got me mad, similar to my Severino/Rutchman comp. How the heck, is the best prospect in baseball not on the 40 man roster, when we have 0 catchers if lockout ends today?
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
It’s not going to go any worse than anything else.
It’s all negotiable later on. You have to see what works, what doesn’t, revenues, etc…
Yeah I get it, I just also see why MLBPA wouldn't have offered it up. Got enough headaches.
-
16 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:
We're talking about the first three years where a player will make at minimum over $1.8 million before arbitration kicks in and they start getting their worth.
Again, owners share a lot of the blame for this work stoppage, but when you choose gigantic hypocrites like Tony Clark and Scherzer to be your mouth pieces, you lose any credibility with me.
Plus, don't get me started with their "unique abilities." They make the money that they make because people are willing to pay to watch them "work". There are fewer brain surgeons than major league ball players.1.) I think average player career in MLB is 3 years. Some guys are held down till their prime is arb/6 years up. I see less guys being offered arb than I used to.
2.) As I said, Scherzer has nothing to lose and nothing to gain. I'm cool with him being a lead negotiator as a result. Economically salaries going up for younger guys will increase for the older ones. And under new or old system, guys like Scherzer are going to get their money no matter what.
3.) I truly don't know what is more unique. Being able to play at the MLB level or brain surgeon. I was on electrical engineer track until my academic advisor told me to choose EE or rugby. I gathered I could have graduated an EE and been in an upper echelon of folks, I just would have been bottom of my class. I view same with brain surgeons. Study actually showed brain surgeons and rocket scientists aren't necessarily smarter than the average person. Cost, length, etc... of education makes less people do it than baseball, which has less cost and length. Not to mention, I don't think body size and other intangibles other than being able to hold down your food while operating effect ability.
I think everyone agrees that ballplayers make too much money just as they agree Manfred is a clown. And we will not agree on what is best for MLB.
We can agree to disagree, just explaining the other side.
-
On 3/2/2022 at 8:43 AM, Sports Guy said:
That’s not a reason not to ask for it. You have to negotiate everything every CBA.
And the floor doesn’t even have to keep rising. Keep it in the 80m area and that’s fine.
It doesn’t effect a lot of teams but last year it would have effected 5 teams, 4 very heavily. Even if those teams vote no, that isn’t enough votes by ownership to overturn that.
Right but $80M next year is not $80M in 10 years. Almost half the league was under $80M in 2012. And trying to negotiate raising that $80M every 5-10 years and telling a person how much they must pay to play is not going to go well.
-
21 hours ago, Tony-OH said:
Well, that's because you are looking at this from an ideology vs from my point of view. I absolutely am not against "workers". I'm absolutely not on the owners side or any side really other than the fan. I've said this time and time again.
What I find laughable is your opinion that some how players who are making what they are making are somehow instituted into some kind of serfdom.
At the end of the day, they a replaying a game they for at a minimum over ten times what the common "worker" makes in America. If they become very good at what they do, they will become very, very rich.
If they are in the beginning of their career or they have mediocre skills that can be replaced by a cheaper worker, then I don't have an issue with an employer, in this case the owners, from paying someone else to replace you.
Every player knows the business of the game. They are will payed once they make the major leagues. If they live a normal lifestyle like the American worker, they can make their money last many years past they are no longer paid by a major league franchise.
At the end of the day, I don't care how much anyone makes unless his destroys a team's ability to be able to compete because the player no longer can compete at the level yet the team is not able to make up the difference by getting another expensive player.
Seemed to me the last offer was fair by the owners. Not perfect by any sense of the word, but fair. Saying that, the lack of negotiations or proposals for much of the offseason or since they locked them out is on them, but it did appear they are willing to give up April and May baseball to get what they want.
That tells me they don't care about the fans, which is why I'm NOT on the owners side here.But my main point is simple. Let's not act like the players are some guy/gal fighting for a living wage who is working in a coal mine and risking his life and health every day while the mine owners are buying their second yacht!
So the problem with your philosophy is you say, I have no problem with a guy being replaced by cheaper labor. And in a perfect world, I don't either. The problem is when you replace Severino with Rutchman because the CBA, OF WHICH THEY ARE NEGOTIATING, allows the Orioles to pay Adley well under his market value which is what is going on. The cheaper labor is young guys that can't negotiate. These young players can't control any of their salaries until year 3 of their MLB career, which is the main sticking point in these negotiations it seems. Bumping up Adley's salary most likely won't increase Severino's any more, but it will help Adley and some of these younger guys.
Sure, $675k is 10 times more than the common worker, but the common worker can't throw a 98 MPH fastball or hit a 98 MPH fastball 500 ft. Even as we see in Indy ball and the minors, the top 10-20% of "workers" can't. And when your boss is increasing revenue and the average salary is going down, you might want more of that share.
I think that is what you are missing in the argument folks are making for MLBPA. As Passan said, you can't bring in the next 1200 best players in the world and not expect the product to drop, but the 30 owners can change several times over.
-
15 hours ago, MGH5208 said:
Probably. Would it have been before opening day? Before the playoffs and WS? whatever time would have cost the owners the most money, The lockout is only "the ultimate economic weapon" because he didn't get to deploy his strike first.
And I don't buy all this "we waited for 43 days" to negotiate. Pick up the freakin phone and call the other side to schedule something. I'd normally say "we're all adults here" but I don't think that's the case here.
and I'm far from pro owner, but all this BS from clark and scherzer make me sick
Possibly, but the MLB and MLBPA have played enough seasons in history with no agreement and no work stoppage that I would have preferred the owners to continue negotiations before locking out players in December.
-
On 3/2/2022 at 8:36 AM, orioles119 said:
I will say that the owners played the media like a fiddle. They used them very well throughout Monday. It's funny noone heard from the MLBPA too.
When you are the last party to make an offer and the response is to lock you out instead of continued talks....yeah I probably would not respond either...
-
23 minutes ago, Frobby said:
I’ve been reading up on the positions of the two sides, and I remain optimistic they’ll reach a deal pretty soon. It’s a real shame MLB didn’t push these negotiations sooner. But missing a material amount of games (say, more than 10-15) over the remaining differences doesn’t seem rational for anyone.
My understanding is that was a tactic to get public perception against the players. Unfortunately it didn't work as it did in 94/95. Guess that is what happens when you have 65+ year old owners who hire a guy to run the league who doesn't know what social media is...
I'm here for the optimism, cause I am a pessimist.
-
10 hours ago, Camden_yardbird said:
You have buffalo twice.
And every one of those teams with exception of the jags and lions has been to the playoffs in the last three years and all but I think three have WON their division within the last 4. Thats a significant amount of parity, SB wins aside. Championships shouldn't really be a metric for parity anyway.
Playoffs have expanded to 14 teams in the past 2 years. Also, of those teams, only recently have they been competitive. We shouldn't have to wait 10-20 years for a team to make the playoffs.
For the parity argument, I think it was an article in ESPN a couple years ago that proved statistically MLB had more parity than the NFL. NBA and NHL I think were included in terms of winning the whole thing, but when half your league goes to the playoffs, you increase parity regardless of competitiveness.
-
11 hours ago, forphase1 said:
Sure I do. But what is 'fair' is very subjective. In don't believe the players are being treated unfairly under the recently expired CBA, so I certainly don't think an improved CBA is unfair to them either. Do they want more money? Sure, we all do. But too many, in my opinion, act like it's immoral how they are paid or that it's some kind of quest for justice to get more money transferred from owners to the players. It's not my money and frankly I don't care if the guy at the plate is making $1 a game, $10,000 a game or $1M a game. I'm going to sleep fine if they are swimming in cash or one paycheck from losing their house, like many folks. The only time it really matters to me is if it prevents the team from doing other things as they are strapped for cash or in a Davis type situation where they are grossly overpaid. But as a small business owner, I know outsiders usually are clueless about the real revenue situation and often simply look at total income without factoring in the numerous expenses and costs of doing business. I don't think things are nearly as good as some media, players, and folks here claim, but nor do I think it's as bad as Manfred and some in MLB claim. Like most adversarial setups, the truth is almost always in the middle between what both sides are claiming. Believing everything the owners put out is foolish. But believing what the players and MLBPA put out is equally foolish. Funny how polarized we are today when even something as trivial as player compensation is something that can bring out the ugly between those of us without any real skin in the game.
So, I guess my question is two fold:
1.) will you be willing to pay $50 to watch the Delmarva Shorebirds a game? Nothing against Delmarva, but those guys aren't beating the Orioles more than 1 out of every 50 games.
2.) If you ARE the product and what people are paying to see, and your collective salary is dropping, and your boss is making loads of money off of you, would you not want your pay to be increased, whether you are being paid $1, $10, $1k or $10k?
I'm with you, I don't care what players get paid. And I do think they get paid too much. However, I look at the profits and I know that money isn't going back to me. It isn't going back to my ticket rep for the Os who does a great job and deserves a raise or promotion. It goes to the owners or players. And for me, I side with players.
-
11 hours ago, Sports Guy said:
I wonder why the players haven’t introduced a floor?
I mean, if the owners are saying no, we aren’t going to up the CBT as much, why not see if you can make the bottom feeders spend more? Seems to me that would accomplish what they are trying to do.
Because in next bargaining agreement, or even introducing it, you have the problem of negotiating the floor. Owners will always want to keep it as low as possible, regardless of increasing CBT, salaries, and profits. We already see the headache with the ceiling.
-
On 2/28/2022 at 3:57 PM, Can_of_corn said:Shocking, the Marlins not willing to spend money.
I wonder if Jetes was there long enough to lock in his ownership stake?
Love when you have a minority owner, in many aspects, that wants to compete....and leaves because noone else does....smh. Hated Jeter as a player, but if the attitude of "competitive balance" is forcing those who actually want to compete out, I'm siding with players every time.
-
9 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:
I don't buy it. I think cooler heads will prevail tomorrow and the big market owners will throw their weight around to prevent games from being missed. Curious to know how united the owners are behind this.
Meanwhile I don't think spring training is starting until June or MLBPA caves, which...after COVID season, I don't see happening. MLB isn't feeling any effects. They are getting revenue from other sources. Their regional sports networks can air other programming. When that stops, I think those networks will put lots of pressure on MLB to make a deal. Until then, Manfred and a bunch of outdated owners are just going to continue acting like its 1994.
-
4 hours ago, connja said:
When are all the minor league teams reporting to spring training, and when do spring games start? Hopefully there will be more coverage of the minor league spring games with the MLB spring games in limbo.
According to Melewski and several players on Insta stating they were going to Sarasota Sunday (yesterday) appears to be now. Not sure if practices will be open or closed.
-
5 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:
/shrug.
I don't think they would have had him work with Reyes (6'6") at third if he wasn't at least adequate over there.
I'm not suggesting he was a defensive asset, just that I don't have any evidence he couldn't do it due to his height.
Having watched Reyes play, I'm not entirely sure what he did, if anything to help lol. Reyes was terrible, but highly hyped on some sites if I remember correctly, but so was Billy Rowell, another 6'5" 3rd baseman. /shrug.
-
3 hours ago, Frobby said:
Well, I think only 30 players get a share, which seems ridiculous to me.
Got to keep things competitive. (huge eye roll).
-
Their proposal is to decrease from 180 guys to 150 I think. I guess the reserve list was actually something all along...still don't understand it as MiLB.com shows some guys who haven't played in like 3 years on the reserve list. Either way, the way those guys get treated, they are better off. Can't believe in court last week MLB tried to argue essentially minor leaguers should be paying them in Spring Training to justify not paying minor leaguers. Give me a break...
-
7 hours ago, Frobby said:
While I would feel bad for the minor leaguers who lose their jobs, I’ve always wondered why minor league rosters are so big. All that will happen here is a bunch of guys who had no chance at the majors will have to get on with their lives a little sooner, instead of making a piddling MiL salary. Of course, the fact that MiL wages have been raised in the last year or two may be why the owners want to cut back on the number of players they’re paying.
They are big to develop the prospects. Can't bring in a high school/foreign player pitcher/batter and put him in AAA or AA....I mean you can, but could mess with the player's psyche or development. Not to mention levels of minor leagues helps stash away guys for their 6 year development contract.
MLB has been working towards implementing the complex idea for awhile now, my guess is that is where they will go from here on out. Curious to see how it will affect the international players as I think there will be more college aged players drafted who will be more advanced than the 17-18 y/o internationals. High schoolers will at least have option to go to college.
Also, odds of having 180 players at low cost increases chances of finding value vs having 100 players at a higher cost.
-
On 2/10/2022 at 3:21 PM, Moose Milligan said:
Gotta love pitchers leaving Baltimore and becoming all-stars.
Yup, speaks highly of the organization. I remember when I'd wear my Arrieta Orioles jersey and people would tell me how we screwed up letting him go. It was like, nope best thing for him. He WAS a good dude too (can't speak to now as last I talked to him was 2012/13?). Remember in Norfolk his last year or two he was so frustrated with the Orioles.
-
1
-
-
On 2/12/2022 at 4:45 PM, Can_of_corn said:
They kept him around as a coach so I'm guessing he was adequate. Worked with I think it was Reyes at some point.
I don't know about this statement. I can't remember his defense either, but I know being a coach doesn't speak to ability. I've seen a lot of hitting coaches, especially at the minor level that make me raise an eyebrow having seen them play. Maybe he had the mechanics down, but didn't translate to play?
-
12 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
Let's tax the fans to build new/improve existing stadiums!
Oh wait....they do lol. Also, the other thing that got me is, "the owners can do what they want with their money".....in some cases ITS NOT THEIR MONEY lol. Its the Dodgers or Yankees or whoevers money that is given to the other owners for those owners to either have better chances of beating them or....being an exhibition game in some points. There is literally a tax for, not being too good, but spending too much of THEIR MONEY lol. If the Yankees want to spend 100M a year for Matt Harvey to eat innings for them.....it is their money, but they can't cause they'd be spending too much money, even though we know spending money doesn't mean wins....for example THE YANKEES.
-
1
-
MLB Lockout Thread
in Orioles Talk
Posted
Good to see $200+M buys you 3rd place in a division where one team gave up halfway through.