Jones wants say in offseason, plans to meet with Angelos

[scOtt]

Not to mention merch revenues. ALL equally shared. If you buy a Yankees jersey in TB at the Trop, the Orioles get their 1/30 share of the profits.

That's your Anti-Trust exemption right there.

[weams]

I just repped him on it. Good stuff, reasoned.

It's an HHP

[scOtt]

We have been on the debt watch list which is as close as you get to seeing a team losing money. When it owes more than it should. Recently. Real recently.

I thought that was years ago. Like pre 2010.

[Can_of_corn]

We have been on the debt watch list which is as close as you get to seeing a team losing money. When it owes more than it should. Recently. Real recently.

But they owed the money to the owner of the team.

[scOtt]

But they owed the money to the owner of the team.

:wedge:

[weams]

I thought that was years ago. Like pre 2010.

I think 2012 we we still on it.

[weams]

But they owed the money to the owner of the team.

Since the Orioles were a losing enterprise as funded.

[Can_of_corn]

I think 2012 we we still on it.

Can anyone take debt to the primary shareholder seriously?

It is more likely accounting chicanery.

[Going Underground]

Can anyone take debt to the primary shareholder seriously?

It is more likely accounting chicanery.

I resemble that remark.Just because companies take 100 million dollar tax write offs.Accrue something into the next fiscal year. All legal and the Sarbanes Oxley act has really not changed things that much.Perhaps on an audit and if an accounting firm has to sign off on a P&L or something.

[spiritof66]

Some teams do lose money.

The most recent Forbes survey showed five teams with operating losses for last year: the Phillies ($39 million), Tigers ($21 million), BJs ($18 million), Dodgers ($12 million) and DBacks ($2 million). These figures apparently include the effects of revenue sharing, but not transfers created by the competitive balance (luxury) tax. (These figures also don't count interest payments teams pay on their debt, or possible tax benefits from these losses.)

Some of these teams (the Tigers and Dodgers, maybe the Jays) have lost money, as I understand it, because they are willing to increase their payrolls to that point in order to put a winning team on the field. That is, their owners in a sense don't need the money. Keep in mind that all of these losses are peanuts compared to what the owners of any these teams can get tomorrow for selling the team.

One other factor that may be relevant in looking at family-controlled teams like the Orioles. When George Steinbrenner was the managing owner of the NYY, it was reported occasionally that the team made very little money, or lost money, and it was also reported, though less frequently as I recall it, that the team paid large salaries to George and, at that time I believe, his wife and son-in-law. I assumed at the time, and still do, that all his family's travel expenses between Tampa and NY and elsewhere, many of their expenses, and probably lots of other things were paid by the team. I have no idea what the Angelos' salaries or other arrangements with the Orioles are.

[weams]

Some teams do lose money.

The most recent Forbes survey showed five teams with operating losses for last year: the Phillies ($39 million), Tigers ($21 million), BJs ($18 million), Dodgers ($12 million) and DBacks ($2 million). These figures apparently include the effects of revenue sharing, but not transfers created by the competitive balance (luxury) tax. (These figures also don't count interest payments teams pay on their debt, or possible tax benefits from these losses.)

Some of these teams (the Tigers and Dodgers, maybe the Jays) have lost money, as I understand it, because they are willing to increase their payrolls to that point in order to put a winning team on the field. That is, their owners in a sense don't need the money. Keep in mind that all of these losses are peanuts compared to what the owners of any these teams can get tomorrow for selling the team.

One other factor that may be relevant in looking at family-controlled teams like the Orioles. When George Steinbrenner was the managing owner of the NYY, it was reported occasionally that the team made very little money, or lost money, and it was also reported, though less frequently as I recall it, that the team paid large salaries to George and, at that time I believe, his wife and son-in-law. I assumed at the time, and still do, that all his family's travel expenses between Tampa and NY and elsewhere, many of their expenses, and probably lots of other things were paid by the team. I have no idea what the Angelos' salaries or other arrangements with the Orioles are.

I don't believe that they had real losses. Not real.

[Can_of_corn]

I don't believe that they had real losses. Not real.

Anyone who quotes profits of a baseball club is missing the point, said Paul Beeston when he was Vice President of the Toronto Blue Jays, Under generally accepted accounting principles, I can turn a $4 million profit into a $2 million loss and I could get every national accounting firm to agree with me.

......

[scOtt]

I don't believe that they had real losses. Not real.

That's what I meant earlier. If a team had a REAL loss it would be news. Not these paper tiger losses.

[Nevermore]

Yeah, but he doesn't. You don't spend your budget, you don't get a pat on the head, you don't get an increase. You know that.

And if you don't put together a team that is likely to win, then you don't get a pat on the head, don't get an increase, etc.

[Nevermore]

All of these points are valid, but if you were forced to bet your money on whether DD is spending the money available to him in his operational budget or not, where would you place your money? Not knowing for sure is a lot different than all ideas are equally likely.

By the way, my take just to be clear:

1) I think Dan proposes a total operational budget rather than being dictated a budget.

2) I do think the budget is operational rather than strictly allocated to individual areas like player salary, scouting etc.. I think he provides a ROM estimate for the individual areas to PGA at the time of his budget proposal.

3) I think PGA has to agree on the budget but it isn't a hard cap so much as a ROM plan with a total predicted cap.

4) If an opportunity presented itself over that cap, I think DD could go to PGA to explain why he thought it was a good risk to go over the plan. Make no mistake though, he would have to ask and present a strong case and he still may not hear a yes.

I think most of those things because DD basically said that this was the process in interviews during the last couple off seasons just as he more or less said that his 2015 budget would be a bit higher than 2014. These things are in print so we aren't exactly guessing out of thin air.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This makes a lot more sense than the owner-dictated budget.