Reasons to not believe owners about “lost money”?

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, foxfield said:

Less revenues are not losses.  Again, I do not trust ownership.  But in your scenario, They made money but made 80 million less.  I do not doubt at all that there are major league teams that lost money last year and I would have no real difficulty seeing the Orioles in that group.  

 

And by losses I mean less revenue than expenses.

Yea I don’t buy that and I certainly don’t buy it for a team that had no payroll, like the Os.  (Who also traded guys and ended up with even less payroll as the season went on)

And yes, I agree it’s less revenue and not losses..but that’s precisely my point and the point made in the article.  The owners are twisting the words to make it seem like they lost money.  In theory, they did.  But lost revenue is far different than lost money and I don’t think the owners are being publicly honest about that.

[Oriole1940]

If a team would have made 100 million in a regular season and did make only 20 million due to the problems in 2020, an accountant would say the team showed a profit for tax purposes in each year.  If you start playing with the numbers and saying, but what if this or that might have happened and did they really make money or lose it, the IRS is going to say, baloney.  You made money both years, so report it.  Reminds me of one of my most liked truisms.   Figures do not lie, but liars figure.  

[foxfield]

Lets be clear.  No I do not think the Rays or the Marlins for example lost money.  They have very low expenses and I think, and I don't have their books, but I think they should have still covered expenses and therefore made a profit.

I think for example that the Orioles did not.

 

The danger of course is that owners speak in generalities and make everything sound worse than it is.  And they do this when things are good.  So no, I don't trust them to be honest here.  

But at the same time, I have no doubt that there are teams in baseball that lost money in 2020 and are staring at losses in 2021.  And I also have no doubt that whether that is 5 teams or 20 teams, MLB owners will cry that it is every team.

[Moose Milligan]

Let's get this thread on the right track, which is to beat the quickly dying horse...that SG wants this team to spend.  

Let's hear it, who should we be spending on?  Stroman.  Taijuan Walker.  Some SS from the KBO.  

 

[Can_of_corn]

13 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Let's get this thread on the right track, which is to beat the quickly dying horse...that SG wants this team to spend.  

Let's hear it, who should we be spending on?  Stroman.  Taijuan Walker.  Some SS from the KBO.  

 

Nunez.

[DrungoHazewood]

Do we have any facts on what the TV money was like this past season?  If teams got everything they were contractually supposed to get, or if it was a discount because of the reduced schedule?  What about streaming/MLBAM revenues?  Has MLB released anything on how all that fell out? 

[Number5]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

You think the Marlin's were actually in the red last year?

 

As you know, the Marlins and the few other teams that may have avoided financial losses in 2020 aren't going to secede from MLB and form their own league and play.  Trying to isolate a few teams that may have possibly avoided a loss in 2020 is an exercise in futility.  If MLB teams operate at a loss, it isn't reasonable to demand that they schedule the games just so the players can earn more money.

[Number5]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Yea I don’t buy that and I certainly don’t buy it for a team that had no payroll, like the Os.  (Who also traded guys and ended up with even less payroll as the season went on)

And yes, I agree it’s less revenue and not losses..but that’s precisely my point and the point made in the article.  The owners are twisting the words to make it seem like they lost money.  In theory, they did.  But lost revenue is far different than lost money and I don’t think the owners are being publicly honest about that.

But why?  How does that make any sense?  If they were profitable, as you claim, what possible motivation is there to make zero, rather than say $20 million, as per your example?  That is simply illogical.

[forphase1]

I think the truth is often between the stories from the 2 sides.  I don't think the teams are in the poor house like some owners like to claim, but nor do I think they are rolling in dough after 2020 like Boras, the union and others claim.  As to last year specifically, none of us know the 'facts', but it's my opinion that some teams made money (actual revenue gained after expenses), some broke even and yes, some actually lost money (not just made LESS money, but actually went in the hole).  Expenses were way less, sure, but so were revenues.  Some expenses are fixed, non-player salaries, insurances expenses, building expenses, etc and they weren't adjusted just because revenue decreased.  Based on their payroll I'd imagine the Orioles made some profit, though the amount of profit was no doubt much less than it would have been in a 'normal' year.  Regardless, baseball is facing some major issues in revenue and a soon labor dispute.  Will be interesting to watch how it all plays out.

[Sports Guy]

38 minutes ago, Number5 said:

But why?  How does that make any sense?  If they were profitable, as you claim, what possible motivation is there to make zero, rather than say $20 million, as per your example?  That is simply illogical.

I have zero idea what this question is supposed to mean?

[Can_of_corn]

53 minutes ago, Number5 said:

But why?  How does that make any sense?  If they were profitable, as you claim, what possible motivation is there to make zero, rather than say $20 million, as per your example?  That is simply illogical.

Because they think it will be a long term advantage to them.  Say in discussions with the players association, municipalities and content providers.

[Roll Tide]

1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

Let's get this thread on the right track, which is to beat the quickly dying horse...that SG wants this team to spend.  

Let's hear it, who should we be spending on?  Stroman.  Taijuan Walker.  Some SS from the KBO.  

 

So I’ve been looking at the title for a while without reading any of the posts. 
 

I think the owners collected considerably less money due to the lost games that were lopped off they’ve contract. 
 

Do I think they failed to turn a profit unequivocally? For the Orioles and most of baseball the answer is No!

 

I just don’t think they made the money they wanted this year and neither did I.

[Roll Tide]

1 hour ago, Number5 said:

But why?  How does that make any sense?  If they were profitable, as you claim, what possible motivation is there to make zero, rather than say $20 million, as per your example?  That is simply illogical.

Business owners play hide the potato from the IRS all of the time. They cover profits that they would have to pay taxes on with write offs. 

[Number5]

1 hour ago, Roll Tide said:

Business owners play hide the potato from the IRS all of the time. They cover profits that they would have to pay taxes on with write offs. 

We aren't discussing tax shelters.  If the owners profited by playing before empty stands, they would not be against doing it.  Simple as that.  Whether they showed a profit for tax purposes or not.  This really is a simple and obvious situation that for some reason people are trying to make complicated.  If they make money by playing the games, they do it.  If they don't, they don't.

 

 

[Number5]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

I have zero idea what this question is supposed to mean?

Can't help you there.  The words are plain.