iortiz

Got it and corrected.

As you know, I'm planning to go in July to Boston. I think that I'm going to buy the destination pack. It is 1300 plus flight tickets around 1500 plus expenses 2000 (I think)... The whole thing is going to cost me around 5,000. I have a question, does this revenue (destination pack) go to Red Sox's books? or it is shared with the other teams.

I haven't made the tiers. That is going to be the next step. I'm going to suggest a criteria, then you can tell me if you agree. First off, we need solid data. The only data available and facts are those which I already presented. Over the last five years, other teams have made a lot of things that could have impacted their future in several ways and should be considered as well. Nobody could remember these factors with precession. This "intentions/projections" do not have a true value/rank, since those are not even realities. As I said...Let's not speculate, Let's not put noise to the case. Let's not put "ifs". Let's not put "woulds". Let's put hard data. IMO it is the good way to do it. I could speculate in other several things, and we will end in circles again. Are you guys agree? can we continue?

I said that I didn't want to continue with this thread since we were going in circles and it was not fun anymore. Nevertheless I'm still curious in this baseball topic. I was about to open a thread but we already have this one here. I do not want to fight, Trust me. That is not my intention with this excersice at all. I just want to clarify some concepts and make my own conclusion. If you want to help me, I will appreciate it. I will understand if you do not want to participate anymore. My first question is, what is the accurate definition of big/small market team?, and the must important thing, How do we measure its size? I already put one definition and several were not agree. ORS said that the size of a market team = revenue. I agreed with this since it was somehow correlated with that definition, but again, I want to start with a good base. Do not throw numbers yet. Just the definition. My attempt is that together we can reach a good conclusion here. Step by step. Can we take revenue as a measure unit? Or do you suggest another measure unit?

He said that some of them are his personal friends/family. Thanks for the opportunity SFOC.

I know Spud, I was agreeing with you when I said "Asi es= de acuerdo=Agree", I was joking with you, no big deal at all my friend.

I really hope so...

This.

Thank you SCF. BTW If you open a fantasy MLB league, I'll be excited in participate.

I'm not copying and pasting anything. Tell me from where I'm copying and pasting?. If you can not prove it, I'll call you lair. That would be another fact. Instead of making accusations bring substance to the debate. You have not. Besides, Do you realize that Mexico is a USA's top 1-3 business partner (number 3, If I remember well)? Tons of large private american companies operate in Mexico and are adopting those rules and their policies of revenue recognition are following those standards. That is a fact. Again, I'm not copying anything, that is common knowladge in our business environment. Do I sound smart? That is your call, no mine. You refuse to see the facts. You run from the true. You insist in turning your lie in a true. That is called fallacy. The key element in order to rate the size of a company is from their ability to generate revenue. It doesn't matter where it operates (plays). Period. Read your economics books. it goes beyond the business. It goes beyond the industry. Is DC an interesting potential market place? Sounds like it is. THEY NEED TO GAIN THAT MARKET, THEY HAVEN'T. How do I know that? Nobody follows them. How does their revenue comes from? From air? It comes from their customers. Who are their customers? Their fans/followers. In a stand alone scenario, today, The Washington Nationals is closer to small market teams. That is a fact. I already showed you several numbers and perspectives. Don't believe me? Forbes has made the job for you, look at it. On the other hand, ORS has been saying that Forbes doesn't consider their revenue generated from its broadcast share. If I want to buy the Nats and only the Nats, this broadcast share doesn't matter to me at all. If I want to buy you only the team, my major concern will be Nats' ability to generate revenue by itself. They have a huge issue in that regard since nobody follows them. Will their fans (customers=revenue) follow them, if they invest? I have no idea. Besides 1. This 13% broadcast share value is unknown. 2. He said that They just renegotiated their contract this offseason, Will it impact 2012 Nats? I do not know. if yes, For How much? Again, I do not know. 3. How much of this 13% value/revenue is directly related with the team? I do not know. How is this revenue accounted and how this revenue recognition will be applied? I do not know. 4.- All these speculation put them in a better position (size)? For 6th time, I do not know. Sail in that see is clearly uncertain, it opens tons of speculation in both ways, reason why my whole analysis has been in a stand alone scenario using hard data; facts.

I think you meant, Ay caramba! AsI es, Ay Caramba!

The ability to generate revenue in a company (beyond the industry) is the key element to evaluate the size of a company. You consider other aspects as well, though. Agree.

Creo que mas allA de que estEn de acuerdo conmigo o no, al menos creo que me estoy dando a entender un poco, que para mi ya es un gran avance ya que es uno de los grandes objetivos que tengo al estar participando en Este foro. Gracias a todos por su comprensiOn y apoyo. A veces no entiendo algunos modismos que usa su lengua. Me encantarIa debatir algunos conceptos con mucho mas profundidad pero no me puedo expresar como yo quisiera en Ingles. Creo que el debate se puso bueno en el hilo de los Nacionales. Percibo que algunos se enojaron. QuizAs estoy mal entendiendo ese sentimiento. OjalA no sea el caso. Entrando en tema, que piensan de la posiciOn de Ortiz con el tema de su arbitraje? Participen seNores, no sean tImidos :harhar:

Mexico le ganO a Venezuela y a PR en la serie del caribe.

1. Circles. 2. You are confused. One thing is the ability to spend and another the ability to generate revenue. If they do not generate revenue, they will be in problems. Nobody knows what is going to happen. All they have right now is a huge commited debt and an investment. 0 rhetorical, all related. Do you realize that the valuation of a company is related with the ability to generate revenue? They haven't proved that ability. Will they prove that ability? I do not have a crystal ball.

I insist, you said that they were a small market team and since they suddenly have the ability to spend, they are not anymore. Check out your quotes. Do not run from the true.

1. I put that perspective in order to rate the Nats who are nothing in that regard. Do not twist the things. 2. The Marlins are the bottom of the bottom. There's no middleground here. Look at the forbes' list. The problem lies in your inability to accept the facts.

1. Since it is a characteric of big market teams (beyond the sport) I used that argument in order to rest my case, among a lot others (revenue/fanbase/audience/forbes' ratings/etc).... Is it to hard to understand? Really? 2. You said that the Marlins are not a small market team anymore since their sudden ability to spend. Now you say that the revenue is a key element to rate a big/small market team, which is right, but when you take a look at Marlins' revenue contradicts your position. Today they are a small market team. Stop with your contradictions and no sense please (no offense)

Nahhhh...It is called perspective. Globally they are nothing. It is a characteristic of big market teams. Stick it in your head. BTW didn't you say that the Marlins are not a small market team too? I want hear your arguments.

In fact, it is becoming easier, since tons of high-class ITs support those procedures. (i.e SAP GRC) TONS of large private companies adopt some SOX procedures, specially in revenue recognition matters. GRC high class ITs are already flavored with those best practices and a lot of private companies are adopting those technologies in order to operate in a more institutional-way; mostly those who disire to become a public company at some point. Turn from private to public usually takes a lot of time and procedures. It is not easy at all. Some get stuck in the attempt but they still follow those SOX procedures already adopted. (e.i. revenue recognition). Revenue recognition is a key element when you valuate a company. Since the size of a company is correlated with its revenue, it is a key element to determine the size of the company. You can not mix the company's revenue (MASN) with another's revenue (NATS) when you want to valuate only one company (e.i. NATS). That is a compliance violation issue (revenue recognition). Back on topic. Today, the Nats are a #16 Forbes baseball team. They are closer to the small market teams than the big market teams. Their audience rating is poor. Their fan base/followers (who generates its revenue) is small. Its global exposure is 0. A700 and I have presented a lot perspectives and facts in order to rest our case. Check out the numbers. Nevertheless, Since They are not a public company, I can not make a stronger case. All signs tell me that they are not a big market team (valuation/revenue). Signs tell me that they are more likely in the bottom; with the small. I have showed you several facts about this team. The confusion started when you said that DC is not a small market territory... who cares? Nobody is disputing that.. Besides, They need to win that market. They have not. Look at the avaiable numbers. Facts. BL. 1. The Washington Nationals baseball team is not a Big market team. No in this planet. No even close. That is my point. If you are terrified with the word "small", then call them mid-low class team. 2. DC market place is an interesting territory. They have to win market share in DC=revenue=customers=followers=fans. I would say that this is their biggest challange.