moonslav59

To me, it's not so much about failure to report as it is about separate entities that make the owners money that is not under the team's finances. The NESN- Fenway Group is a good example. While the Sox are not the only thing NESN broadcasts, it's clearly their number one money maker, and it is essentially owned by the group that owns the Sox, The money they make off NESN does not and really should not count as Red Sox revenue or profits, but it is a way the Sox owners make money off the Sox without it being counted as revenue. I'm not sure if the Sox also have a separate concessions and merchandizing company handling that aspect of revenue generated by the team, but I think several teams do. That money would not be on any revenue ledger of teams that make it its own company. These are the types of examples I'm talking about, but I also would not be surprised if owners do some book cooking, as well. That, however, was not what I meant by "hidden revenue and profits." (And "hidden" is not really a good word choice, since much is out in the open, but it's just not counted at MLB revenue by teams, or am I wrong?

Yes, they'd lose a lot of money, but they'd still make way more than most teams due to getting half for games played at home and in BOS/NYY. In a way, it seems fair that both teams should share the revenue of the games they play in, but teams that draw more fans would lose a lot under this scheme, and maybe lose some incentive to win and be viewable.

Stunning.

Since two teams are playing on the field, how about splitting gate and TV revenue 50-50 for each game between the two teams. The Yanks would still make more, because they split 81 games of near top paying revenue, but the "poor market teams" also get some big paydays when they travel to NY and LA.

My point was about how "inclusive" is the Forbes report? I doubt it counts profits from the cable company owned by the same owner, even though the revenue is tied directly to the team shown on the network. Those numbers may or may not be public record or speculative.

Wrong forum

See my next post.

We know what NESN pays the Sox and what MLB pays the Sox for TV rights, but do we count the revenues NESN makes in the team's revenues? No, right? (Although NESN is 80% owned by The Fenway Group) Do concessions and merchandise revenues count in the Forbes numbers? Different teams have different situations with their cable TV providers and concessions/merchandizing, as well.

Maybe secret is not the right word, but there is money made from "satellite companies" that may not be included in a team's revenues.

Yes, I agreed and still do.

#39 Chih-Jung Liu: https://soxprospects.com/players/liu-chih-jung.htm Potential up-and-down swingman type with the chance to develop into a depth starter. Ceiling of a back-end starting pitcher. Still has a wide range of outcomes, as his stuff and arsenal are constantly evolving with each new look. In the 2020 Fall Instructional League, his velocity was down and none of his pitches projected as better than average. In 2021, velocity started to tick back up and secondaries showed more potential, but his velocity was still down from where he was reportedly at before he signed. Has the potential for three at-least-average pitches, but his frame is fairly slight to handle the rigors of starting long-term and he has not yet shown consistency with stuff from outing-to-outing and year-to-year.

Exact numbers might be hard to know, but yes, close estimates can be deduced. (Has anyone done this for each team?) These guys are rolling in money. Then, after making millions, they can sell the team for enormous gains.

...and what counts as revenue? So many teams have spin-offs businesses tied to the team, but not part of the revenue. Cable TV, concessions, merchandise, and more.

I'm not disagreeing with your point about the Angels. They have spent poorly, drafted poorly and just about done everything worse than almost all other teams, except spending. Since the Henry era began, here are the rankings of the Angels and Sox in player budgets: (starting in 2003) Sox/Angels 6/12 2/3 2/5 2/3 2/4 4/6 4/6 2/8 3/4 3/4 4/7 3/6 3/7 3/7 3/11 1/6 1/9 3/11 3/4 While the Angels and Sox have been close, in spending, for a long time, the Angels have never outspent the Sox in the Henry era, and except for 2021, the gap was widening for several years. They have to be viewed as the worst managed team in the last 2 decades.

Yes, and maybe this could be something brought to the table, as in, increasing some teams' abysmal percentages.

100%

I totally agree, but ask some Sox fans to accept Henry's tightening purse strings, and they'll bite your head off.

He might argue he was forced to pay that to try and stay competitive with the even bigger spenders, but I totally agree with your point.

One could say the initial player offer was ridiculous, too, so I get that, but to me the owners true starting point is status quo with a few additions like expanded playoffs, universal DH and cleaning up some minor issues. The players true starting point might be to get back what they lost, if only by inflation calculations, and fixing the manipulation of player service time. Anything more is above and beyond status quo. Looking at what the owner have agreed to give, beyond where they are at now, is absurdly very little.

Why is this thread still so popular?

I still think a good strategy by the players would be to give in on the lux tax issues- both the limit and the increased taxes, in return for a major giveback on min player salary and moderate giveback on arb/service time issues. The rest seems within reach.

I get that feeling, too. The better chance for an agreement is if the players cave on most issues and maybe get one or two things they want. Or the splits will be 60-70% in the owners direction. The alternative is for the players to remain strong and firm and risk losing a full season. I'm not sure that would force the owners to budge, either. Not looking good, right now. The owners counter proposals have looked pathetic and barely move the needle.

Chance for more service time issues... https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/03/canceled-regular-season-games-raise-the-possibility-for-a-dispute-regarding-service-time.html

Good breakdown. Here is the exact middle ground on issues where a clear middle is distinguishable: (My comments in red.) Young Players: Min salary: $712.5M with $15K raises each year. (Note: not even keeping up with inflation once the first big raise is given.) Make it $715M with $15K raises. Pre-arb bonus pool: $57.5M. Make it an even $50M. Super 2's: Players agreed to leave as is, if the rest of the deal works out, but the previous offer was 35% of players vs the leagues 22%. The split: 28.5%. Just go with an even 33.3% Service Time: Award One year to the top 10 WAR rookies. (I'd go top 15, and players drop grievance against cheap owners.) Comp Bal Tax Tax penalty: 35%/53.5%/81.5% (Make it $30%/50%/80%) Lux Tax Limits: $229M 2022 $250.5M 2026 How about? $230M 2022 $232M 2023 $235M 2024 $240M 2025 $250M 2026 Playoff Expansion 12 teams Pitch Clock: Yes in 2022. Universal DH: Yes in 2022. Robo Umps: YES, as soon as possible. Limiting Defensive Shifts: No Draft Lottery: Yes- the owners last proposal. International Draft: Yes. Revenue Sharing Structure: I have no idea Here's the summation of this article... If payrolls increased by $325 million in 2022 – a high-end estimate of what would happen relative to the previous CBA terms if the league simply accepted the union’s offer – that would mean aggregate league-wide payroll growth of 6.7% since 2017, the first year of the last CBA. That’s not an annual growth number, it’s a total – equivalent to a 1.3% annual growth rate. On a per-team basis, the difference in the two proposals works out to roughly $5.5 million in new spending in 2022 relative to last season. Increases in TV deals alone more than cover that, and low-payroll teams would bear less of the burden than high-payroll teams due to the amount of money that a higher CBT is expected to contribute to the overall total. If the league wanted it, they could lock in a very gradual increase in payrolls, one that wouldn’t really do anything to jumpstart the stagnant payroll growth from 2017-21 and that would increase at a rate of roughly 1% per year thereafter. Given that every team is bringing in at least $100 million per year before selling any tickets or receiving revenue sharing, losing games over the sliver of a difference that exists between their proposals and those of the union seems foolhardy. But apparently $5.5 million per team — plus whatever other gains ownership feels it can make that I haven’t estimated monetarily — is too much for the league to concede despite the huge and uncertain cost associated with canceling games and delaying the season. -fangraphs

How would the show ever end, if we both always need to get the last word? Maybe just a fade out?