Detroit Tigers

[froot loops]

The Tigers take in at minimum $250 million in revenue a year. I think people think the Tigers save all of the earnings they kept by trading a guy like Verlander and store it in a room like Scrooge McDuck. Like they are saving it for a rainy day and they will spend it when the time is right.

Also, I laugh out loud how Fraquar frames that trade, like we were expecting perennial All Stars in return. It would have been nice to get more than .5 WAR in return. At least Dombrowski before he was stupidly fired got some good players in return for players that weren't as good as Verlander.

[chemiclord]

Maybe Chris I. is saving all that money to revitalize District Detroit!

...

I'll come in again!

[froot loops]

District Detroit is now where Comerica and Hockeytown Cafe reside.

[chemiclord]

Plenty of parking too!

[JGSpartan]

Operating costs are a thing. They aren't profiting 250mil per year. Last year they made 31mil in profits. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they take a loss this year since they upped spending but without results. They don't have the cushion you guys think they do.

[chemiclord]

Operating costs are a thing. They aren't profiting 250mil per year. Last year they made 31mil in profits. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they take a loss this year since they upped spending but without results. They don't have the cushion you guys think they do.

That's the minimum they take in. That's just adding all the media deals and ad deals, etc. That's the floor, not the ceiling.

And they have plenty of cushion. Their owner literally just paid to be the official pizza of the NFL. He's good for damn near any payroll he wants.

[JGSpartan]

They just literally don't. Live by your own facts I guess They made enough last year to come out even on a 146mil payroll. They are sitting only 10mil under that now. That isn't a big cushion. Expecting them to take operating losses to make you feel better because they have other successful businesses is just stupid.

[froot loops]

Operating costs are a thing. They aren't profiting 250mil per year. Last year they made 31mil in profits. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they take a loss this year since they upped spending but without results. They don't have the cushion you guys think they do.

I said revenue, not profits. Get it right. That is 250 minimum, probably much more. They were making money even when the payroll was high.

If Forbes said they made 31 million in profits last year, it's much higher than that. That's always the case because not everything is taken into account. Olympia entertainment takes in a lot of dollars that is unaccounted for.

[chemiclord]

But that's an entirely different company, Froot!

[JGSpartan]

I'm making the point that listing their revenue is pointless if you don't factor in their costs and what is actually profit. Just stating their revenue is misleading. I imagine you have no proof of your claims. They sure make you feel better though.

Of course you can make money when payroll is high if you're winning and selling tickets/merch/concessions. I don't understand what point you think that proves. It's not like those things still make the same money if you lose.

[chemiclord]

The point is that when Chris Illitch bemoans how the Tigers simply don't have that sort of money, he's lying. He just doesn't want to, because then that might cut into the cash he stuffs in his pockets at the end of the day.

The team was (and would be) perfectly sustainable with a payroll double what it is now. But then he might have to rely on things like ticket sales and a competent front office to keep his profits where he wants them to be, and well... we can't have that, now can we?

[JGSpartan]

Making wild claims doesn't make them true. You guys have made up your own reality without any proof of it. It doesn't matter if a parent company makes more money with other products, that doesn't mean they should take losses on another product to make you feel better.

[Da Geezer]

I'm making the point that listing their revenue is pointless if you don't factor in their costs and what is actually profit. Just stating their revenue is misleading. I imagine you have no proof of your claims. They sure make you feel better though.

Of course you can make money when payroll is high if you're winning and selling tickets/merch/concessions. I don't understand what point you think that proves. It's not like those things still make the same money if you lose.

Correct.

No one has mentioned that there is a depreciation factor on the "capital asset" that is a ballplayer. What the ownership of a professional sports team actually is is a mechanism in which owners turn ordinary income into capital gain income when they sell the team. While they own the team, the appreciation in the value of the team is tax-free income.

[chemiclord]

So... let me get this straight. You're saying that the company that makes money and benefits directly from the team's existence shouldn't be included in what the team should be expected to spend because it's a different name on the ledger?

Really? That's the angle you're going with? So, let's say Illitch decided to transfer all the revenues from the Tigers to "Stuff My Pockets Inc." then the Tigers really shouldn't be expected to have a payroll more than $0 because it's obviously not the Detroit Tigers making that money? After all, Stuff My Pockets Inc. is a completely different company with a different product!

Am I doin' this rite?

[wcfwtf]

Plus people don’t figure in all the cost of the farm system, office staff, scouts, etc