LambeauLeap1250 WSSP


  
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next  [ 121 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply

Forbes Baseball Team Values

Author Message
Offline  Re: Forbes Baseball Team Values
#61

Posted: April 10, 2019, 8:11 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 8450
Brew crew 92 said:

I don’t know about 2012, but last 6 years been massive profits. 15 and 16 if I remember correctly 120+ million.


For the last time, unless you have a link, this is pure speculation. FORBES VALUES DO NOT INDICATE PROFITS, and as many others have pointed out, OPERATING INCOME DOES NOT EQUAL PROFITS. You DO NOT know what the Brewers cleared, unless you are privy to info that isn't public to my knowledge.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Forbes Baseball Team Values
#62

Posted: April 10, 2019, 8:18 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 7496
Value is not the same as operating capital. It's not even close. As others have said, value is just an imaginary number that you can throw out there, if you decided to sell.

If you have a thing, it's only worth what someone wants to give you for it, if you're even in the market to sell it, which Attanasio is not. It doesn't matter what someone says it's worth. That value doesn't give you operating dollars.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Forbes Baseball Team Values
#63

Posted: April 10, 2019, 8:22 PM Post
Posts: 3060
PeaveyFury said:
Brew crew 92 said:

I don’t know about 2012, but last 6 years been massive profits. 15 and 16 if I remember correctly 120+ million.


For the last time, unless you have a link, this is pure speculation. FORBES VALUES DO NOT INDICATE PROFITS, and as many others have pointed out, OPERATING INCOME DOES NOT EQUAL PROFITS. You DO NOT know what the Brewers cleared, unless you are privy to info that isn't public to my knowledge.


I don’t know about 2012, but last 6 years I’m guesstimating nice profits.
15 and 16 more than nice.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Forbes Baseball Team Values
#64

Posted: April 10, 2019, 8:29 PM Post
Posts: 3060
sveumrules said:
Vollbc74 said:
According to this article the Brewers were 8th in MLB with a 66M operating income last season.

Someone smarter than me please explain the differences between operating income and profit.


Even assuming "operating income = profit", doesn't really tell anyone much about that assumed 66 million.

Each team received a one time payment of 50 million dollars from the sale of MLBAM in 2018 & the Brewers also made a postseason run which will increase profits.

The 50 million is definitely not getting paid out again this year & making the postseason is yet to be determined.

Short of winning the WS, I would imagine the Brewers profits decrease this year compared to last year.


Article said bam not included.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Forbes Baseball Team Values
#65

Posted: April 10, 2019, 8:31 PM Post
Posts: 8110
Brew crew 92 said:
DHonks said:
JimH5 said:
What I'm saying is that the Brewers are worth more than 4 times as much as the current ownership group spent for the team, and that they could use some of that increase in franchise value on player contracts, even to the point of operating at a loss.


From all indications last season, the Brewers in 2018 either had a very small profit or possibly a loss. Throw in the $60+ million for Maryvale. We're the only team spending on our spring training facility.


The brewers operating income was 8th in all of baseball at 66 mil, no loss or small profit there.



A quick google search says Operating Income is before interest and taxes, among other things. Throw in that this is ALL speculation, as the Brewers have not opened their books. The Brewers likely financed the Maryvale renovation, but a portion probably hit the books last year. So MAYBE a small profit if the Forbes numbers are accurate


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Forbes Baseball Team Values
#66

Posted: April 10, 2019, 8:38 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 8450
Brew crew 92 said:
PeaveyFury said:
Brew crew 92 said:

I don’t know about 2012, but last 6 years been massive profits. 15 and 16 if I remember correctly 120+ million.


For the last time, unless you have a link, this is pure speculation. FORBES VALUES DO NOT INDICATE PROFITS, and as many others have pointed out, OPERATING INCOME DOES NOT EQUAL PROFITS. You DO NOT know what the Brewers cleared, unless you are privy to info that isn't public to my knowledge.


I don’t know about 2012, but last 6 years I’m guesstimating nice profits.
15 and 16 more than nice.


So “if you remember correctly,” you guesstimate 120+ million profits?


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Forbes Baseball Team Values
#67

Posted: April 10, 2019, 8:42 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 2546
RoCoBrewfan said:
Value is not the same as operating capital. It's not even close. As others have said, value is just an imaginary number that you can throw out there, if you decided to sell.

If you have a thing, it's only worth what someone wants to give you for it, if you're even in the market to sell it, which Attanasio is not. It doesn't matter what someone says it's worth. That value doesn't give you operating dollars.


I'm sure if you had something of extreme value, you could borrow off of that value without having to sell. Isn't that what collateral is? Lenders would offer financing on that value, and they wouldn't use an imaginary number. They would conduct an audit and lend based on real worth.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Forbes Baseball Team Values
#68

Posted: April 10, 2019, 8:46 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 8450
JimH5 said:

I'm sure if you had something of extreme value, you could borrow off of that value without having to sell. Isn't that what collateral is? Lenders would offer financing on that value, and they wouldn't use an imaginary number. They would conduct an audit and lend based on real worth.


Jim, do you have factual knowledge that this theory applies in this case, or are you assuming that because it works for stuff like home equity that you can also do it with a baseball team?


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Forbes Baseball Team Values
#69

Posted: April 10, 2019, 8:54 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 2546
I don't have factual knowledge. But I'm not just talking about home equity, either.

When an Art Museum purchases a piece of art, I doubt it is always a cash deal. I believe there is financing based on the sale of other pieces in their collection.

When a business finances the construction of a new building, it is based on their ability to pay it back, either from future earnings, or the value of the business itself. Isn't it?

What else is financing other than money borrowed with the obligation to pay it back at terms that are acceptable to both sides?


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Forbes Baseball Team Values
#70

Posted: April 10, 2019, 8:59 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 5002
A large part of my frustration with this topic is that people believe small market teams should take on debt and risk that large market teams don't have to in order to compete. They seem to believe that should be the solution to competing with large market teams. If that is the only recourse that small market teams have then baseball's economic balance system is clearly broken. That is a band-aid solution that allows large market teams to coast year after year. How about discussing the absurdity of guaranteed contracts (I'm looking at you Chris Davis and the Orioles)?


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Forbes Baseball Team Values
#71

Posted: April 10, 2019, 9:02 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 8450
JimH5 said:
I don't have factual knowledge. But I'm not just talking about home equity, either.

When an Art Museum purchases a piece of art, I doubt it is always a cash deal. I believe there is financing based on the sale of other pieces in their collection.

When a business finances the construction of a new building, it is based on their ability to pay it back, either from future earnings, or the value of the business itself. Isn't it?

What else is financing other than money borrowed with the obligation to pay it back at terms that are acceptable to both sides?


You’re applying theory of fairly liquid assets to ownership in an entity that a select few can purchase. A house has a readily available market. So does that artwork, or even that building. How many people can truly afford to buy a 46 billion dollar franchise like the Yankees? Bill Gates and Warren Buffett?

You may well be right, but I think it’s dangerous to universally apply a theory like this without actually knowing it’s true. Far too much talking in absolutes in this thread without actually knowing real numbers and mechanisms for my liking.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Forbes Baseball Team Values
#72

Posted: April 10, 2019, 9:09 PM Post
Posts: 3060
Brewers operating income from statista:

2018-66 mil
17-67mil
16-58.2
15-27
14-17.3
13-6.8
12-9
11-19.2
10-12.4
09-10.2
08-11.8
07-19.2
06-20.8
05-22
04-24.2
03-5.1
02-6.1
01- -6.1


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Forbes Baseball Team Values
#73

Posted: April 10, 2019, 9:11 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 8450
Great, thanks for sharing. But as it has been made clear previously, operating income alone tells you very little.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Forbes Baseball Team Values
#74

Posted: April 10, 2019, 9:33 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1994
One thing to remember is Mark isn't a sole owner or even majority owner. He's just the controlling(?) Owner. I don't remember his percent, but I thought it was a low as in the 20s or as high as the 40s. Now let's pretend that 66 million is their pure profit from last year, how does that get divided? Does the team get a chunk for a "rainy day" fund with the rest split based on ownership percentages? Do they just split all of it? Does the "team" keep it with the owners getting a payout some other way? I don't know but it seems like the assumption is the owners split it.

We know Mark is all in on being a fan of the team and wanting a winner, but what about the minority owners? Are they in it just for the money and and only care about winning so far as it increases profits, or do they want the fan side of winning too? If Mark is the only one that wants to go for it, then maybe he can use 15-30 million of that theoretical 66 to pump up the payroll.

reillymcshane said:
Remember what Yoda said:

"Cubs lead to Cardinals. Cardinals lead to dislike. Dislike leads to hate. Hate leads to constipation."


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Forbes Baseball Team Values
#75

Posted: April 10, 2019, 9:36 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 2546
PeaveyFury said:
JimH5 said:
I don't have factual knowledge. But I'm not just talking about home equity, either.

When an Art Museum purchases a piece of art, I doubt it is always a cash deal. I believe there is financing based on the sale of other pieces in their collection.

When a business finances the construction of a new building, it is based on their ability to pay it back, either from future earnings, or the value of the business itself. Isn't it?

What else is financing other than money borrowed with the obligation to pay it back at terms that are acceptable to both sides?


You’re applying theory of fairly liquid assets to ownership in an entity that a select few can purchase. A house has a readily available market. So does that artwork, or even that building. How many people can truly afford to buy a 46 billion dollar franchise like the Yankees? Bill Gates and Warren Buffett?

You may well be right, but I think it’s dangerous to universally apply a theory like this without actually knowing it’s true. Far too much talking in absolutes in this thread without actually knowing real numbers and mechanisms for my liking.



I don't want to be a blowhard know-it-all, but I would think collateral is collateral. And I can't believe that he couldn't find a lender willing to lend money for other projects. Why would money earmarked for new concession stands and videoboards be any different than money earmarked for a staff ace?


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Forbes Baseball Team Values
#76

Posted: April 10, 2019, 9:50 PM Post
Posts: 4735
JimH5 said:
PeaveyFury said:
JimH5 said:
I don't have factual knowledge. But I'm not just talking about home equity, either.

When an Art Museum purchases a piece of art, I doubt it is always a cash deal. I believe there is financing based on the sale of other pieces in their collection.

When a business finances the construction of a new building, it is based on their ability to pay it back, either from future earnings, or the value of the business itself. Isn't it?

What else is financing other than money borrowed with the obligation to pay it back at terms that are acceptable to both sides?


You’re applying theory of fairly liquid assets to ownership in an entity that a select few can purchase. A house has a readily available market. So does that artwork, or even that building. How many people can truly afford to buy a 46 billion dollar franchise like the Yankees? Bill Gates and Warren Buffett?

You may well be right, but I think it’s dangerous to universally apply a theory like this without actually knowing it’s true. Far too much talking in absolutes in this thread without actually knowing real numbers and mechanisms for my liking.



I don't want to be a blowhard know-it-all, but I would think collateral is collateral. And I can't believe that he couldn't find a lender willing to lend money for other projects. Why would money earmarked for new concession stands and videoboards be any different than money earmarked for a staff ace?


I'd be interested knowing whether MLB has any rules concerning how an organization can/cannot be used as an asset when incurring debt. When it comes to the lending collateral comparisons between objects (concessions/videoboards) and players, there may be something to providing an asset like Miller Park (whose value would be improved by those objects) that would be easy for a lender to accept, whereas just saying "hey our franchise quadrupled in value over the past 15 years, give us money to sign a veteran starter" might not pass legal muster for lending $. What technically would be the collateral for a loan to provide a player contract, if in theory the organization wouldn't honor the terms of the loan for whatever reason? An infintessimal ownership stake based on a snapshot valuation that isn't liquid? Rights to whatever player signs that contract to become a bank teller?


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Forbes Baseball Team Values
#77

Posted: April 11, 2019, 12:30 AM Post
Posts: 931
Location: Washburn, WI
JosephC said:
I'm just wondering if there is anybody on this board that bought a 200k house in 1999. Now that house is worth 350k. So because that house is now worth 150k more than it was than it was when they first bought it, they have decided to go out and buy themselves a brand new 2019 Aston Martin Vantage?


I’m glad you mentioned this. Just because the valuation went up $150K doesn’t mean you have that extra $150K sitting in your bank account to use on other things. The valuation of the Brewers increasing over the years does not mean there are hundreds of millions of dollars sitting in a bank account ready to be spent on the drop of a hat.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Forbes Baseball Team Values
#78

Posted: April 11, 2019, 12:47 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 18827
JosephC said:
I'm just wondering if there is anybody on this board that bought a 200k house in 1999. Now that house is worth 350k. So because that house is now worth 150k more than it was than it was when they first bought it, they have decided to go out and buy themselves a brand new 2019 Aston Martin Vantage?


I bought a Porsche 911 Carrera because I'm a douche bag.

Cards' fans wear jorts.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Forbes Baseball Team Values
#79

Posted: April 11, 2019, 4:20 AM Post
Posts: 3015
Most of this stuff from Forbes is educated guesses and that is why they always have an operating profit number and never a net income number because they don't even have a good guess what the other numbers are. A team could have operating income every year but a net loss every year. Highly likely they did have net income last year but just showing the best guess estimated operating income for 20 years doesn't say a whole lot.

Do believe a team like the Brewers are worth a billion dollars though and a business owner could possibly justify operating at a loss if they continue to see large valuation increases.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Forbes Baseball Team Values
#80

Posted: April 11, 2019, 5:06 AM Post
Posts: 12529
JimH5 said:
RoCoBrewfan said:
Value is not the same as operating capital. It's not even close. As others have said, value is just an imaginary number that you can throw out there, if you decided to sell.

If you have a thing, it's only worth what someone wants to give you for it, if you're even in the market to sell it, which Attanasio is not. It doesn't matter what someone says it's worth. That value doesn't give you operating dollars.


I'm sure if you had something of extreme value, you could borrow off of that value without having to sell. Isn't that what collateral is? Lenders would offer financing on that value, and they wouldn't use an imaginary number. They would conduct an audit and lend based on real worth.


Okay...while I agree that can be done...lets think about that actually happening for a second. Mark Attanasio taking out a loan to add payroll. An owner taking out a loan against the value of their franchise because they are that tight on payroll. It is absolutely just ridiculous and never going to happen. That is the only possible way they could make the value of the franchise a liquid asset of some sort, but that is just beyond any fantasy even imaginable. Pigs will fly before something like that happens.

And someone mentioning past profits in 2015-2016 etc....forget about them. They mean absolutely nothing to the current day to day payroll. They may help use that money to build a new ST complex or A+ team...but those are real investments that add value to the organization long term. Moustakas/Grnadal...in all reality that is basically just flushing money down a drain. Barring a WS win there is no way all that added payroll for them is even near worth what we paid. If payroll is maxed and one is arguing for them to throw saved money or take on debt to put $20mil into someone you are essentially asking for them to throw money into the payroll to watch it burn.

Attanasio would probably throw $100mil at the payroll tomorrow if it meant assuring a WS win...but payroll does not mean that and being the best team almost assures the opposite historically.


 Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next  [ 121 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply
  


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search this forum (phpBB search):
Jump to:  
Search entire board (Google search):
Google
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Test