Forbes Crunches Some Numbers
An obscure Marxist publication called Forbes Magazine released a new listing of the current values of major league baseball teams. It seems that, by Forbes' measurements, team owners aren't quite ready for food stamps, after all:
"Baseball owners continue to slam the ball out of the park. Team values increased an average of 15% for the second consecutive year, to $376 million, in our 2006 survey of Major League Baseball's 30 franchises. Overall operating income increased to $360 million ($12.1 million per team) from $132 million ($4.4 million per team) the previous year, as revenue increased faster than player salaries."
According to the report, all but four teams made money in 2006. The Yankees, Red Sox, and Mets, the three teams at the top of the value list, suffered losses in 2005, which only concerns George Steinbrenner if the Yankees don't win the World Series. The fourth team was the Florida Marlins, a team run by guys so stupid that they can't even win a rigged game.
Of course, the Yankees would certainly have made a profit if they weren't supporting human tumors like Carl Pohlad and David Glass through Baron Budhausen's idiotic luxury tax. It takes a lot to make Steinbrenner into a sympthatic character, but this is one issue in which he is.
The team that did the best in 2005? Suprise, surprise, it was the MLB-run Washington Nationals:
"The biggest winner was the Washington Nationals, whose value rose 42%. In March, Major League Baseball finally agreed to terms with the District of Columbia's local politicians that will have taxpayers foot most of the bill for a new $700 million stadium, which should open by the start of the 2009 season and add $40 million to $50 million to the team's revenue."
As is the case everywhere in George W.'s America, the Nationals' increase in value reflects the simple fact that the weathly will look at anything as a good investment, as long as someone else in paying the bill.
Of course, the report has its' critics:
“Once again, Forbes is not accurate in the information they are reporting on the Royals. We continue to operate as David Glass has directed, and that is to operate the club overall on a break-even basis (for the long term).” -- Mark Gorris, Kansas City Royals senior vice president for business operations.
"[Forbes makes] these numbers up. We just think it's important that people understand and realize these are not real in any sense of the word." -- Rob Manfred, MLB Executive of labor relations.
(Both quotes from www.baseballprospectus.com)
As you know, there is no more business-hating publication than Forbes, excepting possibly the Wall Street Journal. I'm not sure what their motivation would be for just making these numbers up, and Manfred and Gorris don't enlighten us on the this question. Why can't we just take their word for it?
The next time your local teams comes around cap in hand for a subsidy, why not try asking them to explain the numbers? I'm sure that they'd be delighted to.
"Baseball owners continue to slam the ball out of the park. Team values increased an average of 15% for the second consecutive year, to $376 million, in our 2006 survey of Major League Baseball's 30 franchises. Overall operating income increased to $360 million ($12.1 million per team) from $132 million ($4.4 million per team) the previous year, as revenue increased faster than player salaries."
According to the report, all but four teams made money in 2006. The Yankees, Red Sox, and Mets, the three teams at the top of the value list, suffered losses in 2005, which only concerns George Steinbrenner if the Yankees don't win the World Series. The fourth team was the Florida Marlins, a team run by guys so stupid that they can't even win a rigged game.
Of course, the Yankees would certainly have made a profit if they weren't supporting human tumors like Carl Pohlad and David Glass through Baron Budhausen's idiotic luxury tax. It takes a lot to make Steinbrenner into a sympthatic character, but this is one issue in which he is.
The team that did the best in 2005? Suprise, surprise, it was the MLB-run Washington Nationals:
"The biggest winner was the Washington Nationals, whose value rose 42%. In March, Major League Baseball finally agreed to terms with the District of Columbia's local politicians that will have taxpayers foot most of the bill for a new $700 million stadium, which should open by the start of the 2009 season and add $40 million to $50 million to the team's revenue."
As is the case everywhere in George W.'s America, the Nationals' increase in value reflects the simple fact that the weathly will look at anything as a good investment, as long as someone else in paying the bill.
Of course, the report has its' critics:
“Once again, Forbes is not accurate in the information they are reporting on the Royals. We continue to operate as David Glass has directed, and that is to operate the club overall on a break-even basis (for the long term).” -- Mark Gorris, Kansas City Royals senior vice president for business operations.
"[Forbes makes] these numbers up. We just think it's important that people understand and realize these are not real in any sense of the word." -- Rob Manfred, MLB Executive of labor relations.
(Both quotes from www.baseballprospectus.com)
As you know, there is no more business-hating publication than Forbes, excepting possibly the Wall Street Journal. I'm not sure what their motivation would be for just making these numbers up, and Manfred and Gorris don't enlighten us on the this question. Why can't we just take their word for it?
The next time your local teams comes around cap in hand for a subsidy, why not try asking them to explain the numbers? I'm sure that they'd be delighted to.
posted by Jim at
7:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home