|
|
Post by mayham81 on Feb 10, 2012 8:09:56 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by d68soldier on Feb 10, 2012 10:49:55 GMT -8
I hope this is true! That is 1.5 Billion!! That certainly guarantees the Padres more money to put into the team! Also, would help in keeping home grown talent and signing the occasional free agent to complete a contending team year after year! |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Feb 10, 2012 19:31:04 GMT -8
Tom Garfinkel was on the Dave and Jeff show this morning, and he downplayed the $75 million figure as pure fantasy.
He played the, "Oh, we're the smallest market in the league," card - which isn't true.
Basically, he was setting up the excuses for more pathetic team salaries in the years to come.
And he never once said anything about winning a World Series. He just wants a winning record.
Interpret that as you will...
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 10, 2012 19:44:09 GMT -8
And another thread ruined by Erik railing on the payroll...
|
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Feb 10, 2012 23:04:48 GMT -8
And another thread ruined by Erik railing on the payroll... This time I was railing on Garfinkel's lack of enthusiasm and commitment towards winning a World Series. I was just disgusted by his lowering of the bar the way he did. He really pissed me off. His attitude was pretty much, "The best Padres fans can hope for is a team that can win more than they lose on a consistent basis." He didn't set winning a WS Championship as his goal. Just winning records. 82-80 each year and he's happy. Mission accomplished. Do you find that acceptable? I was stunned by the lack of fire that they guy had. He sounded like number cruncher who was trying to balance the books more than a SPORTS executive trying to win championships. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 11, 2012 9:31:25 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Feb 11, 2012 11:02:10 GMT -8
Interesting article - and it in large part proves what I've been saying. Check out this reader comment... No one is saying that the Padres should spend Yankees or Red Sox or Phillies money, but they should at least try to compete with teams like the Twins when it comes to salary. A mediocre team on the field with no stars will result in crappy attendance and lower revenue. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Feb 14, 2012 11:44:20 GMT -8
Interesting article - and it in large part proves what I've been saying. Check out this reader comment... No one is saying that the Padres should spend Yankees or Red Sox or Phillies money, but they should at least try to compete with teams like the Twins when it comes to salary. A mediocre team on the field with no stars will result in crappy attendance and lower revenue. Moorad has already said (paraphrased) that no money will flow out of the Padres to the owners and (planned) no money from the owners to the Padres. He plans to operate the Padres like a non-profit and have a budget equal to monies generated by the Padres operations. So we should expect the "extra" money from any TV deal to be at least partially reflected in payroll. It may also be used in foreign signings efforts and better scouting etc. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Feb 15, 2012 10:41:03 GMT -8
Info about the contract was in the UT this morning. Turns out $75 Million a year is fantasy. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Feb 15, 2012 20:48:34 GMT -8
But the Padres will have a part ownership in Fox Sports San Diego as part of the deal. That's going to have a large value.
Value that I don't expect them to put into the roster or scouting. That's going to be Moorad's windfall. Maybe I'm wrong - but I just don't trust the guy. He's a former player's agent for crying out loud! He was all about making money.
This team should have a payroll of $75-$80 Million this year. They should have had a $70-$75 Million payroll last year. They had the money. They could have done it. Attendance would have been MUCH better. All the ancillary revenues would have been much higher. They could have pulled it off as a, "Non profit."
They're running the team like accountants rather than sports guys trying to win a championship. And that's the way this team has been run since 1999. That's my beef with the organization, and that's why I have no doubt from which to give them the benefit.
Until they re-sign a legitimate star player and build around him I'm not going to be convinced that they're trying to win a championship - which is supposed to be their goal each and every year.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Feb 16, 2012 9:20:09 GMT -8
But the Padres will have a part ownership in Fox Sports San Diego as part of the deal. That's going to have a large value. Value that I don't expect them to put into the roster or scouting. That's going to be Moorad's windfall. Maybe I'm wrong - but I just don't trust the guy. He's a former player's agent for crying out loud! He was all about making money. This team should have a payroll of $75-$80 Million this year. They should have had a $70-$75 Million payroll last year. They had the money. They could have done it. Attendance would have been MUCH better. All the ancillary revenues would have been much higher. They could have pulled it off as a, "Non profit." They're running the team like accountants rather than sports guys trying to win a championship. And that's the way this team has been run since 1999. That's my beef with the organization, and that's why I have no doubt from which to give them the benefit. Until they re-sign a legitimate star player and build around him I'm not going to be convinced that they're trying to win a championship - which is supposed to be their goal each and every year. I was thinking about that yesterday. I wish someone would ask if the profits from the Padres 20% ownership of Fox Sports San Diego will be rolled back into the Padres budget. Inquiring minds want to know. One thing about that part of the deal is that it increases the value of the club because 20% of the network comes with the package. That is foregoing yearly funds, that could be used to improve the product, for a long term investment in a network. Because taking 20% is like making an investment in the network. The alternative was to take more money. But we don't know if Fox insisted on that caveat. |
|
|
|
Post by 01aztecgrad on Feb 16, 2012 20:35:51 GMT -8
But the Padres will have a part ownership in Fox Sports San Diego as part of the deal. That's going to have a large value. Value that I don't expect them to put into the roster or scouting. That's going to be Moorad's windfall. Maybe I'm wrong - but I just don't trust the guy. He's a former player's agent for crying out loud! He was all about making money. This team should have a payroll of $75-$80 Million this year. They should have had a $70-$75 Million payroll last year. They had the money. They could have done it. Attendance would have been MUCH better. All the ancillary revenues would have been much higher. They could have pulled it off as a, "Non profit." They're running the team like accountants rather than sports guys trying to win a championship. And that's the way this team has been run since 1999. That's my beef with the organization, and that's why I have no doubt from which to give them the benefit. Until they re-sign a legitimate star player and build around him I'm not going to be convinced that they're trying to win a championship - which is supposed to be their goal each and every year. I was thinking about that yesterday. I wish someone would ask if the profits from the Padres 20% ownership of Fox Sports San Diego will be rolled back into the Padres budget. Inquiring minds want to know. One thing about that part of the deal is that it increases the value of the club because 20% of the network comes with the package. That is foregoing yearly funds, that could be used to improve the product, for a long term investment in a network. Because taking 20% is like making an investment in the network. The alternative was to take more money. But we don't know if Fox insisted on that caveat. This is just a guess, but I would imagine that income from the TV contract would have to be shared with other owners, while ownership in a network would increase the value of the team, but would not necessarily have to be realized as revenue for revenue sharing purposes. Similar to avoiding income taxes by being compensated in stock rather than cash. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Feb 17, 2012 9:37:18 GMT -8
I was thinking about that yesterday. I wish someone would ask if the profits from the Padres 20% ownership of Fox Sports San Diego will be rolled back into the Padres budget. Inquiring minds want to know. One thing about that part of the deal is that it increases the value of the club because 20% of the network comes with the package. That is foregoing yearly funds, that could be used to improve the product, for a long term investment in a network. Because taking 20% is like making an investment in the network. The alternative was to take more money. But we don't know if Fox insisted on that caveat. This is just a guess, but I would imagine that income from the TV contract would have to be shared with other owners, while ownership in a network would increase the value of the team, but would not necessarily have to be realized as revenue for revenue sharing purposes. Similar to avoiding income taxes by being compensated in stock rather than cash. Revenue from the TV contract will be rolled back into the team and not be realized as net income. If the TV network generates revenue the Padres 20% would give them monies that either must be shared and declared or it will again be rolled back into operating expenses for the team. I suspect all will be rolled back into the team - as Mooard has stated will be the case. My only question is, does what he said cover ownership in something other than the Padres which 20% of the TV Network technically is. |
|
|
|
Post by 01aztecgrad on Feb 17, 2012 11:37:13 GMT -8
Revenue from the TV contract will be rolled back into the team and not be realized as net income. If the TV network generates revenue the Padres 20% would give them monies that either must be shared and declared or it will again be rolled back into operating expenses for the team. I suspect all will be rolled back into the team - as Mooard has stated will be the case. My only question is, does what he said cover ownership in something other than the Padres which 20% of the TV Network technically is. I'm not talking about income from a tax perspective, I guess I should have left that comparison out. I'm talking about the sources of income used by major league baseball to determine who pays into the revenue sharing pool, and who gets paid from the pool. Cash from a TV deal is included in that calculation, so even if it were poured back into the team, it would still be counted as income, or revenue if you prefer, towards revenue sharing. By taking a percentage of the station, the team can increase the value of the franchise, which is money the owner will realize when he sells the team, and doesn't have to share, rather than getting a set payment every year, which would either cause the team to have to pay into the revenue sharing pot, or receive less from the pot. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Feb 21, 2012 9:03:28 GMT -8
Revenue from the TV contract will be rolled back into the team and not be realized as net income. If the TV network generates revenue the Padres 20% would give them monies that either must be shared and declared or it will again be rolled back into operating expenses for the team. I suspect all will be rolled back into the team - as Mooard has stated will be the case. My only question is, does what he said cover ownership in something other than the Padres which 20% of the TV Network technically is. I'm not talking about income from a tax perspective, I guess I should have left that comparison out. I'm talking about the sources of income used by major league baseball to determine who pays into the revenue sharing pool, and who gets paid from the pool. Cash from a TV deal is included in that calculation, so even if it were poured back into the team, it would still be counted as income, or revenue if you prefer, towards revenue sharing. By taking a percentage of the station, the team can increase the value of the franchise, which is money the owner will realize when he sells the team, and doesn't have to share, rather than getting a set payment every year, which would either cause the team to have to pay into the revenue sharing pot, or receive less from the pot. It would be pretty slick if the Padres distributed the money to the owners but later required the owners to kick money back into the club, at the same level. The income would not be counted and neither would the kick-in. That way the Padres find a straightforward method to keep their revenue sharing monies down while still spending more. |
|
