Astros Number 1!
1985fan
Posts: 1,952 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
In taking home money. By not spending essentially any money ($21 million in salary), and raking in TV revenue and money from revenue sharing, and the Houston Astros, yes, the team with the worst record in baseball, is making the most money.
Link
Teams that 'spend' like this is why revenue sharing is a joke. Fielding a bunch of AAA guys and then getting to reap $5 million from other teams is ridiculous. MLB needs to get with the program and put a revenue floor in.
Link
Teams that 'spend' like this is why revenue sharing is a joke. Fielding a bunch of AAA guys and then getting to reap $5 million from other teams is ridiculous. MLB needs to get with the program and put a revenue floor in.
0
Comments
<< <i>MLB does not have revenue sharing. It has a luxury tax, which is not the same thing. >>
Actually, MLB has BOTH.
In the current CBA, revenue sharing is covered under article XXIV (entitled "The Revenue Sharing Plan") and the luxary tax is covered under article XXIII (entitled "Competitive Balance Tax").
link to the CBA
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>MLB does not have revenue sharing. It has a luxury tax, which is not the same thing. >>
In 2012, MLB distributed $400m to low(er) revenue clubs. Call it whatever you want, it's revenue sharing.
<< <i>MLB does not have revenue sharing. It has a luxury tax, which is not the same thing. >>
As has been stated it *does* gave revenue sharing which only incentivizes cheap owners to make money.
Here's the 'Stros statement on Forbes' “significant inaccuracies”:
Link
The 'Stros have been completely torn down to the foundation and in the process of being built back up. Our future looks extremely promising with a flush minor league system and promising young stars. I'm very, very excited for years to come.
Now, let's look at some other ALW payrolls and standings:
Los Angeles Angels (58-71) $142,165,250
Seattle (59-70) $84,295,952
Their future? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Heh.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>I remember a few years ago the Marlins financial docs got leaked and it showed they were pretty much pocketing all the revenue sharing dollars they were getting instead of using them on the team. >>
I'm sure teams do that but Crane is financially set and doesn't necessarily really "need" it. To put his wealth into perspective, do you remember President Obama and Michael Jordan playing a round several months ago? It was at Crane's club in Florida.
<< <i>Another thread with him talking out of his rear. Shocker!
Here's the 'Stros statement on Forbes' “significant inaccuracies”:
Link >>
Hmm, whom should I believe? Forbes, or a team president, from the same team which refused to open its books to Forbes? Sorry, pally boy, I'll believe Forbes. Of course the mouthpiece for the owner is going to say they aren't making $100 million. The fans (the 20k or so which they bamboozle out of their money nightly) would be outraged. He's using these massive profits to pay off the debt he incurred to buy the team in the first place. I'm sorry you're so blind to the facts, buddy boy. When you resort to signing Roger Clemens' kid as a publicity stunt, and he shuns you? Hilarious.
<< <i>The 'Stros have been completely torn down to the foundation and in the process of being built back up. Our future looks extremely promising with a flush minor league system and promising young stars. I'm very, very excited for years to come. >>
Meanwhile, the team is charging major league pricing for minor league talent. $21 million team salary is a joke, and the sole reason they have the worst record in the bigs (beating out the Marlins! That takes effort.) Even funnier? The Astros aren't getting better. Period. 8-16 in August? LOL
<< <i>Hmm, whom should I believe? Forbes, or a team president, from the same team which refused to open its books to Forbes? >>
I'm gonna need your last 3 years of tax returns, current holdings, and any retirement accounts you have for review. Oh, you're not obligated to provide your financials, even though I requested them, just like the 'Stros? Well, in that case, when did you stop beating your Grammy?
<< <i>When you resort to signing Roger Clemens' kid as a publicity stunt, and he shuns you? Hilarious. >>
We never signed Kacy; we drafted him in the 35th round after he posted a 8-0 record with a 1.and change ERA as a Senior in HS and committed to UT. It's called minimal risk versus extremely high reward. Maybe you've heard of that?
<< <i>$21 million team salary is a joke, and the sole reason they have the worst record in the bigs >>
Yet somehow we're 5-6 against the mighty Mariners and their +/- $85MM payroll. BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
<< <i>The more you post about a topic you have zero knowledge of, the more you highlight your ignorance for the whole world to see. >>
I'm sorry that you feel a team employee is a more valuable source of unbiased and accurate information than Forbes magazine. It's apparent that your team can sell you a minor league team and you'll be more than willing to pony up your money and defend its billionaire owner.
<< <i>I'm gonna need your last 3 years of tax returns, current holdings, and any retirement accounts you have for review. Oh, you're not obligated to provide your financials, even though I requested them, just like the 'Stros? Well, in that case, when did you stop beating your Grammy? >>
You continue to try to make this about me, when the topic is the fraud of an owner paying off the debt he incurred to buy the team by pocketing TV money and revenue sharing by putting a sham of a product out there. My entire point of contention is if there is going to be mandatory revenue sharing based on luxury taxes there *must* be a salary floor. Frauds like Crane and KC Royals owner Glass are a big problem in baseball. Gutting teams and using corporate welfare to line their own pockets is pathetic. Even more pathetic? Brain-washed fans who keep parroting the company lines like 'its going to get better!' and attacking anyone or anything who dares to call into question the motives of a billionaire.
<< <i>We never signed Kacy; we drafted him in the 35th round after he posted a 8-0 record with a 1.and change ERA as a Senior in HS and committed to UT. It's called minimal risk versus extremely high reward. Maybe you've heard of that? >>
Why would he sign with a team that's unwilling to put money into its big league team? If a quality team had signed him, a team that was willing to put some money into the product on the field, maybe he wouldn't have opted to go to college instead. If you think he's going to college if a team like the Yankees, or Red Sox, or Dodgers had signed him, then you really are naive.
<< <i>Yet somehow we're 5-6 against the mighty Mariners and their +/- $85MM payroll. BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! >>
Again, you continue to put up these stats that have no relevance to the topic at hand: an owner completely out of control who is using a major league franchise to finance his purchase of said team. When a team like the Marlins does this, everyone cries foul. No matter how much you try to spin this topic, stownie boy, the facts are the facts: the Astros, by virtue of paying a bunch of scrubs, are going to take home $100 MILLION. It's comical the lengths and depths of how naive you are in this matter. Throwing up strawmen arguments attempting to attack me doesn't help your case one bit - in fact, it only makes the side you are defending look even worse.
<< <i> when the topic is the fraud of an owner paying off the debt he incurred to buy the team by pocketing TV money and revenue sharing by putting a sham of a product out there. >>
So what you're saying is that he is operating on a tight budget and paying off his current debts before spending more money and acquiring new liabilities? How is that fraud as opposed to sensible business?
<< <i> the facts are the facts: the Astros, by virtue of paying a bunch of scrubs, are going to take home $100 MILLION >>
If the purpose of the business is to earn profit, another fact is that the Astros are by far the most successful team in the league.
According to Forbes, the year before Crane bought the team, Houston was 26th in the league in income. His first year owning the team, they jumped to nearly $25 million in income, now it's up to $99 million in less than two years. Unless there's something I'm missing, definitely one of the brightest owners to come along in a long time
Please enlighten us with your self proclaimed knowledge of the Astros franchise. What have they done from top to bottom in the past three years? I'll wait while your google powers activate and I truly look forward to a detailed response.
By the way, stown, when you resort to attacking someone without debating the merits of the fact based article it just makes you look even more ridiculous.
Additionally, it's now a fact based article, even though the author never saw their finances.
Still waiting to hear when you stopped beating your Granny.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>You keep using that word [fraud/fraudulent]. I do not think it means what you think it means. >>
Wow, a Princess Bride reference. I'm sure you break that out often, but, no, I am quite aware of what fraud and fraudulent means. I think *you* may be the one who is unfamiliar with the term. Here's a definition for you:
"1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage. "
<< <i>Additionally, it's now a fact based article, even though the author never saw their finances. >>
A heck of a lot more based on fact that the team president being trotted out by the owner to essentially say 'trust us! We're not just taking your money and running!'
<< <i>Still waiting to hear when you stopped beating your Granny. >>
Well, seeing as both my paternal and maternal grandmothers passed away several years ago, I won't be able to accomodate you, but thank you for bringing up their passing. Stay classy, stown.
<< <i>In taking home money. By not spending essentially any money ($21 million in salary), and raking in TV revenue and money from revenue sharing, and the Houston Astros, yes, the team with the worst record in baseball, is making the most money.
Link
Teams that 'spend' like this is why revenue sharing is a joke. Fielding a bunch of AAA guys and then getting to reap $5 million from other teams is ridiculous. MLB needs to get with the program and put a revenue floor in. >>
Keep swingin' that 'Ax', 'tell you can't no mo...
The author has *never* seen their financials (not public record nor is he entitled to them), so his assumptions are not facts. The onus to disprove the allegation is placed upon the accused.
Go learn some math and then come back more educated about evaluating businesses, rather than talking out of your rear, as usual.
<< <i>The purpose of running a mlb team is to put as a competitive team on the field as possible. >>
You and Astros management disagree on this one. From their position they get to earn $99 million this year; from your position, you get to whine about it on the internet
<< <i>Running out minor leaguers and charging major league prices is fraudulent. >>
Using your definition of fraud, this is hard to believe. The team is completely honest and transparent about what players they will put on the field. None of us who spend money or time to watch them are deceived or tricked into it in any way. Every team involved in this "welfare" program know exactly what the costs and benefits are, they all know exactly how to avoid paying into and how to collect from the system they all choose to create
I can really appreciate the Astros approach: buy less stuff and have more money. I struggle to understand why people disagree so strongly that our world could ever work like that
<< <i>
I can really appreciate the Astros approach: buy less stuff and have more money. I struggle to understand why people disagree so strongly that our world could ever work like that >>
Because consumption=income (you seem like a pretty smart guy, so you're probably familiar with this, but I'll link anyway):
Text
On a sporting level, I think it's hard to defend the practice of deliberate tanking, since it would seem to me to run completely contrary to the spirit of sport.
<< <i>
I can really appreciate the Astros approach: buy less stuff and have more money. I struggle to understand why people disagree so strongly that our world could ever work like that >>
With this mentality, it would be in every team's financial best interest to tank. Sports teams are not a traditional business model, period.
<< <i>On a sporting level, I think it's hard to defend the practice of deliberate tanking, since it would seem to me to run completely contrary to the spirit of sport. >>
Are they deliberately tanking or are they amassing different resources than $125 million free agents? Hasn't it always been that winning meant more profit, so that's always what the teams tried to do? Or has owning a team always just been another toy and only now are the Astros exposing how ridiculous the incentive structure is?
I'm not smart enough to understand that Keyes theory. If "total income (and thus demand) must equal total output" doesn't that mean the Astros with the greatest total income also have the greatest total output? Or does it mean the total MLB income equals its total output, in which case the Astros income is coming at the expense of another team, a team that wins more. Why does baseball want that system? If they don't how did they let it happen?
<< <i>With this mentality, it would be in every team's financial best interest to tank. Sports teams are not a traditional business model, period. >>
No, it would be in their best interest to pay players only based on the profits they help produce. Why are some teams refusing to do this?
<< <i>
<< <i>With this mentality, it would be in every team's financial best interest to tank. Sports teams are not a traditional business model, period. >>
No, it would be in their best interest to pay players only based on the profits they help produce. Why are some teams refusing to do this? >>
You continue to insist that a sports team can follow a traditional business model and that simply is not possible. Why do teams refuse to do this? Because you sign and pay players BEFORE their results, not AFTER.
Sticking up for a team that is deliberately tanking (and releasing/trading every player but one making more than a million dollars IS tanking) is beyond reproach. A team taking home tens of millions in dollars in profits while sticking it to fans who buy tickets, let alone its broadcast partner paying tens of millions of dollars in broadcast rights, is pathetic.
I wonder what the astros defense will be when next year they're bottom dwellars in both salary and record again.
<< <i>let alone its broadcast partner paying tens of millions of dollars in broadcast rights, is pathetic. >>
Oh, that broadcast partner in which they're the majority owner? The one that has lost millions upon millions? I'm guessing you didn't know that. Yeah, you didn't.
Speaking of pathetic....
<< <i>
<< <i>let alone its broadcast partner paying tens of millions of dollars in broadcast rights, is pathetic. >>
Oh, that broadcast partner in which they're the majority owner? The one that has lost millions upon millions? I'm guessing you didn't know that. Yeah, you didn't.
Speaking of pathetic.... >>
They've lost money because they're trying to extort satellite and cable providers with ridiculous channel costs, and, based on the garbage the Astros are serving, the carriers are rightfully saying 'get lost'.
Try again, homer.
<< <i>
Sticking up for a team that is deliberately tanking (and releasing/trading every player but one making more than a million dollars IS tanking) is beyond reproach. >>
Believing people will not act in their own self interest is beyond idiotic. In business that means doing what is most profitable. The teams choices are to either earn millions in profit or do what people on internet chat rooms want them to do. According to what Forbes has reported, I truly believe what the Astros are doing is completely transparent and not fraudulent, which you allege, but defend only with a dictionary definition. Other teams have used the strategy of earning profits by spending less than what revenue sharing provides, now it seems the only problem with the Astros is that they are doing it a lot better. Why do you think the Astros deserve to be vilified, when the the system that allows this to happen was put into place 10 years before current Houston management ever took over?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>let alone its broadcast partner paying tens of millions of dollars in broadcast rights, is pathetic. >>
Oh, that broadcast partner in which they're the majority owner? The one that has lost millions upon millions? I'm guessing you didn't know that. Yeah, you didn't.
Speaking of pathetic.... >>
They've lost money because they're trying to extort satellite and cable providers with ridiculous channel costs, and, based on the garbage the Astros are serving, the carriers are rightfully saying 'get lost'.
Try again, homer. >>
I'm quoting that because it displays your ignorance. I'm not saying that in a derogatory way but rather you're completely uneducated about a particular topic. You're regurgitating words you saw on the interwebs without having a full understanding of the whole story. It's almost like you're spewing explosive diarrhea all over a bathroom stall and hoping at least some lands inside the toilet.
So far we have accusations of fraud, wild brained conspiracy theories, and now extortion. Statistically speaking, you should eventually hit something.
<< <i>Why do you think the Astros deserve to be vilified, when the the system that allows this to happen was put into place 10 years before current Houston management ever took over? >>
He's attempting to troll but failing miserably at it.
Stown you have shown repeatedly you are more interested in name calling and spinning and doing everything but admitting the Astros and its new owner is tanking. I'm out of this conversation. Good luck with your trolling.
I think the problem sports fans have with the situation is that the Cranes are happy to take revenues from other teams but they are not only not trying to improve their major league team, they're actively trying to make it worse. It's a tough pill to swallow when your team is coughing up money to an owner that: A) Doesn't need it; and
<< <i>
<< <i>On a sporting level, I think it's hard to defend the practice of deliberate tanking, since it would seem to me to run completely contrary to the spirit of sport. >>
Are they deliberately tanking or are they amassing different resources than $125 million free agents? Hasn't it always been that winning meant more profit, so that's always what the teams tried to do? Or has owning a team always just been another toy and only now are the Astros exposing how ridiculous the incentive structure is?
I'm not smart enough to understand that Keyes theory. If "total income (and thus demand) must equal total output" doesn't that mean the Astros with the greatest total income also have the greatest total output? Or does it mean the total MLB income equals its total output, in which case the Astros income is coming at the expense of another team, a team that wins more. Why does baseball want that system? If they don't how did they let it happen? >>
Fair questions, and I will do my best to answer them as best as I can.
1) Are they deliberately tanking or are they amassing different resources than $125 million free agents?
I don't see these as being exclusive. You can deliberately tank and still amass resources other than players.
2)Hasn't it always been that winning meant more profit, so that's always what the teams tried to do?
My recollection is that winning is only loosely correlated with profitability in professional sports. I think I read that in 'Wages of Wins', though I'm not certain. And I could be wrong even on that point.
3) Or has owning a team always just been another toy and only now are the Astros exposing how ridiculous the incentive structure is?
I think people have owned teams for many different reasons; Jeffrey Loria's motives, for example, are likely very different from Mark Cuban's. I do agree that the Astros as exposing how ridiculous the incentive structure is-- which, to my eye, amounts to 'put out a horrible team, then collect revenue sharing dollars and get high draft picks'- since this system incentivizes losing. However, just because the Astros have exposed the ridiculousness of the incentive structure does not-- or should not- preclude fans or even neutral observers from chastising the Astros for exploiting it.
4)
I'm not smart enough to understand that Keyes theory. If "total income (and thus demand) must equal total output" doesn't that mean the Astros with the greatest total income also have the greatest total output? Or does it mean the total MLB income equals its total output, in which case the Astros income is coming at the expense of another team, a team that wins more. Why does baseball want that system? If they don't how did they let it happen?
My inclusion of the Keynes link was in response to the general statement you made earlier, which inquired as to why everyone so strongly disagreed with the notion that the world can still function if we all save more than we make. It doesn't apply (or at least it doesn't neatly apply) to micromarkets like the market for MLB.
<< <i>I suspect both sides - Forbes and the Cranes - are correct in this case. Forbes might be off in their projections but there's no doubt that the Astros will be massively profitable this year. The Cranes might be that the numbers are less than what Forbes is saying. They might also be right that they are trying to build a minor league system for the long haul. That said, there can be no doubt that they are making no attempt to competitive this year. None. And that, folks, is against everything sports teams are supposed to be trying to do.
I think the problem sports fans have with the situation is that the Cranes are happy to take revenues from other teams but they are not only not trying to improve their major league team, they're actively trying to make it worse. It's a tough pill to swallow when your team is coughing up money to an owner that: A) Doesn't need it; and
One other slightly OT question: How do the Astros qualify for revenue sharing? Isn't Houston something like the 4th biggest city in the U.S.? I though revenue sharing was based on the size of the market in which teams competed. Is this incorrect?
<< <i>That said, there can be no doubt that they are making no attempt to competitive this year. None. And that, folks, is against everything sports teams are supposed to be trying to do. >>
That is, at best, extremely misleading. You cannot completely rebuild a franchise from the ground up yet simultaneously field a competitive team. It goes in cycles but with ownership and league changes, our circumstances are not the norm. We're finally seeing the dividends from trades and the long haul looks promising.
Having said that, if we consistently have the worst record and lowest payroll 4 or 5 years from now, then you absolutely have a legitimate point.
<< <i>One other slightly OT question: How do the Astros qualify for revenue sharing? Isn't Houston something like the 4th biggest city in the U.S.? I though revenue sharing was based on the size of the market in which teams competed. Is this incorrect? >>
Shhhh... Don't let those pesky facts get in their way.
edited to add: it includes media markets as well and we fall much lower than 4th, even though we're the 4th largest metro.
<< <i>
<< <i>One other slightly OT question: How do the Astros qualify for revenue sharing? Isn't Houston something like the 4th biggest city in the U.S.? I though revenue sharing was based on the size of the market in which teams competed. Is this incorrect? >>
Shhhh... Don't let those pesky facts get in their way.
edited to add: it includes media markets as well and we fall much lower than 4th, even though we're the 4th largest metro. >>
What do you mean, 'let those pesky facts in the way'. Get in the way of what?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>One other slightly OT question: How do the Astros qualify for revenue sharing? Isn't Houston something like the 4th biggest city in the U.S.? I though revenue sharing was based on the size of the market in which teams competed. Is this incorrect? >>
Shhhh... Don't let those pesky facts get in their way.
edited to add: it includes media markets as well and we fall much lower than 4th, even though we're the 4th largest metro. >>
What do you mean, 'let those pesky facts in the way'. Get in the way of what? >>
It blows a hole axtell's theory of somehow pocketing revenue sharing that's based upon a team's record.
edited to add: and/or payroll. he was spinning so much it's kinda hard to nail down a point.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>One other slightly OT question: How do the Astros qualify for revenue sharing? Isn't Houston something like the 4th biggest city in the U.S.? I though revenue sharing was based on the size of the market in which teams competed. Is this incorrect? >>
Shhhh... Don't let those pesky facts get in their way.
edited to add: it includes media markets as well and we fall much lower than 4th, even though we're the 4th largest metro. >>
What do you mean, 'let those pesky facts in the way'. Get in the way of what? >>
It blows a hole axtell's theory of somehow pocketing revenue sharing that's based upon a team's record.
edited to add: and/or payroll. he was spinning so much it's kinda hard to nail down a point. >>
Ah- I must have missed that.
I don't know exactly what the revenue sharing formula is, but I'm nearly certain that a team's W/L record isn't part of the calculation.
His whole premise doesn't compute but that's his MO.
<< <i>It's based upon the market size (small [PIT, TB], medium [HOU, ATL], and large [NY, BOS]), operating revenue, and luxury tax.
His whole premise doesn't compute but that's his MO. >>
I never once said that revenue sharing was based on record, and my only point on this topic came in my original post. I said that being able to accept the equivalent of welfare while at the same time paying next to nothing in team salry is a joke. Peter Gammons said as much in a series of tweets on the topic:
""If I'm an ALE or ALC owner, Houston's plan to have no payroll, lose, get the 1-2 pick 4 years in a row and still steal revenue-sharing $ [money] may guarantee 3 teams in the AL West win 90 games, and make the playoffs, and spit on the integrity of the sport.""
You lose, stop trying to defend the ridiculous nature of collecting revenue from teams actually trying to win. Here's how revenue sharing is computed:
"In order to combat the growing revenue disparity among major league teams, MLB first instituted a revenue sharing program back in 1996. The plan was slowly phased in over a couple of years, and then was simplified and improved during the 2002 CBA negotiations. The current revenue sharing program has not changed much since then, with minor tweaks along the way. Although the plan is far from perfect, it has managed to give small market teams a much needed boost in order to keep them on somewhat-competitive footing with large market teams.
Under its current iteration, MLBfs revenue sharing program looks something like this:
œ Every team in the majors pays in 31% of their net local revenue, and then that money is divided up and equally distributed to every team. Since large-market teams will have much greater local revenues than small market teams, this already puts small market teams in the black.
œ On top of this, a large chunk of MLBfs central fund (which are acquired through things like national broadcasts) is set aside to be allocated to teams based on their revenues.
œ By 2016, the fifteen teams in the largest markets in baseball will be disqualified from receiving revenue sharing. This feature is being phased in over the coming years. The disqualified clubs will receive a refund for the amount that they would have received in revenue sharing, although teams that have exceeded the Luxury Tax threshold in recent years will not receive a full refund."
Revenue Sharing
Think.
" "It doesn't bother me that people want us to spend more money," Crane said. "But it's not their money. This is a private company, even though it's got a public flair to it. If they want to write a check for 10 million bucks, they can give me a call.""
They're also leaving money on the table when it comes to draft picks, and not spending the full amount that they can, which shoots holes in the idea that they are 'rebuilding'. For the 2013 draft they left over a million dollars of bonus money unused (about the equivalent of another 1st round pick). It also looks like they left a significant portion of their 12-13 international bonus money unused and are currently well under budget for the 13-14 period.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>One other slightly OT question: How do the Astros qualify for revenue sharing? Isn't Houston something like the 4th biggest city in the U.S.? I though revenue sharing was based on the size of the market in which teams competed. Is this incorrect? >>
Shhhh... Don't let those pesky facts get in their way.
edited to add: it includes media markets as well and we fall much lower than 4th, even though we're the 4th largest metro. >>
What do you mean, 'let those pesky facts in the way'. Get in the way of what? >>
It blows a hole axtell's theory of somehow pocketing revenue sharing that's based upon a team's record.
edited to add: and/or payroll. he was spinning so much it's kinda hard to nail d
own a point. >>
Ah- I must have missed that.
I don't know exactly what the revenue sharing formula is, but I'm nearly certain that a team's W/L record isn't part of the calculation. >>
Yup. There are two pools. One is central fund revenue, which comes from national television and radio deals, MLBam (ML Baseball Advanced Media), merchandise sales and the MLB Network which each team put $1M in startup to begin with. The second pool is made up of net local revenues, such as ticket sales, concessions and media deals that each club negotiates for television and radio. Against that money, each club is hit with a marginal rate of 31%, which is applied across the board to each of the 30 clubs.
Then the supplemental pool is the sketchy plan calculated under a "Performance Factor" and the "big market teams" are considered the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Dodgers, Angels, Cubs, White Sox, Giants, Blue Jays, Phillies, Nationals, Braves, Rangers and yes, the Astros who will all will forfeit 25% of their net revenue-sharing proceeds. There are also escalators in additional years. Not sure if this 25% was calculated in that Forbes report. The supplemental plan is to raise the overall percentage of revenue shared by the "big market"-Payor Clubs with each team contributing a different amount to this supplemental plan, based on the chart below. The Net Local Revenue of each club is added together and then multiplied by .48 (for 48%). The result is the “Net Transfer Value” for the revenue-sharing year. The Net Transfer Value of the base plan is 34% of total Net Local Revenue...meaning the Net Transfer Value of the supplemental plan is 14% of total Net Local Revenue. The clubs with positive Performance Factors contribute to the supplemental plan in an amount equal to the Net Transfer Value of the supplemental plan multiplied by the club’s Performance Factor. The clubs receiving funds get an amount equal to the Net Transfer Value of the supplemental plan multiplied by the club’s Performance Factor. Per FG'S example, if the Net Transfer Value of the supplemental plan for 2012 was $50 million, the Yankees would contribute $13.85 million and the Marlins would receive $3.9 million.
<< <i>Not sure if this 25% was calculated in that Forbes report. >>
It wasn't nor did the author factor in anything below the line. This includes (but not limited to) operating losses from CSNH, capital expenditures (ie stadium renovations), complete staff turnover and compensation, equity splits, amortization, etc. As I'm sure you know, those unaccounted numbers can turn a cash cow into something that just breaks even or suffer massive losses. It was basically back of the envelope assumptions and a splashy headline to generate hits.
Take note, axtell. Lane and I disagree on *a lot* of things but his articulate explanation above is absolutely spot on. That's something you cannot comprehend with a quick google search. You can continue to talk out of your rear but it displays your ignorance on the subject.
Fact: The Astros team salary, at opening day, was just under $25 million (it's since been trimmed to around $16 million).
Fact: The Marlins, which every sportswriter in the country crucified for getting rid of its high priced talent, still opened the season with a payroll over over 1.5 times that of the Astros.
Fact: Crane is on record as saying the team would *not* lose money this year Interview
Fact: Since 2005, no team has a worse record than the Houston Astros, and are on pace for back to back to back years of 106 or more losses, the first time in history this has happened.
Anyone defending a billionaire owner's strategy of putting out a substandard product while pocketing millions is curious, even more so when those defenders are fans of the team. Would spending $30 million more mean the playoffs? Not likely, but it sure as hell would make the team more competitive. What the Astros are doing is thumbing their noses at the entire strategy of competition. MLB should get with the times and start penalizing these teams which are obviously tanking. Instead of rewarding guys like this, make the top selections a lottery.
At least in theory...
<< <i>So now that your previous talking points (which were googled, not actual comprehension of the subject) have been thoroughly debunked, you're now simply grasping at straws. As I said earlier, it's just like spewing explosive diarrhea. Statistically speaking, you should have hit the toilet by now but if you keep it up, you eventually should.
At least in theory... >>
I'm glad you think you know more than Forbes magazine. Hilarious. All on the words of a team president obviously speaking half-truths. The owner is on RECORD as saying the team won't lose money this year, but that still isn't good enough for you.
Speaking of team futures, I'll take a team with 2 all star pitchers, and a wealth of young talent already producing at the major league level than a bunch of prospects who have yet to do squate. BWAHAHAHAHA
<< <i>Fact: Crane received a $70 million discount on the Astros in agreement to move to the American league.
Fact: The Astros team salary, at opening day, was just under $25 million (it's since been trimmed to around $16 million).
Fact: The Marlins, which every sportswriter in the country crucified for getting rid of its high priced talent, still opened the season with a payroll over over 1.5 times that of the Astros.
Fact: Crane is on record as saying the team would *not* lose money this year Interview
Fact: Since 2005, no team has a worse record than the Houston Astros, and are on pace for back to back to back years of 106 or more losses, the first time in history this has happened.
Anyone defending a billionaire owner's strategy of putting out a substandard product while pocketing millions is curious, even more so when those defenders are fans of the team. Would spending $30 million more mean the playoffs? Not likely, but it sure as hell would make the team more competitive. What the Astros are doing is thumbing their noses at the entire strategy of competition. MLB should get with the times and start penalizing these teams which are obviously tanking. Instead of rewarding guys like this, make the top selections a lottery. >>
I think there are two issues you can fairly crack Crane/The Astros for. 1) there is no data to prove this, but common sense would dictate that he's likely going to use money he accrued from revenue sharing to pay down the $200M+ debt he incurred when he purchased the Astros. That is against the CBA's rules (using revenue sharing to pay down franchise debt) but Selig and the other owners will allow him to do it, I suspect, because cash payment or not. he was willing to move the franchise to the AL when it should have been the D-Backs making that move. 2) The Astros could have, and should have been more active in signing young INTL FAs prior to the capped INTL pool spending. Not older guys like Cespedes, but they should have been much more heavily in on at least one of Puig, Soler, or even the less pricey Urias, Osuna etc. For them not to sign one notable INTL FA over the end of uncapped INTL spending era during this down this period is fair to criticize IMO.
<< <i>I'm glad you think you know more than Forbes magazine. >>
You obviously think you know more than Forbes, now reporting that the original research and conclusion was wrong
http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2013/08/29/erroneous-story-claiming-houston-astros-most-profitable-ever-a-massive-strikeout/