So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Just another author spinning his take. Since Crane is on record saying the Astros won't lose money this year I'm still on board with the original story being closer to the truth than this.
<< <i>Just another author spinning his take. Since Crane is on record saying the Astros won't lose money this year I'm still on board with the original story being closer to the truth than this. >>
Maury Brown is also on record as saying the Astros will earn a profit, so your reason for dismissing him sounds like complete horse sh-t
The main disagreement among the Forbes journalists is the amount of profit
The spin Alexander comes up with is that the Astros will get $80 million from their regional sports network that the team has partial ownership of. Crane says that is not true. Brown says that is virtually impossible and comes up with reasons why. While Alexander provided no data to support his claim that the TV revenue jumped from $30 million the year before
Crane has to cover his tracks, because, as was mentioned elsewhere, its expressly against the rules of MLB team ownership to use profits to pay down debts incurred to purchase said team. Whatever the proft amount is, it simply doesn't take away from the facts of the matter that Crane and Co. are putting a substandard product on the field, slashed payroll to do it, and is putting money in his pocket. It flies in the face of everything which competition is supposed to be about. Trotting out a substandard product is unacceptable in any field, but doing so while pocketing profits is ridiculous.
* As I've been saying this entire time, fact of the matter is there are clouds in the sky. DUH!
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
It's downright hilarious that people are defending the practice of tanking. One of the most anti-competitive moves a team can make. Even worse when said teams owner is more than capable of spending money on the team and simply refuses to. They say you can't buy the playoffs but a miniscule salary means you're always going to be terrible.
<< <i>Forget all of the ignorant diarrhea I spewed out earlier. Without a doubt, the sky is brown!! Maybe... >>
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
If the Astros are indeed losing money (which some must be making, to so vigorously oppose the original story I linked in which they are highly profitable), what possible course does this set the team on? If they're losing money despite having a miniscule team salary, how in the hell are they ever supposed to field a competitive team? If the argument is the take rate of their regional network is so low, how exactly is that supposed to climb when the team is historically bad (as in never in baseball has a team lost 106 or more games 3 years in a row, worst winning percentage since 2005, etc.) If $20 million in team salary isn't enough to make this team profitable, then it's easily the worst run franchise in all of professional sports.
Here's a follow up article that refutes the idea that the Astros are losing money, even taking into account the regional sports network (which the team has a 45% stake in).
No one person has even implied the Astros were losing money.
I will point out a factual error, though:
<< <i>as in never in baseball has a team lost 106 or more games 3 years in a row >>
Actually a MLB team has lost more than 106 games *4* years in a row. Look it up.
Spewing. Diarrhea. Cha-cha-cha.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Dangit! I worded it like that on purpose. Would have forced him to research, rather than his typical MO of copy/paste-ing.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Oh wow you really got me there stown. So your beloved Astros are the first team in over 50 years to lose 106 or more in three straight years. Nice job! You weren't the first to do it. Throw in the pocketing of revenue sharing money while at the same time putting a pathetically low $20 million club out there makes the Astros' owner the worst of the worst.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <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/ >>
Just another author spinning his take. Since Crane is on record saying the Astros won't lose money this year I'm still on board with the original story being closer to the truth than this.
<< <i>Just another author spinning his take. Since Crane is on record saying the Astros won't lose money this year I'm still on board with the original story being closer to the truth than this. >>
Maury Brown is also on record as saying the Astros will earn a profit, so your reason for dismissing him sounds like complete horse sh-t
The main disagreement among the Forbes journalists is the amount of profit
The spin Alexander comes up with is that the Astros will get $80 million from their regional sports network that the team has partial ownership of. Crane says that is not true. Brown says that is virtually impossible and comes up with reasons why. While Alexander provided no data to support his claim that the TV revenue jumped from $30 million the year before
# No it's not.
* The sky is definitely green.
# No, it's not.
* As I've been saying this entire time, fact of the matter is there are clouds in the sky. DUH!
<< <i>Forget all of the ignorant diarrhea I spewed out earlier. Without a doubt, the sky is brown!! Maybe... >>
Here's a follow up article that refutes the idea that the Astros are losing money, even taking into account the regional sports network (which the team has a 45% stake in).
Follow Up
No one person has even implied the Astros were losing money.
I will point out a factual error, though:
<< <i>as in never in baseball has a team lost 106 or more games 3 years in a row >>
Actually a MLB team has lost more than 106 games *4* years in a row. Look it up.
Spewing. Diarrhea. Cha-cha-cha.
<< <i>Actually a MLB team has lost more than 106 games *4* years in a row. Look it up. >>
That team actually lost 109 or more four straight seasons