Friday, April 08, 2005

What'$ thi$ po$t'$ $ubject?

Forbes releases its MLB franchise figures, a/k/a Michael Ozanian's time to shine

Lots of links stem off from the main page, and most of which contain characters that frustrate Blogger's ability to create hyperlinks. So just refer to that main link and jump off from there.

I'm not The Sports Economist or anything, so I'll mainly point out what I find interesting, without much comment.

First of all, you could say that last year was a good one for MLB:

Attendance last year was up by 8% to 73 million, and sponsorship revenue rose 13% to $465 million. The league's operating income averaged $4.4 million per team last year, the first time in three years baseball was profitable and the highest figure since Forbes began tracking team finances
seven years ago.

Everyone loves the Yankees and Red Sox (call it a "Fever Pitch"---guh):

The Yankees and Red Sox are often maligned by the other owners for bloated payrolls. Rivals should pay homage instead: The two teams
contributed 39% of the $261 million transferred to low-revenue teams as part of baseball's revenue-sharing plan. Also, attendance was higher (Yankees, 34%; Red Sox, 18%) when these teams visited other cities.

Hello, Baltimore Orioles!

Speaking of Team Angelos, guess which team lead the league in 2004 operating income:

1. Baltimore Orioles, $34M

In all, the Orioles were 12th in revenue.

The Yankees were first in revenue, of course, and last in operating income; they claim a $37.1M loss in 2004. This means either that they're nearing a limit on even what they reasonably should spend or that they're wildly understating their own YES! Network revenue (or just disproportionately crediting the network itself, rather than the team, with the profits). But baseball teams don't do that, right?

Anyway, on to the Nats. Here's how they look, according to Forbes:

---> Team valuation: $310M (12th)
---> One-year valuation change: +110% (1st---go figure!)
---> Debt/value ratio: 45% (20th---part of a pretty big pack ~ 40%)
---> 2004 revenues: $80M (last---and with a bullet; everyone else took in at least $100M)
---> 2004 operating income: - $3M (22nd)

Check it out for yourself.

I'll do my Arte Johnson imitation now.... "Verrrrrry interesting!"

We made an operating income? That's pretty surprising, even if it's just $3MM.

I'd also say that the Yankees numbers are pretty realistic. They wouldn't really budget so sign Beltran, who was practically begging to play for them. Even with some YES Shenanigins, 200MM is a lot of money!

This team's going to be a cash cow, just on the TV Revenue alone.
Yep. Short of the DCCC saying, "Hey owner, whoever you are: pay fer yer own park," the team's gonna be commonly-accepted big market in four years, tops.

Re: the Yankees, I guess you'd know better. I seem to recall they made a conscious decision to get two expensive starting pitchers as opposed to one uber-expensive CF. (Stupid! Stupid!) They have to get tapped at some point, and maybe not getting EVERYONE this time was a sign of it, though.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?