MLB owners

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 12:49 pm

StL_Dan wrote:MLB owners, even decent ones like Glass, DO NOT wish to spend any of their own money, even if it is a fraction of the total cost, to build a new stadium.

MLB owners like Glass seem more worried about the bottom line than improvements and winning. They may SAY otherwise, but their actions MORE than illuminate their true position.

Sad but true. Glass will have to pony up a lot more before I'd help pay for a new stadium or a renovated Kaufmann. I realize that it's tough or even impossible to find $100 million-plus for stadium construction/renovation and still have enough to field a winning team, but ultimately that's not taxpayers' problem. Baseball got itself into this mess.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 12:55 pm

now wait a minute Dan...are you attempting to say Glass isn't comfortable with losing millions every year on his baseball team? What a horrible person.

For some reason baseball fans have trained themselves to think any owner that isn't willing to waste money is a cheap ass. In no other business or sport is the owner EXPECTED to lose money.

I have ZERO problem with Glass watching out for his investment. Owners that don't are idiots. Glass should be allowed to break even on a $100M investment, don't you think?

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 1:44 pm

I think that the issue is larger than a single owner, with the possible exception of Big Stein. Over the past decade, the owners, agents and players got themselves into a situation that's no longer sustainable. I can't fault Glass for not wanting to spend $10 million or $20 million per top player. That's crazy unless there's a direct correlation between that player's performance and the bottom line (e.g., higher attendance, a playoff run). In any other business, every major purcase requires a business case. Glass apparently is applying those rules to baseball. But with most other owners spending themselves scarlet, Glass winds up looking like a cheapskate rather than a businessman.

That said, I have to wonder why he became an owner. He knew that baseball has major problems that aren't easily solved.

StL_Dan · Post by **StL_Dan** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 3:18 pm

KC wrote:now wait a minute Dan...are you attempting to say Glass isn't comfortable with losing millions every year on his baseball team? What a horrible person.

For some reason baseball fans have trained themselves to think any owner that isn't willing to waste money is a cheap ass. In no other business or sport is the owner EXPECTED to lose money.

I have ZERO problem with Glass watching out for his investment. Owners that don't are idiots. Glass should be allowed to break even on a $100M investment, don't you think?

i'm not saying Glass isn't comfortable losing up to a certain amount of money each year in the interest of making the Royals "just good enough". he has done a fine enough job doing just that. however, unless he can build a world champion using a 40M payroll and a scrimpy general budget, i'd say he is unwilling to take BIG hits for the next 5 years to make this team what it ought to be to win it all.

i've said it before and i will reiterate now. it is my belief that owning a professional sport is unlike any other conventional business. noone in their right mind would venture to purchase a professional sports team if their primary intent is to "make money" or "run a tight ship" on an annual basis. the only way an owner should truly expect to "make money" on a pro franchise these days is to keep the team in town for a period of time, improve the ability of the venue to generate revenue and/or build a new megarevenue generating venue so as to sell the team at a steep markup from the original purchase price. this happened in texas and may happen in st louis. owners of sports teams are by and large ego maniacs that made their millions/billions in other traditional businesses and now have the luxury to own their favorite team as is the case with Glass. but even Glass understands how to swell his bottom line. unfortunately, it looks as though he thinks it will be through renovation of a stadium in a barren land.

in answer to your final question......no, i do not expect Glass to necessarily break even on his 100M investment. i DO expect his VERY BEST effort at putting a contender on the field even if it means running his investment into the red for many a consecutive year to come.

i ESPECIALLY expect this of the STL Cardinals franchise. sadly, it's not happening there either. it pisses me off too.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 3:24 pm

every other pro sport owner is making money hand over fist yearly.

Glass is doing a great job of building a winner on a budget. The years of blowing your wad for one year winner are gone.

StL_Dan · Post by **StL_Dan** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 3:25 pm

KC0KEK wrote:That said, I have to wonder why he became an owner. He knew that baseball has major problems that aren't easily solved.

BINGO.....You nailed it.

Answer.....his ego and his ability to own his favorite team proved more than his ability to employ his own sound business principals.

He would be a perfect owner for a team back in the 50's 60's and 70's before owners started behaving like they really did have unlimited funds.

StL_Dan · Post by **StL_Dan** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 3:29 pm

KC wrote:every other pro sport owner is making money hand over fist yearly.

Glass is doing a great job of building a winner on a budget. The years of blowing your wad for one year winner are gone.

most of those teams that are making money are not winning.

however, the tide may be turning, KC. we'll have to wait to see. however, i don't think the Royals are in a position to win it all. and that still correlates directly to the ability to spend.....the Marlins notwithstanding.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 3:36 pm

teams aren't spending like they once were. They realize it's not the way to go.

All teams in the NFL are making so much money they don't know what to do. Look at the Chiefs.....great team, still making plenty of cash. Salary cap is the key (along with a salary floor to keep owners from underspending).

I just get sick of people saying Glass isn't trying to win...that's complete B.S.

StL_Dan · Post by **StL_Dan** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 3:53 pm

KC wrote:teams aren't spending like they once were. They realize it's not the way to go.

All teams in the NFL are making so much money they don't know what to do. Look at the Chiefs.....great team, still making plenty of cash. Salary cap is the key (along with a salary floor to keep owners from underspending).

I just get sick of people saying Glass isn't trying to win...that's complete B.S.

yep...the chiefs are making LOTS of money by gouging it's fans, but are not any closer to the super bowl than a bowl of rice is to a white castle. king carl is a great example of a GM who is trying to make money for his owner first and win second.

i belive glass is indeed trying to create a winner....but is not trying to do everythig within his means to create a champion

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 3:58 pm

KC wrote:every other pro sport owner is making money hand over fist yearly.

I didn't know that. Links, please.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 4:18 pm

gouging it's fans? My tickets are middle of the road in the NFL and I've never been forced to pay a PSL.

Carl might not make the best decisions but with a salary cap, you are assured a more even playing field. They are doing everything in their power financially to make a winner......they are not forced to spend more than they make to create a winner like you are in MLB.

KC0kek...you wouldn't believe the links if I supplied them....finding out if a team is really making money is like trying to bust into ft. knox....

StL_Dan · Post by **StL_Dan** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 4:23 pm

KC wrote:gouging it's fans? My tickets are middle of the road in the NFL and I've never been forced to pay a PSL.

Carl might not make the best decisions but with a salary cap, you are assured a more even playing field. They are doing everything in their power financially to make a winner......they are not forced to spend more than they make to create a winner like you are in MLB.

KC0kek...you wouldn't believe the links if I supplied them....finding out if a team is really making money is like trying to bust into ft. knox....

Chiefs parking for every last car = $18....and that will go up

Royals parking for cars filling less than 50% of the lot = $6....that's more like it

The NFL must be the model of pro sports leagues....i wish MLB would follow suit. THAT would definitely make Glass and the Royals players in the race for a championship. Until then, it won't happen.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 4:32 pm

It's more likely to happen now than 5 years ago. Owners are getting smart (kind of like venture capalists)...they don't want A-Rod, they want the NEXT a-rod for the cheap cash.

I'm gouged at all NFL parking lots.....if Chiefs parking was $5 you'd have 80,000 cars out there....high cost makes people ride the bus and carpool...I'm fine with that.

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 4:33 pm

KC wrote:you wouldn't believe the links if I supplied them....finding out if a team is really making money is like trying to bust into ft. knox....

Forbes often ferrets out that type of data, although I haven't seen it in a couple of years.

I'm still confused, though. You originally said, "Every other pro sport owner is making money hand over fist yearly."But if "finding out if a team is really making money is like trying to bust into ft. knox," what was your original comment based on?

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 4:37 pm

opinion and the fact that all other sport don't have owners whining about how much money they lose every year. Salary caps generally keep owners able to make a small profit on their money as well as keep the team competitive. Why MLB hasn't realized this dumbfounds me.

Forbes data is shot down in 1/10th of a second when it's put out....

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 5:04 pm

I can't speak for the NFL and NBA because I don't follow those, but there's definitely plenty of NHL owners whining -- so much so that a strike after this season is almost inevitable. The big difference between the NHL and MLB is TV revenue: The NHL doesn't have a lucrative deal, so it's dependent on ticket sales to pay salaries, which have soared. That's not a sustainable situation; hence, the strike.

Speaking of the NHL, I saw an article a few weeks ago about an owner that approached Winnipeg because, as he reportedly said, "we're in trouble." Winnipeg acknowledged the meeting but wouldn't identify the team, other than denying that it was the Penguins.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 5:07 pm

well I don't follow the NHL so that may be. I went to my first NHL game like a month ago and can see why they are hurting....that game is better watched on TV. Without that tv deal anybody will die.

Not sure on the NHL financials at all...do they have any sort of cap in place to hold down salaries? If so is it successfull (sounds like it's not)

StL_Dan · Post by **StL_Dan** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 5:09 pm

KC0KEK wrote:I can't speak for the NFL and NBA because I don't follow those, but there's definitely plenty of NHL owners whining -- so much so that a strike after this season is almost inevitable. The big difference between the NHL and MLB is TV revenue: The NHL doesn't have a lucrative deal, so it's dependent on ticket sales to pay salaries, which have soared. That's not a sustainable situation; hence, the strike.

Speaking of the NHL, I saw an article a few weeks ago about an owner that approached Winnipeg because, as he reportedly said, "we're in trouble." Winnipeg acknowledged the meeting but wouldn't identify the team, other than denying that it was the Penguins.

completely off the subject (almost), i remember when the blues were rumored to moved to canada lured by the city of saskatoon, saskatchewan back in the 80's.

the loss of a limb would not have hurt me more had that happened

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 5:11 pm

I remember that, too. No way that Saskatoon could have supported more than an AHL team. That market is way too small.

StL_Dan · Post by **StL_Dan** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 5:12 pm

did you say you were a big hockey fan, KC0?