PDA

View Full Version : Payroll vs Revenue?



Yoosh
07-11-2012, 08:31 AM
So there has been a lot of talk lately of payroll. Max payroll etc etc....

What I came across is a few discrepancies in Revenue vs Payroll. Using these two references listed below to produce our revenue and payroll figures (and profit). The two teams I used are the twins and the phillies.

2011 Revenue and profit
Twins: 213 million (26.5 million in profit/income)
Phillies: 239 million (8.9 million in profit/income)

2012 Payroll figures
Twins: 94 million
Phillies: 173 million

How is it with only 20 million more in revenue the phillies can achieve a payroll $79 million higher and still turn a 9 million dollar profit? To calculate operating expenses I used the following calculation: Total revenue - Payroll - Profit(income)
Phillies
$239mil - $173mil - $9mil = $57mil in operating expenses.
Twins
$213mil - $94mil - $26.5mil = $92.5mil in operating expenses

So the twins use $35 million more a year in operating expenses than the phillies do? Is their (the phillies) stadium deal that much more rich or are the twins that cheap? Is my math out to left field? My level of understanding in this subject is minimal at best. Hopefully one of the better educated posters out there could help me understand if I'm crazy or my train of thought is correct and we the Minnesota fans are getting a bum deal?

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_land.html

http://espn.go.com/mlb/team/salaries/_/name/min/minnesota-twins


P.S. Hello from Italy!

gunnarthor
07-11-2012, 11:00 AM
Honestly, it's all speculation until the owners are forced to show the books. Forbes is making guesses, too.

The Dodger divorce showed a little bit of how owners can move money around so it doesn't seem like the team is making profit while making a lot of it. -shrug- I'm of the opinion that the Twins could easily spend much more every year if they wanted to without hurting their bottom line but, like most teams, don't.

Highabove
07-11-2012, 11:11 AM
So there has been a lot of talk lately of payroll. Max payroll etc etc....

What I came across is a few discrepancies in Revenue vs Payroll. Using these two references listed below to produce our revenue and payroll figures (and profit). The two teams I used are the twins and the phillies.

2011 Revenue and profit
Twins: 213 million (26.5 million in profit/income)
Phillies: 239 million (8.9 million in profit/income)

2012 Payroll figures
Twins: 94 million
Phillies: 173 million

How is it with only 20 million more in revenue the phillies can achieve a payroll $79 million higher and still turn a 9 million dollar profit? To calculate operating expenses I used the following calculation: Total revenue - Payroll - Profit(income)
Phillies
$239mil - $173mil - $9mil = $57mil in operating expenses.
Twins
$213mil - $94mil - $26.5mil = $92.5mil in operating expenses

So the twins use $35 million more a year in operating expenses than the phillies do? Is their (the phillies) stadium deal that much more rich or are the twins that cheap? Is my math out to left field? My level of understanding in this subject is minimal at best. Hopefully one of the better educated posters out there could help me understand if I'm crazy or my train of thought is correct and we the Minnesota fans are getting a bum deal?

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_land.html

http://espn.go.com/mlb/team/salaries/_/name/min/minnesota-twins


P.S. Hello from Italy!



Welcome to the Forum. You may currently be holding the distance record for a member.
Forbes has a very fine group of forensic Accountants. I will wager that their numbers are very close. A sports Teams revenue streams are pretty easy to track.

diehardtwinsfan
07-11-2012, 11:25 AM
well, to answer the original question, assuming those numbers are accurate, one ownership group is far more willing to spend to win than another....

Boom Boom
07-11-2012, 11:42 AM
I can't speak for the Phillies but the Twins money numbers are notoriously hazy and vague. Forbes is a legitimate source but if they're trusting the Twins numbers they're probably somewhat off.

What I've heard frequently since the opening of Target Field is that the Twins still have one of the worst television deals in MLB. So plugging one hole only magnifies another.

nicksaviking
07-11-2012, 11:43 AM
There is a lot less tolerance for losing in Philedelphia than there is in Minnesota. Here we say "Aw shucks, maybe next year." In Philly, the entire organization gets death threats from half the population. Maybe it's time we start throwing beer bottles and snowballs at Santa to show management we are serious about winning too. Minnesota Nice certainly helps to encourage tolerance for unimpressiveness.

powrwrap
07-11-2012, 12:00 PM
I think by using Philadelphia as an example you have found an anomaly. There have been several factors that combined at the same time to cause payroll to go up. They've won their division 5 years in a row, been to the World Series twice. Before winning the division 5 times in a row, they finished 2nd three times in a row. This kind of success in a big market will drive up payroll. Owners can see the payback if they spend the money. The Phillies committed money to a bunch of players during their run-up of success. In 2009 their payroll was 'only' $113M. I'd like to know what their revenues were then (the year after they won the World Series.) Now they have a bunch of players with one or two years left on their expensive contracts. If they don't re-sign Cole Hamels it could be a signal that they don't see a return on their investing in payroll anymore.

The Twins can't see a return on spending on payroll so they won't do it at this time.

Look at the payroll vs. revenue ratios. The Phillies are out of whack at payroll being 73% of revenues. The Yankees, with $198M in payroll are at a ratio of 46.3%.

Also, as diehardtwinsfan stated, one ownership group is more willing to spend than another. Perhaps they are making emotional decisions rather than business decisions in Philadelphia. And let's not forget the fans expectations in Philadelphia. LOL!

IdahoPilgrim
07-11-2012, 12:54 PM
I also am somewhat suspect of the numbers, because the books of neither team is public record and we could be very well comparing apples and oranges.

That being said, I think the question being raised here is not what should the Twins payroll be, but are their other expenses out of whack compared to other MLB teams. Payroll we've got a pretty good handle on - the numbers are readily available. We don't know how much is being spent in the back office, on scouting, on medical staff, on administration, etc. I think Yoosh is suggesting that there is fat there that needs to be trimmed and which could then be reinvested in player payroll.

DPJ
07-11-2012, 12:59 PM
The Twins have one of the worst TV deals in the league which I believe they just resigned a year or two ago. How the 12th biggest market in the US, NTM that Twins TV ratings have always been strong sign for pennies. While the San Diego Padres just signed a huge new TV deal which earns them 25 million a year now and could go as high as 75 million makes no sense to me.

Plus it's pretty damn clear the Twins are looking to make a profit and not a little one.

USAFChief
07-11-2012, 01:02 PM
I have suspected for three years now that the Pohlads, rather than making their stadium construction contribution out of their pockets (as promised), are instead making that contribution out of stadium revenues instead.

That would explain a lot if true, would mean they haven't actually contributed a dime towards stadium construction costs.

drivlikejehu
07-11-2012, 01:16 PM
I have suspected for three years now that the Pohlads, rather than making their stadium construction contribution out of their pockets (as promised), are instead making that contribution out of stadium revenues instead.

That would explain a lot if true, would mean they haven't actually contributed a dime towards stadium construction costs.

It's even worse than that, because the new stadium significantly increased the value of the franchise. So in reality their "contribution" to the stadium is just a slight reduction in their massively increased overall return.

powrwrap
07-11-2012, 01:22 PM
I have suspected for three years now that the Pohlads, rather than making their stadium construction contribution out of their pockets (as promised), are instead making that contribution out of stadium revenues instead.

That would explain a lot if true, would mean they haven't actually contributed a dime towards stadium construction costs.

According to the agreement between the Twins and the Ballpark Authority the Twins had to provide advanced funding to start construction of Target Field with the stipulation that if the Ballpark Authority defaulted on their end of the deal the Twins would get their money back. How much was this advanced funding? Who knows, but I bet it wasn't chump change.

If you believe the Twins are making installment payments directly to the Ballpark Authority, please provide some proof. A more likely scenario is that the Twins obtained financing for their $130M contribution elsewhere, paid the amount in total to the Ballpark Authority and are now repaying that loan.

Shane Wahl
07-11-2012, 01:36 PM
According to the agreement between the Twins and the Ballpark Authority the Twins had to provide advanced funding to start construction of Target Field with the stipulation that if the Ballpark Authority defaulted on their end of the deal the Twins would get their money back. How much was this advanced funding? Who knows, but I bet it wasn't chump change.

If you believe the Twins are making installment payments directly to the Ballpark Authority, please provide some proof. A more likely scenario is that the Twins obtained financing for their $130M contribution elsewhere, paid the amount in total to the Ballpark Authority and are now repaying that loan.

Sure they may have paid the money right away, but that doesn't mean that they are "paying themselves back" now. I am not saying that they are, but just that your point doesn't refute what USAFChief claimed.

Thrylos
07-11-2012, 01:37 PM
What kind of revenues are those? Ticket revenues? Revenues from all sources? Something just does not add up on the Phillies' side. I will give you an example: Last year they pretty much sold out every game and their TV contract (that expires in 2015) is for $24M annually. Their TV provider is the Comcast Sports Network. The Phillies own a third of it. So they profit additionally from that venture....

And checked that Forbes' article... Here is the catch: they have a footnote on "revenue" that defines it as: "Net of stadium revenues used for debt payments." whatever that means...

Boom Boom
07-11-2012, 01:45 PM
What kind of revenues are those? Ticket revenues? Revenues from all sources? Something just does not add up on the Phillies' side. I will give you an example: Last year they pretty much sold out every game and their TV contract (that expires in 2015) is for $24M annually. Their TV provider is the Comcast Sports Network. The Phillies own a third of it. So they profit additionally from that venture....

And checked that Forbes' article... Here is the catch: they have a footnote on "revenue" that defines it as: "Net of stadium revenues used for debt payments." whatever that means...

Wow. The Twins TV contract is for $29 million annually. I didn't realize the Phillies had it so bad.

I wonder what the Twins payroll would look like if their Victory Sports ship had stayed afloat. Probably about the same...

powrwrap
07-11-2012, 01:55 PM
Sure they may have paid the money right away, but that doesn't mean that they are "paying themselves back" now. I am not saying that they are, but just that your point doesn't refute what USAFChief claimed.

Just what is the contention?

Look, if the Twins took out a loan to pay the Ballpark Authority up front and then use revenues to repay the loan....is that really worthy of criticism?

DuluthFan
07-11-2012, 02:02 PM
I note that you are using LAST YEAR'S revenue numbers but THIS years payroll.
I think coming into this season everyone, including management, did not project that this year's team would be able to contend for a playoff spot. With that as the projected performance, what did you think the projected revenue would be? More? Not likely. You would have to assume attendance would be down from the past two years. If attendance is down, then concessions and ballpark revenue would most likely drop as well. How much was it projected to drop? I don't know but the Twins did the math. I am sure the Phillies did the same. The Phillies were coming off a playoff season and were projected to contend again. If they thought they would be in the situation they are in right now, they may have spent differently. The Phillies are now involved in trade rumors because they have to adjust their spending to take into account a reduced revenue projection for the rest of the year.

USAFChief
07-11-2012, 02:16 PM
Just what is the contention?

Look, if the Twins took out a loan to pay the Ballpark Authority up front and then use revenues to repay the loan....is that really worthy of criticism?

The contention is "Twins ownership contributed little if any of their own money towards stadium construction. They are using ballpark revenues to fund that "contribution."".

That, in turn, obviously affects funds available to operate the club, including payroll.

Whether that is worthy of criticism is in the eye of the beholder. IMO, that's not exactly within the spirit of agreements made when the stadium was approved.

powrwrap
07-11-2012, 02:17 PM
I note that you are using LAST YEAR'S revenue numbers but THIS years payroll.


Yes, I noticed that too, but it's OK to use those numbers as payroll in the upcoming year will be based in part on revenues of the current year.


The Phillies were coming off a playoff season and were projected to contend again. If they thought they would be in the situation they are in right now, they may have spent differently. The Phillies are now involved in trade rumors because they have to adjust their spending to take into account a reduced revenue projection for the rest of the year.

Correct. The Phillies spent when they knew they would have revenues and a chance to win. Their nice run is likely over.

BTW, welcome to Twins Daily Forums.

powrwrap
07-11-2012, 02:20 PM
IMO, that's not exactly within the spirit of agreements made when the stadium was approved.

So if you were with the Ballpark Authority you would have put language in the agreement that the Twins contribution must come from the owners of the Twins and it may only include revenues NOT derived from the operation of the Twins?

Sheesh? Really?

Boom Boom
07-11-2012, 02:30 PM
The contention is "Twins ownership contributed little if any of their own money towards stadium construction. They are using ballpark revenues to fund that "contribution."".

That, in turn, obviously affects funds available to operate the club, including payroll.

Whether that is worthy of criticism is in the eye of the beholder. IMO, that's not exactly within the spirit of agreements made when the stadium was approved.

You could be right, Chief. Let's say hypothetically the Twins were not using ballpark revenues to fund their contribution. If that was the case, do you think the Twins would be spending more on players?

If not, IMO it really doesn't matter which pocket the money is coming out of.

bteichr
07-11-2012, 03:06 PM
The contention is "Twins ownership contributed little if any of their own money towards stadium construction. They are using ballpark revenues to fund that "contribution."".

This is a difference without a distinction. Since they own the team, ballpark revenues belong to the Twins owners. So whether they reach into their personal bank accounts or use ballpark revenues is irrelevant. We may be dissapointed that they don't spend more on payroll, but that has nothing to do with how they are paying for their share of the stadium.

Highabove
07-11-2012, 03:14 PM
I believe the Twins are getting the cash from the naming rights for Target Field
According to Bloomberg Business Week , the deal is 125 million over 25 years.
That should more then pay for the Pohlad's personal contribution.

powrwrap
07-11-2012, 04:23 PM
the deal is 125 million over 25 years.
That should more then pay for the Pohlad's personal contribution.

The Twins' contribution was $130M.

USAFChief
07-11-2012, 05:02 PM
This is a difference without a distinction. Since they own the team, ballpark revenues belong to the Twins owners. So whether they reach into their personal bank accounts or use ballpark revenues is irrelevant. We may be dissapointed that they don't spend more on payroll, but that has nothing to do with how they are paying for their share of the stadium.

Huh?

a. They pay for the $130M stadium contribution out of their personal wealth. Up front. No stadium revenues are used to pay for their share of construction costs. All stadium revenues are available for operating expenses of the team.

b. They don't pay for the $130M stadium contribution out of their personal welath. They borrow the $130M, pay interest for a couple years during construction, and then stadium revenues are used to pay for the loan covering their share of contruction costs. Some amount (let's use $15m/yr) is taken from stadium revenues to pay the principle/interest on the construction loan.

You don't see a distinction there in how much of annual revenue is available for payroll?

USAFChief
07-11-2012, 05:07 PM
So if you were with the Ballpark Authority you would have put language in the agreement that the Twins contribution must come from the owners of the Twins and it may only include revenues NOT derived from the operation of the Twins?

Sheesh? Really?

In retrospect, perhaps the state should have demanded such language.

Since that obviously didn't happen, the Pohlads are free to do as they wish. And I'm free to think that's somewhat dishonest on their part, and contributes to payroll not meeting what I think are reasonable expectations as a fan, and reasonable expectations from those who ARE paying for the stadium (of which I am not, on any kind of regular basis.)

Not that it matters, but do you work in some sort of PR role for the Pohlad family?

powrwrap
07-11-2012, 08:01 PM
Huh?

a. They pay for the $130M stadium contribution out of their personal wealth. Up front. No stadium revenues are used to pay for their share of construction costs. All stadium revenues are available for operating expenses of the team.

b. They don't pay for the $130M stadium contribution out of their personal welath. They borrow the $130M, pay interest for a couple years during construction, and then stadium revenues are used to pay for the loan covering their share of contruction costs. Some amount (let's use $15m/yr) is taken from stadium revenues to pay the principle/interest on the construction loan.

You don't see a distinction there in how much of annual revenue is available for payroll?

The assumption is that they've got $130M lazing about with which to use as their contribution. If so, they are faced with a business decision. Should they take that $130M out of whatever investment vehicle it is currently in and pay the ballpark contribution with it or should they borrow money at ridiculously historical low interest rates and then pay off that loan? And then use the interest paid on the loan as an expense on their tax return.

Gee, I wonder what I'd do...

powrwrap
07-11-2012, 08:03 PM
Not that it matters, but do you work in some sort of PR role for the Pohlad family?

No, but I'm obviously, transparently, working on a section of my future resume as I'm typing this.

YourHouseIsMyHouse
07-11-2012, 08:24 PM
The Pohlad's are a very shady family, but I am really not concerned with the payroll. I'm happy with a 100-110 million budget. It's a little below that now, although I'm sure they'd spend a little more if this was a contending team.

Obie
07-11-2012, 08:41 PM
Professional sports franchise economics are far beyond my understanding. What I find curious are two inconsistent fan rants: a) abuse heaped on the Pohlads for not spending more on personnel and b) abuse heaped on the Pohlads for paying market value for Mauer and Morneau.

IdahoPilgrim
07-11-2012, 09:18 PM
Professional sports franchise economics are far beyond my understanding. What I find curious are two inconsistent fan rants: a) abuse heaped on the Pohlads for not spending more on personnel and b) abuse heaped on the Pohlads for paying market value for Mauer and Morneau.

That's the fun of being a fan. We don't need logic - we can gripe and moan at will whenever we feel like it.:)

P.S. We do the same thing in other areas of our life as well - we want all the luxuries and perqs, and then we want somebody else to pay for it.

Nick Nelson
07-11-2012, 10:37 PM
Whoa. Did this thread just reach enlightenment?

Rosterman
07-11-2012, 11:24 PM
I still haven't figured out that if the Twins payroll is 50% of revenue, why when it goes from $50 million to $100 million, team operation costs also doubled. Twice as many scouts, vendors, vice presidents, etc? Not really, minor league expenses remain flat, et al.

When the Twins moved from the Metrodome to Target Field, their in-house revenues increased, they actually soldout of tickets and didn't need the extra personnel that they usually ahd for that endeavor, and any number of other things kicked in (more sponsorships and such).

The Twins $130 million contribution was only a fraction of what the value of the team actually increased with target Field. Didn't they go from $250 million to $500 million at least? That means they could actually go to a bank and get a loan for the worth of the team, at lesser rates than Pohlad would charge himself, in all likelihood.

But, again...if team operations were say $40 million a few years ago, they can't be more than the $63 the Phillies have now. Why are the Twins spending $90 million, AFTER a $20+ million profit!

Calvin Griffith is rolling over in his grave!

Riverbrian
07-11-2012, 11:36 PM
Whoa. Did this thread just reach enlightenment?

I agree with you Nick. We have people on this site who talk about Mauers leg iron of a contract and how it has crippled the organization and we have people who want to spend more money on potential leg irons.

Being prudent isn't always a bad thing. Money spent does not always lead to victories. Just ask the Mets.... It works for the Yankees or seems to but maybe they spent on the right people and they spent a huge amount.

Edwin Jackson would not have fixed what ails by himself.

Shane Wahl
07-11-2012, 11:53 PM
In retrospect, perhaps the state should have demanded such language.

Since that obviously didn't happen, the Pohlads are free to do as they wish. And I'm free to think that's somewhat dishonest on their part, and contributes to payroll not meeting what I think are reasonable expectations as a fan, and reasonable expectations from those who ARE paying for the stadium (of which I am not, on any kind of regular basis.)

Not that it matters, but do you work in some sort of PR role for the Pohlad family?

I agree with you. It is laughable that anyone defends the billionaires in this. My GOD and a half. Billionaires are greedy and have found innumerable ways to take advantage of the public for profit. It seems pretty clear, that profit is more important for the Pohlads and has been forever. One big jump in payroll does not negate that.

I am not saying that payroll is everything. But clearly people like Aaron Gleeman are not idiots in maintaining that something is amiss with a new ballpark and a drop in payroll one year later.

Edwin Jackson might not have turned 2012 around. But, damn, signing him for 2013, 2014 and 2015 would make the picture look quite a bit brighter, right? Furthermore, who knows what kind of effect another pitcher like that, expected to be the ace, would have had on A: Liriano and his head, B: the Twins attitude towards Pavano's obvious arm problems, and C: the use of Liam Hendriks. It baffles me that people think that moves are made in complete vacuums . . .the truth is that dominoes fall all the time. One signing can bring a chain reaction.

glunn
07-12-2012, 12:00 AM
So if you were with the Ballpark Authority you would have put language in the agreement that the Twins contribution must come from the owners of the Twins and it may only include revenues NOT derived from the operation of the Twins?

Sheesh? Really?

If I were with the Ballpark Authority I would have held out for a written agreement that over any 3 year period, the player salaries must be at least X% of gross revenues, and would have stressed that the taxpayers' investment would greatly increase the value of the team.

USAFChief
07-12-2012, 12:16 AM
I still haven't figured out that if the Twins payroll is 50% of revenue, why when it goes from $50 million to $100 million, team operation costs also doubled. Twice as many scouts, vendors, vice presidents, etc? Not really, minor league expenses remain flat, et al.

When the Twins moved from the Metrodome to Target Field, their in-house revenues increased, they actually soldout of tickets and didn't need the extra personnel that they usually ahd for that endeavor, and any number of other things kicked in (more sponsorships and such).

The Twins $130 million contribution was only a fraction of what the value of the team actually increased with target Field. Didn't they go from $250 million to $500 million at least? That means they could actually go to a bank and get a loan for the worth of the team, at lesser rates than Pohlad would charge himself, in all likelihood.

But, again...if team operations were say $40 million a few years ago, they can't be more than the $63 the Phillies have now. Why are the Twins spending $90 million, AFTER a $20+ million profit!

Calvin Griffith is rolling over in his grave!


I've been asking that very point for a couple years now. Why would Twins payroll expenditures need to stay at/around 50% of revenue after moving to TF?

For example, the Twins have stated they could afford, for example, roughly a $65M MLB payroll on roughly $130M in revenue in the dome, leaving $65M for all other expenses, plus a tidy profit. I have no doubt they have significant other expenses: minor leagues, travel, other salaries, medical expenses, etc etc etc. But they've publicly stated they need around $55-75M to cover those expenses.

Why should those other expenses increase drastically with the move to TF? Why wouldn't the same $55-75M be enough, leaving something like $140-150M for current major league salaries (if Forbes' estimated $213M in revenue is anywhere close)? They didn't expand their minor leagues. They didn't suddenly start staying in nicer hotels on the road. I get they need to hire more people to work at TF, but c'mon...how much can that cost? Plus those employees are paying for themselves anyway...you can't tell me it is COSTING the Twins money to hire someone to sell $7 beers and $5 hotdogs.

Where is that money going?

USAFChief
07-12-2012, 12:19 AM
We have people on this site who talk about Mauers leg iron of a contract and how it has crippled the organization and we have people who want to spend more money on potential leg irons.

.

Can't speak for others but I've never referred to Mauer's contract as "a leg iron." Also don't want the Twins to sign any "potential leg irons."

Sort of a strawman argument, if you ask me. Spending money foolishly, and spending money to improve your team, are not the same. If the Twins don't have people in place capable of spending money wisely, that's a different issue, and not an argument against spending money.

Riverbrian
07-12-2012, 12:38 AM
I wasn't directing it at anyone in particular. Just pointing out that Twins lit up the scoreboard to the tune of 23 million a year and we have threads dedicated to how it killed this team... I don't agree with that but I'm pointing it out. We also have threads with people saying that the Twins should have went after free agent X Y and Z. I don't agree or disagree with that but am pointing out that there are times the Anti Mauer contract folks contradict themselves with pro money spending. I'm not saying you are one of those people.

Chief I hope you know that I assume that any attempt to spend money is done so with the hope of improving the team. I understand that there are hits and misses.

I just believe that a temporary hit in payroll may be prudent at this juncture. George H.W. Bush explained it to me that way... Or was it Dana Carvey playing Bush.

I cling to the hope that if pitching stabilizes and the pieces are in place for contenderdom... the money will return. I'm also hopeful that the Twins are not basing payroll on some pre determined percentage structure and basing payroll upon on the current status of the club and the pieces in place.

glunn
07-12-2012, 12:53 AM
The local government put up hard earned taxpayer dollars to build Target Field, knowing that this would greatly increase the revenue and the value of the franchise. I suspect that they were swayed, at least in part, by promises to use some of the extra revenues to increase payroll. And as others have pointed out on other threads, the Twins have significantly increased payroll.

I wished at the time that the government has cut a better deal, to insure that the Pohlads did not enjoy a huge windfall at taxpayer expense. I have not studied the deal in detail, but my sense is that the Pohlads negotiating with the stadium commission was like buying Manhattan from the Native Americans. On the other hand, I am glad that payroll has gone up a lot since the Metrodome days.

Highabove
07-12-2012, 01:07 AM
In 2009, their last year at the Dome, the Twins realized a very large payday.

Their revenue came in at 162 million. The Twins starting payroll was 65+ million. Way below the 50% of payroll which the Twins have sold us for years.

The Twins operating income came in at 25 million, which was the 9th highest in Baseball.

Twins fans are constantly reminded about how the Twins overpayed the payroll last year.

Did we ever hear about the huge under payment in 2009, which result in a large pretax profit for the Twins? I don't think so.


The Business Of Baseball - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/33/baseball-valuations-10_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Income.html)

2009 Baseball Team Payrolls - Total and Average Salaries for Major League Baseball Players (http://baseball.about.com/od/newsrumors/a/09teamsalaries.htm)

Yoosh
07-12-2012, 06:55 AM
I still haven't figured out that if the Twins payroll is 50% of revenue, why when it goes from $50 million to $100 million, team operation costs also doubled. Twice as many scouts, vendors, vice presidents, etc? Not really, minor league expenses remain flat, et al.



But, again...if team operations were say $40 million a few years ago, they can't be more than the $63 the Phillies have now. Why are the Twins spending $90 million, AFTER a $20+ million profit!

This is what I'm getting at... I know that I picked two teams with large discrepancies in spending. But this post hit's the nail on the head. Where do we get our number of an acceptable payroll amount? It factors greatly into the feelings of Mauers contract because at 125 million his contract doesn't hurt the team as much when he put's up a 2011 performance. But this post isn't about if we're getting our money from Mauer (get over the contract people, he's performing up to his pay this year and Yes I wish every year could be '09 but it isn't going to happen).



--------------------------------------------------------------
As far as paying for the stadium... People just need to grin and bear it. Because ALL professional sports franchises have their city over a barrel when it comes to stadium funding. It's sad but it's the reality these days, if you want pro sports the owner is more than likely going to make a profit off of the taxpayers...