Thread: The Pohlad's and the Cry for Them to Spend More Money

Originally Posted by powrwrap

How much of that $390M goes into payroll?

I will wait for my answer.

Apparently not very much. That seems to be the issue.

We do know a couple hundred million plus of that has gone into the Pohlads pocket, in the form of doubling the teams value.

Originally Posted by powrwrap

How much of that $390M goes into payroll?

I will wait for my answer.

Last year's Revenue was 213 million. 97million dollars of that is going torwards this year's payroll. Its not that complicated.

Originally Posted by Highabove

How many private corporations receive a 390 Million dollar subsidy from the public?

I will wait for my answer.

Why deal with private corporations?

While the subsidy may not be $390M per company, virtually all corporations get public subsidies in one form or another as incentives to build a new facility in their location.

A separate county sales tax was instituted specifically for this Cooperation.

Outside of the three other Sports Franchises, what other private Corporation has received this consideration?

The OP just has no idea what he's talking about. There is no "legal separation" between the Pohlads and the Twins. Whatever unincorporated business entities they use is irrelevant for anyone except their lawyers and accountants. The Pohlads have 100% control of the team. They have instant access to all cash inflows and are responsible for all cash outflows. They are free to sign contracts as they see fit.

When they choose to cut payroll, the reason is that they are cheap. It's not complicated. They own the team and that is their right. Likewise, the First Amendment gives me the right to say they have fleeced taxpayers and arguably perpetuated non-actionable fraud in their pursuit of said taxpayer money. We see now that the purpose of the stadium is only to enrich the Pohlad family, rather than fully support a competitive baseball club.

Originally Posted by drivlikejehu

The OP just has no idea what he's talking about. There is no "legal separation" between the Pohlads and the Twins. Whatever unincorporated business entities they use is irrelevant for anyone except their lawyers and accountants. The Pohlads have 100% control of the team. They have instant access to all cash inflows and are responsible for all cash outflows. They are free to sign contracts as they see fit.

The legal separation has to do with the savings and checking accounts of the individuals and the team. The team is a legal entity separate from the individuals. In real life execution of business duties it may not appear to be that way. My point is that when fans yell for payroll to be increased, it's not as simple as Jim Pohlad writing a personal check.

When they choose to cut payroll, the reason is that they are cheap. It's not complicated.

No, it could be for other reasons, such as adjusting their year end dividend they receive from the team's profit (or loss.) Is that being cheap? Or avoiding taxes? If people decide they don't want to pay taxes are they cheap?

They own the team and that is their right. Likewise, the First Amendment gives me the right to say they have fleeced taxpayers and arguably perpetuated non-actionable fraud in their pursuit of said taxpayer money. We see now that the purpose of the stadium is only to enrich the Pohlad family, rather than fully support a competitive baseball club.

You're funny. "We now see..." after only 2 1/2 years of operation? The payroll numbers have been: $98M, $112M, and $94M. These numbers come on the heels of a $65M payroll in 2009.

Originally Posted by Highabove

Last year's Revenue was 213 million. 97million dollars of that is going torwards this year's payroll. Its not that complicated.

How much of the $390M subsidy that the Twins received to build Target Field went into payroll? Where did you get the $213M revenue number from?

[QUOTE=powrwrap;32715]If people decide they don't want to pay taxes are they cheap?[QUOTE]

Well... not to get too political here, but I'd venture a guess that half of everybody would consider that to be very cheap.

Originally Posted by powrwrap

How much of the $390M subsidy that the Twins received to build Target Field went into payroll? Where did you get the $213M revenue number from?

Fobes Magazine links below

These numbers are cited by numerous publications.


The Business Of Baseball, 2011


The Business Of Baseball 2012

Originally Posted by Highabove

Fobes Magazine links below

These numbers are cited by numerous publications.


The Business Of Baseball, 2011

Says the Twins had $213M in revenues and $26.5M in operating profit (before depreciation, amortization, and interest expenses). So how many big impact free agents can you buy with less than $26M? Who was available?

The Business Of Baseball 2012

Says the Twins had revenues of $213M and $16.6M in operating profit (before depreciation, amortization, and interest expenses). So how many free agents can you buy with less than $16M? I'm guessing not a big impact player. Not Zack Greinke or Cole Hamels. Looks like you're going to have to find some money elsewhere.

If people decide they don't want to pay taxes are they cheap?

Originally Posted by Boom Boom

Well... not to get too political here, but I'd venture a guess that half of everybody would consider that to be very cheap.

Really? So it's wrong to take all the legal deductions you are entitled to by law to lower your tax burden? For example, if you take the home mortgage interest deduction to lower your taxes, you're cheap? Or put pre-tax money into a 401k to reduce your taxable income, you're cheap? Wow.

Originally Posted by powrwrap

Says the Twins had $213M in revenues and $26.5M in operating profit (before depreciation, amortization, and interest expenses). So how many big impact free agents can you buy with less than $26M? Who was available?



Says the Twins had revenues of $213M and $16.6M in operating profit (before depreciation, amortization, and interest expenses). So how many free agents can you buy with less than $16M? I'm guessing not a big impact player. Not Zack Greinke or Cole Hamels. Looks like you're going to have to find some money elsewhere.

In 2011, the 16 Million is realized AFTER the Twins had payed out a 113 million payroll.

The operating income number is taken AFTER operating expenses INCLUDING players cost.

Originally Posted by Highabove

In 2011, the 16 Million was realized AFTER the Twins had payed out a 113 million payroll.

Yes, and your point is...?

Originally Posted by powrwrap

The legal separation has to do with the savings and checking accounts of the individuals and the team. The team is a legal entity separate from the individuals. In real life execution of business duties it may not appear to be that way. My point is that when fans yell for payroll to be increased, it's not as simple as Jim Pohlad writing a personal check.

Sorry, you just don't understand the law. Legal separation is only the case with incorporated business. Unincorporated businesses, such as LLCs, are pass-through entities that have no independent existence. The Pohlads control any Twins-related LLCs just like their own personal bank accounts.

There is zero difficulty in adding payroll, unless it would mean operating at a loss. Even then it would not be a real problem unless the amount was quite large.

Originally Posted by powrwrap

No, it could be for other reasons, such as adjusting their year end dividend they receive from the team's profit (or loss.) Is that being cheap? Or avoiding taxes? If people decide they don't want to pay taxes are they cheap?

LLC's don't pay dividends, they make distributions as someone else already pointed out. Again, you do not understand what you're talking about. Cutting payroll doesn't save the Pohlads anything on their taxes.

What is it about the internet that makes people think they can just randomly spout off on a subject despite complete ignorance of that topic?

Originally Posted by powrwrap

Yes, and your point is...?

The point is (After paying out 113 million dollars in payroll, the Twins still realized operating income of 16.6 million dollars.)

Where is the out of pocket expense? A 16.6 million dollar surplus to turn over to the Accountants is not bad.

At first this read like laughable apologetics, but further statements by the OP make me think it's just a matter of emphasis (notwithstanding factual inaccuracies re: real world ownership).

If you want to make an argument like, "Look, MLB owners are greedy capitalists. They're incredibly rich people that got incredibly rich the way pretty much all incredibly rich people get incredibly rich: by screwing people over in generally legal and applauded ways. Getting the public to hand them a $300 million asset is par for the course. The Pohlads are no different. Carl Pohlad got started foreclosing on farms in the Depression. He fleeced the public for his ailing bus company. Fundamentally he made his fortune in that noblest of productive arenas: [pause to vomit] banking. So don't expect the Pohlads to sink one cent of personal money or their expected profits back into the team. I want to have a realistic discussion, and that's just naive," that would be perfectly reasonable.

You'd basically be saying: let's have a debate that's relevant to readily-potential reality. And that's actually worth saying, since a discussion about the best course of action for the Twins (or any MLB franchise) that relies on "the owners should worry less about their bottom line" is only ever going to be pie-in-the-sky, and it might be more intellectually interesting to say "what would I do if I were GM" than "what would I do if I were God."

The thing is, lots of people don't want to have a debate relevant only to the status quo and its most likely permutations. Lots of people think people like the Pohlads kind of utterly suck, and don't really care about their expected profits or net worth. People like this are always going to criticize them for not spending enough on the payroll. They're right from their point of view, and irrelevant from the viewpoint of the status quo. But pointing out that there's a board of directors has nothing to do with who owns the Twins, nor with excusing the state of the payroll.

Originally Posted by drivlikejehu

Sorry, you just don't understand the law. Legal separation is only the case with incorporated business. Unincorporated businesses, such as LLCs, are pass-through entities that have no independent existence. The Pohlads control any Twins-related LLCs just like their own personal bank accounts.

Sorry, but LLC's, like corporations, provide a shield for the owners against debts incurred by the LLC's as well as protections against other liabilities the LLC may incur. There is a separation.

LLC's don't pay dividends, they make distributions as someone else already pointed out.

You are correct about the terminology. LLC's pay distributions, not dividends. I was merely repeating what others had said so as not to introduce new terminology. The income or loss of a partnership is reported on Schedule K-1.

Again, you do not understand what your'e talking about. Cutting payroll doesn't save the Pohlads anything on their taxes.

I don't believe I said that cutting payroll would save Pohlad's taxes. Cutting payroll would (likely) increase the LLC's profit, which would increase their distributions, which would probably increase their personal taxes. I did say that fiddling with payroll is a method for the Pohlad's to manipulate their personal tax exposure. Of course, they likely have other ownership in other companies that would enter into the overall equation as well.

Originally Posted by tobynotjason

At first this read like laughable apologetics, but further statements by the OP make me think it's just a matter of emphasis (notwithstanding factual inaccuracies re: real world ownership).

The thing is, lots of people don't want to have a debate relevant only to the status quo and its most likely permutations. Lots of people think people like the Pohlads kind of utterly suck, and don't really care about their expected profits or net worth. People like this are always going to criticize them for not spending enough on the payroll. They're right from their point of view, and irrelevant from the viewpoint of the status quo. But pointing out that there's a board of directors has nothing to do with who owns the Twins, nor with excusing the state of the payroll.

You've got a handle on what I'm trying to say. Basically, it boils down to this: The Pohlads are going to run the Twins like a business, not a hobby. They are going to make financial decisions, not emotional ones. Saying the "Pohlads are extremely wealthy and because they don't outbid the Yankees for such-and-such free agent means they are cheap" is a simplistic argument that ignores real world situations.

Excuse me from reading anymore of this thread, my eyes are burning and I need to go gouge them out.

Can somebody please go find the teeth I pulled out about 15 posts ago?

I wouldn't say every such argument is "simplistic" (unless it's really merely "THEY'RE RICH AND THEY'RE CHEAP!"), although "ignores real world situations" is absolutely accurate.