New Money Enters the Fold as Twins Secure First of Two Limited Partners

[USAFChief]

On 12/10/2025 at 1:38 PM, Cap'n Piranha said:

 

The Twins get nowhere near $210M in shared revenue

Here's a source claiming otherwise:

 

https://www.thetribune.ca/sports/mlb/#:~:text=Under the new collective bargaining,million USD%2C if not more

 

48% of local revenues are pooled, then redistributed. As of 2023, that was around $110M per team. Add another ~$90M per team in national MLB revenue (TV etc).

 

Of course that also means the Twins only keep 52% of local revenue.

Forbes estimates are likely fairly accurate.

Only my opinion, but I think its highly implausible the Twins have accumulated $400-$500M in debt from baseball operations.

 

[TheLeviathan]

On 12/10/2025 at 4:28 PM, Woof Bronzer said:

Great challenge considering we will never know unless the Twins open their books.  I know you desperately want to prove that your heroes are selflessly pouring cash into to the team because they are so kind and generous, but until they open the books that won't be possible. 

But I'll provide you undeniable proof that the Twins are not "deficit spending":  If they were losing money year over year the Pohlads would have sold the team for $1.5 billion dollars, or even $1 billion dollars - anything to get out of a losing operation. 

So which is more likely:  the Twins, like every professional sports team, make money?  Or are the Pohlads the stupidest people on earth for not taking a billion and a half dollars to bail them out of a business losing them $50 million every year?

 

Pack up the thread.....anyone who thinks the Pohlads aren't shuffling money around and crying poor to fund their other failures can just try and answer this excellent post.

I'll add one more thing to it - if the Pohlads would truly like our sympathy and appreciation for their willingness to fall on the sword and lose money......prove it.  Show us your books.  Put in black and white the valiant effort you've been putting up at your own expense.  We wouldn't have to speculate and we would all carry this wonderful family out on their shields for their brazen self sacrifices.

Somehow....I don't expect that will happen.

[Woof Bronzer]

1 minute ago, TheLeviathan said:

Pack up the thread.....anyone who thinks the Pohlads aren't shuffling money around and crying poor to fund their other failures can just try and answer this excellent post.

I'll add one more thing to it - if the Pohlads would truly like our sympathy and appreciation for their willingness to fall on the sword and lose money......prove it.  Show us your books.  Put in black and white the valiant effort you've been putting up at your own expense.  We wouldn't have to speculate and we would all carry this wonder family out on their shields for their brazen self sacrifices.

Somehow....I don't expect that will happen.

An independent financial audit would clear up a lot of things.  

Here's the money paragraph from Chief's link.  Yeah, sure, the Twins lose money when the Pirates are profitable on gate alone.  (It also looks like Pittsburgh is home to actual journalists who don't just take billionaires at their word.)

the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that in most years since 2007, the Pirates have been able to cover their payroll with their gate revenue (ie. ticket sales, concessions, stadium merchandise sales, and parking) alone. This does not include any revenue from national or local television, or, most importantly, revenue sharing. 

[Dave Borton]

On 12/8/2025 at 3:51 PM, Woof Bronzer said:

That is absolutely what private equity does.  Slash costs to a bare minimum, squeeze out as much short term profit as possible, and then when they've bled it dry, sell or write off the asset....

I am interested in the story from a business sense and on field baseball. I am surprised that owners are letting hedge funds into the club.

Will be interesting to watch the business story unfold, though I have less hope/optimism for what we are going to see on the bases. Ugh...lee.

[Dave Borton]

On 12/12/2025 at 8:56 AM, USAFChief said:

...

Only my opinion, but I think its highly implausible the Twins have accumulated $400-$500M in debt from baseball operations.

 

Since we will never see the books, you might be right.

I believe debt was created by the Pohlads merely drawing down the cash and investing elsewhere where they felt they needed to put cash to work.

[USAFChief]

Still no news?

Im shocked...not.

[Vanimal46]

1 hour ago, USAFChief said:

Still no news?

Im shocked...not.

Who were we trying to partner up with? North Korean drug lords? 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

On 12/9/2025 at 2:01 PM, Woof Bronzer said:

Seriously, the Pohlads don't need anyone carrying water for them.  The Pohlads are "rightsizing" the business because they are incompetent businesspeople who doubled down on a dying industry (commercial real estate) at a time when the whole world was working from home (COVID), who let Joe Pohlad ruin 2 media companies to the tune of several millions in losses, and who have no interests in life other than accumulating more and more wealth.   They are rightsizing because they are incompetent and greedy.  It's really not that complicated and again, no need to carry water for them, they're doing just fine.  

That and they’re a private equity firm who buys distressed assets and finances them with their private capital and sells them for a profit.

[ashbury]

3 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

Who were we trying to partner up with? North Korean drug lords? 

Private equity firm.

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

[Vanimal46]

25 minutes ago, ashbury said:

Private equity firm.

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

It's too bad there have not been two separate conferences where every team's GM and owners meet in a certain location to quickly vote on items like this. Maybe we'll learn by 2027 if MLB wants these "limited partners" involved in their league. 

[Mike Sixel]

16 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

It's too bad there have not been two separate conferences where every team's GM and owners meet in a certain location to quickly vote on items like this. Maybe we'll learn by 2027 if MLB wants these "limited partners" involved in their league. 

It is getting hard to believe anything good is happening here....

[USAFChief]

7 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

Who were we trying to partner up with? North Korean drug lords? 

I sorta doubt DPRK drug lords would want to get mixed up with shysters like MLB owners.

[Twins_Fan_in_NJ]

On 12/12/2025 at 9:56 AM, USAFChief said:

Here's a source claiming otherwise:

 

https://www.thetribune.ca/sports/mlb/#:~:text=Under the new collective bargaining,million USD%2C if not more

 

48% of local revenues are pooled, then redistributed. As of 2023, that was around $110M per team. Add another ~$90M per team in national MLB revenue (TV etc).

 

Of course that also means the Twins only keep 52% of local revenue.

Forbes estimates are likely fairly accurate.

Only my opinion, but I think its highly implausible the Twins have accumulated $400-$500M in debt from baseball operations.

 

There have been some crazy theories on the debt. One such theory I read on social media - the debt was the byproduct of the Carlos Correa contract, lol.

The odds of that debt being attributable solely to baseball - slim to none, IYAM.

 

[Vanimal46]

Evidently there are now 3 new limited partnership groups. Is this good for the fans in the meantime? I highly doubt it. 

[nicksaviking]

This is insane. Paying off non-baseball debts and the other owners are approving this many cooks in the kitchen?

There has to be an implied deal that the Pohlads and all these private equity groups are going to sell after the CBA. No way these INVESTMENT groups are paying off this debt unless they plan for a quick flip and a good ROI.

[SF Twins Fan]

9 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

This is insane. Paying off non-baseball debts and the other owners are approving this many cooks in the kitchen?

There has to be an implied deal that the Pohlads and all these private equity groups are going to sell after the CBA. No way these INVESTMENT groups are paying off this debt unless they plan for a quick flip and a good ROI.

I'm not sure if you read Dan's article or not but the three minority groups aren't putting in stipulations that they want first right of refusal.  That would lead me to believe they're expecting the Poohlads to sell once the new CBA is in place and once the new national TV deal goes into effect.  It seems like they're trying to make a quick buck expecting the Twins value to increase with the debt paid down, higher national revenue, and the CBA completed.

[Cap'n Piranha]

On 12/12/2025 at 7:14 AM, Woof Bronzer said:

An independent financial audit would clear up a lot of things.  

Here's the money paragraph from Chief's link.  Yeah, sure, the Twins lose money when the Pirates are profitable on gate alone.  (It also looks like Pittsburgh is home to actual journalists who don't just take billionaires at their word.)

the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that in most years since 2007, the Pirates have been able to cover their payroll with their gate revenue (ie. ticket sales, concessions, stadium merchandise sales, and parking) alone. This does not include any revenue from national or local television, or, most importantly, revenue sharing. 

It also doesn't include anything that is not MLB payroll, which as has been pointed out in this thread, is in all likelihood a greater share of expenses than payroll.  I don't think it would be all that surprising to discover that the Twins policy recently has been to use local revenue to cover payroll, and shared revenue to cover everything else.  Since local revenue has significantly decline in recent years (down maybe $50M to $60M in the last two years between TV and attendance), it's not shocking that the payroll is significantly down.  So to put a blunt point on it--no, the Pirates are not profitable on gate alone, as you claim.

You won't ever get an independent financial audit for a couple of reasons--if the finances are strong, it gives the players leverage in the next CBA.  If the finances are weak, it implodes the values of small market teams.  The owners have nothing to gain, and quite a bit to lose by opening their books.

[Cap'n Piranha]

On 12/10/2025 at 3:18 PM, Woof Bronzer said:

You are the one who said they can't possibly be greedy because they went into debt.  Like I said, the Pohlads went into debt because they are terrible businesspeople. For example, I'm sure they expected a return on investment on the radio station and website they purchased.  However, Joe Pohlad did such a horrendous job of managing these assets that they had to sell both for pennies on the dollar, therefore creating several millions of dollars in debt.  

"Going into debt is smart business because they expect an ROI" is a white hot take, but you do you.  Careful not to hurt your shoulder lugging all that water though...

I thought all kinds of rich people take on debt?  Now it's only terrible business people?  Is it perhaps possible that the radio station would have failed anyways, regardless of what Joe Pohlad did?  Radio doesn't exactly scream growth industry to me (so buying it in the first place probably not the best idea, but it's failure isn't for sure a Pohald thing).

I didn't say going into debt is smart business.  I said if a business is taking on debt, it's with the expectation of ROI.  That's part of me refuting your infantile assertion that the Pohlads are in all times and places greedy.  My point was that if the Pohlads are greedy, they either would ensure they maximized profit on the Twins (read; no debt), or they would ensure they were going to get a solid ROI on it.  It's not a hot take, it's simple reality.

Finally, my shoulders are fine.  I'm lugging no water whatsoever, I'm simply trying to have a realistic conversation on why the owners of a small market team in 2025 would be spending at the level they are.  It's not because they're greedy, it's because the current financial realities of MLB dictate it.  You on the other hand, seem wracked with vitriol and hatred for a group of people I assume you've never met.  If you let go of that poison you fill your heart with, you might actually be a happier person, but it's a free country, so if living angry and miserable is your choice, then good luck to you, I guess.

[USAFChief]

28 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

It also doesn't include anything that is not MLB payroll, which as has been pointed out in this thread, is in all likelihood a greater share of expenses than payroll.  I don't think it would be all that surprising to discover that the Twins policy recently has been to use local revenue to cover payroll, and shared revenue to cover everything else.  Since local revenue has significantly decline in recent years (down maybe $50M to $60M in the last two years between TV and attendance), it's not shocking that the payroll is significantly down.  So to put a blunt point on it--no, the Pirates are not profitable on gate alone, as you claim.

You won't ever get an independent financial audit for a couple of reasons--if the finances are strong, it gives the players leverage in the next CBA.  If the finances are weak, it implodes the values of small market teams.  The owners have nothing to gain, and quite a bit to lose by opening their books.

You might gain some credibility if you were to acknowledge the Twins DO, in fact, recieve on the order of $210M per year in revenue sharing. 

 

 

[nicksaviking]

*******Moderator Note******

These responses are getting needlessly personal. Stick to the topic and stop with the name calling.

[LA Vikes Fan]

On 12/12/2025 at 7:14 AM, Woof Bronzer said:

An independent financial audit would clear up a lot of things.  

Here's the money paragraph from Chief's link.  Yeah, sure, the Twins lose money when the Pirates are profitable on gate alone.  (It also looks like Pittsburgh is home to actual journalists who don't just take billionaires at their word.)

the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that in most years since 2007, the Pirates have been able to cover their payroll with their gate revenue (ie. ticket sales, concessions, stadium merchandise sales, and parking) alone. This does not include any revenue from national or local television, or, most importantly, revenue sharing. 

I think you misread the article. I wouldn't be surprised if the Pirates covered their on the field payroll from gate revenue in most years, especially since their payroll has been in the bottom 5, normally between $70M and $90M. That leaves about $171.7M in additional expense not covered in the reported case of the Pirates. That money is for the minor league system, front office and support staff, travel, player development, logistics, draft and signing bonuses, outside legal and accounting, admin expenses, etc. Payroll at 30-35% of total revenue is about right. That article doesn't say the Pirates are profitable on gate revenue alone, that article says the Pirates cover their on the field payroll for players from gate revenue. In other words, the Pirates cover roughly 30-35% of their overall expenses from gate revenue. Whether they are profitable depends on other revenue sources. The idea that the Pirates are profitable on gate revenue alone isn't correct.  

Look, I'd be happy to get out the pitchforks on the Pohlads if they were making  a killing on the Twins and not re-investing. The numbers I've been able to find don't show that. They show revenue of roughly $342M in 2023, and revenue of $324M in 2025 against expenses of $300-330M. That all tracks with the published Pirates and Braves numbers since the Twins run higher payrolls than the Pirates and much lower than the Braves, and those two teams run between $171.7M (Pirates) and $256M (Braves) in non-payroll expenses. If you run the numbers that I've seen in places like Forbes, the Twins are probably a little better than break even in 2026 with a $110-120M payroll, with maybe a 5% gross margin.  If somebody a has complete numbers that show something else, I'd love to see them.   

 

[howeda7]

Apparently so many local people wanted a piece that they formed a 3rd group. Vetting all these people caused the delay. I would be surprised if Mauer or some other former players don't have some token % so they can trot them out.

[Woof Bronzer]

15 minutes ago, LA Vikes Fan said:

I think you misread the article. I wouldn't be surprised if the Pirates covered their on the field payroll from gate revenue in most years, especially since their payroll has been in the bottom 5, normally between $70M and $90M. That leaves about $171.7M in additional expense not covered in the reported case of the Pirates. That money is for the minor league system, front office and support staff, travel, player development, logistics, draft and signing bonuses, outside legal and accounting, admin expenses, etc. Payroll at 30-35% of total revenue is about right. That article doesn't say the Pirates are profitable on gate revenue alone, that article says the Pirates cover their on the field payroll for players from gate revenue. In other words, the Pirates cover roughly 30-35% of their overall expenses from gate revenue. Whether they are profitable depends on other revenue sources. The idea that the Pirates are profitable on gate revenue alone isn't correct.  

Look, I'd be happy to get out the pitchforks on the Pohlads if they were making  a killing on the Twins and not re-investing. The numbers I've been able to find don't show that. They show revenue of roughly $342M in 2023, and revenue of $324M in 2025 against expenses of $300-330M. That all tracks with the published Pirates and Braves numbers since the Twins run higher payrolls than the Pirates and much lower than the Braves, and those two teams run between $171.7M (Pirates) and $256M (Braves) in non-payroll expenses. If you run the numbers that I've seen in places like Forbes, the Twins are probably a little better than break even in 2026 with a $110-120M payroll, with maybe a 5% gross margin.  If somebody a has complete numbers that show something else, I'd love to see them.   

 

You're right, I misstated the facts.  The article clearly says the Pirates were able to cover payroll alone with the gate.  But the article also says this does not include revenue sharing and tv deals.  They get at least $210m in revenue share not to mention tv or advertising or anything else.  So even by your $171m expenses math (which is a guess, no one knows) the Pirates have enough revenue in this area to be profitable as well.  

Based on this I think it's accurate to say the Pirates are quite profitable.  

[LA Vikes Fan]

10 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

You're right, I misstated the facts.  The article clearly says the Pirates were able to cover payroll alone with the gate.  But the article also says this does not include revenue sharing and tv deals.  They get at least $210m in revenue share not to mention tv or advertising or anything else.  So even by your $171m expenses math (which is a guess, no one knows) the Pirates have enough revenue in this area to be profitable as well.  

Based on this I think it's accurate to say the Pirates are quite profitable.  

That's a a good point if the $210M number is accurate. I can't find that anywhere. I did find an article that said $110m in revenue sharing per team, and I've seen "estimates" ranging from $50-&70M for the Royals to "somewhere between $100 and $200 million per team", a range so broad as to make the number almost meaning less.  The Baseball America article says the Pirates bought in $84M in gate revenues which supports the idea that they cover payroll from the gate since they have such a low payroll. The article it is based on says the Pirates pay in $70.4M into the revenue sharing pool and pull out $121.9M for a positive $51.6M addition to revenue. Remember, the way the revenue-sharing pool works is that each team puts in 48% of their local operating revenue into the revenue-sharing pool and then each team pulls out the same amount. So the Dodgers, Yankees, etc. put in over $200 or $300 million apiece and pull out the same $121.9 million that the Pirates pullout after only putting in $70.4 million.

Bottom line is I can't find anywhere that says Pirates get $210 million in additional revenue from the revenue-sharing pool. Maybe there's something that says that's what each team pulled out but doesn't take into account what they put in? I don't know, I just can't find that $210M number anywhere. Can you tell me what the sources? Here are links to the articles I reference, hopefully since I suck at computers and might not be giving you what you need to access the articles:

https://dkpittsburghsports.com/team/site-stuff/feed?page=0&content=pirates-losing-money-bob-nutting-investigation-mlb-dk

https://www.thetribune.ca/sports/mlb/#:~:text=Under the new collective bargaining,million USD%2C if not more

ttps://www.thetribune.ca/sports/mlb/#:~:text=Under%20the%20new%20collective%20bargaining,million%20USD%2C%20if%20not%20more

[old nurse]

1 hour ago, LA Vikes Fan said:

I think you misread the article. I wouldn't be surprised if the Pirates covered their on the field payroll from gate revenue in most years, especially since their payroll has been in the bottom 5, normally between $70M and $90M. That leaves about $171.7M in additional expense not covered in the reported case of the Pirates. That money is for the minor league system, front office and support staff, travel, player development, logistics, draft and signing bonuses, outside legal and accounting, admin expenses, etc. Payroll at 30-35% of total revenue is about right. That article doesn't say the Pirates are profitable on gate revenue alone, that article says the Pirates cover their on the field payroll for players from gate revenue. In other words, the Pirates cover roughly 30-35% of their overall expenses from gate revenue. Whether they are profitable depends on other revenue sources. The idea that the Pirates are profitable on gate revenue alone isn't correct.  

Look, I'd be happy to get out the pitchforks on the Pohlads if they were making  a killing on the Twins and not re-investing. The numbers I've been able to find don't show that. They show revenue of roughly $342M in 2023, and revenue of $324M in 2025 against expenses of $300-330M. That all tracks with the published Pirates and Braves numbers since the Twins run higher payrolls than the Pirates and much lower than the Braves, and those two teams run between $171.7M (Pirates) and $256M (Braves) in non-payroll expenses. If you run the numbers that I've seen in places like Forbes, the Twins are probably a little better than break even in 2026 with a $110-120M payroll, with maybe a 5% gross margin.  If somebody a has complete numbers that show something else, I'd love to see them.   

 

https://www.dkpittsburghsports.com/team/site-stuff/feed?page=0&filter=ARTICLES&content=pirates-losing-money-bob-nutting-investigation-mlb-dk

For all of the people that don’t believe your Pittsburg numbers 

Baseball America has the numbers for Atlanta, if people wish to look that up 

 

[LA Vikes Fan]

8 minutes ago, old nurse said:

https://www.dkpittsburghsports.com/team/site-stuff/feed?page=0&filter=ARTICLES&content=pirates-losing-money-bob-nutting-investigation-mlb-dk

For all of the people that don’t believe your Pittsburg numbers 

Baseball America has the numbers for Atlanta, if people wish to look that up 

 

That article says the Pirates 2024 numbers are  - revenue is $292.4, expenses are $294.6M for an operating loss of $2.2M. Makes sense to me. 

[old nurse]

31 minutes ago, LA Vikes Fan said:

That article says the Pirates 2024 numbers are  - revenue is $292.4, expenses are $294.6M for an operating loss of $2.2M. Makes sense to me. 

That was from a guy who had sources from years of covering the Pirates 

[SF Twins Fan]

I love this if true.  He's always willing to spend to move the team better.

[Woof Bronzer]

15 hours ago, LA Vikes Fan said:

That's a a good point if the $210M number is accurate. I can't find that anywhere. I did find an article that said $110m in revenue sharing per team, and I've seen "estimates" ranging from $50-&70M for the Royals to "somewhere between $100 and $200 million per team", a range so broad as to make the number almost meaning less.  The Baseball America article says the Pirates bought in $84M in gate revenues which supports the idea that they cover payroll from the gate since they have such a low payroll. The article it is based on says the Pirates pay in $70.4M into the revenue sharing pool and pull out $121.9M for a positive $51.6M addition to revenue. Remember, the way the revenue-sharing pool works is that each team puts in 48% of their local operating revenue into the revenue-sharing pool and then each team pulls out the same amount. So the Dodgers, Yankees, etc. put in over $200 or $300 million apiece and pull out the same $121.9 million that the Pirates pullout after only putting in $70.4 million.

Bottom line is I can't find anywhere that says Pirates get $210 million in additional revenue from the revenue-sharing pool. Maybe there's something that says that's what each team pulled out but doesn't take into account what they put in? I don't know, I just can't find that $210M number anywhere. Can you tell me what the sources? Here are links to the articles I reference, hopefully since I suck at computers and might not be giving you what you need to access the articles:

https://dkpittsburghsports.com/team/site-stuff/feed?page=0&content=pirates-losing-money-bob-nutting-investigation-mlb-dk

https://www.thetribune.ca/sports/mlb/#:~:text=Under the new collective bargaining,million USD%2C if not more

ttps://www.thetribune.ca/sports/mlb/#:~:text=Under%20the%20new%20collective%20bargaining,million%20USD%2C%20if%20not%20more

It's in the same Tribune article.  $200m for rev share alone.  Assuming there's TV money, radio, advertising, etc on top of it.  $210m in revenue is almost certainly light.  I appreciate the work you've done on the costs but the truth is it's just a guess, we have no idea.  If teams like the Pirates and Twins want to cry poverty there's a simple solution:  open up the books.  What do they have to hide?

This results in each team taking in 3.3 per cent of the total—an estimated $110 million USD, if not more. Teams also receive a share of national revenues, totalling around $90 million USD per team.

[Woof Bronzer]

15 hours ago, old nurse said:

https://www.dkpittsburghsports.com/team/site-stuff/feed?page=0&filter=ARTICLES&content=pirates-losing-money-bob-nutting-investigation-mlb-dk

For all of the people that don’t believe your Pittsburg numbers 

Baseball America has the numbers for Atlanta, if people wish to look that up 

 

This seems to be a fan blog from the mid 2000s.  The Pittsburgh Gazette did an actual investigation into the numbers.  I trust the work of actual journalists a bit more than whatever "DK's Grind Feed" is, sorry.