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

[old nurse]

21 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Prove it wasn't. I have no idea how they would accrue that much operating debt unless they're paying Joe Pohlad $50M a year salary.

$70 million in upgrades, to the scoreboard. They have done other upgrades to the park, loss of television revenue, no fan income 2020, limited 2021, losses in sponsorships, they paid everyone during the shutdown where other teams laid off. Does that total however any millions they claim.?  Maybe. Baseball courtesy of the Wilpons and McCort has rules against a team borrowing against a team for outside reasons.  That is why you or others can’t prove the money was spent outside the Twins 

[DJL44]

28 minutes ago, old nurse said:

$70 million in upgrades, to the scoreboard. They have done other upgrades to the park, loss of television revenue, no fan income 2020, limited 2021, losses in sponsorships, they paid everyone during the shutdown where other teams laid off. Does that total however any millions they claim.?  Maybe. Baseball courtesy of the Wilpons and McCort has rules against a team borrowing against a team for outside reasons.  That is why you or others can’t prove the money was spent outside the Twins 

How did the debt grow from $350M before the season started to $500M now? That would imply that they would have lost money even with a roster full of players making the MLB minimum salary. $350M revenue, $130M payroll and a $150M operating loss doesn't math.

[USAFChief]

3 hours ago, bunsen82 said:

Other sports writers and even writers here on Twinsdaily have stated they knew who the buyers were but were waiting for the information to be made public or approved.  

Can you point me to the writers here who have so stated? Share a link.

Or the other sports writers?

Thanks

 

[old nurse]

13 hours ago, DJL44 said:

How did the debt grow from $350M before the season started to $500M now? That would imply that they would have lost money even with a roster full of players making the MLB minimum salary. $350M revenue, $130M payroll and a $150M operating loss doesn't math.

The numbers seems to vary by what they need yo be at the time. 

[Cap'n Piranha]

21 hours ago, DJL44 said:

How did the debt grow from $350M before the season started to $500M now? That would imply that they would have lost money even with a roster full of players making the MLB minimum salary. $350M revenue, $130M payroll and a $150M operating loss doesn't math.

There is absolutely zero chance the Twins are getting $350M in revenue.  Far more likely they are getting closer to $250M, and given the collapse in TV revenue, and the significant shortfall in attendance revenue, it may have been closer to $200M.  Also, I can't see $350M in debt anywhere--I see an article from Baseball America from March (read: before the season) stating $425M in debt.  If the Twins lost $50M last year (not a crazy number given the revenue collapse year over year), the debt could easily have grown by $25M in 6 months.  I would highly recommend reading the article; unless you're determine to keep your head in the sand, it will very clearly demonstrate to you that small market teams are losing money.  If people here weren't determined to hate the Pohlads, it might also help engender a different perspective--namely that the Pohlads have been burning money trying to make the Twins a competitive organization.  They've failed, but that's because of poor baseball decisions, not because they're not spending.

https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/what-the-pirates-twins-finances-reveal-about-mlbs-revenue-divide/

[Cap'n Piranha]

23 hours ago, 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.  

Your cognitive dissonance here is totally astounding.  The Pohlads care only about getting more money and are totally greedy...yet they've gone $500M in debt?  If your opinion of the Pohlads is true, wouldn't they have stopped investing in Target Field, cut payroll to Rays/Marlins levels, and took an axe to the front office?  They did none of those things, and you're so full of spite and hate that you can't bring yourself to admit it.

They're rightsizing because they spent years deficit spending to do their best to put a winning team on the field, and despite all of it, they continued to get vilified by the fans for being cheap.  My guess is finally they had enough, and decided to actually spend to what the fans are willing to pay for.  Minnesotans didn't want to buy the cable packages that would have kept DSG on board.  Minnesotans didn't want to show up in greater numbers at the park, and spend more when they got there.  And that's fine; everyone has a right to spend their money exactly how they want to (within the bounds of the law), and no one should blame someone for how they choose to spend their money.  And yes, that includes the Pohlads.

I hate this tired trope that gets thrown out of "carrying water" for the Pohalds, or being a "Pohlad pocket protector".  It's lazy and stupid, and doesn't even make sense--again, the Pohlads have incurred $500M in debt running the Twins; that's a full 1/8th of their estimated net worth.  Just admit that you're a judgmental little tyrant who thinks you should be able to tell others what to do with their own money.

Finally, I'm in no way defending the Pohlads in all things.  You want to criticize them for hiring the wrong people if the FO?  I agree with you.  You want to criticize them for keeping those people around, even though they're making bad baseball decisions?  I agree with you.  But you can't in any fashion that adheres to reality call them greedy or interested only in money; were that the case, we wouldn't be talking about $500M in debt.

[DJL44]

8 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

There is absolutely zero chance the Twins are getting $350M in revenue.  Far more likely they are getting closer to $250M, and given the collapse in TV revenue, and the significant shortfall in attendance revenue, it may have been closer to $200M. 

They get over $210M in shared revenue from the league without having to sell a single ticket. They had 1.77M fans last season with an average ticket price of $35. That's another $62M and they keep $32M of that. We're above $250M without considering local television, radio, concessions, merchandise or advertising in Target Field.

Average MLB revenue per team is $450M. There is no way the Twins are getting less than half of what an average team makes.

[Woof Bronzer]

20 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Your cognitive dissonance here is totally astounding.  The Pohlads care only about getting more money and are totally greedy...yet they've gone $500M in debt?  If your opinion of the Pohlads is true, wouldn't they have stopped investing in Target Field, cut payroll to Rays/Marlins levels, and took an axe to the front office?  They did none of those things, and you're so full of spite and hate that you can't bring yourself to admit it.

They're rightsizing because they spent years deficit spending to do their best to put a winning team on the field, and despite all of it, they continued to get vilified by the fans for being cheap.  My guess is finally they had enough, and decided to actually spend to what the fans are willing to pay for.  Minnesotans didn't want to buy the cable packages that would have kept DSG on board.  Minnesotans didn't want to show up in greater numbers at the park, and spend more when they got there.  And that's fine; everyone has a right to spend their money exactly how they want to (within the bounds of the law), and no one should blame someone for how they choose to spend their money.  And yes, that includes the Pohlads.

I hate this tired trope that gets thrown out of "carrying water" for the Pohalds, or being a "Pohlad pocket protector".  It's lazy and stupid, and doesn't even make sense--again, the Pohlads have incurred $500M in debt running the Twins; that's a full 1/8th of their estimated net worth.  Just admit that you're a judgmental little tyrant who thinks you should be able to tell others what to do with their own money.

Finally, I'm in no way defending the Pohlads in all things.  You want to criticize them for hiring the wrong people if the FO?  I agree with you.  You want to criticize them for keeping those people around, even though they're making bad baseball decisions?  I agree with you.  But you can't in any fashion that adheres to reality call them greedy or interested only in money; were that the case, we wouldn't be talking about $500M in debt.

It's fascinating that you think greedy people don't go into debt.  

[Woof Bronzer]

37 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

There is absolutely zero chance the Twins are getting $350M in revenue. 

I agree with you, it's almost certainly more.  

[Vanimal46]

2 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

It's fascinating that you think greedy people don't go into debt.  

Especially from 2017 - 2023 ish. Record low interest rates and funny money being spent all over the place. If Average Joes like us were qualifying for sub 3% interest rates on mortgages, imagine the opportunities available to billionaire families. 

[Cap'n Piranha]

24 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

They get over $210M in shared revenue from the league without having to sell a single ticket. They had 1.77M fans last season with an average ticket price of $35. That's another $62M and they keep $32M of that. We're above $250M without considering local television, radio, concessions, merchandise or advertising in Target Field.

Average MLB revenue per team is $450M. There is no way the Twins are getting less than half of what an average team makes.

Where are you sourcing your numbers?  They are completely off.  MLB revenue is about $12B, which means you're at least $50M off in your average number.  You also seem not to understand average; if the Dodgers make $800M, and the Twins $100M, then yes, the average is $450M, but that doesn't mean the Twins are getting $450M.  If the top 10 teams make $7B, and the bottom 20 make $6B that's also a $450M average, but the Twins are nowhere near $450M.

The Twins get nowhere near $210M in shared revenue--to get that, the shared revenue pool would need to be $6.3B, which would mean local revenue would need to be $13.2B.  That's more than $1B more than MLB's total revenue in 2024.  The Twins get essentially no money from local TV.  They might get even less from the radio deal; TV and Radio combined might be less than $10M annually.  Concessions and merch are maybe another $25M, part of which has to be shared with the operator and the licensor.  Advertising in Target Field can't be massive, considering it's within the financial reach of a random lawyer.

You don't seem to grasp the idea that the richest teams make multiples of the smaller teams--just in 2024, the Dodgers, Yankees, and Braves combined to make over $2B (potentially up to $2.5B).  And all of this ignores the reality that no one disputes the Twins have debt; if the Twins are actually making well north of $300M, then the Pohlads are spending closer to $400M annually on the Twins--are we really supposed to be mad that an ownership group is spending $4B a decade on a sports team?  Isn't it much more likely that the Twins revenue is much lower, requiring the defecit spending?

[Cap'n Piranha]

22 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

It's fascinating that you think greedy people don't go into debt.  

Never said they don't go into debt.  I said they don't go into debt without expecting a return on investment--and if you think it's wrong for anyone to want a return on their investment, then honestly you're just not living in reality.  It's also bizarre to think the Pohlads happily went into debt because greed, when that debt directly lowered the worth of their single biggest asset, and probably torpedoed it's sale.

[Cap'n Piranha]

24 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

I agree with you, it's almost certainly more.  

As broken down above, there is absolutely zero evidence or reason to believe the Twins are at $350M, much less above.  I challenge you, for the first time in this entire thread, to produce a single shred of evidence for your baseless claims.  I'm sure you won't, mostly because you can't.

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Where are you sourcing your numbers?  They are completely off.  MLB revenue is about $12B,

That was the 2024 number. I'm looking at 2025. League attendance went up, ticket prices went up, and they just got a new TV deal. Maybe it's not $13.5B but it's at least $12.5B for 2025 and $13B for 2026.

We're still way above the $200M total revenue you suggested. They get at least that much in shared money before they sell a single ticket. Forbes estimate is $324M revenue for the Twins in 2025.

Minnesota Twins on the Forbes MLB Team Valuations List

1 hour ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

are we really supposed to be mad that an ownership group is spending $4B a decade on a sports team?  Isn't it much more likely that the Twins revenue is much lower, requiring the defecit spending?

I just choose not to believe that debt number at all. They never provide any evidence for it.

[LA Vikes Fan]

47 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Where are you sourcing your numbers?  They are completely off.  MLB revenue is about $12B, which means you're at least $50M off in your average number.  You also seem not to understand average; if the Dodgers make $800M, and the Twins $100M, then yes, the average is $450M, but that doesn't mean the Twins are getting $450M.  If the top 10 teams make $7B, and the bottom 20 make $6B that's also a $450M average, but the Twins are nowhere near $450M.

The Twins get nowhere near $210M in shared revenue--to get that, the shared revenue pool would need to be $6.3B, which would mean local revenue would need to be $13.2B.  That's more than $1B more than MLB's total revenue in 2024.  The Twins get essentially no money from local TV.  They might get even less from the radio deal; TV and Radio combined might be less than $10M annually.  Concessions and merch are maybe another $25M, part of which has to be shared with the operator and the licensor.  Advertising in Target Field can't be massive, considering it's within the financial reach of a random lawyer.

You don't seem to grasp the idea that the richest teams make multiples of the smaller teams--just in 2024, the Dodgers, Yankees, and Braves combined to make over $2B (potentially up to $2.5B).  And all of this ignores the reality that no one disputes the Twins have debt; if the Twins are actually making well north of $300M, then the Pohlads are spending closer to $400M annually on the Twins--are we really supposed to be mad that an ownership group is spending $4B a decade on a sports team?  Isn't it much more likely that the Twins revenue is much lower, requiring the defecit spending?

This is the big question that without an answer really makes the Pohlads are cheap mantra kind of meaningless. Based on the anecdotal evidence I've seen, the Twins revenue is likely above $300m and below $350M now after the collapse of the RSN model. Forbes estimated their 2023 revenue at $342M with an operating profit of $19M, and estimated revenue for 2025 at $324M net of Target Field related payments. Don't forget that the Twins contributed $175M to the Target Field construction - the narrative that "taxpayers built them a ballpark" is only partially correct. 

So what happens to that $324M? Well, they have debt of $425-450M so a lot goes to debt service. But let's pretend that doesn't exist or will be gone in the future due to taking on limited partners. The team payroll last year was about $130M - started at $145M, ended at $95M, the $130M is actual cash out the door. Pittsburg's 2024 numbers show they had another $171.5M in expenses for administration, minor league teams, signing bonuses, salaries, travel, back office, etc, including stadium costs. Atlanta had $595M in revenue, $504M in expenses, of which $238M was the team payroll, so the Braves had $256M in non-payroll expenses. Let's be helpful to the Pohlads are cheap side and say that the Twins' non-payroll expenses are a little more than Pittsburg but a lot less than Atlanta, so $180-$200M. The Twins are bigger spenders in the international draft, coaches salaries, on the  minors, etc., than Pittsburgh, but nowhere near Atlanta. That puts the Twins total expenses at anywhere from $310m - $330M for 2025, possibly more, unlikely to be less. That would leave at most $14M in operating profit, or less than 5%, and could result in an operating loss for 2025. In other words, most likely the Twins as a business basically broke even before debt service on the $425M in debt. Now it's fair to say that at least some if not most of that debt is from unrelated businesses so that's on ownership, which is why didn't count it. Still, if these numbers are even close the point is the Twins last year did not make much if any money, even after selling of half the team at the trade deadline. In fact, selling off half the team is how they broke even or limited their losses. If they hadn't, they would have had another $25M in payroll and would have operated at a loss if the revenue and expense numbers are right. Look, there's a lot of things we don't know so this is speculative, but I'd be willing to bet these numbers are within 10% or reality. Also, this is only  operating profit, it does not account for any increase in value of the team as an asset. 

So where does this back of the envelope math leave us? Well, let's assume that (1) the new limited partners clear out the debt, (2) the 2025 revenues and 2026 revenues are roughly the same (could easily be much less based on comparative attendance and sales of streaming rights), (3) the team is not going to spend any increase in team value on the team for the simple reason that they have to sell to realize that increase in value and could make a lot more money taking that value and investing it in the stock market, and (4) they would want to make at least a 7-10% operating profit (good luck with that). The current payroll is $95M, and the other expenses in 2026 are closer to the $200m mark if only for inflation but let's say $190M. That totals $285M on a $324M revenue base, leaving $39M.  It's unreasonable to think they won't want at least some operating margin for unforeseen expenses and some profit, so let's be greedy to us, not the Pohlads, and give them a margin of 5% of revenue, or $16M. That leaves them $23M to up the payroll to around $118M. 

Kind of makes sense, doesn't it? And keep in mind, that's with a conservatively low view of non-payroll expenses and a 5% operating margin. Very few companies stay in business with a 5% operating margin. With that thin a margin, all you need is one piece of bad luck and you are operating at a loss or out of business. In other words, if ownership is willing to operate without making any margin and take the risk of an operating loss if attendance or TV revenue declines, the payroll could be $135M. A more likely scenario is an on the field payroll of $110-115M, leaving us room to add $15-$20M, of which raises through arbitration, etc could eat $5m or so. Two FA pitchers at a total of $7m or less and a 1B at $6-10M and it's gone. Spend that now and their is no room to take on salary at the trade deadline, no money for replacement guys from other teams when a player gets hurt, and very little room for error if attendance tanks.  

With all that, I come to 2 conclusions. First, the idea that the Twins have "mild flexibility": to add free agents makes sense. They got a few bucks, but not much. Second, owning a MLB team in a smaller to mid market is a depressingly lousy business unless you can draw 2.5-3M fans paying full price. Ain't nobody getting rich owning that kind of a team. You have to be rich and willing to be a little less rich if you want to own a baseball team outside of the coasts, Atlanta, Houston, and Chicago. 

I welcome comments on the math and revenue or expense assumptions IF you have a basis and sources. Mine are Forbes estimates and published information about other teams. I don't pretend to be an expert so I'd be really curious on other's takes but "I know the Twins make a lot more money" without backup is not a good take. 

[The Great Hambino]

47 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

That was the 2024 number. I'm looking at 2025. League attendance went up, ticket prices went up, and they just got a new TV deal. Maybe it's not $13.5B but it's at least $12.5B for 2025 and $13B for 2026.

We're still way above the $200M total revenue you suggested. They get at least that much in shared money before they sell a single ticket. Forbes estimate is $324M revenue for the Twins in 2025.

Minnesota Twins on the Forbes MLB Team Valuations List

I just choose not to believe that debt number at all. They never provide any evidence for it.

I like referring to that Forbes list.  It's more than likely not gospel, but a heck of a lot more reliable than any other comprehensive list I've seen.  The number that really sticks out to me for the Twins is the debt/value ratio.  At 28% (which, at the $1.5B valuation, suggests about $420M of debt), it's the second-highest in the league other than the Marlins, whose figure is skewed by a super-low franchise valuation.  For frame of reference, Cleveland is at 7%, Milwaukee 15%, KC 21%, Pittsburgh 11%.   Detroit has nearly identical revenue and franchise valuation figures as the Twins, but debt/value of only 10%.  So some way or another, the teams most similar to the Twins have found ways to operate without compiling nearly as much debt.   Based on their payroll rankings, I find it very hard to believe that the difference is all, or even mostly due to spending too much on players.

I also really find it hard to believe that MLB would allow teams to explicitly borrow against the team to fund other business interests.  A more likely scenario would involve the Twins over time funding outside interests indirectly by paying off as little of their debt as they can get away with so that more cash is available for other purposes.  Kind of a backdoor way to lever up the team for outside purposes.  And at some point in the recent past, they stopped being able to get away with it. 

I'd be very curious to see how these figures have changed over time.

[nicksaviking]

On 12/9/2025 at 4:15 PM, DJL44 said:

How did the debt grow from $350M before the season started to $500M now? That would imply that they would have lost money even with a roster full of players making the MLB minimum salary. $350M revenue, $130M payroll and a $150M operating loss doesn't math.

It's easy when you file an extension for you tax returns and run them fiscal year instead of calendar year. Plenty of time mid-year to change up the debt.

Minnesota Twins LLC can easily absorb the losses from Joe P's Great Idea 1065, something like this:

 

[Woof Bronzer]

2 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Never said they don't go into debt.  I said they don't go into debt without expecting a return on investment--and if you think it's wrong for anyone to want a return on their investment, then honestly you're just not living in reality.  It's also bizarre to think the Pohlads happily went into debt because greed, when that debt directly lowered the worth of their single biggest asset, and probably torpedoed it's sale.

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...

[purplesoldier4u]

On 12/8/2025 at 8:43 AM, DJL44 said:

Expect Varde Partners to act like any private equity group: extreme cost cuts while you drain every last dollar out of the organization and then sell the brand (which is all that is left) to some other company.

Varde is more of investment group with the emphasis on investment. I believe their goal will be to make the Twins a more valuable asset.

[Woof Bronzer]

2 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

As broken down above, there is absolutely zero evidence or reason to believe the Twins are at $350M, much less above.  I challenge you, for the first time in this entire thread, to produce a single shred of evidence for your baseless claims.  I'm sure you won't, mostly because you can't.

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?

 

[tony&rodney]

Inherited wealth is fun to play with, even if you lose it.

[LA Vikes Fan]

49 minutes ago, 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?

 

You may have seen the math I did above. I'm guessing that the team makes some money in a good year, loses a little in a down year, and basically breaks about even or operates at a slight profit over the longer 5-7 year haul. In other words, I think they spend what they get out of the team but don't add a lot to that, except maybe investing in payroll if they think they have a playoff team and can bank on getting their money back form an increase in attendance in the short term leading to increased revenue. That explains the up and down in the payroll and the unwillingness to invest beyond what the business generates. I don't think we have a bunch of fat cats burning Twins generated dollar bills to light their cigars while they drink vintage champagne, but I also don't think the Pohlads are reaching into their own pockets in a vanity play like Steve Cohen of the Mets. In other words, they are acting like rational businesspeople, not the win at all cost spend my own money owner we all wish we had.

Let's face it, the real money in owning a baseball team is the increase in franchise value. The problem is you can't spend that increase unless you sell the team or borrow against the franchise. We now see the flaws in the borrowing approach. The unfortunate news is that we shouldn't expect a big rise in spending unless attendance improves or TV revenue spikes. The better news is that by the Twins selling limited shares, we may be spared a complete tear down and a team that looks like Pittsburg or Oakland/Sacramento/Vegas. 

[old nurse]

5 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Your cognitive dissonance here is totally astounding.  The Pohlads care only about getting more money and are totally greedy...yet they've gone $500M in debt?  If your opinion of the Pohlads is true, wouldn't they have stopped investing in Target Field, cut payroll to Rays/Marlins levels, and took an axe to the front office?  They did none of those things, and you're so full of spite and hate that you can't bring yourself to admit it.

They're rightsizing because they spent years deficit spending to do their best to put a winning team on the field, and despite all of it, they continued to get vilified by the fans for being cheap.  My guess is finally they had enough, and decided to actually spend to what the fans are willing to pay for.  Minnesotans didn't want to buy the cable packages that would have kept DSG on board.  Minnesotans didn't want to show up in greater numbers at the park, and spend more when they got there.  And that's fine; everyone has a right to spend their money exactly how they want to (within the bounds of the law), and no one should blame someone for how they choose to spend their money.  And yes, that includes the Pohlads.

I hate this tired trope that gets thrown out of "carrying water" for the Pohalds, or being a "Pohlad pocket protector".  It's lazy and stupid, and doesn't even make sense--again, the Pohlads have incurred $500M in debt running the Twins; that's a full 1/8th of their estimated net worth.  Just admit that you're a judgmental little tyrant who thinks you should be able to tell others what to do with their own money.

Finally, I'm in no way defending the Pohlads in all things.  You want to criticize them for hiring the wrong people if the FO?  I agree with you.  You want to criticize them for keeping those people around, even though they're making bad baseball decisions?  I agree with you.  But you can't in any fashion that adheres to reality call them greedy or interested only in money; were that the case, we wouldn't be talking about $500M in debt.

None of the Pohlads are greedy crowd will ever admit you are correct. Bloated front office doesn’t help the bottom line.  

https://www.mlb.com/twins/team/front-office

Look under group sales and think of attendance. Does that department even pay for itself? Manager game day experience. Paraphrase Al Davis. Just win baby.  Lots of check collecting going on. It will be interesting to see if the investors look into the productivity of a lot of these people. The massive scouting executive do not appear to be effective by the number of people listed 

[tony&rodney]

2 hours ago, LA Vikes Fan said:

The better news is that by the Twins selling limited shares, we may be spared a complete tear down and a team that looks like Pittsburg or Oakland/Sacramento/Vegas. 

While I appreciate your larger point and agree (mostly) with your analysis above, it is worth noting that both Pittsburgh and West Sacramento should be better than the Twins in 2026. Change needs to happen.

[Woof Bronzer]

14 hours ago, LA Vikes Fan said:

You may have seen the math I did above. I'm guessing that the team makes some money in a good year, loses a little in a down year, and basically breaks about even or operates at a slight profit over the longer 5-7 year haul. In other words, I think they spend what they get out of the team but don't add a lot to that, except maybe investing in payroll if they think they have a playoff team and can bank on getting their money back form an increase in attendance in the short term leading to increased revenue. That explains the up and down in the payroll and the unwillingness to invest beyond what the business generates. I don't think we have a bunch of fat cats burning Twins generated dollar bills to light their cigars while they drink vintage champagne, but I also don't think the Pohlads are reaching into their own pockets in a vanity play like Steve Cohen of the Mets. In other words, they are acting like rational businesspeople, not the win at all cost spend my own money owner we all wish we had.

Let's face it, the real money in owning a baseball team is the increase in franchise value. The problem is you can't spend that increase unless you sell the team or borrow against the franchise. We now see the flaws in the borrowing approach. The unfortunate news is that we shouldn't expect a big rise in spending unless attendance improves or TV revenue spikes. The better news is that by the Twins selling limited shares, we may be spared a complete tear down and a team that looks like Pittsburg or Oakland/Sacramento/Vegas. 

Again, if the Pohlads were losing money every year a "rational businessperson" would have sold the club.  "Here's a billion dollars, can I take a losing business off your hands?"  There is in only one rational response to that.  

Fans truly do not need to play the Pohlad's game of crying poverty.  The only "evidence" we have is the Pohlads whining about losing money, and they have proved time and again that nothing they say can be trusted.  Your numbers seem reasonable but their books are closed.  It's a best guess.  You don't know any better than I do.  What I do know is the Pohlads could have sold the team for more than a billion dollars and decided not to.  That is a fact we do know.  

You are saying they are just being rational by holding on to a losing business.  Wouldn't the simpler, more "rational" explanation being they are holding on because it makes money?  Or do you truly believe that the Twins are the 1 professional sports franchise that loses money? 

Do you honestly believe two private equity firms would invest in an operation that is losing millions?

Who is being "rational" here?    

[LA Vikes Fan]

2 hours ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Again, if the Pohlads were losing money every year a "rational businessperson" would have sold the club.  "Here's a billion dollars, can I take a losing business off your hands?"  There is in only one rational response to that.  

Fans truly do not need to play the Pohlad's game of crying poverty.  The only "evidence" we have is the Pohlads whining about losing money, and they have proved time and again that nothing they say can be trusted.  Your numbers seem reasonable but their books are closed.  It's a best guess.  You don't know any better than I do.  What I do know is the Pohlads could have sold the team for more than a billion dollars and decided not to.  That is a fact we do know.  

You are saying they are just being rational by holding on to a losing business.  Wouldn't the simpler, more "rational" explanation being they are holding on because it makes money?  Or do you truly believe that the Twins are the 1 professional sports franchise that loses money? 

Do you honestly believe two private equity firms would invest in an operation that is losing millions?

Who is being "rational" here?    

i hear your argument and it has some merit but I see 2 good reasons to continue to hold the franchise if I'm the Pohlads. The most obvious is the run up in franchise value. It's like owning a house you rent out. Maybe the rent does nothing more than cover the mortgage, taxes, and insurance, or leaves yo with a slight positive every month. It's still worth owning as long as its value is going up every year and not worth it when that stops. That dovetails with the Pohlads behavior; they kept the franchise as it went up in value and then tried to sell it when they thought the value rise would stop. They just overpriced it for the market, so they took on two LPs (we think) and undoubtedly will put it back on the market unless franchise values start rising again. I don't think that's likely short term, so my guess is the Twins are either bought by one of the new LPs or back on the market after the new CBA is signed.

The second is the reason most of these billionaire types buy teams - the prestige and ego gratification. Think about it this way. How many people in the US own the majority or all of a professional sports franchise? 100? 150? 200? Now cut that to the big 4 in order of prestige, the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL. Given the cross ownership in many cities between leagues, we are now probably down below 100, maybe to 75, people who own enough of a team to be the "ownership face" of the team. Limited partners/behind the scenes partial owners don't count. Owning a major sport pro team gives one some serious billionaire flex. You get to sit in the owner's box at games, go to the meetings, sit on committees (like Jim Pohlad on the CBA negotiating committee), get tickets to other sports events like the Super Bowl, go on TV and sound important, talk the press if you want, etc. 

So I see a good business reason to own the team and a good ego reason. You could argue that ownership should put some of the increased vague into payroll but almost none of them do that unless they have a bunch of cash sitting around and even then, most don't.  Besides, it's just not good business to rob Peter to pay Paul; something the Pohlads have learned. They did that with the Twins, wound up with too much debt, and had to take on partners. 

[Woof Bronzer]

1 hour ago, LA Vikes Fan said:

i hear your argument and it has some merit but I see 2 good reasons to continue to hold the franchise if I'm the Pohlads. The most obvious is the run up in franchise value. It's like owning a house you rent out. Maybe the rent does nothing more than cover the mortgage, taxes, and insurance, or leaves yo with a slight positive every month. It's still worth owning as long as its value is going up every year and not worth it when that stops. That dovetails with the Pohlads behavior; they kept the franchise as it went up in value and then tried to sell it when they thought the value rise would stop. They just overpriced it for the market, so they took on two LPs (we think) and undoubtedly will put it back on the market unless franchise values start rising again. I don't think that's likely short term, so my guess is the Twins are either bought by one of the new LPs or back on the market after the new CBA is signed.

The second is the reason most of these billionaire types buy teams - the prestige and ego gratification. Think about it this way. How many people in the US own the majority or all of a professional sports franchise? 100? 150? 200? Now cut that to the big 4 in order of prestige, the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL. Given the cross ownership in many cities between leagues, we are now probably down below 100, maybe to 75, people who own enough of a team to be the "ownership face" of the team. Limited partners/behind the scenes partial owners don't count. Owning a major sport pro team gives one some serious billionaire flex. You get to sit in the owner's box at games, go to the meetings, sit on committees (like Jim Pohlad on the CBA negotiating committee), get tickets to other sports events like the Super Bowl, go on TV and sound important, talk the press if you want, etc. 

So I see a good business reason to own the team and a good ego reason. You could argue that ownership should put some of the increased vague into payroll but almost none of them do that unless they have a bunch of cash sitting around and even then, most don't.  Besides, it's just not good business to rob Peter to pay Paul; something the Pohlads have learned. They did that with the Twins, wound up with too much debt, and had to take on partners. 

Good points and you are right, it's likely a number of different factors.  I do hope they are learning lessons and get their books in order to facilitate a sale.  

[Major League Ready]

On 12/10/2025 at 4:20 PM, LA Vikes Fan said:

This is the big question that without an answer really makes the Pohlads are cheap mantra kind of meaningless. Based on the anecdotal evidence I've seen, the Twins revenue is likely above $300m and below $350M now after the collapse of the RSN model. Forbes estimated their 2023 revenue at $342M with an operating profit of $19M, and estimated revenue for 2025 at $324M net of Target Field related payments. Don't forget that the Twins contributed $175M to the Target Field construction - the narrative that "taxpayers built them a ballpark" is only partially correct. 

So what happens to that $324M? Well, they have debt of $425-450M so a lot goes to debt service. But let's pretend that doesn't exist or will be gone in the future due to taking on limited partners. The team payroll last year was about $130M - started at $145M, ended at $95M, the $130M is actual cash out the door. Pittsburg's 2024 numbers show they had another $171.5M in expenses for administration, minor league teams, signing bonuses, salaries, travel, back office, etc, including stadium costs. Atlanta had $595M in revenue, $504M in expenses, of which $238M was the team payroll, so the Braves had $256M in non-payroll expenses. Let's be helpful to the Pohlads are cheap side and say that the Twins' non-payroll expenses are a little more than Pittsburg but a lot less than Atlanta, so $180-$200M. The Twins are bigger spenders in the international draft, coaches salaries, on the  minors, etc., than Pittsburgh, but nowhere near Atlanta. That puts the Twins total expenses at anywhere from $310m - $330M for 2025, possibly more, unlikely to be less. That would leave at most $14M in operating profit, or less than 5%, and could result in an operating loss for 2025. In other words, most likely the Twins as a business basically broke even before debt service on the $425M in debt. Now it's fair to say that at least some if not most of that debt is from unrelated businesses so that's on ownership, which is why didn't count it. Still, if these numbers are even close the point is the Twins last year did not make much if any money, even after selling of half the team at the trade deadline. In fact, selling off half the team is how they broke even or limited their losses. If they hadn't, they would have had another $25M in payroll and would have operated at a loss if the revenue and expense numbers are right. Look, there's a lot of things we don't know so this is speculative, but I'd be willing to bet these numbers are within 10% or reality. Also, this is only  operating profit, it does not account for any increase in value of the team as an asset. 

So where does this back of the envelope math leave us? Well, let's assume that (1) the new limited partners clear out the debt, (2) the 2025 revenues and 2026 revenues are roughly the same (could easily be much less based on comparative attendance and sales of streaming rights), (3) the team is not going to spend any increase in team value on the team for the simple reason that they have to sell to realize that increase in value and could make a lot more money taking that value and investing it in the stock market, and (4) they would want to make at least a 7-10% operating profit (good luck with that). The current payroll is $95M, and the other expenses in 2026 are closer to the $200m mark if only for inflation but let's say $190M. That totals $285M on a $324M revenue base, leaving $39M.  It's unreasonable to think they won't want at least some operating margin for unforeseen expenses and some profit, so let's be greedy to us, not the Pohlads, and give them a margin of 5% of revenue, or $16M. That leaves them $23M to up the payroll to around $118M. 

Kind of makes sense, doesn't it? And keep in mind, that's with a conservatively low view of non-payroll expenses and a 5% operating margin. Very few companies stay in business with a 5% operating margin. With that thin a margin, all you need is one piece of bad luck and you are operating at a loss or out of business. In other words, if ownership is willing to operate without making any margin and take the risk of an operating loss if attendance or TV revenue declines, the payroll could be $135M. A more likely scenario is an on the field payroll of $110-115M, leaving us room to add $15-$20M, of which raises through arbitration, etc could eat $5m or so. Two FA pitchers at a total of $7m or less and a 1B at $6-10M and it's gone. Spend that now and their is no room to take on salary at the trade deadline, no money for replacement guys from other teams when a player gets hurt, and very little room for error if attendance tanks.  

With all that, I come to 2 conclusions. First, the idea that the Twins have "mild flexibility": to add free agents makes sense. They got a few bucks, but not much. Second, owning a MLB team in a smaller to mid market is a depressingly lousy business unless you can draw 2.5-3M fans paying full price. Ain't nobody getting rich owning that kind of a team. You have to be rich and willing to be a little less rich if you want to own a baseball team outside of the coasts, Atlanta, Houston, and Chicago. 

I welcome comments on the math and revenue or expense assumptions IF you have a basis and sources. Mine are Forbes estimates and published information about other teams. I don't pretend to be an expert so I'd be really curious on other's takes but "I know the Twins make a lot more money" without backup is not a good take. 

Thumbs up, you actually showed your assumptions and did some accounting.  The norm here is to take a position that the Pohlads are cheap while offering absolutely nothing to back that position.  I spent a few hours a couple years ago doing what you did in terms of trying to piece together the financials.  I came to the same conclusion as you.  

[tony&rodney]

Nice work LA Vike Fan.

My only disagreement with ownership is that they do not have a hold on how their POBO operates with the resources given. In the current front office era, the Twins have outspent their ALC foes as well as Milwaukee and Tampa Bay. My guess is that the Pohlads really like Falvey. He is probably a really good guy too.

Unless and until the team is sold, the new normal will be lower roster payrolls. The roster is unbalanced a this time, which should mean some transactions. However, the POBO comments lead us to believe the same roster that closed out last season can compete with a newly signed first baseman from among a somewhat tired looking group, although it is possible O'Hearn or another might pan out. 

To be fair, perhaps no team will negotiate with the Twins. We cannot know how other teams see the Twins players. An Ober for Coby Mayo trade seems worth a call. A trade of Pablo Lopez and Alan Roden for Jonah Tong seems worth a call. That alone frees up enough money to sign Bo Bichette. We all know that isn't happening. The point isn't trading Ober or Lopez, the point is that within a $100-110M 26 person roster budget there are possibilities. The front office needs to engage and take a couple of wild swings. One would think that a guy who values home runs and could care less about strike outs would take a big hack this offseason. Yes, this could also mean trading away a prospect such as Emmanuel Rodriguez and naturally that decision could come back to bite badly. The status quo though just doesn't cut it. Or, because the Twins have the 3rd pick next July ... Can this current roster really win the 2026 World Series? Sweet.

[old nurse]

On 12/10/2025 at 6:30 PM, LA Vikes Fan said:

You may have seen the math I did above. I'm guessing that the team makes some money in a good year, loses a little in a down year, and basically breaks about even or operates at a slight profit over the longer 5-7 year haul. In other words, I think they spend what they get out of the team but don't add a lot to that, except maybe investing in payroll if they think they have a playoff team and can bank on getting their money back form an increase in attendance in the short term leading to increased revenue. That explains the up and down in the payroll and the unwillingness to invest beyond what the business generates. I don't think we have a bunch of fat cats burning Twins generated dollar bills to light their cigars while they drink vintage champagne, but I also don't think the Pohlads are reaching into their own pockets in a vanity play like Steve Cohen of the Mets. In other words, they are acting like rational businesspeople, not the win at all cost spend my own money owner we all wish we had.

Let's face it, the real money in owning a baseball team is the increase in franchise value. The problem is you can't spend that increase unless you sell the team or borrow against the franchise. We now see the flaws in the borrowing approach. The unfortunate news is that we shouldn't expect a big rise in spending unless attendance improves or TV revenue spikes. The better news is that by the Twins selling limited shares, we may be spared a complete tear down and a team that looks like Pittsburg or Oakland/Sacramento/Vegas. 

According to Forbes data from 24, the twins revenue per fan is$50  a spike in attendance would have to be quite large to afford a 20m player