VIDEO: Dave St. Peter Answers Your Questions

My assumption is that if the Twins payroll is 50% of revenues, a large chunk of the other 50% is things like salaries for front office, and the hundreds/thousands of non-player personnel (scouts, accountants, sales staff, marketing group, etc.). I assume all of those people get paid too. I assume that travel (for the team personnel, but also scouts, etc.) get included in there. 

Travel and the salaries of other personnel probably don't amount to anything close to "a large chunk of the other 50%".  How much do you think they make?  Players might make 50%, but they make a TON.

Also, "thousands"?  I doubt the Twins personnel rolls are quite THAT numerous.  There are 372 names on the "Front Office" page at the Twins site, and it seems to be a fairly exhaustive list -- a number of them even appear to be part-time employees, so I would guess anyone not on that list is either part-time/seasonal and/or minimum wage.  Only a very small handful on that list would be traveling with the team.  I think they outsource concessions and probably some other things.  Maybe if you count every part-time employee (grounds crew, custodians, etc.), you might get close to a thousand, but by that point you're basically adding exclusively seasonal minimum wage employees, which have about as much effect as minor league player salaries (which I notice you left off your list).

In terms of payroll and spending, I don't know what more you want from the front office. We're never going to get everything. In multiple conversations with different people within the organization, I don't have any reason to believe they are lying/misleading anyone. 

I don't think they are lying/misleading either, but I still think they are working from a very different definitional foundation.  Like back in the stadium debate days, I am pretty sure that "breaking even" and "making money" frequently became "losing money."  It was nice to hear St. Peter clarify the definition of "player payroll" but in retrospect I suppose that should have been assumed, given the published nature of player salaries and context of those discussions.

I'd be more interested in their definition of "revenue" in that equation.  Does it fully include everything (local/team revenues, shared league revenues, possible revenue sharing)?  Gross or net -- is anything deducted or depreciated off the top there, before they look at their 52% payroll target?  Taxes?  Construction costs?  Loan interest/payments?  Revenue sharing?  They own their own radio station -- how does that figure in?  I know for revenue sharing purposes, MLB won't let him shift or deduct things anymore, but for their own internal calculations and considerations, it's quite possible that the Twins do.

Heck, just what IS their revenue?  If 50-52% player payroll is standard and they've been meeting or exceeding that figure regularly, what's the harm in disclosing how the Bloomberg and Forbes revenue estimates are way off base?  (Consider it a courtesy to the Bloomberg and Forbes folks. )  I know Bloomberg specifically contacted MLB teams for comment and information, and some responded -- did the Twins provide any?  Maybe the estimates are wrong for this market?  Maybe the Twins are under-performing the market from a revenue standpoint?

I did post ashburyjohn's revenue question in the suggestion thread, but I don't think it was asked.  Although perhaps it was and I couldn't hear his response after "three hits from the bong."