You also make two assumptions here — “inject capital” and “operate at a loss indefinitely” — for which there is no evidence. None. - ThreadSky

sheehannewsletter.bsky.social • 5 days ago

You also make two assumptions here — “inject capital” and “operate at a loss indefinitely” — for which there is no evidence. None.

Reposted from Steve Hasegawa

I don’t know why the snark. In what line of business are owners expected to inject capital in order to allow the business to operate at a loss indefinitely? And if that’s an expectation for some owners but not others, doesn’t that create an inherent imbalance?

Comments

zeitheist.bsky.social•3 days ago

Hi Joe,

I admire you telling it like it is regarding owners.
I wrote many words on this, looking at how they sell “efficiency,” why fans buy it, and what we should really demand from owners of quasi public goods.
Would be honored if you could scan it. Thank you.

https://open.substack.com/pub/michaelcecchini/p/mlbs-cynical-spreadsheets?r=2lr2o4&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false

mikeilikemike.bsky.social•5 days ago

So every team has equal amounts to spend on a revenue and owner net worth basis? Complete and utter hogwash for which there is no evidence. None.

bmkhawk.bsky.social•5 days ago

Setting aside the fact that nobody said that, who's fault is it we don't have clarity into team revenues? The owners are the ones hiding their books. Why are you carrying water for owners that are intentionally muddying the financial picture?

mikeilikemike.bsky.social•5 days ago

If there aren’t equal amounts to spend then clearly small markets are at a disadvantage, which runs counter to everything he’s saying.

And we have a good idea on revenues based on ticket prices and TV deals.

And sure, open the books. No objection from me. I’m comfortable it’d prove my point.

bmkhawk.bsky.social•5 days ago

There's never going to be equal amounts to spend, that's a red herring. The point is teams like the Pirates have the ability to spend far more than they do. It's teams like them that are the problem, not the Dodgers.

And there's much more to the revenue picture than gate receipts and TV revenue.

mikeilikemike.bsky.social•5 days ago

A red herring? Teams in other sports have more equal amounts to spend. Why not baseball? Because baseball exists for NY and LA. Not doubting the Pirates can spend more. But their “spending more” still leaves them $200 million shy of the Dodgers. Again, a scenario that doesn’t exist in other sports.

stevehasegawa.bsky.social•4 days ago

Well, that’s what you’d have to do if your costs exceeded your revenues. You could take on debt, but you’d have to turn a profit at some point to retire it.

jakealbrecht.bsky.social•5 days ago

Just for instance the Pirates are instructed to spend only the amount they make at the gate on payroll but they also receive revenue sharing. The idea of revenue sharing was it ALL went to players. It’s not the Yankees and Dodgers fault these cheapskates are pocketing it.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply