From: kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian)
Subject: Re: Baseball finances query
Organization: Pitzer College
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:05:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.213815.2019@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
>Subject: Re: Baseball finances query
>Date: 17 Dec 92 21:38:15 GMT
>In article <1992Dec17.152407.1@uwovax.uwo.ca> jpalmer@uwovax.uwo.ca (The Econoclast) writes:
>>In article <kbanaian.113.0@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu>, kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian) writes:
>>
>>> Thought I'd bring out the numbers here.  These data were printed in the 7/2/
>>> 92 issue of _Financial World_.  They are for the 1991 season.
>>> 	Gate	Media	Stad.	Total	Player	Oper.	Oper.
>>> Team	Rec.	Rev.	Rev.	Rev.	Costs	Exp.	Inc.
>>> LA	26.6	32.5	18.0	79.3	36.0	72.0	 7.3
>>> Bos	24.5	40.5	14.3	81.5	35.4	70.8	10.7
>>> CWS	27.5	25.7	19.3	78.0	18.0	60.0	18.0
>>> StL	19.9	25.0	12.0	59.1	23.2	46.4	12.7
>>> ChC	22.8	27.5	12.0	64.5	29.0	58.0	 6.5
>>> KC	16.9	20.5	14.0	53.6	30.4	60.8	-7.2
>>> Phi	15.2	23.2	 7.6	48.2	21.7	43.4	 4.8
>>> Oak	25.7	27.0	10.0	64.9	39.2	66.6	-1.7
>>> Cal	19.0	27.9	 5.0	54.1	34.3	61.7	-7.6
>>> SF	15.5	26.2	 5.0	48.9	33.3	53.3	-4.4
>>> Cin	17.1	24.4	 5.3	49.0	27.1	48.8	 0.2
>>> SD	15.6	23.1	 7.5	48.4	24.4	48.8	-0.4
>>> Hou	10.6	25.2	 8.0	46.0	12.1	31.5	14.5
>>> Pit	16.2	21.9	 5.5	45.8	24.9	49.8	-4.0
>>> Det	15.6	28.8	 5.0	51.6	31.1	54.4	-2.8
>>> Atl	15.4	18.9	 3.8	40.3	20.4	40.8	-0.5
>>                ^^^^
>
>It looks like a lot of those numbers are fudged -- Atlanta and SF have 
>$20 million in non-player operating expenses, but the White Sox have
>$42 million.  Chyeah, right.  As if.

Gee, who pissed in *your* corn flakes?  I think the White Sox moved that 
year, no?  If so, wouldn't that year show a bunch of one-time expenditures?  
These are not out of line vs. the other large-market clubs (both NYs, LA, 
Tor, Bos).  I didn't write these numbers, but they are the only *
independent* source available.  (The last independent look was during the 
anti-trust hearings in the Senate in the early 70s.  Y'think Metzenbaum 
might get them to open up the books this time around?  Naw, ol' Howard knows 
a campaign contribution when he sees one!)

>
>Also, it looks like a lot of the non-player operating expenses are
>just made up -- Atlanta, San Diego, Pittsburgh, KC, and a bunch of other
>teams have total operating expenses that, coincidentally, are double
>player salaries.

Exactly?  This is beginning to read like "My mind is made up.  Don't confuse 
me with the facts."  Please post alternative data.

>
>The whole chart looks fishy.

And whaddya suppose the owners give Henry Aaron (see below, dear readers)?  
>
>Sculley documents other sneaky accounting techniques that the owners
>use to plead poverty.

True enough.  But as I stated in the notes to that table (regrettably 
deleted) the depreciation and interest figures are not in these figures.  
And I noted elsewhere that the Braves clearly understated the media 
revenues.  I didn't disagree with the Econoclast -- my point is that Fay 
made TBS pony up another $12m to the rest of the league.

>
>The owners just opened the books for the 1991 season, in a report done
>by the appropriately-named Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institute.
>Don't know how fudged those numbers were.
>-- 
Henry is a public finance guy, a good one at that, and has been at Brookings 
since the Stone Age, but IMO he's a hired gun in this.  Pay me large coin 
and I'll say the owners are in worse shape than Charles Keating!  The owners 
are NOT about to have a report show that they are making a handsome profit.