Give Theo time

Willrust

New member
Joined:
May 1, 2013
Posts:
442
Liked Posts:
34
Nope. He is putting up $500M of his own money to make more money. Not win more games.



It is when you can easily afford $150-160M in payroll.



And extended Castro and signing Jackson to his deal increased the payroll from last year, decreased it, or pretty much left it the same?

Left it the same, which is still down about $35M from what it was when they bought the team.



You really think all of that makes up for the $35M a year being saved from payroll??? LOL!!!

Actually you probably do.



Seriously is there someone dumb enough to think the Cubs are making a killing in profit?

I mean really??

Every team is making money. Why do you think they don't let anyone see the books??

You really think that if teams were really losing money they wouldn't be going door to door showing the books to everyone??

Get a clue.

Where in the **** did I say the Cubs are not making a profit? All I said is that revenues do not equal profits. You keep saying that the Cubs are one of the top revenue teams in baseball. That does not automatically mean they are one of the top profit generating teams in baseball.
 

Willrust

New member
Joined:
May 1, 2013
Posts:
442
Liked Posts:
34
You clearly have no concept what is going on and are really dumb enough to believe that the win/loss record has much to do with profits, even after the Cubs lost 101 games last year and were still named the most profitable team in the majors. Not after all the other examples I have provided such as the Royals, who are making huge profits despite being one of the worst run teams in the sport the last 20-25 years.

No wonder politicians get to run free when there are people this dumb out there voting them back in office.

Blah, blah blah, absolutely nothing of sustenance in this worthless drivel.
 

KBisBack!

New member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
1,497
Liked Posts:
1,424
That also wasn't a sustainable process.

Why??

The team was still profitable during that process by a corporation that was going through bankruptcy.

But somehow new ownership can't sustain a process that a bankrupt corporation could??

Because Ricketts said so?? And you believe him? LOL!

However, to think that the Cubs can just dump 500M in a rebuild and not having to actually put some of the subsequent profits off of that rebuild back into the team is nucking futs.

Really??

You love to point to the Marlins as a money grab. They just got a brand spanking new ballpark. They raised salary the first year to complete the PR campaign, but how's their payroll doing now?

They are actually below where they were the last year at Joe Robbie or whatever the hell it is called now.

As I said in another thread, the Cubs currently have about 55M in payroll set for 2014. If they do not spend the 40-50M in contracts this offseason to at least equal the payroll from this year, then I will agree that they are just pursuing a money grab until they do spend money on the team.

So if they bilk $50M a year off payroll you will believe it but you won't believe it if it is only like $40M less???

Um ok.

And as I have said on many other threads, that until they get payroll back to the level the Tribune Company had it, I won't stop believing they are more about profits than winning.
 

KBisBack!

New member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
1,497
Liked Posts:
1,424
Why in the **** do you think they can afford a 150-160M payroll when no Cub franchise has ever had a payroll that high?

Um, because they had a $145M payroll. Made a profit that year and have increased their revenues since then. There are at least five other major league teams with a payroll of $150M at least I believe and there is no way the Cubs make less revenue than all five.

Other than all of those reasons, none at all.

You whine like people are asking for a level of payroll that is unheard of in the history of baseball.

Look around you as to what is going on in the league. Other big market teams are fielding payrolls in that neighborhood and no one is demanding the Cubs be the highest or even close to what the Yankees and Dodgers are doing.
 

KBisBack!

New member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
1,497
Liked Posts:
1,424
Blah, blah blah, absolutely nothing of sustenance in this worthless drivel.

Other than years of research done by Forbes Magazine.

But I forgot. They have no idea what they are doing. They are just the most successful business magazine around and have managed to do that despite not knowing as much about finances as some guys on a message board.

Got it.
 

Willrust

New member
Joined:
May 1, 2013
Posts:
442
Liked Posts:
34
Why??

The team was still profitable during that process by a corporation that was going through bankruptcy.

But somehow new ownership can't sustain a process that a bankrupt corporation could??

Because Ricketts said so?? And you believe him? LOL!



Really??

You love to point to the Marlins as a money grab. They just got a brand spanking new ballpark. They raised salary the first year to complete the PR campaign, but how's their payroll doing now?

They are actually below where they were the last year at Joe Robbie or whatever the hell it is called now.



So if they bilk $50M a year off payroll you will believe it but you won't believe it if it is only like $40M less???

Um ok.

And as I have said on many other threads, that until they get payroll back to the level the Tribune Company had it, I won't stop believing they are more about profits than winning.

The tribune under Zell backloaded all of the contracts knowing that they would never have to pay a majority of it.

Given the luxury tax changes, no, it wouldn't have been sustainable to continue to run out a 140+M payroll each year.
 

Willrust

New member
Joined:
May 1, 2013
Posts:
442
Liked Posts:
34
Um, because they had a $145M payroll. Made a profit that year and have increased their revenues since then. There are at least five other major league teams with a payroll of $150M at least I believe and there is no way the Cubs make less revenue than all five.

Other than all of those reasons, none at all.

You whine like people are asking for a level of payroll that is unheard of in the history of baseball.

Look around you as to what is going on in the league. Other big market teams are fielding payrolls in that neighborhood and no one is demanding the Cubs be the highest or even close to what the Yankees and Dodgers are doing.

The Cubs increased their revenues in 2012 & 2013 by cutting payroll to a more manageable amount. The tribune increased payroll from 96M in 2006 to 144M in 2011 without a specific source to fund those increased payrolls. You continue to be blinded by this fact. Teams do not just increase payroll by 50M without having a new source of significant income. Doesn't happen. The Dodgers increased payroll because of the television deal. The Phillies increased payroll because of their new stadium. The Cubs significantly increased their payroll, with what?
 

Willrust

New member
Joined:
May 1, 2013
Posts:
442
Liked Posts:
34
Other than years of research done by Forbes Magazine.

But I forgot. They have no idea what they are doing. They are just the most successful business magazine around and have managed to do that despite not knowing as much about finances as some guys on a message board.

Got it.

Here we go again with the Forbes Magazine fallback. Let me spell it out for you clearly so it might sink into that thick fucking cheese brain of yours: FORBES MAGAZINE DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE CUBS FINANCIALS! ALL OF THAT SHIT THEY PUT OUT WAS EDUCATED GUESSWORK BASED UPON INFORMATION THAT COULD BE OBTAINED PUBLICALLY. HOWEVER, AT NO POINT DID THEY PROVIDE ANY SOURCES OF WHERE THEY OBTAINED FACTUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FROM THE CUBS, BECAUSE THOSE SOURCES DO NOT EXIST!!!

Is that clear enough?

BTW, i would say that Fortune Magazine and the Wall Street Journal have as much credibility as Forbes Magazine; and they don't try to purport to know exactly how profitable major league baseball teams are. I also doubt that they would purport to give specific financial information about any company without providing sources of how that information was gleaned.
 

KBisBack!

New member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
1,497
Liked Posts:
1,424
The tribune under Zell backloaded all of the contracts knowing that they would never have to pay a majority of it.

Given the luxury tax changes, no, it wouldn't have been sustainable to continue to run out a 140+M payroll each year.

And yet at least five teams, some with lesser revenue, manage to sustain and continue to run out a 140+M payroll each year.

How can that be?
 

KBisBack!

New member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
1,497
Liked Posts:
1,424
The Cubs increased their revenues in 2012 & 2013 by cutting payroll to a more manageable amount.

Ummm.....

How does payroll have any affect on revenue???

I am not sure you have a clue on what you are talking about.

You can't increase revenue simply by cutting payroll.


The tribune increased payroll from 96M in 2006 to 144M in 2011 without a specific source to fund those increased payrolls. You continue to be blinded by this fact. Teams do not just increase payroll by 50M without having a new source of significant income. Doesn't happen. The Dodgers increased payroll because of the television deal. The Phillies increased payroll because of their new stadium. The Cubs significantly increased their payroll, with what?

HUH???

They increased revenue from 2006 to 2011 by raising ticket prices, attendance increased, adding to the advertising in the ballpark including the signage behind home plate, added more premium seating between the foul lines, added the Batter's Eye Club in center field, expanding the bleachers to add more seating and selling the naming rights to call the bleachers the Bud Light Bleachers.....

Really? Do you pay attention at all as to what is really going on or do you just blindly believe what is told to you in the last five minutes?

The Cubs significantly increased their payroll by using the available and increased revenue they generated.

It is obvious to many how they increased payroll. Only to the morons does it seem to be some sort of unsolvable mystery.
 

KBisBack!

New member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
1,497
Liked Posts:
1,424
Here we go again with the Forbes Magazine fallback. Let me spell it out for you clearly so it might sink into that thick fucking cheese brain of yours: FORBES MAGAZINE DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE CUBS FINANCIALS! ALL OF THAT SHIT THEY PUT OUT WAS EDUCATED GUESSWORK BASED UPON INFORMATION THAT COULD BE OBTAINED PUBLICALLY. HOWEVER, AT NO POINT DID THEY PROVIDE ANY SOURCES OF WHERE THEY OBTAINED FACTUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FROM THE CUBS, BECAUSE THOSE SOURCES DO NOT EXIST!!!

Is that clear enough?

BTW, i would say that Fortune Magazine and the Wall Street Journal have as much credibility as Forbes Magazine; and they don't try to purport to know exactly how profitable major league baseball teams are. I also doubt that they would purport to give specific financial information about any company without providing sources of how that information was gleaned.

Once again, do you think the owners are hiding their books because they are afraid to show people how much money they are losing or they really don't want people to know how much money they are making??

If you think they are hiding the books because they don't want people knowing how much money they are losing you are the dumbest human being alive.

By the way, Fortune has their list of the Fortune 500 companies. Do you think they have unlimited access to the financials of every company the put on their list, or do they maybe use the same educated estimates based on publicly obtained information?

Wall Street Journal publishes dozens of articles a week on financial analysis. Do you think every article they publish has full access to the company's financials??

For some idiot on the internet to discredit these articles because they don't say what they wish they would say is ignorant.
 

The Bandit

vick27m
Donator
Joined:
Oct 18, 2010
Posts:
2,076
Liked Posts:
579
Location:
The open road
Ummm.....

How does payroll have any affect on revenue???

I am not sure you have a clue on what you are talking about.

You can't increase revenue simply by cutting payroll.




HUH???

They increased revenue from 2006 to 2011 by raising ticket prices, attendance increased, adding to the advertising in the ballpark including the signage behind home plate, added more premium seating between the foul lines, added the Batter's Eye Club in center field, expanding the bleachers to add more seating and selling the naming rights to call the bleachers the Bud Light Bleachers.....

Really? Do you pay attention at all as to what is really going on or do you just blindly believe what is told to you in the last five minutes?

The Cubs significantly increased their payroll by using the available and increased revenue they generated.

It is obvious to many how they increased payroll. Only to the morons does it seem to be some sort of unsolvable mystery.

Maybe.. just maybe if someone hit you with a bat in the head you would actually make sense. dude payroll doesn't effect revenue? How the hell do you figure? You make money then you gotta pay the employees... herp da derp.
 

dabynsky

Fringe Average Mod
Donator
Joined:
May 17, 2010
Posts:
13,947
Liked Posts:
3,118
Maybe.. just maybe if someone hit you with a bat in the head you would actually make sense. dude payroll doesn't effect revenue? How the hell do you figure? You make money then you gotta pay the employees... herp da derp.

Revenue is the money which a company brings in, and thus costs have nothing to do with revenue. Profit is what would be effected by payroll.
 

The Bandit

vick27m
Donator
Joined:
Oct 18, 2010
Posts:
2,076
Liked Posts:
579
Location:
The open road
Revenue is the money which a company brings in, and thus costs have nothing to do with revenue. Profit is what would be effected by payroll.

Revenue covers the costs and what you are left with are profit. Revenue is spent on payroll otherwise where's the money coming from a hedgefund?
 

KBisBack!

New member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
1,497
Liked Posts:
1,424
dude payroll doesn't effect revenue? How the hell do you figure? You make money then you gotta pay the employees... herp da derp.


LOL!!!!!

Maybe if you someday get your GED and go to community college and take a basic economics course you will figure out the difference between revenue and profit.

Until then, do everyone a favor and shut up.
 

KBisBack!

New member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
1,497
Liked Posts:
1,424
This clip describes many of the the idiots buying into the myth that the Cubs are poor and not making any money


[video=youtube;8rh6qqsmxNs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rh6qqsmxNs[/video]
 

dabynsky

Fringe Average Mod
Donator
Joined:
May 17, 2010
Posts:
13,947
Liked Posts:
3,118
Revenue covers the costs and what you are left with are profit. Revenue is spent on payroll otherwise where's the money coming from a hedgefund?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue
In business, revenue or turnover is income that a company receives from its normal business activities, usually from the sale of goods and services to customers. In many countries, such as the United Kingdom, revenue is referred to as turnover. Some companies receive revenue from interest, royalties, or other fees.[1] Revenue may refer to business income in general, or it may refer to the amount, in a monetary unit, received during a period of time, as in "Last year, Company X had revenue of $42 million." Profits or net income generally imply total revenue minus total expenses in a given period. In accounting, revenue is often referred to as the "top line" due to its position on the income statement at the very top. This is to be contrasted with the "bottom line" which denotes net income.
 

The Bandit

vick27m
Donator
Joined:
Oct 18, 2010
Posts:
2,076
Liked Posts:
579
Location:
The open road
LOL!!!!!

Maybe if you someday get your GED and go to community college and take a basic economics course you will figure out the difference between revenue and profit.

Until then, do everyone a favor and shut up.

daw that's cute the little middleschooler is trying to insult me. 20 and in my 3rd year at a University that costs a bit more then a community college. But carry on. Troll. or how you would put it, "troll on, loser"
 

Top