-
11-19-2012, 04:04 PM #21
-
11-19-2012, 04:16 PM #22
Payroll has nothing to do with them shelling out $150M up front or borrowed, it's based on projected revenue.In fact, if they ever did decide to break the bank and throw a whole bunch more money at payroll, they would be in a better position to do it with $150M sitting in the bank than buried underneath a baseball stadium, that's what banks are for, borrowing money! They didn't make $200M just because they decided to borrow the money.
And, they have to pay the money back, that's money they would otherwise have in their pocket, which they don't, which makes it out of pocket.
-
11-19-2012, 04:22 PM #23
I'm starting to feel sorry for the Pohlads investing their own money into a mainly taxpayer paid for cash cow. I could tear up any time.
Having said that they own the team and can do what they want and spend what they want and our recourse is to stop buying tickets if we don't like it. But we can bitch on blogs if that helps."WAR, what is it good for? Absolutely nothin'!" Edwin Starr
-
11-19-2012, 04:47 PM #24Senior Member Triple-A
- Posts
- 334
-
11-19-2012, 05:25 PM #25
-
11-19-2012, 05:33 PM #26
-
11-19-2012, 05:37 PM #27
They actually paid for their share of the stadium up front, using their own money = they are able to use all current revenue (minus normal other expenses such as minor leagues, travel, etc) to support player payroll (minus other normal expenses, i.e. minor leagues, travel, etc.)
They actually didn't pay a dime for the stadium up front, instead using other people's money = they first must extract loan payments from current revenues (and then take out normal other expenses) before using said revenue to support player payroll
Why else do we still hear the "52% of revenues to payroll" line? None of their other expenses (with the probable exception of revenue sharing) changed dramatically when they moved to TF. The cost of running their minor leagues didn't change. The cost of travel for the team didn't change. The cost of their other employees didn't change dramatically. Why would payroll expenditures still be "around 50-52%" of revenue?
-
11-19-2012, 05:39 PM #28
From the Twins own site on MLB.com:
$260 million comes from Hennepin County and $152 million comes from the Pohlad family and the Twins. Initially, ownership pledged $130 million for the ballpark but will pay an additional $22 million to cover costs associated with ballpark enhancements and fan amenities. Ownership has also pledged an additional $15 million to augment infrastructure upgrades outside and around the ballpark
-
11-19-2012, 06:15 PM #29
This is also from your link.
Under the proposal, the Twins would contribute $125 million, including a $40 million payment up front, with the balance to be paid prior to completion of construction. Hennepin County would fund its share -- including $235 million in construction costs and approximately $84 million in site development
-
11-19-2012, 07:36 PM #30
Why would a business arbitrarily reduce it's margins just because they moved? Revenue has increased, so has payroll, I wouldn't expect them to increase the percentage they pay towards it.
They do have one additional expense change that didn't exist at the Dome, a $150M loan payment. The fact is, it makes way more sense for the Pohlads to borrow the money at a favourable interest rate (probably payable to themselves from their own investment firm), than to shell out that kind of working capital that could be earning considerably more in the marketplace. You need to get over rich people knowing how to get richer, they can have their cake and eat it too.
-
11-19-2012, 07:40 PM #31
-
11-19-2012, 07:52 PM #32
-
11-19-2012, 07:54 PM #33
-
11-19-2012, 07:56 PM #34Member Single-A
- Posts
- 59
-
11-19-2012, 08:33 PM #35Senior Member Big-Leaguer
- Posts
- 967
-
11-19-2012, 08:43 PM #36
-
11-19-2012, 08:47 PM #37
-
11-19-2012, 09:18 PM #38Senior Member Triple-A
- Posts
- 463
Does everybody else think that payroll is magically going to shoot up once the Pohlads pay of their $150M bill they are footing, which like Chief said, is being paid off via revenues? Once it is paid off, our payroll SHOULD go up that amount to maintain the 50-52% into payroll. Does everything really think that will happen?
I for one see where Chief is coming from.
-
11-19-2012, 09:27 PM #39Senior Member Triple-A
- Posts
- 463
I should add that it seems like the disagreement here is on the perception of the wording as to how the Pohlads would be footing the bill. While both instances technically display them paying their portion with their own money.. I feel there is a degree of dishonesty to the latter using new revenues to pay the bill. Especially when so much public money is being used and those said revenues could be going towards bettering the on field product. It's pocketing the profit when you should be*reinvesting into your product.
-
11-19-2012, 10:08 PM #40
Let's review this again, if the Pohlads borrowed the money, they would pay down the loan with stadium revenue. If they paid all the money up front, they would pay back the expenditure each year with stadium revenue. You say potato, I say potato. Payroll has gone up with revenue, what's the issue?
Investing $150M has a far higher rate of return than the debt service on borrowing it, it's pretty simple.
Rich people



LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks




Reply With Quote

Examining Oswaldo Arcia's recent struggles
Figuring hitters out, a baseball lifer told me recently, is like trying to untangle a giant knot. At first you just try to attack it in the easiest manner possible. If that does not work, you pick...
Today, 01:06 AM