Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48

Thread: Time To Step Up

  1. #21
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    3,232
    Like
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chance View Post
    But they are clearly making every effort possible. And not waiting for other teams to dictate what they can do. My belief is the Twins miss out on players all the time because they were about 500 thousand off the price and won't cave.
    Clearly? How so?

  2. #22
    Super Moderator All-Star twinsnorth49's Avatar
    Posts
    2,915
    Like
    450
    Liked 593 Times in 320 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by USAFChief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by twinsnorth49 View Post
    What difference does it make if they paid up front or borrowed it? Either way they are either paying back the loan through stadium revenue or recouping the loss from insanely paying $150,000,000 up front to build something that will take years to pay for, from stadium revenue.

    Paying for something of that magnitude up front is pretty poor use of capital and a very bad business practice. One which no smart business person would do.
    Insanely paying $150M up front?

    First off, they promised to pay $150M up front. If you can't see how it makes a difference whether they borrowed the money, or invested their own funds, then look no farther than their player payroll budget. That should help illuminate it for you.

    Secondly, the value of their franchise went up something on the order of $200M before the ink was dry on the stadium deal. I'm thinking any smart business person would invest $150 to make $200, or $150M to make $200M, and add in greater annual revenues to the pot in either case, by the way. Or...I guess even better...if they could get away with it...invest $0 to make $200M.
    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.

  3. #23
    Senior Member All-Star Winston Smith's Avatar
    Posts
    1,097
    Like
    42
    Liked 130 Times in 70 Posts
    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.
    This comment brought to you from the Rosedale Mall studio by Hamm's Beer, brewed in the land of sky blue waters.

  4. #24
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    426
    Like
    0
    Liked 6 Times in 6 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by USAFChief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by twinsnorth49 View Post
    What difference does it make if they paid up front or borrowed it? Either way they are either paying back the loan through stadium revenue or recouping the loss from insanely paying $150,000,000 up front to build something that will take years to pay for, from stadium revenue.

    Paying for something of that magnitude up front is pretty poor use of capital and a very bad business practice. One which no smart business person would do.
    Insanely paying $150M up front?

    First off, they promised to pay $150M up front. If you can't see how it makes a difference whether they borrowed the money, or invested their own funds, then look no farther than their player payroll budget. That should help illuminate it for you.

    Secondly, the value of their franchise went up something on the order of $200M before the ink was dry on the stadium deal. I'm thinking any smart business person would invest $150 to make $200, or $150M to make $200M, and add in greater annual revenues to the pot in either case, by the way. Or...I guess even better...if they could get away with it...invest $0 to make $200M.
    I don't ever recall them ever promising to pay $150M upfront.

  5. #25
    Super Moderator MVP USAFChief's Avatar
    Posts
    5,301
    Like
    1,368
    Liked 1,035 Times in 470 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SweetOne69 View Post
    I don't ever recall them ever promising to pay $150M upfront.


    http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/news/...=.jsp&c_id=min

    http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/min/ballpark/new_faq.jsp

  6. #26
    Super Moderator All-Star twinsnorth49's Avatar
    Posts
    2,915
    Like
    450
    Liked 593 Times in 320 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by USAFChief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SweetOne69 View Post
    I don't ever recall them ever promising to pay $150M upfront.


    http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/news/...=.jsp&c_id=min

    http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/min/ballpark/new_faq.jsp
    So it's actually a $40M payment that was owed up front, that's pretty typical in order to show you can raise the capital, it's also from the Twins, not the Pohlads.

    So where is the part about it having to be their own money, from their own bank account?

  7. #27
    Super Moderator MVP USAFChief's Avatar
    Posts
    5,301
    Like
    1,368
    Liked 1,035 Times in 470 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by twinsnorth49 View Post
    What difference does it make if they paid up front or borrowed it?
    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?

  8. #28
    Super Moderator MVP USAFChief's Avatar
    Posts
    5,301
    Like
    1,368
    Liked 1,035 Times in 470 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by twinsnorth49 View Post
    So where is the part about it having to be their own money, from their own bank account?

    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

  9. #29
    Super Moderator All-Star twinsnorth49's Avatar
    Posts
    2,915
    Like
    450
    Liked 593 Times in 320 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by USAFChief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by twinsnorth49 View Post
    So where is the part about it having to be their own money, from their own bank account?

    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
    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

  10. #30
    Super Moderator All-Star twinsnorth49's Avatar
    Posts
    2,915
    Like
    450
    Liked 593 Times in 320 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by USAFChief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by twinsnorth49 View Post
    What difference does it make if they paid up front or borrowed it?
    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?
    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. #31
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer mikeee's Avatar
    Posts
    702
    Like
    6
    Liked 9 Times in 9 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by AllhopeisgoneMNTWINS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by USAFChief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by old nurse View Post
    Easy to spend someone else's money.
    Sure is. Just look at how easy it was for the Pohlads to spend a half billion of other people's money on their new stadium.

    What's hard seems to be for them to spend their own money.
    Pohlads will never spend their own money to improve this team. The day they do is when pigs fly.
    They did a lot better than Calvin Griffith.

  12. #32
    Senior Member Double-A
    Posts
    186
    Like
    0
    Liked 31 Times in 16 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by glanzer View Post
    I am very impatient. I really liked some of the recent offseasons where the wheels were in motion immediately. I have to applaud our old friend Bill Smith in that regard, he was off and running as soon as the World Series ended. That Hardy-Gomez deal happened in early November... as did the infamous Garza-Young swap.
    God I hope this is sarcasm......

  13. #33
    Super Moderator MVP USAFChief's Avatar
    Posts
    5,301
    Like
    1,368
    Liked 1,035 Times in 470 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by twinsnorth49 View Post
    They do have one additional expense change that didn't exist at the Dome, a $150M loan payment.
    So then we agree. The Pohlads didn't put a dime of their own money towards the new stadium.

  14. #34
    Senior Member Double-A
    Posts
    186
    Like
    0
    Liked 31 Times in 16 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Chance View Post
    I hate to beat a dead horse but I'm going to do it anyway.

    We all saw the Blue Jays make a big trade. They are taking on a lot of salary but they want to compete and they want to win. They are now rumored to be targeting another starter, such as Edwin Jackson or Zach Grienke. With almost every free agent or trade target you are sure to hear Toronto mentioned.

    The Twins haven't made an impact trade or signing yet and it's discouraging. It's not that I'm impatient but since there has already been several players the Twins have been rumored to have interested in come off the board, I can't help but think that they aren't really serious about improving this team. I have the sinking feeling that they will continue to undervalue players and not she'll out what it takes to bring in quality players via trade or free agency. It is time that the owners and front office step up and pay the price to field a winner. They have to make realistic offers in trades and they need to offer a real contract to a top end free agent. It's really aggravating to see the Blue Jays doing what Twins fans want and deserve since Target Field has been built and we show up to watch the AAA guys play.
    Um, yes you are impatient.....its not even Thanksgiving.

  15. #35
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,575
    Like
    7
    Liked 27 Times in 22 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by USAFChief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by twinsnorth49 View Post
    They do have one additional expense change that didn't exist at the Dome, a $150M loan payment.
    So then we agree. The Pohlads didn't put a dime of their own money towards the new stadium.
    If money is borrowed it is against their assets. They put their money into it. 125 million more than you did. Why are being the east end of a horse going west about this?

  16. #36
    Super Moderator All-Star twinsnorth49's Avatar
    Posts
    2,915
    Like
    450
    Liked 593 Times in 320 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by USAFChief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by twinsnorth49 View Post
    They do have one additional expense change that didn't exist at the Dome, a $150M loan payment.
    So then we agree. The Pohlads didn't put a dime of their own money towards the new stadium.
    "Get your money for nothing, chicks for free".......sure why not.

  17. #37
    Super Moderator MVP USAFChief's Avatar
    Posts
    5,301
    Like
    1,368
    Liked 1,035 Times in 470 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by twinsnorth49 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by USAFChief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by twinsnorth49 View Post
    They do have one additional expense change that didn't exist at the Dome, a $150M loan payment.
    So then we agree. The Pohlads didn't put a dime of their own money towards the new stadium.
    "Get your money for nothing, chicks for free".......sure why not.
    A Dire Straits reference. Massive props.

    Not their best work, but anything done by Mark Knopfler is good by me.

  18. #38
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    555
    Like
    0
    Liked 12 Times in 8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by USAFChief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by twinsnorth49 View Post
    They do have one additional expense change that didn't exist at the Dome, a $150M loan payment.
    So then we agree. The Pohlads didn't put a dime of their own money towards the new stadium.
    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.

  19. #39
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    555
    Like
    0
    Liked 12 Times in 8 Posts
    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.

  20. #40
    Super Moderator All-Star twinsnorth49's Avatar
    Posts
    2,915
    Like
    450
    Liked 593 Times in 320 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by edavis0308 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by USAFChief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by twinsnorth49 View Post
    They do have one additional expense change that didn't exist at the Dome, a $150M loan payment.
    So then we agree. The Pohlads didn't put a dime of their own money towards the new stadium.


    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.
    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

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.