until owners open the books, i will never ever believe any franchise claiming they are losing money.

What phredbird said. I call ######## on this one.

Dolan estimates the team will draw about 1.7 million fans this season, more than 500,000 less than the team expected before Opening Day.

Considering they just traded two of their best and most reasonably priced players for nothing special, I'll guess that their attendance will drop even further next year.

The second part makes me think that Dolan is trying to claim that they lost $16 million because they are gonna make $16 million less than they thought they would.

Is this guy related to the New York Dolans?

Is this guy related to the New York Dolans?

Paul Dolan is the son of Larry Dolan, who is the uncle of James Dolan, who owns the Knicks.

I loved their movie, "Dolanmite."

Clearly, the Indians can't compete in that out-of-date stadium.

It's about as old as the Metrodome was when the Twins started whining for a new one . . .

Paul Dolan is the son of Larry Dolan, who is the uncle of James Dolan, who owns the Knicks

you know, you could have just said "they're cousins"

you know, you could have just said "they're cousins"

I could have, but Paul isn't the important person in this - it's Larry and James who actually own the teams.

Paul Dolan is the son of Larry Dolan, who is the uncle of James Dolan, who owns the Knicks

Dark Helmet: Before you die there is something you should know about us, Lone Star.
Lone Starr: What?
Dark Helmet: I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate.
Lone Starr: What's that make us?
Dark Helmet: Absolutely nothing! Which is what you are about to become.

The second part makes me think that Dolan is trying to claim that they lost $16 million because they are gonna make $16 million less than they thought they would.

That's my take. If the team budgeted for having x+$16 mil dollars of income and they are only going to collect x, then yeah the could lose $16 mil. Of course that assumes a budget is in place where there is 0 profit. My guess is the Indians will make $16 million dollars less in profit in 2009 than they expected back in the spring.

Remember when Jacobs Field had sellouts every game for years? Good times.

I think baseball is the only industry where the companies publicly whine about how bad their business is and advertise their losses.

I think baseball is the only industry where the companies publicly whine about how bad their business is and advertise their losses.

I think it is good form for military contractors to do so too.

Dolan estimates the team will draw about 1.7 million fans this season

...which is a higher total than any season between 1952 and 1992 inclusive, or approximately the combined attendance of the 1971, '72 and '73 seasons... tough times when you can't make a buck on 1.7 million attendance along with ancillary revenues.

Cleveland's a football town, though... the Browns could go 0-16 for a decade and still be popular.

until owners open the books, i will never ever believe any franchise claiming they are losing money.

I'd extend this beyond sports, to governments & big business. Basically anything requiring lawyers.

I think baseball is the only industry where the companies publicly whine about how bad their business is and advertise their losses.

I think it is good form for military contractors to do so too.

Local, county, state governments do this all the time. Every nickel cut from the budget is met with 'things are already thin, we'll have to shut down the fire department.'

Detroit's a football town, though... the Lions could go 0-16 for a decade and still be popular.

Fixed.

And true. If the Lions were any good at all, they would own the town. Own it. (And no smart-ass remarks about Detroit not being worth owning. It's still the tenth-largest TV market in the country.)

Yeah, this is right up there with the claimed value of losses from online piracy: it's simply not accurate that you "lost" from your bottom line (or even from your revenue over expenses) an amount equal to the retail value of the goods that weren't paid for.

And true. If the Lions were any good at all, they would own the town. Own it. (And no smart-ass remarks about Detroit not being worth owning. It's still the tenth-largest TV market in the country.)

Not the Wings?

I thought Detroit was Hockeytown, USA.

Coke to CW.

These might be somewhat genuine losses, but probably don't factor Cleveland receiving a greater cut of the revenue sharing pie. Or, they could just be "lost profits" as others have suggested. I guess we'll never really know which contorted definition of "losses" they're using.

Painting "Hockeytown, USA" on your ice doesn't make you hockey town.

Attendance is down almost everywhere, not surprisingly, and especially in Detroit, where it's down more than 20% from last year. One of the few places it's up is in Kansas City, by 15%. Everyone else is about who you'd expect: Phi, TB, Bos (did they add more seats?), Mil; but also Min, Tex, Fla, and KC. Overall it's down about 6%.

Detroit is really a great sports market, period (few of the fans going to games actually live in the city these days, I suspect). The way attendance shot up in 2006 was incredible, and it has remained high. Still top-five in the AL last I checked, even with the decline from last season.

The Browns could not even play for 4 years, and they'd be popular.

The Browns could not even play for 4 years, and they'd be popular.

They would have been immortalized had they went away forever. Had the original Browns not left for another city, the relationship between the fans and the team would have been seriously tested. Things were already going south between the fans and the team in the Belicheck era, and with the resurgence of the Indians, who knows what might have happened.

Four more years of Browns v.2.0 and we just might find out.

"I loved their movie, 'Dolanmite.'"

Shut yo mouth!

Not the Wings?

They couldn't even sell out some of their early round playoff games this year. Partly due to ridiculous prices, but still.

Four more years of Browns v.2.0 and we just might find out.

This makes me cringe. I have a feeling that as bad as the Indians are this year, that Mangini v2.0 + Browns v2.0 = catastrophy.

Local, county, state governments do this all the time. Every nickel cut from the budget is met with 'things are already thin, we'll have to shut down the fire department.'

Speaking as a city councilman who will never vote for a tax or spending increase, I can only say, "Amen."

$16,000,000.00 for not having 500,000 people walk through the turnstiles....that's only $32.00 per person.

Remember when Jacobs Field had sellouts every game for years? Good times.

Strangely enough, they were able to turn profits back then despite having a higher (non-inflation-adjusted) payroll, not owning their own cable network, and not getting millions of dollars per year in naming rights money. The one difference, as far as I can tell, is that Dick Jacobs was a fantastic owner and Paul Dolan can't tell his ass from a hole in the ground.

I guess they were a publicly traded company back then too, so they couldn't just make financial stuff up like they can now.

Mangini v2.0 + Browns v2.0 = catastrophy.

I'm a Bills fan but I've got a soft spot for the Browns and I live in Ohio, so I follow the goings-on up there. This Mangini thing is going to be a disaster. If you're gameplanning for the Browns, who scares you? Braylon Edwards, I guess, but he drops the ball once a game and doesn't have anyone to throw it to him anyway. Certainly nobody else on the offensive side of the ball. Who are the difference-makers on defense? They don't have any.

They've got one impact player, a coach with a spotty track record, no idea who their quarterback is, no idea who their starting running back is, and they're in a division with the Steelers, Ravens, and a Bengals team that's going to be much better this year. They went, what, five games without an offensive touchdown last year? There's no reason to think the offense is any better in '09.

They're a complete clusterf***.

They're a complete clusterf***.

In the NFL that means their a good bet to go 11-5.

They would have been immortalized had they went away forever. Had the original Browns not left for another city, the relationship between the fans and the team would have been seriously tested. Things were already going south between the fans and the team in the Belicheck era, and with the resurgence of the Indians, who knows what might have happened.

Four more years of Browns v.2.0 and we just might find out.

Please. The Browns will always be popular even if they suck balls. The love for the Browns is the same for the love of Ohio State. We suffered through Cooper, we suffered through Romeo (who is a hell of a nice guy btw and I wish him well). Never underestimate the deep love of football in Ohio. I can't comment on the Bengals because I am not a low class hillbilly like their fans.

Speaking as a city councilman who will never vote for a tax or spending increase, I can only say, "Amen."

Speaking as a tax payer, I say both "Amen" to you and "I hope you have aspirations for higher office."

he love for the Browns is the same for the love of Ohio State. We suffered through Cooper

Don't forget the Earl Bruce years, those were great years too. Keith Byars deserved better.

Speaking as a city councilman who will never vote for a tax or spending increase, I can only say, "Amen."

Ah, simply driving up your asking price. Clever.

Strangely enough, they were able to turn profits back then despite having a higher (non-inflation-adjusted) payroll, not owning their own cable network, and not getting millions of dollars per year in naming rights money.

They also didn't have a more popular team playing on the waterfront to compete for the local dollar. Is it any coincidence that the Indians' reign of sellouts coincided with the Browns' absence?

The Indians also get a share of the very big pie that is MLBAM right?

The Indians also get a share of the very big pie that is MLBAM right?

MLBAM isn't really a big pie. It was at one time valued pretty highly if it ever went public and it still probably has a high dollar value but that doesn't mean the thing is swimming in cash. The dividends on MLBAM are probably at best a couple millions dollars or so a year per team give or take a million or so and I wouldn't be surprised if it was significantly less than a million per team.

(And no smart-ass remarks about Detroit not being worth owning. It's still the tenth-largest TV market in the country.)

Don't you have to have electricity and TVs to count?

The dividends on MLBAM are probably at best a couple millions dollars or so a year per team give or take a million or so and I wouldn't be surprised if it was significantly less than a million per team.

Hard to tell, as the last numbers are from the 2007 payback...

Revenue
$236 MM in 2005
Projected $380 MM 2007

They say it was profitable in 2004, so let's call it $180 MM in costs. I think we can say conservatively that costs don't rise (their costs only get cheaper normally) and revenues don't rise. Lopping off $100 MM to reinvest and for MOE, that's $3 million per.

They also didn't have a more popular team playing on the waterfront to compete for the local dollar. Is it any coincidence that the Indians' reign of sellouts coincided with the Browns' absence?

You'd be naive to think the Browns coming back hasn't effected the Indians bottom line. Can Cleveland support 3 teams? The Browns will always be popular. With Lebron, the Cavs are a huge draw. So that leaves the Indians in 3rd place in a smaller tv market, where the median household income was $28,512 in 2007 (couldn't find a newer stat with a quick google. With the shrinking manufacturing/production economies I'd imagine it's a lot worse now).

During the Jacob Field sellouts, the Browns were gone and the Cavs were Bron-less and sucked.

The Browns will always be popular even if they suck balls.quote]

They do suck balls -- have since they came back (one fluke Butch Davis playoff apprearance nonwithstanding). People are growing extremely frustrated -- or worse -- apathetic. Renewed season ticket sales and luxury boxes are down, despite ticket prices being frozen. They are still the number one team in town, but how long that will last if this misery continues for years remains to be seen.

>>>We suffered through Cooper,<<<<

"Suffering" through Cooper was hardly suffering through Browns v2.0. Cooper's teams always had winning records -- he went 111-43-3 at OSU. Sure, his teams tanked in bowl games and against Michigan, but Cooper's teams weren't anything like the mess the Browns are, year after year since their return. "Suffering" through the Cooper era was like suffering through Marty Schottenheimer -- Fontenot up the middle, there's a gleam, men! Sure, it hurt, sure it was maddening, but that was a hell of a lot better than the flatline that the current Browns offer.

>>>Never underestimate the deep love of football in Ohio.<<<

I am not, I have been an ardent Browns' for over forty years. However, Ohians love good football, not the garbage known as Browns v2.0. Football will always be king in Northest Ohio, but if the Browns continue to absolutely stink, the Bowns could very well not being the ones wearign the crown. Contray to local legend, Browns' fans have turned its back on the team before after being frustrated (attendance per game dropped to 55,000 in 1975 from 70,000 two years previously -- they had another big drop in 1984 just before the Kosar era, plus attendance was down in the Bleicheck era as compared to the Koasar era). The fans have always returned when he team showed promise, but Browns fans never had to endure a decade of absolute futility like this before, nor is there much hope on the horizon.