Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Rovell: Forbes: MLB teams’ worth up 23%

In its report, Forbes, which has been tracking the league’s finances since 1998, revealed that the money that all teams made from the $450 million sale of the Montreal Expos in 2006 was invested in hedge funds are now worth more than $1 billion.

“The value of a team used to be about a team itself,” Forbes executive editor Michael Ozanian said in a phone interview with ESPN.com. “Then it shifted to the stadium value and then to the television deals and now it’s more about what’s not on the field at all.”

Each team also owns an equal share in MLB Advanced Media, which among other things, has generated massive revenue from its gameday video and audio app MLB At Bat, which has been the highest grossing sports app in the Apple store on the iPhone and iPad for four consecutive years. MLB Advanced Media generates more than $600 million in revenue and Forbes conservatively values the subsidiary at $6 billion.

Combine those investments with the $12.4 billion in national television revenue the clubs will receive thanks to new deals with Fox, Turner and ESPN, that run through the 2021 season, and it’s easy to see why it’s a great time to be a Major League Baseball owner.

The New York Yankees are the most valuable team for the 16th straight year. Forbes tabs the team’s value at $2.3 billion, surpassing the Dallas Cowboys($2.1 billion) for the title of the most valuable franchise in North America. The Los Angeles Dodgers are in the No. 2 spot at $1.5 billion.

Ozanian said that the $2.1 billion price that Guggenheim Partners paid for the team looks to be too steep since he believes at least $1 billion of the team’s new television deal, which has been announced by not yet submitted to Major League Baseball, will go towards revenue sharing.

JE (Jason) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 02:58 PM | 57 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: business, media, owners, popularity

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. DL from MN Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:46 PM (#4397889)
They're eliminating the pension plan while printing money faster than they can spend it.
   2. tfbg9 Posted: March 27, 2013 at 05:13 PM (#4397918)
The New York Yankees are the most valuable team for the 16th straight year. Forbes tabs the team’s value at $2.3 billion


And they're screwing their fans by punting on maybe two whole seasons for a lousy 20-30-40 million? I'd be pissed-off.
That's like 1% of what the whole ball of wax is worth!
   3. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 05:55 PM (#4397944)
And they're screwing their fans by punting on maybe two whole seasons for a lousy 20-30-40 million? I'd be pissed-off.
That's like 1% of what the whole ball of wax is worth!


I'm pissed.

The only justification is if they intend to reset the luxury tax in order to run a $225-250M payroll after 2014.
   4. cardsfanboy Posted: March 27, 2013 at 05:58 PM (#4397947)
Each team also owns an equal share in MLB Advanced Media, which among other things, has generated massive revenue from its gameday video and audio app MLB At Bat, which has been the highest grossing sports app in the Apple store on the iPhone and iPad for four consecutive years. MLB Advanced Media generates more than $600 million in revenue and Forbes conservatively values the subsidiary at $6 billion.


Why don't we see people quoting this instead of tv ratings when talking about a sports popularity. It's about as accurate in my opinion(which is to say not accurate at all)

The only justification is if they intend to reset the luxury tax in order to run a $225-250M payroll after 2014.


Isn't that the current rumor of why they are doing this?
   5. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 06:01 PM (#4397950)
Isn't that the current rumor of why they are doing this?

Unclear. There have been noises both ways, but nothing definitive.
   6. Bhaakon Posted: March 27, 2013 at 07:59 PM (#4398004)
Why don't we see people quoting this instead of tv ratings when talking about a sports popularity. It's about as accurate in my opinion(which is to say not accurate at all)


Because, based on te numbers given in the quoted section, the national TV deal alone (ie: not including each team's local TV contract) is worth twice as much per season than MLBAM. TV is still were the majority of the money is coming from.
   7. cardsfanboy Posted: March 27, 2013 at 08:12 PM (#4398015)
Because, based on te numbers given in the quoted section, the national TV deal alone (ie: not including each team's local TV contract) is worth twice as much per season than MLBAM. TV is still were the majority of the money is coming from.


I was thinking that it was because it contradicts the media's assumption that MLB is losing popularity at an alarming rate and that the NFL is 10 times more popular than baseball.

I agree about where the money is coming from, but the fact is that the most popular sport app is MLB's app, not NFL, not NBA or Nascar, but MLB. There are idiots(and yes, I absolutely mean this 100%, they are ####### idiots) who think that tv ratings is the best/only measurement of popularity of a sport. I think my argument about app download is equally as legitimate. (which again, is to say not legitimate at all, as neither argument is founded on anything resembling rationality)

   8. Lassus Posted: March 27, 2013 at 08:19 PM (#4398017)
MLB Advanced Media generates more than $600 million in revenue and Forbes conservatively values the subsidiary at $6 billion.


Another place that pays people absolute dogshit.
   9. Jay Z Posted: March 27, 2013 at 08:20 PM (#4398019)
They're eliminating the pension plan while printing money faster than they can spend it.


Welcome to 2013, Anywhere USA.
   10. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 08:52 PM (#4398031)

Welcome to 2013, Anywhere USA.


Yup. Not to go OT, but it's amazing how the middle class is clueless while the elites (of both political parties) plunder the country like Mongol hordes.
   11. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 27, 2013 at 09:14 PM (#4398041)
Another place that pays people absolute dogshit.

Yet another pro-immigration guy who doesn't understand that supply and demand dictates wages.
   12. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 09:15 PM (#4398042)
Yet another pro-immigration guy who doesn't understand that supply and demand dictates wages.

With free-trade and high immigration, U.S. wages for the bottom 90% (maybe the bottom 99.5%) will be falling for the forseeable future.
   13. Lassus Posted: March 27, 2013 at 09:41 PM (#4398050)
Good lord, go over to Yahoo.com or something, Joe.
   14. McCoy Posted: March 27, 2013 at 09:52 PM (#4398056)
With free-trade and high immigration, U.S. wages for the bottom 90% (maybe the bottom 99.5%) will be falling for the forseeable future.

Sounds to me like we need to lower our tariffs and taxes so that cheap foreign labor can produce cheap foreign goods.

Things would be a helluvalot cheaper if we didn't insist on being the supreme world power and the government be our lord protector for virtually everything.
   15. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 27, 2013 at 09:53 PM (#4398057)
Good lord, go over to Yahoo.com or something, Joe.

I was just trying to point you in the right direction, Lassus.
   16. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 09:55 PM (#4398060)
Sounds to me like we need to lower our tariffs and taxes so that cheap foreign labor can produce cheap foreign goods.

We don't have tariffs. We're the suckers to the world.

Yes, a lovely society where you can work at WalMart and buy cheap, low quality Chinese goods at WalMart.
   17. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: March 27, 2013 at 10:21 PM (#4398071)
Chris Christie wants to take away my free dental and vision!
   18. Jay Z Posted: March 27, 2013 at 10:45 PM (#4398091)
Double post.
   19. McCoy Posted: March 27, 2013 at 10:45 PM (#4398092)
We don't have tariffs. We're the suckers to the world.

Somebody needs to tell the US government we don't have tariffs as they are still collecting tariffs.

For instance we get hit with a shoe tariff that can go as high as 67.5% and I believe a lot of sneakers get hit at 48%.

Yes, a lovely society where you can work at WalMart and buy cheap, low quality Chinese goods at WalMart.


What's the real difference between a "cheap" 5 dollar iron and an expensive 85 dollar one?

If things cost less we'll be able to spend our money on other things which generally in this society translates to tourism and service industry spending as well creating capital to create new businesses and industries.
   20. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: March 27, 2013 at 10:51 PM (#4398099)
Yet another pro-immigration guy who doesn't understand that supply and demand dictates wages.
Illegal immigrants take all those MLB Advanced Media jobs because those are jobs Americans won't do.
   21. John Northey Posted: March 27, 2013 at 11:14 PM (#4398113)
Interesting - if MLB Media is worth $6 billion then that is $200 million per team in additional net worth. That is more than some clubs are/were worth fairly recently I think (last 10 years). Just think about how much that pulls in - $20 mil per team per year from primarily the total addicts (I love baseball but won't shell out yet). I could see, in 10 years, MLB Media bringing in more per team than national TV and most local TV rights if they start doing custom apps - ie: if you are a Jays fan you can get just Blue Jays games for one price, all games for slightly more, or just weekend games for slightly less, or just live games or just 'old' games. Their archive (if they put in all games ever) would be a dream come true for a lot of fanatics and could be an extra charge (base price gets you this season, slightly more for past 5 years, more for all games ever).

The potential revenue is quite amazing if you really think about it, especially as people get sick of cable/satellite companies.
   22. McCoy Posted: March 27, 2013 at 11:19 PM (#4398116)
Imagine how much money they would make if they made baseball fans pay to not have to listen to Joe Buck.
   23. valuearbitrageur Posted: March 27, 2013 at 11:31 PM (#4398121)
Since when is 10x revenues conservative? LOL at $6B, likely not worth even half that.

Edit: Actually I doubt its even worth $2B. It's probably unsalable as the league would never surrender it's assets to an outside owner without retaining strict controls over its assets and their usage. It's margins all depend on sweetheart deals with the league and owners, so most profits are just a diversion from existing streams.
   24. valuearbitrageur Posted: March 27, 2013 at 11:38 PM (#4398123)
Yet another pro-immigration guy who doesn't understand that supply and demand dictates wages


Another anti-immigration guy who doesn't realize supply and demand are never static.
   25. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 27, 2013 at 11:39 PM (#4398124)
Another anti-immigration guy who doesn't realize demand and demand are never static.

LOL. Did low-skilled unemployment drop from ~16 percent to ~4 percent while I was having dinner?
   26. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: March 28, 2013 at 12:03 AM (#4398133)
Oh god, the Randoid guy is arguing with the paleoconservative guy. And people say BTF is a left-wing echo chamber.
   27. valuearbitrageur Posted: March 28, 2013 at 12:09 AM (#4398135)
LOL. Did low-skilled unemployment drop from ~16 percent to ~4 percent while I was having dinner?


More proof of how little you understand about economics.

Question: if I pay an illegal $1400 a month to do Spanish language localization and support for my iPhone apps, and doing so increases my revenues $4,000 per month, did he cost a US citizen a job? Or did he make it more likely I decide to invest further in expanding and create a new job for a US Citizen?
   28. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 28, 2013 at 12:10 AM (#4398136)
Each team also owns an equal share in MLB Advanced Media . . .

Although I doubt that 1/30th of the subscribers are tuning in to watch the Marlins or Astros, to name the most obvious suspects.
   29. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 28, 2013 at 12:18 AM (#4398139)
We don't have tariffs. We're the suckers to the world.

Somebody needs to tell the US government we don't have tariffs as they are still collecting tariffs.

For instance we get hit with a shoe tariff that can go as high as 67.5% and I believe a lot of sneakers get hit at 48%.


We need a Gucci tariff.
   30. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: March 28, 2013 at 12:18 AM (#4398140)
Question: Is doing Spanish language localization and support for iPhone apps considered unskilled labor?

Question: Would someone qualified to do localization and support for iPhone apps work for $1400 a month?

Question: Would someone qualified to do localization and support for iPhone apps be so desperate for legitimate work in his home country that he would move here and become "illegal"?

Question: Why would you hire an illegal to do this when you could hire someone legally in a foreign country?

Question: Why would we care about you being such a heroic job creator as to create jobs for $1400 a month anyway, whether for US citizens or not? Those are terrible jobs.
   31. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 28, 2013 at 12:28 AM (#4398142)
More proof of how little you understand about economics.

Really? What explains the ~16 percent unemployment among low-skilled workers if demand for such labor is so robust?

Question: if I pay an illegal $1400 a month to do Spanish language localization and support for my iPhone apps, and doing so increases my revenues $4,000 per month, did he cost a US citizen a job? Or did he make it more likely I decide to invest further in expanding and create a new job for a US Citizen?

After #30, no need piling on with my own response.
   32. valuearbitrageur Posted: March 28, 2013 at 12:41 AM (#4398146)
Question: Is doing Spanish language localization and support for iPhone apps considered unskilled labor?


It's pretty easy to teach, but the person needs to be a decent English speaker and trustworthy. If you have to check their work constantly, that's not good.

Question: Would someone qualified to do localization and support for iPhone apps work for $1400


To get out of that hellhole we helped turn Mexico into with our dumb drug laws, sure.

Question: Would someone qualified to do localization and support for iPhone apps be so desperate for legitimate work in his home country that he would move here and become "illegal"?


See answer 2.

Question: Why would you hire an illegal to do this when you could hire someone legally in a foreign country?


Because gambling $1,400 a month on the hope I can make $4k a month makes sense, gambling $3k a month does not.
   33. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 28, 2013 at 12:48 AM (#4398147)
Those answers make no sense. As per this report, only 7 percent of illegal immigrants from Latin America even have a high school diploma. The idea that there are masses of fluently bilingual people with tech abilities sneaking into the U.S. so they can work for $350/week is specious. People with those language and tech skills — who, by definition, aren't low-skilled — could make $350/week back home, where the cost of living is half or less of what it is in Arizona.

Beyond that, how could it cost more than double to outsource such work south of the border? If you're getting labor for $1,400/mo. in Arizona that would cost $3,000/mo. in Mexico or elsewhere, it sounds like you're exploiting the hell out of your worker(s).
   34. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 28, 2013 at 01:05 AM (#4398152)
Because gambling $1,400 a month on the hope I can make $4k a month makes sense, gambling $3k a month does not.

Sounds like someone wants to exploit an illegal alien rather than pay a market wage to a US citizen or alien authorized to work, since many in those groups would also meet the Spanish language requirement suggested in the hypothetical.
   35. valuearbitrageur Posted: March 28, 2013 at 02:19 AM (#4398160)
Sounds like someone wants to exploit an illegal alien rather than pay a market wage to a US citizen or alien authorized to work, since many in those groups would also meet the Spanish language requirement suggested in the hypothetical.


Since the job doesn't exist if I have to pay $3k a month, no US worker loses any job to an illegal. I can certainly find better uses for my limited capital than paying someone $3k a month in hopes I might turn a $1k a month profit on their efforts to slowly recoup months of investment over a year or more before I even turn a profit. If i has no better spots to invest in than that low upside all risk gamble, I would save my capital for later, and hopefully much better opportunities.

And since when is it exploiting someone to offer the best paying opportunity they can find?
   36. valuearbitrageur Posted: March 28, 2013 at 02:35 AM (#4398161)
Question: Why would we care about you being such a heroic job creator as to create jobs for $1400 a month anyway, whether for US citizens or not? Those are terrible jobs.


Because those $1400 a month jobs are great jobs compared to what immigrants usually get or left behind in Mexico and help fund more higher paying jobs for citizens if they help me expand.

I actually started this business with the help of a Mexican immigrant of unclear legality who did basic testing and data entry for me when i had no one else i could afford and trust to do it when in an extreme time crunch. Age was happy to do it, and I was grateful for her help, and without her I might not employ anyone right now or even be in business now.
   37. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 28, 2013 at 02:46 AM (#4398163)
And since when is it exploiting someone to offer the best paying opportunity they can find?
Because those $1400 a month jobs are great jobs compared to what immigrants usually get or left behind in Mexico and help fund more higher paying jobs for citizens if they help me expand.

You just claimed the same labor would cost $3,000/mo. in Mexico or elsewhere [#32], so it remains unclear why working for you for $1,400/mo. is so appealing. Why wouldn't such workers simply go back home and triple or quadruple their money (after adjusting for PPP) rather than live and work as illegal immigrants in the U.S. for little more than a teenager would make at McDonald's?
   38. valuearbitrageur Posted: March 28, 2013 at 02:54 AM (#4398164)
Those answers make no sense. As per this report, only 7 percent of illegal immigrants from Latin America even have a high school diploma. The idea that there are masses of fluently bilingual people with tech abilities sneaking into the U.S. so they can work for $350/week is specious. People with those language and tech skills — who, by definition, aren't low-skilled — could make $350/week back home, where the cost of living is half or less of what it is in Arizona.


LOL, I almost flunked out of high school, did flunk out of college, yet have helped write dozens of commercial software products, and have personally raised over $20m in venture capital fir startups I've founded or co-founded. My first two bosses dropped out of college and between them made $50m in several successful businesses.

If an education is a requirement for tech employment I can only say Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, etc a thousand times.

Immigrants can work in a tech business, as I pointed out I've already used them. Not every job requires programming skills, and there are plenty of smart people who haven't had the opportunity for education who can still succeed without it due to their innate drive.

The kind of smarts and drive you need leave your corrupt homeland to bet on yourself in a foreign land where you start with terrible disadvantages.

Beyond that, how could it cost more than double to outsource such work south of the border? If you're getting labor for $1,400/mo. in Arizona that would cost $3,000/mo. in Mexico or elsewhere, it sounds like you're exploiting the hell out of your worker(s).


I never said that, i said it could cost double to hire a US citizen. Are you really advocating I outsource jobs to Mexico? It's cheaper to hire immigrants here, because I can supervise directly and the cost of mistakes can be high, as is travel costs and greater managerial time costs.

Again you can't exploit people you offer the best pay and jobs to. You exploit them by not giving them work visas, since they'd gladly pay taxes for the security of being able to stay here rather than in the middle of a cartel war.
   39. valuearbitrageur Posted: March 28, 2013 at 02:57 AM (#4398165)
You just claimed the same labor would cost $3,000/mo. in Mexico or elsewhere [#32], so it remains unclear why working for you for $1,400/mo. is so appealing. Why wouldn't such workers simply go back home and triple or quadruple their money (after adjusting for PPP) rather than live and work as illegal immigrants in the U.S. for little more than a teenager would make at McDonald's?


Again no, hiring in a foreign country is difficult, adds substantial costs, and virtually impossible for a small business like mine. Marisa Meyer discovered at Yahoo what we already know, remote workers can't be trusted, and putting in enough managerial controls to get good value out if them costs so much it is self defeating, especially when bringing them into the office to work with the team is automatically more productive, motivating and significantly lower cost to manage.
   40. valuearbitrageur Posted: March 28, 2013 at 03:07 AM (#4398166)
Really? What explains the ~16 percent unemployment among low-skilled workers if demand for such labor is so robust?


15% payroll tax on employment, plus 50% tax on invested capital (35% corporate tax on US income + 15% dividend tax + state income tax) might have a wee bit to do with it.
   41. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 28, 2013 at 03:18 AM (#4398167)
LOL, I almost flunked out of high school, did flunk out of college, yet have helped write dozens of commercial software products, and have personally raised over $20m in venture capital fir startups I've founded or co-founded. My first two bosses dropped out of college and between them made $50m in several successful businesses.

You've "personally raised over $20m in venture capital for startups [you've] founded or co-founded," but you're paying your illegal-immigrant worker(s) less than most teenagers make in a big-city McDonald's?

I never said that, i said it could cost double to hire a US citizen.

The hypothetical in #32 involved outsourcing.

Are you really advocating I outsource jobs to Mexico? It's cheaper to hire immigrants here, because I can supervise directly and ...

... pay them a fraction of what legal workers with the same skills are paid.
   42. RMc is a fine piece of cheese Posted: March 28, 2013 at 04:29 AM (#4398171)
LOL, I almost flunked out of high school, did flunk out of college, yet have helped write dozens of commercial software products, and have personally raised over $20m in venture capital fir startups I've founded or co-founded. My first two bosses dropped out of college and between them made $50m in several successful businesses.

Results not typical.
   43. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda. Posted: March 28, 2013 at 05:01 AM (#4398173)
Question: if I pay an illegal $1400 a month to do Spanish language localization and support for my iPhone apps, and doing so increases my revenues $4,000 per month, did he cost a US citizen a job? Or did he make it more likely I decide to invest further in expanding and create a new job for a US Citizen?


Makes it more likely you and your spouse can buy the half-million dollar home you can suddenly afford a mortgage on.

You know, the one built by a contractor using illegal immigrants paid less than industry standard to construct.
   44. John Northey Posted: March 28, 2013 at 06:22 AM (#4398180)
No question payroll taxes are one of the worst taxes governments have come up with. When you tax something you discourage it - just think about what you do if something goes up in price, do you buy more of it at the higher price than you used to? Of course not. So when government adds taxes to payroll that makes it more expensive to hire.

Same goes for income tax - if income tax grows, especially on the lower income groups, then you see a pressure for higher wages or under-the-table payments as people cannot afford as much as they did before.

It has been shown that sales taxes, when applied as universally as possible and with payments to those who are at the lower end of the income scale so as to prevent it from being regressive, are by far the most efficient taxes. Same goes for pollution taxes - such as a carbon tax to help cut greenhouse gas emissions - as both lead to more savings (discourage spending) which helps the economy in the long run. Sadly governments are stuck in the short term (especially in the US with the every 2 year election cycle) which prevents long term thinking and risk taking. Here in Canada we had a GST (goods and services tax) put in place which is a more efficient tax than the one it replaced (a hidden manufacturer tax). We also had metric put into place, a dollar and two dollar coin, and removal of the penny - none of which could be done in the US with the way things are going there as some special interest group would scream too loud and stop it as the politicians would be too close to another election to do something risky.
   45. John Northey Posted: March 28, 2013 at 06:23 AM (#4398181)
As to the article - disgusting that teams with increasing revenues are cutting pensions and other benefits/pay for their employees. Kind of kills the trickle down theory of economics. The rich get richer and screw the workers who helped along the way.
   46. Drexl Spivey Posted: March 28, 2013 at 06:32 AM (#4398183)
The constant increase in the value of teams cannot continue forever.

It reminds me of the housing bubble.
   47. Drexl Spivey Posted: March 28, 2013 at 06:44 AM (#4398186)
As to the article - disgusting that teams with increasing revenues are cutting pensions and other benefits/pay for their employees


This is happening everywhere; not just in MLB.
   48. Arbitol Dijaler Posted: March 28, 2013 at 08:21 AM (#4398210)

It reminds me of the housing bubble.


CRAP, I just tapped my HELOC for a 4% stake in the Mets.
   49. just plain joe Posted: March 28, 2013 at 08:47 AM (#4398227)
Although I doubt that 1/30th of the subscribers are tuning in to watch the Marlins or Astros, to name the most obvious suspects.


As you well know, the Yankees need teams like the Marlins & Astros to provide opposition. A schedule calling for 80 games/year versus the Red Sox, 40 games vs the Cubs and 40 games vs the Dodgers would soon become boring, at least to most fans. As long as baseball prevents teams from readily moving from smaller markets to larger ones, and thus being in competition with your beloved Yankees, MLB is right to apportion the media revenue equally among all teams.
   50. zonk Posted: March 28, 2013 at 08:58 AM (#4398239)
Anyone notice that the Cubs (#4 in value) are also the most profitable team by Forbes estimate?

I don't think that helps the Ricketts case for getting their variances to install big billboards...
   51. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 28, 2013 at 09:44 AM (#4398292)
As you well know, the Yankees need teams like the Marlins & Astros to provide opposition.


All you well know, every player in a starting lineup needs another player filling in at each and every position for him and his team to have any chance of success. Perhaps we need flat salaries as well to reflect this.
   52. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:06 AM (#4398314)
I never said that, i said it could cost double to hire a US citizen. Are you really advocating I outsource jobs to Mexico? It's cheaper to hire immigrants here, because I can supervise directly and the cost of mistakes can be high, as is travel costs and greater managerial time costs.

So, why don't you do the right thing and pay a Citizen or legal alien the $2800 per month? You said you're making $4000/mo in marginal revenue. That's a perfectly fair profit margin.

Because those $1400 a month jobs are great jobs compared to what immigrants usually get

$1400/month is less than illegal semi-skilled construction workers get in the Northeast. They make $100-125 a day, 6 days a week, so ~$2500/mo. Cleaning ladies make $12+/hr; again more than you're paying. For ##### sake, if they work a standard 40 hour week, you're not even paying minimum wage.

You're exploiting the #### out of these people. I hope the INS finds out and fines the #### out of you.
   53. I am going to be Frank Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:11 AM (#4398323)
I know Forbes makes these lists to sell magazines and get clicks, but the Dodgers sold for $2 billion dollars very recently and Forbes value them at $1.6 billion. The valuations have always been crap.
   54. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:21 AM (#4398336)
I know Forbes makes these lists to sell magazines and get clicks, but the Dodgers sold for $2 billion dollars very recently and Forbes value them at $1.6 billion. The valuations have always been crap.

I'm sure Forbes is doing a valuation by discounted cash flow, based on current assumptions, and a reasonable cost-of-capital, or a multiple on earnings.

If a buyer thinks they can raise free cash flow/earnings above current trend, they may well pay more. Or, the buyer could have simply overpaid.

I mean, the AOL/Time Warner merger put a price of over $175B on AOL. Do you really think that was a good valuation?
   55. I am going to be Frank Posted: March 28, 2013 at 10:50 AM (#4398362)
That's the thing - Forbes is doing it on available data. They're going to have no idea what the actual cash flows and profits are because MLB teams are good at hiding that sort of thing. We all also know that time and time again very rich people will "overpay" for a prestige asset which sports teams all are so using traditional valuation methods are never going to be close.

Considering AOL was the "acquiring" company they used their inflated stock price to buy a company with more tangible results. The fact that the public valued AOL at that amount would seem as "valid" as a valuation method found in a finance textbook. My guess is that AOL would no longer exist as a separate entity (they might be a division of some other company) if they did not do that merger.

Ultimately companies and teams are worth whatever another person/company is willing to pay for it. The fact that other journalists and people pass Forbes' valuations as some sort of reference point when it clearly is always wrong annoys me. Its not some subjective criteria they're using.
   56. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 28, 2013 at 11:11 AM (#4398385)
Ultimately companies and teams are worth whatever another person/company is willing to pay for it.

That's a mistake. You fall pay to the winner's curse. Whoever overvalues the company wins the auction.

Studies have shown that something like 2/3 of M&A transactions destroy value for the acquirer, typically b/c the acquisition premium is too high.

You shouldn't just believe what the current market price tells you about value. We've certainly had enough bubbles in the last 15 years to prove that.
   57. Ron J2 Posted: March 28, 2013 at 12:19 PM (#4398460)
#55 While it's true that they're working with available data,

A) Michael Ozanian has been at this a long time, and every now and then windows open up that allow them to check their assumptions

B) Major league baseball isn't a particularly complicated business. I'd be truly surprised if Forbes' estimates of costs and revenues are way off.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14!
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(4674 - 1:55pm, Oct 30)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(591 - 1:54pm, Oct 30)
Last: Der-K and the statistical werewolves.

NewsblogMadison Bumgarner, World Series legend - McCovey Chronicles
(67 - 1:52pm, Oct 30)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogSan Francisco Giants at Kansas City Royals - October 29, 2014 | MLB.com Box
(69 - 1:51pm, Oct 30)
Last: Johnny Grubb

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(980 - 1:29pm, Oct 30)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-30-2014
(13 - 1:19pm, Oct 30)
Last: JJ1986

NewsblogJoe Maddon is to become Cubs manager, sources say
(98 - 1:19pm, Oct 30)
Last: McCoy

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 7 OMNICHATTER
(1438 - 1:16pm, Oct 30)
Last: Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1959 Ballot
(11 - 1:05pm, Oct 30)
Last: neilsen

NewsblogHeyman: Pablo Sandoval is on Boston's 3B wish list, but so is Chase Headley
(30 - 1:05pm, Oct 30)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogRoad maps to pitching success in Game 7 | FOX Sports
(10 - 12:39pm, Oct 30)
Last: The Chronicles of Reddick

NewsblogVanguard after the Revolution | NBC SportsWorld
(52 - 12:13pm, Oct 30)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogStatcast: Butler chugs home
(1 - 11:38am, Oct 30)
Last: Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos

NewsblogJapan Times: Nakamura belts three-run homer in 10th to put Hawks one win away from Japan Series title
(10 - 11:32am, Oct 30)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

NewsblogAngell: The World Series is Almost Over
(1 - 9:22am, Oct 30)
Last: sotapop

Page rendered in 0.6517 seconds
52 querie(s) executed