Even with concrete data showing the industry losses around 3 billion everyone will simply dismiss this and claim the owners are greedy. This year may be worse since they will be paying 2.6x the amount in salaries and in stadium revenue will be a pittance.

It would be interesting to see when they model a return to normal which means ability to sell every seat, season ticket holders renewing, ticket prices remaining at 2019 levels and people actually filling the seats. Attendance at those prices was already waning.

Even with concrete data showing the industry losses around 3 billion everyone will simply dismiss this and claim the owners are greedy

Well yeah. They made $476 million in 2019, and while that was a team record I'd bet their revenues for prior years was fairly close to that. I'm willing to bet the net benefit to the Braves' owners over the last X number of years is a significant profit and that's without even factoring in the value of the franchise itself. If they are really worried about money they could probably sell for a tidy profit. I don't think "rich people are greedy" is an especially outlandish claim.

I don't think "rich people are greedy" is an especially outlandish claim.

I think it is an outrageous stereotype and a thoughtless generalization that I believe to be incorrect.

I also would like to make one thing clear for what seems like the 100th time. $54 million in profit has little meaning without context. Specifically, what is the value of the asset that is generating that profit? Forbes currently values the Braves at $1.8 billion. A $54 million return on an asset worth $1.8 billion is a 3.0% return. That is a paltry return. Tax free municipal bonds return more (although not lately).

News sources should refuse to report these team provided revenue numbers unless there are expenditure numbers to provide context.

Specifically, what is the value of the asset that is generating that profit? Forbes currently values the Braves at $1.8 billion. A $54 million return on an asset worth $1.8 billion is a 3.0% return. That is a paltry return. Tax free municipal bonds return more (although not lately).

The value of the team is also appreciating every year.

4. Liberty media provides detailed financials for the Braves. The braves are a separate segment so the results are very clear. Everything you could want is right there in black and white. Go to their investor relations site and look at their 4th quarter results.

5. Club valuation is based on projected cash flows over a long period of time with the current years having the most influence in that PV calculation. It most certainly did not increase as projected revenues/profits in the next few years are lower. This is not supposition. The Mets sold for less to Cohen post-pandemic than the offers on the table pre-pandemic.

As clubs reduce player costs over the next 2-3 years, valuations may come back quickly but it will take that much time for old underwater contracts to disappear and be replaced by cheaper contracts.

$54 million in profit has little meaning without context. Specifically, what is the value of the asset that is generating that profit? Forbes currently values the Braves at $1.8 billion. A $54 million return on an asset worth $1.8 billion is a 3.0% return. That is a paltry return. Tax free municipal bonds return more (although not lately).

That just means the team is (or may be) overvalued at $1.8 billion, not that the profit is insufficient. I don’t see why any of us should care about team valuations, as long as the teams generate enough cash to justify the actual capital that is required to operate the business.

To put it another way, the cash flow and risk (and a host of other factors) dictate the value of the asset, not the other way around.

I think it is an outrageous stereotype and a thoughtless generalization that I believe to be incorrect.

It's kind of hard to become exceedingly rich without an avaricious desire for money, unless you inherit it. Most normal people would quit after the first $10-20M. You have to really love money yo keep working 70+ hours a week (as most really successful people do) after you and your children and grandchildren are set for life.

Nobody keeps working for the money at that stage. It’s for the power. Power is far more seductive than money. And it manifests itself in many ways. Power can drive a need for adulation (see: Trump), a desire to manage other people’s lives (my experience is that CEOs are incredibly focused on things like medical benefits for employees - sometimes in a good way, sometimes in a bad way), a desire to do what no one else has achieved (jobs, musk), a desire to become a community icon (see the kaufmanns in KC). Of course you need money to wield power which is why the two go together.

At a more instinctual level, some people just love to work. It’s who they are.

Nobody keeps working for the money at that stage. It’s for the power. Power is far more seductive than money. And it manifests itself in many ways. Power can drive a need for adulation (see: Trump), a desire to manage other people’s lives (my experience is that CEOs are incredibly focused on things like medical benefits for employees - sometimes in a good way, sometimes in a bad way), a desire to do what no one else has achieved (jobs, musk), a desire to become a community icon (see the kaufmanns in KC). Of course you need money to wield power which is why the two go together.

A lust for power is also greed.

It's kind of hard to become exceedingly rich without an avaricious desire for money, unless you inherit it. Most normal people would quit after the first $10-20M.

Define normal. This is important since you've lumped people into two categories, those with "an avaricious desire for money" and those who are abnormal.

The Mets sold for less to Cohen post-pandemic than the offers on the table pre-pandemic.

The pre-pandemic deal would have had the Wilpons retain control for 5 years.

Define normal. This is important since you've lumped people into two categories, those with "an avaricious desire for money" and those who are abnormal.

Normal is people who view money as a means to an end, and once they have enough to meet all their conceivable needs, can find something better to do with their time. Given $20M, 99.9% of humanity would not continue to work at a high stress, demanding job.

I don't know about that; it seems like most people who reach $20 million keep trying very hard to make more. So unless you think that just about everyone who gets to $20 million is in that "abnormal" category, it seems like quite a large percentage of people would keep working for more than $20 million, but just can't get there in the first place.

So unless you think that just about everyone who gets to $20 million is in that "abnormal" category,

That's exactly what I think.

Even with concrete data showing the industry losses around 3 billion everyone will simply dismiss this and claim the owners are greedy.

Any franchises sold at a loss lately? A discount, even? One doesn’t have to disparage ownership to be skeptical about MLB’s centuries long poverty claims.

$54 million in profit has little meaning without context.

Those profit numbers always look better if the ‘expense’ side of the ledger includes millions in salaries for the owner’s semi-employable family members, as well as his own invaluable CEO services.

Normal is people who view money as a means to an end, and once they have enough to meet all their conceivable needs, can find something better to do with their time. Given $20M, 99.9% of humanity would not continue to work at a high stress, demanding job.

What "end"? Some people like what they do and it happens to pay well. Since this is a baseball site... I don't think Brian Cashman keeps doing his job after earning $50–60M because of "an avaricious desire for money." You've made clear many times the GM life isn't of interest to you, but I don't see how those inclined toward it are thus abnormal.

What "end"? Some people like what they do and it happens to pay well. Since this is a baseball site... I don't think Brian Cashman keeps doing his job after earning $50–60M because of "an avaricious desire for money." You've made clear many times the GM life isn't of interest to you, but I don't see how those inclined toward it are thus abnormal.

Abnormal means different than the norm, not morally defective in some way. Sure, some people just really like their jobs, and the money is incidental, but a lot are greedy for money, power, or prestige.

I feel like the story here is not the owners' relation to money, but the fact that the amount they have to spend decreased by 2/3 last year, and this year isn't looking much better.

That's going to have repercussions for years down the line.

Sure, some people just really like their jobs, and the money is incidental, but a lot are greedy for money, power, or prestige.

Does sex fall under power?

losses around 3 billion

the owners are greedy

Both things can be true.

I completely disagree that most normal people would quit after 10 or 20 million. The Beatles sold 50% of the records in the United States in March of 1964. They had a pretty cruddy management deal, but they were very rich at the time, especially when you consider where George, Paul and Ringo started from. They kept trying to improve over the next few years because they loved playing music. That they were highly successful enabled them to continue playing, but even if they were one quarter or one tenth as successful they would have still done music. Why does Bartolo Colon (career earnings $117M) keep playing ball in Mexico? Could it be he actually likes playing baseball?

Why does Bartolo Colon (career earnings $117M) keep playing ball in Mexico? Could it be he actually likes playing baseball?

Do you have any idea how much it costs to feed several families with 50% Bartolo Colon genes??

$116,999,999 ?

I completely disagree that most normal people would quit after 10 or 20 million.

As long as one doesn't distinguish between loving a craft or art on one hand and loving raking in money on the other (what we call greed) you're right.

The Beatles sold 50% of the records in the United States in March of 1964. They had a pretty cruddy management deal, but they were very rich at the time, especially when you consider where George, Paul and Ringo started from

You're overlooking certain well known episodes in the life of the group that show the Beatles were indeed trying to get out from the business constraints put on them. For instance the White ALbum was a double album so the group could would only have one more album left on their contract with EMI or Capitol or whoever it was.

"It's Only a Northern Song" was a throwaway song knocked out in 20 min by Harrison to complete the Yellow Submarine album, or so I've read. Wikipedia doesnt mention that but it says that Harrison was very upset about his financial arrangement with Northern Songs .

The UK at that pt. had something like a 95% tax rate which would have hit them harder in the early days. Northern Songs went public in 1965 in order to relieve the onerous UK tax burdern. So the Beatles were clearly thinking of financials much of the time.

Establishing citizenship outside of England was an ongoing process for Lennon and that took some years. Not sure about the others. But I suspect when Lennon and Macca finally split it was because Lennon was more on sounder financial footing. But Im just guessing.

My only pt. is that it's not some foregone conclusion that the Beatles were hugely wealthy in 1964 say.

I think certain people are driven to do well at their job and reach the top of their profession. In a lot of businesses, your compensation is kind of your scorecard of how well you're doing that. It's kind of like how athletes talk about being "disrespected" by low salary offers.

I don't know if that's "greed" the way that most people use the term. They're not doing it because they want to buy a giant yacht or swim in a giant money pit (although some probably do).

My copy of the White Album has always had Apple labels on it. You're right about Northern Songs.
I guess I'm talking about "live to work" rather than "work to live". If you like what you do for a living, you're not going to stop if you're successful. You're going to stop if you suck.

If you like what you do for a living, you're not going to stop if you're successful. You're going to stop if you suck.

We see players all the time who show this isn't even always true.

Abnormal means different than the norm, not morally defective in some way.

atypical means different than the norm - but without the baggage

Any argument that rests on the Beatles being normal is starting off on the wrong foot.

Any argument that rests on the Beatles being normal is starting off on the wrong foot.

Ha, this was exactly my thought.

I tend to agree with snapper on this but also would carve out the cases where the thing that makes people wealthy started as a craft of love. Outside sports and the arts, I know physicians who work insane schedules though they could easily retire to a life of comfort because they truly believe their doing great work. I know lawyers who love the "game". I don't know any hotshot business executives but I'm sure some of them love the profession.

But anyone looking at the super rich, as a group, and concluding that they're working for love of anything but money and power is very naive, in my opinion. If I met someone who was worth north of 50 million and also worked more than 50 hours a week (or at all), the burden of proof that they're not greedy ######## would be on them.

Of course, I think most people are greedy. It's just we don't get to see it because most of us never land in a spot where working is a luxury.

Also, is anyone really arguing that baseball teams (and entertainment/ers generally) suffered massive losses in 2020? I mean, I'm usually pro-player and anti-management (see post 34) but, yeah, I'll give them this one. They likely got crucified. Of course, so did millions of other people who can't nearly afford it as well and who likely won't recover. So owners don't get a ton of sympathy from me but they don't get zero.

Also, is anyone really arguing that baseball teams (and entertainment/ers generally) suffered massive losses in 2020? I mean, I'm usually pro-player and anti-management (see post 34) but, yeah, I'll give them this one. They likely got crucified. Of course, so did millions of other people who can't nearly afford it as well and who likely won't recover. So owners don't get a ton of sympathy from me but they don't get zero.

Right I'm basically here, too. They're also, somewhat uniquely, practically guaranteed to bounce back.

They're also, somewhat uniquely, practically guaranteed to bounce back.

I'm not arguing the point, because it's certainly possible, but I am very curious to see if that turns out to be the case. For myself, this year of inconvenience has led me to conclude that there were certain things that I haven't been able to do that I simply don't miss. Maybe I represent a tiny fraction of the pie, however - no way to really know yet.

I'm not arguing the point, because it's certainly possible, but I am very curious to see if that turns out to be the case. For myself, this year of inconvenience has led me to conclude that there were certain things that I haven't been able to do that I simply don't miss. Maybe I represent a tiny fraction of the pie, however - no way to really know yet.

My guess is we are going to see fairly similar numbers but in different demographics. I suspect in the long run this might be good for baseball (and other entertainment forms). I think the diehards like me who normally go to 25 games a year have realized "meh, I can enjoy this at home as easily and cheaper" but the casual fans who go to a couple games a year are greatly missing the communal experience that a rare foray to the park brings. So you'll see similar attendances moving forward but it might be made up of slightly different mixes.

I think the diehards like me who normally go to 25 games a year have realized "meh, I can enjoy this at home as easily and cheaper" but the casual fans who go to a couple games a year are greatly missing the communal experience that a rare foray to the park brings. So you'll see similar attendances moving forward but it might be made up of slightly different mixes.

This is my guess too, but yeah, will be interesting to see.

My wording wasn't great but by "guaranteed to bounce back" I was also thinking about the many thousands (tens of thousands? I have no idea) of restaurants that have closed. And while we obviously know that restaurants as a category will bounce back, there's no guarantee of that for the specific individuals involved. Contrast that with pro sports, where's there's essentially no chance an American team will go under. I don't think takeout/delivery income for restaurants is quite as lucrative as the TV deals that kept on paying out.

I think one of the things that people tend to overlook is extremely succesful people develop networks of other people around them who depend upon them for employment, and feel pressure to keep up that network.

Like why does Robert Deniro do some dumb movie for a $20 million paycheck? He doesn't need to do that? Well, Robert Deniro has an agent who he's been with for a longtime, a publicist, probably several different assistants for different things, a stylist, household help, he puts money into Tribeca Films, etc. There starts to be pressure to maintain your little tribe at the high levels, you are almost like a little corporation (indeed you probably are in the legal sense)

I think the diehards like me who normally go to 25 games a year have realized "meh, I can enjoy this at home as easily and cheaper"

I dunno dude. The first game that I can safely attend at Camden Yards, I'm going to buy two seats just to make up for lost time.

The Braves ran a $130m payroll in 2020 according to bb-ref, which pro-rates to $48m. There are plenty of other expenses for a team, of course, but am I really supposed to believe that $178m in revenue led to a net loss of $49m? Where did they blow the other $179m?