Main Sections:
Main Site
Discussion Forum
    All Topics
    New Messages
    Search
    Last Day
    Last Week
    Tree View
    Edit Profile
    Create Login
    Guidelines
    Help
Game Chat
Fund Raiser:
Order Merchandise!

Suggested Reading:
(click cover for info)

cover

Milwaukee news story on Brewers' $$ and ballpark problems

OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: Milwaukee news story on Brewers' $$ and ballpark problems
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By chris_d on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 12:19 pm:

With additional stories and charts detailing the audit of Selig's team.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/brew/may04/227495.asp

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By greenandgold on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 09:26 am:

Thanks for posting this. I think it's a very good article and highlights the added burden new stadiums impose on the teams' operations (not to mention the fans). I believe most of the teams with new stadiums now average less attendance than the A's, and are nowhere close to the A's financial stability.

I couldn't help noticing a few pecularities in the article:
"In 2001, the team generated $83.3 million in local baseball revenue. Two years later, it was at $59.4 million." "Over a seven-year period beginning in 1994 and leading up to the opening of Miller Park in 2001, the Brewers averaged $53.2 million in operating revenue per year. Since then, average operating revenue has been $110.1 million." If 83.3 was the best, and it has since dropped to 53.2, then how can 110.1 be the average?

"Selig is the majority stockholder of the team and holds 27.8%, the first time his specific percentage of ownership has been reported." By definition, doesn't a majority require >50.0%?

"Also, an agreement reached in 2002 between the Brewers and the stadium district means the Brewers will receive reduced maintenance payments from the district. That will save taxpayers in a five-county region who are paying a 0.1% sales tax a total of $78 million." The Miller Park stadium district actually pays the Brewers money for maintenance? I don't think the A's ever thought of that one!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By wbell on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 09:47 am:

If 83.3 was the best, and it has since dropped to 53.2, then how can 110.1 be the average?

They are using seperate terms, operating revenue and local baseball revenue. The operating revenue figure is higher, because it includes national tv and radio revenue, MLB licensing, etc.

"Selig is the majority stockholder of the team and holds 27.8%, the first time his specific percentage of ownership has been reported." By definition, doesn't a majority require >50.0%?

Not necessarily. If Selig's 27.8% is the largest share of any of the owners, then he is the majority owner. You don't have to have 50% to be the majority owner, just a larger piece than anyone else.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 10:53 am:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/61599msr.htm

this report above has a table of all the ballpark with the "threads" and public sudsidies

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By washfan on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 01:33 am:

This is not a new story and to think this piece of crap Selig still had the audacity to cruise into the Collisiuem and tell us we will not be competitive unless we get a new ballpark. What garbage!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By eyleenn on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 08:48 pm:

The level of his hypocrisy is astounding.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By goldtymer on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 09:24 pm:

I think I will market some type of "Screw bud" type T-shirts & sell them online.

If I get the word out nationally, or go ebay for distribution, I will make a small mint.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By deajay on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 09:32 am:

Actually, eyleenn, what I find astounding is that the owners (or anybody) could put this guy in charge of overseeing this game. He's had a few good ideas ... well, one ... the wildcard. And I'm not convinced that was his idea. It probably wasn't. But the nerve of this asshole to prance in here (first time in years) and make his proclamation about whether we can be competitive without a new stadium.

Particularly, given his background (not!) of success. He should be spending faaaar more time on the important issues of the game, rather than finding any excuse he can to diss an organization which has made a liar of him with re to small revenue teams not being able to compete. The last few seasons have pronounced him so dead wrong on that (MN.,FL., A's, and Angels ... at the time), that his face is continually red. What he needs to spend his time doing is to figure out a way to allow the small revenue teams to compete with the Yankees, Boston and now the Angels, in just being able to afford to keep their homegrown talent. A new stadium is not going to do it. It may help, but it won't make the teams any better off (to compete with the big three spenders) than before. You would think the idiot would look in his own backyard, where it is so evident. Because his team has been such crap for so long, they've actually made some good draft choices which are beginning to show up. But if they become stars, even his new stadium isn't going to be able to keep them from the clutches of the big three spenders, come FA time.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 10:17 am:

Don't forget that it is Schott's constant whining about not being able to compete and keep his stars which helps Selig make his case.

Schott is the one who is really holding the Oakland A's hostage here and Selig just uses him in trying to get the A's out of Oakland and out of the Bay Area for that matter. Selig has no intentions of helping Schott move to his hometown Santa Clara. This is why he stated it would be up to the two teams to work things out.


Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.


 

Questions? Comments? Corrections? Please contact info@oaklandfans.com.