Photo

So where does the money go?


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#21 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts

Posted 16 October 2019 - 10:03 AM

I hear ya, but that's not really the same. You guys recognize the sentimental value of rooting for your home team, the team you grew up with. Those bonds aren't easily released and attached to another team, it that's possible at all.   

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. I still have my Mike Cuellar and Paul Blair autographs. That's how long I've been a fan. That still doesn't mean you don't have other choices. I spent quite a few Sundays in Philly this past season. As Mack said, anyone can fan how they want.  You've chosen to only follow the O's, nothing wrong with that, but there are other choices. 


  • weird-O likes this

#22 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts

Posted 16 October 2019 - 10:08 AM

I'd be happy if the Angelos family was putting every dollar earned from the team into the team.  Payroll could be low without drawing my ire if it was being saved and made available to be spent on the team over that year's revenue-supported budget later.  Only way I can support an owner making more than a modest profit off of their franchise is if that team is meeting every fan expectation from a competitive standpoint.  My firm belief is that franchises are not the property of their owners but belong to the cities and the fans with the owners as caretakers or stewards.  A few exceptions can be given for families that have owned the team since their inception, but any owner that purchased the team recently should know the drill.  If teams didn't have insane monopoly protections and operated as standard businesses, I'd feel differently and more capitalistically.  But they are not standard businesses so the owners don't get to profit off of them as if they were. 

 

That essentially every franchise in existence falls short of this doesn't change my opinion.

 

You believe that, but that's not factually accurate. Businessmen buy or create businesses to make money. It's not actually your or my team, it currently belongs to Peter Angelos who runs it as he sees fit.  


  • BSLSteveBirrer and russsnyder like this

#23 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,985 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 16 October 2019 - 10:46 AM

I'd be happy if the Angelos family was putting every dollar earned from the team into the team.  Payroll could be low without drawing my ire if it was being saved and made available to be spent on the team over that year's revenue-supported budget later.  Only way I can support an owner making more than a modest profit off of their franchise is if that team is meeting every fan expectation from a competitive standpoint.  My firm belief is that franchises are not the property of their owners but belong to the cities and the fans with the owners as caretakers or stewards.  A few exceptions can be given for families that have owned the team since their inception, but any owner that purchased the team recently should know the drill.  If teams didn't have insane monopoly protections and operated as standard businesses, I'd feel differently and more capitalistically.  But they are not standard businesses so the owners don't get to profit off of them as if they were. 

 

That essentially every franchise in existence falls short of this doesn't change my opinion.

While we like to think this is appropriate and how sports owners should act its just not realistic. IF that was reality then the cities should own the teams and run them for no profit other than to put back into the organization. Why in the world would any person/group of people INVEST in a team if they weren't going to make any money from said investment? 


  • bmore_ken likes this

#24 Nigel Tufnel

Nigel Tufnel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,407 posts

Posted 16 October 2019 - 11:15 AM

While we like to think this is appropriate and how sports owners should act its just not realistic. IF that was reality then the cities should own the teams and run them for no profit other than to put back into the organization. Why in the world would any person/group of people INVEST in a team if they weren't going to make any money from said investment? 

 

How much did Angelos pay for the team, and what are they worth now?  The team has appreciated by over a BILLION dollars, which kind of dwarfs a few million dollars in the annual budget.



#25 russsnyder

russsnyder

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,363 posts

Posted 16 October 2019 - 11:17 AM

Mackus, on 16 Oct 2019 - 11:04, said:snapback.png

I'd be happy if the Angelos family was putting every dollar earned from the team into the team.  Payroll could be low without drawing my ire if it was being saved and made available to be spent on the team over that year's revenue-supported budget later.  Only way I can support an owner making more than a modest profit off of their franchise is if that team is meeting every fan expectation from a competitive standpoint.  My firm belief is that franchises are not the property of their owners but belong to the cities and the fans with the owners as caretakers or stewards.  A few exceptions can be given for families that have owned the team since their inception, but any owner that purchased the team recently should know the drill.  If teams didn't have insane monopoly protections and operated as standard businesses, I'd feel differently and more capitalistically.  But they are not standard businesses so the owners don't get to profit off of them as if they were. 

 

That essentially every franchise in existence falls short of this doesn't change my opinion.

 

You believe that, but that's not factually accurate. Businessmen buy or create businesses to make money. It's not actually your or my team, it currently belongs to Peter Angelos who runs it as he sees fit.  

 

Yeah, this the way it works.

 

The franchise is indeed the owners' property and they can run the franchise any way they like.

 

Further, the owner of the franchise can actually move the franchise in certain cases.

 

Would a "caretaker" move something that is so near and dear to the city or it's residents in the name of profit?

 

Maybe not, but an owner of the franchise has every right to explore the possibility or act upon it under the league's bylaws.



#26 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,851 posts

Posted 16 October 2019 - 11:25 AM

Mackus, on 16 Oct 2019 - 11:04, said:snapback.png

 

You believe that, but that's not factually accurate. Businessmen buy or create businesses to make money. It's not actually your or my team, it currently belongs to Peter Angelos who runs it as he sees fit.  

 

Yeah, this the way it works.

 

The franchise is indeed the owners' property and they can run the franchise any way they like.

 

Further, the owner of the franchise can actually move the franchise in certain cases.

 

Would a "caretaker" move something that is so near and dear to the city or it's residents in the name of profit?

 

Maybe not, but an owner of the franchise has every right to explore the possibility or act upon it under the league's bylaws.

 

I'm not saying the entity doesn't actually belong to the Angelos family or any owner.  I'm saying it shouldn't be treated as a personal belonging and instead should be treated as a public domain.  I'm well aware that this isn't how owners actually run their franchises.  I just think it's sad.  I think they have a societal obligation to treat these teams as if they are historical landmarks.  Every owner I'm aware of, in every sport, falls short of that.  By a lot in most cases.



#27 mdrunning

mdrunning

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 959 posts

Posted 16 October 2019 - 11:36 AM

How much did Angelos pay for the team, and what are they worth now?  The team has appreciated by over a BILLION dollars, which kind of dwarfs a few million dollars in the annual budget.

Angelos paid $173 million for the team, which was a record at the time. I don't know what the state of Angelos' finances were at the time, but I'm guessing he had to leverage himself considerably at that price. He wasn't a business baron sitting on top of a billion-dollar empire; he was a trial lawyer who made his money largely by representing workers exposed to asbestos.

 

You're essentially repeating what Bill Veeck figured out over 60 years ago. "You don't make money operating a team. You make money when you sell it." Very true, but on the other hand, no smart businessman is going to subsidize losses, either. The Orioles have reportedly exceeded MLB's debt limitations several times while Angelos has owned the team.



#28 weird-O

weird-O

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,142 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 16 October 2019 - 11:49 AM

You believe that, but that's not factually accurate. Businessmen buy or create businesses to make money. It's not actually your or my team, it currently belongs to Peter Angelos who runs it as he sees fit.  

This goes back to my public trust comment. It's not a law or anything, but it is implied that an owner will strive to put a quality product on the field. We know better than almost any fan base, that some owners don't bother themselves with that expectation. But it is still a historical precedent. 

 

Just to be clear, I'm not living in a whimsical, child-like state of delusion where I think the public trust expectation is lived up to. 


  • bmore_ken likes this

Good news! I saw a dog today.


#29 weird-O

weird-O

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,142 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 16 October 2019 - 11:51 AM

I'd be happy if the Angelos family was putting every dollar earned from the team into the team.  Payroll could be low without drawing my ire if it was being saved and made available to be spent on the team over that year's revenue-supported budget later.  Only way I can support an owner making more than a modest profit off of their franchise is if that team is meeting every fan expectation from a competitive standpoint.  My firm belief is that franchises are not the property of their owners but belong to the cities and the fans with the owners as caretakers or stewards.  A few exceptions can be given for families that have owned the team since their inception, but any owner that purchased the team recently should know the drill.  If teams didn't have insane monopoly protections and operated as standard businesses, I'd feel differently and more capitalistically.  But they are not standard businesses so the owners don't get to profit off of them as if they were. 

 

That essentially every franchise in existence falls short of this doesn't change my opinion.

Yep


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#30 Nigel Tufnel

Nigel Tufnel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,407 posts

Posted 16 October 2019 - 12:27 PM

Angelos paid $173 million for the team, which was a record at the time. I don't know what the state of Angelos' finances were at the time, but I'm guessing he had to leverage himself considerably at that price. He wasn't a business baron sitting on top of a billion-dollar empire; he was a trial lawyer who made his money largely by representing workers exposed to asbestos.

 

You're essentially repeating what Bill Veeck figured out over 60 years ago. "You don't make money operating a team. You make money when you sell it." Very true, but on the other hand, no smart businessman is going to subsidize losses, either. The Orioles have reportedly exceeded MLB's debt limitations several times while Angelos has owned the team.

 

 

We're not talking about losing money each year, though, just spending something closer to the annual revenue.  You would certainly include debt service in what you spend.



#31 Nigel Tufnel

Nigel Tufnel

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,407 posts

Posted 16 October 2019 - 12:31 PM

Also, this may have changed since then, but I remember reading that at the time of his death, Tom Clancy owned 24% of the team.



#32 russsnyder

russsnyder

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,363 posts

Posted 16 October 2019 - 01:13 PM

I'm not saying the entity doesn't actually belong to the Angelos family or any owner.  I'm saying it shouldn't be treated as a personal belonging and instead should be treated as a public domain.  I'm well aware that this isn't how owners actually run their franchises.  I just think it's sad.  I think they have a societal obligation to treat these teams as if they are historical landmarks.  Every owner I'm aware of, in every sport, falls short of that.  By a lot in most cases.

 

   I gotcha.

 

   It is difficult for me to grasp  your position that an owner shouldn't treat the franchise as a personal belonging.

 

   It's probably because I am older and much more cynical than yourself.

 

   I do agree that there is something sad about the lack of social obligation that some owners have regarding their franchises.

 

   Oakland is a good example of a community of fans that have been screwed over several times

 

   by ownership in the the pursuit of a better opportunity.



#33 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,172 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 16 October 2019 - 01:20 PM

I'm not saying the entity doesn't actually belong to the Angelos family or any owner.  I'm saying it shouldn't be treated as a personal belonging and instead should be treated as a public domain.  I'm well aware that this isn't how owners actually run their franchises.  I just think it's sad.  I think they have a societal obligation to treat these teams as if they are historical landmarks.  Every owner I'm aware of, in every sport, falls short of that.  By a lot in most cases.

 

The issue in my mind is less that owners "should" treat the ownership of a sports franchise one way or another--pure business or public stewardship--and more that they (and we as fans, too) have been conditioned to treat ownership BOTH ways. Sometimes business, sometimes public, sometimes both at the same time, all depending on the particular situation.


@DJ_McCann

#34 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts

Posted 16 October 2019 - 01:30 PM

I'm not saying the entity doesn't actually belong to the Angelos family or any owner.  I'm saying it shouldn't be treated as a personal belonging and instead should be treated as a public domain.  I'm well aware that this isn't how owners actually run their franchises.  I just think it's sad.  I think they have a societal obligation to treat these teams as if they are historical landmarks.  Every owner I'm aware of, in every sport, falls short of that.  By a lot in most cases.

That's simply ridiculous and not the way it works. Robert Irsay sadly showed us how it works. 



#35 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,851 posts

Posted 16 October 2019 - 02:01 PM

That's simply ridiculous and not the way it works. Robert Irsay sadly showed us how it works. 

 

I know this is not the way it works.  It's the way I think it should work.  I said exactly that in the very next sentence after the one you bolded.


  • DJ MC likes this

#36 weird-O

weird-O

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,142 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 16 October 2019 - 02:34 PM

Also, this may have changed since then, but I remember reading that at the time of his death, Tom Clancy owned 24% of the team.

I just remember the payout, for his stake in the team, was incredible. What I don't remember is, did his share just get distributed among the surviving members of the group, or did Peter alone absorb it by paying out to Clancy's estate?


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#37 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts

Posted 16 October 2019 - 02:50 PM

I just remember the payout, for his stake in the team, was incredible. What I don't remember is, did his share just get distributed among the surviving members of the group, or did Peter alone absorb it by paying out to Clancy's estate?

$230 million pre tax. I can't find anything on who ponied up the money though.



#38 weird-O

weird-O

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,142 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 16 October 2019 - 03:12 PM

$230 million pre tax. I can't find anything on who ponied up the money though.

I suppose they like to keep that stuff on the down low


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#39 mdrunning

mdrunning

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 959 posts

Posted 17 October 2019 - 12:59 AM

Thanks for sharing what you found. I was trying to find a breakdown of who owned how much of the O's, but I didn't find the answer. Here's a possible option to soften the blow. Wouldn't they be allowed to sell a portion of the team and add another fellow owner? If the 80% figure is right, they could sell of 29% of the club, and still maintain a controlling share. I'm just speculating, I have no idea how that works for an existing owner. 

 

In spite of the appearance that the brothers are charting a better course, I have no problem with the O's being sold and completely removing the Angelos family and their ownership group. Peter and Co. have done very little in the way of providing an interesting product over the decades.

That could very well be the case. Angelos's relationship with MLB has been prickly at best over the years, and the other owners could seize the opportunity to rid themselves of the Angelos family once and for all.


  • weird-O likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners