Der Kommissar's in Town

[metirish]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I have to admit, I haven't been following this money story all that closely, but... Didn't the $70 million figure come from something that Sandy Alderson said? And didn't he also say that the $70 million figure represented more than one year?

from a Newsday article dated Dec. 14th

In addition to the loans and mounting debt, general manager Sandy Alderson said the team lost $70 million in 2011, star shortstop Jose Reyes left town via free agency and the ownership is facing a $386 million lawsuit from the trustees in the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/mlb-ok-with-way-mets-handling-finances-1.3390173


I wonder how many of the expensive seats will be sold this coming season, I think that's a huge worry for them, not guys like me not going to two or three games a year.

[Edgy MD]

Frayed Knot wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: When exactly did this team start "hemorrhaging money" as I believe Fred once put it? According to this hotshot, the pendulum swing in 2010. So, assuming that we're to take those figures as accurate, we need to simply accept that, with virtually no change in expenses, revenues for the club suddenly fell by over 100 million dollars (or close to 25%) in the span of one year (and then further after that) as this club flipped from being in a positive-$50mil situation to a negative-$50mil in the blink of an eye. Attendance fell approx 20% between 2009 & 2010 which, when combined with lower prices, could put a dent in finances. But the paid gate is only a portion of income (it certainly is a much smaller portion than in previous eras) and if the set-up of this team is such where anything short of 3+mil asses-in-seats each year (essentially its capacity*) leaves the club swimming in red ink then we're back to my earlier question about how the team stayed afloat this long or could reasonably expect to in the future. * 42K x 81 games = 3.4 million

Assuming those figures are correct, I'd guess that

(1) that 20% reduction in attendance came at the high end --- private suite-buying, private club-carousing, greasy-steak eating yucks. Those 1%-ers got a reality check with the crash and their discretionary values did not include a disappointing team playing in a homer-depressing stadium whose novelty value wore off fast. Good. Screw them and their scads of free-agent-supporting money. Long live the coupon clippers who help pay for the Mike Hessmans of this world.

(2) Madoff got busted in December 2008. Some of those Madoff accounts were team-owned accounts, and those bogus revenues would have counted in prior years but didn't then. Would that show on the balance sheet? I don't know. And if so, why not until 2010?

Mongo, again, merely pawn.

[Ceetar]

There are so many moving parts here it's mindboggling.

That 70 million figure was reported a couple of times during the year. Although they said 60 earlier on, so it seems they underperformed their estimates. I don't think any of it mentioned what the figure was actually measuring though. I mean, the Wilpons could take a 20million cut of profits and claim it as team losses for all we know.

[Frayed Knot]

In addition to the loans and mounting debt, general manager Sandy Alderson said the team lost $70 million in 2011

And, if that's the main source, I wonder if it's not a number put out there for public consumption while all this haggling goes on.
I have no doubt that there's probably losses involved and that the $70mil figure is probably one someone can point to on some spreadsheet, but of course a good accountant can make just about any P&L say just about anything he wants.

In short, I'm just wary of taking that number as a stone cold fact, especially seeing as how it may be in the interest of several parties to make it seem that way.

I wonder how many of the expensive seats will be sold this coming season, I think that's a huge worry for them, not guys like me not going to two or three games a year.

The expensive seats and the luxury boxes are where the big money is as far as attendance money goes and there's no doubt that that's where the biggest portion of their hit came from.
Coming into the new stadium the Mets* anticipated more demand for those premium seats then there actually was and when the economy cratered they had to slash prices meaning they got both lower volume and fewer dollars per sale that they did get.



* The Yanx, Jets & Giants did the same thing and probably to a greater degree. The Yanx wanted, what?, like $2,500 per seat at first for the ones behind the dugout and the football teams got far less demand for those PSLs than they thought even to the point of having to admit that the "bids" for the first seat licenses were rigged so as to simulate intense competition for them.
Now all those teams probably had a bigger buffer to start with financially but I still don't hear any of them complaining about drowning in red ink.

[Edgy MD]

I'd be curious to see it, seeing as how the Yankees pay out crazy money in revenue sharing.

[Edgy MD]

Mets tweet an acknowledgement of hiring CRG, along with a denial that it's to guide them through bankruptcy.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: I'd be curious to see it, seeing as how the Yankees pay out crazy money in revenue sharing.

and if the Yankees, instead of winning it all and easily making up the different in postseason revenue that year, had lost A-Rod and CC for 60% of the season and missed the playoffs.

Because it's pretty clear the Yankees are feeling the economic pressure too. Lowering prices, talking about payroll and budgets, even lost this Japanese guy because they couldn't come to an agreement. (And what's to agree on besides money unless he just didn't want to play in NY?)

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Edgy DC wrote: Mets tweet an acknowledgement of hiring CRG, along with a denial that it's to guide them through bankruptcy.

The victory lap the scoopers are taking on twitter now is kinda embarrassing.