2 major league teams in peril

Houston Chronicle ^ | July 11, 2002 | RICHARD JUSTICE

[caa26]

Make that the average team has $116 million in debt according to Selig's numbers. I forgot there is 30 teams.

[Dog Gone]

there are no teams in baseball that I know that have paid for the construction of their stadium.

Dodger Stadium. That's the reason why it's not called "Calpine Park."

[Corporate Law]

I don't think the Reds have any real debt though. They cry that they are losing money, but if anything they are breaking even. Lindner is too smart a businessman to throw money down a hole. Arizona is a more likely suspect, as they had to borrow money last year to make payroll, did not conduct a firesale ala the Marlins after winning the World Series, and needed 100% attendance to break even.

[the bottle let me down]

What's the deal with stadium debt, there are no teams in baseball that I know that have paid for the construction of their stadium.

Then you're not paying close enough attention. The Phillies are building a new stadium and paying 1/3 of the cost themselves. The Pirates had the same deal. Milwaukee also probably paid a good chunk of the cost for Miller Park. Most of the teams that get new stadiums pay part of the costs. Stadium debt is a real factor.

The change in the stadium deals has been that the local government pays a significant portion of the cost, but unlike past deals, gets nothing in the way of revenue--the team gets all of the parking, concessions, etc. In the past, the city would build and lease to the team, retaining a share of all of those revenue sources.

[F16Fighter]

"This is not 30 companies competing in a free market. This is one company with 30 different plants..."

Sorry -- don't think you analogy applies in this case.

Herr Steinbrenner can talk to and possibly sign whomever he wants as long as the player is an available free agent. The New York Yankess is own wholly by George Steinbrenner who must follow MLB bylaws within the confines of league rules and any respective changes, while contributing to expenses germaine to the betterment of MLB.

As in most any business, if a franchise mismanaged their resources, that's tough cookies.

Another way to look at it -- If my McDonalds franchise dies because of slow sales, I don't ask all the other McDonald franchises to prop my business up. Then why should the sick and dying teams be artificially propped up? In this case, I do believe in MLB's version of Darwinism.

BTW, I agree -- if MLB strikes, it does not bode well for those of us who barely hung in after the '94 debacle...

[BruceS]

Please re-read my reply. I do not see it as 30 franchises (if the McDonald's down the street from me goes out of business, it doesn't affect the McDonald's down the street from you). It is 30 parts of the same business - they need each other to survive. If the Yankees were the only team, it wouldn't be much of a league.

As in most any business, if a franchise mismanaged their resources, that's tough cookies.

True, but if a GM division mismanaged their resources, it affects all other GM divisions. This is not a perfect analogy, but I think it is closer than the franchise analogy.

[BlackElk]

What would GM do about someone in charge of a division (or about half the someones in charge of their divisions) deciding to help himself or themselves to all division profits and more besides? Unless baseball wants to do that to the Seligs and the Pohlads and the Glasses and the other slimebag owners who do exactly that, your analogy is baloney. And, if you insist, there is more where that came from.

[B Knotts]

Rush just named the two teams:

Detroit Tigers (who were not going to make payroll)
Tampa Bay Devil Rays