$2.55B Valuation $395M Revenue $34M Profit

[alw80]

Great, like other forms of entertainment, it's a business. Priority of business...make money.

Scouty typed this response in his Amazon.com jersey.

[BrummerStealsHome]

I really don't get the obsession over the franchise's financials, which aren't public anyway. My guess is they could replace Marmol with a better manager at the same salary and win 5-10 more games without spending a dime more.

[riff raff]

Cardinals Valuation/$2.55B, Revenues/$395M and Net Profit/$34M in 2024.

Plus only 7% Debt as % of value.

Yet BDWJr sought to slash as much payroll as he could this offseason while adding only one major league player, P. Maton at $2M.


CNBC’s Official MLB Team Valuations 2025: Here’s how the 30 franchises stack up

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/11/cnbcs-o ... -2025.html

Cash flow is a better gauge than net profit. What's 7% of $2.55 Billion? Debt service that, including any principal reduction required by the banks each year.

Huh

Cash Flow is simply the movement of money in and out of the business, are you trying to act like the Cardinals are cash poor?

Best you stay out of this conversation, unless you can input specific accounting or finance perspective.

Hey moron unlike you I actually spent nearly ten years as a commercial banker.

I have more knowledge of this in my little finger than you do in your toady front office footstool body.

You know NOTHING about commercial banking or finance, you're a poser clown.

What a dumb a z z you are granny.

There’s no reason to be a complete idiot. Cranny has been in investment banking forever. To suggest he doesn’t know anything about banking or finance is plain stupid. That’s a choice you’re making that you don’t have to. Don’t be stupid.

Nothing will ever stop rocko from being stupid.

[YNWA2016]

Cardinals Valuation/$2.55B, Revenues/$395M and Net Profit/$34M in 2024.

Plus only 7% Debt as % of value.

Yet BDWJr sought to slash as much payroll as he could this offseason while adding only one major league player, P. Maton at $2M.


CNBC’s Official MLB Team Valuations 2025: Here’s how the 30 franchises stack up

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/11/cnbcs-o ... -2025.html

this is how the Cards owners have operated forever, and Cards fans have been letting them get away with it for far tooo long. the Cards will never win another NL pennant until they get new owners. the sooner all cards fans pundits former players realize that.. the better. not sure why everyone don't know that already. I already this over 4 years ago

[thetank2]

Cardinals Valuation/$2.55B, Revenues/$395M and Net Profit/$34M in 2024.

Plus only 7% Debt as % of value.

Yet BDWJr sought to slash as much payroll as he could this offseason while adding only one major league player, P. Maton at $2M.


CNBC’s Official MLB Team Valuations 2025: Here’s how the 30 franchises stack up

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/11/cnbcs-o ... -2025.html

this is how the Cards owners have operated forever, and Cards fans have been letting them get away with it for far tooo long. the Cards will never win another NL pennant until they get new owners. the sooner all cards fans pundits former players realize that.. the better. not sure why everyone don't know that already. I already this over 4 years ago

They obviously put a good product on the field.

[Cranny]

I'm not sure I see the relevance of principal reduction in this discussion (particularly at a low 7% Debt/TEV)--that's a cap structure choice, not an exogenous variable.

Principal reduction may be the requirement of the lender. Gotta love exogenous variables, though! LOL.

Principal reduction may indeed be a requirement of the existing debt instrument(s), but you are putting form before substance by fixating on the possible mechanics of the current debt instrument(s), rather than the economic and financial context. Do you really believe there is only one lender in the entire universe that will do business with the Cardinals? Do you really believe the current lenders wouldn't refi the debt if the Cardinals wanted to? The terms of the current debt instrument(s) are what they are, but the universe of available financing options involves choice (at least in this situation, with a paltry 7% Debt/TEV and basically bullet-proof collateral).

Principal payments at this point are a decision by Cardinals ownership. If we assume, for the sake of simplicity, that the debt is roughly at par, the estimate of 7% of TEV would imply $179mm of debt outstanding. Principal payments, as you suggested, would indeed be a cash outflow below the EBITDA line, but doing so would also increase the value of the equity almost one-for-one (assuming zero tax effects for the moment to simplify the analysis). The Cardinals could easily refinance $179mm of debt if they wanted to and defer any principal repayment (professional sports teams are like gold as collateral, and the team is under-levered), but if they choose to instead pay down principal under whatever current debt agreement(s) they have in place, they are simply using available cash to pay down debt and increase the value of their equity (just as allowing cash to pile up on the balance sheet would decrease NET debt and increase equity value in the same way). As a snapshot of financial health, that doesn't necessarily mean that ownership is cash poor, it just means they're making a conscious decision about capital structure and uses of available cash.

But, as another poster pointed out, some of the changes in the revenue forecast (and potentially in forward expenses) could change the team's run-rate financial picture materially going forward. Those changes (and the potential for a future lockout) wouldn't affect the CNBC snapshot estimate from the article, but they might cause ownership to select a more conservative cap structure for the time being. But to be clear, that would be a conscious choice, not an "exogenous variable." "LOL"

You’ve expanded the conversation outside the perimeter. A poster claimed that the Cardinals had plenty of cash to sign players because they had a healthy net profit. I simply said that cash flow is a better gauge than net profit.

Of course they may have multiple lenders. And of course they could change backs. That’s obvious. But the reality is, under the existing loan docs, there may be principal reduction requirements.

[Goldfan]

I'm not sure I see the relevance of principal reduction in this discussion (particularly at a low 7% Debt/TEV)--that's a cap structure choice, not an exogenous variable.

Principal reduction may be the requirement of the lender. Gotta love exogenous variables, though! LOL.

Principal reduction may indeed be a requirement of the existing debt instrument(s), but you are putting form before substance by fixating on the possible mechanics of the current debt instrument(s), rather than the economic and financial context. Do you really believe there is only one lender in the entire universe that will do business with the Cardinals? Do you really believe the current lenders wouldn't refi the debt if the Cardinals wanted to? The terms of the current debt instrument(s) are what they are, but the universe of available financing options involves choice (at least in this situation, with a paltry 7% Debt/TEV and basically bullet-proof collateral).

Principal payments at this point are a decision by Cardinals ownership. If we assume, for the sake of simplicity, that the debt is roughly at par, the estimate of 7% of TEV would imply $179mm of debt outstanding. Principal payments, as you suggested, would indeed be a cash outflow below the EBITDA line, but doing so would also increase the value of the equity almost one-for-one (assuming zero tax effects for the moment to simplify the analysis). The Cardinals could easily refinance $179mm of debt if they wanted to and defer any principal repayment (professional sports teams are like gold as collateral, and the team is under-levered), but if they choose to instead pay down principal under whatever current debt agreement(s) they have in place, they are simply using available cash to pay down debt and increase the value of their equity (just as allowing cash to pile up on the balance sheet would decrease NET debt and increase equity value in the same way). As a snapshot of financial health, that doesn't necessarily mean that ownership is cash poor, it just means they're making a conscious decision about capital structure and uses of available cash.

But, as another poster pointed out, some of the changes in the revenue forecast (and potentially in forward expenses) could change the team's run-rate financial picture materially going forward. Those changes (and the potential for a future lockout) wouldn't affect the CNBC snapshot estimate from the article, but they might cause ownership to select a more conservative cap structure for the time being. But to be clear, that would be a conscious choice, not an "exogenous variable." "LOL"

You’ve expanded the conversation outside the perimeter. A poster claimed that the Cardinals had plenty of cash to sign players because they had a healthy net profit. I simply said that cash flow is a better gauge than net profit.

Of course they may have multiple lenders. And of course they could change backs. That’s obvious. But the reality is, under the existing loan docs, there may be principal reduction requirements.

Cranny, I fully agree with you. The Dewitts are in dire straits and don’t make ANY money for their family off the backs of hard working STL fans and he should sell this losing investment and move on to greener pastures…..AMEN

[Dazepster]

The owners of the Cardinal and separately the Ballpark Village are still paying for construction of those two facilities. Remember the Cardinals built their own park with the state and city paying for infrastructure costs.

Also what has been lost in most of the discussions is the 20M loss in the TV/Cable contract. That along with the uncertainty of that contract has played into the situation. Then add in the uncertainty of the next players contract, and the FO is being very conservative in its actions.

Finally, a full implementation of building the team from the inside has affected the present and near future roster cost. DeWitt has said that the FO hopes to return to a 180M to 200M MLB roster cost in the future as the the younger players mature and additional players are added.

In the mean time, the team has been playing some exciting games.

They lost more than $20MM on their media deal. They had equity in the network, they probably lost their (donkey) on it.

Their Equity in the Network did not cost them a thing. Nor did they need to contribute a nickel in capital additions or paying down debt as it circled the drain. Nothing In / Nothing Out Ultimately.

They were granted an ownership stake. No idea what cash it may have thrown off or was expected to throw off from year to given year. The beauty in that deal or type of structure is in the event it becomes a resounding success. You cash in your ownership stake. But that model is dead.

Let's hope their streaming direct to consumer is a success. They draw 2 M plus to the stands year in year out. Can they get 2 M subscribers to fork over 20 bucks a month, for 5 or 7 months a year. How about 4 M. Haven't a clue what the real size of the Cards fan base is nor Missouri in general. I do know that Cardinal can be found all over the country. And most had no access to Card games. Now all do.

We about to find out How Big Cardinal Nation Truly Is.

Not the front runners or bandwagon followers. The Real Fans!!!

[Cranny]

I'm not sure I see the relevance of principal reduction in this discussion (particularly at a low 7% Debt/TEV)--that's a cap structure choice, not an exogenous variable.

Principal reduction may be the requirement of the lender. Gotta love exogenous variables, though! LOL.

Principal reduction may indeed be a requirement of the existing debt instrument(s), but you are putting form before substance by fixating on the possible mechanics of the current debt instrument(s), rather than the economic and financial context. Do you really believe there is only one lender in the entire universe that will do business with the Cardinals? Do you really believe the current lenders wouldn't refi the debt if the Cardinals wanted to? The terms of the current debt instrument(s) are what they are, but the universe of available financing options involves choice (at least in this situation, with a paltry 7% Debt/TEV and basically bullet-proof collateral).

Principal payments at this point are a decision by Cardinals ownership. If we assume, for the sake of simplicity, that the debt is roughly at par, the estimate of 7% of TEV would imply $179mm of debt outstanding. Principal payments, as you suggested, would indeed be a cash outflow below the EBITDA line, but doing so would also increase the value of the equity almost one-for-one (assuming zero tax effects for the moment to simplify the analysis). The Cardinals could easily refinance $179mm of debt if they wanted to and defer any principal repayment (professional sports teams are like gold as collateral, and the team is under-levered), but if they choose to instead pay down principal under whatever current debt agreement(s) they have in place, they are simply using available cash to pay down debt and increase the value of their equity (just as allowing cash to pile up on the balance sheet would decrease NET debt and increase equity value in the same way). As a snapshot of financial health, that doesn't necessarily mean that ownership is cash poor, it just means they're making a conscious decision about capital structure and uses of available cash.

But, as another poster pointed out, some of the changes in the revenue forecast (and potentially in forward expenses) could change the team's run-rate financial picture materially going forward. Those changes (and the potential for a future lockout) wouldn't affect the CNBC snapshot estimate from the article, but they might cause ownership to select a more conservative cap structure for the time being. But to be clear, that would be a conscious choice, not an "exogenous variable." "LOL"

You’ve expanded the conversation outside the perimeter. A poster claimed that the Cardinals had plenty of cash to sign players because they had a healthy net profit. I simply said that cash flow is a better gauge than net profit.

Of course they may have multiple lenders. And of course they could change backs. That’s obvious. But the reality is, under the existing loan docs, there may be principal reduction requirements.

Cranny, I fully agree with you. The Dewitts are in dire straits and don’t make ANY money for their family off the backs of hard working STL fans and he should sell this losing investment and move on to greener pastures…..AMEN

Goldfan - best you stay out of a discussion you don’t understand.

[Goldfan]

I'm not sure I see the relevance of principal reduction in this discussion (particularly at a low 7% Debt/TEV)--that's a cap structure choice, not an exogenous variable.

Principal reduction may be the requirement of the lender. Gotta love exogenous variables, though! LOL.

Principal reduction may indeed be a requirement of the existing debt instrument(s), but you are putting form before substance by fixating on the possible mechanics of the current debt instrument(s), rather than the economic and financial context. Do you really believe there is only one lender in the entire universe that will do business with the Cardinals? Do you really believe the current lenders wouldn't refi the debt if the Cardinals wanted to? The terms of the current debt instrument(s) are what they are, but the universe of available financing options involves choice (at least in this situation, with a paltry 7% Debt/TEV and basically bullet-proof collateral).

Principal payments at this point are a decision by Cardinals ownership. If we assume, for the sake of simplicity, that the debt is roughly at par, the estimate of 7% of TEV would imply $179mm of debt outstanding. Principal payments, as you suggested, would indeed be a cash outflow below the EBITDA line, but doing so would also increase the value of the equity almost one-for-one (assuming zero tax effects for the moment to simplify the analysis). The Cardinals could easily refinance $179mm of debt if they wanted to and defer any principal repayment (professional sports teams are like gold as collateral, and the team is under-levered), but if they choose to instead pay down principal under whatever current debt agreement(s) they have in place, they are simply using available cash to pay down debt and increase the value of their equity (just as allowing cash to pile up on the balance sheet would decrease NET debt and increase equity value in the same way). As a snapshot of financial health, that doesn't necessarily mean that ownership is cash poor, it just means they're making a conscious decision about capital structure and uses of available cash.

But, as another poster pointed out, some of the changes in the revenue forecast (and potentially in forward expenses) could change the team's run-rate financial picture materially going forward. Those changes (and the potential for a future lockout) wouldn't affect the CNBC snapshot estimate from the article, but they might cause ownership to select a more conservative cap structure for the time being. But to be clear, that would be a conscious choice, not an "exogenous variable." "LOL"

You’ve expanded the conversation outside the perimeter. A poster claimed that the Cardinals had plenty of cash to sign players because they had a healthy net profit. I simply said that cash flow is a better gauge than net profit.

Of course they may have multiple lenders. And of course they could change backs. That’s obvious. But the reality is, under the existing loan docs, there may be principal reduction requirements.

Cranny, I fully agree with you. The Dewitts are in dire straits and don’t make ANY money for their family off the backs of hard working STL fans and he should sell this losing investment and move on to greener pastures…..AMEN

Goldfan - best you stay out of a discussion you don’t understand.

Cranny you have no idea who I am or what I understand….as for as baseball I’ve called every step of this degrading embarrassing decline in Cards baseball for the last 6yrs with you most of the time walking hand in hand with BDW and MO making excuses as they drove this once proud winning stadium filled franchise to where it is today. Every time numbers are posted here from the best sports financial researchers you dispute the findings and act like BDW hasn’t benefited from GREAT Franchise appreciation and from all reports pockets a nice annual income stream. So please explain to me what I don’t understand. If you have the true financial for STL. Cardinals LLC please post here for all to see otherwise don’t act like you
Are their personal accountant. When the Dodgers, Mets, and other high payroll teams are either in the red or significantly below BDW annual Take even though the Revenue numbers are dwarf BDW…….something aint right.

[Goldfan]

Keep on it Rock. You're spot on. Cranny getting exposed ........................ even more.
Would be interesting to know all the dividends going out.

Dewitt's take hefty salaries, expenses as well as sharing in the dividends the team has paid out for decades.

And that's GREAT, like scouty said it's a BUSINESS.

But for that idiot cranny to simply google terms, re-post them and act like he's Jamie Diamond shows how low he'll go to protect his hero BDWJr from being exposed this past offseason as the cheap wad he truly has become.

Exactly, LLC expenses end up in Dewitts pockets. Best lawyers Best accountants can make that income statement appear close to whatever BDW wishes……anyone review the publicly traded Braves statements?

[An Old Friend]

The owners of the Cardinal and separately the Ballpark Village are still paying for construction of those two facilities. Remember the Cardinals built their own park with the state and city paying for infrastructure costs.

Also what has been lost in most of the discussions is the 20M loss in the TV/Cable contract. That along with the uncertainty of that contract has played into the situation. Then add in the uncertainty of the next players contract, and the FO is being very conservative in its actions.

Finally, a full implementation of building the team from the inside has affected the present and near future roster cost. DeWitt has said that the FO hopes to return to a 180M to 200M MLB roster cost in the future as the the younger players mature and additional players are added.

In the mean time, the team has been playing some exciting games.

They lost more than $20MM on their media deal. They had equity in the network, they probably lost their (donkey) on it.

Their Equity in the Network did not cost them a thing. Nor did they need to contribute a nickel in capital additions or paying down debt as it circled the drain. Nothing In / Nothing Out Ultimately.

They were granted an ownership stake. No idea what cash it may have thrown off or was expected to throw off from year to given year. The beauty in that deal or type of structure is in the event it becomes a resounding success. You cash in your ownership stake. But that model is dead.

Let's hope their streaming direct to consumer is a success. They draw 2 M plus to the stands year in year out. Can they get 2 M subscribers to fork over 20 bucks a month, for 5 or 7 months a year. How about 4 M. Haven't a clue what the real size of the Cards fan base is nor Missouri in general. I do know that Cardinal can be found all over the country. And most had no access to Card games. Now all do.

We about to find out How Big Cardinal Nation Truly Is.

Not the front runners or bandwagon followers. The Real Fans!!!

I have a feeling it’ll be a fraction of that. Aging demographics aren’t streaming a bunch of apps.

[Cranny]

Keep on it Rock. You're spot on. Cranny getting exposed ........................ even more.
Would be interesting to know all the dividends going out.

Dewitt's take hefty salaries, expenses as well as sharing in the dividends the team has paid out for decades.

And that's GREAT, like scouty said it's a BUSINESS.

But for that idiot cranny to simply google terms, re-post them and act like he's Jamie Diamond shows how low he'll go to protect his hero BDWJr from being exposed this past offseason as the cheap wad he truly has become.

Exactly, LLC expenses end up in Dewitts pockets. Best lawyers Best accountants can make that income statement appear close to whatever BDW wishes……anyone review the publicly traded Braves statements?

I’ll buy that it’s a closely held company - and no one has any idea of what the profits are, if any. I’ll certainly buy that the value increase of the asset from purchase price to now has been extraordinary.

[peterman'srealitytour]

Cardinals Valuation/$2.55B, Revenues/$395M and Net Profit/$34M in 2024.

Plus only 7% Debt as % of value.

Yet BDWJr sought to slash as much payroll as he could this offseason while adding only one major league player, P. Maton at $2M.


CNBC’s Official MLB Team Valuations 2025: Here’s how the 30 franchises stack up

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/11/cnbcs-o ... -2025.html

Cash flow is a better gauge than net profit. What's 7% of $2.55 Billion? Debt service that, including any principal reduction required by the banks each year.

No it’s not. A man whose net worth is north of $2 billion should not have liquidity issues. Lending institutions, investors line up in droves to provide cash flow solutions to individuals with underlying assets in the billions. Ridiculous assertion.

[jw0595]

Just going off an aging memory, virtually every big 3 franchise that has changed hands in the last few years has brought significantly more than the market valuation.

[Cranny]

Cardinals Valuation/$2.55B, Revenues/$395M and Net Profit/$34M in 2024.

Plus only 7% Debt as % of value.

Yet BDWJr sought to slash as much payroll as he could this offseason while adding only one major league player, P. Maton at $2M.


CNBC’s Official MLB Team Valuations 2025: Here’s how the 30 franchises stack up

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/11/cnbcs-o ... -2025.html

Cash flow is a better gauge than net profit. What's 7% of $2.55 Billion? Debt service that, including any principal reduction required by the banks each year.

No it’s not. A man whose net worth is north of $2 billion should not have liquidity issues. Lending institutions, investors line up in droves to provide cash flow solutions to individuals with underlying assets in the billions. Ridiculous assertion.

What’s ridiculous is someone who thinks a billionaire
is going to personally guarantee a company loan.
They don’t have to. Learn accounting and finance.