OT: Arby's closes more locations

[rockondlouie]

OKay you know things are getting bad when you read a headline like this from the #3 company in the industry
(behind MickeyD's & Starbucks):

Restaurants

Chick-fil-A launches its biggest ever marketing campaign as restaurant industry traffic shrinks

Published Mon, Jan 5 20268:00 AM ESTUpdated 29 Min Ago

[CCard]

Operating costs do not equal profit. That's ridiculous. A while back I posted an article from Forbes that showed the Cards profit of around 350 million dollars. That profit, not operating expenses. With a payroll at the time that was about 175 million. Deduct the operating costs from the profit and still it looks pretty good. Now they've cut payroll to the bone. Will people come out to watch these guys? I won't. That being said, unless you have a 401k, this economy is killing you. Everything has gone up and continues to go up. I'd expect attendance to be down no matter what.

It's operating income. Operating income is, roughly, profits.

The Cardinals' operating revenue is about $350 million.

As I said.

You said, "...showed the Cards profit of around 350 million dollars." There is no "profit" of $350 million.

Operating income/profit = revenue - expenses

The Forbes data shows the Cardinals average operating income/profit over a decade at $27 million per year.

https://twinstrivia.com/2025/04/05/mlb- ... s-payroll/

Your numbers sound ludicrous. If a team had a margin of only 27 million dollars then any team that signed a high priced free agent would be losing money. Preposterous.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenh ... ince-2010/

They are Forbes' numbers, and the only source I'm aware of for comparable numbers for all 30 MLB teams.

BTW, per your 2nd link, $8 billion in profit over a decade for 30 teams would be ~$27 million a year, per team.

Doesn't change the facts. Anyway you slice it. I posted the Forbes link. Read it.

Your're right, it doesn't change the facts. The Forbes numbers show the following for each team's average "operating income" (as close a number to "profits" as we're going to have) over 2015-2024:

The average if you include the Mets is +$17.5 million. The average if you exclude the Mets is +$20.8 million.

Boston - +$63 million
Cubs - +$59
San Francisco - +$48
Pittsburgh - +$44
Houston - +$42
Atlanta - +$38
Milwaukee - +$33
Seattle - +$33
Baltimore - +$32
Cleveland - +$31
Tampa Bay - +$29
Philadelphia - +$28
Angels - +$27
St. Louis - +$27
Texas - +$21
______________________Median & Avg. w/o Mets of $20.8 million
Washington - +$20
______________________Avg. with Mets of $17.5 million
Arizona - +$16
Kansas City - +$15
Cincinnati - +$13
Dodgers - +$10
Minnesota - +$9
White Sox - +$6
Athletics - +$6
Colorado - $0
Detroit - -$1
Miami - -$4
San Diego - -$6
Yankee - -$14
Toronto - -$22
Mets - -$79

No, "Operating Income" is not as close to "Profits" as you can get. That's moronic. Tell me, if teams are that close to the bone then why would any team sign a $30 million dollar player, let alone multiple and yet they do. How do you explain that?

How Forbes calculates "operating income" is as close a measure as we have for "profits."

Again, your own Forbes link - which stated that the 30 MLB teams made $8 billion in "profits" over the decade from 2010-2019 works out to an average of $27 million per team per year, which is completely in line with the numbers above.

Then how does the Forbes article say they made $350 million in profits? Again, there's a difference in operating expenses and profits.

[mattmitchl44]

Operating costs do not equal profit. That's ridiculous. A while back I posted an article from Forbes that showed the Cards profit of around 350 million dollars. That profit, not operating expenses. With a payroll at the time that was about 175 million. Deduct the operating costs from the profit and still it looks pretty good. Now they've cut payroll to the bone. Will people come out to watch these guys? I won't. That being said, unless you have a 401k, this economy is killing you. Everything has gone up and continues to go up. I'd expect attendance to be down no matter what.

It's operating income. Operating income is, roughly, profits.

The Cardinals' operating revenue is about $350 million.

As I said.

You said, "...showed the Cards profit of around 350 million dollars." There is no "profit" of $350 million.

Operating income/profit = revenue - expenses

The Forbes data shows the Cardinals average operating income/profit over a decade at $27 million per year.

https://twinstrivia.com/2025/04/05/mlb- ... s-payroll/

Your numbers sound ludicrous. If a team had a margin of only 27 million dollars then any team that signed a high priced free agent would be losing money. Preposterous.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenh ... ince-2010/

They are Forbes' numbers, and the only source I'm aware of for comparable numbers for all 30 MLB teams.

BTW, per your 2nd link, $8 billion in profit over a decade for 30 teams would be ~$27 million a year, per team.

Doesn't change the facts. Anyway you slice it. I posted the Forbes link. Read it.

Your're right, it doesn't change the facts. The Forbes numbers show the following for each team's average "operating income" (as close a number to "profits" as we're going to have) over 2015-2024:

The average if you include the Mets is +$17.5 million. The average if you exclude the Mets is +$20.8 million.

Boston - +$63 million
Cubs - +$59
San Francisco - +$48
Pittsburgh - +$44
Houston - +$42
Atlanta - +$38
Milwaukee - +$33
Seattle - +$33
Baltimore - +$32
Cleveland - +$31
Tampa Bay - +$29
Philadelphia - +$28
Angels - +$27
St. Louis - +$27
Texas - +$21
______________________Median & Avg. w/o Mets of $20.8 million
Washington - +$20
______________________Avg. with Mets of $17.5 million
Arizona - +$16
Kansas City - +$15
Cincinnati - +$13
Dodgers - +$10
Minnesota - +$9
White Sox - +$6
Athletics - +$6
Colorado - $0
Detroit - -$1
Miami - -$4
San Diego - -$6
Yankee - -$14
Toronto - -$22
Mets - -$79

No, "Operating Income" is not as close to "Profits" as you can get. That's moronic. Tell me, if teams are that close to the bone then why would any team sign a $30 million dollar player, let alone multiple and yet they do. How do you explain that?

How Forbes calculates "operating income" is as close a measure as we have for "profits."

Again, your own Forbes link - which stated that the 30 MLB teams made $8 billion in "profits" over the decade from 2010-2019 works out to an average of $27 million per team per year, which is completely in line with the numbers above.

Then how does the Forbes article say they made $350 million in profits? Again, there's a difference in operating expenses and profits.

It's not "operating expenses." No one, anywhere, has said "operating expenses."

Forbes term is "operating income." That is what is as close as we're going to get to "profits."

I don't know where you read "$350 million." It was either, maybe, the total "profits" they made over a decade (so $35 million a year), not annual. Or else you read annual "revenue" (which for the Cardinals has been right around $350 million) as "profits."

[Cranny]

Operating costs do not equal profit. That's ridiculous. A while back I posted an article from Forbes that showed the Cards profit of around 350 million dollars. That profit, not operating expenses. With a payroll at the time that was about 175 million. Deduct the operating costs from the profit and still it looks pretty good. Now they've cut payroll to the bone. Will people come out to watch these guys? I won't. That being said, unless you have a 401k, this economy is killing you. Everything has gone up and continues to go up. I'd expect attendance to be down no matter what.

It's operating income. Operating income is, roughly, profits.

The Cardinals' operating revenue is about $350 million.

As I said.

You said, "...showed the Cards profit of around 350 million dollars." There is no "profit" of $350 million.

Operating income/profit = revenue - expenses

The Forbes data shows the Cardinals average operating income/profit over a decade at $27 million per year.

https://twinstrivia.com/2025/04/05/mlb- ... s-payroll/

Your numbers sound ludicrous. If a team had a margin of only 27 million dollars then any team that signed a high priced free agent would be losing money. Preposterous.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenh ... ince-2010/

They are Forbes' numbers, and the only source I'm aware of for comparable numbers for all 30 MLB teams.

BTW, per your 2nd link, $8 billion in profit over a decade for 30 teams would be ~$27 million a year, per team.

Doesn't change the facts. Anyway you slice it. I posted the Forbes link. Read it.

Your're right, it doesn't change the facts. The Forbes numbers show the following for each team's average "operating income" (as close a number to "profits" as we're going to have) over 2015-2024:

The average if you include the Mets is +$17.5 million. The average if you exclude the Mets is +$20.8 million.

Boston - +$63 million
Cubs - +$59
San Francisco - +$48
Pittsburgh - +$44
Houston - +$42
Atlanta - +$38
Milwaukee - +$33
Seattle - +$33
Baltimore - +$32
Cleveland - +$31
Tampa Bay - +$29
Philadelphia - +$28
Angels - +$27
St. Louis - +$27
Texas - +$21
______________________Median & Avg. w/o Mets of $20.8 million
Washington - +$20
______________________Avg. with Mets of $17.5 million
Arizona - +$16
Kansas City - +$15
Cincinnati - +$13
Dodgers - +$10
Minnesota - +$9
White Sox - +$6
Athletics - +$6
Colorado - $0
Detroit - -$1
Miami - -$4
San Diego - -$6
Yankee - -$14
Toronto - -$22
Mets - -$79

No, "Operating Income" is not as close to "Profits" as you can get. That's moronic. Tell me, if teams are that close to the bone then why would any team sign a $30 million dollar player, let alone multiple and yet they do. How do you explain that?

How Forbes calculates "operating income" is as close a measure as we have for "profits."

Again, your own Forbes link - which stated that the 30 MLB teams made $8 billion in "profits" over the decade from 2010-2019 works out to an average of $27 million per team per year, which is completely in line with the numbers above.

Then how does the Forbes article say they made $350 million in profits? Again, there's a difference in operating expenses and profits.

It's not "operating expenses." No one, anywhere, has said "operating expenses."

Forbes term is "operating income." That is what is as close as we're going to get to "profits."

I don't know where you read "$350 million." It was either, maybe, the total "profits" they made over a decade (so $35 million a year), not annual. Or else you read annual "revenue" (which for the Cardinals has been right around $350 million) as "profits."

Once you deduct interest, principal reduction, and payments to cover the taxes of the LLC members, you have a real number you can work with.

[WLTFE]

[riff raff]

Simp alert. Bring on the simp.

[WLTFE]

Simp alert. Bring on the simp.

dump[fork] alert

[Cranny]

Simp alert. Bring on the simp.

Not just a simp. A lot worse than that.

[Cardinals1964]

No one should eat Arby's. Unless starvation is the only alternative.

Seriously now!!!

What do you recommend? What food do you like?

[CCard]

Operating costs do not equal profit. That's ridiculous. A while back I posted an article from Forbes that showed the Cards profit of around 350 million dollars. That profit, not operating expenses. With a payroll at the time that was about 175 million. Deduct the operating costs from the profit and still it looks pretty good. Now they've cut payroll to the bone. Will people come out to watch these guys? I won't. That being said, unless you have a 401k, this economy is killing you. Everything has gone up and continues to go up. I'd expect attendance to be down no matter what.

It's operating income. Operating income is, roughly, profits.

The Cardinals' operating revenue is about $350 million.

As I said.

You said, "...showed the Cards profit of around 350 million dollars." There is no "profit" of $350 million.

Operating income/profit = revenue - expenses

The Forbes data shows the Cardinals average operating income/profit over a decade at $27 million per year.

https://twinstrivia.com/2025/04/05/mlb- ... s-payroll/

Your numbers sound ludicrous. If a team had a margin of only 27 million dollars then any team that signed a high priced free agent would be losing money. Preposterous.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenh ... ince-2010/

They are Forbes' numbers, and the only source I'm aware of for comparable numbers for all 30 MLB teams.

BTW, per your 2nd link, $8 billion in profit over a decade for 30 teams would be ~$27 million a year, per team.

Doesn't change the facts. Anyway you slice it. I posted the Forbes link. Read it.

Your're right, it doesn't change the facts. The Forbes numbers show the following for each team's average "operating income" (as close a number to "profits" as we're going to have) over 2015-2024:

The average if you include the Mets is +$17.5 million. The average if you exclude the Mets is +$20.8 million.

Boston - +$63 million
Cubs - +$59
San Francisco - +$48
Pittsburgh - +$44
Houston - +$42
Atlanta - +$38
Milwaukee - +$33
Seattle - +$33
Baltimore - +$32
Cleveland - +$31
Tampa Bay - +$29
Philadelphia - +$28
Angels - +$27
St. Louis - +$27
Texas - +$21
______________________Median & Avg. w/o Mets of $20.8 million
Washington - +$20
______________________Avg. with Mets of $17.5 million
Arizona - +$16
Kansas City - +$15
Cincinnati - +$13
Dodgers - +$10
Minnesota - +$9
White Sox - +$6
Athletics - +$6
Colorado - $0
Detroit - -$1
Miami - -$4
San Diego - -$6
Yankee - -$14
Toronto - -$22
Mets - -$79

No, "Operating Income" is not as close to "Profits" as you can get. That's moronic. Tell me, if teams are that close to the bone then why would any team sign a $30 million dollar player, let alone multiple and yet they do. How do you explain that?

How Forbes calculates "operating income" is as close a measure as we have for "profits."

Again, your own Forbes link - which stated that the 30 MLB teams made $8 billion in "profits" over the decade from 2010-2019 works out to an average of $27 million per team per year, which is completely in line with the numbers above.

Then how does the Forbes article say they made $350 million in profits? Again, there's a difference in operating expenses and profits.

It's not "operating expenses." No one, anywhere, has said "operating expenses."

Forbes term is "operating income." That is what is as close as we're going to get to "profits."

I don't know where you read "$350 million." It was either, maybe, the total "profits" they made over a decade (so $35 million a year), not annual. Or else you read annual "revenue" (which for the Cardinals has been right around $350 million) as "profits."

Your premise is so silly it makes me gasp for breath. If that were the scenario then no team would sign a player for 30 million dollars or they'd be instantly losing money. Does that make any sense to you? Operating cost is expenses, Not Profit! Think about it.

[mattmitchl44]

It's operating income. Operating income is, roughly, profits.

The Cardinals' operating revenue is about $350 million.

As I said.

You said, "...showed the Cards profit of around 350 million dollars." There is no "profit" of $350 million.

Operating income/profit = revenue - expenses

The Forbes data shows the Cardinals average operating income/profit over a decade at $27 million per year.

https://twinstrivia.com/2025/04/05/mlb- ... s-payroll/

Your numbers sound ludicrous. If a team had a margin of only 27 million dollars then any team that signed a high priced free agent would be losing money. Preposterous.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenh ... ince-2010/

They are Forbes' numbers, and the only source I'm aware of for comparable numbers for all 30 MLB teams.

BTW, per your 2nd link, $8 billion in profit over a decade for 30 teams would be ~$27 million a year, per team.

Doesn't change the facts. Anyway you slice it. I posted the Forbes link. Read it.

Your're right, it doesn't change the facts. The Forbes numbers show the following for each team's average "operating income" (as close a number to "profits" as we're going to have) over 2015-2024:

The average if you include the Mets is +$17.5 million. The average if you exclude the Mets is +$20.8 million.

Boston - +$63 million
Cubs - +$59
San Francisco - +$48
Pittsburgh - +$44
Houston - +$42
Atlanta - +$38
Milwaukee - +$33
Seattle - +$33
Baltimore - +$32
Cleveland - +$31
Tampa Bay - +$29
Philadelphia - +$28
Angels - +$27
St. Louis - +$27
Texas - +$21
______________________Median & Avg. w/o Mets of $20.8 million
Washington - +$20
______________________Avg. with Mets of $17.5 million
Arizona - +$16
Kansas City - +$15
Cincinnati - +$13
Dodgers - +$10
Minnesota - +$9
White Sox - +$6
Athletics - +$6
Colorado - $0
Detroit - -$1
Miami - -$4
San Diego - -$6
Yankee - -$14
Toronto - -$22
Mets - -$79

No, "Operating Income" is not as close to "Profits" as you can get. That's moronic. Tell me, if teams are that close to the bone then why would any team sign a $30 million dollar player, let alone multiple and yet they do. How do you explain that?

How Forbes calculates "operating income" is as close a measure as we have for "profits."

Again, your own Forbes link - which stated that the 30 MLB teams made $8 billion in "profits" over the decade from 2010-2019 works out to an average of $27 million per team per year, which is completely in line with the numbers above.

Then how does the Forbes article say they made $350 million in profits? Again, there's a difference in operating expenses and profits.

It's not "operating expenses." No one, anywhere, has said "operating expenses."

Forbes term is "operating income." That is what is as close as we're going to get to "profits."

I don't know where you read "$350 million." It was either, maybe, the total "profits" they made over a decade (so $35 million a year), not annual. Or else you read annual "revenue" (which for the Cardinals has been right around $350 million) as "profits."

Once you deduct interest, principal reduction, and payments to cover the taxes of the LLC members, you have a real number you can work with.

I'm not going down the rabbit hole of trying to estimate those other quantities. We don't know those numbers and it would just add additional confusion.

I'll maintain that, for the purpose of comparing with other MLB teams, Forbes' "operating income" is sufficient and as good a metric as we're going to get for any neutral, third party source.

[mattmitchl44]

It's operating income. Operating income is, roughly, profits.

The Cardinals' operating revenue is about $350 million.

As I said.

You said, "...showed the Cards profit of around 350 million dollars." There is no "profit" of $350 million.

Operating income/profit = revenue - expenses

The Forbes data shows the Cardinals average operating income/profit over a decade at $27 million per year.

https://twinstrivia.com/2025/04/05/mlb- ... s-payroll/

Your numbers sound ludicrous. If a team had a margin of only 27 million dollars then any team that signed a high priced free agent would be losing money. Preposterous.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenh ... ince-2010/

They are Forbes' numbers, and the only source I'm aware of for comparable numbers for all 30 MLB teams.

BTW, per your 2nd link, $8 billion in profit over a decade for 30 teams would be ~$27 million a year, per team.

Doesn't change the facts. Anyway you slice it. I posted the Forbes link. Read it.

Your're right, it doesn't change the facts. The Forbes numbers show the following for each team's average "operating income" (as close a number to "profits" as we're going to have) over 2015-2024:

The average if you include the Mets is +$17.5 million. The average if you exclude the Mets is +$20.8 million.

Boston - +$63 million
Cubs - +$59
San Francisco - +$48
Pittsburgh - +$44
Houston - +$42
Atlanta - +$38
Milwaukee - +$33
Seattle - +$33
Baltimore - +$32
Cleveland - +$31
Tampa Bay - +$29
Philadelphia - +$28
Angels - +$27
St. Louis - +$27
Texas - +$21
______________________Median & Avg. w/o Mets of $20.8 million
Washington - +$20
______________________Avg. with Mets of $17.5 million
Arizona - +$16
Kansas City - +$15
Cincinnati - +$13
Dodgers - +$10
Minnesota - +$9
White Sox - +$6
Athletics - +$6
Colorado - $0
Detroit - -$1
Miami - -$4
San Diego - -$6
Yankee - -$14
Toronto - -$22
Mets - -$79

No, "Operating Income" is not as close to "Profits" as you can get. That's moronic. Tell me, if teams are that close to the bone then why would any team sign a $30 million dollar player, let alone multiple and yet they do. How do you explain that?

How Forbes calculates "operating income" is as close a measure as we have for "profits."

Again, your own Forbes link - which stated that the 30 MLB teams made $8 billion in "profits" over the decade from 2010-2019 works out to an average of $27 million per team per year, which is completely in line with the numbers above.

Then how does the Forbes article say they made $350 million in profits? Again, there's a difference in operating expenses and profits.

It's not "operating expenses." No one, anywhere, has said "operating expenses."

Forbes term is "operating income." That is what is as close as we're going to get to "profits."

I don't know where you read "$350 million." It was either, maybe, the total "profits" they made over a decade (so $35 million a year), not annual. Or else you read annual "revenue" (which for the Cardinals has been right around $350 million) as "profits."

Your premise is so silly it makes me gasp for breath. If that were the scenario then no team would sign a player for 30 million dollars or they'd be instantly losing money. Does that make any sense to you? Operating cost is expenses, Not Profit! Think about it.

Can you not read - the Forbes quantity is "operating INCOME."

Read the headline from your own **** article, which was written in May 2020:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenh ... ince-2010/

MLB Owners Cry Hardship. Our Numbers Show They’ve Made $8 Billion In Profit Since 2010.

$8 billion in "profit" for 30 teams over ten years (2010-2019) is an average of $27 million per team per year. It's simple math.

And, yes, apparently if a number of teams just went out and net added a $30 million player on top of what they have already budgeted for their MLB payroll, they would go from a slight profit to a slight loss (if revenue remained unchanged).

[CCard]

As I said.

You said, "...showed the Cards profit of around 350 million dollars." There is no "profit" of $350 million.

Operating income/profit = revenue - expenses

The Forbes data shows the Cardinals average operating income/profit over a decade at $27 million per year.

https://twinstrivia.com/2025/04/05/mlb- ... s-payroll/

Your numbers sound ludicrous. If a team had a margin of only 27 million dollars then any team that signed a high priced free agent would be losing money. Preposterous.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenh ... ince-2010/

They are Forbes' numbers, and the only source I'm aware of for comparable numbers for all 30 MLB teams.

BTW, per your 2nd link, $8 billion in profit over a decade for 30 teams would be ~$27 million a year, per team.

Doesn't change the facts. Anyway you slice it. I posted the Forbes link. Read it.

Your're right, it doesn't change the facts. The Forbes numbers show the following for each team's average "operating income" (as close a number to "profits" as we're going to have) over 2015-2024:

The average if you include the Mets is +$17.5 million. The average if you exclude the Mets is +$20.8 million.

Boston - +$63 million
Cubs - +$59
San Francisco - +$48
Pittsburgh - +$44
Houston - +$42
Atlanta - +$38
Milwaukee - +$33
Seattle - +$33
Baltimore - +$32
Cleveland - +$31
Tampa Bay - +$29
Philadelphia - +$28
Angels - +$27
St. Louis - +$27
Texas - +$21
______________________Median & Avg. w/o Mets of $20.8 million
Washington - +$20
______________________Avg. with Mets of $17.5 million
Arizona - +$16
Kansas City - +$15
Cincinnati - +$13
Dodgers - +$10
Minnesota - +$9
White Sox - +$6
Athletics - +$6
Colorado - $0
Detroit - -$1
Miami - -$4
San Diego - -$6
Yankee - -$14
Toronto - -$22
Mets - -$79

No, "Operating Income" is not as close to "Profits" as you can get. That's moronic. Tell me, if teams are that close to the bone then why would any team sign a $30 million dollar player, let alone multiple and yet they do. How do you explain that?

How Forbes calculates "operating income" is as close a measure as we have for "profits."

Again, your own Forbes link - which stated that the 30 MLB teams made $8 billion in "profits" over the decade from 2010-2019 works out to an average of $27 million per team per year, which is completely in line with the numbers above.

Then how does the Forbes article say they made $350 million in profits? Again, there's a difference in operating expenses and profits.

It's not "operating expenses." No one, anywhere, has said "operating expenses."

Forbes term is "operating income." That is what is as close as we're going to get to "profits."

I don't know where you read "$350 million." It was either, maybe, the total "profits" they made over a decade (so $35 million a year), not annual. Or else you read annual "revenue" (which for the Cardinals has been right around $350 million) as "profits."

Your premise is so silly it makes me gasp for breath. If that were the scenario then no team would sign a player for 30 million dollars or they'd be instantly losing money. Does that make any sense to you? Operating cost is expenses, Not Profit! Think about it.

Can you not read - the Forbes quantity is "operating INCOME."

Read the headline from your own **** article, which was written in May 2020:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenh ... ince-2010/

MLB Owners Cry Hardship. Our Numbers Show They’ve Made $8 Billion In Profit Since 2010.

$8 billion in "profit" for 30 teams over ten years (2010-2019) is an average of $27 million per team per year. It's simple math.

And, yes, apparently if a number of teams just went out and net added a $30 million player on top of what they have already budgeted for their MLB payroll, they would go from a slight profit to a slight loss (if revenue remained unchanged).

In 2024, the average revenue for Major League Baseball teams was approximately $378 million, with the New York Yankees generating the highest revenue at $679 million. The Los Angeles Dodgers followed closely, earning $549 million in the same year.


How Much Revenue Did MLB Generate in 2024?

Figures reflect official reporting, financial disclosures, and industry estimates to provide the most accurate picture of MLB’s total economic output.

The MLB generated $12.1 billion in total revenue during 2024, setting a new all-time record for the league.
The average MLB team earned about $386 million in 2023, though the gap between large and small markets remains wide.
MLB’s $12 billion economy now exceeds the GDP of more than 50 countries, underscoring how global the business of baseball has become.
League revenue has grown 264 percent since 2000, fueled by media deals, licensing, and stadium investments.
The MLB welcomed 70.75 million fans in 2023, the first time attendance topped 70 million since 2018.
From 2020 to 2024, total revenue jumped 70 percent, highlighting baseball’s rebound from the pandemic.
About 85 percent of MLB revenue is local—from ticket sales, concessions, and regional TV—while only 15 percent comes from national sources.
The league’s overall growth rate since 1970 averages around 11 percent per year.

https://www.docsports.com/2025/mlb-fina ... stics.html


Do you see how silly you are now? Please read and learn.

[mattmitchl44]

You said, "...showed the Cards profit of around 350 million dollars." There is no "profit" of $350 million.

Operating income/profit = revenue - expenses

The Forbes data shows the Cardinals average operating income/profit over a decade at $27 million per year.

https://twinstrivia.com/2025/04/05/mlb- ... s-payroll/

Your numbers sound ludicrous. If a team had a margin of only 27 million dollars then any team that signed a high priced free agent would be losing money. Preposterous.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenh ... ince-2010/

They are Forbes' numbers, and the only source I'm aware of for comparable numbers for all 30 MLB teams.

BTW, per your 2nd link, $8 billion in profit over a decade for 30 teams would be ~$27 million a year, per team.

Doesn't change the facts. Anyway you slice it. I posted the Forbes link. Read it.

Your're right, it doesn't change the facts. The Forbes numbers show the following for each team's average "operating income" (as close a number to "profits" as we're going to have) over 2015-2024:

The average if you include the Mets is +$17.5 million. The average if you exclude the Mets is +$20.8 million.

Boston - +$63 million
Cubs - +$59
San Francisco - +$48
Pittsburgh - +$44
Houston - +$42
Atlanta - +$38
Milwaukee - +$33
Seattle - +$33
Baltimore - +$32
Cleveland - +$31
Tampa Bay - +$29
Philadelphia - +$28
Angels - +$27
St. Louis - +$27
Texas - +$21
______________________Median & Avg. w/o Mets of $20.8 million
Washington - +$20
______________________Avg. with Mets of $17.5 million
Arizona - +$16
Kansas City - +$15
Cincinnati - +$13
Dodgers - +$10
Minnesota - +$9
White Sox - +$6
Athletics - +$6
Colorado - $0
Detroit - -$1
Miami - -$4
San Diego - -$6
Yankee - -$14
Toronto - -$22
Mets - -$79

No, "Operating Income" is not as close to "Profits" as you can get. That's moronic. Tell me, if teams are that close to the bone then why would any team sign a $30 million dollar player, let alone multiple and yet they do. How do you explain that?

How Forbes calculates "operating income" is as close a measure as we have for "profits."

Again, your own Forbes link - which stated that the 30 MLB teams made $8 billion in "profits" over the decade from 2010-2019 works out to an average of $27 million per team per year, which is completely in line with the numbers above.

Then how does the Forbes article say they made $350 million in profits? Again, there's a difference in operating expenses and profits.

It's not "operating expenses." No one, anywhere, has said "operating expenses."

Forbes term is "operating income." That is what is as close as we're going to get to "profits."

I don't know where you read "$350 million." It was either, maybe, the total "profits" they made over a decade (so $35 million a year), not annual. Or else you read annual "revenue" (which for the Cardinals has been right around $350 million) as "profits."

Your premise is so silly it makes me gasp for breath. If that were the scenario then no team would sign a player for 30 million dollars or they'd be instantly losing money. Does that make any sense to you? Operating cost is expenses, Not Profit! Think about it.

Can you not read - the Forbes quantity is "operating INCOME."

Read the headline from your own **** article, which was written in May 2020:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenh ... ince-2010/

MLB Owners Cry Hardship. Our Numbers Show They’ve Made $8 Billion In Profit Since 2010.

$8 billion in "profit" for 30 teams over ten years (2010-2019) is an average of $27 million per team per year. It's simple math.

And, yes, apparently if a number of teams just went out and net added a $30 million player on top of what they have already budgeted for their MLB payroll, they would go from a slight profit to a slight loss (if revenue remained unchanged).

In 2024, the average revenue for Major League Baseball teams was approximately $378 million, with the New York Yankees generating the highest revenue at $679 million. The Los Angeles Dodgers followed closely, earning $549 million in the same year.


How Much Revenue Did MLB Generate in 2024?

Figures reflect official reporting, financial disclosures, and industry estimates to provide the most accurate picture of MLB’s total economic output.

The MLB generated $12.1 billion in total revenue during 2024, setting a new all-time record for the league.
The average MLB team earned about $386 million in 2023, though the gap between large and small markets remains wide.
MLB’s $12 billion economy now exceeds the GDP of more than 50 countries, underscoring how global the business of baseball has become.
League revenue has grown 264 percent since 2000, fueled by media deals, licensing, and stadium investments.
The MLB welcomed 70.75 million fans in 2023, the first time attendance topped 70 million since 2018.
From 2020 to 2024, total revenue jumped 70 percent, highlighting baseball’s rebound from the pandemic.
About 85 percent of MLB revenue is local—from ticket sales, concessions, and regional TV—while only 15 percent comes from national sources.
The league’s overall growth rate since 1970 averages around 11 percent per year.

https://www.docsports.com/2025/mlb-fina ... stics.html


Do you see how silly you are now? Please read and learn.

"Revenue" is not deducting for expenses. You are confusing gross revenue with profit.

As I said before, the Cardinals "revenue" is about $350 million per year, but their total operating expenses are apparently about $325 million per year, so they have an annual "operating income" or "profit" of about $25 million per year.

[Goldfan]

It's operating income. Operating income is, roughly, profits.

The Cardinals' operating revenue is about $350 million.

As I said.

You said, "...showed the Cards profit of around 350 million dollars." There is no "profit" of $350 million.

Operating income/profit = revenue - expenses

The Forbes data shows the Cardinals average operating income/profit over a decade at $27 million per year.

https://twinstrivia.com/2025/04/05/mlb- ... s-payroll/

Your numbers sound ludicrous. If a team had a margin of only 27 million dollars then any team that signed a high priced free agent would be losing money. Preposterous.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenh ... ince-2010/

They are Forbes' numbers, and the only source I'm aware of for comparable numbers for all 30 MLB teams.

BTW, per your 2nd link, $8 billion in profit over a decade for 30 teams would be ~$27 million a year, per team.

Doesn't change the facts. Anyway you slice it. I posted the Forbes link. Read it.

Your're right, it doesn't change the facts. The Forbes numbers show the following for each team's average "operating income" (as close a number to "profits" as we're going to have) over 2015-2024:

The average if you include the Mets is +$17.5 million. The average if you exclude the Mets is +$20.8 million.

Boston - +$63 million
Cubs - +$59
San Francisco - +$48
Pittsburgh - +$44
Houston - +$42
Atlanta - +$38
Milwaukee - +$33
Seattle - +$33
Baltimore - +$32
Cleveland - +$31
Tampa Bay - +$29
Philadelphia - +$28
Angels - +$27
St. Louis - +$27
Texas - +$21
______________________Median & Avg. w/o Mets of $20.8 million
Washington - +$20
______________________Avg. with Mets of $17.5 million
Arizona - +$16
Kansas City - +$15
Cincinnati - +$13
Dodgers - +$10
Minnesota - +$9
White Sox - +$6
Athletics - +$6
Colorado - $0
Detroit - -$1
Miami - -$4
San Diego - -$6
Yankee - -$14
Toronto - -$22
Mets - -$79

No, "Operating Income" is not as close to "Profits" as you can get. That's moronic. Tell me, if teams are that close to the bone then why would any team sign a $30 million dollar player, let alone multiple and yet they do. How do you explain that?

How Forbes calculates "operating income" is as close a measure as we have for "profits."

Again, your own Forbes link - which stated that the 30 MLB teams made $8 billion in "profits" over the decade from 2010-2019 works out to an average of $27 million per team per year, which is completely in line with the numbers above.

Then how does the Forbes article say they made $350 million in profits? Again, there's a difference in operating expenses and profits.

It's not "operating expenses." No one, anywhere, has said "operating expenses."

Forbes term is "operating income." That is what is as close as we're going to get to "profits."

I don't know where you read "$350 million." It was either, maybe, the total "profits" they made over a decade (so $35 million a year), not annual. Or else you read annual "revenue" (which for the Cardinals has been right around $350 million) as "profits."

Once you deduct interest, principal reduction, and payments to cover the taxes of the LLC members, you have a real number you can work with.

Cranny why would the LLC have to worry about covering LARGE tax payments for members if they weren’t receiving large incomes from said LLC??

[Cranny]

https://twinstrivia.com/2025/04/05/mlb- ... s-payroll/

Your numbers sound ludicrous. If a team had a margin of only 27 million dollars then any team that signed a high priced free agent would be losing money. Preposterous.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenh ... ince-2010/

They are Forbes' numbers, and the only source I'm aware of for comparable numbers for all 30 MLB teams.

BTW, per your 2nd link, $8 billion in profit over a decade for 30 teams would be ~$27 million a year, per team.

Doesn't change the facts. Anyway you slice it. I posted the Forbes link. Read it.

Your're right, it doesn't change the facts. The Forbes numbers show the following for each team's average "operating income" (as close a number to "profits" as we're going to have) over 2015-2024:

The average if you include the Mets is +$17.5 million. The average if you exclude the Mets is +$20.8 million.

Boston - +$63 million
Cubs - +$59
San Francisco - +$48
Pittsburgh - +$44
Houston - +$42
Atlanta - +$38
Milwaukee - +$33
Seattle - +$33
Baltimore - +$32
Cleveland - +$31
Tampa Bay - +$29
Philadelphia - +$28
Angels - +$27
St. Louis - +$27
Texas - +$21
______________________Median & Avg. w/o Mets of $20.8 million
Washington - +$20
______________________Avg. with Mets of $17.5 million
Arizona - +$16
Kansas City - +$15
Cincinnati - +$13
Dodgers - +$10
Minnesota - +$9
White Sox - +$6
Athletics - +$6
Colorado - $0
Detroit - -$1
Miami - -$4
San Diego - -$6
Yankee - -$14
Toronto - -$22
Mets - -$79

No, "Operating Income" is not as close to "Profits" as you can get. That's moronic. Tell me, if teams are that close to the bone then why would any team sign a $30 million dollar player, let alone multiple and yet they do. How do you explain that?

How Forbes calculates "operating income" is as close a measure as we have for "profits."

Again, your own Forbes link - which stated that the 30 MLB teams made $8 billion in "profits" over the decade from 2010-2019 works out to an average of $27 million per team per year, which is completely in line with the numbers above.

Then how does the Forbes article say they made $350 million in profits? Again, there's a difference in operating expenses and profits.

It's not "operating expenses." No one, anywhere, has said "operating expenses."

Forbes term is "operating income." That is what is as close as we're going to get to "profits."

I don't know where you read "$350 million." It was either, maybe, the total "profits" they made over a decade (so $35 million a year), not annual. Or else you read annual "revenue" (which for the Cardinals has been right around $350 million) as "profits."

Your premise is so silly it makes me gasp for breath. If that were the scenario then no team would sign a player for 30 million dollars or they'd be instantly losing money. Does that make any sense to you? Operating cost is expenses, Not Profit! Think about it.

Can you not read - the Forbes quantity is "operating INCOME."

Read the headline from your own **** article, which was written in May 2020:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenh ... ince-2010/

MLB Owners Cry Hardship. Our Numbers Show They’ve Made $8 Billion In Profit Since 2010.

$8 billion in "profit" for 30 teams over ten years (2010-2019) is an average of $27 million per team per year. It's simple math.

And, yes, apparently if a number of teams just went out and net added a $30 million player on top of what they have already budgeted for their MLB payroll, they would go from a slight profit to a slight loss (if revenue remained unchanged).

In 2024, the average revenue for Major League Baseball teams was approximately $378 million, with the New York Yankees generating the highest revenue at $679 million. The Los Angeles Dodgers followed closely, earning $549 million in the same year.


How Much Revenue Did MLB Generate in 2024?

Figures reflect official reporting, financial disclosures, and industry estimates to provide the most accurate picture of MLB’s total economic output.

The MLB generated $12.1 billion in total revenue during 2024, setting a new all-time record for the league.
The average MLB team earned about $386 million in 2023, though the gap between large and small markets remains wide.
MLB’s $12 billion economy now exceeds the GDP of more than 50 countries, underscoring how global the business of baseball has become.
League revenue has grown 264 percent since 2000, fueled by media deals, licensing, and stadium investments.
The MLB welcomed 70.75 million fans in 2023, the first time attendance topped 70 million since 2018.
From 2020 to 2024, total revenue jumped 70 percent, highlighting baseball’s rebound from the pandemic.
About 85 percent of MLB revenue is local—from ticket sales, concessions, and regional TV—while only 15 percent comes from national sources.
The league’s overall growth rate since 1970 averages around 11 percent per year.

https://www.docsports.com/2025/mlb-fina ... stics.html


Do you see how silly you are now? Please read and learn.

"Revenue" is not deducting for expenses. You are confusing gross revenue with profit.

As I said before, the Cardinals "revenue" is about $350 million per year, but their total operating expenses are apparently about $325 million per year, so they have an annual "operating income" or "profit" of about $25 million per year.

Once more, if you take interest, principal reduction, and payments to cover tax liabilities of the members, you have a number you can work with. If you want to do the math, assuming the 7% of value as the total debt, use prime and assume a 20 year amortization schedule to give you the money available to cover the members’ federal and state tax liabilities.