OT: Arby's closes more locations

[Goldfan]

Cranny the financial statement being discussed in this thread are from Forbes. I’ve forwarded their equations for the numbers listed in the MLB team valuation report that’s been posted several times. If you don’t want to educate yourself to comment within the parameters of the report then don’t included yourself in the conversation. You intentionally insert false information.

No, Goldfan, I submit information the way accountants would look at it. If Forbes wants to say it's after debt service of the building, then you have to know what kind of line of credit (on a revolver basis) is used to get through the off season, when all the employees get paid. Interest on that needs to be deducted from what they call "operating income". Then they would have to cover the federal and state tax liabilities of the members.

Whatever methodology you want to apply it still doesn’t change the fact that if the Yank, Mets, are showing a negative Operating Income # and the Dodgers have a 20mil Op Income and Cards have been around 50-60mil then BDW’s number is LARGER off of a much smaller revenue #. However your accountant brain wants to work the Forbes list is comparing apples to apples.

Again, over the 10 years from 2015-2024, the Cardinals average "operating income" was $27 million per year, about $5-$10 million per year more than MLB median/average.

Matt I appreciate the averaging but I don’t think it tells the true story. Yes, Covid happened and it counts but thats a once in a lifetime maybe more anomaly and last couple seasons attendance have heavily skewed the avg. BEFORE BDW destroyed this fanbase and Covid years….This org was consistently in the 50-60 mil range. And if BDW hadn’t destroyed the Cards Fan Base there would still be 35-40K butts in Busch each game. All leading to the main point that BDW and Co have been pocketing a much larger % than the Dodger, the Mets, the Phils and those orgs. We knocked out Cranny’s stadium debt service argument and now he seems concerned that St. Louis Cardinals LLC partners get their tax paid. If the partners taxes are anywhere close to paying for a elite OF my argument that BDW and Co are pocketing way too much and leaving the baseball cub are bare is smack on.

[Cranny]

Cranny the financial statement being discussed in this thread are from Forbes. I’ve forwarded their equations for the numbers listed in the MLB team valuation report that’s been posted several times. If you don’t want to educate yourself to comment within the parameters of the report then don’t included yourself in the conversation. You intentionally insert false information.

No, Goldfan, I submit information the way accountants would look at it. If Forbes wants to say it's after debt service of the building, then you have to know what kind of line of credit (on a revolver basis) is used to get through the off season, when all the employees get paid. Interest on that needs to be deducted from what they call "operating income". Then they would have to cover the federal and state tax liabilities of the members.

Whatever methodology you want to apply it still doesn’t change the fact that if the Yank, Mets, are showing a negative Operating Income # and the Dodgers have a 20mil Op Income and Cards have been around 50-60mil then BDW’s number is LARGER off of a much smaller revenue #. However your accountant brain wants to work the Forbes list is comparing apples to apples.

Again, over the 10 years from 2015-2024, the Cardinals average "operating income" was $27 million per year, about $5-$10 million per year more than MLB median/average.

Matt I appreciate the averaging but I don’t think it tells the true story. Yes, Covid happened and it counts but thats a once in a lifetime maybe more anomaly and last couple seasons attendance have heavily skewed the avg. BEFORE BDW destroyed this fanbase and Covid years….This org was consistently in the 50-60 mil range. And if BDW hadn’t destroyed the Cards Fan Base there would still be 35-40K butts in Busch each game. All leading to the main point that BDW and Co have been pocketing a much larger % than the Dodger, the Mets, the Phils and those orgs. We knocked out Cranny’s stadium debt service argument and now he seems concerned that St. Louis Cardinals LLC partners get their tax paid. If the partners taxes are anywhere close to paying for a elite OF my argument that BDW and Co are pocketing way too much and leaving the baseball cub are bare is smack on.

Actually, Goldfan, I said that they still may have interest on a revolving line of credit since Forbes inaccurately wants to label operating income after stadium debt service. I don't know the timing of the revenue stream, but there are lot of expenses in the off season that maybe they have to borrow to cover. And as far as covering the taxes, an LLC is a pass-through entity, in which the profits and losses pass through to the shareholders (in the case of an LLC, it the members). If the entity disperses the profits on a pro rata basis, it's one thing. The members would pay their own taxes. If they don't disperse the profits, they disperse the federal and state taxes to cover the liabilities of the members, since the members don't have profits to pay the taxes.

[CCard]

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.

So you're trying to say that all those years when the Cards payroll was $160-180 million that they lost money. That's utter bull and you know it. Expenses didn't magically go up in 5 years. They made around $350 in revenue. Deduct even $180 million from that. That leaves a $170 million for expenses. Get real.

Major League Baseball teams primarily cover the salaries of players and coaches in their minor league affiliates, along with some travel expenses and per-diem meals. However, the operational costs, such as marketing and game-day expenses, are largely the responsibility of the minor league teams themselves.

The cost of building a spring training facility can vary significantly, but it typically involves millions of dollars. For example, the construction of George M. Steinbrenner Field in Tampa, Florida, cost approximately $30 million, financed entirely with public funds.

The upkeep costs for a Major League Baseball park can vary significantly, but it is generally a substantial financial commitment. Maintenance and operational expenses can run into millions of dollars annually, depending on the size and age of the stadium, as well as the specific needs for repairs and renovations.

That all is probably no small amount, but it sure as hell isn't $170 million dollars either. Now you add in some odds and ends like scouting and maybe the occasional international signing and ....wait...That still is a lot less.
See how silly your argument is?

[Cranny]

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.

So you're trying to say that all those years when the Cards payroll was $160-180 million that they lost money. That's utter bull and you know it. Expenses didn't magically go up in 5 years. They made around $350 in revenue. Deduct even $180 million from that. That leaves a $170 million for expenses. Get real.

Major League Baseball teams primarily cover the salaries of players and coaches in their minor league affiliates, along with some travel expenses and per-diem meals. However, the operational costs, such as marketing and game-day expenses, are largely the responsibility of the minor league teams themselves.

The cost of building a spring training facility can vary significantly, but it typically involves millions of dollars. For example, the construction of George M. Steinbrenner Field in Tampa, Florida, cost approximately $30 million, financed entirely with public funds.

The upkeep costs for a Major League Baseball park can vary significantly, but it is generally a substantial financial commitment. Maintenance and operational expenses can run into millions of dollars annually, depending on the size and age of the stadium, as well as the specific needs for repairs and renovations.

That all is probably no small amount, but it sure as hell isn't $170 million dollars either. Now you add in some odds and ends like scouting and maybe the occasional international signing and ....wait...That still is a lot less.
See how silly your argument is?

The Cardinals have between 870-890 full time employees. Some don't realize how big the organization is.

[OldRed]

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.

So you're trying to say that all those years when the Cards payroll was $160-180 million that they lost money. That's utter bull and you know it. Expenses didn't magically go up in 5 years. They made around $350 in revenue. Deduct even $180 million from that. That leaves a $170 million for expenses. Get real.

Major League Baseball teams primarily cover the salaries of players and coaches in their minor league affiliates, along with some travel expenses and per-diem meals. However, the operational costs, such as marketing and game-day expenses, are largely the responsibility of the minor league teams themselves.

The cost of building a spring training facility can vary significantly, but it typically involves millions of dollars. For example, the construction of George M. Steinbrenner Field in Tampa, Florida, cost approximately $30 million, financed entirely with public funds.

The upkeep costs for a Major League Baseball park can vary significantly, but it is generally a substantial financial commitment. Maintenance and operational expenses can run into millions of dollars annually, depending on the size and age of the stadium, as well as the specific needs for repairs and renovations.

That all is probably no small amount, but it sure as hell isn't $170 million dollars either. Now you add in some odds and ends like scouting and maybe the occasional international signing and ....wait...That still is a lot less.
See how silly your argument is?

The Cardinals have between 870-890 full time employees. Some don't realize how big the organization is.

If you are not part owner, how do you obtain this information? But I know you can't see my posts . . . . LOL

[mattmitchl44]

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.

So you're trying to say that all those years when the Cards payroll was $160-180 million that they lost money. That's utter bull and you know it. Expenses didn't magically go up in 5 years. They made around $350 in revenue. Deduct even $180 million from that. That leaves a $170 million for expenses. Get real.

Major League Baseball teams primarily cover the salaries of players and coaches in their minor league affiliates, along with some travel expenses and per-diem meals. However, the operational costs, such as marketing and game-day expenses, are largely the responsibility of the minor league teams themselves.

The cost of building a spring training facility can vary significantly, but it typically involves millions of dollars. For example, the construction of George M. Steinbrenner Field in Tampa, Florida, cost approximately $30 million, financed entirely with public funds.

The upkeep costs for a Major League Baseball park can vary significantly, but it is generally a substantial financial commitment. Maintenance and operational expenses can run into millions of dollars annually, depending on the size and age of the stadium, as well as the specific needs for repairs and renovations.

That all is probably no small amount, but it sure as hell isn't $170 million dollars either. Now you add in some odds and ends like scouting and maybe the occasional international signing and ....wait...That still is a lot less.
See how silly your argument is?

Here is specifically what Forbes wrote about the Cardinals back in early 2025:

https://www.forbes.com/teams/st-louis-cardinals/

2024 - Revenue, $373 M; Player Expenses $219 M; Operating Income $6.7 M - implies $147.3 M in other expenses
2023 - Revenue, $372 M; Player Expenses $169 M; Operating Income $57 M - implies $146 M in other expenses
2022 - Revenue, $358 M; Player Expenses $174 M; Operating Income $43 M - implies $141 M in other expenses
2021 - Revenue, $287 M; Player Expenses $191 M; Operating Income -$34 M - implies $130 M in other expenses
2020 - Revenue, $109 M; Player Expenses $88 M; Operating Income -$79 M - implies $100 M in other expenses
2019 - Revenue, $383 M; Player Expenses $182 M; Operating Income $72 M - implies $129 M in other expenses
2018 - Revenue, $356 M; Player Expenses $176 M; Operating Income $65 M - implies $115 M in other expenses
2017 - Revenue, $319 M; Player Expenses $165 M; Operating Income $40 M - implies $114 M in other expenses
2016 - Revenue, $310 M; Player Expenses $173 M; Operating Income $41 M - implies $96 M in other expenses
2015 - Revenue, $300 M; Player Expenses $145 M; Operating Income $59.8 M - implies $95.2 M in other expenses

[OldRed]

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.

So you're trying to say that all those years when the Cards payroll was $160-180 million that they lost money. That's utter bull and you know it. Expenses didn't magically go up in 5 years. They made around $350 in revenue. Deduct even $180 million from that. That leaves a $170 million for expenses. Get real.

Major League Baseball teams primarily cover the salaries of players and coaches in their minor league affiliates, along with some travel expenses and per-diem meals. However, the operational costs, such as marketing and game-day expenses, are largely the responsibility of the minor league teams themselves.

The cost of building a spring training facility can vary significantly, but it typically involves millions of dollars. For example, the construction of George M. Steinbrenner Field in Tampa, Florida, cost approximately $30 million, financed entirely with public funds.

The upkeep costs for a Major League Baseball park can vary significantly, but it is generally a substantial financial commitment. Maintenance and operational expenses can run into millions of dollars annually, depending on the size and age of the stadium, as well as the specific needs for repairs and renovations.

That all is probably no small amount, but it sure as hell isn't $170 million dollars either. Now you add in some odds and ends like scouting and maybe the occasional international signing and ....wait...That still is a lot less.
See how silly your argument is?

The Cardinals have between 870-890 full time employees. Some don't realize how big the organization is.

If you are not part owner, how do you obtain this information? But I know you can't see my posts . . . . LOL

[11WSChamps]

Looks like prices at Arby's are going up.

[WLTFE]

I have over 30 years working in investment banking and mergers...and had extensive experience with the DeTwits...they are only concerned with profit and care nothing about the fans.

[mattmitchl44]

Cranny the financial statement being discussed in this thread are from Forbes. I’ve forwarded their equations for the numbers listed in the MLB team valuation report that’s been posted several times. If you don’t want to educate yourself to comment within the parameters of the report then don’t included yourself in the conversation. You intentionally insert false information.

No, Goldfan, I submit information the way accountants would look at it. If Forbes wants to say it's after debt service of the building, then you have to know what kind of line of credit (on a revolver basis) is used to get through the off season, when all the employees get paid. Interest on that needs to be deducted from what they call "operating income". Then they would have to cover the federal and state tax liabilities of the members.

Whatever methodology you want to apply it still doesn’t change the fact that if the Yank, Mets, are showing a negative Operating Income # and the Dodgers have a 20mil Op Income and Cards have been around 50-60mil then BDW’s number is LARGER off of a much smaller revenue #. However your accountant brain wants to work the Forbes list is comparing apples to apples.

Again, over the 10 years from 2015-2024, the Cardinals average "operating income" was $27 million per year, about $5-$10 million per year more than MLB median/average.

Matt I appreciate the averaging but I don’t think it tells the true story. Yes, Covid happened and it counts but thats a once in a lifetime maybe more anomaly and last couple seasons attendance have heavily skewed the avg. BEFORE BDW destroyed this fanbase and Covid years….This org was consistently in the 50-60 mil range. And if BDW hadn’t destroyed the Cards Fan Base there would still be 35-40K butts in Busch each game. All leading to the main point that BDW and Co have been pocketing a much larger % than the Dodger, the Mets, the Phils and those orgs. We knocked out Cranny’s stadium debt service argument and now he seems concerned that St. Louis Cardinals LLC partners get their tax paid. If the partners taxes are anywhere close to paying for a elite OF my argument that BDW and Co are pocketing way too much and leaving the baseball cub are bare is smack on.

If you want to go calculate for just the five pre-COVID years, knock yourself out.

I think the trends will probably be about the same (sans the Mets after Cohen bought them) as the 10 yr. averages.

Yes, the Cardinals owners might have realized $5-$10 million more in "operating income" per year than the MLB average. But it's not $50 million more, or $100 million more.

[Cranny]

Of course I can read your post, Red, because it's on a long chain of posts. The answer is simple. Google it. There's all sorts of information available to you, if you take the time to look it up. But maybe you're too busy calling other people that you don't really know "sick". Is that it?

[OldRed]

I have over 30 years working in investment banking and mergers...and had extensive experience with the DeTwits...they are only concerned with profit and care nothing about the fans.

I believe you are correct. I wonder how Cranny involved with is high school friend in this.

Of course, we know he can't read these posts.

[Goldfan]

I have over 30 years working in investment banking and mergers...and had extensive experience with the DeTwits...they are only concerned with profit and care nothing about the fans.

I believe you are correct. I wonder how Cranny involved with is high school friend in this.

Of course, we know he can't read these posts.

He’s certainly the most vigorous defender…….for a fan

[OldRed]

I have over 30 years working in investment banking and mergers...and had extensive experience with the DeTwits...they are only concerned with profit and care nothing about the fans.

I believe you are correct. I wonder how Cranny involved with is high school friend in this.

Of course, we know he can't read these posts.

He’s certainly the most vigorous defender…….for a fan

Poor old man can't tell the truth.

[Cranny]

I have over 30 years working in investment banking and mergers...and had extensive experience with the DeTwits...they are only concerned with profit and care nothing about the fans.

I believe you are correct. I wonder how Cranny involved with is high school friend in this.

Of course, we know he can't read these posts.

Not one person on this forum cares whether I can read your posts or not. But the fact is, on a long chain of posts
the ignore factor doesn't kick in. But of course you already know that. So don't play dumb.

[WLTFE]

I have over 30 years working in investment banking and mergers...and had extensive experience with the DeTwits...they are only concerned with profit and care nothing about the fans.

I believe you are correct. I wonder how Cranny involved with is high school friend in this.

Of course, we know he can't read these posts.

He’s certainly the most vigorous defender…….for a fan

Poor old man can't tell the truth.

+1...it's sad and pathetic...I'm on ignore as well