OT: Arby's closes more locations

[OldRed]

I can't read your posts...I have you on ignore as directed by the mods.

He reads all posts.

[Cranny]

A tag team jag.

[OldRed]

I can't read your posts...I have you on ignore as directed by the mods.

He reads all posts.

It's a shame we cant' stick with just baseball.

[AnExParrot]

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

Google. Search for a while and you get numbers. Is it exact? I doubt it, but it's not far off. The more "partners" there are the more likely the information will come out. After all is said and done, the premise they can't afford to spend $50 or more million dollars is as silly as you are. Just save it.

You recently started a thread stating you had no idea the team payroll was 9 to 14th regularly, yet you'd argued for years otherwise.

In this case, even though there is no possible way to know for sure, you're just as sure about this as you were about the payroll rankings, and are arguing just as vehemently. You don't see a problem with this?

[WLTFE]

I can't read your posts...I have you on ignore as directed by the mods.

He reads all posts.

It's a shame we cant' stick with just baseball.

I agree...It's uncomfortable to be trolled by a sad, old man who needs attention on an anonymous sports forum.

[Cusecards]

This thread needs to be immortalized in a CT time capsule.
16 pages and counting with “Arby’s” in the title?
Who knew?????

[Cranny]

I can't read your posts...I have you on ignore as directed by the mods.

He reads all posts.

It's a shame we cant' stick with just baseball.

We can do that, Red, if you and your partner stop taking "sick old man" and "sad old man" pot shots. Can you and your friend discipline yourself to do that? For the benefit of all? Thanks in advance.

[WLTFE]

A tag team jag.

Baseball talk?

[CCard]

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

Google. Search for a while and you get numbers. Is it exact? I doubt it, but it's not far off. The more "partners" there are the more likely the information will come out. After all is said and done, the premise they can't afford to spend $50 or more million dollars is as silly as you are. Just save it.

You recently started a thread stating you had no idea the team payroll was 9 to 14th regularly, yet you'd argued for years otherwise.

In this case, even though there is no possible way to know for sure, you're just as sure about this as you were about the payroll rankings, and are arguing just as vehemently. You don't see a problem with this?

1. No I haven't argued for years. It was my perception that they were cheap, and to be honest I was hardly alone in that perception. There's no doubt in my mind that we wouldn't have gotten Arenado if the Rockies hadn't paid significant freight. See, you're trying to frame a discussion falsely. I do still contend that when they were drawing 3 million people they could have spent more. Also, just a few years ago their revenue was aroung $350 million dollars. When a team draws 3 million they should be in the top 10 in payroll, I believe.

[AnExParrot]

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

Google. Search for a while and you get numbers. Is it exact? I doubt it, but it's not far off. The more "partners" there are the more likely the information will come out. After all is said and done, the premise they can't afford to spend $50 or more million dollars is as silly as you are. Just save it.

You recently started a thread stating you had no idea the team payroll was 9 to 14th regularly, yet you'd argued for years otherwise.

In this case, even though there is no possible way to know for sure, you're just as sure about this as you were about the payroll rankings, and are arguing just as vehemently. You don't see a problem with this?

1. No I haven't argued for years. It was my perception that they were cheap, and to be honest I was hardly alone in that perception. There's no doubt in my mind that we wouldn't have gotten Arenado if the Rockies hadn't paid significant freight. See, you're trying to frame a discussion falsely. I do still contend that when they were drawing 3 million people they could have spent more. Also, just a few years ago their revenue was aroung $350 million dollars. When a team draws 3 million they should be in the top 10 in payroll, I believe.

Yes, you argued for years against anyone saying otherwise, that the team was cheap, based solely on your ignorance. I'm not framing anything falsely - you were ignorant and argued, regularly and vehemently based on that ignorance, that the team was cheap. That's not framing anything falsely; that's a fact backed up by your admission of ignorance thread and other posting history here. I suppose you can try to say you didn't argue, in the strictest sense of the word, since you simply made a claim and didn't back it up, but that'd basically fall into the "weird brag, bro" category.

Now, in a case where you can only be ignorant, since the numbers necessary to back up(or refute) your claim simply are not available, you're arguing the team is greedy(basically cheap's half-brother) based on what can only be ignorance. So, I ask again, you don't see a problem with this? How long ya think we'll have to wait for another apology thread regarding your claims here?

As an aside, do you know that CEOs have a fiduciary responsibility(both legally and ethically) to act in the best financial interest of the corporation and its shareholders?

[VegasVinny]

This thread needs to be immortalized in a CT time capsule.
16 pages and counting with “Arby’s” in the title?
Who knew?????

Not quite up there with the "Our Season is Over" thread from 2011, but this one's on the podium.

[Goldfan]

This thread needs to be immortalized in a CT time capsule.
16 pages and counting with “Arby’s” in the title?
Who knew?????

Not quite up there with the "Our Season is Over" thread from 2011, but this one's on the podium.

What could be finer entertainment than a conversation about shaved roast beef, robust financial analysis, and the same 3 old guys who claim each has the other on ignore but continue responding to each other for 2-3 pages???

[Cusecards]

This thread needs to be immortalized in a CT time capsule.
16 pages and counting with “Arby’s” in the title?
Who knew?????

Not quite up there with the "Our Season is Over" thread from 2011, but this one's on the podium.

Wasn’t posting here in 2011 but I can imagine.

[AnExParrot]

This thread needs to be immortalized in a CT time capsule.
16 pages and counting with “Arby’s” in the title?
Who knew?????

Not quite up there with the "Our Season is Over" thread from 2011, but this one's on the podium.

Wasn’t posting here in 2011 but I can imagine.

The original "Our Season is Over" thread was started during spring training of 2004. If memory serves, that thread was active for 2+ seasons until a forum "upgrade" unceremoniously wiped it from the interwebz.