STLtoday.com

Cranny wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 08:09 am Some people think operating income is bottom line after tax profit. Profit that can be used to buy FA players. It’s not.

I am not saying his numbers are actual or factual, but to be fair, he never mentioned operating income. He mentioned EBITDA, which is the bottom line.

Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 08:14 am

Cranny wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 08:09 am Some people think operating income is bottom line after tax profit. Profit that can be used to buy FA players. It’s not.

I am not saying his numbers are actual or factual, but to be fair, he never mentioned operating income. He mentioned EBITDA, which is the bottom line.

EBITDA is far from the bottom line. Subtract interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. Then also look at any principal reduction the banks may require.

Cranny wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 08:26 am

Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 08:14 am

Cranny wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 08:09 am Some people think operating income is bottom line after tax profit. Profit that can be used to buy FA players. It’s not.

I am not saying his numbers are actual or factual, but to be fair, he never mentioned operating income. He mentioned EBITDA, which is the bottom line.

EBITDA is far from the bottom line. Subtract interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. Then also look at any principal reduction the banks may require.

I mispoke. EBITDA is not the bottom line. But EBITDA is the number that gives you the clearest unskewed view of operational profitability. EBITDA illustrates a company’s ability to generate profits from its core operations, excluding the impact of financing decisions, taxation, and asset depreciation. It offers a clearer view of its operational performance.

I have always wondered why Major League teams don't make public their earnings like all other businesses?

I have always wondered why Major League teams don't make public their earnings like all other businesses?

Really? Unless you publish your own personal financial details, why would you expect any other private entity to do so?

jcgmoi wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 09:03 am

I have always wondered why Major League teams don't make public their earnings like all other businesses?

Really? Unless you publish your own personal financial details, why would you expect any other private entity to do so?

Exactly. Privately held companies have no obligation to publish their financial information. Why would they?
It's private information just like personal financial information, as jcgmoi pointed out. If a major league team
is owned by a public entity (like the Cardinals were with AB), that's a different story.

OldRed wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 08:40 am I have always wondered why Major League teams don't make public their earnings like all other businesses?

Privately held companies don’t make their earnings public.

Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 08:33 am

Cranny wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 08:26 am

Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 08:14 am

Cranny wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 08:09 am Some people think operating income is bottom line after tax profit. Profit that can be used to buy FA players. It’s not.

I am not saying his numbers are actual or factual, but to be fair, he never mentioned operating income. He mentioned EBITDA, which is the bottom line.

EBITDA is far from the bottom line. Subtract interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. Then also look at any principal reduction the banks may require.

I mispoke. EBITDA is not the bottom line. But EBITDA is the number that gives you the clearest unskewed view of operational profitability. EBITDA illustrates a company’s ability to generate profits from its core operations, excluding the impact of financing decisions, taxation, and asset depreciation. It offers a clearer view of its operational performance.

Exactly, Basil. And that's why a multiple of EBITDA is normally used for a company's valuation in the private company merger/acquisition world.

Cranny wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 09:59 am

Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 08:33 am

Cranny wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 08:26 am

Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 08:14 am

Cranny wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 08:09 am Some people think operating income is bottom line after tax profit. Profit that can be used to buy FA players. It’s not.

I am not saying his numbers are actual or factual, but to be fair, he never mentioned operating income. He mentioned EBITDA, which is the bottom line.

EBITDA is far from the bottom line. Subtract interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. Then also look at any principal reduction the banks may require.

I mispoke. EBITDA is not the bottom line. But EBITDA is the number that gives you the clearest unskewed view of operational profitability. EBITDA illustrates a company’s ability to generate profits from its core operations, excluding the impact of financing decisions, taxation, and asset depreciation. It offers a clearer view of its operational performance.

Exactly, Basil. And that's why a multiple of EBITDA is normally used for a company's valuation in the private company merger/acquisition world.

However, we have no idea if the OP's numbers/data are even accurate.

I certainly agree that privately held companies should not be forced to make their financial records public.
But in the case of the St. Louis Cardinals as well as numerous other professional sports teams that receive taxpayer money in the form of tax incentives, there should be more transparency.
I don’t live in St. Louis or Missouri but if I did I would want to see a basic P&L since my tax dollars are subsidizing the Cardinals. JMHO

Slip Kid wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 10:32 am I certainly agree that privately held companies should not be forced to make their financial records public.
But in the case of the St. Louis Cardinals as well as numerous other professional sports teams that receive taxpayer money in the form of tax incentives, there should be more transparency.
I don’t live in St. Louis or Missouri but if I did I would want to see a basic P&L since my tax dollars are subsidizing the Cardinals. JMHO

Would that go for every private entity that receives some sort of tax incentive?

Cranny wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 10:35 am

Slip Kid wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 10:32 am I certainly agree that privately held companies should not be forced to make their financial records public.
But in the case of the St. Louis Cardinals as well as numerous other professional sports teams that receive taxpayer money in the form of tax incentives, there should be more transparency.
I don’t live in St. Louis or Missouri but if I did I would want to see a basic P&L since my tax dollars are subsidizing the Cardinals. JMHO

Would that go for every private entity that receives some sort of tax incentive?

Yes, aren’t you interested in seeing an accounting of businesses that receive taxpayer money.

Slip Kid wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 11:02 am

Cranny wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 10:35 am

Slip Kid wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 10:32 am I certainly agree that privately held companies should not be forced to make their financial records public.
But in the case of the St. Louis Cardinals as well as numerous other professional sports teams that receive taxpayer money in the form of tax incentives, there should be more transparency.
I don’t live in St. Louis or Missouri but if I did I would want to see a basic P&L since my tax dollars are subsidizing the Cardinals. JMHO

Would that go for every private entity that receives some sort of tax incentive?

Yes, aren’t you interested in seeing an accounting of businesses that receive taxpayer money.

Actually, no. It's still private information.

This is where the discussion over a salary cap begins and ends. The owners say, “we want a salary cap” and the players say, “open your books and we’ll talk” and that’s where it ends.

Notice the owners are trying a new tack. In the past, they said that without a cap, teams would fail, go bankrupt and go out of business. Not anymore. They know that everyone knows THAT’S a load of krappe. Now, it’s “competitive balance”, though competitive balance is closer now than it was 50 years ago. If you think the gap between the Dodgers and Pirates is wide, the gap between the Yankees and Browns was greater.