Melville wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 13:40 pm
DeWitt and the STL ownership partners own a 50% stake in Ballpark Village.
DeWitt could easily approve a 20OM payroll budget and still make huge profits from his many, many business interests and revenue sources.
Of course he can... you're the CPA for the Dewitts
Much information is public.
The Cardinals ownership - which is just 50% of Ballpark Village - pays the city and state over 30 million dollars a year in taxes.
Which means they are making hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue each year.
And that is completley separate from and in addition to the revenue produced by the team itself.
And BOTH those revenue streams are in addition all of DeWitt's other business interests.
FACT is, DeWitt could easily approve a 20OM payroll budget and still make huge profits from his many, many business interests and revenue sources.
Of course, it is also a FACT that he is under no obligation to do so.
Melville wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 13:40 pm
DeWitt and the STL ownership partners own a 50% stake in Ballpark Village.
DeWitt could easily approve a 20OM payroll budget and still make huge profits from his many, many business interests and revenue sources.
Of course he can... you're the CPA for the Dewitts
Much information is public.
The Cardinals ownership - which is just 50% of Ballpark Village - pays the city and state over 30 million dollars a year in taxes.
Which means they are making hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue each year.
And that is completley separate from and in addition to the revenue produced by the team itself.
And BOTH those revenue streams are in addition all of DeWitt's other business interests.
FACT is, DeWitt could easily approve a 20OM payroll budget and still make huge profits from his many, many business interests and revenue sources.
Of course, it is also a FACT that he is under no obligation to do so.
You really have no idea of what you're talking about.
Carry on.
Goldfan wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 08:12 am
I’ve said this several times before.
If BDW is no longer in a position to own a competitive MLB team then he needs to sell to deeper pockets who can compete in this environment
Ownership of this franchise has changed hands multiple times in its history. It is the norm. But for some reason some fans have been brainwashed that no one would want or could afford this historic Franchise. Clueless thought.
The team may, or may not, be sold any time soon.
But most MLB owners - of any team - will operate to make some amount of annual profit. That boundary condition will probably determine what any ownership group will be willing to spend on an annual basis rather than their "want to" compete.
+1
It’s a business. It seems obvious.
Yeah - if people are holding out for the Cardinals finding their "Steve Cohen," they are going to be waiting a long time.
To act like the Cardinals aren't making bookoo profit year after year is just plain ridiculous!
No one is acting like that. To act like it is the Cardinals obligation to spend profit on their MLB roster is just plain ridiculous.
Do you not read posts on here? Lots of posters think that with a 170M payroll, the Cardinals are barely breaking even. It's laughable!!!!!
Melville wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 13:40 pm
DeWitt and the STL ownership partners own a 50% stake in Ballpark Village.
DeWitt could easily approve a 20OM payroll budget and still make huge profits from his many, many business interests and revenue sources.
Of course he can... you're the CPA for the Dewitts
Much information is public.
The Cardinals ownership - which is just 50% of Ballpark Village - pays the city and state over 30 million dollars a year in taxes.
Which means they are making hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue each year.
And that is completley separate from and in addition to the revenue produced by the team itself.
And BOTH those revenue streams are in addition all of DeWitt's other business interests.
FACT is, DeWitt could easily approve a 20OM payroll budget and still make huge profits from his many, many business interests and revenue sources.
Of course, it is also a FACT that he is under no obligation to do so.
You really have no idea of what you're talking about.
Carry on.
Melville wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 13:40 pm
DeWitt and the STL ownership partners own a 50% stake in Ballpark Village.
DeWitt could easily approve a 20OM payroll budget and still make huge profits from his many, many business interests and revenue sources.
Of course he can... you're the CPA for the Dewitts
Much information is public.
The Cardinals ownership - which is just 50% of Ballpark Village - pays the city and state over 30 million dollars a year in taxes.
Which means they are making hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue each year.
And that is completley separate from and in addition to the revenue produced by the team itself.
And BOTH those revenue streams are in addition all of DeWitt's other business interests.
FACT is, DeWitt could easily approve a 20OM payroll budget and still make huge profits from his many, many business interests and revenue sources.
Of course, it is also a FACT that he is under no obligation to do so.
You really have no idea of what you're talking about.
Carry on.
Goldfan wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 08:12 am
I’ve said this several times before.
If BDW is no longer in a position to own a competitive MLB team then he needs to sell to deeper pockets who can compete in this environment
Ownership of this franchise has changed hands multiple times in its history. It is the norm. But for some reason some fans have been brainwashed that no one would want or could afford this historic Franchise. Clueless thought.
The team may, or may not, be sold any time soon.
But most MLB owners - of any team - will operate to make some amount of annual profit. That boundary condition will probably determine what any ownership group will be willing to spend on an annual basis rather than their "want to" compete.
BDW and crew have been keeping a larger $$ amount year over year than Dodgers, Mets, and other LARGE markets. This from a much lower revenue base. If you have ownership that can operate at close to 0 each season then the constant payroll worries and fears are nullified
Goldfan wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 08:12 am
I’ve said this several times before.
If BDW is no longer in a position to own a competitive MLB team then he needs to sell to deeper pockets who can compete in this environment
Ownership of this franchise has changed hands multiple times in its history. It is the norm. But for some reason some fans have been brainwashed that no one would want or could afford this historic Franchise. Clueless thought.
The team may, or may not, be sold any time soon.
But most MLB owners - of any team - will operate to make some amount of annual profit. That boundary condition will probably determine what any ownership group will be willing to spend on an annual basis rather than their "want to" compete.
BDW and crew have been keeping a larger $$ amount year over year than Dodgers, Mets, and other LARGE markets. This from a much lower revenue base. If you have ownership that can operate at close to 0 each season then the constant payroll worries and fears are nullified
With respect, where did you read this? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’ve never heard this before.
Goldfan wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 08:12 am
I’ve said this several times before.
If BDW is no longer in a position to own a competitive MLB team then he needs to sell to deeper pockets who can compete in this environment
Ownership of this franchise has changed hands multiple times in its history. It is the norm. But for some reason some fans have been brainwashed that no one would want or could afford this historic Franchise. Clueless thought.
The team may, or may not, be sold any time soon.
But most MLB owners - of any team - will operate to make some amount of annual profit. That boundary condition will probably determine what any ownership group will be willing to spend on an annual basis rather than their "want to" compete.
BDW and crew have been keeping a larger $$ amount year over year than Dodgers, Mets, and other LARGE markets. This from a much lower revenue base. If you have ownership that can operate at close to 0 each season then the constant payroll worries and fears are nullified
With respect, where did you read this? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’ve never heard this before.
According to Forbes (March 2025), teams relatively like the Cardinals in terms of revenue had averaged these operating incomes over the prior 10 years:
Baltimore - $32 million
St. Louis - $27 million
Seattle - $33 million
Toronto - -$22 million
Texas - $21 million
LA Angels - $27 million
Other than Toronto being an outlier, they are all pretty close. The Dodgers were at $10 million.
Goldfan wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 08:12 am
I’ve said this several times before.
If BDW is no longer in a position to own a competitive MLB team then he needs to sell to deeper pockets who can compete in this environment
Ownership of this franchise has changed hands multiple times in its history. It is the norm. But for some reason some fans have been brainwashed that no one would want or could afford this historic Franchise. Clueless thought.
The team may, or may not, be sold any time soon.
But most MLB owners - of any team - will operate to make some amount of annual profit. That boundary condition will probably determine what any ownership group will be willing to spend on an annual basis rather than their "want to" compete.
BDW and crew have been keeping a larger $$ amount year over year than Dodgers, Mets, and other LARGE markets. This from a much lower revenue base. If you have ownership that can operate at close to 0 each season then the constant payroll worries and fears are nullified
With respect, where did you read this? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’ve never heard this before.
According to Forbes (March 2025), teams relatively like the Cardinals in terms of revenue had averaged these operating incomes over the prior 10 years:
Baltimore - $32 million
St. Louis - $27 million
Seattle - $33 million
Toronto - -$22 million
Texas - $21 million
LA Angels - $27 million
Other than Toronto being an outlier, they are all pretty close. The Dodgers were at $10 million.
Thank you, Matt. Although I don’t always agree with Goldfan’s takes, in no way did I assume he just made stuff up. He’s too good a poster for that, as are you. Thank you for confirming my faith in humanity!
Goldfan wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 08:12 am
I’ve said this several times before.
If BDW is no longer in a position to own a competitive MLB team then he needs to sell to deeper pockets who can compete in this environment
Ownership of this franchise has changed hands multiple times in its history. It is the norm. But for some reason some fans have been brainwashed that no one would want or could afford this historic Franchise. Clueless thought.
The team may, or may not, be sold any time soon.
But most MLB owners - of any team - will operate to make some amount of annual profit. That boundary condition will probably determine what any ownership group will be willing to spend on an annual basis rather than their "want to" compete.
BDW and crew have been keeping a larger $$ amount year over year than Dodgers, Mets, and other LARGE markets. This from a much lower revenue base. If you have ownership that can operate at close to 0 each season then the constant payroll worries and fears are nullified
With respect, where did you read this? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’ve never heard this before.
According to Forbes (March 2025), teams relatively like the Cardinals in terms of revenue had averaged these operating incomes over the prior 10 years:
Baltimore - $32 million
St. Louis - $27 million
Seattle - $33 million
Toronto - -$22 million
Texas - $21 million
LA Angels - $27 million
Other than Toronto being an outlier, they are all pretty close. The Dodgers were at $10 million.
Thank you, Matt. Although I don’t always agree with Goldfan’s takes, in no way did I assume he just made stuff up. He’s too good a poster for that, as are you. Thank you for confirming my faith in humanity!
Wee, Matt forwarded the ‘25 list. Obviously with the great decrease in attendance Cards operating income is significantly down. This is from ‘24 and is pretty consistent with years of reporting from 55mil-65mil. Which supports my statement that teams with much higher Rev. are keeping much less than BDW.
Key Financials for 2024 (Estimated/Reported):
Operating Income (EBITDA): $57 million (Forbes)
Revenue: $373 million (Statista)
Goldfan wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 08:12 am
I’ve said this several times before.
If BDW is no longer in a position to own a competitive MLB team then he needs to sell to deeper pockets who can compete in this environment
Ownership of this franchise has changed hands multiple times in its history. It is the norm. But for some reason some fans have been brainwashed that no one would want or could afford this historic Franchise. Clueless thought.
The team may, or may not, be sold any time soon.
But most MLB owners - of any team - will operate to make some amount of annual profit. That boundary condition will probably determine what any ownership group will be willing to spend on an annual basis rather than their "want to" compete.
BDW and crew have been keeping a larger $$ amount year over year than Dodgers, Mets, and other LARGE markets. This from a much lower revenue base. If you have ownership that can operate at close to 0 each season then the constant payroll worries and fears are nullified
With respect, where did you read this? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’ve never heard this before.
According to Forbes (March 2025), teams relatively like the Cardinals in terms of revenue had averaged these operating incomes over the prior 10 years:
Baltimore - $32 million
St. Louis - $27 million
Seattle - $33 million
Toronto - -$22 million
Texas - $21 million
LA Angels - $27 million
Other than Toronto being an outlier, they are all pretty close. The Dodgers were at $10 million.
Thank you, Matt. Although I don’t always agree with Goldfan’s takes, in no way did I assume he just made stuff up. He’s too good a poster for that, as are you. Thank you for confirming my faith in humanity!
Wee, Matt forwarded the ‘25 list. Obviously with the great decrease in attendance Cards operating income is significantly down. This is from ‘24 and is pretty consistent with years of reporting from 55mil-65mil. Which supports my statement that teams with much higher Rev. are keeping much less than BDW.
Key Financials for 2024 (Estimated/Reported):
Operating Income (EBITDA): $57 million (Forbes)
Revenue: $373 million (Statista)
Thanks, GF!
Agreed, it supports your statement. I assumed you wouldn’t state such a thing without facts, however, I was ignorant of them.
Goldfan wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 08:12 am
I’ve said this several times before.
If BDW is no longer in a position to own a competitive MLB team then he needs to sell to deeper pockets who can compete in this environment
Ownership of this franchise has changed hands multiple times in its history. It is the norm. But for some reason some fans have been brainwashed that no one would want or could afford this historic Franchise. Clueless thought.
The team may, or may not, be sold any time soon.
But most MLB owners - of any team - will operate to make some amount of annual profit. That boundary condition will probably determine what any ownership group will be willing to spend on an annual basis rather than their "want to" compete.
BDW and crew have been keeping a larger $$ amount year over year than Dodgers, Mets, and other LARGE markets. This from a much lower revenue base. If you have ownership that can operate at close to 0 each season then the constant payroll worries and fears are nullified
With respect, where did you read this? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’ve never heard this before.
According to Forbes (March 2025), teams relatively like the Cardinals in terms of revenue had averaged these operating incomes over the prior 10 years:
Baltimore - $32 million
St. Louis - $27 million
Seattle - $33 million
Toronto - -$22 million
Texas - $21 million
LA Angels - $27 million
Other than Toronto being an outlier, they are all pretty close. The Dodgers were at $10 million.
Thank you, Matt. Although I don’t always agree with Goldfan’s takes, in no way did I assume he just made stuff up. He’s too good a poster for that, as are you. Thank you for confirming my faith in humanity!
Wee, Matt forwarded the ‘25 list. Obviously with the great decrease in attendance Cards operating income is significantly down. This is from ‘24 and is pretty consistent with years of reporting from 55mil-65mil. Which supports my statement that teams with much higher Rev. are keeping much less than BDW.
Key Financials for 2024 (Estimated/Reported):
Operating Income (EBITDA): $57 million (Forbes)
Revenue: $373 million (Statista)
Thanks, GF!
Agreed, it supports your statement. I assumed you wouldn’t state such a thing without facts, however, I was ignorant of them.
The Forbes list is quite revealing. Quite of few of the high Rev teams have lower Operating income than BDW. ‘20-‘21 are a washout due to Covid. And ‘25 as indicated is poor due to poor attendance. So this skews Matt’s avg. Going back to ‘19, ‘18…..it’s a consistent 65mil. Cranny likes to use the Debt service as a crutch attempting to nullify this larger income but its clear that the Cards are at the lower end of MLB debt.
Goldfan wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 08:12 am
I’ve said this several times before.
If BDW is no longer in a position to own a competitive MLB team then he needs to sell to deeper pockets who can compete in this environment
Ownership of this franchise has changed hands multiple times in its history. It is the norm. But for some reason some fans have been brainwashed that no one would want or could afford this historic Franchise. Clueless thought.
The team may, or may not, be sold any time soon.
But most MLB owners - of any team - will operate to make some amount of annual profit. That boundary condition will probably determine what any ownership group will be willing to spend on an annual basis rather than their "want to" compete.
BDW and crew have been keeping a larger $$ amount year over year than Dodgers, Mets, and other LARGE markets. This from a much lower revenue base. If you have ownership that can operate at close to 0 each season then the constant payroll worries and fears are nullified
With respect, where did you read this? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’ve never heard this before.
According to Forbes (March 2025), teams relatively like the Cardinals in terms of revenue had averaged these operating incomes over the prior 10 years:
Baltimore - $32 million
St. Louis - $27 million
Seattle - $33 million
Toronto - -$22 million
Texas - $21 million
LA Angels - $27 million
Other than Toronto being an outlier, they are all pretty close. The Dodgers were at $10 million.
Thank you, Matt. Although I don’t always agree with Goldfan’s takes, in no way did I assume he just made stuff up. He’s too good a poster for that, as are you. Thank you for confirming my faith in humanity!
Wee, Matt forwarded the ‘25 list. Obviously with the great decrease in attendance Cards operating income is significantly down. This is from ‘24 and is pretty consistent with years of reporting from 55mil-65mil. Which supports my statement that teams with much higher Rev. are keeping much less than BDW.
Key Financials for 2024 (Estimated/Reported):
Operating Income (EBITDA): $57 million (Forbes)
Revenue: $373 million (Statista)
Thanks, GF!
Agreed, it supports your statement. I assumed you wouldn’t state such a thing without facts, however, I was ignorant of them.
The Forbes list is quite revealing. Quite of few of the high Rev teams have lower Operating income than BDW. ‘20-‘21 are a washout due to Covid. And ‘25 as indicated is poor due to poor attendance. So this skews Matt’s avg. Going back to ‘19, ‘18…..it’s a consistent 65mil. Cranny likes to use the Debt service as a crutch attempting to nullify this larger income but its clear that the Cards are at the lower end of MLB debt.
Fascinating.
I fully admit that this is an area well outside my wheelhouse. When you guys start discussing the high-level finances of the league and the teams, it’s an area where I have no experience, so I appreciate the background.
