STLtoday.com

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 09:03 am

Goldfan wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 08:59 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 08:26 am

Goldfan wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 08:19 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 08:11 am

Goldfan wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 07:46 am

Cardinals1964 wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 02:15 am

Goldfan wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 17:57 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 09:35 am

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

How do you know the profit margin? I don’t think that’s public info.
Edit. Never mind. I saw your Forbes report. Now, I want to know where Forbes got their information since revenue isn’t public knowledge.

My point was that the Dodgers, Mets, Yanks double revenue and still have a lower operating profit than BDW. You can dispute the actual numbers….the comparison was against these other teams. Including the last couple years when BDW shot himself in the foot with attendance and TV eyeballs and including covid years obviously brings the avg down……but stil advances the POINT that while the large markets have a large $$$ advantage their ownership groups are putting most of that back into the team. How is it that BDW has 57mil and Dodgers ownership is in the 20’smil

OK, yes that's what the numbers show.

But the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, etc. are not the only points of comparison, and probably not the most relevant points of comparison.

More relevant, IMO, is either the ML average/median or specifically the other mid-market teams most like the Cardinals.

I listed the years back to ‘16, looks like the numbers align better if dropped down 1yr but take out the Covid anomaly and then fans staying home the last couple seasons and it shows a rather consistent income stream. Getting back to the high level point is that having multi billionaire large ownership groups lessens the need to throw off annual income. Those big dog Billionaires or multiple billionaires in those groups didn’t get involved to receive annual income. Either they are invested to WIN or long term Cap Appreciation. If BDW operated around 0….at least one maybe two elite players could be in uniform.

Yes, if they operated around zero.

I, however, don't think operating around zero is necessarily a reasonable expectation, in particular when the Cardinals also have minority owners and there may be some obligations to operate more in the black so that they see some income/profits.

If a Guggenheim like group OR a mega Billionaire like Cohn were owners of the Cards we would not be worrying about payroll. Perhaps the evolution of pro sports ownership has gotten to the point where an owner like Dewitt(who has most of family wealth in the team value) is past. Deeper pockets are required to compete.

As I noted back on page 1, if people are holding out hope expecting the Cardinals to find their "Steve Cohen," I think there are going to be disappointed and waiting a long time.

Sure, those are rare but BDW bringing in other mini Billionaires OR selling to a group of Billionaires would be a better long term outcome for the team, STL, and fans.

Be careful what you wish for.

kscardsfan wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 20:05 pm

mytake wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 17:14 pm

OldRed wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 07:15 am I wonder how many of these the DeWitt family own and how it affects the way they do business?

Has anyone tried the new burger franchise called Smalls Sliders?

Im there two weeks from today. Where is it located?

Ellisville, Bridgeton, and St. Peter's.

mytake wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 09:40 am

kscardsfan wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 20:05 pm

mytake wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 17:14 pm

OldRed wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 07:15 am I wonder how many of these the DeWitt family own and how it affects the way they do business?

Has anyone tried the new burger franchise called Smalls Sliders?

Im there two weeks from today. Where is it located?

Ellisville, Bridgeton, and St. Peter's.

Deweys Pizza is operated by a DeWitt son

To begin with, operating profit is not the same as "EBITDA". Operating profit is after Depreciation and Amortization, and before interest and taxes. Better known as "EBIT". The figures I saw, show the Cardinals with a valuation of $2.55 million and debt as 8% of valuation. Out of the operating profit, you need to take interest expense on the debt as well as any taxes. And then for cash flow purposes, factor in any annual principal reduction required by the bank(s). Since we don't know the interest rate and any principal reductions required, we have no idea how much of the OP is consumed by debt service each year.

Cranny wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 10:49 am To begin with, operating profit is not the same as "EBITDA". Operating profit is after Depreciation and Amortization, and before interest and taxes. Better known as "EBIT". The figures I saw, show the Cardinals with a valuation of $2.55 million and debt as 8% of valuation. Out of the operating profit, you need to take interest expense on the debt as well as any taxes. And then for cash flow purposes, factor in any annual principal reduction required by the bank(s). Since we don't know the interest rate and any principal reductions required, we have no idea how much of the OP is consumed by debt service each year.

I saw 7% which is either in line or LOWER than most clubs. We’re comparing oranges to oranges here

Cranny wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 10:49 am To begin with, operating profit is not the same as "EBITDA". Operating profit is after Depreciation and Amortization, and before interest and taxes. Better known as "EBIT". The figures I saw, show the Cardinals with a valuation of $2.55 million and debt as 8% of valuation. Out of the operating profit, you need to take interest expense on the debt as well as any taxes. And then for cash flow purposes, factor in any annual principal reduction required by the bank(s). Since we don't know the interest rate and any principal reductions required, we have no idea how much of the OP is consumed by debt service each year.

$2.55 billion

Debt-to-Value is 7% (MLB league average is 10%), not 8% according to CNBC analyses of Forbes data.

Compared to their NLC rivals the Cardinals are in great financial shape:

Brewers/15%
Red & Pirates/10-11%
Scrubs/9-10%

Their EBITDA is estimated at $34M.

Going back to my banking days cranny I can tell you that's a financially healthy position the Cardinals find themselves in w/minimal leverage compared to their $2.55B valuation.

Crying poormouth is a joke.

Dam. I’m gonna miss that Beef and Cheddar.

rockondlouie wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 11:15 am

Cranny wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 10:49 am To begin with, operating profit is not the same as "EBITDA". Operating profit is after Depreciation and Amortization, and before interest and taxes. Better known as "EBIT". The figures I saw, show the Cardinals with a valuation of $2.55 million and debt as 8% of valuation. Out of the operating profit, you need to take interest expense on the debt as well as any taxes. And then for cash flow purposes, factor in any annual principal reduction required by the bank(s). Since we don't know the interest rate and any principal reductions required, we have no idea how much of the OP is consumed by debt service each year.

$2.55 billion

Debt-to-Value is 7% (MLB league average is 10%), not 8% according to CNBC analyses of Forbes data.

Compared to their NLC rivals the Cardinals are in great financial shape:

Brewers/15%
Red & Pirates/10-11%
Scrubs/9-10%

Their EBITDA is estimated at $34M.

Going back to my banking days cranny I can tell you that's a financially healthy position the Cardinals find themselves in w/minimal leverage compared to their $2.55B valuation.

Crying poormouth is a joke.

Glad we have a former banker on here, rock. At least there are 2 of us now who understand that "operating income" is not a gross number available for increased player payroll. What do you think the total annual debt service may be including both principal and interest?

Cranny wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 11:33 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 11:15 am

Cranny wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 10:49 am To begin with, operating profit is not the same as "EBITDA". Operating profit is after Depreciation and Amortization, and before interest and taxes. Better known as "EBIT". The figures I saw, show the Cardinals with a valuation of $2.55 million and debt as 8% of valuation. Out of the operating profit, you need to take interest expense on the debt as well as any taxes. And then for cash flow purposes, factor in any annual principal reduction required by the bank(s). Since we don't know the interest rate and any principal reductions required, we have no idea how much of the OP is consumed by debt service each year.

$2.55 billion

Debt-to-Value is 7% (MLB league average is 10%), not 8% according to CNBC analyses of Forbes data.

Compared to their NLC rivals the Cardinals are in great financial shape:

Brewers/15%
Red & Pirates/10-11%
Scrubs/9-10%

Their EBITDA is estimated at $34M.

Going back to my banking days cranny I can tell you that's a financially healthy position the Cardinals find themselves in w/minimal leverage compared to their $2.55B valuation.

Crying poormouth is a joke.

Glad we have a former banker on here, rock. At least there are 2 of us now who understand that "operating income" is not a gross number available for increased player payroll. What do you think the total annual debt service may be including both principal and interest?

No clue

To even hazard a guess w/o seeing the last three years of statements would be foolish.

But from what Forbes and others have gleaned, the Cardinals are in great financial shape showing what I've said all along, BDWJr is a brilliant businessman.

I just hope he spends more in 2027 so we can acquire major league talent again and fans will start coming back to the ballpark in droves.

Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 16:23 pm

BrockFloodMaris wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 14:27 pm

Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 12:38 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 09:53 am

WeeVikes wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 09:47 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 09:35 am

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!!!!!

Yes, I read a lot of posts around Card Talk. The laughable ones are crying for BDW to pay for long term free agent contracts to compete NOW.

rockondlouie wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 11:37 am

Cranny wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 11:33 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 11:15 am

Cranny wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 10:49 am To begin with, operating profit is not the same as "EBITDA". Operating profit is after Depreciation and Amortization, and before interest and taxes. Better known as "EBIT". The figures I saw, show the Cardinals with a valuation of $2.55 million and debt as 8% of valuation. Out of the operating profit, you need to take interest expense on the debt as well as any taxes. And then for cash flow purposes, factor in any annual principal reduction required by the bank(s). Since we don't know the interest rate and any principal reductions required, we have no idea how much of the OP is consumed by debt service each year.

$2.55 billion

Debt-to-Value is 7% (MLB league average is 10%), not 8% according to CNBC analyses of Forbes data.

Compared to their NLC rivals the Cardinals are in great financial shape:

Brewers/15%
Red & Pirates/10-11%
Scrubs/9-10%

Their EBITDA is estimated at $34M.

Going back to my banking days cranny I can tell you that's a financially healthy position the Cardinals find themselves in w/minimal leverage compared to their $2.55B valuation.

Crying poormouth is a joke.

Glad we have a former banker on here, rock. At least there are 2 of us now who understand that "operating income" is not a gross number available for increased player payroll. What do you think the total annual debt service may be including both principal and interest?

No clue

To even hazard a guess w/o seeing the last three years of statements would be foolish.

But from what Forbes and others have gleaned, the Cardinals are in great financial shape showing what I've said all along, BDWJr is a brilliant businessman.

I just hope he spends more in 2027 so we can acquire major league talent again and fans will start coming back to the ballpark in droves.

If I use 7% debt to value, I come out with debt of about $178,000,000. Using prime plus one as a rate on a revolver I come out with about $14,000, 000 in interest alone each year. If I use term debt on a 20 year amortization schedule, it's about $17,000,000 a year.

And what year are we using for the operating income number? As a banker, what would you advise your borrower if you saw their operating income decline (because of attendance and cable revenues) and debt service remain the same?

Cranny wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 11:56 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 11:37 am

Cranny wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 11:33 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 11:15 am

Cranny wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 10:49 am To begin with, operating profit is not the same as "EBITDA". Operating profit is after Depreciation and Amortization, and before interest and taxes. Better known as "EBIT". The figures I saw, show the Cardinals with a valuation of $2.55 million and debt as 8% of valuation. Out of the operating profit, you need to take interest expense on the debt as well as any taxes. And then for cash flow purposes, factor in any annual principal reduction required by the bank(s). Since we don't know the interest rate and any principal reductions required, we have no idea how much of the OP is consumed by debt service each year.

$2.55 billion

Debt-to-Value is 7% (MLB league average is 10%), not 8% according to CNBC analyses of Forbes data.

Compared to their NLC rivals the Cardinals are in great financial shape:

Brewers/15%
Red & Pirates/10-11%
Scrubs/9-10%

Their EBITDA is estimated at $34M.

Going back to my banking days cranny I can tell you that's a financially healthy position the Cardinals find themselves in w/minimal leverage compared to their $2.55B valuation.

Crying poormouth is a joke.

Glad we have a former banker on here, rock. At least there are 2 of us now who understand that "operating income" is not a gross number available for increased player payroll. What do you think the total annual debt service may be including both principal and interest?

No clue

To even hazard a guess w/o seeing the last three years of statements would be foolish.

But from what Forbes and others have gleaned, the Cardinals are in great financial shape showing what I've said all along, BDWJr is a brilliant businessman.

I just hope he spends more in 2027 so we can acquire major league talent again and fans will start coming back to the ballpark in droves.

If I use 7% debt to value, I come out with debt of about $178,000,000. Using prime plus one as a rate on a revolver I come out with about $14,000, 000 in interest alone each year. If I use term debt on a 20 year amortization schedule, it's about $17,000,000 a year.

And what year are we using for the operating income number? As a banker, what would you advise your borrower if you saw their operating income decline (because of attendance and cable revenues) and debt service remain the same?

He said to hazard a guess would be foolish. Proceed.

Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 12:00 pm

Cranny wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 11:56 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 11:37 am

Cranny wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 11:33 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 11:15 am

Cranny wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 10:49 am To begin with, operating profit is not the same as "EBITDA". Operating profit is after Depreciation and Amortization, and before interest and taxes. Better known as "EBIT". The figures I saw, show the Cardinals with a valuation of $2.55 million and debt as 8% of valuation. Out of the operating profit, you need to take interest expense on the debt as well as any taxes. And then for cash flow purposes, factor in any annual principal reduction required by the bank(s). Since we don't know the interest rate and any principal reductions required, we have no idea how much of the OP is consumed by debt service each year.

$2.55 billion

Debt-to-Value is 7% (MLB league average is 10%), not 8% according to CNBC analyses of Forbes data.

Compared to their NLC rivals the Cardinals are in great financial shape:

Brewers/15%
Red & Pirates/10-11%
Scrubs/9-10%

Their EBITDA is estimated at $34M.

Going back to my banking days cranny I can tell you that's a financially healthy position the Cardinals find themselves in w/minimal leverage compared to their $2.55B valuation.

Crying poormouth is a joke.

Glad we have a former banker on here, rock. At least there are 2 of us now who understand that "operating income" is not a gross number available for increased player payroll. What do you think the total annual debt service may be including both principal and interest?

No clue

To even hazard a guess w/o seeing the last three years of statements would be foolish.

But from what Forbes and others have gleaned, the Cardinals are in great financial shape showing what I've said all along, BDWJr is a brilliant businessman.

I just hope he spends more in 2027 so we can acquire major league talent again and fans will start coming back to the ballpark in droves.

If I use 7% debt to value, I come out with debt of about $178,000,000. Using prime plus one as a rate on a revolver I come out with about $14,000, 000 in interest alone each year. If I use term debt on a 20 year amortization schedule, it's about $17,000,000 a year.

And what year are we using for the operating income number? As a banker, what would you advise your borrower if you saw their operating income decline (because of attendance and cable revenues) and debt service remain the same?

He said to hazard a guess would be foolish. Proceed.

He knows the approx. calculation. It just doesn't align with what he wants the player payroll to be. Or what most posters want the payroll to be.

Cranny wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 11:56 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 11:37 am

Cranny wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 11:33 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 11:15 am

Cranny wrote: ↑02 Jan 2026 10:49 am To begin with, operating profit is not the same as "EBITDA". Operating profit is after Depreciation and Amortization, and before interest and taxes. Better known as "EBIT". The figures I saw, show the Cardinals with a valuation of $2.55 million and debt as 8% of valuation. Out of the operating profit, you need to take interest expense on the debt as well as any taxes. And then for cash flow purposes, factor in any annual principal reduction required by the bank(s). Since we don't know the interest rate and any principal reductions required, we have no idea how much of the OP is consumed by debt service each year.

$2.55 billion

Debt-to-Value is 7% (MLB league average is 10%), not 8% according to CNBC analyses of Forbes data.

Compared to their NLC rivals the Cardinals are in great financial shape:

Brewers/15%
Red & Pirates/10-11%
Scrubs/9-10%

Their EBITDA is estimated at $34M.

Going back to my banking days cranny I can tell you that's a financially healthy position the Cardinals find themselves in w/minimal leverage compared to their $2.55B valuation.

Crying poormouth is a joke.

Glad we have a former banker on here, rock. At least there are 2 of us now who understand that "operating income" is not a gross number available for increased player payroll. What do you think the total annual debt service may be including both principal and interest?

No clue

To even hazard a guess w/o seeing the last three years of statements would be foolish.

But from what Forbes and others have gleaned, the Cardinals are in great financial shape showing what I've said all along, BDWJr is a brilliant businessman.

I just hope he spends more in 2027 so we can acquire major league talent again and fans will start coming back to the ballpark in droves.

If I use 7% debt to value, I come out with debt of about $178,000,000. Using prime plus one as a rate on a revolver I come out with about $14,000, 000 in interest alone each year. If I use term debt on a 20 year amortization schedule, it's about $17,000,000 a year.

And what year are we using for the operating income number? As a banker, what would you advise your borrower if you saw their operating income decline (because of attendance and cable revenues) and debt service remain the same?

Doubt if the Cardinals are paying Prime + 1%, likely given the downtown connections they've been at prime, maybe prime + a half for some time.

2025

Same as he's doing

When sales drop, then so does spending.

Although the entertainment business is different when it comes to spending vs revenues.

RE:
Hollywood where movie & TV shows spend hundreds of millions up front before ever seeing a dime of ticket and ad revenue.

Dewitt is going to have to spend first (not crazy, just back to his $175-180M level) bringing in some "star" power to supplement the kids and stimulate fan interest and attendance.

But look at it as an upfront cost.

Like a manufacturer investing in machinery and equipment to make his widgets.

Bill's "machinery and equipment" (re: upfront cost) is going to be investing in major league star players.

Nothing crazy, but back to the $175-180M by 2028.