2020 Royals Official Offseason/Season Repository

[Al Bundy]

Players start reporting Feb 12th.
New Ownership.
Spring training games begin Feb 20th against the Rangers.

[Chiefspants]

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

I don't think they are making a ton off the team. They make a profit but nothing too major. They only majorly profit when they sell the team.

The owners releasing their books would put that question to rest.

[tk13]

There's talk around baseball that once the 5-round MLB Draft is over, the Royals are in prime position to attract/sign top non-drafted players because of their decision not to cut Minor Leaguers or salaries. One agent told me: "KC knows how to treat players. They do it right."

— Jeffrey Flanagan (@FlannyMLB) June 10, 2020

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

The owners releasing their books would put that question to rest.

They’re private enterprises so no, they don’t need to open anything.

Second, we already know what their numbers are because Forbes produces them every year. Forbes has moles everywhere and they have the books in essence. Their reputation in the financial space is sterling.

[Mecca]

No one believes that a bunch of dudes that are smart enough to make billions of dollars in business buy baseball teams because they lose money or don't make much, no one believes that bullshit.

[ChiefsCountry]

They make money but they aren't the major money makers everyone thinks they are. Most are just pride, status and play toys for billionaires. NFL as a whole would be a top 200 company in the country. Sports teams are just in the public eye more than other companies.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by kstater

There's a big ****ing difference between Kauffman owning the team in the 80s and the billion dollar plus(and equity in the station) tv contract of the 2010' s Cardinals

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk

Also remember that Kauffman knowingly and intentionally overspent. It wasn't that he couldn't have made money, it's that he didn't on purpose. He knew full well the Royals didn't have the financial wherewithal of the power players in the league at the time but he didn't care.

Didn't the Royals have the highest payroll in the league for a period? My memory is that he took serious heat in the early 90s from owners groups for driving salary inflation.

But ultimately, as has been noted, DVRs driving the value of live events through the roof and the creation of revenue sharing has changed EVERYTHING. 20 years ago teams were at least breaking even. Every couple of years you'd hear about a team that was struggling but there were never any risks of a team outright folding.

Over the subsequent 20 years, MLB revenue has increased significantly faster than the share distributed to players. Things have tilted substantially towards the owners. So how can a system that was no worse than break even for the owners 2 decades ago be 'not all that profitable' when the succeeding 20 years have been nothing but favorable for the owners? Made readily apparent by the exponential increase in franchise value over that period of time.

Nothing Dewitt said there stands up to even a reasonable amount of scrutiny.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

They make money but they aren't the major money makers everyone thinks they are. Most are just pride, status and play toys for billionaires. NFL as a whole would be a top 200 company in the country. Sports teams are just in the public eye more than other companies.

Then why are there minority owners?

Nobody gives a shit who owns 5% of any baseball team. At all. They have no meaningful voting rights and little more access to anything 'fun' than your average high-rolling season ticket holder. They gain no status from it unless they were already famous.

For guys who own a relatively small percentage, they don't get the benefits you're describing. It's strictly an investment mechanism. For many it's the long term investment/equity value, but it's no different than any investment in that regard - you expect long-term returns and periodic dividends. If they weren't getting that, they'd put their money elsewhere.

Owners have been crying poor for as long as there have been owners. If the elimination of the reserve clause didn't kill the profitability of owning a baseball team, nothing will. They're absolutely profitable.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

They’re private enterprises so no, they don’t need to open anything.

Second, we already know what their numbers are because Forbes produces them every year. Forbes has moles everywhere and they have the books in essence. Their reputation in the financial space is sterling.

Yeah - I've never had a problem with owners refusing to open their books. I DO think they'd be well served to be transparent among themselves because I don't see a ton of downside there and I see some potential to create a more coordinated front.

But there's no damn way I'd open my books to my staff. It's just going to create confusion and ultimately division. No answer given will be enough because it simply never is.

[Chiefspants]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

They’re private enterprises so no, they don’t need to open anything.

Second, we already know what their numbers are because Forbes produces them every year. Forbes has moles everywhere and they have the books in essence. Their reputation in the financial space is sterling.

They don’t “need” to open anything, but they can still be called out when they’re full of ****. The double talk and hypocrisy from the owners is nauseating.

[Prison Bitch]

I don’t take either side. If they want to play they will but if not, won’t affect me. MLBs far bigger issue is that nobody is even talking about it at all. They’re running a dangerous game of chicken with the consumer - “out of sight out of mind”


I suppose the best argument for opening the books is the massive public taxpayer subsidies these teams rely on (stadiums). That’s a far better argument for public transparency than a whiny players union.

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Also remember that Kauffman knowingly and intentionally overspent. It wasn't that he couldn't have made money, it's that he didn't on purpose. He knew full well the Royals didn't have the financial wherewithal of the power players in the league at the time but he didn't care.

Didn't the Royals have the highest payroll in the league for a period? My memory is that he took serious heat in the early 90s from owners groups for driving salary inflation.

Kauffman splurged in the late 80s and early 90s because he was flush with cash from the sale of Marion Labs to Dow. He even said that. They spent cash in the 80s from the influx of his other partner.

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Then why are there minority owners?

Nobody gives a shit who owns 5% of any baseball team. At all. They have no meaningful voting rights and little more access to anything 'fun' than your average high-rolling season ticket holder. They gain no status from it unless they were already famous.

For guys who own a relatively small percentage, they don't get the benefits you're describing. It's strictly an investment mechanism. For many it's the long term investment/equity value, but it's no different than any investment in that regard - you expect long-term returns and periodic dividends. If they weren't getting that, they'd put their money elsewhere.

Owners have been crying poor for as long as there have been owners. If the elimination of the reserve clause didn't kill the profitability of owning a baseball team, nothing will. They're absolutely profitable.

Main reason is very few people in the world can write a check for a billion dollars by themselves. Donald Balmers of the world are very rare. It's still a status thing in those circles. If you are a bank president in St. Louis and have 5% of the Cardinals, its a big deal on the resume and who they hang with it.

[duncan_idaho]

https://twitter.com/redturn2/status/...900322304?s=20

This thread does an awesome job breaking down why Bill DeWitt Jr. is a damn liar.

There are definitely owners who haven't done as well as him. But the idea that the industry isn't tremendously profitable for the people who own the teams is outright silly.

[duncan_idaho]

Back to the draft talk:

There continue to be rumors the Orioles are calling around to see about prices for top P prospects with their second pick.

That would indicate they are considering taking Nick Gonzales or Zac Veen instead of Austin Martin.

If the Orioles don't take him, I think he makes it to KC.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Yeah - I've never had a problem with owners refusing to open their books. I DO think they'd be well served to be transparent among themselves because I don't see a ton of downside there and I see some potential to create a more coordinated front.

But there's no damn way I'd open my books to my staff. It's just going to create confusion and ultimately division. No answer given will be enough because it simply never is.

It’s a laughable debate since all the major levers of the sports economics are already public. TV deals, merchandising, public subsidies, attendance - and in the expense side, it’s essentially all salaries which we know.


You and I could sit down over nachos and beers and sketch out the Royals P&L. And get about 90% there.