Pohlad's his own worst enemy
Carl keeps insisting that he loses $15 million per year. The numbers just don't add up.
The Twins have been trying to get a publicly funded or financed stadium for 12 years. And no team in baseball is more deserving or more in need of a facility upgrade than the Twins.
On the surface, a new stadium should be a slam dunk. The Twins have played in a football stadium since 1983, with the promise from the beginning of a baseball-only stadium when the state could afford it. It is without question the worst baseball stadium in the majors and most of the minor leagues. The Twins' agreement with the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission (which the team is suing) gives them zero revenue from luxury boxes, almost nothing from concessions, no parking revenue, limited signage revenue. And when the commission took away 200 seats to make a special luxury box for the Vikings, it wouldn't even let the Twins use it. I hope the Twins get a better deal now, but even a better deal will be the worst in the major leagues by a long shot.
Couple this with the deal on the table, which requires no state money, requires the owner to pay one third of the construction costs, and requires a local tax that is 1 percent of the tax used to fund the Metdrodome, and even voters in Miami would overwhelmingly approve. But the governor refuses to call a special session that would make the slam dunk a reality because it is still too much of a political risk to publicly support a billionaire owner who seems to have no basis in financial reality.
The only thing that stands in the way of proposal after proposal is the owner. And he's at it again. This time, he was quoted in Charlie Walter's column that he continues to lose $15 million per year. This is the figure he cites at the end of every year, despite the fact that team President Dave St. Peter has been repeatedly quoted that the Twins have broken even the last two years, with a slight profit this year.
Which one should we believe? St. Peter. With the exception of marketing and sales, the Twins have not appreciably changed their operating budget for the last three years, most of which goes to player salaries, player signings, and player development. Since the team last lost around $10 million (according to then President Jerry Bell), in 2001, it has increased revenues in the following ways:
* Attendance has increased the last three years, culminating in 2005--the first 2-million attendance year since 1993. This is an increase of 25 percent over 2001.
*Team sponsorship and signage revenues are up nearly 100 percent since 2001.
Most of the budget increase can be attributed to revenue sharing. As required by the recent collective bargaining agreement (CBA), teams must spend their revenue sharing dollars on players. A small portion of the budget increase stems from the TV deal and attendance projections. But by and large, the extra revenue from ticket sales, sponsorships, and TV more than make up for the increased operating expenses and the operating loss the team sustained year after year until 2001. In fact, it operated as a slight profit, perhaps $1 million or so, in 2005.
Why does Pohlad keep playing the broken record on operating losses? I've heard some theories.
- He's senile. He might be, but he sure seems with it when people interview him about the current crop of players, which turns over at a 25 percent rate every year. If he is senile, he's not senile enough to forget that the economics of baseball changed so drastically with the last CBA.
- If he makes public statements about operating losses, it might sit better with the IRS when he writes off $15 million every year for "hidden costs" such as liability for flying bats and balls and depreciation. This might be true, but if I wrote these things off, I wouldn't publicize it in the newspaper. That's just daring an audit.
- He really thinks people will empathize with his plight if they believe he's throwing $15 million from his personal check book into the team every year. This is the most likely theory. In Walter's interview he said, "We will do everything in our power short of bankruptcy to win." This team may have a bad deal, but it's not close to bankruptcy, not with a black bottom line this year.
After 12 years, you think he would finally get it. He should just tell the truth. He's a billionaire. He can afford a few losses. But he won't be around much longer, and the next owner will likely expect a black bottom line. The black bottom line from 2005 won't last long in the Metrodome, not with contracts like the ridiculous $47 million, five-year deal to a closer with 42 career saves.
The only way to keep the team in Minnesota after Pohlad is gone is by building a stadium that brings in better revenue. Short of that and we're looking at loosing the team within the next 10 years. If everyone just stepped back and admitted it's not about Pohlad it's about the Twins' future, the Hennepin County deal would be done by now. By crying poor mouth, he makes it about himself, which dooms the cause year after year.
Carl, just tell the truth or be quiet. Lying or stretching the truth never helps.
0 recs |
10 comments
Comments
That is stupid
Thing is, the only way you get rid of Pohlad is to reach a final decision ... either build the ballpark, in which case he'll sell (he's too old for this 'stuff' anyway) or don't build it, in which case he'll sell to whomever is going to move the team elsewhere.
Sometimes you have to get past disliking the guy you're negotiating with if you want to make a deal.
by BD57 on Nov 27, 2005 11:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Both could be true
Now, I have no idea how Carl has set up the Twins in his financial empire. I do know when an owner says he has lost money it can be shown to be true, even if it is not true. Baseball owners don't lose money. If they did, no one would want to own one. These men did not grow rich subsidizing entities.
When Gussie Busch owned the Cardinals, all the parking and concession revenue went to to his beer enterprise. On the Cards' books, this income was not recorded, so the Cardinals legally showed losses on a regularly basis.
Ted Turner owned Los Bravos and WTBS. On the open market, a television station would have to pay millions for the broadcast rights to any MLB team, even a losing one. Turner's WTBS bought the broadcast rights to Turner's Braves for pennies on the dollar. All that income that would have appeared on the Braves' books under an "arm's length" business transaction did not appear under this arrangement.
Pohlad doesn't own a TV station -- he sure as hell tried -- and doesn't own a brewery, but you don't have to be much of an accountant to devise a way for a man with multiple business interests to show a negative bottom line in one of them.
by Firpo Marberry on Nov 28, 2005 12:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
To Me
by nate493 on Nov 28, 2005 1:11 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Carl may be telling the truth!
I expect Carl was losing $10-15mm per year (from operations) through much of the 1990's and first few years of this decade. I also expect there are two sets of books. What you describe are comments and estimates from the Twins operations, which likely broke even during the past few years. Mr. Pohlad has another set of books which are also real...the cost of the team to his Holding Company. And that could be a loss of $15mm. If you recall, he borrowed all the money when he bought the team. Even with low interest rates (the money may be borrowed from another affiliate and the rate may be higher than you think), it is very likely that he shows an interest cost approaching $10mm. Add this legitimate cost to others that we aren't aware of and one can see how he could be telling the truth when he says he lost $15mm and someone from the team says the team actually broke even.
by roger on Nov 28, 2005 7:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Even so...
Carl's a sharp guy, and he didn't get so much money by being foolish with it. If he was really in big financial trouble with the team, he would have sold it by now.
I do agree with your point that there could easily be two sets of books. Heck, there are probably more than two that get used for different purposes in team accounting.
by ubelmann on Nov 28, 2005 9:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, two distinct topics
Sid or someone else seems to use the $15 million figure annually, and if that's the case Carl is actually gaining because $15 million was worth more when Carl bought the team than it is now. This alone makes me scoff at the figure. You would think a savvy businessman would at least adjust the figure upward annually to account for inflation, but for some odd reason it seems to always be the same amount.
And if Carl were in financial trouble with the team, it's quite likely so would be any prospective buyer. I simply don't believe sports franchises are financial black holes. There always seems to be someone willing to purchase, in fact it seems there is usually a line. Even once you weed out the Reggie Fowlers and Tom Clancys there are guys around who aren't just in the horse race to raise their profile in the business world.
I'd have to say I want a stadium more than anyone, but two things turn even me off:
1) Sid's endless whining. I think the stadium proponents would be glad to see him shut up. As with stock funds, past performance is no guarantee of future returns, so even though the Twins did not leave when Sid had them going to Florida and N.C. doens't mean the franchise couldn't end up in Vegas. So he could still end up being correct under the "blind squirell" rule.
Regardless, he's made no progress with "the geniuses" at the Capitol. He'd be better off letting the far more intelligent Dave Mona carry this ball on the Sunday a.m. show, and completely abandon writing about it.
(It's nice to see Squid's column frequently on Page 4 in the new Strib format. Someone on Portland Avenue is preparing for a Sidless Tribune.)
2) Carl crying about anything. No one wants to here billionaires, athletes, rock groups or actors bitch about stuff, even if their life is worse than Saddam Hussein's. It's all about perspective, and no one imagines that any of the above folks have a worse life than any random guy walking down Nicollet.
by Firpo Marberry on Nov 29, 2005 12:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Great article!
But the real answer to the poll is 'the collective baseball ownership'. Pohlad isn't the only owner who hurts his team in the court of public opinion. The ineptitude of baseball's owners in running their business throughout the decades is amply documented.
The sport as a whole is thriving, but some individual teams are in a bind because the majority of owners have never understood that they are in a business partnership with each other. Instead of all the whining about small market problems, baseball owners should be working together to help their partners set up cable outlets, increase advertising appeal, and finance baseball stadiums in an effort to improve the sport as a whole.
But don't waste our time by whining about how much money you're losing. You have an antitrust exemption, for crying out loud! No one can compete with you! If you can't make money running a major league ballclub, then either there aren't enough baseball fans, or you aren't doing a very good job of operating your team. And I think there are plenty of fans in Minnesota.
by hornbakr on Nov 29, 2005 12:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
replying to previous comment
by cortalekanak on Dec 22, 2006 11:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
replying to previous comment
by cortalekanak on Jan 13, 2007 12:08 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
hello,
by cortalekanak on Jan 17, 2007 1:55 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

by 















