The latest figures from Forbes magazine show the Royals made $9 million last season before adjustments and contend the franchise’s value increased $13 million to $314 million.

Obviously, the numbers are a little fuzzy, but this is just more proof that the Royals have a lot more money than almost everyone realizes. Frankly, it makes so much of the Allard Baird era all that more sickening. Hopefully payroll continues to climb.

7 months ago raefzilla 8 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I really don't trust Forbes numbers at all

I did see an interesting piece where the new head of the NFLPA wants to make it a part of the next CBA that owners have to make their financial information public. I don’t know why Donald Fehr doesn’t demand this. Sure they’d probably fudge the books, but it would give us a better idea if the owners truly are in bad as shape as they claim to be or if they are swimming in money and just trying to keep it from the players.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Apr 24, 2009 9:21 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Seems pretty natural to me

You never even start a negotiation without knowing as many facts about the other party’s position as you can. If the owners aren’t even willing to give over some (probably) fudged numbers about revenue and the money that’s available in the pot, then the players’ associations (for either sport are operating at a tremendous disadvantage). And if the owners think the MLBPA or NFLPA are asking for way to large a percentage of the pie, then the best way to persuade them of your position is to show ‘em what you’ve got.

"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae

by Sweep_the_Leg on Apr 24, 2009 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I could be wrong

But I believe the union does have access to the owners numbers, but they have to keep hush hush about it.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Apr 24, 2009 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that is correct

by raefzilla on Apr 24, 2009 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

and we we thought the players fought steroid testing hard....

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.

by devil_fingers on Apr 24, 2009 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

thoughts

A. Forbes numbers aren’t that reliable at all. They may be the best out there, but that doesn’t make them particularly good.

B. “before Adjustments” – That article mentioned its closer to 7 mil in operating profits. Moreover, profiting a little over 2% of your value isn’t very high in traditional business sense.

C. A team should have somewhat positive books. From a philosophical standpoint that Glass does have the right to turn some profit, or simply from a risk standpoint that you want some wiggle room, its unrealistic to expect teams to operate at a net zero position.

D. The bigger number that I notice is actually a roughly 10% increase in revenue from last year. Thats really what is going to drive payroll. With a “new” stadium, recession not withstanding, it is encouraging none the least.

by ZeppelinDZ on Apr 24, 2009 10:43 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The Royals are still second to last in income ($143 million)

and $15 million behind the Twins, who are only two spots above them. The general rule in the industry for player expenses is 50%-55% of income, so using the Forbes numbers, that would put the Royals in the $71-$79 million range for player expenses.

by Gopherballs on Apr 24, 2009 1:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs