Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
outerbanks

O's seventh most valuable franchise in Baseball

15 posts in this topic

Good luck with that

I can't think of a better response  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7th most valuable franchise?  Seems like a good reason to raise ticket and concession prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

angelo$er is winning where it matters most to him...the bottom line....

 

he's not going to spend anymore than he deems absolutely necessary to field a team.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony is that players are considered a part of the "assets", so spending on players actually drives up the value of a team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony is that players are considered a part of the "assets", so spending on players actually drives up the value of a team.

I didn't know that. that's really interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the Bloomberg article that is the source of this:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-23/yankees-among-10-mlb-teams-valued-at-more-than-1-billion.html

 

 

In calculating team value, Bloomberg News examined revenue from ticket sales, concessions, sponsorships and broadcast rights, as well as interests in TV channels, radio stations and real estate.

 

So players are not part of it.

 

And this nice chart breaks down those components for each team (click the different team iconsin the middle of the circle to change the numbers).

http://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2013-10-23/mlb-team-values.html

Edited by Jimmy Jazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

According to the Bloomberg article that is the source of this:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-23/yankees-among-10-mlb-teams-valued-at-more-than-1-billion.html

 

 

 

So players are not part of it.

 

And this nice chart breaks down those components for each team (click the different team iconsin the middle of the circle to change the numbers).

http://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2013-10-23/mlb-team-values.html

 

 

Players calculate into sponsorships.

Teams also hold rights to jerseys with the individual's name on the back.

They also use the player's name free of extra charge.

 

It does surprise me that the value of a player's contract doesn't go into it, though, since it can be insured.

Edited by Far from home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does surprise me that the value of a player's contract doesn't go into it, though, since it can be insured.

 

I don't have much of head for business but I don't understand why the money the Orioles owe Adam Jones would count as an asset for the Orioles.  I could see attempting to assign some value to the length of time they have rights to Jones's name but not the money they pay him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have much of head for business but I don't understand why the money the Orioles owe Adam Jones would count as an asset for the Orioles.  I could see attempting to assign some value to the length of time they have rights to Jones's name but not the money they pay him.

I see the logic of FFH's comments. franchise value is tied to the ball club's success on the field. and that success is directly related to the talent of the players. in previous eras, the players were considered property. it's not the same now that free agency exists.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but the talent of the players is not always directly related to the size of their salary. I just don't see how anyone can look at the money the Tigers owe Prince Fielder (24 million a year for the next 7 years) and consider that an asset to the Tigers. It's a massive liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but the talent of the players is not always directly related to the size of their salary. I just don't see how anyone can look at the money the Tigers owe Prince Fielder (24 million a year for the next 7 years) and consider that an asset to the Tigers. It's a massive liability.

I agree. I was just showing how someone could see the players as assets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah but the talent of the players is not always directly related to the size of their salary. I just don't see how anyone can look at the money the Tigers owe Prince Fielder (24 million a year for the next 7 years) and consider that an asset to the Tigers. It's a massive liability.

 

 

Yes, it's a liability that is offset (normally) by an insurance policy.

 

I have read, in the past, that the players were a part of the valuation. I don't know where the link is now. I was wrong.

 

Something I will say to this...the value of the O's has leaped. A couple of years ago, it was down at 17. Before that it had even been lower.

Outside of increased merchandise and ticket sales, I'm not sure how the team jumped so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0