Shockingly, the Astros disagree: [rquoter]While not offering a figure to counter the report, Ryan said, “We’re going to have expenses that are higher than our revenues, and that doesn’t make (the team) profitable.”[/rquoter] http://blog.chron.com/ultimateastro...tros-on-track-to-make-99-million-this-season/ Unfortunately, Astros have not asked to be their CFO, so I can't see their statements for myself.
Does anyone know what the terms of Crane's group debt are? The $220 million Bank of America loan was supposedly done at 275 basis points over LIBOR, but I never saw the term stated for that loan. I would guess it would be somewhere in the 10 to 30 year time frame. Then there was the debt from the MLB credit facility that was supposedly $55 million. I can't imagine repayment terms would be onerous since it is given by the league for teams. My point in asking this is that it doesn't seem like much will change after debts are repaid. He is maybe paying $40 million a year at the very most to repay debt. So lets add $40 million to the payroll...where does that get the team? Nowhere.
Two problems with this. 1. Why do you think adding $40MM wouldn't make a difference? That would put them right around Tampa Bay's payroll and they are consistently good. 2. You're assuming that without debt payments, they are capped at their current ridiculous payroll, which is silly. They aren't spending because they can't - they aren't spending because there's no good reason to, so they might as well pay down debt.
Completely off topic but I went to an Astro game for the first time in 3 years Saturday night and got to meet Jim Crane's son. He was super cool and seemed down to earth.
The Astros issued a statement that they are disappointed in Forbes report that says they are on track to make estimated $99 million in operating income. The team says the report includes significant inaccuracies."
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>MLB agrees with Astros that Forbes numbers are off ... of course, no will give the real numbers or say how far off they are.</p>— Reid Laymance (@ReidLaymance) <a href="https://twitter.com/ReidLaymance/statuses/372133173502558208">August 26, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>"It's not even close to being accurate," Jim Crane, who is at the game, says of Forbes article today.</p>— Jose de Jesus Ortiz (@OrtizKicks) <a href="https://twitter.com/OrtizKicks/statuses/372134443852374017">August 26, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>"Let's be clear we're not happy where were at," Crane said. "We want to win. I bought the team and I'm not trying to mislead the fans."</p>— Jose de Jesus Ortiz (@OrtizKicks) <a href="https://twitter.com/OrtizKicks/statuses/372135122432040963">August 26, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>"We don't know where the bottom line is going to end up, so that's why that article was so ridiculous," Crane said.</p>— Jose de Jesus Ortiz (@OrtizKicks) <a href="https://twitter.com/OrtizKicks/statuses/372135245631348736">August 26, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
If they could manage to be the Rays that would be amazing, but they are an outlier. The teams around Tampa's team salary last year weren't exactly amazing. http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/21406489/final-payrolls-for-2012-released-for-all-30-teams Even if they did increase their salary by $40 million it would still put them right near the bottom of the league and about $10 million below Tampa's salary. I'm also using $40 million as a higher end number. I don't understand why they would have to pay down debt so quickly when they are likely getting it on favorable terms. I think this paying down debt line is bs kind of like I think Crane's line about moving the team salary up to the top 5 or top 10 in the league is bs. If this operating income number is anything close to reality then debts should be close to paid off in the next 3 to 4 years. I guess time will tell.
To clarify - Crane hasn't said any of this is about paying off debt or made any comments regarding that. It's just what posters here are saying they would do with the profits.
Astros statement regarding the Forbes article posted today We are very disappointed that, earlier today, Forbes released an article that includes significant inaccuracies relating to the Astros' finances. The Astros do not disclose financial information. However, as MLB will confirm, the information reported in the Forbes article relating to the Astros' revenues, the Astros media rights fee from CSN Houston, and CSN Houston's per subscriber rate are all significantly inaccurate. As a result, the conclusion about the Astros operational profit is significantly inaccurate. The Astros will continue to operate the team in a fiscally responsible manner that will make the City of Houston proud. We are very excited about our accomplishments and we remain steadfast in our commitment to this rebuilding process. We have established a basis of young talent on our MLB roster that will continue to improve. And our minor league system is now one of the best in MLB. As our young prospects develop, we will move them up to the Major League roster and increase our payroll to a level that will allow the Astros to compete for World Championships. The success of CSN Houston is a vital piece of that process and we continue to work toward establishing full distribution.
Crane clarifies financial situation of Astros CHICAGO -- Astros owner Jim Crane met with reporters Monday at U.S. Cellular Field to express inaccuracies with an article that appeared on Forbes.com earlier in the day that suggested the team was on pace to make $99 million in operating income this year. Crane, who was in the Windy City to watch the Astros play the White Sox, said the article was "not even close to being accurate," and said it failed to take into account several factors, including the team's TV deal that has yet to be finalized. The owner said the team, in conjunction with Major League Baseball, doesn't divulge its profit-loss margins, but added the article worked off some assumptions that were inaccurate. "We notified them the story is way off," Crane said. "I don't think they did their homework and made some assumptions that were totally wrong. I was in town and going to the game. I wasn't planning on doing a media press conference, but we felt it was important to let our fans know that's not accurate and we're going to build a good product for Houston." ... "When we took over the team, as you guys know, we were the worst big [league] team and had the worst Minor League system, and we've improved our Minor League system, so hopefully [we're] one or two by the end of this year and that's going to give us a nucleus," Crane said. "They're trying to sensationalize the situation, and it's totally inaccurate and we're sticking with our plan, and our plan is to develop the players. "Once we have a nucleus of players we're starting to see develop, we'll step in with the right resources to make it happen. Our TV deal is still hanging in the wind. We have to get full coverage on that soon. That's really the story." Crane cited the team's unresolved television deal as having a huge impact on the Astros' bottom line. Last year, the Astros and the NBA's Houston Rockets launched a Regional Sports Network with Comcast called CSN Houston that was supposed to begin airing Astros games this season. But negotiations between the network and satellite and cable providers have been slow, leaving more than half of the Houston TV market without access to Astros games on TV. The Forbes article stated the network had trouble signing deals with local satellite and cable providers who don't want to pay a subscriber rate that is $3.03 -- 38 cents above the average for a regional sports network' according to the article. The team released a statement saying the Astros' media rights fee from CSN Houston and CSN Houston's per subscriber rate referenced in the article were significantly inaccurate. "Everyone knows the subscribers aren't what we want from the other networks, and until we get that, that thing is not going to do well," Crane said. "We're focused on getting it completed. We hoped we had it completed by now. "Something will happen before next season for us. Hopefully it will happen for the Rockets here soon. We don't know where our bottom line is going to end up, and that's what makes that article very ridiculous. If you just looked at the numbers they referenced on TV, they're just totally inaccurate, totally inaccurate. Not even close." Crane said he bought the team to try to bring Houston a championship and isn't happy with the how the team has performed, despite being in a rebuilding mode. He wanted to remind fans how much the Minor League system has been improved and that brighter days are ahead. "We're not happy where we're at. We want to win," he said. I bought the team not to try to mislead the fans. The fans are extremely important and we want to make sure we have a good product on the field. We felt very strongly the only way to do that is get one of the best Minor League systems built. Once we have that built, we'll complement that very quickly. "Nobody likes losing these games the way we've been losing them late, but that's quickly remedied as we moved into next year. ... While I'm on point, you'll never see this Minor League system slip to the worst. It will never happen." Crane hinted the team could begin to increase spending in free agency next year. "We want to get there as fast as we can, but we can't money whip it," he said. "We have to stay focused on the plan. It's a little frustrating, but it goes with the territory. We're here for the long run. We're not going anywhere."
oh I'm fully aware I talked to Crane last year and it was obvious. Then Luhnow told me that the main reason why the Astros changed colors is because Crane found out Drayton had previously changed the colors to be the same as those of his company.
Hmm. Crane awfully defensive in the CSN interview. Pointing out the millions they've spent in the draft and how that money isn't counted on the "payroll." Not sure I've ever seen an owner point out his draft spending before. Seems he is very much aware and concerned where each and every dollar goes.
He knows he's getting trashed in the media, hence the defensiveness. Crane's problem is that he comes across as a smug, uber-wealthy money grubber to the casual observer. If he were smart he'd throw a couple bones to the fans. Maybe some cool concerts or something to generate some excitement. Or even better, a free beer game (or maybe a penny beer game if it's illegal to give out free alcohol...)
Seem pretty open and bluntly honest to me - you seem to be just looking for things to dislike. With Springer, you don't like that they weren't open about it. Here, they are open about what they are doing, their failures (CSN), spending plans, etc, and you consider it defensive.
Don't really care that he's overall defensive. Also don't care about the smugness. It's his need to try to explain each and every one of his and the teams actions with a response that actually doesn't help his case. It's great that he signs the draft picks...when the minor league system was in disarray, and you have the most slot money 2 years in a row, I hope you do the simplest aspect of the rebuild and you pay the appropriate amount for draftees. He doesn't need to explain that to the public as an example of why the article was incorrect. I don't think draft money should be counted as part of the overall payroll either.
Was looking more at the live interview he just did. Pointing out "millions" spent in the draft as not being included in the analysis. I don't want to have a problem with the team or organization. I've never been super critical, even when they were wasting millions on useless players and not signing draft picks. I'm just annoyed by this comment (and the Springer situation... And the LF billboard travesty). If anything, I've been a huge apologist for all their moves, from the payroll slashing, the Correa over Buxton pick, to the CSN move (hell, I still support the CSN decision and I hope they don't cave).
