Cashman says ...

Dave is a killer
08-23-2006, 09:56 AM
*clears throat* ...
YANKEES ARE LOSING MONEY (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aZ5BrdI04Pq0)

Enoch
08-23-2006, 11:40 AM
I'm willing to bet that if they are losing money its mainly due to the large luxury tax placed on them.

Rumblick
08-23-2006, 12:52 PM
The team is losing money. The YES Network, their radio deals and all their other related enterprises are raking it in hand over fist, but yeah, the TEAM is losing money.

NYYmt62
08-24-2006, 01:09 AM
The team is losing money. The YES Network, their radio deals and all their other related enterprises are raking it in hand over fist, but yeah, the TEAM is losing money.

I agree with you on that. I see no way the Yanks are losing money when you consider the local TV deals, the YES network and the Yankees Radio Network. Also, I wonder if merchandising is included in that equation. The Yanks are a cash-machine, I seriously doubt they are losing any money. George is a great guy, but I don't think he would be willing to take a near $100mil loss a season. Interesting article, but I think they are wrong.

BuppY
08-24-2006, 09:22 AM
The team is losing money. The YES Network, their radio deals and all their other related enterprises are raking it in hand over fist, but yeah, the TEAM is losing money.

agreed.

KH1
08-24-2006, 10:40 AM
Don't cry for George Steinbrenner, he's gonna be fine no matter how much how much he loses with the our $200 million dollar payroll. He still has Yankees merchandise, the YES Network (one of the great business ventures of our time btw) and his shipping business.

Ironchef Chris Wok*
08-24-2006, 04:10 PM
The merchandising revenue is shared among the 30 teams.

Bob Clarke Fan Club
08-24-2006, 10:42 PM
The merchandising revenue is shared among the 30 teams.


Evenly shared??:eek:

TheDanceOfMaternity
08-24-2006, 11:04 PM
There is no limit to how much this team can spend. Steinbrenner is only curtious not to try and pay 2nd tier superstars to sit on the bench.

David Puddy
08-27-2006, 04:42 AM
I just came across this article about the YES Network, "Steinbrenner May Get New Partners in YES: TV Property Could Be Worth More Than Yankees (http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6363941.html)." Goldman Sachs and Providence Equity Partners owned 40% of network. The article states, "The other 60% is split between the Yankees, run by team owner Steinbrenner, and a group led by Ray Chambers, a former owner of the New Jersey Nets." Therefore, the Yankees only own about 30% of the YES Network.

(A hockey aside: Ray Chambers' name appears on the Stanley Cup as an owner, along with William Katz, of the New Jersey Devils for the 2002-03 Championship.)

I found this passage from an article about the Yankees losing money last season:
The Yankees and the YES Network might appear to be one and the same, but the ownership of each is constructed differently and they are required by baseball to operate as two separate entities. MLB doesn't want clubs with their own networks to hide team revenues in network accounting books as a way to avoid revenue sharing.
source: Daily News, "Yanks losing at Money Ball (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/story/371463p-316044c.html)" by Michael O'Keefe and T.J. Quinn

NYYmt62
08-27-2006, 01:27 PM
I just came across this article about the YES Network, "Steinbrenner May Get New Partners in YES: TV Property Could Be Worth More Than Yankees (http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6363941.html)." Goldman Sachs and Providence Equity Partners owned 40% of network. The article states, "The other 60% is split between the Yankees, run by team owner Steinbrenner, and a group led by Ray Chambers, a former owner of the New Jersey Nets." Therefore, the Yankees only own about 30% of the YES Network.

(A hockey aside: Ray Chambers' name appears on the Stanley Cup as an owner, along with William Katz, of the New Jersey Devils for the 2002-03 Championship.)

I found this passage from an article about the Yankees losing money last season:
The Yankees and the YES Network might appear to be one and the same, but the ownership of each is constructed differently and they are required by baseball to operate as two separate entities. MLB doesn't want clubs with their own networks to hide team revenues in network accounting books as a way to avoid revenue sharing.
source: Daily News, "Yanks losing at Money Ball (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/story/371463p-316044c.html)" by Michael O'Keefe and T.J. Quinn


Always thought that the Yanks entirely owned the YES Network. Very interesting that George only owns about thirty percent of it. That means all the revenue from YES doesn't go to the Yanks- which means they are not making nearly as much as we thought. I am sure it is still a kings ransom- but not nearly as much. I wonder if the Mets entirely own their network- I am going to try and figure that out.

David Puddy
08-28-2006, 10:56 AM
Always thought that the Yanks entirely owned the YES Network. Very interesting that George only owns about thirty percent of it. That means all the revenue from YES doesn't go to the Yanks- which means they are not making nearly as much as we thought. I am sure it is still a kings ransom- but not nearly as much. I wonder if the Mets entirely own their network- I am going to try and figure that out.The Yankees were only being paid $60 million for the cable rights to Yankees according to the Daily News article I linked (I don't know how MLB decided on the matter.) I don't know if that has changed, but there was some sort of arbitration to determine if the price was too low. By charging YES less, the Yankees could avoid paying additional money to MLB's revunue sharing program.

I am sure that the Mets' new SNY must maintain indepence in a similar fashion.