Payroll budget is 50% of revenue

[floplag]

Per Fletcher's twitter there was a comment made by Arte that the payroll budget was 50% of revenue. 
Not hard to do that math there are figure out that at minimum he admitted to the club pulling in somewhere between 300-350M.  No indication what all that includes or doesnt or how the TV deal factors into that number.

No commentary or opinion i just thought id post it as its the first time ive seen hard numbers on the matter.

 

[WeatherWonk]

1 hour ago, floplag said:

Per Fletcher's twitter there was a comment made by Arte that the payroll budget was 50% of revenue. 
Not hard to do that math there are figure out that at minimum he admitted to the club pulling in somewhere between 300-350M.  No indication what all that includes or doesnt or how the TV deal factors into that number.

No commentary or opinion i just thought id post it as its the first time ive seen hard numbers on the matter.

 

Yeah, this is where there is no clear cut answer as to whether the media money is kept separate from the Angel's operating budget or not. It would be very easy to separate it out into its own LLC/entity and never include that as revenue on the Angels side of the ledger. MLB might allow this.

However, I doubt that the Angels could generate 300-500 million a year, solely on ticket sales, concessions, merchandise, etc. 

The math is certainly beyond me............which isn't saying much.

 

 

[AngelsLakersFan]

Moreno is the highest paid player on the team.

[Taylor]

Something something Arturo something something Anaheim something something yacht fuel.

[Second Base]

Guys like Arte Moreno do not become rich by chance. They invest into commodities that pay out. Arte invested into the team to make more money. Does he want to win? Sure. But money for him is the primary focus. You can't hate him for taking a cut that every single owner in baseball is taking right now. 

Grand scheme, should he forget about profits and just go for the win because he's already rich? Yes. Absolutely. It's not even close to a debate, that's what he should do. But again, that's not how he became wealthy in the first place.

[Angel Oracle]

The test will come in July/August, if they are contending.   Does he okay spending on a July/August acquisition that isn't a rental?

He did do so in August 2017 (Upton). 

[Docwaukee]

my guess is that a portion of the tv deal stuff counts toward revenue.  

back of the napkin math is that mlb made 10 billion and 30% of that goes to revenue sharing.  So 3 bil into a pot split equally is about 100,000 mil out to each team.  

the angels have about 330 in revenue so their share into the pool is about 100m.  who knows if that's even remotely close to right.  

[tomsred]

1 hour ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Moreno is the highest paid player on the team.

No, the IRS is the highest paid player on the team.

[Stradling]

1 hour ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Moreno is the highest paid player on the team.

As he should be.  The owner should always be the highest paid employee

[Stradling]

1 hour ago, WeatherWonk said:

Yeah, this is where there is no clear cut answer as to whether the media money is kept separate from the Angel's operating budget or not. It would be very easy to separate it out into its own LLC/entity and never include that as revenue on the Angels side of the ledger. MLB might allow this.

However, I doubt that the Angels could generate 300-500 million a year, solely on ticket sales, concessions, merchandise, etc. 

The math is certainly beyond me............which isn't saying much.

 

 

I can’t imagine they bring in $350 million a year without the TV contract.  Also keep in mind that of the $150 million of the TV contract about 1/3 of it goes to revenue sharing.  Then factor in the average ticket is about $30 at Angel stadium, times $3 million it gets you about $90 million.  So it has to include the TV contract.  In 2017 the team brought in $334 million.  

[AngelsLakersFan]

37 minutes ago, Stradling said:

As he should be.  The owner should always be the highest paid employee

Im not sure that is an absolute. 

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Im not sure that is an absolute. 

If you show me a case where the owner shouldn’t be the highest paid employee then I’ll agree it shouldn’t be an absolute.  

[AngelsLakersFan]

45 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

my guess is that a portion of the tv deal stuff counts toward revenue.  

back of the napkin math is that mlb made 10 billion and 30% of that goes to revenue sharing.  So 3 bil into a pot split equally is about 100,000 mil out to each team.  

the angels have about 330 in revenue so their share into the pool is about 100m.  who knows if that's even remotely close to right.  

I don't think that is how it works. There is MLB generated revenue and then there is revenue sharing. The Angels pay in to revenue sharing far more than they get out. This may or may not offset their share of the league generated cash but I would wager that it doesn't.

[AngelsLakersFan]

Just now, Stradling said:

If you show me a case where the owner shouldn’t be the highest paid employee then I’ll agree it shouldn’t be an absolute.  

Say I buy one of your restaurants off of you, then tell you to keep running it while I travel the world. Do you think I should draw a higher salary than you? Do you think it is even possible without bankrupting the restaurant?

[Stradling]

Just now, AngelsLakersFan said:

Say I buy one of your restaurants off of you, then tell you to keep running it while I travel the world. Do you think I should draw a higher salary than you? Do you think it is even possible without bankrupting the restaurant?

Yes and yes.  

[greginpsca]

Advertising, concessions, parking, sales from team store, are all revenues. Then you have additional expenses. Like minor league payroll, Spring training expenses, travel & hotel expenses,scouting department payroll, all the gameday personnel expenses {ticket takers, ticket sales,ushers, maintenance, parking attendants, etc.   I am sure i left out quite a few.

[Docwaukee]

5 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I don't think that is how it works. There is MLB generated revenue and then there is revenue sharing. The Angels pay in to revenue sharing far more than they get out. This may or may not offset their share of the league generated cash but I would wager that it doesn't.

https://library.fangraphs.com/business/revenue-sharing/

[Stradling]

4 minutes ago, greginpsca said:

Advertising, concessions, parking, sales from team store, are all revenues. Then you have additional expenses. Like minor league payroll, Spring training expenses, travel & hotel expenses,scouting department payroll, all the gameday personnel expenses {ticket takers, ticket sales,ushers, maintenance, parking attendants, etc.   I am sure i left out quite a few.

Sales from team store all are part of revenue sales.  

[gotbeer]

In 2008 and 2009, revenue was around $240 million.  Surely it's gone up quite a bit in 10 years.  And stop calling me Shirley.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/68522636/content?start_page=1&view_mode=list&access_key=key-22q9h12ipr6k79j2ain1&secret_password=2fz6h9oi8exmmc3oo654

 

[AngelsLakersFan]

2 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Yes and yes.  

Not fair Strad, your In-N-Out's are outliers! 

The point I wanted to make was simply that there are times when the cost of the talent required to run a business exceeds the value of securing the money to finance it. Movies definitely work this way, where the most expensive line item is your star who is going to make or break your film. Film financiers lose money 4 out of 5 times, maybe one out of ten they make a ton more than the star did.

[gotbeer]

Another source, that does yearly estimates.  Note that in 2008/09, they underreported their estimated revenue to true revenue by about 10%.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/196663/revenue-of-the-los-angeles-angels-of-anaheim-since-2006/

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Not fair Strad, your In-N-Out's are outliers! 

The point I wanted to make was simply that there are times when the cost of the talent required to run a business exceeds the value of securing the money to finance it. Movies definitely work this way, where the most expensive line item is your star who is going to make or break your film. Film financiers lose money 4 out of 5 times, maybe one out of ten they make a ton more than the star did.

If they lose money that often then they absolutely deserve to be the highest paid employees, as they are risking the most.  

[AngelsLakersFan]

13 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

https://library.fangraphs.com/business/revenue-sharing/

Pretty much what I was getting at, I just got stuck on your numbers. The result has to be that the Angels are paying far more into revenue sharing than they get out, but your league revenue number implies that they roughly cancel out.

[Jeff Fletcher]

Arte also said most small market teams spend about 50 percent of their revenue and the large market teams spend more like 40 percent. 

[Docwaukee]

Just now, AngelsLakersFan said:

Pretty much what I was getting at, I just got stuck on your numbers. The result has to be that the Angels are paying far more into revenue sharing than they get out, but your league revenue number implies that they roughly cancel out.

I bet they do.  there's a much larger discrepancy between the Angels at #8 and the yanks at #1 than the Rays at #30.  The top 5 teams are paying the lions share of what goes out to others.