$77 million and so little to show for it. You’d think those slum dwelling teams would put that money to good use.

Welfare queens.

The Yanks are following the same financial formula of any successful, privately held corporation. Steinbrenner is paying himself a nice, healthy salary pre-tax, which increases the team’s expenses, thus decreasing their profit, which means no taxes to pay on that non-existant profit. At the same time, the value of the team has been increasing at a rate of 15% over the past 30+ years. So while the “Yankees” may be showing a loss, Steinbrenner and company are doing just fine.

My only complaint about last night’s game was actually using Villone. I’d rather he got some rest too.

As for losing money, I’m guessing that it doesn’t include YES money. Businesses like to do that, especially around tax time. And once they start spending money on the new stadium, the revenue sharing money goes away. Or is that only the luxury tax money?

I’m guessing that it doesn’t include the YES profits… though you never know.

“Step one to financial recovery was taken last weekend: the catering bill was cut in half after Ponson was released.”

Is it too early to nominate a “Comment of the Year”?

^
exactly. the next CBA has to include a minimum salary cap.

Step one to financial recovery was taken last weekend: the catering bill was cut in half after Ponson was released.

I don’t know, this kind of reeks of “cooking the books.” As far as I know a baseball owner hasn’t made a profit in 100 years, yet every time a team goes up for sale, people line up to buy them and the value always goes up, up, up. But I don’t blame them, that revenue sharing is bullshit–it’s one thing if it went into the team and not the owner’s pockets.

I remember reading the Forbes article and the $277 revenue number included an estimate of what YES would have to pay for the cable rights if they were seperate companies.