Leaked Loan Application Sheds Some Light On Brewers' Pre-Miller Park Financial Woes
Tuesday morning I received an email from an anonymous source with a relatively interesting attachment: A loan application the Brewers submitted in 2001 as they prepared for their first season in Miller Park. The document is 18 pages long and contains some details I hadn't seen before about the Brewers' financial situation at the time, their expectations for Miller Park and some of the deals agreed to as the new stadium was being constructed.
Before I go into any of the details, let me make it perfectly clear that I am neither a financial expert nor an accountant. There are a handful of cases where the data I found interesting is based on my interpretation of numbers, and it's possible that my understanding of how they work is inaccurate.
With that said, here are some of the points I took away from the document:
The team's pre-Miller Park financial woes were every bit as bad as publicly stated. Financial data accompanying the application dates back to 1997 and shows the Brewers operating at a loss each season from 1997-99, bottoming out at a net income of -$22.345 million in 1999. The team barely finished in the black in 2000 (earning $2.136 million), but only because of a $20.5 million insurance payout following the Miller Park crane accident.
In addition, the team had to borrow nearly all of its $120 million contribution to Miller Park. At the time of this application, the team had maxed out its $75 million credit line with Major League Baseball.
The organization overestimated the impact of Miller Park. The application says the Brewers expected to draw 3 million fans to Miller Park in its inaugural season in 2001, then expected 3 million again in 2002 and 2.9 million in 2003. They based those estimates on attendance increases in Baltimore, Cleveland, Chicago, Texas, Seattle, San Francisco and Detroit when their new ballparks opened.
Reality came nowhere close to those marks, as the team drew just 2.8, 2.0 and 1.7 million fans over the new park's first three seasons, falling short of expectations by around 2.4 million or about 27%. This probably explains some of the drastic cost-cutting that followed those seasons.
The team entered into some long term agreements when Miller Park opened. You probably know that the Brewers signed a 20-year, $40 million agreement with Miller to be the ballpark's title sponsor. But you might not know (I didn't know, at least) that the team also signed a 20-year agreement with Sportservice to provide concessions at the park. The team makes $2.3 million per season off that deal, plus a percentage of gross sales. That percentage's estimated value was $11 million in 2001.
So, all told, the team is taking in somewhere in the neighborhood of $15-20 million annually from Miller and Sportservice for the park's naming rights and concessions, and those numbers should remain somewhat similar through the 2020 season, when both deals expire.
I offered the Brewers an opportunity to comment on these documents, but they declined.
Thanks to our anonymous source for making these documents available to us. If you have access to any (Brewer relevant) documents you're able to share without creating the risk that we'll both end up in prison, my contact link is at the bottom of this page.
52 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Aren't they volunteers?
I was disappointed with the lack of hookers but the pancakes were delightful
I may also may thinking of the Bucks's concesssions
I was disappointed with the lack of hookers but the pancakes were delightful
BUCKS has a concession stand?
That must be how he gets the money to RIDE BIKES!
by Cheeseandcorn on Dec 2, 2010 10:41 PM CST up reply actions
I think a lot, but not all, are volunteers
raising money for whatever organization.
My goodness.
by BrewHaHeather on Dec 2, 2010 1:25 PM CST up reply actions
my friend worked for sportservice
while i was an usher
we were both paid, but barely….i think he had to buy his drinks and then resell them in the stands
in other words, if he spilled any b/c a drunk stumbled into him, it came out of his own pocket. Also, seniority demanded he got the nosebleed seats where no one bought jack shit from the vendors.
you're thinking of Badger football
all volunteers there. Although, I don’t think they have any walking vendors? just stationed at booths?
A good deal of the vending booths are volunteers.
Sororities and private schools will sponser those booths (kiosks, stands?) and they require their members to volunteer so many times throughout the season.
http://www.mlbsoup.com
There's that really hot blonde beverage vendor who works the left field side of the lower level.
Pujols is the Barack Obama of baseball.
In the 1970s, MLB provided financial information showing the league as a whole made under $1000 in profit per team
As part of their argument they were being bankrupted by increased salary demands. Then, shockingly, teams were able to find money to fuel the salary increases of free agency. Rinse and repeat.
So the Brewers said they were very in debt? Call me skeptical.
I never use a big word when a diminutive word would suffice.
I'm more inclined to trust these numbers.
If nothing else, falsifying information like that on a loan application carries a pretty hefty penalty.
Now that's great tasting chicken!
what's driving the cost?
i do buy that the brewers weren’t in great financial shape in the old stadium, but since you have the data, we could probably try to see what was driving that. was it just a revenue problem or was it a cost issue. the new stadium, etc… assumes incremental revenue to get over the cost base viewed as needed, but are they spending appropriately to begin with?
what was the operating margin and what portion of the spending is on player payroll versus other line items? in particular, i’d be interested in the depreciation and amortization they’re booking (although i can’t imagine these noncash items would be too significant before the park). but they may have some losses on player contracts and overspends on nonproductive projects that should have been curtailed. the uses of the money is probably more revealing than the bottom line: you could make the figures look pretty bad by just paying FO personnel way too much (or even being overstaffed).
NI could be constrained by other issues, such as interest payments, etc…
not sure if you want to go into that much detail, though.
Not only that, but the overinflated belief about MP
Doesnt surprise me. Not that its not done by anyone and everyone applying for a loan.
But this is how the Selig’s operated the team. Do whatever you can to get what you want, and in the end cash in and move to Arizona. And if all else fails, blackmail the politicians of your fan base into building you something that without, makes you gone on the next train out of town.
Am I glad there is baseball here? Sure. Is Miller Park a decent place to see a game? Yes. It just still really riles me up to know that the Selig’s ran into the ground while pocketing a lot of the money, threatened to move the team, threatened the policy makers into building them a stadium, at tax payer cost for the large majority, all for the sake of putting the team up for sale and making an ungodly profit. All for being one of the worst ownership groups in pro sport.
Bank fraud's a serious offense, no doubt, and the feds don't take it lightly
but accounting is such a fuzzy science that I think you’d have a hell of time proving those numbers are actually “false.”
I’m not smart enough to look at the other stuff and do anything but drool and mumble.
This absolutely
"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."
~Doug Melvin
by Charlie Marlow on Dec 2, 2010 9:13 PM CST up reply actions
Do teams really make much money year to year?
I always thought that the idea was that you don’t own a sports franchise with the goal of making money while you own the team, you make your money when you sell, because the value is continually rising. I’m probably WAY off, though.
http://www.mlbsoup.com
BrewCrewBall: The Milwaukee Brewers version of wikileaks.
by Noah Jarosh on Dec 2, 2010 12:13 PM CST reply actions 4 recs
I hear Quito has nice glacierview property
In case Kyle needs to move.
I never use a big word when a diminutive word would suffice.
Ecuador has glaciers?
I learn something new every day.
Now that's great tasting chicken!
by Kyle Lobner on Dec 2, 2010 12:27 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
wikileaks
sounds a bit like rickie weeks…
by big_tuna on Dec 2, 2010 2:18 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
I'm a little slow on the wikileaks jokes I guess.
As an accounting major, I’m curious, any chance I could get a glimpse of this loan application.
by KittenMittons on Dec 2, 2010 12:14 PM CST up reply actions
Also an accounting major
About to graduate with my BBA, would be interested in taking a look too.
I love how the
© original artist more-than-watermark is directly overlaying the actual artist’s signature
Doesn’t that kinda defeat the point?
Post updated, for one minor correction
I actually received the file on Tuesday morning – I had hoped to run this post yesterday, but needed an extra day to make sure all my bases were covered.
Now that's great tasting chicken!
Congrats Kyle
Way to be a Journalist and what not.
"That's not a weird stat. Rickie is a run-scorer," Yost said. "It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter," Yost told reporters. "See, you guys have no concept. He's a run-scorer. So there's nothing weird about it. That's what he does."
by Hyatt on Dec 2, 2010 12:30 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Loans
I have heard that a lot of that $120m that was lent to the team came from banking interests in Charlotte, NC.
I am not sure if that makes sense, but one of my big baseball contacts has a friend who was a lawyer for the Stadium commission at the time, and also was privvy to some of the people involved. The thought is that these banking interests were more than happy to lend money to Selig with the prospect of the team not being able to build the new stadium, and eventually move the team.
that makes antisense
why would they enable the team to build a stadium if they didn’t want them to build a stadium?
I cant remember the logic involved
But if I remember correctly, it was money being loaned to the team (maybe not to build the stadium) but to take care of finances, in hopes that they would stay viable, and thus be willing to move.
if they're not viable
that makes them cheaper to buy…or subject to contraction. Which then maybe MLB would offer a fresh expansion to their city.
In either case, I don’t think offering a significant chunk of money to build a stadium in Milwaukee makes any sense. Perhaps a gesture of “I’ll loan you 1M for you to build the stadium in Milwaukee, but 200M if you build in Charlotte” would make sense.
If you help the brewers stay in milwaukee, you’ve helped keep the brewers in Milwaukee. So, I guess they don’t grow brains in those human skulls in Charlotte
Like I say
Its 3rd hand info, that I am not recalling the exact context, but then again, this is the internet. This will probably all wind up on ESPN now.
It would have been legit if Charlotte bankers were lending money to operate, with expectation that it would help them move to that city. By this time Selig was commish, and his holdings were “in trust”, so maybe it was a good faith sor to fhing, where they loaned some money, and in return they would have been given the team when the timing was right. I wouldnt have put it past the Seligs to borrow money from investors to keep the team running in Milwaukee, all while going to the state to get money as well, all in hopes of getting the new stadium and keeping them in town.
Taking money from both sides to further one party (their own) goal.
This is from the document I linked
I’m assuming it was an agreement they entered into when they were trying to get funding for the stadium.
Furthermore, in 1996 the Brewers, the District, and the State were parties to a non-relocation agreement that restricts transfer of the franchise to another location without the State’s or the District’s consent.
Get a ife broseph
Also
I get a kick out of how detailed it gets:
Finally, we reviewed payments to Selig Leasing Company, Inc. Mr. Selig is a part owner of this company. Selig Leasing has been providing approximately 40 vehicles to the Brewers each year, primarily for use by club executives and scouting staff. As shown in Table 15, payments to Selig Leasing have ranged from a low of $358,000 in 1996 to a high of $521,000 in 2003. According to Brewers officials, the 13.0 percent increase from 2002 to 2003 was primarily the result of the transition to a new management team, when new vehicles were leased for the incoming executives at the same time the club remained responsible for the leases of outgoing executives’ vehicles
.
Get a ife broseph
Its all an overload of information
And I was never quite certain about what I had heard had meant. I do know that unless a penalty is attached, and even if there is one, a sports team can move wherever it wants to as long as everyone is compensated (much like any legal problem in the country).
I think one thing that might turn Brewer fans off to Selig would be full disclosure of personal finances involving the sale of the team and the financing of the stadium. And the team has never provided this nor will it while they dont have to. The longer fans and tax payers are in the dark about it, the longer they can get away with the claims they make about “losing money” and being “cash strapped”.
a sports team can move wherever it wants to as long as everyone is compensated
‘Compensated’ might not be the right word, but, sure, if you want to break the contract — whether it’s a “non-relocation agreement” or the lease with your stadium — you just have to pay for the breach.
I’m not smart enough to look at the other stuff and do anything but drool and mumble.
means little
just means charlotte would have to had paid off the brewers, the district, and the state.
Tim Bring back the chalet,frank charles at the wurlitzer organ, bob betts at the mic, and the barrell man logo!!!!
Is this the document?
Not sure if its similar, but is an audit from 2004 which has figures for the first couple years of Miller Park, as well as the late 1990s. Its available online, so I’m assuming its public knowledge.
Fascinating read about how the Brewers, and other MLB clubs operate, including revenue sharing details.
Get a ife broseph
Nope, that's not it.
The one KL is talking about is from 2001, before they played a game in Miller Park.
I’m not smart enough to look at the other stuff and do anything but drool and mumble.
This thing is so ridiculous
I like table 1 “Brewers Winning Percentages”.
"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."
~Doug Melvin
by Charlie Marlow on Dec 2, 2010 9:24 PM CST up reply actions
What, no dirt on anyone in the front office liking voluptuous Ukranian blondes?
Seriously, though, this is great stuff. Kind of scary to think about just how much trouble the club was in before the park was built.
Interesting.
"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."
~Doug Melvin
How else would they get a new stadium built? They over step the impact of the stadium. Every new stadium and sports league does that. Its just a little tougher in the smallest market in MLB.
Tim Bring back the chalet,frank charles at the wurlitzer organ, bob betts at the mic, and the barrell man logo!!!!





































