Truth & Rumors > MLB

Francona's book takes shots at Sox owners

Views
4477
Comments
302

08:02 AM ET 01.16 | The marketing machine that is the Red Sox may have compromised the on-field product. [Owners] John Henry and Tom Werner wanted "sexy" players to boost television ratings, according to former manager Terry Francona, and their meddling led to ruinous roster decisions. Those are among the assertions in a new book by Francona. ... According to the book, Henry and Werner commissioned a $100,000 study by outside consultants after the Red Sox finished in third place in 2010. Their mission was to determine how to make the team more appealing to the public. "They told us we didn't have any marketable players," former general manager Theo Epstein is quoted as saying in the book. "We need some sexy guys. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. We'd become too big."

The Boston Globe

Terry Francona, Icon Sports Terry Francona, Icon Sports
January 16, 2013  09:06 AM ET

Sex--it'll ruin a team every time!

Comment #2 has been removed
January 16, 2013  09:13 AM ET

And the hits keep on coming!

January 16, 2013  09:14 AM ET
QUOTE(#2):

They should have signed Kate Upton.Ashley Greene could have also pitched for them, she did OK in Twilight despite a rather odd motion.

Where is the ticket line again?

January 16, 2013  09:20 AM ET

The Sox and Cubs are in the same boat, winning or losing the fans still come out.

January 16, 2013  09:37 AM ET

this is what happens when your owners view the team as a toy or plaything a hobby so to speak.....

Comment #7 has been removed
January 16, 2013  10:01 AM ET

Owners use teams for capital write offs and increased Assets, they treat the teams as a kid treats there toys, the buy big cars, boats, homes and players, while the value of their franchise increases!
So the bottom line is, even when they lose in the sport, the franchise gains in value! Does that answer question Terry? Now go order some Chichen & Beer for The Club House we'll write it off!!!

January 16, 2013  10:28 AM ET
QUOTE(#8):

Owners use teams for capital write offs and increased Assets, they treat the teams as a kid treats there toys, the buy big cars, boats, homes and players, while the value of their franchise increases!So the bottom line is, even when they lose in the sport, the franchise gains in value! Does that answer question Terry? Now go order some Chichen & Beer for The Club House we'll write it off!!!

The big one is that each player is depreciated each year, like any piece of business equipment, so that he is a bigger write off at the end of a contract than the total value of the original contract. An accountants playground.

January 16, 2013  10:43 AM ET
QUOTE(#6):

this is what happens when your owners view the team as a toy or plaything a hobby so to speak.....

"I know now that you're not a plaything
Not a toy or a puppet on a string..."

January 16, 2013  10:43 AM ET
QUOTE(#6):

this is what happens when your owners view the team as a toy or plaything a hobby so to speak.....

"I know now that you're not a plaything
Not a toy or a puppet on a string... "

January 16, 2013  10:44 AM ET

The spinnies got me today!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

January 16, 2013  10:45 AM ET
QUOTE(#7):

They could have them play 2B and SS and bend over really low before each pitch with really loose fitting jerseys on...I think the Bosox pitchers would get the K looking every time.

And these tight shorts that show off everything....

January 16, 2013  10:54 AM ET
QUOTE(#8):

So the bottom line is, even when they lose in the sport, the franchise gains in value!

That's true for a lot of teams, but there are always exceptions. The Cavs, for example, dropped 26% in franchise value after LeBron left. The Mets dropped 13% 2 years ago after the Wilpon's connections to Madoff were made public.

January 16, 2013  10:58 AM ET
QUOTE(#6):

this is what happens when your owners view the team as a toy or plaything a hobby so to speak.....

No, they view it as a revenue stream. A cow to be milked.

January 16, 2013  11:02 AM ET
QUOTE(#9):

The big one is that each player is depreciated each year, like any piece of business equipment, so that he is a bigger write off at the end of a contract than the total value of the original contract. An accountants playground.

A player is not a depreciable asset because they're not a piece of property that you own. They are employees that work for you under a legal contract. Their salaries are what you take as deduction on your return, but you can't also claim depreciation on them like you can on a rental property that you own.

January 16, 2013  11:22 AM ET
QUOTE(#14):

That's true for a lot of teams, but there are always exceptions. The Cavs, for example, dropped 26% in franchise value after LeBron left. The Mets dropped 13% 2 years ago after the Wilpon's connections to Madoff were made public.

It also depends on how your businesses are structured.
For instance the Yankees could always overspend for palyers because it did not matter whether they really made or lost money on the team when the success of the Yankees was a driving factor for building the Yes network and othe Yankee businesses.
Although, even Hal Steinbrenner is looking now at maximising profits from the overall Yankee team and Steinbrenner businesses.
In short, Yankee Global Enterprises LLC is really what the Steinbrenner family is most concerned with making money. If one part of the corpration loses money but contributes to other businesses within that corporation making money (Yankee team vis a vis YES Network and vis a vis Legends Hospitality) then the overall profit margin is very acceptable.
Simply put, The Yankee team as a business drives other businesses profits within the Global Enterprises structure.
The Red Sox do the same, only their Corpration is named New England Sports Ventures, LLC.
And while I don't not know about other teams overall busines structures, I would wager a guess that teams like the Cubs, Dodgers, etc... follow the same process.

January 16, 2013  11:33 AM ET
QUOTE(#17):

It also depends on how your businesses are structured. For instance the Yankees could always overspend for palyers because it did not matter whether they really made or lost money on the team when the success of the Yankees was a driving factor for building the Yes network and othe Yankee businesses. Although, even Hal Steinbrenner is looking now at maximising profits from the overall Yankee team and Steinbrenner businesses. In short, Yankee Global Enterprises LLC is really what the Steinbrenner family is most concerned with making money. If one part of the corpration loses money but contributes to other businesses within that corporation making money (Yankee team vis a vis YES Network and vis a vis Legends Hospitality) then the overall profit margin is very acceptable. Simply put, The Yankee team as a business drives other businesses profits within the Global Enterprises structure. The Red Sox do the same, only their Corpration is named New England Sports Ventures, LLC. And while I don't not know about other teams overall busines structures, I would wager a guess that teams like the Cubs, Dodgers, etc... follow the same process.

The business of baseball ...

January 16, 2013  11:33 AM ET

19

 
January 16, 2013  11:33 AM ET

20

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Woodson's next job
    Views
    5393
    Comments
    1102
  2. 2
    'Melo wants to be wooed (like, Howard wooed)
    Views
    1265
    Comments
    864
  3. 3
    Lee on the Yankees' radar (Burnett, too)
    Views
    12290
    Comments
    533
  4. 4
    Farrell defends Fenway's 'sleep room'
    Views
    1298
    Comments
    478
  5. 5
    Rangers pegged as unsportsmanlike divers
    Views
    3269
    Comments
    277

SI.com

SI Photos