Dallas-Mavs.com Forums - View Single Post

MFFL · 04-30-2002, 10:18 PM

<< oh my word, the owner spent plenty to keep the team competitive. >>

Then why did the payroll drop to $47 mil from $65 mil?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINK

March 14, 2002

DENVER (AP) - Despite cutting their payroll during the off-season, the Colorado Rockies have more debt than the baseball's rules permit and could be fined or lose television revenue.

Rockies managing general partner Jerry McMorris said several long-term contracts mean the Rockies are not in compliance with the debt rule, the Rocky Mountain News reported Thursday.

Teams must meet the debt-ratio rule by June 1 or risk being fined, losing their share of national broadcast payments or being placed in trusteeship. Baseball is requiring that a team's debt be 40 per cent or less of its franchise value.

This is the first year the Rockies have a smaller payroll than the year before. Anticipated payroll this year is $47 million, down from $65 million last year.

McMorris would not discuss specifics, but said the Rockies were carrying debt in addition to the long-term contract commitments to players.

According to the debt ratio rule, a team's debts include stadium debts, loans to club owners and the present-day value of long-term player contracts. A team's value, according to a letter commissioner Bud Selig sent owners last week, is double its annual revenues.

Using the figures Selig presented to Congress, the Rockies' revenues in 2001 were $121 million, which would give the franchise a value of $236 million (after deducting $6 million for the team's revenue-sharing contribution).

In addition to an anticipated payroll of $47 million for the 2002 season, the Rockies have $344.1 million committed beyond the current season in long-term contracts to six players.

The Major League Baseball Players Association may challenge Selig's decision to enforce the debt ratio. The union could claim that making teams adhere to the rule will lower the amount of money teams can spend on player salaries.

04-30-2002, 10:18 PM	#12
MFFL Guru Join Date: May 2001 Location: Arlington, TX Posts: 13,149	<< oh my word, the owner spent plenty to keep the team competitive. >> Then why did the payroll drop to $47 mil from $65 mil? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LINK March 14, 2002 DENVER (AP) - Despite cutting their payroll during the off-season, the Colorado Rockies have more debt than the baseball's rules permit and could be fined or lose television revenue. Rockies managing general partner Jerry McMorris said several long-term contracts mean the Rockies are not in compliance with the debt rule, the Rocky Mountain News reported Thursday. Teams must meet the debt-ratio rule by June 1 or risk being fined, losing their share of national broadcast payments or being placed in trusteeship. Baseball is requiring that a team's debt be 40 per cent or less of its franchise value. This is the first year the Rockies have a smaller payroll than the year before. Anticipated payroll this year is $47 million, down from $65 million last year. McMorris would not discuss specifics, but said the Rockies were carrying debt in addition to the long-term contract commitments to players. According to the debt ratio rule, a team's debts include stadium debts, loans to club owners and the present-day value of long-term player contracts. A team's value, according to a letter commissioner Bud Selig sent owners last week, is double its annual revenues. Using the figures Selig presented to Congress, the Rockies' revenues in 2001 were $121 million, which would give the franchise a value of $236 million (after deducting $6 million for the team's revenue-sharing contribution). In addition to an anticipated payroll of $47 million for the 2002 season, the Rockies have $344.1 million committed beyond the current season in long-term contracts to six players. The Major League Baseball Players Association may challenge Selig's decision to enforce the debt ratio. The union could claim that making teams adhere to the rule will lower the amount of money teams can spend on player salaries.