Rogers' Blue Jays Went Cheap

[Rapcity_11]

OK:
1, yes there is a board. Yes they oversee, somewhat- to say they rubber stamp 99% of the decisions is ridiculous, it is much closer to 99.99999%. But, in broad generalities- the board is a happy place for retired politicians and judges to go to. It is not, strictly speaking "management." Management is allowed to manage, and they do. But every conceivable decision made every waking moment is not about the immediate return on investment to immediately increase shareholder value and to drive price up. Yes, management's pay and bonus structure absolutely is based on shareholder value and absolutely this promotes short-term ism. IF this were so, we would expect R&D funding to be decimated by short term thinking. And, in fact, it is. Why spend on R&D for profits tomorrow if we can declare those profits today and beat the street?? However, it is very common for Fortune 500 companies to have break even divisions or even designed to lose money .Advertising costs money and is one of the top expenses for the food and drinks business, if not the top one- but there is a very , very strong co-relation between advertising and sales of beverages, (And a very weak one with gasoline) Rogers could make even more money, get more good will, drive up revenue streams at Sportsnet, and the Fan 590 and thought the radio network - it is like an advertising expense- In fact - Blue Jay losses are EXACTLY like an advertising expense !! And the resulting increased revenues can be captured everywhere thought the Rogers company. Bit Blu Jays poster in every store! Big Blue Jays poster in every distributor's store!! Big Blue Jays revenues on TV Networks and radio network!

This point before the conclusion is actually supporting my stance. The board will support management decisions if they make sense. That's not the same as doing whatever they want, or not caring about the shareholders. Which is the option you said was possible earlier. And it remains hilarious.

2, HOW IS THIS FOR AN EXPLANATION that I would love to be wrong on- Imagine if the head of the Blu Jays got paid a bonus on profit on the Blue Jays regardless of how other divisions within Rogers did. Imagine a Blue Jays silo and revenue comes in from the gate alone. This guy would never, ever be remotely interested in a loss because it is costing him millions in bonuses. I am willing to bet that is EXACTLY what is going on here. Even if it makes sense for the Jay's to break even or even loose money, the guy in charge - who is not a billionaire- will be out hundreds of thousands a year in performance bonuses as Jays did not run a profit- that person's pay needs to be tied to broadcast operations!! And revenues for Blue Jays broadcasting and not the gate at the door!!

See post by skin blues. He nailed it.

3- Yes I do think Rogers has considered the cost benefit analysis of the Jays loosing money and I am willing to bet they got a VP there whose income is dependent on a profit! No logic of any kind or description will ever convince this guy that a loss is a good idea- ever! And it is not so odd that Rogers would want to make a profit from each division. (Please see 2)

See post by skin blues. He nailed it.

4- Rogers is being cheap by not resigning Price - a possible Cy young winner. and signaling they may not be all that interested in winning.

Others have already addressed how absurd this is.

And what about the fact that they are 11th in payroll, spending only 13% less than the Cubs/Giants? Oh yeah, that's before considering the exchange rate. How is that cheap?

I have seen no explanation by Skin Blues other than an ad hominum attack, do you not agree?

He is yet to confirm that he knows that the Blue Jays are not a must-make- a -profit- silo for the Rogers overseer to obtain a bonus. And his is yet to confirm his knowledge of the Rogers structure. Do you know that the Rogers overseer for the Blue Jays does not have their bonus determined by the performance of the Blue Jays? If not, how is that overseer's bonus determined?

It's actually on you to prove that is the case. Because otherwise, one can only assume that Rogers is not run by a bunch of morons.

Also, quit dancing around the following:

1. Do you acknowledge that Rogers can't do whatever they want with the Jays? And they do have to care about shareholders?
2. How is the current spending cheap. See my question above.

[Skin Blues]

Imagine a Blue Jays silo and revenue comes in from the gate alone. This guy would never, ever be remotely interested in a loss because it is costing him millions in bonuses. I am willing to bet that is EXACTLY what is going on here.

You are quite possibly, literally, insane. Delusional at the very least.

How long have you been an VP at Rogers given that you know the management structure and know that the Blue Jays are not in a silo?

You're the one who is making claims about Rogers' baseball decisions, not me. The fact that you can make such absurd claims, such as that a team would hire a President that had zero incentive to do anything but increase gate receipts, is fairly credible evidence that you're delusional.

[AreBe]

1, No I do not acknowledge that Rogers cannot do what they want with the Jays. They own them. The Blue Jays are an asset owned by Rogers They absolutely can make a loss on them, and if the shareholders sued, they would loose. What they cannot do - really the only thing they cannot do - is have the directors or management knowingly trash the brand and then sell it to themselves at the expense of the shareholders - that they cannot do- but they can do what they want, in all other respects, with the owned asset as they see fit. Shareholders are not beneficiaries of a trust. This is not some small company with shareholders that might be oppressed by a majority. Rogers overpaid for hockey. Are executive going to jail? No. And they should not. So, the short answer: As owners, Rogers can and does call the shots with the Jays and Rogers can determine if they make a loss or a profit and nobody can do anything about it. They can very legitimately be run for a loss. To be clear: Can Rogers spend as much money as it sees fit, even say, to the point that it ruins the Rogers corporation, on the Blue Jays? Yes, Can Rogers issue bonds and blow the load and bankrupt the company on the Blue Jays if they saw fit to do so, without regard for the Shareholders? Yes, absolutely they can. There is no law against being a lousy business person. There is no law against management managing its asset even to the detriment of shareholders. What they cannot do is issue a dividend for some members of a class and not all of them. But companies are not trusts . What they cannot do is have employees enrich themselves by buying Rogers assets at a discount .What law would Rogers be breaking if the Jays were knowingly run for a loss? What if the plan was to recover that loss in greater revenues and good will elsewhere? What if the plan did not work and the higher revenues did not materialize- would a law be broken? No!

[AreBe]

You are quite possibly, literally, insane. Delusional at the very least.

How long have you been an VP at Rogers given that you know the management structure and know that the Blue Jays are not in a silo?

You're the one who is making claims about Rogers' baseball decisions, not me. The fact that you can make such absurd claims, such as that a team would hire a President that had zero incentive to do anything but increase gate receipts, is fairly credible evidence that you're delusional.

Why are you such a Rogers apologist? How many shares do you own?

[Rapcity_11]

1, No I do not acknowledge that Rogers cannot do what they want with the Jays. They own them. The Blue Jays are an asset owned by Rogers They absolutely can make a loss on them, and if the shareholders sued, they would loose. What they cannot do - really the only thing they cannot do - is have the directors or management knowingly trash the brand and then sell it to themselves at the expense of the shareholders - that they cannot do- but they can do what they want, in all other respects, with the owned asset as they see fit. Shareholders are not beneficiaries of a trust. This is not some small company with shareholders that might be oppressed by a majority. Rogers overpaid for hockey. Are executive going to jail? No. And they should not. So, the short answer: As owners, Rogers can and does call the shots with the Jays and Rogers can determine if they make a loss or a profit and nobody can do anything about it. They can very legitimately be run for a loss. To be clear: Can Rogers spend as much money as it sees fit, even say, to the point that it ruins the Rogers corporation, on the Blue Jays? Yes, Can Rogers issue bonds and blow the load and bankrupt the company on the Blue Jays if they saw fit to do so, without regard for the Shareholders? Yes, absolutely they can. There is no law against being a lousy business person. There is no law against management managing its asset even to the detriment of shareholders. What they cannot do is issue a dividend for some members of a class and not all of them. But companies are not trusts . What they cannot do is have employees enrich themselves by buying Rogers assets at a discount .What law would Rogers be breaking if the Jays were knowingly run for a loss? What if the plan was to recover that loss in greater revenues and good will elsewhere? What if the plan did not work and the higher revenues did not materialize- would a law be broken? No!

You're operating so far from reality and shifting the goalposts so much I don't have the patience to respond anymore. Keep living in dreamland where publically traded companies aren't accountable to their shareholders.

[AreBe]

You must hate the Blue Jays- that is clear.

You must somehow be financially tied or somehow your pay is somehow detrimentally impacted if the Jays do not make a profit.

You are disillusional. You think that somehow as sports fans or fans of the Blue Jays, we need to give a rats a*s about the actual profitability of the Blue Jays independent of the television networks or the Rogers empire.

Why should any Blue Jays fan loose sleep if the Jays lost $10 million a year?


You are such an apologist for Rogers you do not even see how although spending money may not win the world series, the fact is that Boston and the Yankees have been almost consistently in the playoffs the past 20 years.

For some reason, you have some grave concern about what kind of shareholder value the Jays provide to Rogers.

Stop skirting the issues:
1, why are you an an apologist for Rogers?
2, Why do you give a damn or oppose the Blue Jays loosing $10 million a year?
3,What's your interest in the team's finances?
4, Why do you oppose Rogers spending more in Blue Jays payroll- even if it renders the Blue Jays less profitable or not profitable at all? (Let's say Canada has more or less same population as New York City area including New Jersey and Connecticut, "Tri-state area" then the Blue Jays can be the Yankees and Rogers Sportsnet be like the YES Network- what's wrong with that?)
5, What law would Rogers, a publicly traded company, be breaking if it ran the Jays for a loss?

[Schad]

No one is cheering for Rogers' balance sheet. Rather, they simply recognize that Rogers cares deeply about Rogers' balance sheet, and will not make decisions that adversely affect their company, because companies don't do that. Thus, any suggestion that Rogers should behave in any way but in Rogers' best interest is an utter fantasy.

We might as well be arguing that the Jays should try to trade Justin Smoak for Mike Trout in the offseason, and if Shapiro/Atkins fail to convince the Angels they aren't working hard enough and should be fired.

[jaymeister15]

We might as well be arguing that the Jays should try to trade Justin Smoak for Mike Trout in the offseason, and if Shapiro/Atkins fail to convince the Angels they aren't working hard enough and should be fired.

Come on man, what law would the Angels be breaking if they made that trade?

[AreBe]

No one is cheering for Rogers' balance sheet. Rather, they simply recognize that Rogers cares deeply about Rogers' balance sheet, and will not make decisions that adversely affect their company, because companies don't do that. Thus, any suggestion that Rogers should behave in any way but in Rogers' best interest is an utter fantasy.

We might as well be arguing that the Jays should try to trade Justin Smoak for Mike Trout in the offseason, and if Shapiro/Atkins fail to convince the Angels they aren't working hard enough and should be fired.

Ah! That Rogers cares for the bottom line is no doubt true! And many of the people there have their pay or bonus determined by beating the street and beating the year before! They are very cognizant of the need to maximize revenues today!

My issue and question is and continues to be this: Does the person who oversees the Blue Jays on behalf of Rogers have their bonus determeind on the financial performance of the Blue Jays, independent of how others divisions may perform as a result of the Blue Jays?

The reason why this is important is because:
1, if the Blue Jays are in their own silo independent of other divisions, then increased profits at Sportsnet or on the radio end like the Fan 590 and the Rogers network do not go to the Jays and do not go to that person's pay packet;
2, If the Blue Jays are in a silo, then the person in charge of the silo cannot tolerate a loss, as it is mandatory that such a result has negative impact on their profit- based bonus.

The ideal situation - for fans- is for Sportsnet and the Fan 590 and the sports properties set the payroll for the Blue Jays. regardless of profit or loss and I can see how a million dollar loss would be gleefully absorbed

[Rapcity_11]

You must hate the Blue Jays- that is clear.

You must somehow be financially tied or somehow your pay is somehow detrimentally impacted if the Jays do not make a profit.

You are disillusional. You think that somehow as sports fans or fans of the Blue Jays, we need to give a rats a*s about the actual profitability of the Blue Jays independent of the television networks or the Rogers empire.

Why should any Blue Jays fan loose sleep if the Jays lost $10 million a year?


You are such an apologist for Rogers you do not even see how although spending money may not win the world series, the fact is that Boston and the Yankees have been almost consistently in the playoffs the past 20 years.

For some reason, you have some grave concern about what kind of shareholder value the Jays provide to Rogers.

Stop skirting the issues:
1, why are you an an apologist for Rogers?
2, Why do you give a damn or oppose the Blue Jays loosing $10 million a year?
3,What's your interest in the team's finances?
4, Why do you oppose Rogers spending more in Blue Jays payroll- even if it renders the Blue Jays less profitable or not profitable at all? (Let's say Canada has more or less same population as New York City area including New Jersey and Connecticut, "Tri-state area" then the Blue Jays can be the Yankees and Rogers Sportsnet be like the YES Network- what's wrong with that?)
5, What law would Rogers, a publicly traded company, be breaking if it ran the Jays for a loss?

1. I'm not. I'm just operating in reality.
2. I would prefer the Jays spend a ton and lose money, but like I said, I operate in reality.
3. It's an interesting topic. I don't work for, or invest in Rogers.
4. I don't. I'd love the Jays to spend more on payroll. Also, the Yankees aren't owned by a publically traded company.
5. If they did so intentionally, without a business case, or regard for the interests of shareholders, they would be breaking the law. Absolutely.

PS, what's disillusional?

[Schad]

Your questions continue to be utterly irrelevant. The Jays are under the umbrella of Rogers; our benevolent corporate overlords set the budgets, not a person in charge of a silo or a granary or even an aqueduct. And as a horizontally and vertically integrated business whose only raison d'etre is making money up and down the chain, they do not fence off large tracts of their empire and provide them free rein and a mandate to not make money.

This returns us to the fundamental reality of our existence as a franchise: they ain't gonna spend enormous sums of money unless they are damned certain that they will make more money as a result. That is the beginning, middle and end of the story. It is the postscript and the glowing blurb on the back. It is the three-star Amazon review by a guy named Chet who only skimmed the first chapter. It is the very essence of our being.

[Rapcity_11]

Your questions continue to be utterly irrelevant. The Jays are under the umbrella of Rogers; our benevolent corporate overlords set the budgets, not a person in charge of a silo or a granary or even an aqueduct. And as a horizontally and vertically integrated business whose only raison d'etre is making money up and down the chain, they do not fence off large tracts of their empire and provide them free rein and a mandate to not make money.

They also don't fence off large tracts of their empire without considering the impact that the operations of said tract will have on the entire business.

[AreBe]

Your questions continue to be utterly irrelevant. The Jays are under the umbrella of Rogers; our benevolent corporate overlords set the budgets, not a person in charge of a silo or a granary or even an aqueduct. And as a horizontally and vertically integrated business whose only raison d'etre is making money up and down the chain, they do not fence off large tracts of their empire and provide them free rein and a mandate to not make money.

They also don't fence off large tracts of their empire without considering the impact that the operations of said tract will have on the entire business.

But they could say, "Every division needs to make a profit, and division managers, your bonus is based on how well your division does - that is to say, how much profit you bring in. No profit, no bonus. " And if that is the case, the Blue Jays cannot be run for a loss or for a tiny or marginal profit.

Running the Jays for a loss - a marginal loss - could pay huge dividends on the broadcast side, plus good will etc.

[Rapcity_11]

Your questions continue to be utterly irrelevant. The Jays are under the umbrella of Rogers; our benevolent corporate overlords set the budgets, not a person in charge of a silo or a granary or even an aqueduct. And as a horizontally and vertically integrated business whose only raison d'etre is making money up and down the chain, they do not fence off large tracts of their empire and provide them free rein and a mandate to not make money.

They also don't fence off large tracts of their empire without considering the impact that the operations of said tract will have on the entire business.

But they could say, "Every division needs to make a profit, and division managers, your bonus is based on how well your division does - that is to say, how much profit you bring in. No profit, no bonus. " And if that is the case, the Blue Jays cannot be run for a loss or for a tiny or marginal profit.

Running the Jays for a loss - a marginal loss - could pay huge dividends on the broadcast side, plus good will etc.

They could. But I have no idea why anyone would think that's the way they operate.

[Sifu]

This is the thread that common sense hasn't killed yet