Liberty Media reveals Braves’ financial results; revenue up 70% in quarter

I think the relevant question is did they meet their target. Revenue can show a nice bounce, but still fall short of plan.
 
nsacpi said:
I think the relevant question is did they meet their target. Revenue can show a nice bounce, but still fall short of plan.
Click to expand...

Hitting your budgets in the first year of a new operation is an almost impossible exercise. Even still, the point is valid.
 
thethe said:
Hitting your budgets in the first year of a new operation is an almost impossible exercise. Even still, the point is valid.
Click to expand...

Depends. I think when you do a big new venture like a stadium you try to be conservative in your projections.
 
$33M of stock based compensation in the third quarter, up from $2M, as a continued vesting of outstanding awards.

Who? Who is getting all that stock based vesting comp? Is it Braves execs? Liberty execs who have nothing to do with the team? if Braves execs, is it McGuirk? JS?, Hart?, Coppy? Bobby? Freddi? Snitker? Glavine? Murph? Neikro? Bobby Bonilla?

I mean, my God, that's a lot of bonus Comp paid out in one quarter....
 
Horsehide Harry said:
$33M of stock based compensation in the third quarter, up from $2M, as a continued vesting of outstanding awards.

Who? Who is getting all that stock based vesting comp? Is it Braves execs? Liberty execs who have nothing to do with the team? if Braves execs, is it McGuirk? JS?, Hart?, Coppy? Bobby? Freddi? Snitker? Glavine? Murph? Neikro? Bobby Bonilla?

I mean, my God, that's a lot of bonus Comp paid out in one quarter....
Click to expand...

Considering the timing of when the Braves became a public company was around the same time we hired a lot of front office personnel, I presume the Braves gave out a lot of SBC to attract new hires and to retain others. It's very common in public companies.

I would interpret it the same as an operating expense in this context, but likely one that is abnormally high and not likely to persist in future years. This may also explain why the team went cheap towards the end of the year to account for these unexpected expenses.

Bottom line - revenues are way up and operating profits are way up, which bodes well for the future.
 
Southcack77 said:
Interesting -- profits roughly tripled before the big stock compensation figure and book depreciation.
Click to expand...

Depreciation is going to be sky high for the foreseeable future with that nice fancy stadium on the books.

It's a bookkeeping expense, not a cash flow. Most teams I presume will have losses after factoring in depreciation expenses. IIRC, player salaries can be depreciated too.
 
These profit jumps are also when the team was awful in the late summer and with an incomplete battery. The new park is going to be a cash cow. Hopefully that money is invested into the organization.
 
chop2chip said:
Depreciation is going to be sky high for the foreseeable future with that nice fancy stadium on the books.

It's a bookkeeping expense, not a cash flow. Most teams I presume will have losses after factoring in depreciation expenses. IIRC, player salaries can be depreciated too.
Click to expand...

Not 100% sure but player salaries shold be an SG&A expense.
 
chop2chip said:
Depreciation is going to be sky high for the foreseeable future with that nice fancy stadium on the books.

It's a bookkeeping expense, not a cash flow. Most teams I presume will have losses after factoring in depreciation expenses. IIRC, player salaries can be depreciated too.
Click to expand...

Yes to the first. That's why I think profits before depreciation are the most relevant figure. I'm not sure how to evaluate the stock compensation as I don't know how likely they are to see that big expense occur annually. Was this a one time benefit for the launch of the tracking stock? Was it likely a one time windfall based on circumstances? I don't know.

Not sure about most teams, but almost all teams with relatively new stadiums probably do have book losses.

Don't know about player salaries being depreciated.
 
Southcack77 said:
Yes to the first. That's why I think profits before depreciation are the most relevant figure. I'm not sure how to evaluate the stock compensation as I don't know how likely they are to see that big expense occur annually. Was this a one time benefit for the launch of the tracking stock? Was it likely a one time windfall based on circumstances? I don't know.

Not sure about most teams, but almost all teams with relatively new stadiums probably do have book losses.

Don't know about player salaries being depreciated.
Click to expand...

Stock comp will always be a high number in the year a company has an IPO. There will be stock comp rewards in subsequent years as they are standard in attracting high end talent into corporate America however these costs are typically nominal in comparison to an IPO year.
 
Some quick reading on my lunch break and it looks like what an owner is able to do after the acquisition of an organization is amortize the value of the existing contacts under the books and also recognizing a salary expense when those salaries are paid. Not sure if any of this is going to make sense but when a business is acquired the acquisition price is allocated to identifiable net assets of a company. Therefore, the value of a professional organization can be allocated to many areas such as the stadium/brand name/players salaries/etc...

Therefore, you are getting the benefit of this asset allocation which is amortized over the useful life while also paying those salaries and recognizing a current year expense. So the 'double dip' only really happens when an organization is acquired and further only applicable to the existing contracts on the books.
 
thethe said:
Not 100% sure but player salaries shold be an SG&A expense.
Click to expand...

The RDA permitted a team to deduct a player’s contract not only as a depreciating asset (amortization), but also as a current business expense – a form of double deduction accounting. I.e. – players’ compensation is carried in the expense column and also subtracted from net operating income on an amortized basis.
 
chop2chip said:
The RDA permitted a team to deduct a player’s contract not only as a depreciating asset (amortization), but also as a current business expense – a form of double deduction accounting. I.e. – players’ compensation is carried in the expense column and also subtracted from net operating income on an amortized basis.
Click to expand...

But is that with newly acquired contracts or only after an acquisition.

Can you source this? I'm curious now.
 
thethe said:
Some quick reading on my lunch break and it looks like what an owner is able to do after the acquisition of an organization is amortize the value of the existing contacts under the books and also recognizing a salary expense when those salaries are paid. Not sure if any of this is going to make sense but when a business is acquired the acquisition price is allocated to identifiable net assets of a company. Therefore, the value of a professional organization can be allocated to many areas such as the stadium/brand name/players salaries/etc...

Therefore, you are getting the benefit of this asset allocation which is amortized over the useful life while also paying those salaries and recognizing a current year expense. So the 'double dip' only really happens when an organization is acquired and further only applicable to the existing contracts on the books.
Click to expand...

What's the useful life of Matt Kemp?
 
Enscheff said:
Great. Then why isn't payroll going up like everyone around here says it is?
Click to expand...

If the Braves want to see the kids in the rotation as well as Camargo at third base then where is the money going to spent? Just because you have money doesn't mean you should always spend it. If they saved money for future seasons to pay for extensions for Albies/Acuna/Pitchers I'd be fine with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top