Jeff Gross - Getty Images
almost 2 years ago: ANAHEIM CA - JULY 09: (L-R) Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle speaks as Dennis Kuhl Carole Moreno and Arte Moreno look on during a ceremony signifying the start of the MLB All-Star FanFest at the Anaheim Convention Center on July 9 2010 in Anaheim California. (Photo by Jeff Gross/Getty Images)
So you think Arte Moreno owns the Angels, yeah? Well... yeah you're right, but... how is that ownership structured? Like this:
These documents (and those for many other teams) were leaked to Deadspin and reveal lots of intricacies about the club
Educated Guesses as to the Identities: Moreno family Baseball is probably a limited trust for Arte's kids controlled by Arte. Moreno Baseball is Arte and his wife. Levine Investments is one of Arte's billboard buddies. RN Properties is probably Arte's commercial real estate company but may be his oldest son's establishment of equity in and future control of the team. No idea who the Pope Family is, as good a Catholic as Arte is I doubt he tithed 2% of the club to Benedict XVI. SBJM Investments is probably the Angles CFO Bill Beverage, one of Arte's old billboard buddies.
Analysis: Arte is no dummy. But you knew that.
0 recs | 33 comments
Dodgers ownership breakdown
Frank McCourt: 50% to 100%
Jamie McCourt: 100% – (whatever Frank McCourt owns)
Everyone who actually cares about the Dodgers: 0%
Suboptimal - August 23, 2010
Captain Obvious
Attention all single men: Read quote below as it relates to the McCourts.
Jamie McCourt (or insert ANY woman’s name here): “What’s mine is mine, and what’s his is mine”.
Dono Romantico - August 23, 2010
As long as were not employing a Russian psychic,
I’m cool with the ownership.
halofolife - August 23, 2010
The numbers are intriguing
Based upon the 2003 investment amounts provided by Levine, SBJM and Pope, 100% of the company was worth $172,500.
Of course, we know the total value of the franchise and its holdings were worth more than the average home mortgage in OC, so the valuations are fairly arbitrary. As we recall, GW Bush received 1% of the Rangers for a (borrowed) $500,000 investment, and then that was increased to 10% by the other partners just because they liked him. When he cashed out, though, he received $15M.
Clearly, the percentages can mean anything the partners decide they mean.
George Kaplan - August 23, 2010
all numbers in that report are measured in THOUSANDS
They do not bother printing the extra 3 zeroes everywhere.
So it is $172,500,000.
Reports were that Arte bought the Angels for $185 million so that means there was $13 million cash sitting around when he acquired them.
Rev Halofan - August 23, 2010
Damn
I was gonna ask Yeswecan to open up the Paypal account if all we had to do was scrape together 2 grand for a 1% stake. Oh well, I guess we’ll have to settle for the Denver Broncos.
Match Day 5 - August 23, 2010
Simpsons reference?
Cause if so, +1.
RexTookMyStash - August 23, 2010
Thats what I thought too
It must be.
ryanfea - August 23, 2010
Yes.
I knew someone would pick up on it.
Match Day 5 - August 23, 2010
Of course...um, I knew that
I was just checking to see if you did. Excellent work. You passed my test.
George Kaplan - August 23, 2010
Hahaha, awesome recovery.
Clutch - August 23, 2010
Sell that bond!
At $1,725 per one percent ownership I was all set to sell a $100,000 California tax free bond at a 103 percent premium to purchase 60% of the Angels limited partnership. As they say 50.1% is control. Then I would be blamed for the Angels being one game below .500! Back to the drawing board—-count those zeros! So much for that get rich scheme!
Yetijuice - August 23, 2010
What an awesome find!
I’ve spent years analyzing financials statements, but have never seen one for a baseball team before. Unless you’re a CPA, financial statements can be a giant pantload of misinformation. The one financial statement that usually does the best job of cutting through all the accounting bullshit is the Statement of Cash Flows (page 6). A few quick observations on cash flows:
Biggest surprise — 2008 Net Cash from Operating Activities for the Angels was only $2.9 million – other teams had $20.8 million (Pirates), $32 million (Marlins), $4.5 (Mariners); $46.6 million (Rays) that year. The main culprit here seems to be revenue sharing, e.g., the Buccos received $39 million for being a giant bucket of suck while Arte had to PAY $16.4 million for being successful;
Arte took out $20 million in 2008, but absolutely nothing in 2009 (saving up for Crawford, I hope);
The related party that the team loaned money to is LAA 1, LLC — an Arte controlled company that owns KLAA.
Quad Fin Rider - August 23, 2010
That loan + colon commercials
= ESPN Jr.: KLAA
Rev Halofan - August 23, 2010
I was hoping there would be a HH member with a financial background
who might look these over and give us an interpretation. Any more relevant info you can cull from it would be appreciated :)
agent_99 - August 23, 2010
The Pittsburgh Pirates financial statements are the most damning proof that Revenue Sharing doesn’t work
The whole concept of behind revenue sharing was to prevent a small number of big market teams from dominating their divisions year after year since small market teams supposedly couldn’t compete due to their limited resources. Under the Marxist-Leninist-Seligist theory of MLB wealth redistribution, the money from revenue sharing being passed on to the small market teams was supposed to go into signing free agents, funding minor league teams & scouting. What the 2008 Pirates financial statements prove is what everybody always suspected – the Pirates generated over $20 million in net cash from operations largely due to the $39 million subsidy from Revenue Sharing and rather than use it to improve the team, the owners simply paid themselves $20 million.
Quad Fin Rider - August 23, 2010
With this information now in the public
ramifications should be forthcoming, I imagine. It will be interesting to see what the media does with this, and how things develop.
agent_99 - August 23, 2010
haha
norcaliangelsfan - August 23, 2010
The biggest ramification will be felt at next Collective Bargaining Agreement
when the current one expires next year — the owners can’t exactly plead poverty now that this out. This is also very damaging to Bud Selig, the owners must be screaming bloody murder over this leak. These financials statements were obviously prepared by different CPA firms and only MLB would have had access to all of them.
Quad Fin Rider - August 23, 2010
Mr Moreno.......
es muy bueno.
norcaliangelsfan - August 23, 2010
Another interesting lineup tonight
1. Abreu, B, LF
2. Kendrick, H, 2B
3. Callaspo, A, 3B
4. Hunter, T, RF
5. Matsui, H, DH
6. Rivera, J, 1B
7. Aybar, E, SS
8. Mathis, J, C
9. Bourjos, P, CF
SP- Scott Kazmir
Does everybody get to play at first base?
kbrown2225 - August 23, 2010
has Bobby Wilson gotten to play at all since his 2 HR game?
norcaliangelsfan - August 23, 2010
Yeah
He played in one game in the Boston series.
ryanfea - August 23, 2010
Rivera at first base, come on yo, you gotta be kiddin' me.
44FAN - August 23, 2010
No Naps
what will we ever do without his .189 w/risp or his 106 k’s? I’ll tell u what! We’ll ride Callaspos awesome power numbers and Mathis’ cannon for an arm and his Mendoza defying BA! Get to see this mess live saturday. At least the seats were reasonable.
aces666high - August 23, 2010
He shouldn't be batting third
But Callaspo has hit much better than Aybar or Kendrick. I don’t think he is one worth complaining about.
ryanfea - August 23, 2010
W.T.F. is so interesting about this boring ass lineup?
An over-rated blind slow guy at first is not interesting.
Dono Romantico - August 23, 2010
Who the hell is over rating him anymore?
Most of us jumped off that bandwagon a long time ago.
ryanfea - August 23, 2010
I feel great
after looking over these documents. It is clear that Angel fans are the only ones who can feel content and even proud with the money that is reinvested into their team. Go Arte!
lightupthehalo29 - August 23, 2010
Not that this is really shocking...
but it just affirms that the poor teams are basically there to serve as whipping boys for the rich teams. Everyone makes money, but the fans of those poor teams (the few that are left) are getting perpetually screwed with a lousy product that the owners have zero intention of ever improving. Double-down on that when they ask for new publicly funded stadiums. Now they aren’t just screwing the fans but also the local tax-payers.
The alternative of course, a league without revenue sharing, is that the teams simply rot away and die. The players will never allow the poor teams to just vanish. So we’re stuck with the current model.
The alternative to this is the NFL model, where every team has a chance every year but you rarely have any idea who is going to actually win. It’s certainly more equitable for everyone but good luck getting the rich teams to sign off on that type of arrangement.
Nashdiesel - August 23, 2010
Small Market baseball is dead
Dead and gone. The days of Willie Stargell and George Brett are over. Big city teams will never agree to anything that even appears like an even playing field.
aces666high - August 23, 2010
Revenue Sharing is bad.
Just look at the NFL . . . revenue sharing in that league is so insane that they no longer need big markets (Los Angeles maybe?) and ridiculously small markets can survive when they would normally fail miserably (Jacksonville Jaguars anyone?). The best way to level the playing field would be to have a salary cap ($100 million is a good number). Every MLB team should be able to have a $100 million dollar payroll . . . an excellent example of this, is the Minnesota Twins. Less than a decade ago they were going to be contracted and look at them now . . .
If there has to be limited revenue sharing, fine. Anything closely resembling the NFL’s system would destroy baseball.
AndyHogan14 - August 23, 2010
Just a devil's advocate kind of thought
since that’s how I roll.
Many of us here at HH have commented that 1 trade or 1 FA pickup wouldn’t help us win the division. If Arte were to spend an additional 10M, would that have helped us win? Maybe, maybe not.
Now put yourself in the Pirates’ shoes. Would 10M more spent on FAs have helped them? How many holes do you think they have? Do they have players up for arbitration that are due raises? 10-15M doesn’t fill too many holes these days. Remember, the owners are still entitled to make some money and if they don’t see their team improving drastically with that kind of a cash injection, I would be hard pressed to spend it if I owned the team. As would any other business owner.
Don’t know many business owners that would raise expenses 20-25% (whatever their current payroll is) for a negligible increase in revenue.
I don’t know the financial market for Pittsburgh or many of these other small market teams. I don’t know business finance on this large of a scale. I just have to think that THEY are seeing it as an unwise investment instead of being tight-asses.
I know the Pirates are trying to build more from within (cost containment). Hopefully if their players somehow turn a corner and their record improves, their FO will commit more money (generating more revenue?).
rmhalofan - August 23, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Halos Heaven to post a comment.