6th Most Valuable

by jjackflash on Apr 16, 2008 4:22 PM PDT

Forbes magazine has just issued its list of MLB team valuations. Arte's team came in 6th, at a cool $500 million. Not bad; I believe he paid under $200 million when he purchased the team in 2003. The top-5 were the usual suspects: Bronx Skankees, Queens Mets, Chowds, Wrigleys and the Brooklyns. Note that all of the teams ahead of the Angels own their stadiums (actually not sure about the Mets), and so there's a good bit of land value in each of those.

This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Read More: Forbes MLB Valuations(Source Name)

Comments

$183 million midway thru 2003

Not only does the team have no land value added to the net worth, the raise of $317 million in value is the biggest increase of any team since the day Arte bought the team as well as the biggest percent increase.

Take away the value that is added by the land surrounding Dodger Stadium (stolen via eminent domain from poor Mexican Americans, by the way) and the Angels are worth MORE than their former landlords.

by Rev Halofan on Apr 16, 2008 4:59 PM PDT reply actions

I guess we could have afforded A Rod?

Sea-at-ha-ha-ha that's funny.

by hauldog on Apr 16, 2008 11:56 PM PDT reply actions

sticking it to the fans

According to the LA Times, it might appear that the Dodgers’ increased revenue might be due to higher ticket prices, whereas the Angels’ has been a result of putting a winning team on the field. The Dodgers’ average cost for a family of four (according to Forbes) is currently $229 compared to the Angels’ $140.

And, to make things nice and clear, there’s this helpful message from McCourt to Dodgers fans: “If fans keep coming as ticket prices keep going up, it isn’t exactly a deterrent to keep raising them.”

More proof that Arte is the best owner in pro sports.

by yeswecan on Apr 17, 2008 1:09 AM PDT reply actions

I like cots

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/los-angeles-angels-of-anaheim.html

A little old but they are consistant.

by vladtheimpaler on Apr 17, 2008 3:36 AM PDT reply actions

For what?

Sea-at-ha-ha-ha that's funny.

by hauldog on Apr 17, 2008 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions

sleeping

john RIP samo

by angels4adam on Apr 17, 2008 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions

Nice

Sea-at-ha-ha-ha that's funny.

by hauldog on Apr 18, 2008 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions

And he's kept payroll stable for five years

Adjusted for inflation, at 2007 dollars, his 2004-2008 payroll looks like this:

2004: $100.5 = $113.1
2005: $97.7 = $106.4
2006: $107.4 = $113.2
2007: $109.3 = $109.3
2008: $119.2 = $115.2

Keeping expenses predictable is a good way to run a business, especially when the real bottom line (winning) has been much respected. Seattle’s gone from $81.5 mil to $117.8 over that same time (in raw dollars), and they ain’t won squat. Choakland went from $59 to $79 and back down to $48, and won the division once while sucking eggs in their $79 mil year and punting this year.

It’s good to be an Angels fan.

by mattwelch on Apr 17, 2008 7:04 AM PDT reply actions