Tom Hicks: some comments from across the pond.

[meredithmathieson]

Googled Mr Hicks and came across this blog. Some of the comments do not make for great reading, but as to the veracity of the content I have no idea:

 

Tom Hicks: It doesn?t necessarily have to do with winning

?All of these teams have become businesses in the past 20 years,? Hicks said. ? ? This business has to do with fan affinity and brand devotion. It doesn?t necessarily have to do with winning.?

 

This is from Tom Hicks owner of the Dallas Stars and Texas Rangers. The Dallas Business Journal reported this last Friday. Why haven?t I heard about this until now? Why hasn?t this been all over local media? I haven?t heard it. Tim MacMahon just posted this at 12:43pm today over at stars.beloblog.com

 

This only confirms everything we have suspected for some time now. Bob and Dan have been all over Hicks for years now (Search Bob?s Blog for Tom Hicks payroll). Bob, just let me know what segment you will dissect this on Friday!

 

Please, will someone buy these teams from Tom Hicks!!!

 

Also:

 

Tom Hicks flew in here from Liverpool, England, on Monday, presumably with the $10 million he saved by not re-signing Gary Matthews Jr. this past off-season jingling around in his pocket with a few extra British pounds in his loose change.

 

What the Angels got for their $10 million was Matthews' usual spectacular defense in center field and a three-game sweep of the Rangers to open the season.

I'll let you figure out who got the best end of the deal.

 

Wouldn't you know it, on the day that USA Today came out with its annual report on major league payrolls, damning information that should leave Hicks red-faced with embarrassment, Matthews was showing us exactly what an extra $10 million here or there can buy.

 

Considering that he regularly did the same thing for the Rangers last season, it shouldn't have come as any surprise when Matthews leaped high at the fence to rob Michael Young of a home run in the first inning of Wednesday afternoon's 5-3 Angels victory.

 

In the dugout, manager Ron Washington and his Rangers could only slap their foreheads and say, "Oh, no, not again!" Over these opening three games, every time it seemed that the Rangers might spark something offensively, Matthews was there to make another circus catch and help put out the fire.

 

"It's like he's in our heads," Washington said, shaking his own George Jefferson-'do from side to side. "He knows exactly where he needs to be. We hit one, and he's standing there.

 

"He is what he is. He took a home run away from Michael. He seems to make every play out there."

 

Suddenly, the $50 million the Angels will pay Matthews over the next five years doesn't seem quite so extravagant, especially in light of the payroll listings that show the Rangers ($68.3 million) a distant fourth in their own division and more than $11 million behind the notoriously low-paying Oakland A's ($79.4 million), who just let Barry Zito walk.

 

The Angels and Mariners, also AL West rivals, check in at $109.3 million and $106.5 million and are two of seven teams in the majors with payrolls exceeding $100 million.

 

The Rangers' payroll, on the other hand, is ahead of only three other American League teams: perennial bottom-feeders Tampa Bay ($24.1 million) and Kansas City ($67.1 million) and young but talented Cleveland ($61.7 million).

 

That's downright shameful, but Hicks' pat answer is simply to lay it off on Rangers fans. Buy more tickets, pay more excessive parking fees, drink more expensive beer, eat more $5 hot dogs, and he might consider raising the payroll.

 

Asked how he might have spent an extra $10 million this season, general manager Jon Daniels, not wanting any part of the discussion, just shook his head, so let me answer for him.

 

He could have had Matthews in center, making those spectacular catches for the Rangers again. He could have signed left-hander Ted Lilly ($6 million a year with the Cubs), or kept Adam Eaton ($7.2 million with the Phillies) or Kip Wells ($4 million with the Cardinals), perhaps even two of the three.

 

He could have even used it as a kickoff point for negotiations with Mark Teixeira.

Ten million dollars, obviously, can make a huge difference. It's helped Hicks buy a soccer team in England, for instance, and fly back and forth across the Atlantic to watch it play.

 

What's improving his chances of winning a baseball championship compared with that?

 

 

 

According to the USA Today, here are the payroll amounts in 2007 ?

 

 

 

1. New York Yankees $ 189,639,045

Boston Red Sox $ 143,026,214

New York Mets $ 115,231,663

Los Angeles Angels $ 109,251,333

Chicago White Sox $ 108,671,833

6. Los Angeles Dodgers $ 108,454,524

Seattle Mariners $ 106,460,833

Chicago Cubs $ 99,670,332

Detroit Tigers $ 95,180,369

Baltimore Orioles$ 93,554,808

11. St. Louis Cardinals $ 90,286,823

San Francisco Giants$ 90,219,056

Philadelphia Phillies $ 89,428,213

Houston Astros $ 87,759,000

Atlanta Braves $ 87,290,833

16. Toronto Blue Jays $ 81,942,800

Oakland Athletics $ 79,366,940

Minnesota Twins $ 71,439,500

Milwaukee Brewers $ 70,986,500

Cincinnati Reds $ 68,904,980

21. Texas Rangers $ 68,318,675

Kansas City Royals $ 67,116,500

Cleveland Indians $ 61,673,267

San Diego Padres $ 58,110,567

Colorado Rockies $ 54,424,000

26. Arizona Diamondbacks $ 52,067,546

Pittsburgh Pirates $ 38,537,833

Washington Nationals $ 37,347,500

Florida Marlins $ 30,507,000

Tampa Bay Devil Rays $ 24,123,500

 

 

 

As you can see, that puts the Angels at #4, the Mariners at #7, the A?s at #17, and the Rangers at #21 in baseball payrolls. Even if we allow the Rangers to add in the A-Rod money, it puts them no higher than #18. As it stands, they somehow actually spend less money on players than the MILWAUKEE BREWERS, MINNESOTA TWINS, and OAKLAND A?s????

 

Here are the payroll totals for the Rangers since the 1999 Division winner ?The middle column is median player salary:

 

 

 

 

2007 $ 550,000 $68,318,675

 

2006 $ 750,000 $ 68,228,662

 

2005 $ 650,000 $ 55,849,000

 

2004 $ 550,000 $ 55,050,417

 

2003 $ 1,150,000 $ 103,491,667

 

2002 $ 2,000,000 $ 105,726,122

 

2001 $ 800,000 $ 88,633,500

 

2000 $ 1,100,000 $ 70,785,000

 

1999 $ 2,225,000 $ 81,301,598

 

As indicated above, the Rangers have not moved their payroll at all from 2006. Kinda sad. I?m just saying?

 

[source: The Texas Blog].

[Benitez]

bit odd that his major concern seems to be that the Rangers don't have a huge pay-roll - like that's a bad thing?

St Louis Cards, Arizona and Florida have all won the World Series in recent years, without being one of the huge spenders.

 

Hicks has thrown money at that franchise, it's not like them or the Dallas Stars have been paupers.

[surf]

we're doomed

[Sion]

He should sell his American teams and focus solely on us.

[Couldbe]

Jesus wept !

 

This negativity is really getting out of control.....

[oakie bob]

10 words or less please

[IgPig]

I didn't understand a lot of that, it appears to be in American.

[Extraordinary Swindle]

10 words or less please

Hicksville are upset that the Rangers haven't a huge payroll.

[oakie bob]

Hicksville are upset that the Rangers haven't a huge payroll.

 

well stuff Rangers i Support Celtic too

[Spike]

Anyone could have read similar about us under Moores

[Leroy]

F**k me where a IT now

 

 

He could have even used it as a kickoff point for negotiations with Mark Teixeira.

Ten million dollars, obviously, can make a huge difference. It's helped Hicks buy a soccer team in England, for instance, and fly back and forth across the Atlantic to watch it play.

[Guest ziggystardust]

i was playing on pokerstars today and some yank from texas was harping on about how much of an idiot hicks was. He said gillett is quite switched on though.

[Cobs]

i was playing on pokerstars today and some yank from texas was harping on about how much of an idiot hicks was. He said gillett is quite switched on though.

[meredithmathieson]

? ? This business has to do with fan affinity and brand devotion. It doesn?t necessarily have to do with winning.?

 

Might be taken out of context, might be totally inaccurate for all I know, but it does open up the possibility of our owners having a business model that doesn't necessarily require us to win trophies, with the huge funding implications that would go with it.

 

Why spend £35 mill on an Eto'o, when a striker for £15 mill will get us into the CL etc.

 

Not being negative, just posting something I saw that would appear to be of relevance to us.

[fyds]

On the other hand it could be 'fans will support a team whether it wins or loses - that's what fans do'

 

Don't know about you but I supported us when we weren't winning things too.

 

Also US sport isn't really a like for like comparison either in its 'affinities' or the way it's run.

[americanscouser]

cant compare US sports and liverpool. the closest comparison would be american football for passionate support but even then its not really the same. the teams aren't old enough and most common people are being priced out of tickets to normal sporting events here anymore.

 

and the years the rangers had high payrolls it wasn't like they were especially successful. baseball is based on pitching. most teams in the league, when they want to rebuild, slash payroll, stockpile young players and then when they are good together again they then splash some money and increase payroll.

 

but you'll find that most fans here want to win and that they equate winning with a high payroll despite the statistics that prove the opposite in a number of cases

[San Diego Red]

Sack G&H. Bring in Lakshmi Mittal. Rather, force them to sell.

Edited June 14, 2007 by KPatel

[Guest mark5times]

how gullible are liverpool fans.. when the mancs were getting their arses sold they atleast tried to do something about it.. with us it was kick it and squeeze everything outa it.. embarassing how our fans were slagging gillett when dic were set to buy and now are eating out of their arses

[anny road]

how gullible are liverpool fans.. when the mancs were getting their arses sold they atleast tried to do something about it.. with us it was kick it and squeeze everything outa it.. embarassing how our fans were slagging gillett when dic were set to buy and now are eating out of their arses

 

 

quality understanding of the situation

 

well done

[Case]

SigN GAry mAtthEws jR.!!

[Ramón Benítez Hernández]

We should have Googled them before we let them buy us out.

 

Was that not Parry's responsibility?

[magneto]

Sack Parry

 

Sign Google!

[meredithmathieson]

Fair point FYDS, I hadn't actually read it that way but I see what you mean. Although he does say 'business' and not 'club' or 'team'.

 

And, by the way, I am time served. In fact, I am of that age that only recently has come to terms with the fact that the Mancs are not just mere imposters for our crown!

[DJM]

quality understanding of the situation

 

well done

 

[Mondavi]

bit odd that his major concern seems to be that the Rangers don't have a huge pay-roll - like that's a bad thing?

St Louis Cards, Arizona and Florida have all won the World Series in recent years, without being one of the huge spenders.

 

Hicks has thrown money at that franchise, it's not like them or the Dallas Stars have been paupers.

 

 

To be fair, both Arizona and Florida spent HUGE to build their championship winning sides, well above a sustainable level. As a result, the sides quickly broke up afterwards, and they are now much lower in the "wages league", attempting to build sides in a more organic fashion.

 

With those 2, it was about building a franchise and a fan base, as both pretty new sides to the league. The championship wins did that to some extent, but both suffered for a few years afterwards. The diamondbacks are only now becoming competitive again, with a well put together young side, with a couple of veterans thrown in, completely different scenario to 99-02 when they spent big to win the big prize in 01.

 

To be fair to Hicks, he tried spending big with A-Rod, and it didn't quite work out. Maybe now he is trying the route of building a young team, adding to it gradually ? Not sure though as don't follow the rangers.