If the bit about the Yankees is any guide, the article about making money in NYC is... credulous at best.
I don't understand the LaLa thing either, but at first glance it looks like a copyright workaround that isn't likely to work.
What's wrong with the Yankees explanation?
"WORST WAY TO MAKE MONEY: Membership in Major League Baseball," obviously.
3: they forgot to mention than the Yankees are EEEEEEEEEEVIL, natch.
Not the face! That's how I makes my money.
And, of course, to assign a monetary cost to that evil. Without that, the bottom line makes no sense.
Me, I shake my money maker.
Or at least I did, until stupid Child and Protective Services got in my face.
As the man says, "he practiced animal husbandry for many years, until they caught him at it."
MLB teams have a long and illustrious history of lying about their finances. While I won't go so far as to say that no MLB team has never lost money, I do believe that the Yankees haven't. (The article kind of hints at the games teams play, when it talks about the YES Network, but still.)
I think all the article is saying is that, "the Yankees, suitably defined, are a losing proposition." Which is an answer to (3) too, I think.
12 has it right. Speaking of losing propositions, the writer neglected to factor in what the team will likely be paying Roger Clemens, but what's $20 million one way or the other?
13: $6 million less than it's going to cost them to get 15 outings out of a fat, old dude who doesn't really give a shit anymore?
Fatigued Groin! 14 "doesn't" s/b "can't", I think. The perils of the aging baseball player -- Clemens is slowly turning into John Kruk.
I started some shit with a dude saturday b/c he was wearing a yankees ballcap.
that was a cool artical.
Wait, I don't get it. How is LaLa not wearing a big target with the words "Sue us, RIAA!" written underneath it?