Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TheChrisSamsa

New Look Inside The Cell

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Apr 1, 2014 -> 12:23 PM)
I would agree for the most part, but I do think driving a portion of the local hotel taxes to stadiums is a wise investment for a community. I do not believe in sales/property tax assessments on the general population to benefit billionaire owners getting a discount.

Maybe. I just really dislike the idea of general funds, state or local bond obligations, or tax increases that hit the locals for this sort of thing. And even the taxes on hotels and rental cars and such do have a negative effect on locals, especially if they get too high.

 

Just in general, I think the amounts of money that local and state governments are throwing at sports stadiums are mistakes. I could be convinced that smaller stuff, or stuff that doesn't generally effect locals, can be part of a compromise.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Apr 1, 2014 -> 12:26 PM)
CSN would still have all the Cubs, Bulls, and Black Hawk games, so the network would not be worthless. They could liquidate that ownership stake at any time and not take a financial hit, and odds are they would get a financial stake in whatever new network picked them up.

 

I am guessing that their 20% stake in CSN is worth more than any 50% stake they would get (call it a split between the cable network and the Sox) they would get in a place like Indy or OKC. I'd call the network thing as a wash, at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 1, 2014 -> 12:25 PM)
The Sox are tied to their contracts now. When they are not tied to their contracts, and that day will come before they ever have a chance to flee, it's hard to imagine they can't do better financially in Chicago than in Charlotte or Indy. Maybe Tampa Bay makes sense to move to one of those places or Oakland, but the only place the Sox would move if it's out of the city is into the suburbs.

 

That is probably true. Though I feel the Sox play second fiddle to the team up north a lot when it comes to corporate endorsements and TV $$. I think moving to the suburbs hurts the Sox corporate sponsorship case even more. Really none of this is an issue until 2019, and that is a huge year for the Sox in regards to TV deals and contract expirations, if they don't get a sizeable TV deal, that will be the year the core that is being assembled is broken up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 1, 2014 -> 12:30 PM)
I am guessing that their 20% stake in CSN is worth more than any 50% stake they would get (call it a split between the cable network and the Sox) they would get in a place like Indy or OKC. I'd call the network thing as a wash, at best.

 

More interested in the AAV of the TV deal than the ownership stake. Several teams are cashing in with huge AAV's, like the Rangers, Phillies, Dodgers, and Angels. Not to mention what the Yankees get. The Sox get about $45M/season in their current TV deal. Other teams deals that have been signed recently - Padres $60M, Astros $80M, Rangers $80M plus $100M one time fee, Angels $147M, Dodgers $280M, and Phillies $100M. The Cubs and Sox deals both expire in 2019, so Comcast will have them to play against each other in their bidding, unless the Sox want to jump to another network.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Apr 1, 2014 -> 12:43 PM)
More interested in the AAV of the TV deal than the ownership stake. Several teams are cashing in with huge AAV's, like the Rangers, Phillies, Dodgers, and Angels. Not to mention what the Yankees get. The Sox get about $45M/season in their current TV deal. Other teams deals that have been signed recently - Padres $60M, Astros $80M, Rangers $80M plus $100M one time fee, Angels $147M, Dodgers $280M, and Phillies $100M. The Cubs and Sox deals both expire in 2019, so Comcast will have them to play against each other in their bidding, unless the Sox want to jump to another network.

 

That is really short-sighted IMO. The equity in the network is going to be worth more than getting cash from a deal. JR gets this, and got it WAY before most of MLB did.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 1, 2014 -> 12:13 PM)
This is where I don't care whether or not I'm a Sox fan. Putting any large amount of money into new stadiums for sports teams is inevitably a giant waste of taxpayer money for states and municipalities. I don't want them doing it for the Sox or anyone else again. The lessons have been learned.

 

Now, I'm fine with little things, or them doing the things only government can do - helping alter traffic/street patterns, zoning permits, help with licensing and other permints, making those processes work for them. No problems there, even though it costs some money (just not very much) to do the little things. Even some creative restructuring of tax and other obligations for a few years to make the transition work OK. Beyond that? Go do it yourself.

 

Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 1, 2014 -> 12:51 PM)
That is really short-sighted IMO. The equity in the network is going to be worth more than getting cash from a deal. JR gets this, and got it WAY before most of MLB did.

 

The equity of a network is directly tied to the quality of its programming, the more programs that draw an audience the more that the network will be able to sell ads. JR has a 40% equity stake in CSN, what does that mean for the Sox payroll? Nothing. All of the deals except the Dodgers deal also included equity stakes in their respective networks. The Astros received a 45% equity stake in addition to their $80M/season. You need to be able to use money to improve the roster to make the equity stake more valuable. Fox acquired an 49% stake of YES, the most profitable regional sports network for $584M. Equity is just equity until you liquidate it.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dodgers-sen...l-tv-landscape/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 1, 2014 -> 12:01 PM)
I am not convinced that a really good market is left though.

there are a few options for teams that have poor attendance and media deals. like tampa or oakland. the sox get 45 million a year from csn RIGHT NOW. that's not counting the wgn or national money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 31, 2014 -> 10:05 AM)
I have some experience with Sprint dealing with large contractual obligations. My guess from that experience is that Sprint has looked at every way possible to break that deal and can't. In my opinion, US Cellular Field will never be known as Sprint anything because Sprint doesn't want it.

 

That Sprint can't wiggle out of this contract is a testament to what a skilled negotiator Chairman Reinsdorf is.

 

Um really, If I was Sprint and I can get access to the naming rights to a major league ballpark in a city I am looking to expand my footprint and customer base in and all I had to pay was $3.4M a year for the next 10 years.....I'm feeling I hit the jackpot. Thats a bargain by today's standards, in price and years. Look at what Citi pays to the mets per year, $20M, look what AT&T pays the cowboys every year, $19M. Sprint gets a ballpark naming rights deal for 10 years $34M if they would have included it in their takeover of US Cellular, seems like a no brainier to me. Strange that US Cellular didn't want to budge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Mar 31, 2014 -> 10:42 AM)
I would love for it to be Jack Daniels Field.

 

Its probably a hard sell right now with attendance down, the team struggling, and companies trying to pull back on some of that type of spending.

 

As far as the US Cellular name goes, it appears did not acquire that piece in their acquisition, and I am sure like most contracts, there is an early termination clause to address situations like this. I think this gives a good indication where that extra money from MLB went if the team has lost its major sponsorship's.

 

Since when are companies trying to pull back on that kind of spending, most of the fortune 500 are at record high profit margins and have you seen stock the stock market lately, record highs upon record highs. ATT named Cowboys stadium for $19M per year. Insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Apr 1, 2014 -> 12:43 PM)
More interested in the AAV of the TV deal than the ownership stake. Several teams are cashing in with huge AAV's, like the Rangers, Phillies, Dodgers, and Angels. Not to mention what the Yankees get. The Sox get about $45M/season in their current TV deal. Other teams deals that have been signed recently - Padres $60M, Astros $80M, Rangers $80M plus $100M one time fee, Angels $147M, Dodgers $280M, and Phillies $100M. The Cubs and Sox deals both expire in 2019, so Comcast will have them to play against each other in their bidding, unless the Sox want to jump to another network.
cubs will likely leave csn in 2019. whatever deal they get by leaving wgn will likely be connected to a future cable partner. If fox grabs the cubs, they will not be paying 100 million to have games on channel 50 only.

 

Sox have the right of first refusal to buy the cubs share in csn. remember, the bulls stake is technically separate(although jim corno running the station clearly was a reinsdorf move).

 

One of two things will happen. either the sox buy the cubs stake, or jerry lets rocky and the hawks buy it. if option b happens, then both jerry and rocky will be somewhat equal in control(and profit) of the station.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (joeynach @ Apr 1, 2014 -> 05:03 PM)
Since when are companies trying to pull back on that kind of spending, most of the fortune 500 are at record high profit margins and have you seen stock the stock market lately, record highs upon record highs. ATT named Cowboys stadium for $19M per year. Insane.
the cowboys deal is actually below market highs. citi pays about 30 million plus for the mets stadium rights

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 1, 2014 -> 12:13 PM)
This is where I don't care whether or not I'm a Sox fan. Putting any large amount of money into new stadiums for sports teams is inevitably a giant waste of taxpayer money for states and municipalities. I don't want them doing it for the Sox or anyone else again. The lessons have been learned.

 

Now, I'm fine with little things, or them doing the things only government can do - helping alter traffic/street patterns, zoning permits, help with licensing and other permints, making those processes work for them. No problems there, even though it costs some money (just not very much) to do the little things. Even some creative restructuring of tax and other obligations for a few years to make the transition work OK. Beyond that? Go do it yourself.

The only way it is worth itis if the city or state actually has some money generating opportunities. This would be concessions and parking or similar things. This could add revenue to the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (joeynach @ Apr 1, 2014 -> 05:01 PM)
Um really, If I was Sprint and I can get access to the naming rights to a major league ballpark in a city I am looking to expand my footprint and customer base in and all I had to pay was $3.4M a year for the next 10 years.....I'm feeling I hit the jackpot. Thats a bargain by today's standards, in price and years. Look at what Citi pays to the mets per year, $20M, look what AT&T pays the cowboys every year, $19M. Sprint gets a ballpark naming rights deal for 10 years $34M if they would have included it in their takeover of US Cellular, seems like a no brainier to me. Strange that US Cellular didn't want to budge.

again, the stadium bonds issue may prevent it. USC didnt shut down or get bought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Apr 1, 2014 -> 12:43 PM)
More interested in the AAV of the TV deal than the ownership stake. Several teams are cashing in with huge AAV's, like the Rangers, Phillies, Dodgers, and Angels. Not to mention what the Yankees get. The Sox get about $45M/season in their current TV deal. Other teams deals that have been signed recently - Padres $60M, Astros $80M, Rangers $80M plus $100M one time fee, Angels $147M, Dodgers $280M, and Phillies $100M. The Cubs and Sox deals both expire in 2019, so Comcast will have them to play against each other in their bidding, unless the Sox want to jump to another network.

 

The Sox have leverage because where they go the Bulls will be brought along. If Fox Sports wants to get back in the Chicago market that's a good start. Would the Hawks follow the Sox or stick with the Cubs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Marty34 @ Apr 1, 2014 -> 05:34 PM)
The Sox have leverage because where they go the Bulls will be brought along. If Fox Sports wants to get back in the Chicago market that's a good start. Would the Hawks follow the Sox or stick with the Cubs?

I would guess they stick with the sox/bulls. Rocky considers jerry a mentor, and they are partners in the UC.

 

Also,csn Chicago has carriage on all cable providers in the city. A new channel with the cubs is not guaranteed to be seen in t eh whole city.

Edited by ewokpelts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Apr 1, 2014 -> 10:15 PM)
I would guess they stick with the sox/bulls. Rocky considers jerry a mentor, and they are partners in the UC.

 

Also,csn Chicago has carriage on all cable providers in the city. A new channel with the cubs is not guaranteed to be seen in t eh whole city.

 

If the network wanted to survive, you can bet the Cubs would be on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 07:36 AM)
[/b]

 

If the network wanted to survive, you can bet the Cubs would be on it.

Sports channel did just fine before they got the cubs.

 

Carriage fees are what's preventing 70% of the lis Angeles area from seeing the dodgers on tv right now.

 

If the cubs were to launch on a new station, there's no guarantee that directv,comcast, and other providers will pay fox' rate.

 

Jerry and the other teams FORCED csn Chicago to Make deals with all carriers BEFORE launch. Jerry did my want a repeat of the sportsvision era. That's also why they didn't take more money in 2004 for the rights.

 

If fox ends up giving the cubs 200 million a year for game rights, you bet your ass they will charge cable companies a premium for the channel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (ptatc @ Apr 1, 2014 -> 05:05 PM)
The only way it is worth itis if the city or state actually has some money generating opportunities. This would be concessions and parking or similar things. This could add revenue to the government.

Sure, net money is the ultimate picture. If they spend $100M but have some sort of revenue deal on ancillary products that can get them at least that $100M plus Opp Cost or inflation adjustment in a reasonable payback period, then that works too.

 

Though it should be noted in the particular cases of Illinois, Cook County and Chicago, due to their significant debt loads, borrowing costs will be higher and therefore the necessary returns will also have to be higher to compensate. That also doesn't even get into the pure leverage risk issue for each entity, which has to be considered as well.

 

Basically, any revenue stream deal like that needs to be very favorable for the governmental body in question for it to be worth it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad Ayn Rand isn't around to write a new book on public financing of sports facilities...they could probably make less of a mess with that movie, lol.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 07:58 AM)
Sports channel did just fine before they got the cubs.

 

Carriage fees are what's preventing 70% of the lis Angeles area from seeing the dodgers on tv right now.

 

If the cubs were to launch on a new station, there's no guarantee that directv,comcast, and other providers will pay fox' rate.

 

Jerry and the other teams FORCED csn Chicago to Make deals with all carriers BEFORE launch. Jerry did my want a repeat of the sportsvision era. That's also why they didn't take more money in 2004 for the rights.

 

If fox ends up giving the cubs 200 million a year for game rights, you bet your ass they will charge cable companies a premium for the channel.

 

That was also like 1986. Baseball has changed just a bit since then, and so have the Cubs cult following.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Mar 31, 2014 -> 12:44 PM)
Harris Park would be ok.

 

 

Agreed, but no chance at that, given BMO is doing everything they can to re-brand BMO Harris as BMO only. My guess is the Harris portion of the name has a limited lifespan at this point, certainly under 5 years.

 

BMO is logical, but are we just going to have an acronym? That'd suck.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (maki @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 10:58 AM)
Agreed, but no chance at that, given BMO is doing everything they can to re-brand BMO Harris as BMO only. My guess is the Harris portion of the name has a limited lifespan at this point, certainly under 5 years.

 

BMO is logical, but are we just going to have an acronym? That'd suck.

 

BMO Park sounds fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 11:01 AM)
BMO Park sounds fine.

 

$10 to $15 million a year is what sounds fine to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 11:01 AM)
BMO Park sounds fine.

BMO Ballpark sounds better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×