How will all these new tv rights deals affect the Sox?

[caulfield12]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/201...ot-for-cubs-sox

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christinasetti...st-cable-deals/

 

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/st...lent/53032284/1

 

http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=...&Itemid=155

 

 

 

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/04/05/35388...urt-royals.html

Greg, don't read this article unless you want to be further depressed, along with all the denizens of KC and Lawrencians

 

 

 

 

20% owned by Comcast (NBC-Universal), 20% by the Sox, 20% by the Bulls, 20% by the Cubs and 20% by the Blackhawks.

 

 

According to the Sherman article, all our TV rights are controlled through 2019 by both Comcast and WGN.

 

The Cubs' deal with WGN expires after 2014.

 

Does the ownership group/Board of Directors get any profits back directly from Comcast or is stricly "paper wealth," explained by the franchise jumping in value to #10 on the most recent FORBES list, at $600 million? Are the profits generated by Comcast plugged back directly into the ballclub?

 

 

With all these MLB teams signing new deals with numbers going into the billions, aren't we in a position of disadvantage moving forward, or is that mitigated somewhat by our ownership stake in Comcast? While the ownership stake in Comcast inflates the franchise value, does it really put us in a better position to generate more revenue for the major league payroll before the year 2019?

 

I know the Tigers are getting $33 million from their cable deal, the Reds $40 million...the Kansas City Star article has the Royals locked in for around $20 million per year. The Indians are part owners of their own broadcasting network/RSN.

 

Are we in a bad position now, because we seem locked out of a new contract or renegotiating for at least 7 more years, or are we actually likely to benefit when rates and deals skyrocket even higher in the future?

 

Are all these t.v./broadcasting/media rights deals another form of a "market bubble" or will the number continue to go into the stratosphere moving forward, where some of the contracts signed by teams like the Dodgers, Angels, Rangers and Astros will seem like bargains?

 

With cable and satellite prices going higher and higher...with the economy still being in a precarious state, how long will these types of billion dollar packages be available? Or are they just the tip of the iceberg, in your opinion?

 

(Yes, these last 3 questions are "teacher-speak" for asking the same question in a different way, lol)

Edited April 24, 2012 by caulfield12

[kev211]

Honestly, who cares. I'm sure the sox are doing just fine.

[caulfield12]

Honestly, who cares. I'm sure the sox are doing just fine.

 

 

Any fan of a baseball team should care, because of the expected financial impact on the game of baseball.

 

The Royals care. The Reds, in a similar market to KC, can give $225 million to Joey Votto, but the Royals are already resigned to losing Hosmer and Moustakas after year 6 of their contracts, or even $30 million for Aroldis Chapman.

 

The Rangers were technically in bankruptcy and now they're one of the wealthiest teams in the majors five years later and able to spend over $100 million for Yu Darvish.

 

Dodgers, similar situation now.

 

Without all that money from their new TV deal, the Angels wouldn't have been able to go out and acquire Pujols and CJ Wilson.

 

 

Edited April 24, 2012 by caulfield12

[SoxFan1]

The CSN Chicago situation is extremely unique because the teams actually own the network. The nice part is that Reinsdorf owns 40% and the Sox benefit from the Bulls success.

[justBLAZE]

The CSN Chicago situation is extremely unique because the teams actually own the network. The nice part is that Reinsdorf owns 40% and the Sox benefit from the Bulls success.

 

Reinsdorf owns Comcast Sports Net?

 

Didn't whole comcast get bought out by NBC lately?

[caulfield12]

In one article I read, it was 30% White Sox, 25% Cubs.

 

Then the wikipedia and a couple of other entries have it at:

 

20% NBC/Universal

40% Reinsdorf (Bull/Sox)

20% Ricketts/Cubs

20% Blackhawks/Wirtz

[Balta1701]

Basically, because the Cubs and Sox share that network and both teams are locked into long-term contracts with it, both teams will see substantial but slow revenue growth from the TV over time.

 

There will not be a single year where there is a windfall, like the Dodgers right now or the Rangers last year. There won't be a sudden infusion of an extra $100 million 1 year, there will instead be regular growth.

 

However, everything is growing. This year the Fox contract is up for renegotiation. The big revenue sharing deals are up now, which is why MLB wanted the extra wild card round this year.

 

Basically, if everything new is pumped into payroll...from this point on, we ought to expect payroll growth of ~5%-10% a year strictly from TV revenues. If, however, we can start re-filling the empty ballpark, there's substantial room for revenue growth on that side as well.

[ewokpelts]

I heard the Sox and Cubs get 500K per game on CSN, the same terms as their old FSN/sportschannel deal. So the Sox, with 102 games on CSN, get roughly 50 million per season on cable. The cubs, with far fewer games on cable, get less. And I was told they each get roughly 125-150K per game on WGN/WCIU.

[Balta1701]

I heard the Sox and Cubs get 500K per game on CSN, the same terms as their old FSN/sportschannel deal. So the Sox, with 102 games on CSN, get roughly 50 million per season on cable. The cubs, with far fewer games on cable, get less. And I was told they each get roughly 125-150K per game on WGN/WCIU.

I can see why the team would stay on WGN for Less money, but why on Earth would they stay on WCIU for less money?

[ewokpelts]

I can see why the team would stay on WGN for Less money, but why on Earth would they stay on WCIU for less money?

WCIU games are produced by WGN. The U gets paid by WGN to air the games.

 

[caulfield12]

I found it.

 

 

This year, our WCIU games are up by 7 (25 appearances).

 

We've also lost 2 WGN games, and 11 CSN, our biggest moneymakers.

 

 

So, theoretically:

 

25 WCIU X $200K=$5,000,000

30 WGN X $350K=$10,500,000

101 CSN X $450K=$45,400,00

 

TOTAL=$60,900,000

 

PLUS the shared pool money from FOX/ESPN/TBS/TNT

 

But we have lost about $4-4.5 million compared to previous years with more WCIU and fewer CSN games as well.

 

Or one Mark Teahen/Jason Frasor.

Edited April 24, 2012 by caulfield12

[ScottyDo]

I found it.

 

 

This year, our WCIU games are up by 7 (25 appearances).

 

We've also lost 2 WGN games, and 11 CSN, our biggest moneymakers.

 

 

So, theoretically:

 

25 WCIU X $200K=$5,000,000

30 WGN X $350K=$10,500,000

101 CSN X $450K=$45,400,00

 

TOTAL=$60,900,000

 

PLUS the shared pool money from FOX/ESPN/TBS/TNT

 

But we have lost about $4-4.5 million compared to previous years with more WCIU and fewer CSN games as well.

 

Or one Mark Teahen/Jason Frasor.

I object to the Teahen being used as a unit of currency on the grounds that it makes me really sad

[Marty34]

I'd be surprised if Chairman Reinsdorf doesn't operate the Sox and Bulls as a single entity financially. The Bulls are a cash cow in a league that has a salary cap (40% of basketball related income is it? Sweet deal for the owners.) Some of those massive Bulls revenues make it over to 35th street and owning the network is probably one way how.

[Balta1701]

I'd be surprised if Chairman Reinsdorf doesn't operate the Sox and Bulls as a single entity financially. The Bulls are a cash cow in a league that has a salary cap (40% of basketball related income is it? Sweet deal for the owners.) Some of those massive Bulls revenues make it over to 35th street and owning the network is probably one way how.

MLB teams have basically become a cash cow as well, if you're considering franchise values (and you'd be silly not to).

[cabiness42]

I'd be surprised if Chairman Reinsdorf doesn't operate the Sox and Bulls as a single entity financially. The Bulls are a cash cow in a league that has a salary cap (40% of basketball related income is it? Sweet deal for the owners.) Some of those massive Bulls revenues make it over to 35th street and owning the network is probably one way how.

 

Reinsdorf is chairman of both teams, but I think I read somewhere that the two ownership groups are not entirely the same, so those own part of the Bulls but not the Sox surely wouldn't go for that idea.

[southsider2k5]

I'd be surprised if Chairman Reinsdorf doesn't operate the Sox and Bulls as a single entity financially. The Bulls are a cash cow in a league that has a salary cap (40% of basketball related income is it? Sweet deal for the owners.) Some of those massive Bulls revenues make it over to 35th street and owning the network is probably one way how.

 

I'm pretty sure that would be either illegal or against the rules of the two sports, at the very least. I also highly doubt it because we know profits are reinvested in the Sox, and I can't imagine them running the Bulls any differently.

[southsider2k5]

MLB teams have basically become a cash cow as well, if you're considering franchise values (and you'd be silly not to).

 

I know what you are getting at, but those mean two different things. Value on paper is not cash.

[Balta1701]

I know what you are getting at, but those mean two different things. Value on paper is not cash.

And while that is true, is it really that difficult for people to buy shares in these organizations if they actually have the money and interest in doing so? I.e. is it that hard to cash out some of that value for the members of the ownership group?

[southsider2k5]

And while that is true, is it really that difficult for people to buy shares in these organizations if they actually have the money and interest in doing so? I.e. is it that hard to cash out some of that value for the members of the ownership group?

 

Considering it it news when it happens, I would tend to think it is.

[caulfield12]

I'll just make a scenario up.

 

Let's say one of the partners dies and they're one piece (1/12th) of 12 shares that are theoretically "on the open market" worth anything from $50 to 75 to even $100 million.

 

Do the other partners have a right of first refusal to buy them if let's say the family member dies and the children/wife want to sell?

 

Would they pay them "cash out" from their own pockets or would they be able to use, let's say, Comcast SportsNet shares? A combination thereof?

 

They do have the right to block sale of the team share/s to an outsider who might be trying to accumulate shares in order to take over a control bloc or percentage of the team, correct?

 

As the share in the team is technically a share in the value of the ballclub AND Comcast SportNet, how many shares would have to be acquired for one entity to be able to dictate control of the RSN itself (over Universal/NBC, Wirtz, Ricketts and the Bulls/Sox group)?

 

For example, is there a mechanism in place to keep the Ricketts family from buying out NBC/Universal and the Blackhawks shares in COMCAST SN Chicago and having a controlling interest over the Reinsdorf shares, etc.?

 

 

 

 

[Swingandalongonetoleft]

The Royals care...the Royals are already resigned to losing Hosmer and Moustakas after year 6 of their contracts, or even $30 million for Aroldis Chapman.

 

To be fair to the Royals, they're going to terrorize the rest of the American League any day now and all of the Postseason revenue coming their way will allow them to sign whoever they want for however much it takes to sign them. Children in a candy store will show better self control.

 

[Marty34]

I'm pretty sure that would be either illegal or against the rules of the two sports, at the very least. I also highly doubt it because we know profits are reinvested in the Sox, and I can't imagine them running the Bulls any differently.

 

I don't know, but there's a reason why you own 40% of a sports network and start a business like http://www.silverchalice.com/. The Bulls are one of their clients. Maybe their billable hours are crazy for the Bulls.

[SoxFan1]

To be fair to the Royals, they're going to terrorize the rest of the American League any day now and all of the Postseason revenue coming their way will allow them to sign whoever they want for however much it takes to sign them. Children in a candy store will show better self control.

 

I think this is sarcasm but I'm not entirely sure.

 

With that said, people have been saying that about the Royals for a while now. And they still suck.

[ewokpelts]

I'd be surprised if Chairman Reinsdorf doesn't operate the Sox and Bulls as a single entity financially. The Bulls are a cash cow in a league that has a salary cap (40% of basketball related income is it? Sweet deal for the owners.) Some of those massive Bulls revenues make it over to 35th street and owning the network is probably one way how.

he dosent. the bulls and sox are separate companies, despite sharing a lot of similar investors.