MLB forms economic group as regional TV in peril
- Thread starter Radioguy41
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 240
- Views 27K
Neither the players nor the owners are in the business for "entertainment", they all share a goal, make money.
Yes.
The owners tried to keep salaries reasonable, but were found to be in "collusion" with one another. No actual evidence of when and where the collusion meeting was plotted out was ever presented. It was just inferred that they must have colluded with each other. Then the owners tried again to deal with the so-called union, which said "union" refused totally to negotiate about salaries. And, fantastically, the owners were found guilty of "unfair labor practices" by a 2-1 partisan vote by the NLRB. How can something be a union if it won't negotiate about pay? Compare to the NHL, where the owner locked the players out until they realized that making obscene pay for playing a child's game was good enough, and there was no need to make obscene obscene obscene pay. Good job hockey owners.
The long and the short of this (23 is a lost cause, they are going to end up more or less giving away the material) is that what replaces it is simply going yield less money. It just is. That is the new reality of the three sports, but most particularly baseball.
Players Reportedly Ask MLB Owners to Open the Books
May 15, 2020, by Brett Taylor
Based on the legends, if you were able to get yourself into Fort Knox, you would find two things: gold beyond your wildest imagination and the real, in-depth, totally-comprehensive financial documents of Major League Baseball teams.
That is to say, MLB teams have guarded their books over the years like so much gold bullion.
But if the teams are going to ask players to accept a revenue sharing agreement this year, then they are going to have to be wildly transparent about every last detail on their revenue (including, among other things, what they count as “revenue” and what they exclude). There’s just no reasonable way the players agree to any financial plan tied in any way to revenues on a “hey, just trust us” from MLB owners. There is no trust or goodwill there after years of simmering contention.
Players Reportedly Ask MLB Owners to Open the Books
It's unlikely the sides can get anywhere in serious financial talks without this step.
www.bleachernation.com
MLB Owners Need To Open Their Damn Books!!!
But from what I have gathered from #sources over the last few days and will elaborate on from the previous blog is this: owners never have and never will open their books to be audited by the MLBPA. They refuse to show how much revenue their franchises bring in.To an extent, I get it, especially under normal circumstances. If their numbers show they make a gazillion dollars more than the players, all that's going to do is cause player salaries to skyrocket. That's the last thing the people cutting the checks want, and from a pure business perspective, I understand it when looking at it from their perspective.
MLB Owners Need To Open Their Damn Books!!!
I touched on this yesterday and will continue to do so until there is a baseball season planned and executed. You can read my full thoughts from yesterday here:But from what I have gathered from #sour...
Sadly for all the conspiracy theorists in the union (mostly egged on the agents, which an agent, as David Letterman famously said, is something you scrape off the bottom of your shoe), several teams are publicly owned, and have to "open the books" to the SEC (the government one, not the conference).
Here are the Braves:
Note that the Braves are a large market team (DMA #7), with complete control over its entertainment district around the ball park, with a good RSN deal, and a claimed in-market area that is huge, pretty much the entire deep south.
We see that baseball is profitable, but the owners could get a greater return on their investment in many other businesses. The myth that baseball is making all this secret money is just that, a myth.
Here are the Braves:
Note that the Braves are a large market team (DMA #7), with complete control over its entertainment district around the ball park, with a good RSN deal, and a claimed in-market area that is huge, pretty much the entire deep south.
We see that baseball is profitable, but the owners could get a greater return on their investment in many other businesses. The myth that baseball is making all this secret money is just that, a myth.
Sinclair doesn't have a contract with MLB. The MLB contract is with Diamond Sports Group.
The distinction is definitive, it has a name and the implications are all-important for both the League and Sinclair.
- Nov 29, 2003
- 16,270
- 20,936
MYOB..players have no need to look at team finacial recordsMLB Owners Need To Open Their Damn Books!!!
But from what I have gathered from #sources over the last few days and will elaborate on from the previous blog is this: owners never have and never will open their books to be audited by the MLBPA. They refuse to show how much revenue their franchises bring in.
To an extent, I get it, especially under normal circumstances. If their numbers show they make a gazillion dollars more than the players, all that's going to do is cause player salaries to skyrocket. That's the last thing the people cutting the checks want, and from a pure business perspective, I understand it when looking at it from their perspective.
MLB Owners Need To Open Their Damn Books!!!
I touched on this yesterday and will continue to do so until there is a baseball season planned and executed. You can read my full thoughts from yesterday here:But from what I have gathered from #sour...www.barstoolsports.com
Well, they already have. That is how they could afford a sports franchise in the first place! The argument isn't franchises are economic juggernauts making 50%. It is that they seem to complain about not being able to afford player salaries. Players, who are the product they sell. The more interesting idea would be that in spirit with the concept that the best players should make less money, the Yankees should make less money because the Brewers or Guardians (finally remembered to call them Guardians!) do. But I don't think the Yankees feel that way.
While DSG is a wholly-owned subsidiary, DSG has their own management structure that is tasked with setting and meeting goals.
Are you asserting that DIRECTV was a puppet regime cowing to AT&T's every whim?
- Nov 29, 2003
- 16,270
- 20,936
This would imply that things should have improved substantially since TPG took over. Has that been the case?
- Nov 29, 2003
- 16,270
- 20,936
No, because AT&T are still running things, no matter what they say.
They still own 70% of DirecTV.
Friend of mine sent me this article. Paywalled, but I will summarize.
The Twins are in their last year of their RSN contract. It is among the worst in the sport. It pays the team $40M/year (Pittsburgh, a much smaller market, gets $60M just for an example). MSP is not a small market, it is DMA 11, although the rest of its territory is pretty much farmland. The ratings for the channel, while it is generally the single most watched thing on all baseball season each night, are still about 100K. So to yield the same revenue they need to charge $66/month for the six months. And this is just for the Twins, not the Wild or the Timberwolves, nor any other content. Yes, they can sell a few ads which might cover the production costs, but that is where the deal is.
So baseball cannot be in competition with itself, selling mlb.tv with 1000s of games, but not the local team. So add it together. mlb.tv, with no so-called blackouts, is about $525/year.
Congratulations.
The Twins are in their last year of their RSN contract. It is among the worst in the sport. It pays the team $40M/year (Pittsburgh, a much smaller market, gets $60M just for an example). MSP is not a small market, it is DMA 11, although the rest of its territory is pretty much farmland. The ratings for the channel, while it is generally the single most watched thing on all baseball season each night, are still about 100K. So to yield the same revenue they need to charge $66/month for the six months. And this is just for the Twins, not the Wild or the Timberwolves, nor any other content. Yes, they can sell a few ads which might cover the production costs, but that is where the deal is.
So baseball cannot be in competition with itself, selling mlb.tv with 1000s of games, but not the local team. So add it together. mlb.tv, with no so-called blackouts, is about $525/year.
Congratulations.
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)
Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 122) Show all
- Radioguy41
- lordodogg
- jamesjimcie
- Bruce
- johnr475
- dodger72
- meStevo
- Rolling Joe
- harshness
- SamCdbs
- Derwin0
- glrush
- DRCars
- TazMan258
- BLC1962
- Foxbat
- Howard Simmons
- mljoness
- Elsguy
- Phil T
- navychop
- Don in CT
- klang
- satjay
- AZ.
- Yespage
- stogie5150
- Mr Tony
- pgde
- rvvaquero
- Art7220
- Ronnie-
- Joe The Dragon
- Keith Brannen
- Juan
- TheRatPatrol
- DS0816
- ShawnHill1
- chaddux
- evetsmc
- Jimbo
- BillD1984
- brice52
- mikew
- mdram
- Richfunb
- cosmo_kramer
- Nominal
- sealrock
- mrinker
- riveryakker
- osu1991
- savarese04
- Darrell S
- N5XZS
- arlo
- madmadworld
- TRG
- jgags6
- pamajestic
- Jim S.
