Cubs new channel going to be expensive

[Cheeks]

Going to be interesting to see who carries it.  DISH Network will not.  Could be like Los Angeles where almost no one carries Dodgers channel.  Cubs want $6 or $7 per subscriber per media reports whether they watch or not, and broad distribution....going to be interesting. 

Sports has become the most overpriced content on TV which is why so many distributors are balking away from it.  The teams will never go for a tiered approach or a pay model of those actually watching because those that actually watch dwarves the total subscriber bases. 

2020 season, will be very interesting to see how it shakes out.

[jesmu84]

Going to be interesting to see who carries it.  DISH Network will not.  Could be like Los Angeles where almost no one carries Dodgers channel.  Cubs want $6 or $7 per subscriber per media reports whether they watch or not, and broad distribution....going to be interesting. 

Sports has become the most overpriced content on TV which is why so many distributors are balking away from it.  The teams will never go for a tiered approach or a pay model of those actually watching because those that actually watch dwarves the total subscriber bases. 

2020 season, will be very interesting to see how it shakes out.

I'm assuming rising player contracts and other costs factor into this. So, basically, another bubble that may or may not burst.

I'm also assuming, if the past is any indicator, we'll socialize the losses while privatizing the profits again.

[BrewCity83]

The main reason sports is highly priced, though, is that it's one of the few bits of programming that most people watch live.  So we can't skip the ads.  Right?

[Cheeks]

The main reason sports is highly priced, though, is that it's one of the few bits of programming that most people watch live.  So we can't skip the ads.  Right?

Yes, but the prices have now exceeded that value delivered.  Lots of big sports rights fees paid and big contracts without the marketplace there to support it.

[GB Warrior]

I'm assuming rising player contracts and other costs factor into this. So, basically, another bubble that may or may not burst.

I'm also assuming, if the past is any indicator, we'll socialize the losses while privatizing the profits again.

Player contracts in some sports (MLB) have not grown at the same rate as league revenues. Even the NBA, which has a fairly progressive CBA (despite the fact that a 'max' contract shouldn't be a thing) is constantly looking for revenue streams that wouldn't factor into the Rev sharing formula

[Chili]

MLB.tv account if you're out of market gets you all the games for $100. Way less than cable and you can share with a few buddies so you only have to pay $25 each. If in market, $20 VPN gets you to where you need to be.

[buckchuckler]

Here is to it being an unmitigated disaster for the franchise and fans.

Cheers!

[jesmu84]

MLB.tv account if you're out of market gets you all the games for $100. Way less than cable and you can share with a few buddies so you only have to pay $25 each. If in market, $20 VPN gets you to where you need to be.

Wrong thread to post that info in, my friend. Wrong thread.

[Cheeks]

MLB.tv account if you're out of market gets you all the games for $100. Way less than cable and you can share with a few buddies so you only have to pay $25 each. If in market, $20 VPN gets you to where you need to be.

It will not get you in market which is what we are talking about here.  Local Cubs fans.

Yes, you can try to fake out with VPN which is one of the main reasons the distributors are saying no more to these deals, if the teams, leagues, etc aren’t going to enforce the rights they paid for.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Wonder what Warrior Dad will do, eh cheeks?

[Cheeks]

Wonder what Warrior Dad will do, eh cheeks?

Or BillyHoyle...or Blackswan

[#UnleashSean]

Wrong thread to post that info in, my friend. Wrong thread.

On the contrary, I just grabbed popcorn.

[NorthernDancerColt]

Here is to it being an unmitigated disaster for the franchise and fans.

Cheers!

After the crap old man Ricketts was spewing, the timing of this couldn’t be worse for this unveiling.

[NYWarrior]

I'm assuming rising player contracts and other costs factor into this. So, basically, another bubble that may or may not burst.

Nope

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2019/01/11/economic-data-shows-mlb-spent-less-on-player-salaries-compared-to-revenues-in-2018/#62423d3d39d7

or

https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2019/01/07/a-warning-about-major-league-baseballs-record-revenues/

or more of the same in the NFL

https://www.forbes.com/sites/vincentfrank/2015/04/28/despite-record-revenue-nfl-players-continue-to-get-the-shaft/#df5f1b12298e

It's great to be an owner ... so much $ they make on the value of their players and the franchise also is drawn from sources that are not part of the CBA.

[Cheeks]

Nope

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2019/01/11/economic-data-shows-mlb-spent-less-on-player-salaries-compared-to-revenues-in-2018/#62423d3d39d7

or

https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2019/01/07/a-warning-about-major-league-baseballs-record-revenues/

or more of the same in the NFL

https://www.forbes.com/sites/vincentfrank/2015/04/28/despite-record-revenue-nfl-players-continue-to-get-the-shaft/#df5f1b12298e

It's great to be an owner ... so much $ they make on the value of their players and the franchise also is drawn from sources that are not part of the CBA.

It’s the future liabilities that are the issue.  Revenue guarantees are largely from TV, those are in jeopardy, but some of their contracts extend years out.  That is what has sports leagues and entities like ESPN so nervous right now.

[NYWarrior]

It’s the future liabilities that are the issue.  Revenue guarantees are largely from TV, those are in jeopardy, but some of their contracts extend years out.  That is what has sports leagues and entities like ESPN so nervous right now.

Very true.

Yet billionaire owners who own teams in the middle of a generational competitive window are paring payroll today -- despite record franchise valuations, record tax and related subsidies that allow them to make millions outside of the CBA, revenue sharing, et.al.  I get the future liability thing but even with a possible revenue ceiling coming, the fraction of $ spent on salaries in MLB vs revenue continues to decline and with revenue sharing there is less and less incentive to spend -- ie, the Red Sox paid $85M in luxury tax last year; the Marlins took in $65M from revenue sharing. Why spend when you can rake in the cash and not spend? Nice job, Jete! There is precious little incentive to compete to win in MLB these days.

Between what appears to be some level of collusion, and the owners' ability to make money outside of the CBA, cry me a river for the Dolans, Reinsdorfs, and Ricketts of the world. But Tony Clark and the MLBPA have dropped the ball on issues related to this for years, and how they are paying a price.

The strike will be awesome theater. Not sure Clark will be the guy to see it through. Owners have the players over the proverbial barrel.

[jficke13]

Very true.

Yet billionaire owners who own teams in the middle of a generational competitive window are paring payroll today -- despite record franchise valuations, record tax and related subsidies that allow them to make millions outside of the CBA, revenue sharing, et.al.  I get the future liability thing but even with a possible revenue ceiling coming, the fraction of $ spent on salaries in MLB vs revenue continues to decline and with revenue sharing there is less and less incentive to spend -- ie, the Red Sox paid $85M in luxury tax last year; the Marlins took in $65M from revenue sharing. Why spend when you can rake in the cash and not spend? Nice job, Jete! There is precious little incentive to compete to win in MLB these days.

Between what appears to be some level of collusion, and the owners' ability to make money outside of the CBA, cry me a river for the Dolans, Reinsdorfs, and Ricketts of the world. But Tony Clark and the MLBPA have dropped the ball on issues related to this for years, and how they are paying a price.

The strike will be awesome theater. Not sure Clark will be the guy to see it through. Owners have the players over the proverbial barrel.

It would be interesting to see #s get crunched on a team/season like the Brewers had last year as a test case. If there's truly no revenue value to a season that ends a game shy of the World Series, then it ought to show up in the Brewers not actually making any more money compared to 2017 when they knocked on the door to a Wild Card, compared to 2016 when they were well below .500 but finished 5 games ahead of the Reds for last place.

[NYWarrior]

It would be interesting to see #s get crunched on a team/season like the Brewers had last year as a test case. If there's truly no revenue value to a season that ends a game shy of the World Series, then it ought to show up in the Brewers not actually making any more money compared to 2017 when they knocked on the door to a Wild Card, compared to 2016 when they were well below .500 but finished 5 games ahead of the Reds for last place.

You'll never know because teams don't open up their books which gives the billionaires free reign to cry about the challenges of making money.

If you're interested on this topic in general, follow Joe Sheehan on Twitter and subscribe to his newsletter/content.  He has covered this for some time (along w several others like Szymborski).

[Jockey]

It would be interesting to see #s get crunched on a team/season like the Brewers had last year as a test case. If there's truly no revenue value to a season that ends a game shy of the World Series, then it ought to show up in the Brewers not actually making any more money compared to 2017 when they knocked on the door to a Wild Card, compared to 2016 when they were well below .500 but finished 5 games ahead of the Reds for last place.

The "books" wouldn't really show anything. The billionaire owners buy tax accountants to manipulate everything. The books would show whatever the "poor" owners wanted them to show.

Tax rates mean absolutely nothing. Do you think Amazon cares if the corporate rate is 10% or 50%? makes mo difference to them. They made $11 BILLION profit and not only paid $) in Federal taxes, but received a $129 MILLION dollar rebate courtesy of us non-billionaires.

[NYWarrior]

The "books" wouldn't really show anything. The billionaire owners buy tax accountants to manipulate everything. The books would show whatever the "poor" owners wanted them to show.

This. 1000 times, this.

[WarriorDad]

Wonder what Warrior Dad will do, eh cheeks?

Keep my tv service, and if they don't carry it I will switch to one that does.

[Not A Serious Person]

After the crap old man Ricketts was spewing, the timing of this couldn’t be worse for this unveiling.

Why? He does not own the team.

[Not A Serious Person]

You'll never know because teams don't open up their books which gives the billionaires free reign to cry about the challenges of making money.

If you're interested on this topic in general, follow Joe Sheehan on Twitter and subscribe to his newsletter/content.  He has covered this for some time (along w several others like Szymborski).

Sure we will .... put the team up for sale and see what they get in offers.

Doesn’t matter what they make or do not make, a MLB team is an exclusive property that many will pay a lot for.

Look at the cubs, Tribune bought them in 1981 for $21 million, lost money on them, sold for nearly $900 million in 2009. Better return than the S&P 500.

Ricketts bought for $900 10 years ago, probably lost money considering he is paying for a redo of Wrigley, but estimates are he could sell for about $2 billion now.

[dgies9156]

Sure we will .... put the team up for sale and see what they get in offers.

Doesn’t matter what they make or do not make, a MLB team is an exclusive property that many will pay a lot for.

Look at the cubs, Tribune bought them in 1981 for $21 million, lost money on them, sold for nearly $900 million in 2009. Better return than the S&P 500.

Ricketts bought for $900 10 years ago, probably lost money considering he is paying for a redo of Wrigley, but estimates are he could sell for about $2 billion now.

I doubt the Tribune lost money on the Cubs.

If you see the team as a baseball entity, sure, expenses exceeded revenue. But if you factor in 3.5 hours of popular programming on WGN-TV for 150 games a year, including national cable revenue, and 162 games on WGN Radio 720, no way they could have lost money.

Frankly, I think the Tribune bought the Cubs for low cost programming.