PDA

View Full Version : Local TV


MarqSox
08-22-2003, 08:17 AM
I guess I never realized how good the Sox have it from a local TV standpoint, having 99% of their games televised. I always assumed that was the norm, but obviously it isn't. Apparently in KC, they're trying to figure out how to justify televising all the Royals games in September, because they believe they'll lose money due to lack of advertising dollars!

Now THAT is small market ....

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/6593558.htm

thepaulbowski
08-22-2003, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by MarqSox
I guess I never realized how good the Sox have it from a local TV standpoint, having 99% of their games televised. I always assumed that was the norm, but obviously it isn't. Apparently in KC, they're trying to figure out how to justify televising all the Royals games in September, because they believe they'll lose money due to lack of advertising dollars!

Now THAT is small market ....

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/6593558.htm

I believe the radio & TV revenue of the Sox is in the top five in major league baseball. I haven't seen the figures for a few years, but if I remember correctly they are pretty high up there.

adsit
08-22-2003, 12:03 PM
We're #5, behind Boston, Seattle, and both NY teams...

Baseball's P&L report (http://cached.mlb.com/hearings/localtv.html)

We make almost as much money off broadcast rights as we do gate receipts. Most teams make at least twice, some more than 3x as much off the gate.

Only Montreal and Milwaukee make less off TV revenue than the Royals.

Hangar18
08-22-2003, 12:15 PM
That is too bad. there has to be a way to fix that .....

Fridaythe13thJason
08-22-2003, 12:20 PM
Forget KC and Small Markets, the World Champion Anaheim Angels only televise about 65% of their games. It's ridiculous. I don't watch many, but when I went to watch the last game of the White Sox series the other day, it was only on radio. It was still blacked out on mlb.tv though. Ouch!

Other sports are similar. It's hard to find a Clippers game out here half the time. Like you, Marq, I had thought it was the norm to have every game on tv for all of your teams.

TornLabrum
08-22-2003, 12:28 PM
And if I'm not mistaken, the Dodgers still don't televise any home games.

Clarkdog
08-22-2003, 12:37 PM
And the Cubs generate 7 million dollars less that the Sox in media revenue? :?:

Methinks McFail still uses "new math".

A.T. Money
08-22-2003, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
And if I'm not mistaken, the Dodgers still don't televise any home games.

Nope, they do. I watch them all the time via DirecTV. They are on Fox Sports Net West.

Foulke You
08-22-2003, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
And if I'm not mistaken, the Dodgers still don't televise any home games.

I thought Blackhawk owner/evil despot Bill Wirtz was the only one who subscribed to the no TV for home games theory. Apparently the Dodgers thought that it worked so well for the Blackhawks that they'd give it a try?

jortafan
08-22-2003, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Clarkdog
And the Cubs generate 7 million dollars less that the Sox in media revenue? :?:

Methinks McFail still uses "new math".

It just means the Cubs allow themselves to be short-changed by WGN-TV, which makes the station more profitable at the expense of the team. Just imagine how much revenue they'd have if some station had to pay market rate to air Cubs games. Stations have to pay market rate for the White Sox, and this is still a major market team, even if they act at times like they're not.

TornLabrum
08-22-2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You
I thought Blackhawk owner/evil despot Bill Wirtz was the only one who subscribed to the no TV for home games theory. Apparently the Dodgers thought that it worked so well for the Blackhawks that they'd give it a try?

This goes back to when they first moved to California, when Walter O'Malley owned them. I think I read recently that they still don't do home games, or if they do, it's a very small percentage.

TornLabrum
08-22-2003, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by jortafan
It just means the Cubs allow themselves to be short-changed by WGN-TV, which makes the station more profitable at the expense of the team. Just imagine how much revenue they'd have if some station had to pay market rate to air Cubs games. Stations have to pay market rate for the White Sox, and this is still a major market team, even if they act at times like they're not.

What it does is reduce the amount of revenue sharing the Cubs have to pay. (Am I being cynical?)

A.T. Money
08-22-2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
This goes back to when they first moved to California, when Walter O'Malley owned them. I think I read recently that they still don't do home games, or if they do, it's a very small percentage.

I can see their games every night on Fox Sports Net, unless they have local blackout. But that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, since Vin Scully is going the play by play.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-22-2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
What it does is reduce the amount of revenue sharing the Cubs have to pay. (Am I being cynical?)

Yes, and don't forget the Cubune's little ticket brokerage scam serves the same purpose, too. :smile:

:lynch&mcfail
"$10 million here, $20 million there -- pretty soon it adds up to real money!"

adsit
08-22-2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
What it does is reduce the amount of revenue sharing the Cubs have to pay. (Am I being cynical?)

No, actually it's the first thing I thought of when I was surprised by the Cub tote. Tribune's making it back from another tentacle of the conglomerate, believe me. The whole ticket-scalping thing exists so they don't have to report the jacked-up ticket revenue to MLB, so it should surprise few that all the Cub books are cooked in a similar fashion.

adsit
08-22-2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by SoxDemon
I can see their games every night on Fox Sports Net, unless they have local blackout. But that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, since Vin Scully is going the play by play.

News Corp. owns the Dodgers, at least for now. The whole idea behind Murdoch buying them was to acquire a programming commodity. Synergy at work.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-22-2003, 01:19 PM
Nobody should get too worked up over these financial statements from MLB. The numbers are perfectly within generally accepted accounting principles, but bear no resemblance to the reality going on behind the scenes. The Cubune reporting LESS media revenue for the Flubbies than what the Sox report is just the most obvious example. There is plenty more, trust me.

MLB doesn't even need to hire Arthur Anderson to create this phoney baloney nonsense. Any controller in the U.S. can do this trick and get every auditor in America to stamp their approval.

Lip Man 1
08-22-2003, 01:35 PM
Same thing with the Braves and WTBS. There is no "free market" competition for those rights because the Braves and Cubs will NEVER let it go to the open market.

The braves and Cubs then get paid LESS money by their subsidiaries (TBS, WGN) for the broadcast rights so they can reduce their "income" and fall under the luxury tax.

However the money is still being made back because they OWN TBS and WGN. It's just shifted to a different pocket for accounting purposes.

It's the same thing like TV ratings all smoke and mirrors.

Lip