PDA

View Full Version : Should Comcast buy the SOX?


BigFrankFan
05-03-2004, 04:19 PM
This is one of those interesting sub-plots floating around.

As most of you know by now 2005 will usher in a new Comcast Sports Net. The SOX, CUBS, BULLS, & Hawks have partnered with Comcast on the new venture. Is it time for the aging Reinsdorf to step down as majority owner in the SOX & give reigns to Comcast?

Reasons why it makes sense:
1) WGN is going to retain more Cub games in 2005
2) The more the SOX win the better the TV ratings
3) An investment in the SOX could pay big in ad rates for 2006

The bottom-line is that with a long-time commitment in CSN it makes profit sense for Comcast to try & purchase the SOX.

ChiWhiteSox1337
05-03-2004, 04:20 PM
Corporate owners = the suck. I'd rather have Reinsdorf. Look what happened to the braves after ted turner gave up the team and AOL started to run it.

Randar68
05-03-2004, 04:22 PM
Currently, WGN is broadcasting all home games in HD. Wow, and I mean WOW, they look terrific in that format. Is the new Comcast channel supposed to be broadcast/recorded in HD???

If they are acquiring new equipment, it would only make sense...


Doesn anyone know the proper people over at Comcast (or the Sox) to talk to about this?

hose
05-03-2004, 04:28 PM
Considering I sold all my Comcast stock last month....yes :D:

soxnut
05-03-2004, 04:31 PM
Corporations are usually in it only to make a profit and not because they are basebll fans. If they are interested in creating a winning environment like the Yankees, then I'm for it. But if they're like what happened to the Braves and Dodgers, then ...no.

jabrch
05-03-2004, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
Corporations are usually in it only to make a profit and not because they are basebll fans. If they are interested in creating a winning environment like the Yankees, then I'm for it. But if they're like what happened to the Braves and Dodgers, then ...no.


as opposed to individual owners and ownership groups like ours who put a "winning environment" first and are not in it "to make a profit"

Come on - lets be real. If this team could be bought out by a corporation that could find ways to escalate the revenues by drawing an extra 500,000 fans (about 10,000,000 in ticket revenue alone, not to mention concessions, parking, etc.) and would see the value that owning a sports team can do to the value or your media related operations (See Chicago Tribune and YES TV Network), then they would spend the money. The Dodgers are a bad example as their ownership overpaid for the franchise to begin with - and had no hidden value they could get from it. This team is different - positive ownership could increase the financial productivity of this team easily; thus increasing revenues and profitability while still increasing budget for operations.

Randar68
05-03-2004, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
as opposed to individual owners and ownership groups like ours who put a "winning environment" first and are not in it "to make a profit"

Come on - lets be real. If this team could be bought out by a corporation that could find ways to escalate the revenues by drawing an extra 500,000 fans (about 10,000,000 in ticket revenue alone, not to mention concessions, parking, etc.) and would see the value that owning a sports team can do to the value or your media related operations (See Chicago Tribune and YES TV Network), then they would spend the money. The Dodgers are a bad example as their ownership overpaid for the franchise to begin with - and had no hidden value they could get from it. This team is different - positive ownership could increase the financial productivity of this team easily; thus increasing revenues and profitability while still increasing budget for operations.

Not to mention putting every Sox game (except WGN ones) on a Cable/Satellite channel that reaches every subscriber of those services in the nation...

Win1ForMe
05-03-2004, 04:46 PM
Just curious, doesn't Comcast own the Sixers?

idseer
05-03-2004, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by BigFrankFan
Is it time for the aging Reinsdorf to step down as majority owner in the SOX .... ?



it's ALWAYS a good time for that!

owensmouth
05-03-2004, 05:23 PM
"The Dodgers are a bad example as their ownership overpaid for the franchise to begin with - and had no hidden value they could get from it. "

What? You think Reinsdorf will sell for pennies on the dollar?

The Dodgers are a good example of bad leadership. They got good players, at inflated prices, but never were able to meld a functioning team.

That corporation also owns FSN and Fox. so they know something about broadcasting.

Ask Yankee fans how successful the CBS years were.

If you want a working example of how great it is to have a franchise owned as a afterthought by a corporation, look no further than the Cubs. Remember, the Tribune bought the Cubs the same year as Reinsdorf and Co bought the Sox. How many world series have been played there since?

How many times have Cub fans cried that the Trib wouldn't spend enough money to produce a winner? The Tribune has made plenty of money from the Cubs. Some of went back into their operation, some of it went to the corporate coffers, and some of it went to the stockholders.

The Angels did win a World Series while owned by Disney Corp, but it had nothing to do with Disney. They did it on the cheap, causing the geniuses at ESPN (also owned by Disney) to gag because underfunded teams weren't supposed to whump their favorite Yankees in the ALCS.

In general, corporations do a lousy job of owning major league teams because baseball is far out of their area of expertise.

Tom8501
05-03-2004, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Currently, WGN is broadcasting all home games in HD. Wow, and I mean WOW, they look terrific in that format. Is the new Comcast channel supposed to be broadcast/recorded in HD???


The new Comcast channel will have HD for all home games for Sox, Cubs, and Bulls games.

chidonez
05-03-2004, 07:50 PM
No Comcast!
No Disney!
No DisneyComcast!