PDA

View Full Version : Are Sox Going To Draw 2 Million


34 Inch Stick
09-23-2004, 02:42 PM
It seemed like a foregone conclusion that the sox were going to draw 2 million. With 4 game left, where are we on attendence?

Rocky Soprano
09-23-2004, 02:46 PM
Nope not going to happen. I read something in the paper about this. I think they said we are going to match what we did last year. Considering the fact that we have less seats this year, they said that was pretty good.

batmanZoSo
09-23-2004, 02:50 PM
It seemed like a foregone conclusion that the sox were going to draw 2 million. With 4 game left, where are we on attendence?

We're at 1,860,000. We need 140,000 to do it. We would need four near sell outs to do it. Wait til next year.

Attendance really dropped off since August. Imagine if we were still in it, we'd be over 2 million already, probably close to 2.3 by the end.

Tekijawa
09-23-2004, 03:02 PM
http://slam.canoe.ca/StatsBBA/BC-BBA-STAT-CHWHITESOXATTCOMP-R.html

DumpJerry
09-23-2004, 05:09 PM
We're at 1,860,000. We need 140,000 to do it. We would need four near sell outs to do it. Wait til next year.

Attendance really dropped off since August. Imagine if we were still in it, we'd be over 2 million already, probably close to 2.3 by the end."Wait til next year?" Couldn't you come up with a better choice of words? After all, who uses that phrase more often than necessary?:rolleyes:

Tekijawa
09-24-2004, 03:19 PM
We need to average 20,967 a game just to make it back to last years total... Here's to some good weather this weekend and generous walk ups!

Randar68
09-24-2004, 03:33 PM
We need to average 20,967 a game just to make it back to last years total... Here's to some good weather this weekend and generous walk ups!
With increased parking costs and ticket prices, that should me a big jump in revenues...

We'll see where that get's us for next year, but prior to the post Maggs/Frank injury collapse, we were on pace for a very significant attendance increase... I hope that got the attention of the bean counters upstairs...

Tekijawa
09-24-2004, 03:50 PM
With increased parking costs and ticket prices, that should me a big jump in revenues...
No revenues they just break even, remember?

Randar68
09-24-2004, 03:52 PM
No revenues they just break even, remember?
Well, revenues are up, but profits? There's where your sarcasm probably belongs...

Remember, they had to pay a big chunk of Koch's salary, so that was all the profits right there!:redneck

Wealz
09-24-2004, 04:13 PM
With increased parking costs and ticket prices, that should me a big jump in revenues...
Remember though the All-Star game was part of last year's revenues. My hope is that the new Comcast TV deal increases the TV money substanially. It's at somewhere just over $30M now, IIRC. Would it be too optimistic to put that number just over $40M with this new deal?

Randar68
09-24-2004, 05:52 PM
Remember though the All-Star game was part of last year's revenues. My hope is that the new Comcast TV deal increases the TV money substanially. It's at somewhere just over $30M now, IIRC. Would it be too optimistic to put that number just over $40M with this new deal?
I never had heard actual numbers on the previous or new TV deal, but this only affects the games that normally would have appeared on FSN, right? How many total games was that this year? 100? 82?

Wealz
09-24-2004, 06:14 PM
I never had heard actual numbers on the previous or new TV deal, but this only affects the games that normally would have appeared on FSN, right? How many total games was that this year? 100? 82?
Yeah about 100.

You have to think the new TV deal does substanially increase the Sox TV dollars because moving to Comcast effectively kills Fox Sports Chicago. Fox Sports Chicago had to go to Reinsdorf with a pretty good deal to keep the Sox and Bulls so that they could stay in business, right?

Randar68
09-24-2004, 06:19 PM
Yeah about 100.

You have to think the new TV deal does substanially increase the Sox TV dollars because moving to Comcast effectively kills Fox Sports Chicago. Fox Sports Chicago had to go to Reinsdorf with a pretty good deal to keep the Sox and Bulls so that they could stay in business, right?
You'd certainly think Comcast had to have made an offer FSN simply couldn't match...

PaleHoseGeorge
09-24-2004, 06:56 PM
Finally... can we all agree that NONE OF US knows what the real books say about the profit and loss of Jerry and his partners. The numbers Forbes uses are based on best guesses derived from the same Accounting Never-Never Land that has the Cubs earning less TV revenue from WGN than the Sox earn.

Here is what ALL OF US knows what the real books say about the profit and loss of Jerry and his partners. The franchise is now worth roughly $220 million and the next owner of the Sox WILL PAY this amount, probably more because the team is not for sale and its value will continue to appreciate.

Go ahead and tell me about all the other great investments Jerry Reinsdorf could have made that outstrip his White Sox return. My simple retort is, "Fine, let him get started on his Bill Gates-esque mega fortune." He and his partners can get off to a fast start by SELLING the White Sox for a cool $200 million profit!

Take your money and get the **** out of here, Jerry Reinsdorf.

:selljerry

Jurr
09-24-2004, 07:49 PM
See, one thing I don't understand is how the KC Royals can get their own network, yet the Sox can't do it. I know that the fan base may not warrant it, but come on! Chicago is a big enough market to support it. The Cubs get WGN, and it doesn't seem like the national games that the Sox get with WGN really boosts the fan base. Let the Cubs get WGN full time.
Then, FSN....I mean..every other city in America that gets the FSN broadcasts regionally have a commercial where it shows fans from all the different sports teams in the region. Ohio has Reds, Indians, Cavs, Browns, Bengals, etc. The Chicago one has NOT ONE White Sox reference. Not too good. Screw them too.
Why don't the Sox team up with the Bulls or Bears and get a Sox network. That would bring in some revenue that could help to pay for players, could it not?
I don't see why it wouldn't work.

Jurr
09-24-2004, 07:52 PM
The Sox have a chance to do something really big, as we all know....with this pitching staff (and a couple pitchers extra), along with some more consistent batting help, we are looking at a team that could go DEEP into the playoffs, if not win the whole damn thing. I can't see why an owner wouldn't want to prime the pump and harness that chance and go for it! If he dumps a whole bunch of money a couple of years and the team kicks ass, the fans will fill the stands, he'll make money, and the Sox could emerge as the number one team in the second city! I just don't see why JR wouldn't embrace that.

ewokpelts
09-25-2004, 09:37 AM
You'd certainly think Comcast had to have made an offer FSN simply couldn't match...um...the sox are part owners.....that's a pretty good deal....
Gene

ewokpelts
09-25-2004, 09:38 AM
See, one thing I don't understand is how the KC Royals can get their own network, yet the Sox can't do it. I know that the fan base may not warrant it, but come on! Chicago is a big enough market to support it. The Cubs get WGN, and it doesn't seem like the national games that the Sox get with WGN really boosts the fan base. Let the Cubs get WGN full time.
Then, FSN....I mean..every other city in America that gets the FSN broadcasts regionally have a commercial where it shows fans from all the different sports teams in the region. Ohio has Reds, Indians, Cavs, Browns, Bengals, etc. The Chicago one has NOT ONE White Sox reference. Not too good. Screw them too.
Why don't the Sox team up with the Bulls or Bears and get a Sox network. That would bring in some revenue that could help to pay for players, could it not?
I don't see why it wouldn't work.they have a network...they bought into comcast sports net
Gene

Paulwny
09-25-2004, 11:43 AM
um...the sox are part owners.....that's a pretty good deal....
Gene
A good deal for the sox owners. They can pay the sox less, comcast makes more money, the owners make more money and the bottom line for the sox is less.
WGN pays the sox more for telecasts then they pay the cubs. See PHG's post #14 in this thread.

ewokpelts
09-25-2004, 01:51 PM
A good deal for the sox owners. They can pay the sox less, comcast makes more money, the owners make more money and the bottom line for the sox is less.
WGN pays the sox more for telecasts then they pay the cubs. See PHG's post #14 in this thread.doctored numbers........the tribune alleges that they make teh cubs(one fo their divisions) pay WGN(another of thier divisions) various fees to production services. On paper, they make less due to this "fee" In reality...tribune iw laughing all teh way to teh bank. Comcast sports net is a joint venture of teh sox/cubs/bulls/hawks. Comcast sports net pay the bears to air postgame live, and they pay the wolves to air games.
Gene

ewokpelts
09-25-2004, 01:52 PM
A good deal for the sox owners. They can pay the sox less, comcast makes more money, the owners make more money and the bottom line for the sox is less.
WGN pays the sox more for telecasts then they pay the cubs. See PHG's post #14 in this thread.why would teh sox pay themselve sless to air thier own games?
Gene

Paulwny
09-25-2004, 04:19 PM
why would teh sox pay themselve sless to air thier own games?
Gene
From an article 12/12/2001



Four major-league clubs are owned by large national-media companies: the Angels (Disney), Braves (AOL Time Warner), Cubs (Tribune Company), and Dodgers (News Corporation/Fox). This is a red flag for analysts, because the common ownership of a baseball franchise and a related enterprise can allow the parent company arbitrarily to apportion revenues and expenses between the companies. In particular, an entity that owns both a baseball team and its local television outlet may well charge the TV station less than fair market value for the club's media rights. This strategy not only allows the club to cry poverty during baseball labor talks, but artificially inflates the station's profits, a figure closely watched by stock analysts. All four of these clubs report suspiciously low media contracts, but in only two of these cases do the suspicions appear justified

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1297

ewokpelts
09-26-2004, 10:18 AM
From an article 12/12/2001



Four major-league clubs are owned by large national-media companies: the Angels (Disney), Braves (AOL Time Warner), Cubs (Tribune Company), and Dodgers (News Corporation/Fox). This is a red flag for analysts, because the common ownership of a baseball franchise and a related enterprise can allow the parent company arbitrarily to apportion revenues and expenses between the companies. In particular, an entity that owns both a baseball team and its local television outlet may well charge the TV station less than fair market value for the club's media rights. This strategy not only allows the club to cry poverty during baseball labor talks, but artificially inflates the station's profits, a figure closely watched by stock analysts. All four of these clubs report suspiciously low media contracts, but in only two of these cases do the suspicions appear justified

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1297that was a 2001 report on media comnaies owning teams...thsiis a sports team being a partial owner of a network....for a better prespective...look at teh red sox tv contract...they co-own NESN.
Gene

voodoochile
09-26-2004, 10:23 AM
doctored numbers........the tribune alleges that they make teh cubs(one fo their divisions) pay WGN(another of thier divisions) various fees to production services. On paper, they make less due to this "fee" In reality...tribune iw laughing all teh way to teh bank. Comcast sports net is a joint venture of teh sox/cubs/bulls/hawks. Comcast sports net pay the bears to air postgame live, and they pay the wolves to air games.
Gene
I'm not saying this isn't partly true, but the flubbies WGN royaltys are also diminished because the games are national and they have to pay a certain percentage of their broadcast income into the national pot to be split among all 30 teams.

ewokpelts
09-26-2004, 11:39 AM
I'm not saying this isn't partly true, but the flubbies WGN royaltys are also diminished because the games are national and they have to pay a certain percentage of their broadcast income into the national pot to be split among all 30 teams.a perccentage of thier "REPORTED" revenue. That's the sticking point...all these revenue numbers are bs cuz you can tinker with them till kingdom come.
Gene

Iron Dragon
09-27-2004, 11:52 PM
So for next season, the Sox won't be on FSN, they'll be on Comcast Sports Net, which I've never heard of and don't get. The only games I'll see will be the ones on WGN?....once a week? How bad does that suck?

santo=dorf
09-28-2004, 12:09 AM
Using the Sun-Times attendance figures:

2003: 1,939,630
2004: 1,970,111

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/bschalle/www/Sox%20Attendance.JPG

mjmcend
09-28-2004, 12:09 AM
So for next season, the Sox won't be on FSN, they'll be on Comcast Sports Net, which I've never heard of and don't get. The only games I'll see will be the ones on WGN?....once a week? How bad does that suck?
No one gets it yet. It doesn't go on the air until October 1st. If you have comcast as your cabel provider you are going to get it. Same with Direct TV, I believe they have a deal with them as well.

mjmcend
09-28-2004, 12:12 AM
Using the Sun-Times attendance figures:

2003: 1,939,630
2004: 1,970,111

Not bad at all considering there was less seats in the stadium and no all star game. And who could forget the giant tumble they took from first to also rans.....

Iron Dragon
09-28-2004, 10:01 PM
No one gets it yet. It doesn't go on the air until October 1st. If you have comcast as your cabel provider you are going to get it. Same with Direct TV, I believe they have a deal with them as well.
Well, I hope you're right. We do have Comcast. I don't want to be left out with no Sox.