PDA

View Full Version : Very Interesting Article About Quote/Unquote Pay-Rod


fquaye149
08-30-2006, 10:26 PM
http://villagevoice.com/nyclife/0635,barra,74310,15.html

Exposes some interesting points people tend to ignore when attacking him.

This one was particularly intriguing to me re: how his contract "handcuffed Texas' payroll"

What wasn't mentioned was that the Texas Rangers had, shortly before signing Rodriguez, negotiated a 10-year, $250 million cable agreement that was widely reported at the time as contingent on the team's signing a major Hispanic star. In all likelihood, the Rangers probably couldn't have made the deal without Rodriguez looming on the horizon. No one would say it, but Texas gave Rodriguez the money from the cable contract in expectation of profits on increased ticket and concession sales.

SoxSpeed22
08-30-2006, 10:34 PM
All the better reason to laugh at Texas for that contract, they couldn't even afford it.

fquaye149
08-30-2006, 10:47 PM
All the better reason to laugh at Texas for that contract, they couldn't even afford it.

um...did you miss the point? That contract, which is widely considered the most "crippling" in sports was a zero-sum venture at worst. At best they gained revenue in added ticket and merch sales. W/o A-Rod they might not make that TV deal. With him they do, and it pays for his salary.

Jaffar
08-31-2006, 09:39 AM
But as fans are beginning to realize, the New York press, infiltrated by Boston homies such as the Daily News' Mike Lupica and ESPN's Peter Gammons, is ridiculously Red Sox–centric. The New York Times, which owns a minority stake in the Red Sox, leads the pack. As Eric Wolff asked in New York magazine (January 9), "Has the Times Gone Red Sox Crazy?" From October 12, 2005, the first day of the Yankees' off-season, to the first week in January, there were 105 articles mentioning the Red Sox, two more than the Yankees and 26 more than the Mets. "The paper's Boston coverage can be absurd," Wolff wrote. "Witness its infamous October 2003 pro-Sox editorial"—endorsing the Red Sox for the World Series over the Yankees—"What's going on? Too many Harvard grads on 43rd Street?"

Hangar?

soxfanatlanta
08-31-2006, 09:48 AM
The owners go into these contract negotiations with open eyes; they know what repercussions they get when making big signings. However, they don't look at their baseball team as a single entity, they look at it as part of an overall portfolio with their cable/newspaper/media conglomerate. $25 million per year is not such a huge number when you are looking at a multi-billion dollar enterprise.

Frater Perdurabo
08-31-2006, 11:09 AM
http://villagevoice.com/nyclife/0635,barra,74310,15.html

Exposes some interesting points people tend to ignore when attacking him.

This one was particularly intriguing to me re: how his contract "handcuffed Texas' payroll"

If true (I don't remember that being reported in the media, but then again I wasn't paying much attention at the time), that means the Rangers organization actually made a profit by then trading away Rodriguez, even if they are paying part of his salary now! After all, they are not on the hook for the full $252 million, but will get the full $250 million from the TV deal.

Paulwny
08-31-2006, 12:01 PM
If true (I don't remember that being reported in the media, but then again I wasn't paying much attention at the time), that means the Rangers organization actually made a profit by then trading away Rodriguez, even if they are paying part of his salary now! After all, they are not on the hook for the full $252 million, but will get the full $250 million from the TV deal.

After the Rangers signed A-Rod the owner was on CNBC where he claimed, ~ with the tv deal the expected increase in season ticket holders and increase revenue from advertisers, his accountants assured him that he would make money on A-Rod's signing.
You're correct he's making more now, with A-Rod traded.

SoxSpeed22
08-31-2006, 01:21 PM
W/o A-Rod they might not make that TV deal. With him they do, and it pays for his salary.Yeah, but I thought that it didn't go as well as they anticipated, that's why I said what I said.