White Sox Interactive Forums
Sox Clubhouse
 Soxogram: 
GO SOX! DSNB!

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Sox Clubhouse
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #106  
Old 11-17-2018, 05:14 AM
Grzegorz Grzegorz is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 4,067
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
The White Sox had the second-best record in the AL in 1972. Five years later, the team that so many Sox fans revere, the 1977 White Sox had the sixth best record in the AL
That's a totally different generation of fans. First off, competition for the entertainment dollar was far less fierce. What also should be noted is that as high school students back in the day we went to baseball games. The cost was so much less that having a license and a part-time jobs enabled us to go to sporting events especially White Sox and Blackhawk games.

(We also loved sports and played in rec leagues all year round.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by voodoochile View Post
The current market is 3M doesn't mean it couldn't be bigger if they won. I understand your point but I think it's too literal and misses a bigger truth. The Sox haven't earned more fans that doesn't mean there aren't more potential fans out there.
Bravo! Let's put that theory to the test. Lets go White Sox!
__________________
“There were a few hard rules, but everybody was unique, and he understood that. George’s great strength was he didn’t overcoach. There’s no place for panic on the mound.” - Jim Palmer on George Bamberger “Arms and the man,” Sports Illustrated, April 19, 2004
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 11-17-2018, 10:12 AM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 9,784
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by voodoochile
I agree on the surface, but the simple fact is if they won consistently for an extended period of time they could grow that market. There are potentially 10M people to reach in the Metro area including Southern WI and NE Indiana an everything south of Chicago in Illinois until you get to Springfield.

The current market is 3M doesn't mean it couldn't be bigger if they won. I understand your point but I think it's too literal and misses a bigger truth. The Sox haven't earned more fans that doesn't mean there aren't more potential fans out there.
OK, but the club can only operate with the revenues they are getting now. They can’t operate at a loss and hope to make up for it by flipping Cub fans and converting non-baseball fans. Lip refers to the market size as being an advantage in the team’s attempt to assemble a winner; I am trying to point out that the “small-market team in a big market” trope is not entirely accurate, because the “big market” is not actually that big.

I used to think the same way. I thought one-third of Chicago was a more robust source of revenue than it actually is.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horsemaster Fred
This is the major leagues so get it how you live and let’s fight tomorrow.

Last edited by Mohoney; 11-17-2018 at 10:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 11-17-2018, 10:22 AM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is offline
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 55,399
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
OK, but the club can only operate with the revenues they are getting now. They can’t operate at a loss and hope to make up for it by flipping Cub fans and converting non-baseball fans.
I'm not getting into all that. I don't know what their budget is anyway and by all accounts pure attendance revenue (as important as it is) pales in comparison to the national TV revenue.

In theory they should have a nice fat chunk of savings in the bank from the lower payroll last and this year. Some of that money can be put towards big signings without going into debt.

It's not necessary to flip or convert fans either. The VAST majority of potential fans in that number I listed are casual fans who will root for the laundry with the city name on it when the team wearing that laundry is winning. If the Sox win regularly, revenues will increase both in terms of more people at the games (diehard "fans" or not) and in terms of local media money increase.
__________________

Riding shotgun on the Sox bandwagon since before there was an Internet...
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 11-17-2018, 10:46 AM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 9,784
Default

The problem with the national revenues from TV and the web is that the White Sox are also the only team in the AL Central who will not be receiving revenue sharing. We get no cash to help with operating expenses, less draft and international free agent pool money, no competitive balance draft picks, and lower-quality compensation for losing qualifying-offer free agents.

In some ways, this market actually deprives us of mechanisms that other teams with similar (maybe even higher) revenues can use to improve the team.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 11-17-2018, 11:05 AM
asindc asindc is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 8,700
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
This brings up an important question: what actually is the size of the White Sox market?

The split in the Chicagoland area/Northwest Indiana is markedly less than half, probably closer to one-third. In other areas of Illinois, and Iowa, and the rest of Indiana, the White Sox are practically non-existent.

So that leaves us at somewhere around 3-3.5 million people? The Tigers and Twins both have that number beat, and depending on how they do in other areas of their home states, the Indians and Royals are both close to that number as well.

All of a sudden, the market size looks more like the Indians and Royals than the Mets and Angels.
I’ve always said comparing metropolitan areas among AL Central teams is misleading. Having gone to HS in Michigan, I can tell you that the Tigers’ market is not confined to metro Detroit, it takes up about 97% of the state (the Sox and Cubs have small parts of the SW Michigan market) and extends into the Toledo/NW Ohio area.

Actually, the Mets and LAAAA are the closest comparisons in terms of market composition, with their markets also being largely confined to their immediate metro areas.
__________________
"I have the ultimate respect for White Sox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Red Sox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country." Jim Caple, ESPN (January 12, 2011)


"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the (bleeding) obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."George Orwell
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 11-17-2018, 11:35 AM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 9,784
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by asindc
I’ve always said comparing metropolitan areas among AL Central teams is misleading. Having gone to HS in Michigan, I can tell you that the Tigers’ market is not confined to metro Detroit, it takes up about 97% of the state (the Sox and Cubs have small parts of the SW Michigan market) and extends into the Toledo/NW Ohio area.

Actually, the Mets and LAAAA are the closest comparisons in terms of market composition, with their markets also being largely confined to their immediate metro areas.
It’s definitely comparable aesthetically and geographically, but being the second team in L.A. or New York is still a much better situation than being the second team in Chicago.

Here is a look at how MLB perceives it. Notice the group we are in:

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/...ree-agent.html

That last group of “neither/nor” teams (Red Sox, Cubs, Mets, Phillies, Rangers, Blue Jays, Cardinals, Angels) ALL have better markets than us. The Red Sox and Cubs have since gone into luxury tax status, but look at the other six.

Now look at the group of teams receiving money—and be sure to add the Tigers, who go from luxury tax status to revenue sharing status. I would say that the Diamondbacks, Braves, Astros, and Rockies are getting a pretty sweet deal by getting that $30+ million check that the White Sox don’t get.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 11-17-2018, 11:48 AM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is offline
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 55,399
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
It’s definitely comparable aesthetically and geographically, but being the second team in L.A. or New York is still a much better situation than being the second team in Chicago.

Here is a look at how MLB perceives it. Notice the group we are in:

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/...ree-agent.html

That last group of “neither/nor” teams (Red Sox, Cubs, Mets, Phillies, Rangers, Blue Jays, Cardinals, Angels) ALL have better markets than us. The Red Sox and Cubs have since gone into luxury tax status, but look at the other six.

Now look at the group of teams receiving money—and be sure to add the Tigers, who go from luxury tax status to revenue sharing status. I would say that the Diamondbacks, Braves, Astros, and Rockies are getting a pretty sweet deal by getting that $30+ million check that the White Sox don’t get.
I would like to add one thought. Unlike you, me, the press or anyone else MLB actually knows what revenues these teams take in. Maybe they know something about how much money the team has at its disposal that we don't.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 11-17-2018, 12:58 PM
Hitmen77 Hitmen77 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 12,666
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
This brings up an important question: what actually is the size of the White Sox market?

The split in the Chicagoland area/Northwest Indiana is markedly less than half, probably closer to one-third. In other areas of Illinois, and Iowa, and the rest of Indiana, the White Sox are practically non-existent.

So that leaves us at somewhere around 3-3.5 million people? The Tigers and Twins both have that number beat, and depending on how they do in other areas of their home states, the Indians and Royals are both close to that number as well.

All of a sudden, the market size looks more like the Indians and Royals than the Mets and Angels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by voodoochile View Post
I agree on the surface, but the simple fact is if they won consistently for an extended period of time they could grow that market. There are potentially 10M people to reach in the Metro area including Southern WI and NE Indiana an everything south of Chicago in Illinois until you get to Springfield.

The current market is 3M doesn't mean it couldn't be bigger if they won. I understand your point but I think it's too literal and misses a bigger truth. The Sox haven't earned more fans that doesn't mean there aren't more potential fans out there.
As far as local revenue goes, tickets sold is only one component. Teams also bring in revenue in their local TV/radio deals and also corporate sponsorship. Big market teams can bring in much more revenue for both. I'm not sure what kind of TV deal the Sox will be able to get after 2019, but I'm guessing it won't be as much as the recent deals that the Cardinals, Mariners, and Diamondbacks made. Right now, they own a 20% stake in NBC Sports Chicago which is shared evenly with the Cubs, Bulls, Hawks, and Comcast. I have no idea what their sponsorship revenue situation is, but I would guess it's much lower than that of other big market teams.

As far as the question of flipping causal fans goes, what the Sox need to do long-term is to gain allegiance of young fans. Not everyone grows up in a all-rabid Sox fans or all-rabid Cubs fans household. When I was a kid, my parents really didn't follow baseball, so I picked allegiance to the Sox on my own - there was no switching or going with (or against) the family involved. There are plenty of youngsters out there just waiting to be won over as loyal fans. Once you cement their allegiance, they're unlikely to flip sides as an adult. Maybe the Sox won over a good chunk of youngsters in that brief window of the 2005 era, but that success didn't last very long. No doubt, the Cubs are racking up lots of new fans now (as if they need them). The Sox aren't winning over hardly anyone new this decade.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 11-17-2018, 01:53 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 9,784
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by voodoochile
I would like to add one thought. Unlike you, me, the press or anyone else MLB actually knows what revenues these teams take in. Maybe they know something about how much money the team has at its disposal that we don't.
When MLB determines “market rank,” it is based on population, income, and number of cable TV subscribers. They have the White Sox tied for 5th with the Cubs, just like they have the Mets and Yankees tied for 1st, the Dodgers and Angels tied for 3rd, and the Giants and A’s tied for 7th. Technically, the A’s are not supposed to be in the revenue sharing, either.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 11-17-2018, 08:28 PM
Tragg Tragg is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gonzales LA
Posts: 15,072
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
It’s definitely comparable aesthetically and geographically, but being the second team in L.A. or New York is still a much better situation than being the second team in Chicago.

Here is a look at how MLB perceives it. Notice the group we are in:

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/...ree-agent.html

That last group of “neither/nor” teams (Red Sox, Cubs, Mets, Phillies, Rangers, Blue Jays, Cardinals, Angels) ALL have better markets than us. The Red Sox and Cubs have since gone into luxury tax status, but look at the other six.

Now look at the group of teams receiving money—and be sure to add the Tigers, who go from luxury tax status to revenue sharing status. I would say that the Diamondbacks, Braves, Astros, and Rockies are getting a pretty sweet deal by getting that $30+ million check that the White Sox don’t get.
And my question is how to the Astros, with a top 5 market, qualify for that revenue sharing?
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 11-17-2018, 08:55 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 9,784
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tragg
And my question is how to the Astros, with a top 5 market, qualify for that revenue sharing?
According to MLB, the Astros play in the 15th-largest market. I don’t think it makes any sense, either, but c’est la vie.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 11-18-2018, 06:08 AM
Grzegorz Grzegorz is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 4,067
Default

Revenue Sharing table (page 239)

http://www.mlbplayers.com/pdf9/5450407.pdf


2018 MLB Franchise valuations:

https://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuation...rtreverse:true


MLB's business model and strategy

https://www.investopedia.com/article...l-strategy.asp
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:36 AM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.