Zell to Purchase Tribune Co., Sell Cubs

[98navigator]

Well, the only thing we know for sure is that the guy will have to sell either his minority interest in the Sox, or the Cubs. I don't really see any reason to hang onto the Cubs other than the fact that the team is profitable. He could either keep it and make money the way it is, or sell it and make a lot of money in a short period to shore up the rest of the company. The team would probably still be profitable without national telecasts on WGN, but maybe not as much. That said, why would WGN stop carrying the Cubs. They don't exactly have the same array of programming choices that Time/Warner does, and likely wouldn't under Zell nor whatever billionaire he sold to. If WGN could make more money on things other than baseball, why do they carry Sox games? I sincerely doubt they'll stop carrying the Cubs altogether. I can't imagine the Cubs doing worse than the endless reruns they have on every other cable station in the afternoon.

 

WGN could expand its CW programming which, currently, takes a back seat to Cubs games during the season. They could find plenty of ways to make it profitable.

[J.R.]

If they split the Cubs from WGN it would hurt the fan base real bad. Especially with mlb deciding to give DirectTV the monopoly on the EI package. It would basicly make it immpossible for me to follow the team other than listening on XM. Im sure there would be alot of other people in the same boat.

 

"Immpossible?"

 

Hardly.

[mhuber92211]

Doesn't WGN have a rights contract?

[Amazing_Grace]

Well, the only thing we know for sure is that the guy will have to sell either his minority interest in the Sox, or the Cubs. I don't really see any reason to hang onto the Cubs other than the fact that the team is profitable. He could either keep it and make money the way it is, or sell it and make a lot of money in a short period to shore up the rest of the company. The team would probably still be profitable without national telecasts on WGN, but maybe not as much. That said, why would WGN stop carrying the Cubs. They don't exactly have the same array of programming choices that Time/Warner does, and likely wouldn't under Zell nor whatever billionaire he sold to. If WGN could make more money on things other than baseball, why do they carry Sox games? I sincerely doubt they'll stop carrying the Cubs altogether. I can't imagine the Cubs doing worse than the endless reruns they have on every other cable station in the afternoon.

 

WGN could expand its CW programming which, currently, takes a back seat to Cubs games during the season. They could find plenty of ways to make it profitable.

 

In business, that statement begs the question "so why aren't they already doing it?" Most businesses don't like to just leave dollars on the table when there is something more profitable available. It could be argued that since the Cubs are another division of the same company, they are using WGN to boost the profitability of the Cubs, and that that benefit is larger than the profit that could be made by putting other programming on instead of the Cubs. That explanation wouldn't explain why WGN carries Sox games though. Does anyone want to argue that the Sox have more fans outside Chicago than the Cubs.

 

I think that the situation is actually the other way around. The Trib has used the Cubs, a team that has one of the largest national fan bases in all of baseball (just look at the locations on this message board for evidence of that) to boost the profitability of WGN by selling broadcast rights at below market value to another Tribune division, thereby transferring profit from the Cubs to WGN.

 

On a side note, what is the "CW". I have cable so I rarely watch the usual TV networks and never watch WGN except for Cub games.

[Soul]

On a side note, what is the "CW". I have cable so I rarely watch the usual TV networks and never watch WGN except for Cub games.

 

The CW is the smoldering, ashen remains of UPN & the WB. It's basically a targeted network, hitting the 18 to 34 demographic almost exclusively.

 

It's the same concept the old UPN & WB networks had: co-opt the local, independent station in the area (in Chicago's case, WGN makes the most sense), and air a prime-time lineup with your logo pasted in the lower right-hand corner.

 

They call themselves a "network" but there's no news, no CW-sponsored sports. To me it's just a prime-time package syndicated to independent stations.

[98navigator]

Well, the only thing we know for sure is that the guy will have to sell either his minority interest in the Sox, or the Cubs. I don't really see any reason to hang onto the Cubs other than the fact that the team is profitable. He could either keep it and make money the way it is, or sell it and make a lot of money in a short period to shore up the rest of the company. The team would probably still be profitable without national telecasts on WGN, but maybe not as much. That said, why would WGN stop carrying the Cubs. They don't exactly have the same array of programming choices that Time/Warner does, and likely wouldn't under Zell nor whatever billionaire he sold to. If WGN could make more money on things other than baseball, why do they carry Sox games? I sincerely doubt they'll stop carrying the Cubs altogether. I can't imagine the Cubs doing worse than the endless reruns they have on every other cable station in the afternoon.

 

WGN could expand its CW programming which, currently, takes a back seat to Cubs games during the season. They could find plenty of ways to make it profitable.

 

In business, that statement begs the question "so why aren't they already doing it?" Most businesses don't like to just leave dollars on the table when there is something more profitable available. It could be argued that since the Cubs are another division of the same company, they are using WGN to boost the profitability of the Cubs, and that that benefit is larger than the profit that could be made by putting other programming on instead of the Cubs. That explanation wouldn't explain why WGN carries Sox games though. Does anyone want to argue that the Sox have more fans outside Chicago than the Cubs.

 

I think that the situation is actually the other way around. The Trib has used the Cubs, a team that has one of the largest national fan bases in all of baseball (just look at the locations on this message board for evidence of that) to boost the profitability of WGN by selling broadcast rights at below market value to another Tribune division, thereby transferring profit from the Cubs to WGN.

 

On a side note, what is the "CW". I have cable so I rarely watch the usual TV networks and never watch WGN except for Cub games.

 

WGN isn't doing it now because they are currently under the Tribune umbrella and, at the moment, Cubs baseball (and Sox games) is the priority. If the companies are made separate, WGN can choose its own programming.

 

Its not like this hasn't happened before. TBS is making the transition to end all national Braves baseball broadcasts by the end of this season. I can see WGN continuing to run the games locally (which is fine for those of us that are local) but I am concerned about the greater effect on a potential loss of the national viewers. As I said earlier, I'm playing devil's advocate by looking at the worst case but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened.

 

BTW, the CW is a network with new and rerun programs. In some areas, the CW is a stand alone station but in Chicago it shares time with WGN's regular schedule. Actually, the WGN Superstation (which is seen only outside of the Chicago area) may show more of the CW than we get locally; I learned in the game thread the other day that the show I was watching on WGN, before the game, wasn't being shown nationwide.

[98navigator]

The plot thickens...

 

Crain's article 1

 

Billionaires Eli Broad and Ron Burkle sweetened their offer Thursday for Tribune Co., surpassing the $8-billion bid made by real estate magnate Sam Zell... Broad and Burkle sent a letter to the Tribune board offering $34 per share in a recapitalization effort that would involve an employee stock ownership plan...

 

The revised offer exceeds Zell's bid of $33 per share.

 

Crain's article 2

 

As Saturday's self-imposed deadline looms for Tribune Co. to announce how it plans to increase shareholder value, speculation continued Thursday that the company might postpone announcing a possible sale, spinoff or reorganization.

 

"We note that with the March 31st deadline to announce the outcome of the strategic review fast approaching and deal complexity mounting, there is a possibility the deadline could be extended again," Goldman Sachs analyst Peter P. Appert wrote in a research note Thursday.

 

With this bidding war going on, Tribune will probably extend its deadline to see if the offers continue to rise.

 

 

All of this is on the heels of a recent published report that claims the Cubs offseason accquisitions have substaintially increased the team's value.

 

An economic consulting firm has estimated the value of the Chicago Cubs at $600 million, 34% higher than the latest figures from Forbes magazine...

 

The Cubs’ massive, almost-$300-million investment in high-priced free agents such as center fielder Alfonso Soriano and new manager Lou Piniella during the offseason, plus the addition of several new revenue streams including new seats and signage in Wrigley Field, have pushed the team’s value up significantly, says Tim Mahon, a Chicago-based economist with Anderson Economic Group LLC.

 

The team’s offseason signings... are akin to a large corporation’s acquisitions of smaller rivals, Mr. Mahon says.

 

I hate this one but it is true:

 

The additions don’t ensure the Cubs will win, but they create the perception that the team will at least contend, and that’s enough to create fan interest that will add to the team’s top line, he says.

[Amazing_Grace]

Well, the only thing we know for sure is that the guy will have to sell either his minority interest in the Sox, or the Cubs. I don't really see any reason to hang onto the Cubs other than the fact that the team is profitable. He could either keep it and make money the way it is, or sell it and make a lot of money in a short period to shore up the rest of the company. The team would probably still be profitable without national telecasts on WGN, but maybe not as much. That said, why would WGN stop carrying the Cubs. They don't exactly have the same array of programming choices that Time/Warner does, and likely wouldn't under Zell nor whatever billionaire he sold to. If WGN could make more money on things other than baseball, why do they carry Sox games? I sincerely doubt they'll stop carrying the Cubs altogether. I can't imagine the Cubs doing worse than the endless reruns they have on every other cable station in the afternoon.

 

WGN could expand its CW programming which, currently, takes a back seat to Cubs games during the season. They could find plenty of ways to make it profitable.

 

In business, that statement begs the question "so why aren't they already doing it?" Most businesses don't like to just leave dollars on the table when there is something more profitable available. It could be argued that since the Cubs are another division of the same company, they are using WGN to boost the profitability of the Cubs, and that that benefit is larger than the profit that could be made by putting other programming on instead of the Cubs. That explanation wouldn't explain why WGN carries Sox games though. Does anyone want to argue that the Sox have more fans outside Chicago than the Cubs.

 

I think that the situation is actually the other way around. The Trib has used the Cubs, a team that has one of the largest national fan bases in all of baseball (just look at the locations on this message board for evidence of that) to boost the profitability of WGN by selling broadcast rights at below market value to another Tribune division, thereby transferring profit from the Cubs to WGN.

 

On a side note, what is the "CW". I have cable so I rarely watch the usual TV networks and never watch WGN except for Cub games.

 

WGN isn't doing it now because they are currently under the Tribune umbrella and, at the moment, Cubs baseball (and Sox games) is the priority. If the companies are made separate, WGN can choose its own programming.

 

Its not like this hasn't happened before. TBS is making the transition to end all national Braves baseball broadcasts by the end of this season. I can see WGN continuing to run the games locally (which is fine for those of us that are local) but I am concerned about the greater effect on a potential loss of the national viewers. As I said earlier, I'm playing devil's advocate by looking at the worst case but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened.

 

BTW, the CW is a network with new and rerun programs. In some areas, the CW is a stand alone station but in Chicago it shares time with WGN's regular schedule. Actually, the WGN Superstation (which is seen only outside of the Chicago area) may show more of the CW than we get locally; I learned in the game thread the other day that the show I was watching on WGN, before the game, wasn't being shown nationwide.

 

I think the important question is why WGN televises baseball games, Cubs and Sox nationally. Obviously the Trib made that call and there is some reason why. If the reason isn't "that's the way we make the most money", then there must be some other reason. It could be out of some loyalty to the city of Chicago, building up the city or something. It could be simple "that's what we've always done" business inertia. It could be that the Trib uses WGN to drive up the value of the Cubs for financial reasons and then televises the Sox games out of a sense of "fairness" or something like that.

 

Either way, the new owners of WGN and the Cubs will either decide that continuing to televise Cubs games nationally in some form is profitable or not. It comes down to whether there is something that will get better ratings to replace the games. I don't think the Braves example is necessarily a very good one. What Turner did when he bought the team and put the games on his TBS network, was an attempt to create the same kind of national following the Cubs already had. What the Trib did was simply take advantage of the fact that the Cubs had a pretty solid regional and national fanbase, a great tradition, and Wrigley Field, and used that to make money by broadcasting games on their cable superstation. To compare the Braves national fanbase to the Cubs is a bit of a stretch to me. Most of the Braves fans were pretty much created by a combination of the TV telecasts and the team's success. Once Turner sold the company, the same focus wasn't put on the team (what does Time/Warner care about building the fanbase for a baseball team that represents a tiny fraction of its business). Once the team got weaker, no one watched and that spelled the end of the Braves games.

 

I think the odds are good that Cubs games continue to be televised nationally under new Cubs/WGN ownership.

[98navigator]

Well, the only thing we know for sure is that the guy will have to sell either his minority interest in the Sox, or the Cubs. I don't really see any reason to hang onto the Cubs other than the fact that the team is profitable. He could either keep it and make money the way it is, or sell it and make a lot of money in a short period to shore up the rest of the company. The team would probably still be profitable without national telecasts on WGN, but maybe not as much. That said, why would WGN stop carrying the Cubs. They don't exactly have the same array of programming choices that Time/Warner does, and likely wouldn't under Zell nor whatever billionaire he sold to. If WGN could make more money on things other than baseball, why do they carry Sox games? I sincerely doubt they'll stop carrying the Cubs altogether. I can't imagine the Cubs doing worse than the endless reruns they have on every other cable station in the afternoon.

 

WGN could expand its CW programming which, currently, takes a back seat to Cubs games during the season. They could find plenty of ways to make it profitable.

 

In business, that statement begs the question "so why aren't they already doing it?" Most businesses don't like to just leave dollars on the table when there is something more profitable available. It could be argued that since the Cubs are another division of the same company, they are using WGN to boost the profitability of the Cubs, and that that benefit is larger than the profit that could be made by putting other programming on instead of the Cubs. That explanation wouldn't explain why WGN carries Sox games though. Does anyone want to argue that the Sox have more fans outside Chicago than the Cubs.

 

I think that the situation is actually the other way around. The Trib has used the Cubs, a team that has one of the largest national fan bases in all of baseball (just look at the locations on this message board for evidence of that) to boost the profitability of WGN by selling broadcast rights at below market value to another Tribune division, thereby transferring profit from the Cubs to WGN.

 

On a side note, what is the "CW". I have cable so I rarely watch the usual TV networks and never watch WGN except for Cub games.

 

WGN isn't doing it now because they are currently under the Tribune umbrella and, at the moment, Cubs baseball (and Sox games) is the priority. If the companies are made separate, WGN can choose its own programming.

 

Its not like this hasn't happened before. TBS is making the transition to end all national Braves baseball broadcasts by the end of this season. I can see WGN continuing to run the games locally (which is fine for those of us that are local) but I am concerned about the greater effect on a potential loss of the national viewers. As I said earlier, I'm playing devil's advocate by looking at the worst case but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened.

 

BTW, the CW is a network with new and rerun programs. In some areas, the CW is a stand alone station but in Chicago it shares time with WGN's regular schedule. Actually, the WGN Superstation (which is seen only outside of the Chicago area) may show more of the CW than we get locally; I learned in the game thread the other day that the show I was watching on WGN, before the game, wasn't being shown nationwide.

 

I think the important question is why WGN televises baseball games, Cubs and Sox nationally. Obviously the Trib made that call and there is some reason why. If the reason isn't "that's the way we make the most money", then there must be some other reason. It could be out of some loyalty to the city of Chicago, building up the city or something. It could be simple "that's what we've always done" business inertia. It could be that the Trib uses WGN to drive up the value of the Cubs for financial reasons and then televises the Sox games out of a sense of "fairness" or something like that.

 

Either way, the new owners of WGN and the Cubs will either decide that continuing to televise Cubs games nationally in some form is profitable or not. It comes down to whether there is something that will get better ratings to replace the games. I don't think the Braves example is necessarily a very good one. What Turner did when he bought the team and put the games on his TBS network, was an attempt to create the same kind of national following the Cubs already had. What the Trib did was simply take advantage of the fact that the Cubs had a pretty solid regional and national fanbase, a great tradition, and Wrigley Field, and used that to make money by broadcasting games on their cable superstation. To compare the Braves national fanbase to the Cubs is a bit of a stretch to me. Most of the Braves fans were pretty much created by a combination of the TV telecasts and the team's success. Once Turner sold the company, the same focus wasn't put on the team (what does Time/Warner care about building the fanbase for a baseball team that represents a tiny fraction of its business). Once the team got weaker, no one watched and that spelled the end of the Braves games.

 

I think the odds are good that Cubs games continue to be televised nationally under new Cubs/WGN ownership.

 

 

--WGN single handedly grew the world wide fan base of the Cubs. Winning did not.

 

--The TBS model is analogous. If the Cubs are sold to a person or group who does not care about sustaining or building the larger (outside Chicago) fan base, a decrease in popularity will result.

 

In the 1970s, the White Sox were far more popular than the Cubs. In 1982, Reinsdorf's decision to take Sox games off "free TV," in Chicago, came at the expense of intracity (and national) popularity and fan support. Cable TV was in its infancy and the attempts by Sox ownership to be trailblazers in the new media failed miserably.

 

While more homes today are equipped with subscription based programming, most are only "basic" plans. Currently, WGN Sports allows viewers to follow the Cubs without having to pay for an extra sports package. If the Cubs were separated from WGN TV, there would be a profound negative effect in their national following (expressed over years). The Cubs are the number one NL road team and third in MLB (behind NYY & BOS). Those numbers are largely represented by people who have never been to Chicago much less to Wrigley Field. Again, that following was built by accessibility of games and not winning.

 

I have no doubt that WGN will continue to provide local telecasts of Cubs baseball. Whether or not the national Cubs broadcast remains, if the two companies are split, is anyone's guess. Actually, the better question is how many, if any, national broadcasts will be available?

[RedIvyCub]

[-o< Come on Mark Cuban, step in

 

Why don't you understand that the Owners would NEVER approve of Cuban as an owner? You are beating a dead horse.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

[-o< Come on Mark Cuban, step in

 

Why don't you understand that the Owners would NEVER approve of Cuban as an owner? You are beating a dead horse.

 

Have you polled the owners on this? While I think there might be some objections to Cuban, I doubt he has any major problems getting approved.

[Amazing_Grace]

--WGN single handedly grew the world wide fan base of the Cubs. Winning did not.

 

--The TBS model is analogous. If the Cubs are sold to a person or group who does not care about sustaining or building the larger (outside Chicago) fan base, a decrease in popularity will result.

 

In the 1970s, the White Sox were far more popular than the Cubs. In 1982, Reinsdorf's decision to take Sox games off "free TV," in Chicago, came at the expense of intracity (and national) popularity and fan support. Cable TV was in its infancy and the attempts by Sox ownership to be trailblazers in the new media failed miserably.

 

While more homes today are equipped with subscription based programming, most are only "basic" plans. Currently, WGN Sports allows viewers to follow the Cubs without having to pay for an extra sports package. If the Cubs were separated from WGN TV, there would be a profound negative effect in their national following (expressed over years). The Cubs are the number one NL road team and third in MLB (behind NYY & BOS). Those numbers are largely represented by people who have never been to Chicago much less to Wrigley Field. Again, that following was built by accessibility of games and not winning.

 

I have no doubt that WGN will continue to provide local telecasts of Cubs baseball. Whether or not the national Cubs broadcast remains, if the two companies are split, is anyone's guess. Actually, the better question is how many, if any, national broadcasts will be available?

 

I don't dispute that not televising the games nationally would decimate the Cubs national following. I just don't think that it's as likely to happen as others. With the case of the Braves, you have a huge media conglomerate that has an overarching media strategy that didn't include Braves baseball. If the Trib is sold to either of the groups mentioned, it won't be the same as if they were sold to, say, Newscorp or Disney. These groups don't have huge television media empires. They're guys probably more interested in the Trib's newspapers, which have very little to do with the team or WGN.

 

We still have to ask whether WGN is profiting or not from the games. The fact that they continue to show White Sox games tells me that, yes, they are making money on baseball and that there probably isn't much they could do programming wise to make more money. Now, the new WGN owner could come in and decide they want to try another way to make more money. I just don't think that breaking up the Cubs from WGN will automatically mean the end of national broadcasts.

[CubinNY]

[-o< Come on Mark Cuban, step in

 

Why don't you understand that the Owners would NEVER approve of Cuban as an owner? You are beating a dead horse.

 

Have you polled the owners on this? While I think there might be some objections to Cuban, I doubt he has any major problems getting approved.

I agree. I don't think the owners would have any trouble with Cuban owning the team. His track record with the Maverics is outstanding on the revenue side. However, I don't think Cuban is rich enough :shock: to buy the Tribune if the Cubs are not sold serarately.

[Derwood]

if the Cubs are no longer on the national WGN, they might as well fold that station. Seriously, Superstation WGN is basically the Cubs, Saturday night Bulls games, and Becker reruns, occasionally interrupted by a Matlock or Magnum PI marathon. The station is complete junk. WGN Chicago runs almost 100% different programming than the national station

[Elrhino]

Yeah, I don't know how this "baseball owners would never let Cuban in" nonsense got started, much less how it somehow became undeniable fact.

 

Much of Cuban's problems with the NBA is he wants the owners to have much more individual power over their product, rather than delegating all the authority to one central commission 'czar' like David Stern. The MLB is a much better model for what Cuban wants than the NBA. The MLB is full of meglomaniacs owners, Cuban wouldn't stand out that much. I know that Cuban and Tom Hicks are good friends. All you need is one powerful ally to get you in the door.

 

If the Mavs win the NBA Championship, I fully believe Cuban will sell the team and move on to his next challenge. He's already hinted that he might sell the team, and he's said repeatedly that he's not in the NBA to make money because of the league's antiquated owner's rules confine him too much.

[cbbryan]

 

The team’s offseason signings... are akin to a large corporation’s acquisitions of smaller rivals, Mr. Mahon says.

 

 

That's somewhat of a reach! The Cubs acquired free agents, not associated w/ another club. It's not like they bought the Cardinals and therefore their worth more.

[98navigator]

 

The team’s offseason signings... are akin to a large corporation’s acquisitions of smaller rivals, Mr. Mahon says.

 

 

That's somewhat of a reach! The Cubs acquired free agents, not associated w/ another club. It's not like they bought the Cardinals and therefore their worth more.

 

That quote is from Tim Mahon, a Chicago-based economist with Anderson Economic Group LLC. His company has deemed the acquisition of players as an impetus for increased value. I will leave the business of evaluating worth to his judgement. However, I can see his point; the Cubs signing Alfonso Soriano and retaining Aramis Ramirez, in effect, prevented rival teams from benefiting from their services.

[98navigator]

--WGN single handedly grew the world wide fan base of the Cubs. Winning did not.

 

--The TBS model is analogous. If the Cubs are sold to a person or group who does not care about sustaining or building the larger (outside Chicago) fan base, a decrease in popularity will result.

 

In the 1970s, the White Sox were far more popular than the Cubs. In 1982, Reinsdorf's decision to take Sox games off "free TV," in Chicago, came at the expense of intracity (and national) popularity and fan support. Cable TV was in its infancy and the attempts by Sox ownership to be trailblazers in the new media failed miserably.

 

While more homes today are equipped with subscription based programming, most are only "basic" plans. Currently, WGN Sports allows viewers to follow the Cubs without having to pay for an extra sports package. If the Cubs were separated from WGN TV, there would be a profound negative effect in their national following (expressed over years). The Cubs are the number one NL road team and third in MLB (behind NYY & BOS). Those numbers are largely represented by people who have never been to Chicago much less to Wrigley Field. Again, that following was built by accessibility of games and not winning.

 

I have no doubt that WGN will continue to provide local telecasts of Cubs baseball. Whether or not the national Cubs broadcast remains, if the two companies are split, is anyone's guess. Actually, the better question is how many, if any, national broadcasts will be available?

 

I don't dispute that not televising the games nationally would decimate the Cubs national following. I just don't think that it's as likely to happen as others. With the case of the Braves, you have a huge media conglomerate that has an overarching media strategy that didn't include Braves baseball. If the Trib is sold to either of the groups mentioned, it won't be the same as if they were sold to, say, Newscorp or Disney. These groups don't have huge television media empires. They're guys probably more interested in the Trib's newspapers, which have very little to do with the team or WGN.

 

We still have to ask whether WGN is profiting or not from the games. The fact that they continue to show White Sox games tells me that, yes, they are making money on baseball and that there probably isn't much they could do programming wise to make more money. Now, the new WGN owner could come in and decide they want to try another way to make more money. I just don't think that breaking up the Cubs from WGN will automatically mean the end of national broadcasts.

 

White Sox games were more popular than Cubs telecasts last season (for the first time in over 20 years); the net effect is that during the 2007 season, WGN can make more advertising dollars for Sox broadcasts. Don't get me wrong, I expect the balance of power to shift to the Cubs once again this season but the leverage for WGN won't be noticeable until 2008. Outside of that, WGN will always show Sox games (as long as the White Sox continue to pay) because, first and foremost, WGN is a Chicago station (and the Cubs, Sox, and Bulls are local teams).

 

There was a time when Cubs baseball, Bozo's Circus, and Andy Griffin Show reruns made up the bulk of the WGN schedule. The network's programming is much more diversified now, in part, because of MLB rules that have worked to decrease the number of games superstations are allowed to carry. The action necessitated the creation of Comcast Sports Net and WCIU/Cubs Net (which is only available in the Chicago area).

 

In the absence of baseball, WGN Superstation would continue to focus on syndicated broadcasts (reruns) nationally and the continued production of the handful of new shows currently running.

 

Zell has already made it clear that his interest in Tribune is purely economic and not media or sports centered. With that in mind, I am merely bringing up the potential negatives that could arise.

 

Mr. Zell, speaking at a real estate industry event, said his interest in the company has nothing to do with owning the Chicago Cubs or controlling the editorial pages of Tribune's newspapers, which include the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and Newsday.

 

"To the extent we may get involved with the Tribune, I can guarantee you our interests are 100% economic," said Mr. Zell, the former chairman of Equity Office Properties Trust, which was acquired last month by investment firm Blackstone Group in a $39-billion deal.

[cbbryan]

 

The team’s offseason signings... are akin to a large corporation’s acquisitions of smaller rivals, Mr. Mahon says.

 

 

That's somewhat of a reach! The Cubs acquired free agents, not associated w/ another club. It's not like they bought the Cardinals and therefore their worth more.

 

That quote is from Tim Mahon, a Chicago-based economist with Anderson Economic Group LLC. His company has deemed the acquisition of players as an impetus for increased value. I will leave the business of evaluating worth to his judgement. However, I can see his point; the Cubs signing Alfonso Soriano and retaining Aramis Ramirez, in effect, prevented rival teams from benefiting from their services.

 

I understand that and agree that it prevents a rival team from signing them.

 

So, when a company invents something and copyrights it........... is that "akin to a large corporation’s acquisitions of smaller rivals?" No, it prevents their rival company from having, or producing the same thing.

 

Acquisition of a rival and Preventing a rival are different in my mind

[98navigator]

 

The team’s offseason signings... are akin to a large corporation’s acquisitions of smaller rivals, Mr. Mahon says.

 

 

That's somewhat of a reach! The Cubs acquired free agents, not associated w/ another club. It's not like they bought the Cardinals and therefore their worth more.

 

That quote is from Tim Mahon, a Chicago-based economist with Anderson Economic Group LLC. His company has deemed the acquisition of players as an impetus for increased value. I will leave the business of evaluating worth to his judgement. However, I can see his point; the Cubs signing Alfonso Soriano and retaining Aramis Ramirez, in effect, prevented rival teams from benefiting from their services.

 

I understand that and agree that it prevents a rival team from signing them.

 

So, when a company invents something and copyrights it........... is that "akin to a large corporation’s acquisitions of smaller rivals?" No, it prevents their rival company from having, or producing the same thing.

 

Acquisition of a rival and Preventing a rival are different in my mind

 

I understand his point but I'm not going to defend it... It isn't my quote.

[Amazing_Grace]

if the Cubs are no longer on the national WGN, they might as well fold that station. Seriously, Superstation WGN is basically the Cubs, Saturday night Bulls games, and Becker reruns, occasionally interrupted by a Matlock or Magnum PI marathon. The station is complete junk. WGN Chicago runs almost 100% different programming than the national station

 

I agree with this. I just don't think WGN has much besides sports going on programming wise. Remember when WGN was trying "the WB". That idea went down in flames. The cable stations are all being forced out by specialty channels that cater to certain segments and show only certain stuff. WGN as a national cable station is probably largely being sustained by sports fans that complain to cable providers if it's dropped. I never see anything on there except endless reruns of shows that were popular sometime before I graduated elementary school.

[Warren Brusstar]

White Sox games were more popular than Cubs telecasts last season (for the first time in over 20 years); the net effect is that during the 2007 season, WGN can make more advertising dollars for Sox broadcasts.

 

Do you have any support for that assertion?

 

With that in mind, I am merely bringing up the potential negatives that could arise.

 

If you're implying that Zell might look to ratings in 2006 and decide to cut back on Cubs programming, while increasing White Sox programming, don't you think a man that was able to make billions as an investor is more sophisticated than to base such a decision on ratings for only the last year? Also, doesn't it also assume that you're right about your initial point - that the cost of advertising on White Sox games will be more than the cost of advertising on Cubs' games? I would be quite surprised if that's true.

[98navigator]

if the Cubs are no longer on the national WGN, they might as well fold that station. Seriously, Superstation WGN is basically the Cubs, Saturday night Bulls games, and Becker reruns, occasionally interrupted by a Matlock or Magnum PI marathon. The station is complete junk. WGN Chicago runs almost 100% different programming than the national station

 

I agree with this. I just don't think WGN has much besides sports going on programming wise. Remember when WGN was trying "the WB". That idea went down in flames. The cable stations are all being forced out by specialty channels that cater to certain segments and show only certain stuff. WGN as a national cable station is probably largely being sustained by sports fans that complain to cable providers if it's dropped. I never see anything on there except endless reruns of shows that were popular sometime before I graduated elementary school.

 

FYI, the WB turned into CW...

[98navigator]

White Sox games were more popular than Cubs telecasts last season (for the first time in over 20 years); the net effect is that during the 2007 season, WGN can make more advertising dollars for Sox broadcasts.

 

Do you have any support for that assertion?

 

With that in mind, I am merely bringing up the potential negatives that could arise.

 

If you're implying that Zell might look to ratings in 2006 and decide to cut back on Cubs programming, while increasing White Sox programming, don't you think a man that was able to make billions as an investor is more sophisticated than to base such a decision on ratings for only the last year? Also, doesn't it also assume that you're right about your initial point - that the cost of advertising on White Sox games will be more than the cost of advertising on Cubs' games? I would be quite surprised if that's true.

 

On your first question, it's common knowledge that the Sox beat out the Cubs in radio and TV ratings (2006) for the first time in over 20 years. It really isn't a surprise considering the Cubs won 66 games and the Sox were basking in the glow of a WS.

 

It was published in the Tribune so you may want to search the archives.

 

On your second point, no, my view is that Zell doesn't care about the baseball part of the Tribune (he's admitted as much).

 

My point about the Sox was specific to the poster I was replying to---who implied that WGN must be profiting because they are running Sox games--as if to say there is minimal profit in Sox telecasts. My reply is two fold: because of the recent success of the Sox, WGN can charge more per advertiser in 2007 than they can for Cubs games... Also, the Cubs, Sox, and Bulls will always be shown locally in Chicago because it is a local station (with a national following).

[hawkcub]

There is no doubt that ratings locally the Sox won the battle but I am not sure if that is the case nationally.