Ricketts Family Wins Cubs Bid

[BigbadB]

It really isn't about throwing money at the team year in and year out. From a realistic standpoint, increasing payroll every year could end up being the organization's downfall. The fans are the ones who absorb team salary.

 

Ricketts is going to be in a tough place. How many years will it take for him to see a profit on his investment if nearly all the money he receives from ticket sales goes directly to the roster?

 

Where this team needs to get better is in player drafting, signing and development. Fine, win with a 150m payroll this year once you add Peavy and maybe make a deadline trade, but somewhere down the road, they should be able to field a strong team with a payroll around 100-125m while the owner actually makes a decent profit. A win/win situation for everyone.

 

I have no problem with that. They can keep raising ticket prices if they keep raising payroll.

 

How many tickets are you purchasing to see a game? Family of 4? 5?

[C.C.]

It really isn't about throwing money at the team year in and year out. From a realistic standpoint, increasing payroll every year could end up being the organization's downfall. The fans are the ones who absorb team salary.

 

Ricketts is going to be in a tough place. How many years will it take for him to see a profit on his investment if nearly all the money he receives from ticket sales goes directly to the roster?

 

Where this team needs to get better is in player drafting, signing and development. Fine, win with a 150m payroll this year once you add Peavy and maybe make a deadline trade, but somewhere down the road, they should be able to field a strong team with a payroll around 100-125m while the owner actually makes a decent profit. A win/win situation for everyone.

 

I have no problem with that. They can keep raising ticket prices if they keep raising payroll.

 

How many tickets are you purchasing to see a game? Family of 4? 5?

 

3 Why?

[jersey cubs fan]

It really isn't about throwing money at the team year in and year out. From a realistic standpoint, increasing payroll every year could end up being the organization's downfall. The fans are the ones who absorb team salary.

 

Ricketts is going to be in a tough place. How many years will it take for him to see a profit on his investment if nearly all the money he receives from ticket sales goes directly to the roster?

 

Where this team needs to get better is in player drafting, signing and development. Fine, win with a 150m payroll this year once you add Peavy and maybe make a deadline trade, but somewhere down the road, they should be able to field a strong team with a payroll around 100-125m while the owner actually makes a decent profit. A win/win situation for everyone.

 

I have no problem with that. They can keep raising ticket prices if they keep raising payroll.

 

How many tickets are you purchasing to see a game? Family of 4? 5?

 

People don't have an inalienable right to attend baseball games at a price that is conventient to them. I probably went to less than 5 games at Wrigley as a kid. When I started paying for myself I went a heck of a lot more often. And when I have kids, I'll probably buy a couple times per year. But you can get by going to a game as a family for less than $200. That's comparable to a lot of other family entertainment options. It's far cheaper than attending most amusement parks. It's cheaper than football, basketball or hockey games.

 

It's not that hard for most families to scrape together the money needed to enjoy a game. Season tickets? Obviously not, but a game or two a year is not going to setback anybody.

 

But regardless, the payroll isn't what determines ticket prices. Ticket prices rise to reflect demand, and they are kept artificially low already for PR reasons.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Ticket prices rise to reflect demand, and they are kept artificially low already for PR reasons.

 

This warrants repeating endlessly.

[TruffleShuffle]

i don't live near chicago and probably won't make it to wrigley more than a half dozen times in my life, so i don't care if they gouge you guys as long as they're rolling the money into the big club and player development.

[David]

It really isn't about throwing money at the team year in and year out. From a realistic standpoint, increasing payroll every year could end up being the organization's downfall. The fans are the ones who absorb team salary.

 

Ricketts is going to be in a tough place. How many years will it take for him to see a profit on his investment if nearly all the money he receives from ticket sales goes directly to the roster?

 

Where this team needs to get better is in player drafting, signing and development. Fine, win with a 150m payroll this year once you add Peavy and maybe make a deadline trade, but somewhere down the road, they should be able to field a strong team with a payroll around 100-125m while the owner actually makes a decent profit. A win/win situation for everyone.

 

I have no problem with that. They can keep raising ticket prices if they keep raising payroll.

 

How many tickets are you purchasing to see a game? Family of 4? 5?

 

People don't have an inalienable right to attend baseball games at a price that is conventient to them. I probably went to less than 5 games at Wrigley as a kid. When I started paying for myself I went a heck of a lot more often. And when I have kids, I'll probably buy a couple times per year. But you can get by going to a game as a family for less than $200. That's comparable to a lot of other family entertainment options. It's far cheaper than attending most amusement parks. It's cheaper than football, basketball or hockey games.

 

It's not that hard for most families to scrape together the money needed to enjoy a game. Season tickets? Obviously not, but a game or two a year is not going to setback anybody.

 

But regardless, the payroll isn't what determines ticket prices. Ticket prices rise to reflect demand, and they are kept artificially low already for PR reasons.

 

 

Awesome post.

[BigbadB]

My point is that at some point, the average fan (family) can't afford to go to games as often, which in turn decreases demand.

 

I'm curious how this team actually turns a profit with the payroll where it is now. I'd be awful nervous to spend 900m for a team during this economic envirnonment.

 

Just doing some quick math, with 40,000 people going through the turnstyles at an average of $40 a ticket for 81 games, I calculate a little more than 129m in revenue. Sure, there are other means of income, and I'm probably not privvy to most, like merchandising. But, there are tons of other expenses in running a major league baseball franchise as well, like staffing, travel, equipment, meds, player per diems, taxes, farm systems, payroll/accounting, insurance, etc....

 

Is $40 a ticket way below the average price for a ticket to Wrigley? What other means of income do they generate outside of ticket sales? Vending services, parking, rooftops, advertising, merchandising, tv?

 

If $40 a ticket is about the average cost of a ticket, I would hate to have a team payroll that is more than what tickets generate. But, I suppose I had several billion dollars, maybe it wouldn't matter.

 

I would think the ideal situation would be to have a successful team that wins year after year with a median team salary. Being at the very top end of what you can afford makes it hard to go out and get the player you really, really want when he becomes available.

 

Yes, you can just keep raising ticket prices, but at some point, you are alienating the biggest percentage of your fan base, which is the guy who has very little expendable income.

[Derwood]

in-stadium ad revenue, luxury boxes, tv contracts, etc.

[BigbadB]

in-stadium ad revenue, luxury boxes, tv contracts, etc.

 

I included all of that in my post. Although, the luxury boxes was calculated into the average cost of a ticket. Maybe I'm way off on the average cost of a ticket?

 

Clearly, Cubs brass feel like they can afford a $140m salary, so it must workout in the long run. But, I would have to imagine that's at the very top end of what they can afford and still turn a profit.

[RammyFanny]

FWIW, my friend and I were talking and he said he heard somewhere yesterday that Ricketts wants to be like Boston and build through the draft (don't we all?). Don't know where he heard it (or maybe if he got it confused with Cuban).

[dew1679666265]

It really isn't about throwing money at the team year in and year out. From a realistic standpoint, increasing payroll every year could end up being the organization's downfall. The fans are the ones who absorb team salary.

 

Ricketts is going to be in a tough place. How many years will it take for him to see a profit on his investment if nearly all the money he receives from ticket sales goes directly to the roster?

 

Where this team needs to get better is in player drafting, signing and development. Fine, win with a 150m payroll this year once you add Peavy and maybe make a deadline trade, but somewhere down the road, they should be able to field a strong team with a payroll around 100-125m while the owner actually makes a decent profit. A win/win situation for everyone.

 

I have no problem with that. They can keep raising ticket prices if they keep raising payroll.

 

How many tickets are you purchasing to see a game? Family of 4? 5?

 

People don't have an inalienable right to attend baseball games at a price that is conventient to them. I probably went to less than 5 games at Wrigley as a kid. When I started paying for myself I went a heck of a lot more often. And when I have kids, I'll probably buy a couple times per year. But you can get by going to a game as a family for less than $200. That's comparable to a lot of other family entertainment options. It's far cheaper than attending most amusement parks. It's cheaper than football, basketball or hockey games.

 

It's not that hard for most families to scrape together the money needed to enjoy a game. Season tickets? Obviously not, but a game or two a year is not going to setback anybody.

 

But regardless, the payroll isn't what determines ticket prices. Ticket prices rise to reflect demand, and they are kept artificially low already for PR reasons.

 

Obviously since I don't live anywhere near Chicago I can't speak on Cub tickets, but for Tennessee football games, you're looking at spending $100 per ticket. Or, if you're lucky enough to find a way to get season tickets, you're going to spend a few hundred thousand in donations - just to have the "honor" of paying for tickets over and above that.

 

Baseball tickets are far more reasonable than that.

[CubinNY]

Bruce Miles (articles in DH) kind of has me fired up about Ricketts winning the bid.

 

Hopefully he turns his passion for the Cubs into smart baseball decisions.

 

I like it.

[DivineBovine]

It really isn't about throwing money at the team year in and year out. From a realistic standpoint, increasing payroll every year could end up being the organization's downfall. The fans are the ones who absorb team salary.

 

Ricketts is going to be in a tough place. How many years will it take for him to see a profit on his investment if nearly all the money he receives from ticket sales goes directly to the roster?

 

Where this team needs to get better is in player drafting, signing and development. Fine, win with a 150m payroll this year once you add Peavy and maybe make a deadline trade, but somewhere down the road, they should be able to field a strong team with a payroll around 100-125m while the owner actually makes a decent profit. A win/win situation for everyone.

 

 

 

Of course every team needs to be smarter. But for me, any owner who is a true fan is infinitely better than the Trib. Of course the fans pay the payroll, but under the Tribune company the fans probably paid the Tribune in addition to the team payroll. They only started spending money in the last couple years in anticipation of a sale. They are now bankrupt. Don't tell me a media company with financial problems would ever put winning ahead of maximizing profit. For all we know, the Cubs were floating the trib for 10 years.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Fans who really, really want to win scare me as owners. I'd rather have a soulless corporation who was willing to pony up huge payrolls.

[Electron Blue]

Fans who really, really want to win scare me as owners. I'd rather have a soulless corporation who was willing to pony up huge payrolls.

 

but why would a soulless corporation want to spend money on a huge payroll?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Fans who really, really want to win scare me as owners. I'd rather have a soulless corporation who was willing to pony up huge payrolls.

 

but why would a soulless corporation want to spend money on a huge payroll?

 

Because winning and revenue are correlated. If you can bring it $200 million by spending $120, that's better than bringing in $100 million by spending $40. Which is exactly what the Tribune did.

[Electron Blue]

Fans who really, really want to win scare me as owners. I'd rather have a soulless corporation who was willing to pony up huge payrolls.

 

but why would a soulless corporation want to spend money on a huge payroll?

 

Because winning and revenue are correlated. If you can bring it $200 million by spending $120, that's better than bringing in $100 million by spending $40. Which is exactly what the Tribune did.

 

I guess so. I've just always had it in my mind that there are rich owners out there that refuse to spend money because they don't care about the team. But yeah, it probably is correlated, just not the way I've always pictured it...

 

And, is that what the Tribune did, save for the last 5-8 years? Credit where credit's due there, but prior to that period, what was their financial strategy with the team? (seriously asking; I wasn't a fan before 2000ish)

[KingCubsFan]

 

I'm curious how this team actually turns a profit with the payroll where it is now. I'd be awful nervous to spend 900m for a team during this economic envirnonment.

 

Just doing some quick math, with 40,000 people going through the turnstyles at an average of $40 a ticket for 81 games, I calculate a little more than 129m in revenue. Sure, there are other means of income, and I'm probably not privvy to most, like merchandising. But, there are tons of other expenses in running a major league baseball franchise as well, like staffing, travel, equipment, meds, player per diems, taxes, farm systems, payroll/accounting, insurance, etc....

 

Is $40 a ticket way below the average price for a ticket to Wrigley? What other means of income do they generate outside of ticket sales? Vending services, parking, rooftops, advertising, merchandising, tv?

 

If $40 a ticket is about the average cost of a ticket, I would hate to have a team payroll that is more than what tickets generate. But, I suppose I had several billion dollars, maybe it wouldn't matter.

The Cubs really don't make that much money. The reason they're being sold for so much is because people are willing to pay that much to own a sports team.

[Guest]

Fans who really, really want to win scare me as owners. I'd rather have a soulless corporation who was willing to pony up huge payrolls.

 

but why would a soulless corporation want to spend money on a huge payroll?

 

Because winning and revenue are correlated. If you can bring it $200 million by spending $120, that's better than bringing in $100 million by spending $40. Which is exactly what the Tribune did.

I'll pull a Kyle and be picky here...

 

Investing $40M for a $60M profit is immensely better than tying up $120M and only getting a profit of $80M.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Fans who really, really want to win scare me as owners. I'd rather have a soulless corporation who was willing to pony up huge payrolls.

 

but why would a soulless corporation want to spend money on a huge payroll?

 

Because winning and revenue are correlated. If you can bring it $200 million by spending $120, that's better than bringing in $100 million by spending $40. Which is exactly what the Tribune did.

I'll pull a Kyle and be picky here...

 

Investing $40M for a $60M profit is immensely better than tying up $120M and only getting a profit of $80M.

 

Well, that depends on how confident you are in your ability to find strong alternative investments for the additional $80 million.

 

(No, I will *not* admit I overreached on my analogy).

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The Cubs really don't make that much money. The reason they're being sold for so much is because people are willing to pay that much to own a sports team.

 

If that's true, then how come everybody knows the Tribune Company execs sat around twisting their handlebar mustaches and cackling with joy at how they screwed over average fans every year.

[cubswin2009]

http://chicagocubsonline.com/archives/2009/01/cubs_channel.php

11:44am C.T. ....Crane Kenney joined Bruce Levine and Chet Coppock on Talkin' Baseball Saturday morning. Kenney discussed The Ricketts Family winning the bid to negotiate a deal to purchase the Chicago Cubs among other topics covered at last weekend's Cubs Convention.

 

Kenney revealed during his interview that the Cubs are looking into launching a video on demand channel, "kinda a MLB Network just for the Cubs." by Opening Day.

 

Crane Kenney indicated they are attempting to launch the new channel by Opening Day that would feature behind the scenes video and "a lot of non-game content." Kenney mentioned they shot video of several current Cubs at last weekend's convention for use on the channel.

 

Kenney also stated the Cubs are still exploring an All-Cubs channel, similar to the YES Network (Yankees) and NESN (Red Sox) that would carry all Cubs' games.

 

I know the Nets and Yankees are both part owners of the YES network so would McDonough and the Hawks come in and part-own this new network?

[RammyFanny]

I'm going to make that into a new thread since it seems like pretty big news.

[SouthSideRyan]

Fans who really, really want to win scare me as owners. I'd rather have a soulless corporation who was willing to pony up huge payrolls.

 

but why would a soulless corporation want to spend money on a huge payroll?

 

Because winning and revenue are correlated. If you can bring it $200 million by spending $120, that's better than bringing in $100 million by spending $40. Which is exactly what the Tribune did.

 

But if you can bring in 100M by spending 40M it's a much smarter play than spending 120M to make 200M when the 200M is qualified by winning.

[Laura]

I'll be relieved to hear when a deal is final.

 

The Tribune began to figure things out during the last 5 years of their 25-odd years of ownership, but if any team is due for a change, it's the Cubs.