Cubs TV Deal Stuff

[mul21]

Since this is the TV thread, what # is the limit on games for WGN America, and why? Its an MLB rule correct?

 

There's no limit, it just costs them more to air games on a "superstation" than in just the local market.

[Guest]

From the Ricketts/Wittenmyer interview article

 

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/22361291-419/tom-ricketts-says-quick-fix-not-in-cards-for-cubs.html

 

That and the WGN portion of the local TV rights that the club is trying to negotiate toward $1 million per game levels comparable to other recent deals in the game.

[Guest]

If they can get to $1M/game from WGN, that'll be like a $50M improvement.

[Irrelevant Dude]

If they can get to $1M/game from WGN, that'll be like a $50M improvement.

Victory Auto Wreckers better start saving their money if they think they are going to be able to afford advertising at that rate.

[jersey cubs fan]

The Chicago Cubs have exercised an option to get out of their broadcast contract with WGN-TV after the 2014 season, sources close to the situation said Wednesday.

 

On Tuesday, the team notified the Tribune Co.-owned station it had 30 days to meet a higher assessed fair market value for the broadcast rights, or they would be opened up for negotiation with other media. A third-party consultant hired by the Cubs and WGN-TV determined the increased valuation, according to sources.

 

After 30 days, the team would be free to explore other broadcast options for about 70 games televised each season by WGN, opening the door to a potentially more lucrative contract or perhaps its own cable sports network.

[Sammy Sofa]

Eat [expletive] and die, WGN.

[Guest]

The Chicago Cubs have exercised an option to get out of their broadcast contract with WGN-TV after the 2014 season, sources close to the situation said Wednesday.

 

On Tuesday, the team notified the Tribune Co.-owned station it had 30 days to meet a higher assessed fair market value for the broadcast rights, or they would be opened up for negotiation with other media. A third-party consultant hired by the Cubs and WGN-TV determined the increased valuation, according to sources.

 

After 30 days, the team would be free to explore other broadcast options for about 70 games televised each season by WGN, opening the door to a potentially more lucrative contract or perhaps its own cable sports network.

 

I'm pretty sure that last part just isn't even feasible.

 

And we'll see who the hell else they can bring in as leverage, I guess.

[BeerHere]

The numbers quoted in that article can't be right. The Dodgers got $7B for 25 years from Time Warner Cable? $280M per year? That can't be right.

[Guest]

The numbers quoted in that article can't be right. The Dodgers got $7B for 25 years from Time Warner Cable? $280M per year? That can't be right.

 

Well, a lot of it goes into revenue sharing but that's more or less right.

[BeerHere]

The numbers quoted in that article can't be right. The Dodgers got $7B for 25 years from Time Warner Cable? $280M per year? That can't be right.

 

Well, a lot of it goes into revenue sharing but that's more or less right.

I forgot about revenue sharing so you're probably right. Still, that is three times the amount of the Cubs/WGN current deal. I would assume that the Dodgers deal is near the top of the market. Does anyone have a picture of what the Yankees bring in with the YES network? I'm betting that the Cubs deal is near or on the bottom.

[Guest]

The numbers quoted in that article can't be right. The Dodgers got $7B for 25 years from Time Warner Cable? $280M per year? That can't be right.

 

Well, a lot of it goes into revenue sharing but that's more or less right.

I forgot about revenue sharing so you're probably right. Still, that is three times the amount of the Cubs/WGN current deal. I would assume that the Dodgers deal is near the top of the market. Does anyone have a picture of what the Yankees bring in with the YES network? I'm betting that the Cubs deal is near or on the bottom.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dodgers-could-be-last-team-to-strike-gold-with-local-tv-deal/

 

If you scroll down, you'll see everyone's deals broken down in a chart.

[davell]

The numbers quoted in that article can't be right. The Dodgers got $7B for 25 years from Time Warner Cable? $280M per year? That can't be right.

 

Well, a lot of it goes into revenue sharing but that's more or less right.

 

The norm on TV deals is 34% goes to MLB, the team keeps the rest. In the Dodgers case, they're pocketing around 6 billion of their deal.

[BeerHere]

The numbers quoted in that article can't be right. The Dodgers got $7B for 25 years from Time Warner Cable? $280M per year? That can't be right.

 

Well, a lot of it goes into revenue sharing but that's more or less right.

I forgot about revenue sharing so you're probably right. Still, that is three times the amount of the Cubs/WGN current deal. I would assume that the Dodgers deal is near the top of the market. Does anyone have a picture of what the Yankees bring in with the YES network? I'm betting that the Cubs deal is near or on the bottom.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dodgers-could-be-last-team-to-strike-gold-with-local-tv-deal/

 

If you scroll down, you'll see everyone's deals broken down in a chart.

Thanks for that link.

 

There is a pretty shocking disparity between the large and small market teams. The Dodgers are the highest at $340M with the Marlins at the bottom with $18M. The Cubs are right in the middle at $50M which seems wrong for a large market team with a large fan base around the country.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm betting that the Cubs deal is near or on the bottom.

 

It's near the bottom for big-market teams, but it's not like we make the same as the A's or Brewers or something.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm betting that the Cubs deal is near or on the bottom.

 

Not particularly. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dodgers-send-shock-waves-through-local-tv-landscape/

 

We're pretty much slightly better than middle of the pack as is. Bear in mind the Dodgers new TV deal doesn't even start until this coming season, yet somehow they found a way to spend money without it.

 

Honestly the only teams that are currently outclassing us are the Dodgers, Angels, Yankees, Mets, Orioles, and Red Sox.

 

But #PoorTomRicketts has created a wonderful narrative that everybody has bought that we don't make enough money to support a top 20 payroll.

[Guest]

The numbers quoted in that article can't be right. The Dodgers got $7B for 25 years from Time Warner Cable? $280M per year? That can't be right.

 

Well, a lot of it goes into revenue sharing but that's more or less right.

I forgot about revenue sharing so you're probably right. Still, that is three times the amount of the Cubs/WGN current deal. I would assume that the Dodgers deal is near the top of the market. Does anyone have a picture of what the Yankees bring in with the YES network? I'm betting that the Cubs deal is near or on the bottom.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dodgers-could-be-last-team-to-strike-gold-with-local-tv-deal/

 

If you scroll down, you'll see everyone's deals broken down in a chart.

Thanks for that link.

 

There is a pretty shocking disparity between the large and small market teams. The Dodgers are the highest at $340M with the Marlins at the bottom with $18M. The Cubs are right in the middle at $50M which seems wrong for a large market team with a large fan base around the country.

 

Most of the disparity has to do with timing (and, in the Cubs' case, a sweetheart deal)...there are plenty of smaller-to-mid-market teams with huge deals on that list. Teams have been getting monster deals recently, but it looks like that may be coming to an end.

[Guest]

I'm betting that the Cubs deal is near or on the bottom.

 

Not particularly. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dodgers-send-shock-waves-through-local-tv-landscape/

 

We're pretty much slightly better than middle of the pack as is. Bear in mind the Dodgers new TV deal doesn't even start until this coming season, yet somehow they found a way to spend money without it.

 

Honestly the only teams that are currently outclassing us are the Dodgers, Angels, Yankees, Mets, Orioles, and Red Sox.

 

But #PoorTomRicketts has created a wonderful narrative that everybody has bought that we don't make enough money to support a top 20 payroll.

 

The Astros and Padres are ahead of us.

 

And the A's are barely behind us.

Edited November 6, 2013 by David

[BeerHere]

The numbers quoted in that article can't be right. The Dodgers got $7B for 25 years from Time Warner Cable? $280M per year? That can't be right.

 

Well, a lot of it goes into revenue sharing but that's more or less right.

 

The norm on TV deals is 34% goes to MLB, the team keeps the rest. In the Dodgers case, they're pocketing around 6 billion of their deal.

64% of $280M is still close to $180M. Assuming the same % for the Cubs deal nets and that them $32M which is 6 times less than the Dodgers take. Their TV deal is the reason the Dodgers have so much money to go after every FA.

 

Sorry if this is/was obvious to everyone else already. I never ran the numbers before and this difference is staggering to me. Ricketts took over a steaming pile of crap on many levels.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm betting that the Cubs deal is near or on the bottom.

 

Not particularly. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dodgers-send-shock-waves-through-local-tv-landscape/

 

We're pretty much slightly better than middle of the pack as is. Bear in mind the Dodgers new TV deal doesn't even start until this coming season, yet somehow they found a way to spend money without it.

 

Honestly the only teams that are currently outclassing us are the Dodgers, Angels, Yankees, Mets, Orioles, and Red Sox.

 

But #PoorTomRicketts has created a wonderful narrative that everybody has bought that we don't make enough money to support a top 20 payroll.

 

The Astros and Padres are ahead of us.

 

And the A's are barely behind us.

 

The Astros network declared bankruptcy or something, so they will not be getting anywhere close to the revenue reported in the article. They are clearly behind us.

 

The Padres have a 20% stake in Fox Sports San Diego vs. the Cubs having a 20% stake in CSN. I'll take the Cubs.

 

No idea where you're getting the A's stuff from.

 

I did forget to mention the Blue Jays though, Since Rogers owns the Jays and the network its some Tribune era accounting going on there and they're certainly better off TV deal wise

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The Dodgers deal wasn't in place when Ricketts took over, iirc.

 

This is a relatively recent thing. The Cubs' TV deal was within range of normal when it was signed. There's just been a massive bubble in the last couple of years, and teams whose TV contracts happened to be expiring became huge beneficiaries.

[SouthSideRyan]

The Dodgers deal wasn't in place when Ricketts took over, iirc.

 

This is a relatively recent thing. The Cubs' TV deal was within range of normal when it was signed. There's just been a massive bubble in the last couple of years, and teams whose TV contracts happened to be expiring became huge beneficiaries.

 

It's still within range of normal. There are 3-4 outliers and then there's the field, but yes, poor Tom Ricketts (not to be confused with...you know)

[Guest]

[

 

The Astros network declared bankruptcy or something, so they will not be getting anywhere close to the revenue reported in the article. They are clearly behind us.

 

The Padres have a 20% stake in Fox Sports San Diego vs. the Cubs having a 20% stake in CSN. I'll take the Cubs.

 

No idea where you're getting the A's stuff from.

 

I did forget to mention the Blue Jays though, Since Rogers owns the Jays and the network its some Tribune era accounting going on there and they're certainly better off TV deal wise

 

Forgot about the Astros bankruptcy thing.

 

Cubs are getting $50M a year (combined CSN and WGN) with 20% CSN stake

Padres are getting $60M a year. 20% FS SD stake

A's are getting $43-48M a year.

Mariners getting $115M a year.

[SouthSideRyan]

Whoops, working off the old article.

[Guest]

Is there any outcome that leads to the current 2014 deal being torn up and made a part of the extension to 2019? I imagine that has to be at least on the table if WGN is trying to outbid CSN for those intervening years, right?

[SouthSideRyan]

A lot of those numbers in the new article don't match up with what was originally reported (both in contract revenue, and in when teams would be able to negotiate new contracts)