Cubs TV Deal Stuff

[Banedon]

http://www.csnchicago.com/article/cubs-set-massive-year-year-tv-ratings-increases-csn

 

Remember that one time when WGN didn't want the Cubs anymore because ratings were down?

[Guest]

When I turned on the radio, Mully was talking about the Cubs network and some projections having it worth more than YES network or something...I was assuming he was getting this from some article or blog or something but I didn't hear the beginning of the segment. Anyone else hear it and know what he was talking about?

[PackLandVA]

Go to the website and listen to the entire segment.

[Guest]

Never said it was crazy. I just want to see where he was getting that information so I can read it.

[UMFan83]

Sounds like the move to 670 is happening

 

http://www.robertfeder.com/2015/10/22/cubs-still-on-the-move-to-the-score/

[Banedon]

Sounds like the move to 670 is happening

 

http://www.robertfeder.com/2015/10/22/cubs-still-on-the-move-to-the-score/

 

At this point I figured they were just waiting for the season to end before making any announcement.

[davell]

http://chicagocubsonline.com/archives/2015/01/reports-cubs-set-announce-new-five-year-contract-wgn-ch-9.php

 

At any rate, for the 80 CSN games this year, we made an extra 150k per....Thats 12 mill in additional revenue obviously. And instead of opt outs, it looks like this goes up gradually to 750K until 2019.

 

WGN is undisclosed over their 45 games, but rumors say they're at 500K per, which is doubled. As they were at 250K per. So if that's the case, it's an extra 11.25 mill.

 

The 25 games from ABC are getting 750K per game. They WERE WGN games at 250K, making us an extra 12.5 per obviously.

 

So, we've got an extra 24.5 mill we didn't have last year just from the TV deal revenue, NOT even counting WGN, which may very well push it up to 35.75.

 

Had put this in the wrong thread. David doesn't think the WGN number will be correct, but even if its not......Thats your David Price money right there. Not even counting added attendance or playoff revenue.

 

At any rate, this explains to me how we could have been in on Moncada when I didn't see how we could afford him at that point.

[Guest]

The score is announcing something big station wise tomorrow.

 

I'm guessing it's them becoming the cubs radio network.

[Proven Veteran]

The score is announcing something big station wise tomorrow.

 

I'm guessing it's them becoming the cubs radio network.

 

They're switching to smooth jazz.

[Guest]

The score is announcing something big station wise tomorrow.

 

I'm guessing it's them becoming the cubs radio network.

 

They're switching to smooth jazz.

Christian Rock

[UMFan83]

The score is announcing something big station wise tomorrow.

 

I'm guessing it's them becoming the cubs radio network.

 

Confirmed by Crane on the Score right now.

[Banedon]

Crane just said they have a surplus of bats, and a shortage of arms, so they'll probably move a bat for an arm.

[Banedon]

He also just said that they will start their own network in 2020 after the Comcast deal expires.

[Careless]

ESPN is hemorrhaging subscribers

Not a good sign for getting a Dodgers deal in a few years.

[Sammy Sofa]

ESPN is hemorrhaging subscribers

Not a good sign for getting a Dodgers deal in a few years.

 

They don't need a stupidly insane Dodgers deal to just finally be making a [expletive] ton more money than they had been off of TV. Plus why would ESPN's woes bode poorly for niche sports channels? That's the whole reason outdated cable models like ESPN are slipping; a mish-mash of programming that ultimately has little that each viewer actually wants to watch.

 

And man, the comments section of that article was unexpectedly nutso bananas; who knew the reason the ESPN was going down the tubes was because they're a bunch of filthy liberal perverts?

[SouthSideRyan]

Because if subscribers are falling for cable across the board, which happens to include the preeminent sports channel, you can probably apply the same to a niche sports cable network.

[Sammy Sofa]

Because if subscribers are falling for cable across the board, which happens to include the preeminent sports channel, you can probably apply the same to a niche sports cable network.

 

Well, yeah, but I'm also assuming going forward that the sports aren't going to stick around to stupidly go down with the ship with traditional cable. I'm figuring they'll be pushing hard to shift more to a la carte and online subscription models as opposed to doing [expletive] like they did in the 80's. I mean, they basically have to.

[Careless]

Because if subscribers are falling for cable across the board, which happens to include the preeminent sports channel, you can probably apply the same to a niche sports cable network.

 

Well, yeah, but I'm also assuming going forward that the sports aren't going to stick around to stupidly go down with the ship with traditional cable. I'm figuring they'll be pushing hard to shift more to a la carte and online subscription models as opposed to doing [expletive] like they did in the 80's. I mean, they basically have to.

The loss of ESPN subscribers has been faster than the loss of cable/satellite subscribers. People are switching out of packages that include programming they don't want/need. That's going to crush carriage fees if it continues.

[davell]

Not that I thought there was a remote chance at a Dodgers type deal, there's definitely not after the Phillies just agreed to a 25 year, 2.5 billion deal to stay with Comcast this year.

[jersey cubs fan]

The model is force grandma to pay for channels she doesn't watch, that's how the networks profit and why teams get paid big. This is bad, but also expected and inevitable.

[Sammy Sofa]

Because if subscribers are falling for cable across the board, which happens to include the preeminent sports channel, you can probably apply the same to a niche sports cable network.

 

Well, yeah, but I'm also assuming going forward that the sports aren't going to stick around to stupidly go down with the ship with traditional cable. I'm figuring they'll be pushing hard to shift more to a la carte and online subscription models as opposed to doing [expletive] like they did in the 80's. I mean, they basically have to.

The loss of ESPN subscribers has been faster than the loss of cable/satellite subscribers. People are switching out of packages that include programming they don't want/need. That's going to crush carriage fees if it continues.

 

Good. It was obvious a long-ass time ago the Cubs missed the the brief bubble of obscene TV deals. Move on to whatever's coming next.

[Guest]

The Cubs don't need a Dodger deal or anything close to it to support a very healthy payroll. Even just getting all ~150 games on the reasonable 750k/game rate they get from ABC(and eventually CSN) combined with their other revenue sources should help them support a payroll approaching the luxury tax once the renovations are done and paid for.

 

I'm also not convinced ESPN national is a great proxy for the elasticity of demand for RSNs. As users get more selective about what content they pay for, RSNs and the hometown team probably rate higher than national channels which, like the article points out, are mostly for events and not any original programming. I get that right now ESPNs and RSNs are pretty tightly linked with how cable is bundled, but we're still 3+ years from the Cubs needing to make their deal, and if you compare cable/streaming options to 2012 it's a very different world.

[seanimal]

i think you're highly discounting the boon that controlling a majority of their broadcasts will be for the cubs. as tt said, the cubs don't need a dodgers deal to make out like bandits in a few years. lots of people tune into competitive cubs teams, and those people buy things. this equation isn't going to change

[jersey cubs fan]

i think you're highly discounting the boon that controlling a majority of their broadcasts will be for the cubs. as tt said, the cubs don't need a dodgers deal to make out like bandits in a few years. lots of people tune into competitive cubs teams, and those people buy things. this equation isn't going to change

The equation has changed. Yes, lots of people will watch a good Cubs team, but other teams will dwarf their revenues based on timing of deals. The Cubs will be better off than the also rans, but that has always been the case. They aren't climbing the ladder to elite revenue status without the help of grossly overvalued cable contracts.

[seanimal]

i think you're highly discounting the boon that controlling a majority of their broadcasts will be for the cubs. as tt said, the cubs don't need a dodgers deal to make out like bandits in a few years. lots of people tune into competitive cubs teams, and those people buy things. this equation isn't going to change

The equation has changed. Yes, lots of people will watch a good Cubs team, but other teams will dwarf their revenues based on timing of deals. The Cubs will be better off than the also rans, but that has always been the case. They aren't climbing the ladder to elite revenue status without the help of grossly overvalued cable contracts.

 

just because other clubs have capitalized on better timing doesn't mean the equation has changed. a captive audience will be valuable whether the dollars come from direct subscriptions or advertising subsidies

 

but anyway, that doesn't really matter. the point is that the cubs can and hopefully will do significantly better in five years than what they do today because they can package their games together. i'm not sure what you find so objectionable about that statement