2014 Cubs Payroll under $75 mil?

[seanimal]

yeah um, like zero chance the cubs aren't making enough money to support a top-5 payroll. i know it sucks not having actual things to talk about, but come the [expletive] on

[davell]

yeah um, like zero chance the cubs aren't making enough money to support a top-5 payroll. i know it sucks not having actual things to talk about, but come the [expletive] on

It has NOTHING to do with how much money they're making. It has to do with the debt structure of their deal with Zell. Its a very valid topic.

[radarluv1]

When is current tv deal expiring? I hope soon, before it becomes clear that the two LA deals are overinflated.

[Guest]

When is current tv deal expiring? I hope soon, before it becomes clear that the two LA deals are overinflated.

 

WGN deal expires after next year, CSN doesn't expire for a long time.. like 2019 or 18 or something.

[WrigleyField 22]

CSN is 2019. Probably our best hope for 2014 is making WGN pay more for what they currently get on a 5 year agreement so that in 2019 we have all our games on the table to negotiate a new deal.

[Andy]

CSN is 2019. Probably our best hope for 2014 is making WGN pay more for what they currently get on a 5 year agreement so that in 2019 we have all our games on the table to negotiate a new deal.

And then the Cubs network.

 

Although I for one would be kind of shocked if pay TV is still going in its current form by that point.

[treebird]

CSN is 2019. Probably our best hope for 2014 is making WGN pay more for what they currently get on a 5 year agreement so that in 2019 we have all our games on the table to negotiate a new deal.

And then the Cubs network.

 

Although I for one would be kind of shocked if pay TV is still going in its current form by that point.

 

yeah, it's pretty apparent we're going to miss the boat on real tv money by a wide margin. we should probably turn our rooting interests to the idea that maybe the cubs' attendance and tv deal will be so pitiful that the next cba has provisions allowing us to get revenue sharing money.

[Guest]

I don't doubt that these TV deals are a bubble, but I'm not so certain that it's a very temporary one. The same reasons that these deals are going so high are the same reasons that they'll be more resistant to cord-cutting than programming that isn't live sports.

[SouthSideRyan]

CSN is 2019. Probably our best hope for 2014 is making WGN pay more for what they currently get on a 5 year agreement so that in 2019 we have all our games on the table to negotiate a new deal.

And then the Cubs network.

 

Although I for one would be kind of shocked if pay TV is still going in its current form by that point.

 

yeah, it's pretty apparent we're going to miss the boat on real tv money by a wide margin. we should probably turn our rooting interests to the idea that maybe the cubs' attendance and tv deal will be so pitiful that the next cba has provisions allowing us to get revenue sharing money.

 

And some competitive balance picks for being in a small market

[Guest]

CSN is 2019. Probably our best hope for 2014 is making WGN pay more for what they currently get on a 5 year agreement so that in 2019 we have all our games on the table to negotiate a new deal.

And then the Cubs network.

 

Although I for one would be kind of shocked if pay TV is still going in its current form by that point.

 

yeah, it's pretty apparent we're going to miss the boat on real tv money by a wide margin. we should probably turn our rooting interests to the idea that maybe the cubs' attendance and tv deal will be so pitiful that the next cba has provisions allowing us to get revenue sharing money.

 

And some competitive balance picks for being in a small market

Finally, the true strategy comes to light.

[Careless]

I don't doubt that these TV deals are a bubble, but I'm not so certain that it's a very temporary one. The same reasons that these deals are going so high are the same reasons that they'll be more resistant to cord-cutting than programming that isn't live sports.

The problem isn't cord cutting, it's a la carte. It's going to slash the revenue of RSNs if/when it comes.

[Guest]

I don't doubt that these TV deals are a bubble, but I'm not so certain that it's a very temporary one. The same reasons that these deals are going so high are the same reasons that they'll be more resistant to cord-cutting than programming that isn't live sports.

The problem isn't cord cutting, it's a la carte. It's going to slash the revenue of RSNs if/when it comes.

 

I didn't word that properly, but my point is that a la carte isn't coming. Sports subsidize everything else on cable packages right now. Unless there's a huge swath of people who decide that they can do without live sports(which seems unlikely to me given that cable prices aren't THAT extravagant), there's little motivation to unbundle them.

 

EDIT: I will say that I might not be aware of how these deals have impacted prices in different markets, although with all the national deals(NFL, College Sports, etc) I think we would've seen an impact here by now. Do people in LA find it impossible to get cable without dropping $100+ a month?

[Guest]

Wouldn't an a la carte Cubs network do pretty awesome? I'd pay $10 or 15 a month or $100 a year or something if I had to to watch a good Cubs team.

 

Who am I kidding? I'd probably pay more than that, but that's an amount that wouldn't really bother me.

[seanimal]

yeah um, like zero chance the cubs aren't making enough money to support a top-5 payroll. i know it sucks not having actual things to talk about, but come the [expletive] on

It has NOTHING to do with how much money they're making. It has to do with the debt structure of their deal with Zell. Its a very valid topic.

 

what is the amount of the debt payments, and what are they as a percentage of net costs?

[davell]

yeah um, like zero chance the cubs aren't making enough money to support a top-5 payroll. i know it sucks not having actual things to talk about, but come the [expletive] on

It has NOTHING to do with how much money they're making. It has to do with the debt structure of their deal with Zell. Its a very valid topic.

 

what is the amount of the debt payments, and what are they as a percentage of net costs?

Obviously, you know thoae numbers will never be released. But its a family trust structure that keeps them operating at a profit and keeps them from putting more into the team, at least until we have renovation money and/or a renegotiated TV deal.

[Illini Iceman]

Wouldn't an a la carte Cubs network do pretty awesome? I'd pay $10 or 15 a month or $100 a year or something if I had to to watch a good Cubs team.

 

Who am I kidding? I'd probably pay more than that, but that's an amount that wouldn't really bother me.

 

I pay more than that for the Extra Innings package now and would easily pay double if it meant getting a channel with more Cubs content, pre and post game shows and all (or most) of the games no matter what the state of the team. Hell, just not having to listen to the other teams' announcers on the road would be worth it.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Wouldn't an a la carte Cubs network do pretty awesome? I'd pay $10 or 15 a month or $100 a year or something if I had to to watch a good Cubs team.

 

Who am I kidding? I'd probably pay more than that, but that's an amount that wouldn't really bother me.

 

I pay more than that for the Extra Innings package now and would easily pay double if it meant getting a channel with more Cubs content, pre and post game shows and all (or most) of the games no matter what the state of the team. Hell, just not having to listen to the other teams' announcers on the road would be worth it.

 

I pay quite a bit for EI as well, and while I do watch other games, if I could just get a Cubs channel with all the games, I'd probably do that and drop EI without thinking twice. I'm sure lots of others would too.

[illiniguy]

Wouldn't an a la carte Cubs network do pretty awesome? I'd pay $10 or 15 a month or $100 a year or something if I had to to watch a good Cubs team.

 

Who am I kidding? I'd probably pay more than that, but that's an amount that wouldn't really bother me.

Couple this with being able to view our minor league games and you'd have my money.

[Andy]

Wouldn't an a la carte Cubs network do pretty awesome? I'd pay $10 or 15 a month or $100 a year or something if I had to to watch a good Cubs team.

 

Who am I kidding? I'd probably pay more than that, but that's an amount that wouldn't really bother me.

 

I pay more than that for the Extra Innings package now and would easily pay double if it meant getting a channel with more Cubs content, pre and post game shows and all (or most) of the games no matter what the state of the team. Hell, just not having to listen to the other teams' announcers on the road would be worth it.

 

I pay quite a bit for EI as well, and while I do watch other games, if I could just get a Cubs channel with all the games, I'd probably do that and drop EI without thinking twice. I'm sure lots of others would too.

Yeah, I have MLB.TV and there's no way I'd keep it if I could just pay for a Cubs network.

[Guest]

yeah um, like zero chance the cubs aren't making enough money to support a top-5 payroll. i know it sucks not having actual things to talk about, but come the [expletive] on

It has NOTHING to do with how much money they're making. It has to do with the debt structure of their deal with Zell. Its a very valid topic.

 

what is the amount of the debt payments, and what are they as a percentage of net costs?

Obviously, you know thoae numbers will never be released. But its a family trust structure that keeps them operating at a profit and keeps them from putting more into the team, at least until we have renovation money and/or a renegotiated TV deal.

I think that is a myth. I'm almost 100% sure of it. Besides that the team is enormously profitable.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think that is a myth. I'm almost 100% sure of it. Besides that the team is enormously profitable.

 

It's possible that it's a myth, but why are you sure of it?

[Guest]

Wouldn't an a la carte Cubs network do pretty awesome? I'd pay $10 or 15 a month or $100 a year or something if I had to to watch a good Cubs team.

 

Who am I kidding? I'd probably pay more than that, but that's an amount that wouldn't really bother me.

 

I pay more than that for the Extra Innings package now and would easily pay double if it meant getting a channel with more Cubs content, pre and post game shows and all (or most) of the games no matter what the state of the team. Hell, just not having to listen to the other teams' announcers on the road would be worth it.

 

I pay quite a bit for EI as well, and while I do watch other games, if I could just get a Cubs channel with all the games, I'd probably do that and drop EI without thinking twice. I'm sure lots of others would too.

Yeah, I have MLB.TV and there's no way I'd keep it if I could just pay for a Cubs network.

 

Wouldn't an a la carte Cubs network do pretty awesome? I'd pay $10 or 15 a month or $100 a year or something if I had to to watch a good Cubs team.

 

Who am I kidding? I'd probably pay more than that, but that's an amount that wouldn't really bother me.

Couple this with being able to view our minor league games and you'd have my money.

 

 

I'd add that I'm not sure how it would work for out of towners. MLB would have to change the rules for you guys who currently need EI or MLB TV to watch the Cubs.

 

Same way that right now, even if you get the YES network, you aren't getting Yankees games on there unless you live in the Yankees broadcast area.

[Guest]

I think that is a myth. I'm almost 100% sure of it. Besides that the team is enormously profitable.

 

It's possible that it's a myth, but why are you sure of it?

At the time the deal was announced there was mention of how Zell wanted the payments to be structured so as to avoid taxes. The deal with Zell has nothing to do with operation of the team. To my knowledge there was no mention of always having to operate at a profit. It's an unsustainable way to run a sports franchise that would require selling off of players at the end of the year if revenue dipped below expenses for any given year. It's a ratchet that only tightens and leaves way too much outside of the control of the owners. Now I could see them wanting to reset the franchise and invest in infrastructure in both talent as well as the physical plant (Dominican Academy, Wrigley, etc.) and thus take away from the big club, but it seems to me it's next to impossible to rebuild in every sense and no incur short term debt.

 

What they are doing makes sense given the state of the franchise, even if I don't like it. I see no reason to invent some sort of hard rule for a conscious decision by the owners.

 

I could be wrong, but the alternative requires the Ricketts to be fools. Why would they purchase the team and then handcuff themselves in such a way?

Edited August 17, 2013 by CubinNY

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

I could be wrong, but the alternative requires the Ricketts to be fools. Why would the purchase the team and then handcuff themselves in such a way?

 

Because they thought that with attendance over 3 million/year and getting a large subsidy on the renovations from the government, it wouldn't be as much of a problem as it's turned out to be.

 

There were a lot of reports at the time of Zell making various demands on the buying team, and that it had scared away some buyers.

[Backtobanks]

I think that is a myth. I'm almost 100% sure of it. Besides that the team is enormously profitable.

 

It's possible that it's a myth, but why are you sure of it?

At the time the deal was announced there was mention of how Zell wanted the payments to be structured so as to avoid taxes. The deal with Zell has nothing to do with operation of the team. To my knowledge there was no mention of always having to operate at a profit. It's an unsustainable way to run a sports franchise that would require selling off of players at the end of the year if revenue dipped below expenses for any given year. It's a ratchet that only tightens and leaves way too much outside of the control of the owners. Now I could see them wanting to reset the franchise and invest in infrastructure in both talent as well as the physical plant (Dominican Academy, Wrigley, etc.) and thus take away from the big club, but it seems to me it's next to impossible to rebuild in every sense and no incur short term debt.

 

What they are doing makes sense given the state of the franchise, even if I don't like it. I see no reason to invent some sort of hard rule for a conscious decision by the owners.

 

I could be wrong, but the alternative requires the Ricketts to be fools. Why would they purchase the team and then handcuff themselves in such a way?

 

I totally agree with you about it being a myth. I'm sure Ricketts has an army of lawyers, tax specialists, and other financial experts that examined every aspect of the deal before they signed on the bottom line. As you posted, this is one of the most profitable teams in baseball.