More Tv contract stuff

[BuccoFla]

More and more people are starting to understand the impact of Tv money on competitive balance. Article from Cleveland.com

http://www.cleveland.com/tribe/index.ssf/2012/01/the_big_picture_is_tv_rights_m.html

[BuccoFla]

Interesting that the Brewers only get $12million per year from their Tv deal while our deal has been estimated at around $20million per year.

[gnarburger]

The Brewers, despite their success, will likely never get a big TV deal.  Not only is it a very small market in terms of total population, but something like only 80% of households have cable in the area, while most cities are over 90%.  The Brewers local TV ratings (expressed as a percentage) were 3rd in the league this year, but in terms of total households they were down near the bottom.  The Pirates were actually 9th in rating, one spot ahead of the Yankees, but the Yankees were still easily first in households.

[izzman]

Thanks Florida.

I came across this (for the 2nd time). I found this interview with McClatchy pretty good. It seems we signed a 20 year deal in 2011.  . However, terms were not released and maybe their are outs or adjustments. SO I guess figguring 20 M per year for 20 years is a safe if not conservative estimate
http://www.yardbarker.com/mlb/articles/the_potential_value_of_a_local_tv_contract/8962024

Revenue sharing is critical to balance the new TV contracts.
I've come to the conclusion that anyone preaching how revenue sharing is bad becuase the smaller market owners are just putting into the bank are plain dangerous. Without the present revenue sharing system MLB might as well adopt the system they have for soccer in Europe where they have two leagues and the small market teams will mostly be in the lesser league with a chance to be promoted and visa versa.

I'v also definitely come to appreciate the new collective bargaining agreement. The acquisition of amateur players including foreign imports give the small markets a chance. I'm thinking better of Selig these days. It's not perfect but you share 40% or so of local TV renue. You have a luxuary Tax. You limit bonuses for amateurs. And you have 3 years of inexpensive MLB time before arbituation hits. Plus add in the enlargement of the playoff field. All of these make no question give smaller market teams some hope.

The stuff that upsets the apple cart more than anything in the closed economy of MLB is when extremely wealthy owners don't care much if they lose 10's of miilions a year. Then again the luxuary tax helps with that.

I'll end with another media revenue question? Do all the clubs get equal share of the MLB radio broadcasts (TV and radio on the web?)

Thanks
IzzMan
A Prospect Perspective:
At one time I thoguht Ron Wotus would be the next Cal Ripken and Rafael Belliard would be the next Ozzie Smith.

[Possum]

Thanks Florida.

I came across this (for the 2nd time). I found this interview with McClatchy pretty good. It seems we signed a 20 year deal in 2011.  . However, terms were not released and maybe their are outs or adjustments. SO I guess figguring 20 M per year for 20 years is a safe if not conservative estimate
http://www.yardbarker.com/mlb/articles/the_potential_value_of_a_local_tv_contract/8962024

Revenue sharing is critical to balance the new TV contracts.
I've come to the conclusion that anyone preaching how revenue sharing is bad becuase the smaller market owners are just putting into the bank are plain dangerous. Without the present revenue sharing system MLB might as well adopt the system they have for soccer in Europe where they have two leagues and the small market teams will mostly be in the lesser league with a chance to be promoted and visa versa.

I'v also definitely come to appreciate the new collective bargaining agreement. The acquisition of amateur players including foreign imports give the small markets a chance. I'm thinking better of Selig these days. It's not perfect but you share 40% or so of local TV renue. You have a luxuary Tax. You limit bonuses for amateurs. And you have 3 years of inexpensive MLB time before arbituation hits. Plus add in the enlargement of the playoff field. All of these make no question give smaller market teams some hope.

The stuff that upsets the apple cart more than anything in the closed economy of MLB is when extremely wealthy owners don't care much if they lose 10's of miilions a year. Then again the luxuary tax helps with that.

I'll end with another media revenue question? Do all the clubs get equal share of the MLB radio broadcasts (TV and radio on the web?)

Thanks
IzzMan
A Prospect Perspective:
At one time I thoguht Ron Wotus would be the next Cal Ripken and Rafael Belliard would be the next Ozzie Smith.

Well said izzman.  I enjoyed the insight the OP gave us with the links.  Just one thing though.  You had high hopes for Wotus and Belliard.  There used to be a poster on this forum who thought that Abraham Nunez was the second coming of Honus Wagner, or at least worlds better than Jack Wilson!   

[The Moose]

I'll end with another media revenue question? Do all the clubs get equal share of the MLB radio broadcasts (TV and radio on the web?)

Well, no.  Broadcasts as you describe fall under the auspices of Major League Baseball Adavanced Media (MLBAM).  Profits from MLBAM are put into the Central Fund, which is disproportionately allocated to teams based on their relative revenues, so lower-revenue teams get a bigger piece of the pie.

[izzman]

I'll end with another media revenue question? Do all the clubs get equal share of the MLB radio broadcasts (TV and radio on the web?)

Well, no.  Broadcasts as you describe fall under the auspices of Major League Baseball Adavanced Media (MLBAM).  Profits from MLBAM are put into the Central Fund, which is disproportionately allocated to teams based on their relative revenues, so lower-revenue teams get a bigger piece of the pie.

Me likes  . Thanks

[MaineBucs]

Izzman

I once thought Steve Lyons, whose main claim to fame is that he dropped his uniform pants while standing on first base, was destined to be a better hitter than Wade Boggs.

Further, I actually bought into some of the initial hype about how Jimmy Anderson could be a good big league starter because of his high ground ball rate.  Jimmy wasn't quite as rotund then when he first came up, but his low ground ball rate soon became a mirage.

Lastly, who wasn't on the Oliver Perez bandwagon after he struck out my batters in a season than any Pirate left-hander in history.

Then again, I never had any fantasies regarding Wotus's or Belliard's career.

[izzman]

I was fairly young and new to the idea of "prospects" when I thought that about Belliard and Wotus.

Oliver Perez is in a different classification. He did have a dominating 1 year in the ML's.

Midre Cummings sure fizzled. It wasn't a question if he would win a batting title...but how many.

For guys that made it to the majors and then took a sudden fall. How about Mike Dunne, Warren Morris. Even though he did put together a number of years in bigs, the unrealized promise of Jose Deleon still stings.