Dodgers Are Cheap
Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2016 8:45 pm
Page 1 of 1
Dodgers Are Cheap
Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2016 8:56 pm
They can give us Kershaw and we can give them Hughes in return. That should help.
Dodgers Are Cheap
Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2016 9:44 pm
282A303620450 wrote: This is almost too hard to beieve --
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/11/d ... rules.html
I wonder if the rules/process have changed since the Bucs had to make a deal. Also it looks like the Dodgers are a lot more in debt than the 6 million or so the bucs needed to clear to comply (I still think the team could have made a better deal and blame DL - even if he only had a day to make a deal he should have been able to auction him off for a better return. I think DL actually was very high on Bobby Hill).
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/11/d ... rules.html
I wonder if the rules/process have changed since the Bucs had to make a deal. Also it looks like the Dodgers are a lot more in debt than the 6 million or so the bucs needed to clear to comply (I still think the team could have made a better deal and blame DL - even if he only had a day to make a deal he should have been able to auction him off for a better return. I think DL actually was very high on Bobby Hill).
Dodgers Are Cheap
Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2016 10:15 pm
1707063127272B440 wrote: They can give us Kershaw and we can give them Hughes in return. That should help.
I also want 2 of their top ten prospects to take Kershaw's contract!!
I also want 2 of their top ten prospects to take Kershaw's contract!!
Dodgers Are Cheap
Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2016 11:47 pm
This is not a surprise. Forbes identified the Dodgers at the beginning of the the 2016 season as having an operating income of a negative $73.2M. The Phillies and Rangers were the only other teams to have a negative operating income, and theirs were a negative $8.9M and $4.7M respectively. Hardly comparable to the Dodgers.
I have very little respect for Pirate ownership's tightwad ways, but the Dodgers are Nutting's posterboy for how not to run a MLB franchise and I fear will help to provide plenty of traction and spin for Pirate ownership's "financial flexibility" mantra.
I have very little respect for Pirate ownership's tightwad ways, but the Dodgers are Nutting's posterboy for how not to run a MLB franchise and I fear will help to provide plenty of traction and spin for Pirate ownership's "financial flexibility" mantra.
Dodgers Are Cheap
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 2:38 am
Is this related to their lack of a broad cable deal?
The last sell price was based on the idea that the team would be able to set up a TV contract where everyone (fans and non) with cable would pay a couple of dollars a month as part of the basic cable package.
It didn't work out that way. Cable/satellite providers held out and a lot of Angelinos can't watch the games. Lost revenue.
The last sell price was based on the idea that the team would be able to set up a TV contract where everyone (fans and non) with cable would pay a couple of dollars a month as part of the basic cable package.
It didn't work out that way. Cable/satellite providers held out and a lot of Angelinos can't watch the games. Lost revenue.
Dodgers Are Cheap
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:03 am
4463684B060 wrote: Is this related to their lack of a broad cable deal?
The last sell price was based on the idea that the team would be able to set up a TV contract where everyone (fans and non) with cable would pay a couple of dollars a month as part of the basic cable package.
It didn't work out that way. Cable/satellite providers held out and a lot of Angelinos can't watch the games. Lost revenue.
The issue is not so much that everyone with a cable package would have had to pay a fee - almost everyone with cable already does pay a Regional Sports Network/RSN fee pretty much everywhere else in the country - it was how much that fee is that made them not carry the channel - or so they say.
It seems odd though, because again this is already done virtually everywhere else. I found an article about it from 2014. The RSN fee for SportsNet LA (the channel Dodger games air on) as of that time was $3.84/mo. That seems reasonable considering Root Sports was $3.75, but I guess we do get both the Pirates and Penguins with it. As someone who has worked in the cable/telecom industry most of my life, this seems sketchy. I would suspect that there is more to it than this, likely some kind of being the scenes collusion between otherwise rival cable companies uniting in their unwillingness to offer the channel in effort to force down the price of the channel.
The last sell price was based on the idea that the team would be able to set up a TV contract where everyone (fans and non) with cable would pay a couple of dollars a month as part of the basic cable package.
It didn't work out that way. Cable/satellite providers held out and a lot of Angelinos can't watch the games. Lost revenue.
The issue is not so much that everyone with a cable package would have had to pay a fee - almost everyone with cable already does pay a Regional Sports Network/RSN fee pretty much everywhere else in the country - it was how much that fee is that made them not carry the channel - or so they say.
It seems odd though, because again this is already done virtually everywhere else. I found an article about it from 2014. The RSN fee for SportsNet LA (the channel Dodger games air on) as of that time was $3.84/mo. That seems reasonable considering Root Sports was $3.75, but I guess we do get both the Pirates and Penguins with it. As someone who has worked in the cable/telecom industry most of my life, this seems sketchy. I would suspect that there is more to it than this, likely some kind of being the scenes collusion between otherwise rival cable companies uniting in their unwillingness to offer the channel in effort to force down the price of the channel.
Dodgers Are Cheap
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:11 pm
3B272A3C3C364F0 wrote: Is this related to their lack of a broad cable deal?
The last sell price was based on the idea that the team would be able to set up a TV contract where everyone (fans and non) with cable would pay a couple of dollars a month as part of the basic cable package.
It didn't work out that way. Cable/satellite providers held out and a lot of Angelinos can't watch the games. Lost revenue.
The issue is not so much that everyone with a cable package would have had to pay a fee - almost everyone with cable already does pay a Regional Sports Network/RSN fee pretty much everywhere else in the country - it was how much that fee is that made them not carry the channel - or so they say.
It seems odd though, because again this is already done virtually everywhere else. I found an article about it from 2014. The RSN fee for SportsNet LA (the channel Dodger games air on) as of that time was $3.84/mo. That seems reasonable considering Root Sports was $3.75, but I guess we do get both the Pirates and Penguins with it. As someone who has worked in the cable/telecom industry most of my life, this seems sketchy. I would suspect that there is more to it than this, likely some kind of being the scenes collusion between otherwise rival cable companies uniting in their unwillingness to offer the channel in effort to force down the price of the channel.
There is almost definitely collusion.U.S.Accuses AT&T, DirecTV of Collusion Over Dodgers Broadcasts
And all of that is money the Dodgers planned on to pay their debt.
The last sell price was based on the idea that the team would be able to set up a TV contract where everyone (fans and non) with cable would pay a couple of dollars a month as part of the basic cable package.
It didn't work out that way. Cable/satellite providers held out and a lot of Angelinos can't watch the games. Lost revenue.
The issue is not so much that everyone with a cable package would have had to pay a fee - almost everyone with cable already does pay a Regional Sports Network/RSN fee pretty much everywhere else in the country - it was how much that fee is that made them not carry the channel - or so they say.
It seems odd though, because again this is already done virtually everywhere else. I found an article about it from 2014. The RSN fee for SportsNet LA (the channel Dodger games air on) as of that time was $3.84/mo. That seems reasonable considering Root Sports was $3.75, but I guess we do get both the Pirates and Penguins with it. As someone who has worked in the cable/telecom industry most of my life, this seems sketchy. I would suspect that there is more to it than this, likely some kind of being the scenes collusion between otherwise rival cable companies uniting in their unwillingness to offer the channel in effort to force down the price of the channel.
There is almost definitely collusion.U.S.Accuses AT&T, DirecTV of Collusion Over Dodgers Broadcasts
And all of that is money the Dodgers planned on to pay their debt.
Dodgers Are Cheap
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 6:25 pm
4B6C6744090 wrote: Is this related to their lack of a broad cable deal?
The last sell price was based on the idea that the team would be able to set up a TV contract where everyone (fans and non) with cable would pay a couple of dollars a month as part of the basic cable package.
It didn't work out that way. Cable/satellite providers held out and a lot of Angelinos can't watch the games. Lost revenue.
The issue is not so much that everyone with a cable package would have had to pay a fee - almost everyone with cable already does pay a Regional Sports Network/RSN fee pretty much everywhere else in the country - it was how much that fee is that made them not carry the channel - or so they say.
It seems odd though, because again this is already done virtually everywhere else. I found an article about it from 2014. The RSN fee for SportsNet LA (the channel Dodger games air on) as of that time was $3.84/mo. That seems reasonable considering Root Sports was $3.75, but I guess we do get both the Pirates and Penguins with it. As someone who has worked in the cable/telecom industry most of my life, this seems sketchy. I would suspect that there is more to it than this, likely some kind of being the scenes collusion between otherwise rival cable companies uniting in their unwillingness to offer the channel in effort to force down the price of the channel.
There is almost definitely collusion.U.S.Accuses AT&T, DirecTV of Collusion Over Dodgers Broadcasts
And all of that is money the Dodgers planned on to pay their debt.
Ha, who would have guessed that giant media companies buying each other would lead to problems like this?
The last sell price was based on the idea that the team would be able to set up a TV contract where everyone (fans and non) with cable would pay a couple of dollars a month as part of the basic cable package.
It didn't work out that way. Cable/satellite providers held out and a lot of Angelinos can't watch the games. Lost revenue.
The issue is not so much that everyone with a cable package would have had to pay a fee - almost everyone with cable already does pay a Regional Sports Network/RSN fee pretty much everywhere else in the country - it was how much that fee is that made them not carry the channel - or so they say.
It seems odd though, because again this is already done virtually everywhere else. I found an article about it from 2014. The RSN fee for SportsNet LA (the channel Dodger games air on) as of that time was $3.84/mo. That seems reasonable considering Root Sports was $3.75, but I guess we do get both the Pirates and Penguins with it. As someone who has worked in the cable/telecom industry most of my life, this seems sketchy. I would suspect that there is more to it than this, likely some kind of being the scenes collusion between otherwise rival cable companies uniting in their unwillingness to offer the channel in effort to force down the price of the channel.
There is almost definitely collusion.U.S.Accuses AT&T, DirecTV of Collusion Over Dodgers Broadcasts
And all of that is money the Dodgers planned on to pay their debt.
Ha, who would have guessed that giant media companies buying each other would lead to problems like this?