11-17-2014, 04:58 PM
Wow, so you guys just think the article is wrong about this being the notion that's out there? I was pointing out this is a common belief in the industry, not just here, that weak ratings have factored into their negotiations, so you show evidence of this being a belief and you're told everyone is lying and it's not true? What about this one:
And by the way, I don't doubt that Tribune is going to over-inflate their losses on the Cubs as part of negotiation strategy, but I'm still perplexed by how some can argue the ratings mean nothing. Yes, projected ratings for the future mean much more, but how do you think those predictions are made? It's not a given we're a world series team here, we have to take our fan hats off for this. And by the way, if you're WGN and you took losses for the last several years, don't you think you want some of that back?
The Cubs are a super valuable commodity, they're almost certainly on upswing, and they should still see increases, even the article that re-sparked this says as much. But when it comes to a short term deal or the prospects of triggering a long term deal early the ratings play a role.
(All that said, for some reason I still think we might get that big deal now. I don't know why, I guess I'm just an optimist, but I hope the Cubs are bluffing re: the WGN short term and a bigger partner will trigger earlier. It's looking less likely, but you never know...)
Quote:That's chicago business journal, not owned by tribune as far as I know. You can think the guy is wrong, but again, this is not some silly theory that's unsupported and deserves being mocked by photos of Xena.
Aside from the bigger role the Cubs now will play in opening the 2015 MLB season, the team also appears close to signing a new TV broadcast deal with Tribune Media Co.'s WGN-Channel 9, which has been a Cubs broadcast partner for decades.
<p style="background-color:transparent;color:rgb(68,68,68);font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">Though the Cubs went looking for a new deal over the past year, the team apparently couldn't find a new TV broadcast partner and a fatter contract elsewhere after many months of looking.
<p style="background-color:transparent;color:rgb(68,68,68);font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">Other broadcast outlets apparently were skeptical of putting too much money on the table until there is clear evidence the team has turned a corner on the field and become more competitive. TV ratings have sagged in recent seasons for Cubs games, and advertising revenue has fallen. http://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/...eague.html
And by the way, I don't doubt that Tribune is going to over-inflate their losses on the Cubs as part of negotiation strategy, but I'm still perplexed by how some can argue the ratings mean nothing. Yes, projected ratings for the future mean much more, but how do you think those predictions are made? It's not a given we're a world series team here, we have to take our fan hats off for this. And by the way, if you're WGN and you took losses for the last several years, don't you think you want some of that back?
The Cubs are a super valuable commodity, they're almost certainly on upswing, and they should still see increases, even the article that re-sparked this says as much. But when it comes to a short term deal or the prospects of triggering a long term deal early the ratings play a role.
(All that said, for some reason I still think we might get that big deal now. I don't know why, I guess I'm just an optimist, but I hope the Cubs are bluffing re: the WGN short term and a bigger partner will trigger earlier. It's looking less likely, but you never know...)