12-07-2012, 10:14 PM
[quote name='BT' timestamp='1354931386' post='200090'][quote name='jstraw' timestamp='1354914699' post='200081']
[quote name='rok' timestamp='1354910737' post='200076']
[quote name='jstraw' timestamp='1354910526' post='200074']
[quote name='rok' timestamp='1354897304' post='200071']
[quote name='jstraw' timestamp='1354861221' post='200064']
I think that Ivy's point is that if your negotiating a big tv contract and everyone is operating on the belief that they're investing on a team that will be more watched down the road than it is now, it's still better to be selling the rights to broadcast an 85 win team than a 70 win team. And a really, really horrible team will get a crappier deal than a team that's simply not making the playoffs but that are at least mediocre and watchable.It's fine to say they can't contend till 2015 but if you decide that means you field garbage till then, garbage is what you have to peddle to television networks. Saving 10s of millions to lose hundreds of millions is a bad idea.
[/quote]
TV deals are long-term. Cable networks don't look strictly at short-term comps to project out revenues for 10-20 year deals. It's hard enough to predict if a team can be competitive on a year-by-year basis, let alone a decade down the road. As I said, if short-term thinking drove TV deals, the Padres never would have gotten such a great new deal. I doubt they even have a fraction of our viewership and national following, and both teams haven't exactly been chasing pennants as of late. They got a great deal. I suspect ours will blow theirs out of the water.
[/quote]
I don't see the disagreement, unless you really think a 65 win season is just as good as a 95 win season, right before the negotiations ensue. Then we disagree. Promising big viewership is simply just not as good as demonstrating it.
[/quote]
Well, we have a long track record of big viewership, much longer than the 2 year blip more recently. Hell, even during lean times, the ratings are decent.
[/quote]
I'm led to believe viewership is good but has been declining in a way that relates directly to wins and losses. And even though all parties are aware that a winning Cubs franchise will draw huge numbers, it's far better to negotiate from a position of strength. I have no handle on the ROI for wins. How much money does each additional win cost a non-contending team and what's that worth at the negotiating table (and in multiple other ways?...and what does it cost the team in other ways?). I figure that other people who are in a better position to evaluate that than I am are dealing with those questions.
[/quote]
This would be the equivalent of a hitter renegotiating a 3 year extension in the middle of a season losing "leverage" because he had a bad week at the plate. Unless broadcast networks have some reason to believe the Cubs will be bad for years on end, their current situation will have no bearing on a 20-30 year television contract.[/quote]
My understanding is that tv ratings for the Cubs have been trending downward since the last playoff year, 2008, and my guess is that they'll continue trending down until the Cubs field a competitive team which by most guesses could be 2015. The ratings could pop up before then but most likely will trend down until they begin playing better than 500 ball so 2015 could be a decent guess.
So your one bad week at the plate analogy equates to around 7 years so guess you expecting a 200 year cable deal rather than a 10-20 year deal?
[quote name='rok' timestamp='1354910737' post='200076']
[quote name='jstraw' timestamp='1354910526' post='200074']
[quote name='rok' timestamp='1354897304' post='200071']
[quote name='jstraw' timestamp='1354861221' post='200064']
I think that Ivy's point is that if your negotiating a big tv contract and everyone is operating on the belief that they're investing on a team that will be more watched down the road than it is now, it's still better to be selling the rights to broadcast an 85 win team than a 70 win team. And a really, really horrible team will get a crappier deal than a team that's simply not making the playoffs but that are at least mediocre and watchable.It's fine to say they can't contend till 2015 but if you decide that means you field garbage till then, garbage is what you have to peddle to television networks. Saving 10s of millions to lose hundreds of millions is a bad idea.
[/quote]
TV deals are long-term. Cable networks don't look strictly at short-term comps to project out revenues for 10-20 year deals. It's hard enough to predict if a team can be competitive on a year-by-year basis, let alone a decade down the road. As I said, if short-term thinking drove TV deals, the Padres never would have gotten such a great new deal. I doubt they even have a fraction of our viewership and national following, and both teams haven't exactly been chasing pennants as of late. They got a great deal. I suspect ours will blow theirs out of the water.
[/quote]
I don't see the disagreement, unless you really think a 65 win season is just as good as a 95 win season, right before the negotiations ensue. Then we disagree. Promising big viewership is simply just not as good as demonstrating it.
[/quote]
Well, we have a long track record of big viewership, much longer than the 2 year blip more recently. Hell, even during lean times, the ratings are decent.
[/quote]
I'm led to believe viewership is good but has been declining in a way that relates directly to wins and losses. And even though all parties are aware that a winning Cubs franchise will draw huge numbers, it's far better to negotiate from a position of strength. I have no handle on the ROI for wins. How much money does each additional win cost a non-contending team and what's that worth at the negotiating table (and in multiple other ways?...and what does it cost the team in other ways?). I figure that other people who are in a better position to evaluate that than I am are dealing with those questions.
[/quote]
This would be the equivalent of a hitter renegotiating a 3 year extension in the middle of a season losing "leverage" because he had a bad week at the plate. Unless broadcast networks have some reason to believe the Cubs will be bad for years on end, their current situation will have no bearing on a 20-30 year television contract.[/quote]
My understanding is that tv ratings for the Cubs have been trending downward since the last playoff year, 2008, and my guess is that they'll continue trending down until the Cubs field a competitive team which by most guesses could be 2015. The ratings could pop up before then but most likely will trend down until they begin playing better than 500 ball so 2015 could be a decent guess.
So your one bad week at the plate analogy equates to around 7 years so guess you expecting a 200 year cable deal rather than a 10-20 year deal?