08-04-2009, 04:37 PM
<!--quoteo(post=55534:date=Aug 4 2009, 03:32 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Aug 4 2009, 03:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=55528:date=Aug 4 2009, 02:58 PM:name=1060Ivy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (1060Ivy @ Aug 4 2009, 02:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=55523:date=Aug 4 2009, 02:35 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Aug 4 2009, 02:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=55507:date=Aug 4 2009, 01:17 PM:name=1060Ivy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (1060Ivy @ Aug 4 2009, 01:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=55504:date=Aug 4 2009, 01:13 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Aug 4 2009, 01:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->BTW, BT's post was great. I've said the same thing, only far less well. We're hanging in there. Fuck yeah.
However, we have a MASSIVE advantage over the other teams in our division.
Here are the top eight MLB teams in payroll:
Yankees: $206 million
Mets: $139 million
<!--coloro:#0000FF--><!--/coloro-->Cubs<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->: $138 million
Tigers: $130 million
Phillies: $128 million
Red Sox: $123 million
Angels: $117 million
Dodgers: $109 million<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Cubs also have the advantage of playing in a major market with one of the highest revenues in the league so they should be one of the teams with the highest payrolls.
Unfortunately, the Cubs are also known for having weak track record for drafting, acquiring and developing talent so until they get those skills in house, they will have to overspend regularly to effectively compete.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once you get past the fact that Wrigley field draws almost daily sellouts, it's a horseshit park for revenue. No electronic scoreboard to speak of, no parking, (almost) no in park advertising, and worst of all, no luxury boxes. Unless the new owners can cut some kind of YES network deal, they won't have close to the same revenues as most other big market teams.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/33/biz_ba...ll_Revenue.html
According to 2007 figures, Cubs were #5 in team in MLB revenues and that is discounting the value of the TV contract.
In 2007, the valuation was in the mid-$600 MM range less than the $900 MM but the current deal also has portions of the Tribune media included less the portion of the Cubs the Tribune is holding on to.
Regarding luxury boxes, the Wrigley has 66 skyboxes in place for some time now.
Regarding advertising, lots of advertisers inside the concourse of the stadium and the UnderArmour ads in the outfield.
Agree that a new TV deal - like the YES network - would add a significant revenue stream but I believe that Tribune locked Cubs into the remainder of the current deals with WGN and Comcast.
Finally, the parking situation is a joke but the Cubs do own a number of parking structures around Wrigley and the new building the Cubs were considering was supposed add additional parking capacity.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are taking everything I said the wrong way. Do the Cubs have skyboxes? Of course they do, but they are a joke compared to virtually every other team in the majors. When a team tells you they need a new stadium, what they mean is that they need new skyboxes. The Cubs skybox revenue is nothing compared to other, big market teams.
Do the cubs have advertising in the stadium? Of course they do, but an underarmour sign on the door, and a box behind homeplate is nothing compared to what other parks have.
Do the Cubs have ANY parking? Of course they do, but again its NOTHING compared to what other teams have.
So do those 3 revenue streams exist? Yes. Are they comparable to what the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Giants, and now even the Cardinals and the White Sox have? No.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Granted, it's been since 2002 that I've been to Fenway last, but I didn't see anything there that led me to believe that it's much different from Wrigley in terms of parking, advertising, luxury boxes, or overall capacity. Have they added a bunch of stuff (other than the Monster seats) recently?
However, we have a MASSIVE advantage over the other teams in our division.
Here are the top eight MLB teams in payroll:
Yankees: $206 million
Mets: $139 million
<!--coloro:#0000FF--><!--/coloro-->Cubs<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->: $138 million
Tigers: $130 million
Phillies: $128 million
Red Sox: $123 million
Angels: $117 million
Dodgers: $109 million<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Cubs also have the advantage of playing in a major market with one of the highest revenues in the league so they should be one of the teams with the highest payrolls.
Unfortunately, the Cubs are also known for having weak track record for drafting, acquiring and developing talent so until they get those skills in house, they will have to overspend regularly to effectively compete.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once you get past the fact that Wrigley field draws almost daily sellouts, it's a horseshit park for revenue. No electronic scoreboard to speak of, no parking, (almost) no in park advertising, and worst of all, no luxury boxes. Unless the new owners can cut some kind of YES network deal, they won't have close to the same revenues as most other big market teams.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/33/biz_ba...ll_Revenue.html
According to 2007 figures, Cubs were #5 in team in MLB revenues and that is discounting the value of the TV contract.
In 2007, the valuation was in the mid-$600 MM range less than the $900 MM but the current deal also has portions of the Tribune media included less the portion of the Cubs the Tribune is holding on to.
Regarding luxury boxes, the Wrigley has 66 skyboxes in place for some time now.
Regarding advertising, lots of advertisers inside the concourse of the stadium and the UnderArmour ads in the outfield.
Agree that a new TV deal - like the YES network - would add a significant revenue stream but I believe that Tribune locked Cubs into the remainder of the current deals with WGN and Comcast.
Finally, the parking situation is a joke but the Cubs do own a number of parking structures around Wrigley and the new building the Cubs were considering was supposed add additional parking capacity.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are taking everything I said the wrong way. Do the Cubs have skyboxes? Of course they do, but they are a joke compared to virtually every other team in the majors. When a team tells you they need a new stadium, what they mean is that they need new skyboxes. The Cubs skybox revenue is nothing compared to other, big market teams.
Do the cubs have advertising in the stadium? Of course they do, but an underarmour sign on the door, and a box behind homeplate is nothing compared to what other parks have.
Do the Cubs have ANY parking? Of course they do, but again its NOTHING compared to what other teams have.
So do those 3 revenue streams exist? Yes. Are they comparable to what the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Giants, and now even the Cardinals and the White Sox have? No.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Granted, it's been since 2002 that I've been to Fenway last, but I didn't see anything there that led me to believe that it's much different from Wrigley in terms of parking, advertising, luxury boxes, or overall capacity. Have they added a bunch of stuff (other than the Monster seats) recently?