08-04-2009, 05:34 PM
<!--quoteo(post=55534:date=Aug 4 2009, 03:32 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Aug 4 2009, 03:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->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--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So the Cubs have one of the highest revenue stream in the MLB which includes significantly discounted TV revenue but you are worried that the skybox, parking and advertising opportunities are less than others so the Cubs won't be able to compete?
Sorry but my understanding is that TV and ticket sales dwarf all other revenue opportunities.
The current movement in stadiums is to smaller venues. e.g. New Yankee stadium attendance is 52,325 versus the House that Ruth Built 56,866. That is significantly bigger than Wrigley but still demonstrates the trend is to provide a more intimate experience to a smaller number of attendees and charge more for each ticket.
BTW, the new Yankee Stadium has 56 luxury suites vs the 66 that Wrigley has.
The 2 most significant new major sources of baseball revenue are ticket re-sales and the baseball channel. Both of these favor the Cubs.
Just as the new owners of the Red Sox have significantly upgraded old Fenway and expanded their revenue opportunities, I would expect that Ricketts family to do the same and Zell to have already have some of these opportunities built into the sale price.
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--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So the Cubs have one of the highest revenue stream in the MLB which includes significantly discounted TV revenue but you are worried that the skybox, parking and advertising opportunities are less than others so the Cubs won't be able to compete?
Sorry but my understanding is that TV and ticket sales dwarf all other revenue opportunities.
The current movement in stadiums is to smaller venues. e.g. New Yankee stadium attendance is 52,325 versus the House that Ruth Built 56,866. That is significantly bigger than Wrigley but still demonstrates the trend is to provide a more intimate experience to a smaller number of attendees and charge more for each ticket.
BTW, the new Yankee Stadium has 56 luxury suites vs the 66 that Wrigley has.
The 2 most significant new major sources of baseball revenue are ticket re-sales and the baseball channel. Both of these favor the Cubs.
Just as the new owners of the Red Sox have significantly upgraded old Fenway and expanded their revenue opportunities, I would expect that Ricketts family to do the same and Zell to have already have some of these opportunities built into the sale price.