Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=55528:date=Aug 4 2009, 02:58 PM:name=1060Ivy)-->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.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 3,804
Threads: 111
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=55530:date=Aug 4 2009, 03:03 PM:name=jstraw)-->QUOTE (jstraw @ Aug 4 2009, 03:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I wonder if any privateer has ever considered putting a big ol' scoreboard on one of the rooftops.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They should put a video screen on the Budweiser house roof. If there's one thing I hate about Wrigley, it's that unless I have shitty seats (in the nose bleeds, under the top deck, or if I happen to be walking to take a piss), I don't get to see a replay. A screen out there would be good for the fans and even better for advertising.
Posts: 11,836
Threads: 390
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--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?
Posts: 8,042
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=55535:date=Aug 4 2009, 03:32 PM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Aug 4 2009, 03:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=55530:date=Aug 4 2009, 03:03 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Aug 4 2009, 03:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I wonder if any privateer has ever considered putting a big ol' scoreboard on one of the rooftops.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They should put a video screen on the Budweiser house roof. If there's one thing I hate about Wrigley, it's that unless I have shitty seats (in the nose bleeds, under the top deck, or if I happen to be walking to take a piss), I don't get to see a replay. A screen out there would be good for the fans and even better for advertising.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Horseshoe Casino house? [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/img]
Posts: 3,734
Threads: 119
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--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.
Posts: 4,684
Threads: 78
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
i guess if the cubs are 5th in revenue, they're 5th in revenue, whether they have parking or advertising or skyboxes. a ton of hay will fall at the same rate as a ton of bricks.
Wang.
Posts: 4,641
Threads: 210
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
To the initial list: Joel Piniero has been amazing.
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->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?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, because if you look at what I said, that's EXACTLY what I meant. The Cubs can't compete.
It's sort of tough to argue with you if you are either going to take everything I say and pretend I meant it literally (no parking means the cubs don't own one spot!), or if you are just going to completely make up shit I didn't say.
And if you think the revenue from the 56 skyboxes at Yankee stadium is an any way comparable to the revenue from the Cubs 66, then we really don't have anything to talk about.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 2,894
Threads: 72
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
Going back to BT's initial post, I must say that despite many things going in the direction of "bizarro Cubs," we've had some damn pleasant surprises that have helped tremendously.
D Lee tops the list. I thought he was pretty much through, yet he's playing great ball.
Fuk? Six months ago, I would have traded for an A-ball prospect, just to get rid of his onerous contract, and to get him the hell out of the lineup. Yet he's kicked ass.
Theriot is actually hitting better than last year, Dempster didn't fall off a cliff like many of us expected him to, and even Z has piched pretty well (I'm always worried that his arm is gonna fall off, so to see him pitch at his typical rate is pleasing).
To give credit where it's due, every one of those guys is a Hendry guy.
There's nothing better than to realize that the good things about youth don't end with youth itself. It's a matter of realizing that life can be renewed every day you get out of bed without baggage. It's tough to get there, but it's better than the dark thoughts. -Lance
Posts: 14,130
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=55654:date=Aug 4 2009, 09:11 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Aug 4 2009, 09:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->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?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, because if you look at what I said, that's EXACTLY what I meant. The Cubs can't compete.
It's sort of tough to argue with you if you are either going to take everything I say and pretend I meant it literally (no parking means the cubs don't own one spot!), or if you are just going to completely make up shit I didn't say.
And if you think the revenue from the 56 skyboxes at Yankee stadium is an any way comparable to the revenue from the Cubs 66, then we really don't have anything to talk about.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
BT is spot on here. Skyboxes are the #1 revenue generator for new stadiums, not advertising. The number of Wrigley boxes right now is actually pretty meaningless, because they are so small compared to those of modern stadiums, it isn't even funny.
Posts: 3,734
Threads: 119
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
If you are comparing the Cubs revenue base to the Yankees, there is no comparison. The Yanks have double the revenue base of more than 1/4 of MLB teams but if want to compare the Cubs to the Cardinals, you may find more interesting story.
The Cubs have done some work in identifying new revenue streams in recent years including - CBOE seats, Wrigley Field Premium Tickets, Roof Top concessions - but the Red Sox have done a better job with developing additional revenue streams mostly within Fenway - Yawkey Way, NESN, Green Monster and other premium seats, add'l concessions, increasing ticket prices, etc.
The Cubs may not be able to compete with the Yankees but they should be able to more than compete against a majority of the league even within the confines of Wrigley.
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=55681:date=Aug 4 2009, 10:05 PM:name=1060Ivy)-->QUOTE (1060Ivy @ Aug 4 2009, 10:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->If you are comparing the Cubs revenue base to the Yankees, there is no comparison. The Yanks have double the revenue base of more than 1/4 of MLB teams but if want to compare the Cubs to the Cardinals, you may find more interesting story.
The Cubs have done some work in identifying new revenue streams in recent years including - CBOE seats, Wrigley Field Premium Tickets, Roof Top concessions - but the Red Sox have done a better job with developing additional revenue streams mostly within Fenway - Yawkey Way, NESN, Green Monster and other premium seats, add'l concessions, increasing ticket prices, etc.
The Cubs may not be able to compete with the Yankees but they should be able to more than compete against a majority of the league even within the confines of Wrigley.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
AGAIN, I'm not saying the Cubs can't compete. I'm saying that outside of ticket sales, the Cubs extra revenue sources are limited. The Yankees CHEAPEST luxury suite for premium games is $9500. The cubs MOST EXPENSIVE is 12,000. My season tickets, 4 seats for 81 games, totaled less than 6500 dollars. So while ticket sales are great and all, the Yankees cheapest suite is almost twice as much as my 324 tickets cost, and that is just for one game.
So AGAIN, where other teams can make money on suites, advertising, and parking, the Cubs ability to do that is limited. I'd also add that even as far as ticket sales goes, Wrigley is limiting as well, as the Dodgers can pack 56,000 each game, the Cubs only about 42,000.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 1,719
Threads: 102
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=55548:date=Aug 4 2009, 06:45 PM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Aug 4 2009, 06:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->i guess if the cubs are 5th in revenue, they're 5th in revenue, whether they have parking or advertising or skyboxes. a ton of hay will fall at the same rate as a ton of bricks.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're just fucking profound at times. (excuse my profanity)
I'm 100% fine with this. I'm just glad there's an actual plan in place that isn't, "Let's load up on retreads and hope we get lucky." I'm a little tired of that plan.
Butcher
Posts: 4,684
Threads: 78
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=55707:date=Aug 5 2009, 06:45 AM:name=Lance)-->QUOTE (Lance @ Aug 5 2009, 06:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=55548:date=Aug 4 2009, 06:45 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Aug 4 2009, 06:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->i guess if the cubs are 5th in revenue, they're 5th in revenue, whether they have parking or advertising or skyboxes. a ton of hay will fall at the same rate as a ton of bricks.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're just fucking profound at times. (excuse my profanity)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
relly? i have no idea what i was trying to say. i don't even remember posting it.
Wang.
|
