Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 25
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    120
    vCash
    1500

    Rogers getting a great deal

    After reading the Perkins article in the star today.
    We see that Jays owner is getting a great deal on the jays.

    Looks like Jays yearly TV rights should be worth somewhere between 100-200 million a season going forward. Something that Rogers is getting for free by
    owning the team.

    All this money should be going into player contracts.
    This is before a single ticket or hot dog is sold.

    http://www.thestar.com/sports/baseba...ent-up-perkins

    Players salaries are going to go insane in the next couple of years.
    How soon before we see top players making 30-40 million dollars a year.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,222
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by rubeus View Post
    After reading the Perkins article in the star today.
    We see that Jays owner is getting a great deal on the jays.

    Looks like Jays yearly TV rights should be worth somewhere between 100-200 million a season going forward. Something that Rogers is getting for free by
    owning the team.

    All this money should be going into player contracts.
    This is before a single ticket or hot dog is sold.

    http://www.thestar.com/sports/baseba...ent-up-perkins

    Players salaries are going to go insane in the next couple of years.
    How soon before we see top players making 30-40 million dollars a year.
    You're assuming that Rogers doesn't want to just pocket the majority of this money.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    120
    vCash
    1500
    No I think they are and have been pocketing the money.
    And will probably continue going forward.

    But this means that team revenues are on paper $250-$300 million.
    So spending 1/2 of that on player contracts should be easy.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    13,527
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by rubeus View Post
    No I think they are and have been pocketing the money.
    And will probably continue going forward.

    But this means that team revenues are on paper $250-$300 million.
    So spending 1/2 of that on player contracts should be easy.
    i'm not sure you've got all the financial facts to make a statement like that last one
    Quote Originally Posted by nycericanguy View Post
    well unfortunately it looks like you were right about Bargs...

    but hopefully we can use his expiring, if not at least we unloaded Novak's deal...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Key Biscayne, Florida
    Posts
    9,692
    vCash
    1500
    If it was only that black and white, that would be great , but I think its a little more complex than that.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    27,939
    vCash
    1500
    that is why no one should be thankful of Rogers when they come out and spend... this is what they should be doing..

    they say people need to show up before they start spending when it shouldn't really matter.. all teams out there are spending money from their big tv contracts and the Jays dont get any of that because Rogers owns the team.. its only right that they go out and spend that money on the team

    props to vick27m

    "Art was my first major in college but it was too hard, so I majored in math"
    Ron Artest

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    21,158
    vCash
    1500
    Would like to see Rogers start spending some extra money when it comes to the Raptors.


    SWAGUEZ!!!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    211
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by rubeus View Post
    Looks like Jays yearly TV rights should be worth somewhere between 100-200 million a season going forward. Something that Rogers is getting for free by owning the team.
    Not entirely true. MLB mandates that the "team" sells the local TV rights, even if the team owns the local TV station as well. It's a part of the CBA I believe, to prevent teams from redirecting revenue from the team to another non-MLB entity. That said, the number they mandate is very low, and Rogers probably pays the Blue Jays a mere fraction of market value.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    10,784
    vCash
    1500
    Instead of guaranteeing anything, MLB should revert to the NFL with non-guaranteed deals -- sports in general should be doing this. It makes players work harder and perform at a higher level. No more risk for teams to clog their payroll. Keep it fair with hard salary caps as well.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,124
    vCash
    1500
    This number is probably where it is because of the recent excitement.

    Things will always work out in the end, but if you want them to turn out a certain way... You need to make it happen.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,124
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanyo View Post
    Instead of guaranteeing anything, MLB should revert to the NFL with non-guaranteed deals -- sports in general should be doing this. It makes players work harder and perform at a higher level. No more risk for teams to clog their payroll. Keep it fair with hard salary caps as well.
    This is at least 5 cba's away barring a huge script flip.

    Things will always work out in the end, but if you want them to turn out a certain way... You need to make it happen.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    T-dot
    Posts
    10,727
    vCash
    1500
    First. The trend is not moving towards non-guarantee deals its towards more guaranteed deals. Just look at how many NFl contracts have money guaranteed upfront or through signing bonus. ANd now with such a concern put on the health/saftey factor ever union is going to go hard on guaranteeing their players as much money as possible (rightfully so).


    Secondly Rogers can do what they want its their team. Its not as rosie as people make it out to be. When the yankees and their revenue streams are fighting hard to get under the luxury tax ($189) should tell you about how much money teams are making.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    13,268
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanyo View Post
    Instead of guaranteeing anything, MLB should revert to the NFL with non-guaranteed deals -- sports in general should be doing this. It makes players work harder and perform at a higher level. No more risk for teams to clog their payroll. Keep it fair with hard salary caps as well.
    Of course, there's no way the players union would allow it and then we just wouldn't have baseball. So, kind of a moot though (though I don't disagree - except for the salary cap comment but let's not go there).


    Had to be done! Go T-Rex

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    T.O., Canada
    Posts
    14,341
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by JaysFan87 View Post
    First. The trend is not moving towards non-guarantee deals its towards more guaranteed deals. Just look at how many NFl contracts have money guaranteed upfront or through signing bonus. ANd now with such a concern put on the health/saftey factor ever union is going to go hard on guaranteeing their players as much money as possible (rightfully so).


    Secondly Rogers can do what they want its their team. Its not as rosie as people make it out to be. When the yankees and their revenue streams are fighting hard to get under the luxury tax ($189) should tell you about how much money teams are making.
    Uhh no. That's a complete misrepresentation of the entire situation. They're fighting to get under the tax next year because of the huge difference in being 4 year repeaters and having that string reset. It's something like the difference between a ~15% tax hit and 50%. That's kinda freakin huge. It's just smart business to avoid that kind of tax hit if possible, it says absolutely nothing about their revenue. I mean, it's not like they're operating on a shoestring budget in the meantime, the goal is to get under like 190M for a single season next year, I think they can get by on that.
    2013

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    T-dot
    Posts
    10,727
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by 2009mvp View Post
    Uhh no. That's a complete misrepresentation of the entire situation. They're fighting to get under the tax next year because of the huge difference in being 4 year repeaters and having that string reset. It's something like the difference between a ~15% tax hit and 50%. That's kinda freakin huge. It's just smart business to avoid that kind of tax hit if possible, it says absolutely nothing about their revenue. I mean, it's not like they're operating on a shoestring budget in the meantime, the goal is to get under like 190M for a single season next year, I think they can get by on that.
    I dont know the exact tax implications but from what i have read they will and look to commit to staying under the luxury threshold. and by no means was i saying they are on a shoe string budget. Quite the opposite actually. Its mroe to that point that even with the revenue streams they are still wanting to not pay luxury tax. While its smart business considering there revenue streams are significant its interesting that they are so hard up on getting below the tax.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •