PDA

View Full Version : Forbes: Dodgers New TV Deal Likely to be a Record



PraiseJesus
08-30-2012, 08:53 PM
This was in the Dodgers forum and I think it clarifies why they are not worried about taking on big contracts.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2012/08/26/expected-regional-tv-deal-worth-billions-new-ownership-fueling-l-a-dodgers-spending-spree/


So the addition of numerous stars over the last several weeks (Hanley Ramirez, Adrian Gonzalez, Josh Beckett, Carl Crawford, Shane Victorino) at a joint cost of approximately $300 million over the life of their contracts doesnít feel as jaw-dropping when one considers, based on the Desser estimates above, that one yearís worth of local/regional TV revenues under the teamís upcoming media deal could completely offset these salary expenses.

Halladay
08-30-2012, 08:56 PM
That figure seems a bit high. Seemed clear from the start that the new ownership wasn't afraid to spend money because they knew they'd be killing it on the tv deal,parking lot etc. The Dodgers are a brand name, it's good for baseball if they're a competitive team.

Jeffy25
08-30-2012, 08:58 PM
what?!

No way

That's more than double anyone elses.

In fact, that's more than ESPN paid for MLB games over the next 6 years

Raidaz4Life
08-30-2012, 09:00 PM
I can't help but feel that is a sloppy estimate. Either that or the conditions making it "up to" are unrealistic and in reality it will be substantially lower.

AI
08-30-2012, 09:04 PM
That doesn't justify the fact that absorbing that type of money on the likes of Crawford and Beckett was smart. You could've got better value.

infernoscurse
08-30-2012, 09:12 PM
they are going to dwarf the yankees, watch

PraiseJesus
08-30-2012, 09:14 PM
That doesn't justify the fact that absorbing that type of money on the likes of Crawford and Beckett was smart. You could've got better value.

I agree. But when you consider that the FA market is veryyy thin for the next 2 years it makes more sense.

Do you expect the Dodgers to sign every quality FA in that time???

They needed a 1B and SP and Crawford is a gamble they were willing to take.

Think about that $8.5 billion number for a moment - even if it turns out to be 7.5 billion, that is epic revenue for a MLB team

Jeffy25
08-30-2012, 09:24 PM
I agree. But when you consider that the FA market is veryyy thin for the next 2 years it makes more sense.

Do you expect the Dodgers to sign every quality FA in that time???

They needed a 1B and SP and Crawford is a gamble they were willing to take.

Think about that $8.5 billion number for a moment - even if it turns out to be 7.5 billion, that is epic revenue for a MLB team

I still can't believe the deal is worth more than 4 billion.


And ESPN doesn't believe it is either.

http://seattletimes.com/html/marinersblog/2019008666_new_tv_deal_with_espn_shows_ml.html


Next year, the Dodgers will announce a new local TV deal that is expected to be worth $4 billion and up -- an all-time record.

In fact, there are several sources that seem to agree with ESPN, and not Forbes. And it would appear that you didn't read the entire Forbes deal in full. They COULD start their own network, that COULD gross them as much as 8.5 billion, an estimate that is being made by the writer and is not in fact the deal/a deal that has been signed.

Either you are reporting false news, or just completely didn't read the article you posted.

Jeffy25
08-30-2012, 09:26 PM
I changed the thread title.

MetsFanatic19
08-30-2012, 09:29 PM
You know what this mean...

MMMOOOOAAARRRRRR SALARY!!!

More-Than-Most
08-30-2012, 09:31 PM
Nobody said they are or were or will be afraid to spend... They will be at the top of baseball pay roll wise but they will not go a ton over like Dodger fans believe....There is a number and its probably just over or around the Luxury tax....The Yankees spend more than anyone and even they have issues with staying above the luxury tax...This deal could be for 20 billion and I still can promise that they will not go above the luxury tax by a ton over a long period of time.

More-Than-Most
08-30-2012, 09:35 PM
Also being able to spend and spending wisely are to very different things...How many bad deals will they make before they get tired of wasting money? Ask the Cubs how it feels or the Phillies/Red sox for more recent examples and for future examples ask the angels. They are spending now and its good for baseball and makes things fun but there is a number and as soon as they hit a bumpy road and start losing with a big pay roll watch how even they start to shed pay roll.

PraiseJesus
08-30-2012, 09:37 PM
I changed the thread title.

Why - "Up to 8.5 BIllion" is the number referenced in the article...

It is Forbes.com not some random Website

The reason for the high number goes beyond expectations for a lot of reasons related to cable subscriptions and the changing landscape of why people pay for cable TV. YOu can get most shows for free online right now

There are many new and upcoming ways to get tv content - mostly related to the internet.

*An astounding % of cable TV subscribers continue to pay to for it - not to watch typical TV channels - but to see live coverage of their local teams.

So while you may not understand why the numbers are so high - that doesn't mean it isn't true. Last time I checked Forbes estimated the Dodger sale to be around 1 billion, it ended up being over double that...

Forbes is a credible source...

DodgerB24
08-30-2012, 09:47 PM
I highly doubt it's that high, but we'll see I guess.

ciaban
08-30-2012, 09:48 PM
i would love to see it be that high, because that would mean that they would be making 400 mill a year from just the tv contract, also, if they started their own network i would be totally down to subscribe!

Jeffy25
08-30-2012, 10:13 PM
Why - "Up to 8.5 BIllion" is the number referenced in the article...

It is Forbes.com not some random Website

The reason for the high number goes beyond expectations for a lot of reasons related to cable subscriptions and the changing landscape of why people pay for cable TV. YOu can get most shows for free online right now

There are many new and upcoming ways to get tv content - mostly related to the internet.

*An astounding % of cable TV subscribers continue to pay to for it - not to watch typical TV channels - but to see live coverage of their local teams.

So while you may not understand why the numbers are so high - that doesn't mean it isn't true. Last time I checked Forbes estimated the Dodger sale to be around 1 billion, it ended up being over double that...

Forbes is a credible source...

Forbes is a credible source, but your thread title is only true IF the Dodgers create their own TV Network by next season like the Yankees did, and that is one writers speculation.

I understand perfectly well how it could be worth that much, it's that your thread title made it sound like they were carrying a 8.5 billion dollar tv deal now. Which isn't the case.

PraiseJesus
08-30-2012, 11:22 PM
Forbes is a credible source, but your thread title is only true IF the Dodgers create their own TV Network by next season like the Yankees did, and that is one writers speculation.

I understand perfectly well how it could be worth that much, it's that your thread title made it sound like they were carrying a 8.5 billion dollar tv deal now. Which isn't the case.

Which is why the title was "Could be worth $8.5 billion" was correct....

The new title is really bad

Jeffy25
08-30-2012, 11:46 PM
Which is why the title was "Could be worth $8.5 billion" was correct....

The new title is really bad

It's accurate and not misleading.

It's only worth 8.5 billion if the Dodgers create their own network, which isn't likely, and that's if the reporters speculation and guess is accurate, which it may not be.

There are several links/sources out there that say a new tv deal is closer to 4 billion, which is less than half what your thread title said.

PraiseJesus
08-30-2012, 11:54 PM
It's accurate and not misleading.

It's only worth 8.5 billion if the Dodgers create their own network, which isn't likely, and that's if the reporters speculation and guess is accurate, which it may not be.

There are several links/sources out there that say a new tv deal is closer to 4 billion, which is less than half what your thread title said.

Where are those links/sources?

Using the word 'deal' twice in the title - genius...

PraiseJesus
08-30-2012, 11:54 PM
Please just delete this thread

PraiseJesus
08-31-2012, 12:03 AM
still a terrible title, please delete

Jeffy25
08-31-2012, 12:10 AM
whatever