Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bird watcher

MASN Solvency?

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, esmd said:

Or they could always just get their stuff together and offer a streaming service.

I think most O’s fans would like that option. There is a reason though that they haven’t yet gone that route; it’s not as profitable as the current situation.  It also would make situations like this even more economically devastating because they would lose all of their subscriber money. At least with cable they diversify by getting money from subscribers that stay on despite no sports. 
 

This could go the other way too, where many people cancel Cable because there is no baseball and cable gets to see how many people really were only having cable for the baseball.  But will the casual fan realize they can live without it and not miss it. To be honest, it’s not really at the forefront of my mind these days. I’ve kind of just moved on to other things to occupy my time. Easier to do too when the O’s are going to be terrible too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Eric-OH said:

I’ve also had similar thoughts and I believe that we’ll see advertisers of companies who simply can’t afford to promote themselves slow to a halt and also affect the circle of revenue tied into broadcast rights.  Tony Romo getting 17 mil to talk football may be a thing of the past and broadcasters getting 7 figure salaries to sit in a studio or a desk will get canned.  ESPN specifically was benefiting less and less like you outlined and live sports was the only connector between frustrated sports package paying customers and the college hoops, NBA, NFL games they crave watching live.

My main wonder is ‘will this be the event that convinces billionaire owners to shop their assets in an attempt to move them instead of just gauging their value?  Will it make the younger Angelos’ hold tighter or think sell?  These long term liabilities that you see as a larger risk may just stop being worth it.  I’m afraid of this process occurring and before I was confident it wouldn’t.  Very good talking point 

There will be many new norms learned from this by businesses.  I was reading about how workflows have streamlined in some industries because they’ve been forced to move everything between depts electronically. The article was specifically about tv show production (writers, producers, editors, graphics, animators, etc). It noted how much cheaper and time efficient things are now without the need for physical space. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2020 at 7:53 AM, bird watcher said:

There will be many new norms learned from this by businesses.  I was reading about how workflows have streamlined in some industries because they’ve been forced to move everything between depts electronically. The article was specifically about tv show production (writers, producers, editors, graphics, animators, etc). It noted how much cheaper and time efficient things are now without the need for physical space. 

I like the Dan LeBatard show and they’ve barely missed a beat being quarantined at their own houses.  Is that the new way?  
Fancy, expensive studios are always a waste of resources to me, regardless of who fits the bill, network or sponsors.  
I forgot where I read it, but ESPN/Disney has already had to convince itself that there’s no content coming around the corner and they’ve strategized by emptying out their 1980’s/1990’s half assed sports movies file.  The next step down will be downsizing and or job loss.  It’s around the corner. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Eric-OH said:

I like the Dan LeBatard show and they’ve barely missed a beat being quarantined at their own houses.  Is that the new way?  
Fancy, expensive studios are always a waste of resources to me, regardless of who fits the bill, network or sponsors.  
I forgot where I read it, but ESPN/Disney has already had to convince itself that there’s no content coming around the corner and they’ve strategized by emptying out their 1980’s/1990’s half assed sports movies file.  The next step down will be downsizing and or job loss.  It’s around the corner. 

 

Fancy, expensive studios allow for many highly sophisticated technical things to happen in real time - especially important for live programming.  They also allow people to work together face-to-face which is something qualitatively very different and more exciting than any electronic quasi-conversation.  Perhaps more importantly, I don't think Disney, ESPN, Fox Sports and others of that caliber want their look (brand) to be confused with 20-something YouTubers "broadcasting" from mom's basement, so looked at that way, the fancy, expensive studio is worth many multiples of the purchase price.

No doubt current norms will evolve over time.  They always do and the current pandemic will add enough spin so that nobody can predict where the new normal will end up.  But I think it's safe to say that in entertainment, those with the resources to rise above the pack will alway spend them to do just that.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2020 at 12:21 PM, Redskins Rick said:

Personally, I would rather watch with my own eyes the sporting event, and require less talk from the dudes in the booth that are rambling about everything but what we just seen.

 

I spent a decade listening to Chuck Thompson and three listening to Vin Scully.  No regrets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, weams said:

 

They could still be viable, they would just have to lock the players out until a massive restructuring of athlete salaries took place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

They could still be viable, they would just have to lock the players out until a massive restructuring of athlete salaries took place.

Exactly.  Baseball was the most popular team sport in America for a century before MLB signed their first TV deal.  But it was different.  In another thread I estimated that the 1936 St. Louis Browns probably had total revenues for the year of a few hundred thousand dollars, and a payroll under $150k.  Even after factoring in inflation that's a total payroll of about what the O's paid for Jose Iglesias, and total revenues of what they might bring in for attendance revenue in a week in 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But when you talk about the desperation of sports leagues, don't forget the symbiotic relationship between satellite/cable and major sports leagues.  If not for live sports there would be seven people, all 88 years old, who wouldn't have cut their cord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

But when you talk about the desperation of sports leagues, don't forget the symbiotic relationship between satellite/cable and major sports leagues.  If not for live sports there would be seven people, all 88 years old, who wouldn't have cut their cord.

I can get out of my cable subscription in May and thanks to the virus I’m 99% certain I’m ditching Fios. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Exactly.  Baseball was the most popular team sport in America for a century before MLB signed their first TV deal.  But it was different.  In another thread I estimated that the 1936 St. Louis Browns probably had total revenues for the year of a few hundred thousand dollars, and a payroll under $150k.  Even after factoring in inflation that's a total payroll of about what the O's paid for Jose Iglesias, and total revenues of what they might bring in for attendance revenue in a week in 2020.

You bring up a really good point. Even during the "golden years" of baseball - it was no where near as financially strong as it is right now.

There's a lot of thinkpiece articles about how sports are doomed because of cord-cutting, but I really disagree with it. People haven't lost interest in watching sports, the leagues just need to change their business model to reflect the changes in the market. No business can expect to have the same business model forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. Chewbacca Jr. said:

You bring up a really good point. Even during the "golden years" of baseball - it was no where near as financially strong as it is right now.

There's a lot of thinkpiece articles about how sports are doomed because of cord-cutting, but I really disagree with it. People haven't lost interest in watching sports, the leagues just need to change their business model to reflect the changes in the market. No business can expect to have the same business model forever.

There's an assumption across a lot of businesses that if you're not growing a lot, you're failing.  I don't think it's catastrophic if baseball and other sports sometimes have a period where they have to retrench and rethink how their models work.  They shouldn't expect weird market quirks like countless people who don't like sports paying $6 a month for ESPN to continue or even grow forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DrungoHazewood said:

There's an assumption across a lot of businesses that if you're not growing a lot, you're failing.  I don't think it's catastrophic if baseball and other sports sometimes have a period where they have to retrench and rethink how their models work.  They shouldn't expect weird market quirks like countless people who don't like sports paying $6 a month for ESPN to continue or even grow forever.

But  that is not the way business work since they shifted from producing a popular product at a lower price than what it is sold for and finding a profit margin that can support R and D for future products. 

Somewhere it became known that public businesses had to have gains each quarter to keep the stockholders content.  

Staying the same at any point is failure in that later model. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, weams said:

But  that is not the way business work since they shifted from producing a popular product at a lower price than what it is sold for and finding a profit margin that can support R and D for future products. 

Somewhere it became known that public businesses had to have gains each quarter to keep the stockholders content.  

Staying the same at any point is failure in that later model. 

Just wait for 50 or 100 years from now when the world's population grown rate is negative.  If your business model is grow every year or quit you may be in for a bit of a shock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

There's an assumption across a lot of businesses that if you're not growing a lot, you're failing.  I don't think it's catastrophic if baseball and other sports sometimes have a period where they have to retrench and rethink how their models work.  They shouldn't expect weird market quirks like countless people who don't like sports paying $6 a month for ESPN to continue or even grow forever.

Yeah - ESPN has way more to worry about the changing landscape of cable subscriptions than MLB. MLB could easily pivot to streaming if needed, they've been leaders in that.

MLB's biggest problem is figuring out a way to keep kids engaged in the sport, so they have an audience in the future. That's far more difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • Yep, but that all came out after he was in the HoF.  
    • I don't totally disagree.  And the trite thing we hear is "billionaires vs. millionaires." The owners are, largely a faceless entity.   I mean, we know who the Angelos family is but I don't know who owns the Kansas City Royals.  I can't name the Padres owner.  Or the Blue Jays owner.  I can tell you the Lerner family owns the Nats but that's because they're in close proximity. What I am trying to say is that the owners, from the perspective of the court of public opinion, seem to get by from facing criticism here because they're not seen every day.  They're not easily identifiable to everyone and for the most part they're not on Twitter and not making statements in the media that...well, rub fans the wrong way.  Meanwhile, everyone who follows baseball knows who Blake Snell, Bryce Harper and Max Scherzer are. The other thing that the owners have going for them, I believe, is that they're probably not relying on their MLB teams as their only income stream.  Many of these people have made money elsewhere which have afforded them the ability to own a sports team.  Meanwhile, MLB players...this is really if for them.  Some of them will find success in other avenues of life after retirement, some won't.  And therefore, they are looking for their best interests and have no shame in saying so.  MLB owners don't NEED to own teams to be financially successful, they already were before purchasing their teams.  A lot of players need to play the game in order to lead a lifestyle they've become accustomed to.   It's unfortunate that the players don't really seem to care about the court of public opinion, that they're whining about things not being fair when there's record unemployment numbers.  It's a simple concept, one that they don't seem to grasp.  I don't have an issue with players salaries being what they are...I liken it to movie stars and what they make.  Baseball is entertainment, other entertainers make a lot of money and baseball players should be no different. But when it comes to the billionaires vs. millionaires...in this case, give me the billionaires.  At least they're trying to move the season forward.  Had they not made this proposal I get the feeling that the players would have been perfectly happy to kick up their heels and stay home all summer without saying a word.  And now that the owners want to have some semblance of a season in a manner that restricts their revenue due to not being able to have fans, concessions, etc, the players are acting like taking less money for less games is a slap in the face and an insult.   Which, to people who are out of a job and are struggling to make rent and pay bills...is insulting.
    • I'm sure it is just this particular class of pitchers at #2. I don't think it is an organizational philosophy not to take a pitcher with a top pick, just with this class. I imagine if there was a Strasburg available, they would take him.
    • And it turns out Kirby wasn't the better person.
    • Pretty much agree with all of this.  Happy birthday!
    • I agree, but option 3 is only an option IF the owners are on solid legal ground in threatening option 2. And they haven't yet proven that they are. If the owners do so, and the players come back and make option 3 a reality, then it should be recognized by both the league and the media, that the players saved the season. What instead will happen, is that the players will, as always, be portrayed as greedy for looking out for their financial interests when it is accepted as a given that the owner's financial interests are paramount. And every effort is being made to force the players to "compromise" before the owners have overcome their burden of proof. I do not believe that the owners will lose more money not playing a season than playing in front of no fans while paying the players their pro-rated salaries. And even if I am wrong in that belief, I further believe that the long term prospects (and financial value) of MLB teams will be more damaged by a canceled season than by any additional amount of money the owners will lose by playing in front of no fans vs. canceling the season. For that reason, I think the owners need to move forward with the season even if, for the first time in 25 years, they take some financial lumps. And hey, if the players and owners have time to hammer out a whole new CBA starting with the 2022 season to avoid a strike/lockout after 2021 as part of the exchange for renegotiating the March agreement, that is fine too, but they shouldn't renegotiate financial terms for nothing if, as I believe, nothing underlying the March agreement has changed. I am going to log out now, so no hard feelings if I don't respond to any further posts for a while. I enjoyed reading other peoples thoughts and getting my thoughts down, based on my understanding of the facts, but today is my birthday and I am going to take the rest of the day off from thinking about labor strife! Will check back in tomorrow!
    • With each day that passes a 2020 baseball season seems less likely.  So sad.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...