MASN Solvency?

[24fps]

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.

[weams]

 

[Can_of_corn]

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.

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

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. 

[Mr. Chewbacca Jr.]

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.

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

[weams]

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. 

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

[Mr. Chewbacca Jr.]

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.

[DrungoHazewood]

15 minutes ago, Mr. Chewbacca Jr. said:

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.

It's a problem.  You can't flip a switch and suddenly be cool.  The closest I can get my kids to watch a baseball game is Youtube highlights.  Or physically take them to OPACY.  But they won't watch a whole game of anything, even a two-hour soccer match, and they're good soccer players who love to wear their favorite team's gear.

[Can_of_corn]

8 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

It's a problem.  You can't flip a switch and suddenly be cool.  The closest I can get my kids to watch a baseball game is Youtube highlights.  Or physically take them to OPACY.  But they won't watch a whole game of anything, even a two-hour soccer match, and they're good soccer players who love to wear their favorite team's gear.

Maybe you could work up their tolerance for boredom.  Maybe have them watch paint dry for a couple of hours then move on to baseball and soccer.

[weams]

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2020/04/the-obstacles-of-televising-mlb-games-without-fans.html

Quote

There would be financial hurdles as well, mostly in terms of allocating the television money. The fact is, a huge proportion of game day revenue comes from fans in the stadium. Without fan revenue, there would have to be a conversation between the league and players about the players taking reduced pay. Teams would not be able to pay players at their normal rates, and while the league and the players’ union have worked diligently at forming peaceful accords throughout this trying time, the amity alone does not smooth all the edges.

Besides, the revenue from TV contracts would not be able to cover the costs, per Kevin Acee of the San Diego Union Tribune. Acee notes that those teams with their own television networks might be able to make enough for the games to be worthwhile, but for those negotiating with local networks, there would likely be a further reduction in revenue. With the terms of original television contracts altered under the circumstances, the contracts themselves would likely require a renegotiation as well. There have been a few games without fans (or with few fans) aired over the years, and the end product is always a little bit eerie. It might be better than nothing under the circumstances, but where revenue is concerned, every adjustment has trickle down effects that must be negotiated throughout the invested parties.