Billions

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Classy edit Sports Guy.  You stay you.

Well, I admit the use of the word always was wrong but I also thought you would be smart enough to see what I meant.  But whatever, it is what it is and it certainly doesn’t change the point I was making, which you challenged and are now trying to turn the conversation into something meaningless from the discussion.

 

[Sports Guy]

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economic-history-of-major-league-baseball/

[DrungoHazewood]

Here (https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economic-history-of-major-league-baseball/ ) is an interesting article.  (Strangely linking seems to be broken for the moment...)

A few cool notes:

1. In 1913 Western Union paid each team $17,000 for the rights to broadcast games via telegraph

2. The World Series movie rights in 1910 were sold for $500, and in 1911 for $3500.

3. The Yanks TV rights were sold for $75k in 1946.  That year they drew 2.2M fans at an average ticket price of $1.25, so they had ticket revenues of about $2.75M.  Total game day revenues might have been $4-5M? 

4. In 1964 total MLB television revenues were $21M, or a little over $1M per team.  The highest-paid Orioles in 1964 were Aparicio and Brooks at $35k.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well, I admit the use of the word always was wrong but I also thought you would be smart enough to see what I meant.  But whatever, it is what it is and it certainly doesn’t change the point I was making, which you challenged and are now trying to turn the conversation into something meaningless from the discussion.

 

I was talking about how your reaction to being wrong was to take a shot at me.

But whatever, I don't expect better of you.

[Sports Guy]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

I was talking about how your reaction to being wrong was to take a shot at me.

But whatever, I don't expect better of you.

Actually, I was complimenting you on being so good at recognizing ridiculous arguments.  

[DrungoHazewood]

In 1985 MLB drew 46M fans at just over $6 a ticket, meaning ticket revenues of about $276M.  TV revenues passed $500M that year, that was about tripled from 1980.  Don't know how much concessions, parking, merchandising, radio made them.  But it was probably in the early-to-mid 80s when TV revenues passed ticket revenues, and somewhere in the same time frame where TV became more than half of overall revenues.

And I don't have team-by-team breakdowns.  I assume the Yanks were pulling in many multiples of what the O's got from Channel 2 and the beginnings of HTS.

[LookinUp]

I'd imagine that from between day 2 to about June, MLB teams tend to lose money relative to the summer and pennant races. Parks are pretty empty during that in-school time of year. 

Then again in September, you're either in it or you're not. If you are, TV and ticket revenue is wonderful. 

Understanding this, I certainly wouldn't be shocked if they delayed the season a month or two if the vaccines don't create a "safe" environment right away. 

 

[Number5]

It seems to me that if the owners were to somehow win the case vs. the insurance companies, the players, in turn, would be entitled to be paid their full salaries.  There would be no justification for pro-rating the players salaries if the owners were being reimbursed for their revenue losses by the insurance claims.  Perhaps the whole motivation behind the lawsuit is to lose the case and eliminate any possibility of the players union having a case against them.

[Number5]

10 hours ago, sevastras said:

Every insurance policy on my businesses and umbrella insurance has language that excludes:

-Acts of God

-Viruses 

-Civil unrest

Those three things are foremost in my mind any time there is business disruption. If MLB teams were to win anything on these cases, it would set a precedence for businesses across the US.  
I am not a lawyer and laws very state to state, but I would imagine there is a statute of limitations and a business owner would have to file lawsuit and be able to drag things out as long as possible for as little money as possible to try to ride MLBs coat tails and deep pockets?  
It is an interesting argument and stance for owners, but you really have to have billions of your own to play it out because it will cost millions and years to come to any conclusion.

In my non lawyer opinion of course. (Side note, in my state the fine for practicing law without a license is less than practicing real estate without a license)

How about Acts of War?  Seems to me that is usually an exclusion, as well.

[Frobby]

27 minutes ago, Number5 said:

It seems to me that if the owners were to somehow win the case vs. the insurance companies, the players, in turn, would be entitled to be paid their full salaries.  There would be no justification for pro-rating the players salaries if the owners were being reimbursed for their revenue losses by the insurance claims.

While what you describe might be equitable, I doubt the owners are obligated to share any insurance proceeds with the players.    I also doubt the policies would reimburse the owners for their lost gross revenues — the fact that there were cost savings such as unpaid salaries would be taken into account in determining what the insurers owed.   But I’m saying that without having seen the policies, obviously.   
 

[weams]

9 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

No because attendance is only a part of the money they make.

They make more money on TV and radio deals.  
 

The more they delay it, the more money they lose.

I disagree

[spiritof66]

6 hours ago, LookinUp said:

I'd imagine that from between day 2 to about June, MLB teams tend to lose money relative to the summer and pennant races. Parks are pretty empty during that in-school time of year. 

Then again in September, you're either in it or you're not. If you are, TV and ticket revenue is wonderful. 

Understanding this, I certainly wouldn't be shocked if they delayed the season a month or two if the vaccines don't create a "safe" environment right away. 

 

You can get only a vague idea of gate receipts by looking at the number of seats that are filled. The two keys to maximizing gate receipts for an MLB club are (1) charging high ticket prices and (2) selling a lot of season tickets, so that seats are paid for in bad weather, on school nights, and after the team falls out of contention, even if nobody's sitting in them. 

[DrungoHazewood]

22 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

You can get only a vague idea of gate receipts by looking at the number of seats that are filled. The two keys to maximizing gate receipts for an MLB club are (1) charging high ticket prices and (2) selling a lot of season tickets, so that seats are paid for in bad weather, on school nights, and after the team falls out of contention, even if nobody's sitting in them. 

Thus the reason for ever-smaller stadiums.  Artificial scarcity encourages buying of (expensive) season tickets before the seats are all gone.  You don't get as many people in the stands for big games, but that's okay.  You just charge twice as much per ticket.

It's an open question whether or not this helps kill the interest of families and kids and the next generation of fans.

[sevastras]

On 12/7/2020 at 10:20 AM, Number5 said:

How about Acts of War?  Seems to me that is usually an exclusion, as well.

Not something I am concerned about. If we have acts of war domestically, making insurance claims are the least of my concerns. Virus, riot and acts of God are the only exclusions I think about. 

[Number5]

8 hours ago, sevastras said:

Not something I am concerned about. If we have acts of war domestically, making insurance claims are the least of my concerns. Virus, riot and acts of God are the only exclusions I think about. 

Ummm... I'm not really "concerned" about any of them, but Acts of War is usually an exclusion.  That is all I am saying.