MLB Season likely delayed again so players can get vaccinated before reporting

[Frobby]

4 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

Its irrelevant IMO ... 162 games played equals 162 games of broadcast revenue. TV money is still the lionshare of teams revenue

Just because it’s the lion’s share doesn’t mean that the gate revenues aren’t significant enough to be the difference between making a profit and having a loss.    

[Roll Tide]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

Just because it’s the lion’s share doesn’t mean that the gate revenues aren’t significant enough to be the difference between making a profit and having a loss.    

Sure ... but 162 games with 145 containing fans is better than the 145 with fans and the lost tv revenues for the games not played.

[Number5]

13 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

Sure ... but 162 games with 145 containing fans is better than the 145 with fans and the lost tv revenues for the games not played.

We don't know this.  In fact, I would suspect that it isn't true.  If they lose money in the first 17 games, they lose money in the first 17 games.  Simple as that.  The amount they make in the 145 games is the amount they make in the  145 games.  Simple as that.  Losing money in the first 17 games in no way increases the profits for the 145 games.

[Roll Tide]

10 hours ago, Number5 said:

We don't know this.  In fact, I would suspect that it isn't true.  If they lose money in the first 17 games, they lose money in the first 17 games.  Simple as that.  The amount they make in the 145 games is the amount they make in the  145 games.  Simple as that.  Losing money in the first 17 games in no way increases the profits for the 145 games.Be

 

Below is an article about the new MLB tv deal. Just discussing the Orioles, their adjust payroll is $46 million and their annual tv revenue is somewhere around $140 million dollars if the team plays 162 games. If for round numbers they played 16 less games they would lose 10% of their annual tv revenue, $864,000 per game x 16 = 13.82 million lost. Their payroll is worth $285,000 per game x 16 = $4.5 million. So the net after payroll is 9.3 million. Even if you lop off 50% in operational expenses which I doubt it’s anywhere near that high the team still nets over 4 million dollars compared to not playing. I’m certainly not arguing that they aren’t missing ut on game day revenues. But, I can’t see how they are better off not playing. Perhaps there are mid payroll teams that the numbers don’t work but I’m confident that teams like the Dodgers and Yankees are fine also.

Orioles 2021 estimated payroll 2021 https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/baltimore-orioles/payroll/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2020/06/14/with-tbs-renewal-mlb-could-see-2b-annually-from-national-tv-contracts/?sh=1c61df0d4411

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Roll Tide said:

 

Below is an article about the new MLB tv deal. Just discussing the Orioles, their adjust payroll is $46 million and their annual tv revenue is somewhere around $140 million dollars if the team plays 162 games. If for round numbers they played 16 less games they would lose 10% of their annual tv revenue, $864,000 per game x 16 = 13.82 million lost. Their payroll is worth $285,000 per game x 16 = $4.5 million. So the net after payroll is 9.3 million. Even if you lop off 50% in operational expenses which I doubt it’s anywhere near that high the team still nets over 4 million dollars compared to not playing. I’m certainly not arguing that they aren’t missing ut on game day revenues. But, I can’t see how they are better off not playing. Perhaps there are mid payroll teams that the numbers don’t work but I’m confident that teams like the Dodgers and Yankees are fine also.

Orioles 2021 estimated payroll 2021 https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/baltimore-orioles/payroll/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2020/06/14/with-tbs-renewal-mlb-could-see-2b-annually-from-national-tv-contracts/?sh=1c61df0d4411

I believe this is wrong, because the MLB TV deals are constructed in a way where the regular season games are priced very cheaply but the playoff games provide most of the revenue.    So, losing the first 10% of your games does not lose 10% of the TV revenue.    That’s the whole reason MLB delayed the restart of last season as long as possible.   

Also, the O’s are a bad example because their gate receipts are in the bottom 5 in baseball.    I recall Fangraphs ran a chart estimating which teams would lose the most money last year if they only played 80 games and the O’s were slightly in the black, though the vast majority of teams were in the red.   I’ll see if I can dig that up.   
(Edit: the article I recalled was written on June 9 before a deal had been struck and had a series of charts, none of which was as simple as how I described it above.    But it does show the Orioles as among the most profitable under various scenarios for last year.   Here it is:  https://blogs.fangraphs.com/a-look-at-the-gains-and-losses-by-team-of-a-season-without-fans/)

[Roll Tide]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I believe this is wrong, because the MLB TV deals are constructed in a way where the regular season games are priced very cheaply but the playoff games provide most of the revenue.    So, losing the first 10% of your games does not lose 10% of the TV revenue.    That’s the whole reason MLB delayed the restart of last season as long as possible.   

Also, the O’s are a bad example because their gate receipts are in the bottom 5 in baseball.    I recall Fangraphs ran a chart estimating which teams would lose the most money last year if they only played 80 games and the O’s were slightly in the black, though the vast majority of teams were in the red.   I’ll see if I can dig that up.   
(Edit: the article I recalled was written on June 9 before a deal had been struck and had a series of charts, none of which was as simple as how I described it above.    But it does show the Orioles as among the most profitable under various scenarios for last year.   Here it is:  https://blogs.fangraphs.com/a-look-at-the-gains-and-losses-by-team-of-a-season-without-fans/)

Several years ago I recall reading that the Yankees Tv revenue pays their entire payroll without needing a nickel from anywhere else. 

[Frobby]

52 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

Several years ago I recall reading that the Yankees Tv revenue pays their entire payroll without needing a nickel from anywhere else. 

See, I don’t know what that means.   Per Forbes, in 2019 the Yankees had operating income of $35 mm. Their gate receipts were $287 mm.   It stands to reason that without fans in the stands they would have lost about $250 mm (I’m sure there are some cost savings to playing in an empty stadium, but it can’t be more than a few million I’d guess).    

Now compare the Orioles.   They had $57 million in operating income and $46 mm in gate receipts.    They could have had $11 mm+ in operating income even with nobody in the stands. 

Most teams are between those and would have a loss without fans, if you go by Forbes’ numbers (which are really all we have, if you want to look at all 30 teams).    

[Roll Tide]

11 minutes ago, Frobby said:

See, I don’t know what that means.   Per Forbes, in 2019 the Yankees had operating income of $35 mm. Their gate receipts were $287 mm.   It stands to reason that without fans in the stands they would have lost about $250 mm (I’m sure there are some cost savings to playing in an empty stadium, but it can’t be more than a few million I’d guess).    

Now compare the Orioles.   They had $57 million in operating income and $46 mm in gate receipts.    They could have had $11 mm+ in operating income even with nobody in the stands. 

Most teams are between those and would have a loss without fans, if you go by Forbes’ numbers (which are really all we have, if you want to look at all 30 teams).    

I’m not saying they didn’t lose the gate revenues as that would be idiotic. Thinking that the Yankees lost money in 2020 is also inaccurate. Their tv revenue covers their ridiculous payroll and much of their operating expenses were cut along with everything else.

[Roll Tide]

To add on ...without adjustments their 2020 payroll was $203 million.

 

this is from baseball reference from 2018 https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Revenue_sharing

Quote

n Major League Baseball, 48% of local revenues are subject to revenue sharing and are distributed equally among all 30 teams, with each team receiving 3.3% of the total sum generated. As a result, in 2018, each team received $118 million from this pot. Teams also receive a share of national revenues, which were estimated to be $91 million per team, also in 2018.

I don’t believe that number counts their portion of revenue from YES after revenue sharing which I believe was 75 million or  so in 2019

 

@Frobby

Still think the  Yankees failed to make a profit in 2020?

 

[Number5]

7 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

I’m not saying they didn’t lose the gate revenues as that would be idiotic. Thinking that the Yankees lost money in 2020 is also inaccurate. Their tv revenue covers their ridiculous payroll and much of their operating expenses were cut along with everything else.

Tide, you might want to reread FRobby's post.  The Yankees gate receipts far exceeded their bottom line income, so it is clear that there would be an operating loss without the gate receipts.

I'm not sure why you continue to argue that the team owners make a profit when they play before empty stands, yet don't want to do it.  That doesn't make sense on its face.  I've seen you argue that they make a profit, but claim a loss so that they save on taxes.  If that were true, of course, they would want to continue doing it even more.  Your argument is illogical within itself.  A couple of others have argued that they actually make a profit with empty stands, yet claim a loss to somehow have ammunition in the upcoming CBA negotiations with the players, which, of course, is also an illogical argument within itself for the same reason - under that scenario the owners would be very much in favor of playing the games.   

That the owners don't want to stage games before empty stadiums because they lose money doing so is both reasonable and logical.  These conspiracy theories that suggest the owners are somehow unhappy making a profit on these games just don't seem to hold any water.

By the way, congrats on the win last night.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Roll Tide said:

To add on ...without adjustments their 2020 payroll was $203 million.

 

this is from baseball reference from 2018 https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Revenue_sharing

I don’t believe that number counts their portion of revenue from YES after revenue sharing which I believe was 75 million or  so in 2019

 

@Frobby

Still think the  Yankees failed to make a profit in 2020?

 

You act as though payroll is the only significant expense the Yankees have, but that’s not the case.    Per Forbes, in 2019 the Yankees had $683 mm in revenue but only $35 mm in operating income.    That means $648 mm in expenses, of which only $220 mm related to payroll.    So, that’s $428 mm in non-payroll expenses.   Unfortunately, there is no breakdown of that figure, which is way, way higher than most other teams.   

For the Orioles, total revenue was $256 mm, operating income $57 mm meaning $199 mm in operating expenses, of which $103 mm were player expenses, meaning $96 mm in non-payroll expenses, less than 1/4 of the Yankees total.   

Are the Yankees’ non-payroll expenses plausible, and what do they consist of?    I do not know.    As I said before, the Forbes numbers are all we have.   

 

[Roll Tide]

5 hours ago, Frobby said:

You act as though payroll is the only significant expense the Yankees have, but that’s not the case.    Per Forbes, in 2019 the Yankees had $683 mm in revenue but only $35 mm in operating income.    That means $648 mm in expenses, of which only $220 mm related to payroll.    So, that’s $428 mm in non-payroll expenses.   Unfortunately, there is no breakdown of that figure, which is way, way higher than most other teams.   

For the Orioles, total revenue was $256 mm, operating income $57 mm meaning $199 mm in operating expenses, of which $103 mm were player expenses, meaning $96 mm in non-payroll expenses, less than 1/4 of the Yankees total.   

Are the Yankees’ non-payroll expenses plausible, and what do they consist of?    I do not know.    As I said before, the Forbes numbers are all we have.   

 

i get it’s all we have ...I just don’t believe it

[Frobby]

3 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

i get it’s all we have ...I just don’t believe it

I want to make it clear: I don’t necessarily believe it either.    But, I don’t have any actual facts to dispute it, as well.

I do believe the Braves’ numbers.   They are part of a public company and have no reason to understate profits or overreport losses.   

[OFFNY]

On 12/17/2020 at 3:14 PM, OFFNY said:

o

For the sake of sentimentality, I hope that they play l 154.

o

o

 

(6 Weeks Later) 

 

Hey, it might happen ........

 

MLB Proposes Delaying Season by a Month Due to COVID-19, Playing 154 Games with Full Player Pay

(By Tim Brown)

https://sports.yahoo.com/mlb-proposes-delaying-season-by-a-month-playing-154-games-with-full-player-pay-201016798.html

 

o

[Oriole1940]

21 hours ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

(6 Weeks Later) 

 

Hey, it might happen ........

 

MLB Proposes Delaying Season by a Month Due to COVID-19, Playing 154 Games with Full Player Pay

(By Tim Brown)

https://sports.yahoo.com/mlb-proposes-delaying-season-by-a-month-playing-154-games-with-full-player-pay-201016798.html

 

o

I hope they do too.