MASN refuses to pay for travel costs

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, webbrick2010 said:

You guys realize that this is only about a 7% annual return. The Angelos family would have 5x  the money if they just invested in a S&P 500 Index fund. So to really get a return from your investment you need to maintain a positive cash flow, which the O's are struggling with.

Well, if Forbes can be believed, they certainly had a positive cash flow in 2019 and 2021, and should have one this year with no difficulty.   But I agree with your point that the appreciation of the franchise isn’t really out of line with other, more passive investments.  

[TonySoprano]

On 4/6/2022 at 3:01 PM, DrungoHazewood said:

Angelos bought the team for $174M in 1993.  Forbes now values the team at 1.375B after almost 30 years of mostly being horribly mismanaged, with zero championships and only a handful of playoff appearances.

On 4/6/2022 at 4:41 PM, Tony-OH said:

Isn't that the sad truth in numbers. The rich get richer, no matter how poor a job they do. Probably why they are in no hurry to sell. Why sell when it keeps appreciating?

Yeah, but with inflation these days, $1.375B doesn't buy what it used to do.  The Angelos family is checking under seat cushions to meet payroll.

[Spy Fox]

The lack of travel is definitely affecting the quality of the broadcast. As others have said, in normal sports broadcasts the announcers have a slight lead on the viewer in understanding what's happening, since they can see the whole field. The effect is that they can guide the viewer through the action at the same time as the action comes on screen, sometimes cueing the audience into what to expect even before it's clear on the screen. This is more important in baseball than in other sports, since it requires more camera cuts to track the action. 

In these Oakland games, you can tell that the announcers don't know what happens until it's on the screen, so they can't tell you what happened until after you understand it. It makes the whole viewing experience less synchronous and smooth. It's not just that they might miss some details, it's that their function as real-time storytellers of the game is diminished every time there's a ball in play of uncertain outcome. 

Last night the game ended on a check swing third strike, but the camera missed the call by the base umpire. The game was over for several seconds before the announcers could say for sure what was happening. 

In the Tampa series I heard Palmer make a couple passive but pointed comments about the lack of travel. It has to be frustrating for them to be one of the only teams in the league being held back. 

[Tony-OH]

1 hour ago, Spy Fox said:

The lack of travel is definitely affecting the quality of the broadcast. As others have said, in normal sports broadcasts the announcers have a slight lead on the viewer in understanding what's happening, since they can see the whole field. The effect is that they can guide the viewer through the action at the same time as the action comes on screen, sometimes cueing the audience into what to expect even before it's clear on the screen. This is more important in baseball than in other sports, since it requires more camera cuts to track the action. 

In these Oakland games, you can tell that the announcers don't know what happens until it's on the screen, so they can't tell you what happened until after you understand it. It makes the whole viewing experience less synchronous and smooth. It's not just that they might miss some details, it's that their function as real-time storytellers of the game is diminished every time there's a ball in play of uncertain outcome. 

Last night the game ended on a check swing third strike, but the camera missed the call by the base umpire. The game was over for several seconds before the announcers could say for sure what was happening. 

In the Tampa series I heard Palmer make a couple passive but pointed comments about the lack of travel. It has to be frustrating for them to be one of the only teams in the league being held back. 

Eloquently said. 

[Yardball85]

1 hour ago, Spy Fox said:

The lack of travel is definitely affecting the quality of the broadcast. As others have said, in normal sports broadcasts the announcers have a slight lead on the viewer in understanding what's happening, since they can see the whole field. The effect is that they can guide the viewer through the action at the same time as the action comes on screen, sometimes cueing the audience into what to expect even before it's clear on the screen. This is more important in baseball than in other sports, since it requires more camera cuts to track the action. 

In these Oakland games, you can tell that the announcers don't know what happens until it's on the screen, so they can't tell you what happened until after you understand it. It makes the whole viewing experience less synchronous and smooth. It's not just that they might miss some details, it's that their function as real-time storytellers of the game is diminished every time there's a ball in play of uncertain outcome. 

Last night the game ended on a check swing third strike, but the camera missed the call by the base umpire. The game was over for several seconds before the announcers could say for sure what was happening. 

In the Tampa series I heard Palmer make a couple passive but pointed comments about the lack of travel. It has to be frustrating for them to be one of the only teams in the league being held back. 

Yup, more patheticness from a terribly run organization.

[rm5678]

2 hours ago, Spy Fox said:

The lack of travel is definitely affecting the quality of the broadcast. As others have said, in normal sports broadcasts the announcers have a slight lead on the viewer in understanding what's happening, since they can see the whole field. The effect is that they can guide the viewer through the action at the same time as the action comes on screen, sometimes cueing the audience into what to expect even before it's clear on the screen. This is more important in baseball than in other sports, since it requires more camera cuts to track the action. 

In these Oakland games, you can tell that the announcers don't know what happens until it's on the screen, so they can't tell you what happened until after you understand it. It makes the whole viewing experience less synchronous and smooth. It's not just that they might miss some details, it's that their function as real-time storytellers of the game is diminished every time there's a ball in play of uncertain outcome. 

Last night the game ended on a check swing third strike, but the camera missed the call by the base umpire. The game was over for several seconds before the announcers could say for sure what was happening. 

In the Tampa series I heard Palmer make a couple passive but pointed comments about the lack of travel. It has to be frustrating for them to be one of the only teams in the league being held back. 

Yes, the delay in calling the action has been extremely noticeable in the Oakland series. I don't even remember the delay being that bad in 2020/2021. It seems to have gotten much worse this year. The TV announcers need to start traveling immediately.

[CharmCityHokie]

The craziest thing to me is...the Angelos' own the stupid exclusive network; you'd think from a business perspective that you'd want as many potential viewers tuning is as possible, which equals more dollars in your pocket, and to do so you have to put up a decent product to keep people from changing the channel. But what do I know. 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, CharmCityHokie said:

The craziest thing to me is...the Angelos' own the stupid exclusive network; you'd think from a business perspective that you'd want as many potential viewers tuning is as possible, which equals more dollars in your pocket, and to do so you have to put up a decent product to keep people from changing the channel. But what do I know. 

Depends on how much of the venue is ad dependent and how the prices for those ads scale with additional viewers.

 

[spiritof66]

 

On 4/19/2022 at 12:20 PM, webbrick2010 said:

You guys realize that this is only about a 7% annual return. The Angelos family would have 5x  the money if they just invested in a S&P 500 Index fund. So to really get a return from your investment you need to maintain a positive cash flow, which the O's are struggling with.

I don't know what was going on in 1993, when Peter Angelos et al. made their investment in the Orioles, but it's been true for the past decade or so, probably longer, that those who are interested in buying a major league baseball team don't determine the amounts of their bids by comparing the expected return on that investment relative to what they could make by investing those hundreds of millions in the stock market, or private equity, or to buy companies in businesses that they know.  Owning stock or all or part of another tech company isn't going to make you famous, get your name in the paper, equip you to start and operate a profitable regional sports network, give you access to politicians and legislators, enable you to meet and talk with famous sports figures past and present, make you the personification of your favorite team, keep in your hometown a team that's threatened to move, keep out would-be competitors without concern about violating federal antitrust laws, give you the thrill of competing, and perhaps winning, on a huge international stage, be wood by mayors of large cities whom you can manipulate and play off against one another, or put you on TV accepting a hunk of metal from the Commissioner. 

Rich people who bid to buy sports teams look to the prospect of selling the team, somewhere down the road, for much more than they paid for it -- even though that next buyer likewise won't expect to make the kind of profits available in the stock market or elsewhere, but because that buyer wants the same thing (a phenomenon known in the business, as I've mentioned in an earlier post or two, as the "one more sucker" assumption). I'm sure it differs from team to team and bidder to bidder, and that it's varied over time, whether a prospective team owner expects to make large or small profits, break even or lose money on an operating basis. But that's not the primary financial basis for the prices at which major league sports franchises sell. Those prices do not reflect the expectation of operating profits that will make ownership of a team a competitive investment.

Comparing the financial return from owning a baseball team to the return from buying indexed funds is not a very meaningful comparison. 

So far as I can tell, how much money a team makes is relevant primarily as a matter of public relations. Team owners accused of raiding public coffers to build or improve stadiums or to develop adjacent neighborhoods, or being cheap when it comes to payroll, or gouging ticket buyers (especially those who eat or drink at the ballpark) from time to time cry something akin to poverty and point out that they made very little money last year, or that they even money. To me, that's not relevant to anything, even if it's accurate -- and we'll never know whether it is.

Just out of curiosity, I'll take a look at the annual return number you mentioned. One thing that's not in your analysis is value that owners of sports teams are able to take from the team that are treated as costs to the team and aren't reflected in profits: compensation for themselves as CEOs, for their family members as officers and directors, the ability to entertain in the owner's box clients or associates from their other businesses, travel around the country to watch the team, etc., etc. 

 

[eddie83]

 

 

Can’t claim a broadcaster who does Orioles games didn’t travel this year. 
 

Sorry. I just find all of this amusing. 

[eddie83]

The quality of this broadcast tonight is pathetic. 

[dtk9119]

Is anyone else noticing an audio delay with ballpark sounds from Angels stadium such as bat contact etc.? I'm watching mlb extra innings on directTV. It's bad enough we don't have announcers there and there's a delay in their call but now ballpark sounds too?? This is amateur hour...

[eddie83]

7 minutes ago, dtk9119 said:

Is anyone else noticing an audio delay with ballpark sounds from Angels stadium such as bat contact etc.? I'm watching mlb extra innings on directTV. It's bad enough we don't have announcers there and there's a delay in their call but now ballpark sounds too?? This is amateur hour...

It’s awful. I saw Dan Connolly mentioned issues in Oakland. I wasn’t able to watch much of the last series except Wednesday. Like I said in the game thread it’s 3 issues tonight. Ballpark sounds ahead of video, announcers behind the action and an echo with Arnold’s microphone. 

[yark14]

2 hours ago, eddie83 said:

The quality of this broadcast tonight is pathetic. 

That was possibly the worst broadcast I've ever heard...shame because it was a great game.   I know they are handicapped by remote broadcasting....but Arnold was so boring.  Gave no effort to provide any sort of entertainment.  Palmer did fine with what he is good at, considering the circumstances.  The exchange between them when Palmer called him out about the Rocket City Trash Pandas was pure gold.

[scarey1999]

I have an mlb.tv account (free thanks to T-Mobile).  I live in TX, so out of market obviously.  I’m refusing to watch/listen to the MASN road game feeds until they get the announcers and crew onsite. 

It’s actually been a nice change of pace. I’m not a huge Kevin Brown fan anyway, but love Palmer and Ben like most. To get to hear and listen to the opposing teams broadcast has been enjoyable. Good to hear other folks outsider opinions of the players, the team and its decision making. 

Call it turning lemons into lemonade. At least for me.