Some more reasons the games didn't get move to WASH

[ptatc]

Angelos is a cancer to baseball. The games not going to Washington were because he is in a blood feud with the Nationals. Even though he made a boatload of money off the sale of the nationals.

 

Manfred is selig's hand picked successor. He is not weak at all. But he is also the head of a corporation that oversees 30 fran horses with different goals and attitudes.

Selig was known to let teams work out issues between themselves and not drop the hammer all the time. Manfred is taking a similar approach.

 

The best part of this issue is that Angelos is losing a ton of money from 6 lost home dates. He will not recoup the losses with the doubleheader or the Tampa "home games".

Yes, but he lost a HUGE market share with the Nationals moving in 40 miles away.

 

What would the White Sox fan base and revenue be without the Cubs in Town. It really hurt his franchise in the long term. I don't blame him for being angry with baseball and the Nationals.

[Texsox]

Yes, but he lost a HUGE market share with the Nationals moving in 40 miles away.

 

What would the White Sox fan base and revenue be without the Cubs in Town. It really hurt his franchise in the long term. I don't blame him for being angry with baseball and the Nationals.

 

In a similar scenario familiar to Chicago fans, Dollar Bill Wirtz blocked a NHL franchise from ever going to Milwaukee.

[ewokpelts]

Rivalry doesn't have to be ugly. At the higher levels, I don't recall ever seeing anything like Washington and Baltimore happening between the Sox and Cubs.

Jerry had sox games on wgn. And the tribune used to sponsor half price mondays.

 

 

And who do you think got the Cubs on Comcast?

 

They are rivals but also partners. Something angelos never undestood

[ewokpelts]

Yes, but he lost a HUGE market share with the Nationals moving in 40 miles away.

 

What would the White Sox fan base and revenue be without the Cubs in Town. It really hurt his franchise in the long term. I don't blame him for being angry with baseball and the Nationals.

He was compensated greatly for allowing the Nationals to move. Not only from the sale of the team, but the 85 percent equity in masn

 

Plus, the sox have been sharing Chicago with the Cubs for 115 years. Totally different scenario.

AngeloS is too much of a scumbag to understand working together.

Edited April 29, 2015 by ewokpelts

[StrangeSox]

Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.

[Texsox]

He was compensated greatly for allowing the Nationals to move. Not only from the sale of the team, but the 85 percent equity in masn

 

Plus, the sox have been sharing Chicago with the Cubs for 115 years. Totally different scenario.

AngeloS is too much of a scumbag to understand working together.

 

Kind of like how McDonalds and Burger King would work together. Coke and Pepsi.

[LDF]

The sox really don't have issues with the Cubs. At least economically.

 

Don't forget, jerry almost bought the Cubs.

they may not hate each other, but i believe that each org will not be forth coming to the other to help them financially.

[ewokpelts]

Kind of like how McDonalds and Burger King would work together. Coke and Pepsi.

The Nationals and Orioles are franchises of Major League Baseball. Big f***ing difference than two seperate companies.

[chitownsportsfan]

The Nationals and Orioles are franchises of Major League Baseball. Big f***ing difference than two seperate companies.

 

The idea that two members of a cabal, immune to federal anti-trust laws, can't figure out how to split the eggs from the Golden Goose that is MLB revenue right now, is absurd on the face and should be shouted down from the rooftops as more Gilded Age 2.0 insanity.

 

Did Angelos really f***ing expect to not have a team in DC eventually? It's what, the 6th largest TV market in the US? The Orioles had the entire metro area, including DC, to themselves for decades. That they couldn't build a stronger regional brand is nobody's fault but their own.

[Texsox]

The Nationals and Orioles are franchises of Major League Baseball. Big f***ing difference than two seperate companies.

 

They are separate businesses. Which results for example in some teams having a higher payroll than others. Some teams earn more money than others. That's why the guys that buy teams are called owners. If you are a franchise owner who just made a sizable investment and the parent company decided to move another store across the street with a different owner you would be screaming about your investment. Yes, there are areas where they need cooperation. But that is the same in most industries, even without a shared franchise. Chevy, Ford, and Chrysler get together when it's time to negotiate with the unions, that doesn't mean they will willingly send their customers to the other dealer. Same within the franchises, notice how each franchise of a car manufacturer run their own adds and try to compete for business?

[Texsox]

The idea that two members of a cabal, immune to federal anti-trust laws, can't figure out how to split the eggs from the Golden Goose that is MLB revenue right now, is absurd on the face and should be shouted down from the rooftops as more Gilded Age 2.0 insanity.

 

Did Angelos really f***ing expect to not have a team in DC eventually? It's what, the 6th largest TV market in the US? The Orioles had the entire metro area, including DC, to themselves for decades. That they couldn't build a stronger regional brand is nobody's fault but their own.

 

So if you were making $3M from something and now it was going to be $2M you would say cool! We're just splitting the golden goose? Most of these guys are owners because they built businesses that grabbed more than the other companies in their industry.

 

These guys are trying to win. Bigger payrolls, bigger profits. Maybe you would just accept whatever split was offered but I sure would fight for every dime.

[southsider2k5]

So if you were making $3M from something and now it was going to be $2M you would say cool! We're just splitting the golden goose? Most of these guys are owners because they built businesses that grabbed more than the other companies in their industry.

 

These guys are trying to win. Bigger payrolls, bigger profits. Maybe you would just accept whatever split was offered but I sure would fight for every dime.

 

I think the difference is that you wouldn't go out and actively sabotage your own business and other franchise businesses to get even. What was done, is done. It isn't changing. All this mess did was to screw his team and the opposing team for no good reason.

[StrangeSox]

The Nationals and Orioles are franchises of Major League Baseball. Big f***ing difference than two seperate companies.

 

When you buy a McDonalds or a BK franchise, you get certain territory guarantees I'm pretty sure.

[chitownsportsfan]

You cannot compared a protected monopoly like MLB with any other business except the other federally protected sports leagues. It's not like a McDonalds franchise. It's not like a soda company. Apples to Oranges.

 

When you buy into an MLB team you agree to play by the league's rules, including how revenue is split. You get your vote as 1/30 and that's it. Angelos knows all of this. If he doesn't like it he's free to sell his club (at a value that is incredibly enhanced from even 10 years ago mind you, maybe even to the tune of 200%) and try his hand at other ventures.

 

 

Why do rich people buy sports clubs? Sure some do it for the love of the game and the prestige, but many buy in because the profit structure is guaranteed. I mean, the worst thing that can happen is the other cabal members decide that it's in everyone's best interests to move a club into your backyard. Compared to the risk of many of investment vehicles a MLB is almost fail safe.

 

Hell, look at the Wilpons, who for a decade or longer have basically leveraged the Mets as their own personal piggy bank and were able to survive their massive Madoff exposure thanks to the revenues from the club.

 

There's no defending Angelos this is simply a petty dispute between 1%ers. Two guys pissing on each others Bruno Magli's.

 

[Texsox]

You cannot compared a protected monopoly like MLB with any other business except the other federally protected sports leagues. It's not like a McDonalds franchise. It's not like a soda company. Apples to Oranges.

 

When you buy into an MLB team you agree to play by the league's rules, including how revenue is split. You get your vote as 1/30 and that's it. Angelos knows all of this. If he doesn't like it he's free to sell his club (at a value that is incredibly enhanced from even 10 years ago mind you, maybe even to the tune of 200%) and try his hand at other ventures.

 

 

Why do rich people buy sports clubs? Sure some do it for the love of the game and the prestige, but many buy in because the profit structure is guaranteed. I mean, the worst thing that can happen is the other cabal members decide that it's in everyone's best interests to move a club into your backyard. Compared to the risk of many of investment vehicles a MLB is almost fail safe.

 

Hell, look at the Wilpons, who for a decade or longer have basically leveraged the Mets as their own personal piggy bank and were able to survive their massive Madoff exposure thanks to the revenues from the club.

 

There's no defending Angelos this is simply a petty dispute between 1%ers. Two guys pissing on each others Bruno Magli's.

 

BTW, in case it isn't obvious, I am talking macro view and not the decision over one game.

 

How are the profits guaranteed? There is a competitive imbalance in the league that is due primarily to income. The amount of profit is not guaranteed and teams, can, and do, lose money. Teams have been forced to relocate to find bigger fan bases. It is a relatively safe investment. But nothing builds the value of your franchise than winning, popularity, and a sweet stadium deal.

 

So lets only look at MLB. The more profits you have, the more competitive you can be for free agents. Why would any club voluntarily give up profits that they could reinvest into their clubs? If every club was actually even and there wasn't a need to protect your business and profits, then every team would sell for the same amount. Yet, the Yankees would sell for a heck of a lot more than the Pirates.

 

Could you imagine JR accepting a team in Schaumburg? Hey his profits are guaranteed! He's just one franchise. Do what is best for baseball?

[southsider2k5]

BTW, in case it isn't obvious, I am talking macro view and not the decision over one game.

 

How are the profits guaranteed? There is a competitive imbalance in the league that is due primarily to income. The amount of profit is not guaranteed and teams, can, and do, lose money. Teams have been forced to relocate to find bigger fan bases. It is a relatively safe investment. But nothing builds the value of your franchise than winning, popularity, and a sweet stadium deal.

 

So lets only look at MLB. The more profits you have, the more competitive you can be for free agents. Why would any club voluntarily give up profits that they could reinvest into their clubs? If every club was actually even and there wasn't a need to protect your business and profits, then every team would sell for the same amount. Yet, the Yankees would sell for a heck of a lot more than the Pirates.

 

Could you imagine JR accepting a team in Schaumburg? Hey his profits are guaranteed! He's just one franchise. Do what is best for baseball?

 

I also can't imagine JR trying to sabatogue another, completely unrelated team for a decade afterwards, just because he was still pissy about it.

[Texsox]

I also can't imagine JR trying to sabatogue another, completely unrelated team for a decade afterwards, just because he was still pissy about it.

 

I couldn't either. But I could see him not wanting fans going to the Schaumburg statdium.

[southsider2k5]

I couldn't either. But I could see him not wanting fans going to the Schaumburg statdium.

 

Which is entirely past the point of where we are in reality with Peter Angelos screwing over his own team, plus another team, over a decade old grudge.

[Texsox]

Which is entirely past the point of where we are in reality with Peter Angelos screwing over his own team, plus another team, over a decade old grudge.

 

 

As I said, I was speaking beyond the one game and trying to build a case that profits are something that teams will, and should, fight over. The point that wasn't brought up, and would fit with your position is the commissioner is the guy that the team owners hired to work this out. I'm guessing the owners want a laissez faire position by the commissioner and the freedom to handle their own matters as it pertains to their team. In other words, all of the other owners accept the other owner's decision and expect the same freedom when it is their turn. The commissioner doesn't have (usually) $750,000 invested in a team.

[LDF]

As I said, I was speaking beyond the one game and trying to build a case that profits are something that teams will, and should, fight over. The point that wasn't brought up, and would fit with your position is the commissioner is the guy that the team owners hired to work this out. I'm guessing the owners want a laissez faire position by the commissioner and the freedom to handle their own matters as it pertains to their team. In other words, all of the other owners accept the other owner's decision and expect the same freedom when it is their turn. The commissioner doesn't have (usually) $750,000 invested in a team.

 

i agree to a point. now add the tv money, it kind of makes things kinda of moot.

[southsider2k5]

As I said, I was speaking beyond the one game and trying to build a case that profits are something that teams will, and should, fight over. The point that wasn't brought up, and would fit with your position is the commissioner is the guy that the team owners hired to work this out. I'm guessing the owners want a laissez faire position by the commissioner and the freedom to handle their own matters as it pertains to their team. In other words, all of the other owners accept the other owner's decision and expect the same freedom when it is their turn. The commissioner doesn't have (usually) $750,000 invested in a team.

 

Yep, exactly. Instead of it being about something that actually happened, it is about something imaginary.