southsider2k5 Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Sox com in at #16, with a valuation of $1.05 billion on revenue of $240 million. Operating income came in at $20 million. http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlm45gdfgj/...cago-white-sox/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 23, 2016 Author Share Posted March 23, 2016 Of course perfect timing. Rob Hart @RobHart1980 26m26 minutes ago Reinsdorf/Einhorn bought Sox from Veeck for $20 million. $53 million today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Before the arguments begin, a public service announcement and reminder - how much the team is worth is not the same as revenue, nor are either the same as money available to pay for things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 23, 2016 -> 04:51 PM) Before the arguments begin, a public service announcement and reminder - how much the team is worth is not the same as revenue, nor are either the same as money available to pay for things. They also made $20M in OP, which suggests they had some money to spend even with a small revenue decline. And with LaRoche's retirement, they should be sitting a nice pile of cash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 This should be fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 23, 2016 Author Share Posted March 23, 2016 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 23, 2016 -> 04:51 PM) Before the arguments begin, a public service announcement and reminder - how much the team is worth is not the same as revenue, nor are either the same as money available to pay for things. QUOTE (raBBit @ Mar 23, 2016 -> 06:11 PM) What do you mean here? NSS nailed the future posts before they happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Forbes still uses slideshows? Do those valuations include the cost of the ballpark? Or does it depend who owns it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 23, 2016 -> 04:51 PM) Before the arguments begin, a public service announcement and reminder - how much the team is worth is not the same as revenue, nor are either the same as money available to pay for things. But they can borrow money from the Bulls to pay for things, right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 23, 2016 -> 07:40 PM) Forbes still uses slideshows? Do those valuations include the cost of the ballpark? Or does it depend who owns it? As the ballpark is owned by ISFA, it wouldn't include that. The super-cheap leasing agreement has literal value, but not accounting-material value because it's just fewer dollars spent on a cost center. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 (edited) If Forbes is to be believed, the team made $20 million last year, despite a bad year, low ratings, low attendance, cheap tickets, stretching the payroll... It doesn't appear the franchise is doomed or looking to move out of their sweetheart deal anytime soon. Edited March 24, 2016 by Dick Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
he gone. Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 I don't know why anybody is surprised here. We pay $9 for a beer, $24 to park, $7 for tortilla chips with s*** goo cheese melted over them. Of course there is a profit to be made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan18 Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 23, 2016 -> 07:40 PM) Forbes still uses slideshows? Do those valuations include the cost of the ballpark? Or does it depend who owns it? As you can probably tell, some of the most valuable teams own their parks (Yankees, Boston, Cubs, Dodgers). If a team were to be sold, the park would be part of the deal, as we've seen very recently with the Cubs & Dodgers. For most, it would just be the operational rights to the park. Edited March 24, 2016 by soxfan18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thad Bosley Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 23, 2016 -> 03:24 PM) Of course perfect timing. Rob Hart @RobHart1980 26m26 minutes ago Reinsdorf/Einhorn bought Sox from Veeck for $20 million. $53 million today. 'Tis a shame the fan's investment in the Sox the last 35 years hasn't had nearly the payoff as that of the owners. Just sayin'! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 24, 2016 -> 02:37 PM) If Forbes is to be believed, the team made $20 million last year, despite a bad year, low ratings, low attendance, cheap tickets, stretching the payroll... It doesn't appear the franchise is doomed or looking to move out of their sweetheart deal anytime soon. it doesn't matter.... no matter how much money the club pulls in and regardless of the payroll. the club will always make 20 mil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan18 Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 24, 2016 -> 08:37 AM) If Forbes is to be believed, the team made $20 million last year, despite a bad year, low ratings, low attendance, cheap tickets, stretching the payroll... It doesn't appear the franchise is doomed or looking to move out of their sweetheart deal anytime soon. Uh...why would ratings have any effect on revenue? They're collecting their rights fees no matter what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 QUOTE (soxfan18 @ Mar 24, 2016 -> 06:02 PM) Uh...why would ratings have any effect on revenue? They're collecting their rights fees no matter what. Yeah, that probably affects future revenues more than present revenues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 (edited) Ratings would affect the profitability of Comcast, which they are part owners of...but not significantly. You could argue they profited as much from the Cubs' run as they did their own poor ratings, so essentially they cancelled each other out. Otoh, the situation with the cable rights deal (see most recent Passan article on the Dodgers' continuing situation there) for 2019 is even more worrisome than the television and radio ratings. We also know those ratings will improve if they're legitimately competing for a playoff spot all season along, instead of just kind of hanging on right on the periphery but not really 100% in the race, either. As far as the actual value of those local rights deals...it has zero bearing until 2019, and they could still be the least-watched franchise in baseball (and bottom 5 in attendance) and nevertheless collect enough money to remain profitable because of MLB Advanced Media and the national rights deals. Edited March 26, 2016 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewokpelts Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 The likelihood of the sox leaving Comcast AND not making more than the current deal pays, is close to zero. We all forget that csn Chicago is on in virtually all local households. Any potential new station would need win over cable operators who do not want to pay exaggerated fees. Plus, Jerry owns the rights to buy ricketts shares in the network Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 29, 2016 Author Share Posted March 29, 2016 QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Mar 29, 2016 -> 08:01 AM) The likelihood of the sox leaving Comcast AND not making more than the current deal pays, is close to zero. We all forget that csn Chicago is on in virtually all local households. Any potential new station would need win over cable operators who do not want to pay exaggerated fees. Plus, Jerry owns the rights to buy ricketts shares in the network The Sox aren't leaving Comcast. JR is about to indirectly own 60% of it. What I am afraid of is that we missed the bubble for big TV deals. Even the Yankees are having trouble getting their games on TV now, because the network's prices are too high for the cable systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewokpelts Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 29, 2016 -> 08:45 AM) The Sox aren't leaving Comcast. JR is about to indirectly own 60% of it. What I am afraid of is that we missed the bubble for big TV deals. Even the Yankees are having trouble getting their games on TV now, because the network's prices are too high for the cable systems. The Yankees do not have carriage problems. YES not only has long term deals signed, but fox sports owns the channel now. Edit: I googled, and it apprears that Comcast is fighting YES. How this pertains to the sox isn't really clear, as the nyc cable market is vastly different than Chicago. The closest parallel is Philadelphia, as the Phillies got a $5 billion deal to STAY on CSN, which was founded by Comcast to air the teams it had owned at the time( 76ers and flyers) and sought the phils to have summer programming. The Chicago version of CSN is loaded with executives that are veterans of sportschannel/fox sports Chicago, and even sportsvision. The late Jim corno was the head of sportsvision and Jerry's guy at the network. And it was Jerry who DEMANDED that Comcast negotiate deals with every provider and not participate in pissing contests over carriage fees. Which is why the teams did not take a rights fee increase in 2004, instead taking a shorter deal at the exact same terms as the last deal with the Dolans. Edited March 29, 2016 by ewokpelts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lasttriptotulsa Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Mar 29, 2016 -> 02:05 PM) The Yankees do not have carriage problems. YES not only has long term deals signed, but fox sports owns the channel now. Dish Network does not carry Yes and as of now a deal has not been reached with Comcast. Those are two pretty big providers that do not carry it simply because of the outrageous price they are trying to charge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 29, 2016 Author Share Posted March 29, 2016 QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Mar 29, 2016 -> 02:05 PM) The Yankees do not have carriage problems. YES not only has long term deals signed, but fox sports owns the channel now. Yes they do. Comcast dropped YES in November. There are about a million households who can't get it now. http://www.wsj.com/articles/cost-of-sports...ight-1459102726 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewokpelts Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 29, 2016 -> 02:14 PM) Yes they do. Comcast dropped YES in November. There are about a million households who can't get it now. http://www.wsj.com/articles/cost-of-sports...ight-1459102726 I figured that out. Yes/fox also charges $9 per household per month to Comcast. The problem isn't as bad here, as xfinity is the dominant cable service in market. And Comcast owns both the channel and service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 29, 2016 Author Share Posted March 29, 2016 QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Mar 29, 2016 -> 04:14 PM) I figured that out. Yes/fox also charges $9 per household per month to Comcast. The problem isn't as bad here, as xfinity is the dominant cable service in market. And Comcast owns both the channel and service. From the article, it was actually $5.36, and they wanted to make it $6. YES network costs pay-TV providers about $5.36 a subscriber a month, according to SNL Kagan, making it one of the most expensive channels on the cable dial. YES is seeking to increase its fee to about $6. From a bigger picture view, it means the market is shrinking for potential competition for White Sox baseball broadcasts, and for baseball broadcasts in general. That very directly means that the nine figure annual prices for baseball broadcasting rights could well be a thing of the past by, and by the time the Sox have a new agreement in 2019 we won't see nearly the financial benefit from them as we would have in say 2010. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewokpelts Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 29, 2016 -> 04:16 PM) From the article, it was actually $5.36, and they wanted to make it $6. From a bigger picture view, it means the market is shrinking for potential competition for White Sox baseball broadcasts, and for baseball broadcasts in general. That very directly means that the nine figure annual prices for baseball broadcasting rights could well be a thing of the past by, and by the time the Sox have a new agreement in 2019 we won't see nearly the financial benefit from them as we would have in say 2010. Again, the Phillies got 5 billion to stay on CSN. The sox will be fine, especially since the Cubs are all but gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.