Cleveland outdrew us? Attendance down 13% so far

[Panerista]

Dude. Every f***ing game I've been to this year. Either they are retarded or this is some really odd complex. I'd never be caught dead at Wrigley if the Sox weren't there and I sure as hell wouldn't wear all Sox gear if I did. I've seen so many Cubs fans at the Cell this year.

Not a Cubs fan, but Wrigley is still a good time. Going next weekend since the Sox aren't in town. I never get any of the "wear different team's" stuff at an irrelevant game. Unless you're wearing North Stars apparel at a Dallas Stars game, there's really no excuse for wearing the wrong team's apparel.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Deadpool

[ewokpelts]

Yes, but the value of that deal wouldn't have been so high if not for the presence of Trout, one of the two best players in baseball.

 

I get the idea of comparing the "second team" in another large market with two teams to the White Sox situation, but the Angels have been running a Top 5-7 payroll and are always among the Top 10 in attendance in the majors as well.

 

 

In order for the White Sox rights to more than double, who is going to be bidding against CSN for those rights? They're going to rise from $50,000 to $100-120,000 per game based on...? Maintaining a good relationship with the Bulls/Reinsdorf?

 

Realistically, if you were running Comcast and looking at re-negotiating the Sox contract, why would you more than double it? Because they're losing the Cubs, in all likelihood?

 

And what's to say that CSN won't be forced by paying more for the White Sox property to pass those costs on to subscribers? It's not QUITE the same thing as a regional monster like YES or the Red Sox with NESN or the Dodgers, but how can they pay so much more unless they believe they can increase their profits by a similar percentage in terms of ROI?

 

Ultimately, I suppose, JR could threaten to take the White Sox and Bulls TOGETHER to another carrier...but how likely is that to happen? That their rights fees would be mixed together and leveraged as a single entity?

http://losangeles.sbnation.com/los-angeles...son-arte-moreno

 

Mike trout played 40 games in 2011 when this deal was brokered. google is your friend

 

and two years before a monster contract extension with fox sports, the angels, despite making the playoffs most years in the late 2000's, were in the toilet.

http://www.halosheaven.com/2009/7/16/95190...s-tv-ratings-in

Edited May 23, 2016 by ewokpelts

[ewokpelts]

Cubs, Pirates, and Mets are looking like they will be a playoff contender for the next ten years so they no longer apply. KC has played in back to back world series so their arrow pointing upwards takes them off the list.

no. making the playoffs at least once made those teams off the "haven't been in the playoffs in a while" list. if the sox make the wild card and lose the play in game, they will be off that list as well. even if they fall to crap the next year.

[caulfield12]

http://losangeles.sbnation.com/los-angeles...son-arte-moreno

 

Mike trout played 40 games in 2011 when this deal was brokered. google is your friend

 

and two years before a monster contract extension with fox sports, the angels, despite making the playoffs most years in the late 2000's, were in the toilet.

http://www.halosheaven.com/2009/7/16/95190...s-tv-ratings-in

 

http://losangeles.angels.mlb.com/ana/histo...son_results.jsp

 

You're making my argument for me. The Angels appeared in the playoffs in 2004, 05, 07, 08 and 2009. The World Series was JUST 9 years behind them.

 

Compare to the White Sox. 14 years since the World Series. Only one playoff appearance in the last eight years. The Angels had 5 out of 6 years and then began to struggle a bit in 2010, but had some pieces in place and Trout on the way.

 

They had one of the highest spending owners (west of Illich) in Arte Moreno and consistent Top 5-7 MLB attendance for a decade.

 

 

I'm not seeing one common thread between the White Sox and the Angels, except them both being "second" teams in their cities. To summarize, Angels, 5 out of 7 years heading into 2011 and 6 out of 9. And the Chicago/LA media markets, but Chicago's still significantly smaller and more compressed.

 

The White Sox have barely made the playoffs six times in the last century (not counting the 1919 team since they were kicked out of baseball).

 

1959

1983

1993

2000

2005

2008

 

 

[caulfield12]

http://losangeles.sbnation.com/los-angeles...son-arte-moreno

 

Mike trout played 40 games in 2011 when this deal was brokered. google is your friend

 

and two years before a monster contract extension with fox sports, the angels, despite making the playoffs most years in the late 2000's, were in the toilet.

http://www.halosheaven.com/2009/7/16/95190...s-tv-ratings-in

 

http://losangeles.angels.mlb.com/ana/histo...son_results.jsp

 

You're making my argument for me. The Angels appeared in the playoffs in 2004, 05, 07, 08 and 2009. The World Series was JUST 9 years behind them.

 

Compare to the White Sox. 14 years since the World Series. Only one playoff appearance in the last eight years. The Angels had 5 out of 6 years and then began to struggle a bit in 2010, but had some pieces in place and Trout on the way.

 

They had one of the highest spending owners (west of Ilich) in Arte Moreno and consistent Top 5-7 MLB attendance and tv ratings for a decade.

 

 

I'm not seeing one common thread between the White Sox and the Angels, except them both being "second" teams in their cities. To summarize, Angels, 5 out of 7 years heading into 2011 and 6 out of 9. And the Chicago/LA media markets, but Chicago's still significantly smaller and more compressed.

 

The White Sox have barely made the playoffs six times in the last century (not counting the 1919 team since they were kicked out of baseball). The White Sox were 30th in tv ratings...dead last. That doesn't scream Angels, it screams Milwaukee/Seattle/Colorado/Arizona/St Louis/Detroit in terms of a broadcast rights deal.

 

1959

1983

1993

2000

2005

2008

 

 

[ewokpelts]

http://losangeles.angels.mlb.com/ana/histo...son_results.jsp

 

You're making my argument for me. The Angels appeared in the playoffs in 2004, 05, 07, 08 and 2009. The World Series was JUST 9 years behind them.

 

Compare to the White Sox. 14 years since the World Series. Only one playoff appearance in the last eight years. The Angels had 5 out of 6 years and then began to struggle a bit in 2010, but had some pieces in place and Trout on the way.

 

They had one of the highest spending owners (west of Ilich) in Arte Moreno and consistent Top 5-7 MLB attendance and tv ratings for a decade.

 

 

I'm not seeing one common thread between the White Sox and the Angels, except them both being "second" teams in their cities. To summarize, Angels, 5 out of 7 years heading into 2011 and 6 out of 9. And the Chicago/LA media markets, but Chicago's still significantly smaller and more compressed.

 

The White Sox have barely made the playoffs six times in the last century (not counting the 1919 team since they were kicked out of baseball). The White Sox were 30th in tv ratings...dead last. That doesn't scream Angels, it screams Milwaukee/Seattle/Colorado/Arizona/St Louis/Detroit in terms of a broadcast rights deal.

 

1959

1983

1993

2000

2005

2008

lay off the crack. the angels got a massive deal DESPITE s***ty ratings. the same angels that were #24 in ratings at the all star break in 2015.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/201...g/#5789ed0e25a4

[Jordan4life_2007]

lay off the crack. the angels got a massive deal DESPITE s***ty ratings. the same angels that were #24 in ratings at the all star break in 2015.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/201...g/#5789ed0e25a4

 

lol. #savage

[caulfield12]

Ummm....what do tv ratings 4 years after a new deal is signed have to do with the renegotiated package?

 

They can do a clawback and the Dodgers and Angels will "refund" money back because its not as profitable as first imagined?

 

What does that have to do with the ratings the Angels were drawing from 2002-2010?

 

That's like suggesting OKC would get a terrible tv rights deal because the media companies could see into the future and realize Durant and Westbrook wouldn't be playing there in 2020. The only thing that matters is their best estimate at the time of the deal about future projections AND a 3-5 (some might go back 10) year history of the ratings generated prior to the deal.

 

It's not like the White Sox are going to be able to promise 3 playoff appearances in the 2019-2023 because they're going to spend an extra $50 million per year on payroll. Doesn't work that way.

 

 

 

http://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgers/dodg...0805-story.html

 

I suppose you're going to argue that they KNEW beforehand the Dodgers' deal would be such a disaster that it would drive the Angels' rating up to record highs in 2014??? And they knew this because they had a crystal ball all the way back in 2011?

 

By that theory, the Cubs' SUPERMEGASTATION in 2019/20 will price itself completely out of the Chicago market, and the White Sox will convert all those casual fans into White Sox fans/viewers/listeners because almost nobody is receiving Cubs' content.

 

And Mike Trout had nothing to do with that deal either...because nobody was aware of the fact that Bryce Harper and Trout were the 2 best prospects in that game!!!

 

Right.

 

Just like a year ago if the Cubs were negotiating a rights deal they CLEARLY wouldn't bring up Kris Bryant, who's roughly 1/5th of the player Trout is.

Edited May 23, 2016 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

http://losangeles.sbnation.com/los-angeles...son-arte-moreno

 

 

 

Ewokpelts, how about this...? Let's get ESPN's Jon Greenberg to give us his best guess how much/how many years the White Sox will get from CSN in 2019.

 

You have your Angels' guess....

 

Or you can have Crain's Chicago Business back you up...if you can find someone who will agree with your assessment.

 

The White Sox are much more likely to have a structure similar to the Mariners' deal with ROOT, without nearly the guaranteed $150 million per year the Angels are receiving.

 

 

 

Instead, the Mariners are headed in a different and somewhat surprising direction. The new deal — estimated by Forbes at $2 billion over 17 years — will give the Mariners broader control over the RSN’s programming. But that control may come with some financial uncertainty. At the moment, three MLB teams own majority stakes in their regional sports networks: New York Mets (SNY), Boston Red Sox (NESN), and Baltimore Orioles (MASN). The New York Yankees recently sold their majority stake in the YES Network to News Corporation. The Los Angeles Dodgers expect to join the group next season with the launch of SportsNet LA, an RSN operated by American Media Productions, a newly-formed subsidiary of the Dodgers’ ownership group.

 

The financial uncertainty arises, in part, from the way MLB treats the different revenue streams from a team-owned RSN for purposes of the league’s revenue-sharing program. For example, NESN pays the Red Sox $90 million each year for the exclusive right to broadcast Sox games. That $90 million is included in the Red Sox’ “net local revenue” and subject to revenue-sharing. But the Sox also receive revenue as a result of its majority stake in NESN. That investment income is not subject to revenue sharing because the Red Sox bear the risk of NESN’s overall financial performance. Only the guaranteed yearly payments are subject to revenue sharing. (If you haven’t read my earlier posts explaining the ins and outs of MLB’s revenue-sharing program, you can find them here and here.)

 

Contrast the Red Sox/NESN situation with the Angels’ new deal with FoxSports West. Under the Angels’ 17-year/$2.5 billion deal, the team is guaranteed $150 million in annual rights fees and investment income from their 25% equity stake in the RSN. That’s $60 million more in guaranteed money each year for the Angels compared to the Red Sox, but with a much smaller upside from the minority stake in FoxSports West. The full $150 million rights fee is subject to revenue sharing.

 

The details of the Mariners-ROOT Sports NW deal have not been been made public. If Forbes’ numbers are correct, the team will likely receive an annual rights fee in neighborhood of $117 million. That would top the annual rights fees of the Red Sox and the other teams with majority control over their RSNs. But we’re awaiting details on the size of the Mariners’ equity stake in the RSN; all we know now is that it will be more than 50%.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mariners-ga...orts-northwest/

 

 

The White Sox deal will be more tied into ownership (and it could be as much as 40% with the Cubs gone, 20% to the Bulls, 20% to the Blackhawks and the rest to NBC/Universal/Comcast). The Reinsdorfs would essentially own 60% of CSN-Chicago. Even then, it's only going to be 40% to the White Sox (compared to the Angels' 25%), and it's not guaranteed that Comcast won't have to figure out alternative financing strategies to keep the Blackhawks in the fold since the White Sox share would be doubling and theirs would be remaining the same (when they're clearly a huge profit driver for the network, and obviously the Bulls might be in a down cycle then as well).

 

OF COURSE, that means the White Sox would have to be successful, make it to the playoffs on a consistent basis and generate significantly higher ratings than right now because not all that money is going to be guaranteed each year, like the Angels' $150 million.

 

Houston and LA have learned the hard way. The Mariners' experiment MIGHT work out, but that's a gamble too if their playoff window of opportunity closes and ends up going on 2 decades without an appearance in the post-season.

Edited May 23, 2016 by caulfield12

[ewokpelts]

jerry already controls 40% of the channel and they are virtually debt free and are able to absorb the danks contract.

 

I don't see why there is this obsessive need to think the sox are doomed financially. The attendance is trending upward and tv ratings are up. This franchise could be doing better, but they are nowhere near the level that dollar bill buried the Hawks.

 

 

[Dunt]

jerry already controls 40% of the channel and they are virtually debt free and are able to absorb the danks contract.

 

I don't see why there is this obsessive need to think the sox are doomed financially. The attendance is trending upward and tv ratings are up. This franchise could be doing better, but they are nowhere near the level that dollar bill buried the Hawks.

 

Caulfield gonna caulfield

[caulfield12]

Let's just put it this way, for us to really get anywhere near that kind of Angels money (a jump of more than 200%), we need to make the playoffs at least 2 of the next 3/4 years...

 

And the timing is a challenge, where all of our best young players (Sale, Eaton, Quintana and Rodon) will be having their contracts expire right around the the time we start re-negotiations.

 

Of course, a lot COULD and will happen between now and then. Tim Anderson might become a dynamic All-Star caliber SS and quiet team leader. Carson Fulmer and Adams fill out the back end of the rotation...we sign another big name FA from Cuba, Korea, Japan, etc. On the other hand, Abreu might have already peaked and we're an injury to a key player or two from being stuck in another "holding pattern" like last summer and putting all our cards into making the playoffs in 2017 before we have to replace 40-50% of the starting line-up in an "average" free agent market at the conclusion of that season.

Edited May 23, 2016 by caulfield12

[ewokpelts]

Let's just put it this way, for us to really get anywhere near that kind of Angels money (a jump of more than 200%), we need to make the playoffs at least 2 of the next 3/4 years...

 

And the timing is a challenge, where all of our best young players (Sale, Eaton, Quintana and Rodon) will be having their contracts expire right around the the time we start re-negotiations.

 

Of course, a lot COULD and will happen between now and then. Tim Anderson might become a dynamic All-Star caliber SS and quiet team leader. Carson Fulmer and Adams fill out the back end of the rotation...we sign another big name FA from Cuba, Korea, Japan, etc. On the other hand, Abreu might have already peaked and we're an injury to a key player or two from being stuck in another "holding pattern" like last summer and putting all our cards into making the playoffs in 2017 before we have to replace 40-50% of the starting line-up in an "average" free agent market at the conclusion of that season.

Or have a broadcast partner lose a lucrative contract. Which is what happened in LA. The Dodgers and lakers left, forcing fox to spend to keep programming on thier RSN.

 

 

The sox may see a similar situation unfold as the Cubs leave.

 

 

Quick sidebar, how much does fox regret selling the Dodgers for 400 million?

 

 

[ewokpelts]

You place too much emphasis on "things that need to happen" on the tv talk. The Rangers were not that good of a team heading into the fox extension. In fact they had just

Clinched their first division crown in 11 years when they signed with fox. ( and emerged from bankruptcy court and newly sold).

 

The sox deal is about comcast( or any other network partner) making money over 20-30 years. Not whether Tim Anderson makes the all star futures game in 2016.

[SouthSidePride05]

What reasoning do you think Cub fans have about coming to the Cell to see a game? I swear, whenever I go to the ballpark I see a Cub fan. I think it's that they enjoy baseball and that the Cubs are out of town, but I don't understand why they go to the Sox games. I think, I'd never wear my Sox stuff to Wrigley unless it's the Sox playing the Cubs.

 

34,000 people is pretty sweet, I hope attendance can stay up and they climb to at least 23rd in the standings. Apparently Ventura was disappointed in the attendance at Sale's last outing.

 

Where did you hear Ventura was disappointed?

 

I'm curious what tonight's attendance will be. Does anyone know if they're expecting a big crowd tonight with Sale going for 10-0?

 

I'm hoping Sale's next start somehow gets pushed back 1 day to Memorial Day, so I can watch it on ESPN. I no longer live in Chicago and still saving up for the MLB extra innings package.. until then I'll appreciate these rare national tv broadcasts.

[InTheDriversSeat]

 

What reasoning do you think Cub fans have about coming to the Cell to see a game? I swear, whenever I go to the ballpark I see a Cub fan. I think it's that they enjoy baseball and that the Cubs are out of town, but I don't understand why they go to the Sox games. I think, I'd never wear my Sox stuff to Wrigley unless it's the Sox playing the Cubs.

 

 

Once I saw Ronnie Woo Woo at USCF, wearing his complete Cubs uniform, walking around the lower level / infield seating section. The Sox were not playing the Cubs on that night. I thought that was VERY strange!

 

 

.

 

 

[The Mighty Mite]

Once I saw Ronnie Woo Woo at USCF, wearing his complete Cubs uniform, walking around the lower level / infield seating section. The Sox were not playing the Cubs on that night. I thought that was VERY strange!

 

 

.

 

That's because Ronnie Woo Woo is very strange.

[caulfield12]

I wonder if there are any articles in the financial news about whether those media companies are satisfied with their new broadcast rights deals?

 

We know about Houston and LA already. Ewok wrote that Angels ratings were way down despite the presence of Trout and Pujols (only one playoff appearance since 2009, which was a very brief one in 2014). The Phillies have a new deal, and they're rebuilding. The Rangers one should be okay because they got back to the playoffs and brought Darvish and Hamels into the fold and have an exciting offense. Seattle's doing much better since the beginning of last, and looks to be improving on that this season.

 

 

Royals, Tigers, Indians and Twins all inside the Top 15, fwiw. Obviously smaller markets than Chicago.

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/201...2/#6bdc21e4c04e

 

 

But if there’s a team that seems to not be able to gain traction of any sort, it is the Chicago White Sox. Last year they ranked last in ratings at this time, and they do so again this year. The difference is that they have dropped 42 percent to a 0.8 average rating one week leading up to the All-Star Game. The White Sox currently rank 27th out of 30 in attendance and are last in the AL Central with a 41-45 record, 11 games out of first.

Edited May 24, 2016 by caulfield12

[Panerista]

I wonder if there are any articles in the financial news about whether those media companies are satisfied with their new broadcast rights deals?

 

We know about Houston and LA already. Ewok wrote that Angels ratings were way down despite the presence of Trout and Pujols (only one playoff appearance since 2009, which was a very brief one in 2014). The Phillies have a new deal, and they're rebuilding. The Rangers one should be okay because they got back to the playoffs and brought Darvish and Hamels into the fold and have an exciting offense. Seattle's doing much better since the beginning of last, and looks to be improving on that this season.

 

 

Royals, Tigers, Indians and Twins all inside the Top 15, fwiw. Obviously smaller markets than Chicago.

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/201...2/#6bdc21e4c04e

 

 

But if there’s a team that seems to not be able to gain traction of any sort, it is the Chicago White Sox. Last year they ranked last in ratings at this time, and they do so again this year. The difference is that they have dropped 42 percent to a 0.8 average rating one week leading up to the All-Star Game. The White Sox currently rank 27th out of 30 in attendance and are last in the AL Central with a 41-45 record, 11 games out of first.

Yeah, but the Chicago market isn't the White Sox market. The White Sox are the smaller team in the metropolis. Now that the Cubs are good, there's even less reason to watch the Sox if you're a neutral party.

[InTheDriversSeat]

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/201...2/#3a608234c04e

 

 

I have serious doubts regarding the accuracy of this story. Anyone will notice next to 'White Sox' at 29th place, 'CSN Chicago' is identified as the RSN (Regional Sports Network). Is Forbes / Nielsen even aware that 55 White Sox games are not airing on any Regional Sports Network at all? Does Forbes or Nielsen realize that 55 Sox games are airing on WGN-TV or WPWR-TV, 2 over-the-air TV stations in Chicago along with a string of about 10 over-the-air affilates in Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana?

 

Is Forbes / Nielsen counting the games that WGN Sports broadcasts as '0.0'? (because the games are not aired on the RSN indicated on the chart). Until Forbes gets the actual broadcasters correct who have contracts with the respective teams, this story has no legitimacy in my opinion.

 

By the way, the vast majority of MLB clubs have gone with the cable-only RSN route for the entire season, while only around 6 clubs broadcast provide their fans with some games on free over-the-air television. In Chicago, White Sox & Cubs fans get 125 games total airing on free television (WGN-TV, WPWR-TV, WLS-TV), which is more free telecasts than the rest of the country combined.

 

 

 

.

Edited May 24, 2016 by InTheDriversSeat

[caulfield12]

Driver'sseat, while that's true, how does that help them monetize those games in the future by a factor of 2X???

 

Obviously they're earning money (more per game from CSN than WGN), but it's notoriously been difficult to get fans to pay more (or at least something, when it has been free to an extent).

 

It's kind of like the analogy of it being much easier to lower prices that are perceived to be too high than it is to get someone to pay a fee for a service they've been consuming free of charge.

 

 

[ewokpelts]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/201...2/#3a608234c04e

 

 

I have serious doubts regarding the accuracy of this story. Anyone will notice next to 'White Sox' at 29th place, 'CSN Chicago' is identified as the RSN (Regional Sports Network). Is Forbes / Nielsen even aware that 55 White Sox games are not airing on any Regional Sports Network at all? Does Forbes or Nielsen realize that 55 Sox games are airing on WGN-TV or WPWR-TV, 2 over-the-air TV stations in Chicago along with a string of about 10 over-the-air affilates in Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana?

 

Is Forbes / Nielsen counting the games that WGN Sports broadcasts as '0.0'? (because the games are not aired on the RSN indicated on the chart). Until Forbes gets the actual broadcasters correct who have contracts with the respective teams, this story has no legitimacy in my opinion.

 

By the way, the vast majority of MLB clubs have gone with the cable-only RSN route for the entire season, while only around 6 clubs broadcast provide their fans with some games on free over-the-air television. In Chicago, White Sox & Cubs fans get 125 games total airing on free television (WGN-TV, WPWR-TV, WLS-TV), which is more free telecasts than the rest of the country combined.

 

 

 

.

wgn games aren't factored in the numbers for both teams. OTA broadcasts are paid differently.

 

And quite frankly,I don't think the sox number of games on wgn will decrease in 2020. They LIKE having OTA broadcasts mixed in. And wgn places them typically on weekends, going after the " lets go see mom" crowd as well as the " I have the tv on in my garage while I'm working" guys. There's a reason the nfl has so many games on "free tv" on sundays

 

[ewokpelts]

Driver'sseat, while that's true, how does that help them monetize those games in the future by a factor of 2X???

 

Obviously they're earning money (more per game from CSN than WGN), but it's notoriously been difficult to get fans to pay more (or at least something, when it has been free to an extent).

 

It's kind of like the analogy of it being much easier to lower prices that are perceived to be too high than it is to get someone to pay a fee for a service they've been consuming free of charge.

Fans have no problem paying for games as the sox have been on sportschannel/fox sports Chicago/ csn Chicago for over 25 years. I've had sox games on cable continuously( aside from a small stretch where my condo satellite package only had 32 channels and I refused to pay directv for the up charge ) since 1989 when my mom got Chicago cable tv ( now called xfinity after a series of mergers and contract swaps). Back in the days where you waited all day for the cable guy to come.

 

People are Long used to paying for games on tv. We just never had carriage problems like in other markets( early years of YES for example) because Jerry insisted that csn make the necessary deals as the expense of a more

Lucrative contract.

[ewokpelts]

Meanwhile, the last home stand drew well. The attendance rose in each game

Of the Houston and kc series, with 34k on the value Sunday game. And the Cleveland games drew close to the seasonal average of 20k, with 22k on Wednesday AFTERNOON when kids are in school and mom and dad are at work.

 

It's trending upward, despite what out of town fans have to bellyache about.

[WBWSF]

The attendance is definitely trending upward. Especially when you take into account that most of the people coming to the games now are not Season Ticket holders. I doubt that the White Sox have 10,000 Season Ticket holders. Most of the people coming to the games now are buying individual tickets and are walk ups. I heard on the TV that the team has already sold 1.9 million tickets for this year.