Baseball is back? 60 game season incoming

[MWil23]

12 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

 

AND won 2 World Series. 

[THE DUKE]

Forgive the stream of consciousness rambling below, I typed this out as  I looked stuff up and quite frankly, I don't want to redo it.

Staying on the numbers that we do know, the average MLB ticket price in 2019 was $32.99, and the total attendance was 68,494,752, which would lead to an estimated revenue of $2,259,641,868.48 just from gate sales.  MLB total revenue was projected at $10.7 billion, so the gate was approximately 21.2% of all revenues in 2019.  Although in a more recent article, Forbes says that about 30% of MLB revenue comes from ticket sales, so I'm guessing that my average ticket price doesn't take into account luxury boxes and some other high prices ways to see the game.  Those numbers don't count concessions or merchandise either though.  Concessions data is a little harder to find.  I saw one site that says the Yankees brought in $53 million in concession revenue in 2013.  Forbes has in another article from 2013 that parking and concessions bring in about 7% of MLB revenue.  If we go by Forbes numbers, that's 37% of revenue gone before we get to merchandising when playing with no fans.  Found one article that states merchandise sales hover around $3 billion annually and that MLB licensing gets a 12% royalty on this and then that is split amongst the 30 teams.  That's roughly $400 million, split 30 ways, so about $13.3 million a year, although while i'm sure it is decreased, they do still bring in some merchandising money now.  What i'm unsure about is if that calculates all merchandise sold everywhere, including in stadium, or if just on the larger national landscape.

So crunching through some numbers, if MLB gets it's full TV revenue for 2020 (something that I don't know if it is true or not), they are still looking at a 35-40% decrease in revenue if they don't play in front of any fans this year.  When your biggest cost is your employees and you can effectively not pay them for this year as a last resort, I get why the idea of just scrapping the season crosses their minds.  However, I think this is shortsighted, and overlooks the long term ramifications and damage it will do to the sport if they cancel a season, possibly irreparably damaging the sports reputation and fan interest.  The owners seem to think the franchise values will only continue to increase regardless of circumstance, because that is what has happened over the last 30-40 years.  When individual franchises are worth billions, that's a big risk to take.  They also seem to think revenues will bounce right back to where they were once Covid is done, which I don't think can be guaranteed either.  

[ramssuperbowl99]

1 hour ago, THE DUKE said:

When your biggest cost is your employees and you can effectively not pay them for this year as a last resort, I get why the idea of just scrapping the season crosses their minds.  However, I think this is shortsighted, and overlooks the long term ramifications and damage it will do to the sport if they cancel a season, possibly irreparably damaging the sports reputation and fan interest.  The owners seem to think the franchise values will only continue to increase regardless of circumstance, because that is what has happened over the last 30-40 years.  When individual franchises are worth billions, that's a big risk to take.  They also seem to think revenues will bounce right back to where they were once Covid is done, which I don't think can be guaranteed either.  

100% agree. The owners are taking the fans for granted.

Edited June 16, 2020 by ramssuperbowl99

[holt_bruce81]

You know somethings F'ed up when you make Gary Bettman look like a halfway decent Commish compared to the scrubs we got here. 

[Slateman]

[naptownskinsfan]

I've read a couple reports today that 6-8 owners are in the "cancel the season" boat.  Any guesses as to who they are?

[Slateman]

52 minutes ago, naptownskinsfan said:

I've read a couple reports today that 6-8 owners are in the "cancel the season" boat.  Any guesses as to who they are?

Angels, Athletics, Marlins, Orioles, Royals, and Pirates

[ramssuperbowl99]

6 minutes ago, Slateman said:

Angels, Athletics, Marlins, Orioles, Royals, and Pirates

I'd think these are definitely the front runners by general cheapness.

[Thelonebillsfan]

15 minutes ago, Slateman said:

Angels, Athletics, Marlins, Orioles, Royals, and Pirates

Mets too, and this isn't a joke, the Wilpon's literally are so financially insolvent RN they wouldn't make Payroll. They are DESPERATE to sell but nobody is meeting there increasingly more stupid and insane costs  and asking prices.

Edited June 16, 2020 by Thelonebillsfan

[Slateman]

35 minutes ago, Thelonebillsfan said:

Mets too, and this isn't a joke, the Wilpon's literally are so financially insolvent RN they wouldn't make Payroll. They are DESPERATE to sell but nobody is meeting there increasingly more stupid and insane costs  and asking prices.

Sure. I named 6. Though I wonder what not playing does to a team's value

[Dawgpoun8017]

[naptownskinsfan]

3 hours ago, Slateman said:

Angels, Athletics, Marlins, Orioles, Royals, and Pirates

I would put the Mets on there.  

Not sure what to think about the Orioles.  One thing I do know- the players would have an advocate in Peter Angelos if he wasn't in poor health and retreated from the public.  He was the only owner who went against replacement players in the last strike, to the point where some thought that MLB would force him to sell the team.  In his career as an attorney, he's always been on the side of the labor/workforce.  

I don't know too much about the sons, but I think both are similar-minded to their father.  John, at least in the social media world, seems to have similar thinking and ideology to him.  However, given the state of things, I don't think either of them have the ability to truly stand up for the players at this point.  

The Royals were the first team to commit to paying their minor leaguers, and they have a brand new owner so there is no telling what he's thinking but like the Orioles group, he doesn't have much to stand on to be pro-player at this point.  

[Slateman]

I went with the one owner that came out against the draft, the scumbag team in the A's, and then went with the lowest earners who werent in a major media market.

[ramssuperbowl99]

9 hours ago, naptownskinsfan said:

Not sure what to think about the Orioles.  One thing I do know- the players would have an advocate in Peter Angelos if he wasn't in poor health and retreated from the public.  He was the only owner who went against replacement players in the last strike, to the point where some thought that MLB would force him to sell the team.  In his career as an attorney, he's always been on the side of the labor/workforce.  

I don't know too much about the sons, but I think both are similar-minded to their father.  John, at least in the social media world, seems to have similar thinking and ideology to him.  However, given the state of things, I don't think either of them have the ability to truly stand up for the players at this point.  

All of Angelos' advocacy goes out the window the moment his kids want to sell the team. And once they decide to sell all or part of the team, they'll want to cut expenses to the bone to make their margins look better to buyers. 

[naptownskinsfan]

7 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

All of Angelos' advocacy goes out the window the moment his kids want to sell the team. And once they decide to sell all or part of the team, they'll want to cut expenses to the bone to make their margins look better to buyers. 

Yes, that is true, but I have not seen anything reported locally that makes it seem that they are wanting to sell the team.  I've seen it rumored that MLB might force them, or they might have to do it because of inheritance taxes, but if their mother remains the majority shareholder, either one of them (or her) can run the team as the ownership representative.