As for what happened here, we can only speculate, but it looks like the 2016 figure goes back to a 2010 report from Sports Business Daily, which said (as cited in the Tampa Bay Times) that “after the Rays renewed their contract with Fox Sports Florida in 2008, they are now locked in until 2016.” So maybe there were some option years at the end of the deal? Or maybe SBD got it wrong? (Though stuff like TV deals is usually their bread-and-butter.) Or Sternberg decided at some point to extend the Fox deal for his own unscrutable reasons, and didn’t tell anyone until now? Who knows!A Rays spokesperson tells me the team isn't free to disclose its contractual terms and they can't comment on when the deal is up any further than what Sternberg has already said.
Meanwhile, deMaus continues:
The bigger question, to my mind, is why Sternberg is crying poor in a public forum at this particular moment. It could be:It's a return to the "woe is us; we are poor" talking points the Rays had buried for a while...since, well, they aren't poor and nobody in Tampa Bay should believe that they are.
Or all of the above! In any case, all this talk about bicycles and tanks (which, as Craig Calcaterra notes, ignores the facts that 1) Sternberg knew what team he was getting when he bought it, 2) the Rays are still making money regardless, and 3) the franchise has more than quadrupled in value in the 11 years Sternberg has owned it) isn’t going to help the Rays sell any tickets.
- To distract fans from the fact that his team hasn’t acquired any good new players in eons, and this winter doesn’t look to be any different.
- An early shot across the bow of MLB in advance of next winter’s collective bargaining agreement renegotiation, in hopes of getting increased revenue sharing money for teams in small markets with crappy TV deals and whiny owners.
- Attempted leverage with St. Petersburg officials to show that he neeeeeeds a new stadium (you knew I’d get around to stadiums eventually, right?), and so they should hurry up and approve that lease buyout deal already.
MLB is richer than it's ever been before and they're able to pay players more than they ever have before. This is largely in part to the fact that local taxpayers are paying more of their expenses than ever before.
Once again, this is your reminder that if Sternberg or any other MLB owner has a problem with the profits they're generating in Tampa Bay, they should first look to themselves...for it's a problem they created themselves.
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook
On Mad Dog Unleashed earlier this week, Sternberg stated that the Rays are "viable". I also have every reason to believe that the Rays turn a profit. Question is what kind of profit?
ReplyDeleteSternberg possesses a $600M asset and he wants an annual return on this asset just like a Fortune 500 corporation - 13-15%. Doing the math, that works out to $70-100M per year in profit. I am sure he's not getting that and he would not give a rat's you know what where he plays. Put yourself in his shoes, Sternberg's "we are poor" speech is justified. Poor return on a $600M investment, shines a bright light on the relocation to Montreal.
Mad Dog also brought up the Montreal subject as well as the "iron close lease" at the Trop and Sternberg side-stepped both topics and offered no clear response.
Preparation in Montreal to replace the Champlain Bridge, including a light rail has started. $5B in public infrastructure money approved. Guess what? The LRS will pass right by an empty parcel of waterfront land big enough for a baseball stadium (not the old Children's Hospital site as one developer hopes for).
TV Deal? You already know about Bell Media and how they are flush with cash. No need to repeat.
Wake up and smell the bagels, the Rays are done in Tampa / St Pete.
I don't hear Sternberg saying he's poor, he's losing money, he's not happy with his investment, or anything similar. I do hear him consistently say that it is becoming harder and harder to compete with other baseball teams due to the discrepancy in revenue. These are two completely different things. I don't think anyone can argue with his point about the team's below average revenues. When he's asked about his teams chances of winning games in 2016 and moves they'll make this offseason - how can he answer these questions without mentioning the elephant in the room?
ReplyDeleteHe could definitely chose to make less profit and spend more on salary...
DeleteFrankly, the expected huge TV deal was really one of the only positives of this franchise right now. If not for the Rays' great TV ratings, you'd have a good argument that the region doesn't care about the team. Either way, Stu doesn't strike me as the type who is going to increase payroll and save for a shiny new park, while fewer folks come to games. And comments like his certainly aren't going to help matters. To summarize, we have an owner not willing to increase payroll, fans that are staying home, no pitch perfect location, and an ironclad lease. Nobody willing to commit to anything. I imagine it's hard for even die-hards to get excited about this brand right now.
DeleteIf Sternberg needs more money to solve his 'problem' more MLB revenue sharing is the answer. He should be pleading his case to Manfred, and not whining in public.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, anything happening in Montreal as it relates to an MLB team, is nothing more than a pipe dream.
ReplyDeleteWhen Sternberg or anyone from the Rays is asked by a sports writer covering the team for sports fans to read his column, should Sternberg say "no comment" when asked why his team isn't in play for any splash offseason aquisitions? Would that make everyone feel better? Are we so sensitive about not supporting our home team that we get all bent out of shape when the local team owner simply verbalizes what everyone in the free world already knows? Then we call him a whiner? I guess if it makes us feel better, we have that right. To me, this was a non-story and us whining about him stating facts that we all agree with, is weird.
ReplyDeleteUnless that owner is stating those facts in preparation for asking me to hand him $700M. Then they are more than just stating the obvious facts. Then it's part of a sales strategy. Of finding a way to ask a group of people poorer than you to give you $700M. At least he is doing a little bit of it in public this time, that piece of sh*t huckster.
DeleteThe story is the TV deal. Does it expire in 2016 or not? I'm about to become a reporter myself if none of the local hacks can get a darn answer to this simple question that has huge ramifications.
ReplyDeleteThat's a great idea. I think you stand a much better chance at finding out a private business contract than professionals who are experts at things like sports business and public records!
DeleteJP says listen to him and Ron at noon on Fri. He'll at least give the best answer available. Can't be worse than crickets.
DeleteThis has probably already been thought about, but is there some FOIA hook to get a hold of that TV deal?
DeleteYou can be sure all of us have thought about that, but teams and TV networks are private corporations.
DeleteOr talking to the person(s) from Sports Business Daily that had the 2010 report that the deal ended in 2016? If I had a local radio show, I'd be trying to get them on for an interview. If I had a blog and was an expert on Rays finances, I'd talk with them - or at least try - and then share the outcome with my peeps. But I guess it's more congruent with this blog's storyline to blame the Rays organization for not correcting the incorrect information you've been reporting for 6 years.
ReplyDeleteNice reposts, did you think of that all by yourself? lol
ReplyDeleteIt is an absurd, baseless proposition that choosing to make less profit by spending more on players will:
ReplyDeleteA. Improve onfield performance (from 2008 thru 2013, the Rays spent less per win than any team in major sports, yet were the second most winningest team in MLB)
B. Improve attendance or future revenue streams.
You make a good point Rick, but it's not absurd or baseless...there are clear correlations between payroll and on-field success. The more teams spend, the bigger their margin of error and the better their chances for success.
DeleteThe Rays have defied the odds for years - and they may continue to - but if there is no correlation whatsoever, there is no need whatsoever for a new stadium or its new revenues.