|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Thursday, September 27, 2012
You get a Carl Crawford! And you get a Carl Crawford! And you get a Carl Crawford!
A settlement ending their 2011 battle in U.S. Bankruptcy Court gives the Dodgers’ new owners a chance to cap income subject to revenue-sharing from a proposed regional sports network at about $84 million a year, according to five people familiar with the confidential “special terms.” With TV sports-rights experts saying the team could get as much as $225 million a year from a network’s rights fees, the Dodgers may enjoy an annual unshared windfall of as much as $141 million.
The “special terms” help explain the Dodgers’ improved finances since emerging from bankruptcy in April by being sold to a group led by Guggenheim Partners for $2.15 billion. That sum was almost twice the record price for a U.S. sports team, and the new owners have been acquiring stars such as infielders Adrian Gonzalez and Hanley Ramirez, committing more than $400 million to multiyear contracts.
“It’s an incredibly great deal for the new ownership that was obviously a factor in the amount of money they were willing to pay,” said Michael Cramer, who handled TV rights while president of the Texas Rangers and now heads a University of Texas sports and media studies program. “Any team in the league would say, ‘Can I have that?’ It’s going to create a lot of owners saying, ‘Where’s mine?”’
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Pinstriped Bible: Albin: Is Ichiro done? (44 - 6:00pm, May 18)Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)Newsblog: OMNICHATTER for MAY 18, 2013 (51 - 5:59pm, May 18)Last: greenbackNewsblog: PressBox: Boog Powell: Meat Of The Order (8 - 5:57pm, May 18)Last: Misirlou is bad, he's nationwideNewsblog: BBTF SOFTBALL GAME IN NEW YORK--AUG 17 (288 - 5:50pm, May 18)Last:  LassusNewsblog: Holmes: Where does Miguel Cabrera rank among Tiger greats? (14 - 5:45pm, May 18)Last: Walt DavisNewsblog: Powerball odds? Juan Pierre's homers are long shots, too (10 - 5:43pm, May 18)Last: BhaakonNewsblog: Babcock: Can The 2013 Cubs Channel The Turnaround Artists Of 1967? (6 - 5:39pm, May 18)Last: BhaakonNewsblog: [OTP-May] Politico: Congressional baseball game, May 1, 1926 (3265 - 5:31pm, May 18)Last:  Joe KehoskieNewsblog: SoE (Megdal): It's Time to Finally Believe in the Orioles (2 - 5:29pm, May 18)Last: Morton's ForkHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1982 Discussion (46 - 5:07pm, May 18)Last: MontyNewsblog: Townsend: Troy Tulowitzki denies accusing Madison Bumgarner of doctoring baseballs (1 - 5:00pm, May 18)Last: KT's Pot ArbNewsblog: Josh Hamilton's allergies not linked to drug use, doctors say (33 - 4:04pm, May 18)Last: base ball chickNewsblog: BPro: Listen to What the Heyman Said (186 - 3:15pm, May 18)Last:  David Nieporent (now, with children)Newsblog: Generation K: Baseball’s strikeout trend is growing at record pace (57 - 2:55pm, May 18)Last: Mike EmeighNewsblog: MLB: Talking past, present and future with Ryne Sandberg (14 - 11:58am, May 18)Last: Karl from NY
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Walt Davis Posted: September 27, 2012 at 05:29 PM (#4247545)Really, this whole McCourt era was a huge mistake, and apparently driven by the dreadful Rupert Murdoch:
Now I think Selig realized how much money MLB was leaving on the table due to McCourt, and so did everything possible to get deep pockets into the owner's box at Chavez Ravine.
I had similar thoughts, in pretty much the same order. I think it was probably the lucrative nature of the NY-Boston rivalry that tipped him off.
Yet if MLB's thinking is rising tide lifts all boats, then if you're SF or AZ or SD you know this LA ownership - willing to exploit a major market to the hilt - will be good for your bottom line. So maybe you don't ##### too loud over the subsidy.
It's not a $141 M head start, they aren't paying "taxes" on that $141 M. I have no idea how much they would put into revenue sharing from that money but it can't be a huge percentage.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main