Does this mean Dallas/Ft. Worth is a large market again?

I believe Jeffrey Loria has ordered his manservant to click his heels in delight.

In comparison, the Dodgers make about $45 million a year off their TV deal with Fox.

But that's supposed to be a lousy deal, at least, in the context that it's the Dodgers and they should make more than that for their brand. Does anyone know what the average team make in its TV deal?

great to see. i hope texas becomes the powerhouse they should be under the greenberg/ryan group, and this should put them squarely in that realm of possibility.



any idea when the deal kicks in? and did this happen solely because the rangers had a new owner?

That's money that almost makes Jerryworld #2 in Arlington. Meanwhile, Mark Cuban sings the Rodgers-Hammerstein lament, "This Nearly Was Mine."

Amazing, considering the Rangers have yet to win a postseason series in this, their 39th season.

I severely doubt it's 150M annually. I'm sure it's something more like 65M this year growing at ~8%---that gets you to 3B total.

Yikes! How did the initial rumors go from $5-$10mil per year in the local papers to Nightengale reporting $150mil a year?

Dallas Morning News dude is writing that he's hearing $1.5billion, which is still a chunk of change.

That just can't be true, can it?

Agree with Matt, it seems like there must be more to this deal than a straightforward $3 billion for 20 years of Rangers games.

I could be wrong but I would think the only way the Rangers get that much of an overpay is if they somehow got the Cubs to broadcast their games.

Maybe the Rangers got Scott Boras to negotiate the TV Contract?

This deal is going to look really bad in 2029.

Jamie McCourt is going to love the timing of this announcement. On the other hand, Frank McCourt poopied his pants.

This deal makes the chances of an unlikely settlement between the McCourts even more remote. Which is astonishing, because I always thought they would settle before a judge decides which one of them gets pretty royally screwed.

This cannot be good news to Seligula, who is all set to begin trumpeting his "the economy sucks and the owners are poor defense" heading into the new CBA negotiations. This mismanaged, bankrupt team just scored a $3 billion TV deal.

The Metroplex is a top 10 market (and a proven good sports area -- anyone who thinks it's only about the Cowboys is sadly mistaken), plus you have a large state where the Rangers are now the dominant team. If they continue building a strong organization and use this windfall wisely, it's a solid investment by Fox.

Dallas Morning News dude is writing that he's hearing $1.5billion, which is still a chunk of change.

Calcattera has it as $1.5-1.6B also, maybe with some escalators.

In an interesting side note, I just discovered that if you tell Google to do the operation "3 billion / 20," not only will it know what you're asking without proper numerical notation (i.e. 3,000,000,000), it will give you the answer in the same shorthand — namely, "150 million."

Texas really ought to have at least one more team in it, or the Astros and Rangers should be fabulously wealthy. Texas has a population of nearly 25 million people, and no team in any state that borders it. California, by comparison, has a population of 37 million, five teams, and another right next door in Arizona. That's just a lot of people to mine money out of in Texas, with not many teams competing for their eyeballs. There's no real reason why both teams shouldn't be able to spend at least with the Cubs, Red Sox and Mets -- no reason except poor management, as far as I can tell.

[3]

In comparison, the Dodgers make about $45 million a year off their TV deal with Fox.

But that's supposed to be a lousy deal, at least, in the context that it's the Dodgers and they should make more than that for their brand. Does anyone know what the average team make in its TV deal?

Below, from the leaked MLB financial statements. I think these all represent true third-party sales of TV and radio broadcast rights; I don't think any of these revenues are transfer prices to team-owned networks. The Texas Rangers data indicates that 90%+ of local broadcast revenue is television (cable and over-the-air).


The Baseball Club of Seattle, LP: 2008 "Local broadcasting":                      $ 64,365,000
Angels Baseball LP:               2009 "Local broadcast revenue"                  $ 45,998,000
Texas Rangers Baseball Partners:  2008 Local television and radio revenue         $ 42,776,030
Pittsburgh Baseball Partnership:  2008 Local broadcast revenue                    $ 18,700,434
Florida Marlins LP:               2009 "Local radio and television broadcasting": $ 16,716,000
Tampa Bay Rays Baseball Ltd.:     2008 "Television and radio [local]":            $ 13,444,475


Breakdown by media type:

Texas Rangers Baseball Partners:  2008 "Local TV-CABLE [net]":                    $ 23,928,175 -- 56% of total
                                  2008 "Local TV Over The Air [net]"              $ 12,354,689 -- 29%
                                  2008 "Local TV Deferred Payment Amortization"   $  3,238,906 --  8%
                                  2008 "Local Radio Income"                       $  2,387,025 --  5%
                                  2008 "Radio Ad Sales"                           $    867,234 --  3%


16 - that's a result of google interpreting units. for example, you can type in



and google spits out



as a scientist who frequently does calculations using microliters, nanomoles, etc. I can tell you that it has changed my life.

Bobm, thanks, I appreciate the data.

This deal is going to look really bad in 2029.

Probably.

But for which party?

DB

voxter

you are gonna put another major league baseball team in texas? like WHERE?

san antonio? their double A team barely draws flies. they have a large population but most of them are poor and there is no decent corporate base

austin?

like where? round rock is NOT going to draw much of the austin population because of the traffic problem

- and truth is that the astros are gonna sink very fast now that they've lost the austin market because FSN is gonna show rangers instead of astros so astros fans there won't be able to watch astros games

there just isn't any sort of rabid baseball fandom in lubbock/midland/el paso/brownsville - and you can't watch hardly any baseball games there anyhow because FSN usually shows something else and MLB stupidly blacks out games in areas where there might could actually BE fans

and now the astros AAA team is gonna be in OK city and there aren't any astros fans in north texas or oklahoma - to speak of

i don't know where you think all this fabulous wealth is coming from. roger clemens put the astros on the map and nolan ryan done just took em off

Those are all problems of marketing and maximizing revenue, not insoluble issues that exist fixed in the firmaments. Even if football is always going to be #1 in Texas, we're still talking about tens of millions of people with only two baseball teams representing them. It's much larger than Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Washington-Baltimore -- essentially every other two team market than New York. If either of those teams were operated with the kind of business competence that is on display for other teams that have regional draws -- the Mariners, the Red Sox, even the Rockies and Twins on a much smaller scale -- they would have huge resources to tap into.

I'm not the first person here to posit that a team in Austin or San Antonio might not be a terrible idea. What I really mean, though, is that Texas' two teams should be much, much richer than they are, and their failure to make money on the scale of the Los Angeles or Chicago teams is a failure of imagination and execution.

Does Bob Nightengale work for The Onion?

Dallas Morning News:

Turns out that the report may have inflated the dollar figure by a wee bit.

Fox Sports headquarters in New York, while admitting an agreement had been reached, called the $3 billion figure "wildly inflated" before reporting that was all it would have to say on the matter.

But don't be feeling too poorly for Chuck Greenberg-Nolan Ryan Rangers. There is in fact a 20-year deal in place. A more accurate figure for the Fox Sports Southwest-Rangers deal, reports a TV executive in the know, "is somewhere between $1.5 billion and $1.6 billion." That translates into the neighborhood of $75 million to $80 million a year.

Not as tony a neighborhood as $150 million a year but not half bad.

And, the source said, it would not be wrong to assume that some of $1.5 to $1.6 billion will be paid up front. "Like a signing bonus for a player," the TV executive said.

The new TV deal doesn't go into effect to until the current one expires after the 2014 season. The "signing bonus" of say, $80 million, will be delivered before next season.

At 1.5 billion, this isn't that hot a deal at all....using a 3% discount rate (probably conservative) the present value of that contract is about 830 million or about 41 million a year. I'm assuming that all local TV revenue streams will go to FSN, so this doesn't seem to make them a lot more than they're making now...

As far as a third team in Texas goes, the Monclova Northern Aces draw more than the San Antonio Missions. So do the Springdale Naturals.

As far as a third team in Texas goes, the Monclova Northern Aces draw more than the San Antonio Missions. So do the Springdale Naturals.

Not surprising given the outcome the last time you had a large crowd visit a San Antonio mission.

Texas really ought to have at least one more team in it, or the Astros and Rangers should be fabulously wealthy. Texas has a population of nearly 25 million people, and no team in any state that borders it. California, by comparison, has a population of 37 million, five teams, and another right next door in Arizona. That's just a lot of people to mine money out of in Texas, with not many teams competing for their eyeballs. There's no real reason why both teams shouldn't be able to spend at least with the Cubs, Red Sox and Mets -- no reason except poor management, as far as I can tell.

There is so much more to the equation than just population though. Population density is crucial - not everyone wants to drive 150 miles to see a game.

I'm assuming that all local TV revenue streams will go to FSN

Why? Doesn't seem to be that way now.

FWIW, Doug Pappas had the Rangers local media money pegged at $25M in 2001.

It's much larger than Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Washington-Baltimore -- essentially every other two team market than New York. If either of those teams were operated with the kind of business competence that is on display for other teams that have regional draws -- the Mariners, the Red Sox, even the Rockies and Twins on a much smaller scale -- they would have huge resources to tap into.

Comparing urban metropolitan areas to the 2nd largest state in the Union is bit of a stretch. People in El Paso aren't going to attend many games, although the state-wide TV market is worth exploiting.

it's much larger than Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Washington-Baltimore

But in terms of area, it's much larger than France. As jacksone and bbc have said, it's kind of hard to compare a state that size to metro areas like the Bay or SoCal or Chicagoland. In population, the San Antonio metro area is between Pittsburgh and Kansas City in size – not exactly the kind of market that is currently thriving in MLB. If you add Austin and San Antonio, you have a major-league market, but it's a serious hike between them; they're not twin cities or anything. And the other big urban areas in the state are awfully remote from one another. El Paso is in a different time zone.

as a scientist who frequently does calculations using microliters, nanomoles, etc. I can tell you that it has changed my life.

There's an XKCD comic that I can't find about the fact that if any computer application were to turn sentient, Google would be the most terrifying, as it would have the entirety of the world's information only milliseconds away. It kind of freaked me out when I really thought about it.

This deal is going to look really bad in 2029.

In 2029 we will all be too busy with our hovercars and internets to watch TV, so the rights will be worthless. But $150m will also be worthless, it might just about buy you a meal at Taco Bell. So it's a fair deal in the end.

Why? Doesn't seem to be that way now.

FWIW, Doug Pappas had the Rangers local media money pegged at $25M in 2001.

Even if it's just a cable deal (which I think is unlikely given the jump in price), it's not exactly a cornucopia compared to deals with teams of similar market size.

In 2029 we will all be too busy with our hovercars and internets to watch TV, so the rights will be worthless. But $150m will also be worthless, it might just about buy you a meal at Taco Bell. So it's a fair deal in the end.

I presume this is terrible for the concept of internet broadcasted video of MLB games for in market viewers? Maybe the point of this deal is that in 20 years, we will still have to watch our TV, as that is the only way to watch the local 9. So it will by definition be good for the cable stations. If it's a 20 year deal, with exclusive local rights, the Rangers/MLB are locking themselves into old technology, or at least and old technology company needing a hook to force itself into long term relevency. If the price is right, that's fine, I guess, but it's a shame if they end up limiting their potential long term audience for a little extra cash today.

How will I be able to watch cable TV in my hovercar?

How will I be able to watch cable TV in my hovercar?

With a damned long cable I suppose, either that or just hover in one spot.

the state-wide TV market is worth exploiting.

This is mostly what I'm talking about. It's a three-hour drive from Portland to Seattle, but the Mariners' marketing presence in the city is pretty strong. They know they've got another ML-sized market in their backyard, and they've made serious efforts to claim it. There are regional franchises that draw a significant fraction of their dollars from relatively faraway places. I realize that Texas is large and the population diffuse, but it's not like they don't have cable TV and the internet in San Antonio and El Paso.

The "third team" idea is not one I really take all that seriously -- I think I may have cadged it from our Texans, actually -- but there's no reason why the Astros and / or Rangers shouldn't be making serious money from Austin and San Antonio and Oklahoma City. It's 200 miles from San Antonio to Houston, just like it's 200 miles from Oklahoma City to Dallas. These aren't ridiculous distances to cover.

How will I be able to watch cable TV in my hovercar?

i can watch slingbox on my phone. sorry to disappoint you, but the technology you're looking for is already well known and in existence at this very moment.

Not surprising given the outcome the last time you had a large crowd visit a San Antonio mission.

Aw, crap! I *forgot* about that one.

There's an XKCD comic that I can't find about the fact that if any computer application were to turn sentient, Google would be the most terrifying, as it would have the entirety of the world's information only milliseconds away. It kind of freaked me out when I really thought about it.

Well, sure but ANY sentient application with internet access would have the same information -- just more than a few milliseconds away. It could spend the wait/download time plotting to take over.

El Paso is in a different time zone.

Big deal. Indiana used to cover three time zones (damn you Mitch Daniels).

Any sentient application with internet access would waste so much of its time posting on BBTF that it would fall far short of world domination.

There's an XKCD comic that I can't find about the fact that if any computer application were to turn sentient, Google would be the most terrifying, as it would have the entirety of the world's information only milliseconds away. It kind of freaked me out when I really thought about it.

Feh, if it wants to do my work for me, more time for me to post of Primer.

EDIT: Yeah, what 43 said.

FWIW, I was just listening to Jayson Stark on the radio, and he says that when the Marlins were looking at relocation, they were "wowed" by San Antonio. I guess not wowed enough to leave though.

Isn't minor league attendance a pretty poor indicator of how a market would support MLB? Minor league baseball is a pretty different animal than MLB, and attendance will likely depend on things like location of the stadium, quality of the team, competence of management, effectiveness of marketing/name brand, quality of home team stars, etc.

i can watch slingbox on my phone. sorry to disappoint you, but the technology you're looking for is already well known and in existence at this very moment.

Similar technology is also well known by MLBAM, who apparently wants to guarantee that it will only ever be able to sell me the 93% of baseball games that I am least interested in.

The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Peavy (Voxter) Posted: September 28, 2010 at 03:27 PM (#3650521)

the state-wide TV market is worth exploiting.
but it's not like they don't have cable TV and the internet in San Antonio and El Paso.

- they most certainly DO have cable TV in every city in texas - trouble is that they just don't show any/all of the astros games. it is very VERY difficult to build up a fanbase in a city that is 700 miles away (like elpaso) or lubbock or abilene (500 miles away) when you can only get games with some very expensive package that you have to pay extra for - and with a sport you didn't never care about in the first place. and as for the internet, astros games are blacked out in all of texas, all of louisiana, all of oklahoma and even part of new mexico - like people fly in/drive down from 2 days away. it is unbelieveably stupid and it just seriously reduces fans


The "third team" idea is not one I really take all that seriously -- I think I may have cadged it from our Texans, actually -- but there's no reason why the Astros and / or Rangers shouldn't be making serious money from Austin and San Antonio and Oklahoma City

- the astros DID make serious money from austin/round rock, but all that is gonna be broadcast there (and san marcos, prolly too) is rangers games.

they COULD try to move into san antonio but the AA team there is marlins and the owner doesn't want to sell.

you got ANY idea about how to get new astros fans in places that are hundreds and hundreds of miles from the stadium where there is not now and hasn't never been ANY connection to the astros? or really, baseball at all for a good 50 years? ESPECIALLY if you can't see games on your standard cable package?

the folks in the other cities are actually into the local college teams, not MLB

ESPECIALLY if you can't see games on your standard cable package?

Well, this would be the problem, wouldn't it?

voxter

fsn has a choice of showing rangers games or astros games OR something else to get the ratings they want

good luck watching the rangers in houston
good luck watching the astros in dallas

and good luck watching either one of em in any market where poker games draw bigger ratings

San Antonio is a huge city (#8 in the US, I think) but not much of a TV market, ranking only #37 with 830K TV homes (two slots below Milwaukee). If you really want a third Texas team, you'd be better off placing a second team in DFW (2.5MM TV homes) or even Houston (2.1MM)...

mccoy,

san antonio has NO corporate base - they won't be able to sell luxury suites/get sponsorships. you might could get by with putting a AAA stadium in the north part of the city but not sure exactly how much most of them would be into baseball seeing as how most of them aren't texans anyway (and aren't hispanics, who ARE into baseball) - oh yeah - and they SURE as heck don't got the $$$ to donate a stadium to some billionaires

most people in san antonio are POOR and tourists are not gonna pay money to go see the san antonio whatevers

as for houston, they only filled the Box the first year of the stadium and then the Years Of Roger. AND it is not too bad to go TO the stadium to catch a game because on almost every highway the traffic is going the other way. i don't know where you think any other stadium would go

and dallas, with THAT traffic? i would be surprised if that many people drive FROM dallas out to arlington on any weeknight to watch baseball. where would you put the other team? who would be their corporate base?