Frank McCourt and the Dodgers rumored to be holding up the San Diego Padres TV deal
by Dex on Nov 28, 2011 10:45 AM PST
Email
PrintThere's speculation that the Padres won't be finalizing their new TV deal with Fox until sometime after the Dodgers get their TV deal worked out for 2012. From John Maffei at NC Times, the new TV deal is waiting for Bud Selig approval:
Both the Padres and Dodgers multi-year deals were believed to be front-loaded. Both are subject to approval by commissioner Bud Selig.
Sources said Selig would like to approve the Padres' deal, but is holding off, pending the outcome of the Dodgers' case.
Unfortunately, Frank McCourt wants to sell the new TV deal before actually selling the team, but the trouble with that is Fox is still under contract through the 2012 season with an exclusive option for 2013, and doesn't appear interested in letting McCourt squeeze any more money out of it. McCourt's argument is that the bankruptcy should let him truly liquidate all of his assets and that includes voiding any contracts he's currently under... So that he can establish a new contract... Which he can then liquidate... Ummm...
The Dodgers creditors obviously want the TV deal as part of the sale of the team, as it's one of the more valuable pieces of owning the Dodgers.
So where does that leave us? Well, the talk is that the TV deal won't be decided for the Dodgers one way or another till January, which leaves us with no new TV contract until probably juuuuuust before Spring Training. This of course affects the final numbers for the Padres who won't be able to budget in any added revenue until then, which means any offseason moves that you might have been hoping for in light of getting a new and improved TV contract probably won't happen... Thanks to the damn dirty Dodgers.
43 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Man... All kinds of typos
Before Lurker calls me an idiot and blames my non-existent editors, just refresh… Should be fixed now.
by Dex on Nov 28, 2011 10:47 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
This is about Kershaw
I know it.
I wish Bud would take us seriously. Maybe if SBNation puts it to him in the form of a vote.
Scowling at Padres Losses since 1981
by Nater Tater on Nov 28, 2011 10:55 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
that is
my best quality :-)
Scowling at Padres Losses since 1981
by Nater Tater on Nov 29, 2011 12:56 AM PST up reply actions
To be honest I dont see this as the Dodgers fault...
Sure their futility and shadiness plays some role in this, but really it’s Selig who is killing the Padres here. In all honesty what do the two deals have to do with one another? I’m guessing they are separate contracts with separate terms and conditions so why can’t Selig approve one without the other? Why is he hamstringing the Padres this offseason due to the ineptitude of the Dodgers ownership?
On a separate note I don’t like the fact that the Padres deal is front loaded especially when the team is not looking to increase payroll back to pre-divorce levels until the back end of the contract. Does it make sense that payroll will got up as TV revenues go down? Are they banking on a massive attendance increase over the next 3 – 4 years to make up for the decrease in TV revenue?
Something does not smell right with this deal…
It’s front loaded maybe to pay off the financing debt from the purchasing of the team.
I have no clue if that is what they will use the money for but it would help the team payroll to have the purchase of the team completed.
i agree this makes the most sense
but from what i hear the purchase isn’t expected to be completed till 2014 or 2015
by iheartyourfart on Nov 28, 2011 1:07 PM PST up reply actions
No, you are right.
It’s all about paying off the debt to complete the team sale.
BUT, this means that it won’t go to payroll. So, the comments we have heard over the years about “oh, once we get a better TV deal, we’ll have a bigger payroll”. Those were likely wrong.
I forget what the years on the TV deal are, but I think it’s way too long. Something like 20 years… which means if it is front loaded, the team will be getting little from the contract for the second decade. Prices/inflation will be higher…
ownership has said
they plan to raise payrolls when the purchase is complete. the channel 4 deal wasn’t great, but the ownership situation was holding back the payroll more than the tv contract.
by iheartyourfart on Nov 29, 2011 10:05 AM PST up reply actions
The debt does not need to be paid off in order to complete the sale
The debt has been inherited by the new ownership group as part of the sale.
"second base is the bizness." -jbox
Bolts from the Blue - San Diego Chargers Blog Created By The Fans, For The Fans
There is no debt from the team sale
The debt the team has was inherited because it owes money from building a stadium.
"second base is the bizness." -jbox
Bolts from the Blue - San Diego Chargers Blog Created By The Fans, For The Fans
depends on what your definition of debt is
the team isn’t in debt from the sale, but in a roundabout way the ownership is still in debt because they haven’t completed the sale yet.
by iheartyourfart on Nov 30, 2011 8:18 PM PST up reply actions
John Moores is still the majority owner.
If they can take money straight out of the organization to buy the remaining shares, without him getting his cut. He made a horrible deal.
presumably
moorad’s group would be taking money out of their own profit share proportional to their share of the team.
say moores still is 60% owner and moorad group owns 40%. they’d probably be getting 40% of the net income. since the padres are at pretty much break-even mode until the TV deal gets done (so they say), it makes sense for them to try to front-load the contract in order to accelerate the transfer process and get out from under moores.
granted i don’t have any inside info. just supposing based on what i know about corporate acquisitions and secure transactions. law school ftw!
by iheartyourfart on Dec 1, 2011 12:06 AM PST up reply actions
The only problem with that logic
Is that team officials deny that they will use money from the team to pay for the sale.
"second base is the bizness." -jbox
Bolts from the Blue - San Diego Chargers Blog Created By The Fans, For The Fans
if they really are running at break-even right now
then they can say it with a straight face. even if they are using money from the net income then technically they aren’t using “team money” per se but rather the owner’s income to complete the sale
by iheartyourfart on Dec 1, 2011 8:16 AM PST up reply actions
If the owner's do get a yearly income
And they are using it to complete the sale, wouldn’t it also be logical that they will continue to get that same income after the sale? If not, then it’s really not income and is indeed team money.
"second base is the bizness." -jbox
Bolts from the Blue - San Diego Chargers Blog Created By The Fans, For The Fans
using a front-loaded contract to pay off the loans
would piss me off
Then the Padres would be stuck with lousy TV revenues for the balance of the contract
and use that to justify their forever low payroll
On the other hand, you have different fingers.
However
They’d no longer have to make payments on those loans. That money that they spend each year could go into payroll.
"second base is the bizness." -jbox
Bolts from the Blue - San Diego Chargers Blog Created By The Fans, For The Fans
when in doubt
screwthedickhatsdodgerslolkiesgardensnakesandtheastrosjustbecause
by iheartyourfart on Dec 1, 2011 12:07 AM PST up reply actions
I'm going to have to "troll rate" this... for suggesting that the Dodgers didn't suck in some way.
Clearly, the Dodgers suck in every way possible. I blame them for every thing.
by Zen Blade on Nov 29, 2011 8:53 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
i don't know why
but i feel like i want to be mad at david stern about this
by iheartyourfart on Nov 28, 2011 11:59 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Why?
Why would Selig hold up our TV deal on account of the Dodgers? It’s not like the Dodgers are a party to the Padres/Fox TV deal. And it’s not like the terms of one contract will impact the other’s price since LA is a MUCH bigger, more lucrative market with different demographics.
This isn’t the Dodgers fault. It’s Selig being the spineless little shit that he is…
Speculation
The Padres want an expanded territory to go along with their new TV deal, which would potentially overlap with the Dodgers area, which may be part of what McCourt needs to finalize with any new contract with Fox.
Pure speculation.
could it be
that Selig is holding off
because he doesn’t want the Padres front-loaded contract to be used
as a justification for a Dodgers front-loaded contract?
On the other hand, you have different fingers.
That seems to be the ONLY explaination
Though again due to the market disparities I don’t know what Selig would be worried about. I don’t buy the territorial realignment as both the Dodgers AND Angels would have to sign off on it, and I don’t see either giving up their market position to allow an interloper in to potentially lessen the value of their rights for future negotiations.
Well, there are a lot of possible explanations...
Maybe Selig is a damn, dirty, Dodger fan…
Maybe Selig thinks no means yes…
Maybe Selig is a hamster whose husband smells of elderberries…
Ehhhh, I don't deserve a signature...
by sdchicken on Dec 1, 2011 12:46 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I'd love to have access to Padres game in Orange County
and hope the new Fox Sports deal will include that option. I live 3 miles from Angels stadium and get only Dodgers/Angels. I can’t be the only transplant in this area that would like to watch his home-town team.
TBD
I'm very intrigued by the idea of an expanded Padres media market.
I don’t really expect it to happen, but I wonder if we could pull in some Angels fans who want a National League team to root for that isn’t, y’know, evil.
As someone in a crazy multi-team market (Las Vegas),
I can tell you it’s not always as great as it sounds.
In Vegas last year, if you wanted to watch all 6 teams (LAD,LAA,SD,SF,OAK,AZ) it would require subscribing to both satellite as well as cable. Padres on cable (standard definition only), everyone else on satellite.
If you live somewhere where satellite isn’t an option (like an apartment) then you only get 3 out of 6 teams. Remember that those other 3 teams are IMPOSSIBLE to get (blacked out from extra innings/mlb.tv).
Also, if the padres as well as one of the other 5 teams both have nationally televised games, it’s possible to get screwed out of the padres (on cable at least, not sure about satellite). Actually, one time I even got screwed out of Padres/Dodgers because the local fox station chose to show Yankees/Red Sox instead.
by kevintheoman on Nov 28, 2011 4:30 PM PST up reply actions
A correction
Padres, Dodgers, and Angels all on cable. Satellite has Dodgers, Angels, Giants, A’s, and Diamondbacks. So there is overlap with Dodgers and Angels.
by kevintheoman on Nov 28, 2011 4:31 PM PST up reply actions
Agreed.
Expanding the Padres into a market where there is and always would be negligible interest in them just makes it harder for those that want to watch them to do so in the end. It’s easier to just let those that want to see them now sign up for things like MLB.TV and watch them online.
MLB.tv broadcasts
I have to find a reference, but I believe TV is more valuable to the Padres than MLB.tv broadcasts. From what I understand, anything MLBAM is pretty much shared evenly across the teams. It’s not like the Padres could make more by somehow proving that their games are getting streamed more often.
So, it might suck in terms of blackouts, but expanding the media market is still desirable.
If Selig was truly concerned with competitive balance,
he would redraw the lines and give The Padre the entire Inland Empire. It is not gona happen, but that is what he should do.
F*ck the Dodgers and f*ck Clayton Kershaw.
That is all.
Ehhhh, I don't deserve a signature...
by sdchicken on Nov 28, 2011 9:28 PM PST reply actions 6 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Gaslamp Ball
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
