The Baseball Journals: One Image Explains Why Relocation Is Difficult

 

 

 

Want to know why putting a team in San Antonio or Portland comes with a payment to clubs like the Mariners, Rangers, and Astros? This map, which is in higher resolution at the link provided explains why. The image is a map of the broadcast territories for MLB.

 

This goes to the heart of the matter with relocation of the Marlins... Why ditch the 17th market in the US for 23rd or worse, 37th, when there is a considerable compensation element involved?

It would be cheaper for MLB to help fork over the 100mil for the staduim than pay rangers and astors for there loss in revenue

It would be cheaper for MLB to help fork over the 100mil for the staduim than pay rangers and astors for there loss in revenue

 

 

Bingo Bango.....we have a winner ! :notworthy

Maury, hey, it's rferry of the BPG boards. It is my understanding that these are not exclusive territories as determined by MLB. Teams do not control these territories and have no say in whether Champaign IL or Mobile AL wants to switch. They are determined by sports networks and cable networks which can opt to broadcast any number of teams they wish within the territory. Obviously, FSN Southwest is not going to be happy paying Houston and Texas what it negotiated when they thought they had all of Texas and them some to market those teams to, and surely would wish to rengotiate their broadcast rights contracts with those teams. And cable companies and over the air stations in Houston or Dallas may not see the need to bid to air San Antonio Whatevers' games. But there is nothing that prevents them doing so. And no need for the Whatevers to compensate the Astros and Rangers.

DC - Baltimore, 40 miles apart, 15 miles from exclusively held territories, well-respected owner with placement on the Executive Council, this is not.

 

Wouldn't you believe the owners that must vote along with the Astros (and Rangers) to prevent relocation would not do so if it meant keeping a revenue sharing beneficiary from becoming a benefactor? What's precedent to a couple dozen million dollars every year?

Maury, hey, it's rferry of the BPG boards. It is my understanding that these are not exclusive territories as determined by MLB. Teams do not control these territories and have no say in whether Champaign IL or Mobile AL wants to switch. They are determined by sports networks and cable networks which can opt to broadcast any number of teams they wish within the territory. Obviously, FSN Southwest is not going to be happy paying Houston and Texas what it negotiated when they thought they had all of Texas and them some to market those teams to, and surely would wish to rengotiate their broadcast rights contracts with those teams. And cable companies and over the air stations in Houston or Dallas may not see the need to bid to air San Antonio Whatevers' games. But there is nothing that prevents them doing so. And no need for the Whatevers to compensate the Astros and Rangers.

DC - Baltimore, 40 miles apart, 15 miles from exclusively held territories, well-respected owner with placement on the Executive Council, this is not.

 

Wouldn't you believe the owners that must vote along with the Astros (and Rangers) to prevent relocation would not do so if it meant keeping a revenue sharing beneficiary from becoming a benefactor? What's precedent to a couple dozen million dollars every year?

 

 

Who's to say the SA whatever's will be a benefactor ? New stadiums haven't helped most teams surrmount the payroll gorilla yet ? Look at Pittsburgh and Arizona. Both teams have woefull financial debts, and yet have those nice new stadiums (with even the one in AZ financed by MLB).

 

What will be the killer and will show absolutely how much Selig hates So Fla, is when he helps Loria and San Antonio with a "bridge" loan to fill some funding gap and eagerly does it -- much like the one the City of Miami / Marlins had last year. Once and for all we'll see were Selig is on having South Fla as a MLB market.

I have heard from someone that met with Selig directly that MLB does not wish to lose the South Florida market. I think that it's obvious that that is the case. Bridging the gaps in plan in South Florida would make the most sense.

 

Now, do I think that we'll see an effort to see how far SA can go with their funding?... Certainly. There's holes big enough to drive a truck through the plan as it currently stands, but from MLB's and SA's perspective, it makes good sense to see just how viable the market really is. I lived this in Portland when I was part of the Expos derby here, and there is high value in seeing what options are available, and do an in-depth study of the market. After that, it's all debatable. The Marlins should remain in South Florida. It's what's best for baseball. It's what's best for the Marlins.

Wouldn't you believe the owners that must vote along with the Astros (and Rangers) to prevent relocation would not do so if it meant keeping a revenue sharing beneficiary from becoming a benefactor? What's precedent to a couple dozen million dollars every year?

I don't know about that. It depends on how rosy the other revenue streams are at the moment (and, man... they look good right now). I'm not saying it's not possible, but rather there are other factors.

 

One key thing I have heard is that Selig is concerned about how it would look moving a 2-time World Series champion, regardless of the fan attendance woes (hey, this is an issue that can't be removed at the moment. That's why the new facility is critical... to get butts in the seats).

I too believe the Marlins will end up in South Florida, with a new stadium. But it's a certainty that if MLB offers anything at all, they will have be dragged to the table and probably end up receiving more than they gave up in the end. MLB doesn't exactly do what makes the most sense half the time.

 

Heywood, revenue does not equal payroll. You should know that. Owners are often sleazy and do not invest revenues into high payrolls. The Pirates owner, along with Tampa's, has been accused of paying down debt service with his revenue sharing transfers rather than investing in major or minor league talent. And you're right that Pittsburgh remains a beneficiary despite a new stadium. In part that is because they are a weak market - weaker than San Antonio in fact

Also we need to deal with the fact that soon the "benefiaciaries" are not going to be getting as much as they have been, because both the Yankees and Mets have been given permission to take their "luxury tax" money to help build their new stadiums. I believe this leaves just the Red Sox, Cubs, Angels and Dodgers as benefactors.

Yep. That's not a reason to keep the Marlins at Dolphins Stadium though.

One of the main reasons both NY clubs are building new stadiums is to have some benefits come back to them as they use their luxury tax payments to finance their spanking new stadium. The fact that they are allowed to do this defeats the purpose of the luxury tax.

 

They both have a cable company that generates lots of cash. They pay lots of cash to their players. The go over the spending norms and a luxury tax is owed. Rather than giving the money to teams such as the Marlins to help balance things between the haves and have not, they sink it into their own new stadium....... makes sense for them!

I'd rather see the two New York Cash Cows get new facilities for their fans than see teams like the Marlins and Pirates pocket the money.

I'd rather see the two New York Cash Cows get new facilities for their fans than see teams like the Marlins and Pirates pocket the money.

The Marlins were pocketing money the past few seasons?

 

I would be the first to say that they certainly could have done that when Loria came on the scene, but he poured more than a bit of money into the player payroll and won a World Series. Fans didn't show up, and so the logic is, it must be the facility. And yes, Samson and Loria get to control the revenue streams in a baseball only facility. If at that point they pocket those streams, then I could see reason to level such claims. Hey, they aren't in Carl Pohlad status since owning the Marlins... yet.

ya Maury I am with you they poured cash into the team but they have a bad deal with the stadium and we got to admit out team didn't pan out this year his payroll would have hit around 90 million and what would have been there incentive they got no Stadium and maybe would have ate 50 mil I don't really blame them my main thing they need to get a staduim deal done. since we got this team and they don't have a home yet the panthers have a home think maybe made the playoff twice

Yep. That's not a reason to keep the Marlins at Dolphins Stadium though.

 

 

Oh I don't want them there either, but I don't want to shell out my tax $$$ to pay for it. The Marlins need to be sold to someone who can build his own stadium, if not, they can go......Miami / Ft Lauderdale was here before the Marlins, and it'll be here after they leave. But my tax $$$ need to be spent on roads, better schools and better infrastructure before being spent on a stadium.

Then you're barking up the wrong tree, because no such owner would be allowed to own the Marlins by MLB.

Then you're barking up the wrong tree, because no such owner would be allowed to own the Marlins by MLB.

 

Ya, you won't be seeing China Basin (PacBell) anytime soon.

 

But...

 

I think that you're going to start seeing more ownership equity in stadium development. Look at how Busch III came online. The Cards wanted more public subsidy and that simply didn't happen. This sounds extremely weighted to ownership, but at least 1/3 ownership equity would seem like a good place to start.

what i can tell from people that i talk at proplayer is that this team going to be gone no one want to go to table and talk mayors hialeah/dade or david samson/Loria

what i can tell from people that i talk at proplayer is that this team going to be gone no one want to go to table and talk mayors hialeah/dade or david samson/Loria

 

 

I think it was quite telling when you don't have a single elected official attend the Opening Day Ceremonies. :o

their too busy going to heat game and getting kick out of aaa :chair