Posted October 31, 200717 yr There's another revenue stream that the Angels, and every other team, is now drawing once unexpected millions from: the money created by the success of MLB.com. The annual check that the Angels (and every other team) receive from this source may well exceed $30 million, by now. http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index...me=olney_buster
October 31, 200717 yr HA! How much more does the rest of the league have to take to get out the pitchforks and come on down to Miami looking to tar and feather Loria?? If that number is anywhere close to being true, the imposition of a salary cap minimum might happen sooner rather than later.
October 31, 200717 yr Ah I hate wording like that. Does it mean that the Angels are getting 30M, or the entire league? And anyway, assuming a large portion of that comes from the online shop, I doubt we're anywhere near that number.
October 31, 200717 yr Just wait until the Baseball Network is up and running. It could be quite possible that media revenue alone may cover most if not all of a team's payroll. MLB is going to tie the NFL in revenues (not profits) in a few years.
October 31, 200717 yr Ah I hate wording like that. Does it mean that the Angels are getting 30M, or the entire league? And anyway, assuming a large portion of that comes from the online shop, I doubt we're anywhere near that number. The online shop is presumably merchandising, which has its own figure. I'm assuming the stream is from advertising-related sales on MLB.com (like most other high traffic sites reap).
October 31, 200717 yr Ah I hate wording like that. Does it mean that the Angels are getting 30M, or the entire league? And anyway, assuming a large portion of that comes from the online shop, I doubt we're anywhere near that number. All money generated on MLB.com is split evenly amongst the 30 teams. Thirty-million is a per-team amount.
October 31, 200717 yr That would mean a net profit from MLB.com of $900 million a year after costs and taxes. That seems awful steep. Not saying he has it wrong, but you're talking about probably $1.6-2.00 billion in revenue at the least to get to anything thing like that. If perhaps this was a surplus that accrued over a number of years as retained earnings and this was a one-time distribution that could make sense, but $30 million a year per team (profit) is a little hard to get your arms around. That's one sh*tload of money.
October 31, 200717 yr Author Ah I hate wording like that. Does it mean that the Angels are getting 30M, or the entire league? And anyway, assuming a large portion of that comes from the online shop, I doubt we're anywhere near that number. I agree the wording is a tad confusing, but as I understand it, each team is getting approximately $30 million. What the number doesn't take into account is how much the teams were anticipating, or previously receiving. Obviously it's something, but Olney makes it seem as if this is a huge financial gain, which it would have to be since we'd be talking $900 million in revenue (900/30 = 30). As for the second point, online MLB.com sales are divided among the 30 teams despite a disproportionate number of sales, much like national media contracts are divided evenly amongst the 30 teams despite disproportionate TV appearances. Finally, I'd say I very much doubt that this number accounts for merchandise element. The bulk of this revenue is from MLB.tv and MLB.tv premium. I recall reading somewhere the MLB.tv had recently surpassed 3 million subscribers, or some ungodly number.
October 31, 200717 yr wow mlb owner's have access to a large sum of money before one ticket is sold , if this is a recuring payment all teams recieve than it would be very frustrating new stadium or not if our payroll remained so low.
October 31, 200717 yr Well that is 1 year of arod for us Now Swifty find us 9 more It says 30 million annually.
October 31, 200717 yr Well that is 1 year of arod for us Now Swifty find us 9 more It says 30 million annually. Like he said, one year of A-Rod.
October 31, 200717 yr Ah I hate wording like that. Does it mean that the Angels are getting 30M, or the entire league? And anyway, assuming a large portion of that comes from the online shop, I doubt we're anywhere near that number. I agree the wording is a tad confusing, but as I understand it, each team is getting approximately $30 million. What the number doesn't take into account is how much the teams were anticipating, or previously receiving. Obviously it's something, but Olney makes it seem as if this is a huge financial gain, which it would have to be since we'd be talking $900 million in revenue (900/30 = 30). As for the second point, online MLB.com sales are divided among the 30 teams despite a disproportionate number of sales, much like national media contracts are divided evenly amongst the 30 teams despite disproportionate TV appearances. Finally, I'd say I very much doubt that this number accounts for merchandise element. The bulk of this revenue is from MLB.tv and MLB.tv premium. I recall reading somewhere the MLB.tv had recently surpassed 3 million subscribers, or some ungodly number. I was including MLB.tv and the radio option in 'online shop'. I've never used it, I didn't realize it was its own entity. Anyway, if it is 30 million each regardless, that's just insane. At this point, I think sports net income is ridiculous.
October 31, 200717 yr and mlb far and away is the online leader of any of the big sports in this nation. Not exactly unrealistic when you consider all that MLB.com has to offer. Baseball was over a 6 billion dollar industry last year, cant wait to hear the figures for 2007.
October 31, 200717 yr There's another revenue stream that the Angels, and every other team, is now drawing once unexpected millions from: the money created by the success of MLB.com. The annual check that the Angels (and every other team) receive from this source may well exceed $30 million, by now. http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index...me=olney_buster More reason to keep up my MLB.TV subscription: guaranteed support of the teams.
October 31, 200717 yr Ah I hate wording like that. Does it mean that the Angels are getting 30M, or the entire league? And anyway, assuming a large portion of that comes from the online shop, I doubt we're anywhere near that number. I agree the wording is a tad confusing, but as I understand it, each team is getting approximately $30 million. What the number doesn't take into account is how much the teams were anticipating, or previously receiving. Obviously it's something, but Olney makes it seem as if this is a huge financial gain, which it would have to be since we'd be talking $900 million in revenue (900/30 = 30). As for the second point, online MLB.com sales are divided among the 30 teams despite a disproportionate number of sales, much like national media contracts are divided evenly amongst the 30 teams despite disproportionate TV appearances. Finally, I'd say I very much doubt that this number accounts for merchandise element. The bulk of this revenue is from MLB.tv and MLB.tv premium. I recall reading somewhere the MLB.tv had recently surpassed 3 million subscribers, or some ungodly number. So, 3 million subscribers times (roughly) $80 per subscriber equals... $240,000,000 in revenues for MLB.tv alone. In that case, I do believe that mlb.com is generating $900M per year in profits.
October 31, 200717 yr Ah I hate wording like that. Does it mean that the Angels are getting 30M, or the entire league? And anyway, assuming a large portion of that comes from the online shop, I doubt we're anywhere near that number. I agree the wording is a tad confusing, but as I understand it, each team is getting approximately $30 million. What the number doesn't take into account is how much the teams were anticipating, or previously receiving. Obviously it's something, but Olney makes it seem as if this is a huge financial gain, which it would have to be since we'd be talking $900 million in revenue (900/30 = 30). As for the second point, online MLB.com sales are divided among the 30 teams despite a disproportionate number of sales, much like national media contracts are divided evenly amongst the 30 teams despite disproportionate TV appearances. Finally, I'd say I very much doubt that this number accounts for merchandise element. The bulk of this revenue is from MLB.tv and MLB.tv premium. I recall reading somewhere the MLB.tv had recently surpassed 3 million subscribers, or some ungodly number. So, 3 million subscribers times (roughly) $80 per subscriber equals... $240,000,000 in revenues for MLB.tv alone. In that case, I do believe that mlb.com is generating $900M per year in profits. MLB.TV is $80, while MLB.TV Premium is $100. That's for a full year. I myself hope they implement HD streams soon. I want widescreen video, especially when they already use the HD feeds for the Blue Jays and White Sox.
October 31, 200717 yr Author Ah I hate wording like that. Does it mean that the Angels are getting 30M, or the entire league? And anyway, assuming a large portion of that comes from the online shop, I doubt we're anywhere near that number. I agree the wording is a tad confusing, but as I understand it, each team is getting approximately $30 million. What the number doesn't take into account is how much the teams were anticipating, or previously receiving. Obviously it's something, but Olney makes it seem as if this is a huge financial gain, which it would have to be since we'd be talking $900 million in revenue (900/30 = 30). As for the second point, online MLB.com sales are divided among the 30 teams despite a disproportionate number of sales, much like national media contracts are divided evenly amongst the 30 teams despite disproportionate TV appearances. Finally, I'd say I very much doubt that this number accounts for merchandise element. The bulk of this revenue is from MLB.tv and MLB.tv premium. I recall reading somewhere the MLB.tv had recently surpassed 3 million subscribers, or some ungodly number. So, 3 million subscribers times (roughly) $80 per subscriber equals... $240,000,000 in revenues for MLB.tv alone. In that case, I do believe that mlb.com is generating $900M per year in profits. MLB.TV is $80, while MLB.TV Premium is $100. That's for a full year. I myself hope they implement HD streams soon. I want widescreen video, especially when they already use the HD feeds for the Blue Jays and White Sox. And don't forget that there are people that pay the monthly hiked rate of $15 for regular and $25 for premium.
October 31, 200717 yr If this is true then MLB.com paid for the Marlins' player salaries. They clearly made money.
October 31, 200717 yr MLB, when they negotiate with the city, should withhold a percentage of this and dedicate it to the stadium gap. Like, don't even let the Marlins see it, say you're getting 15m and the other 15m is going to the stadium. Or whatever the difference is from what they expected to what it was raised to. Like if last year they budgeted 20 million from this, let them keep the 20 million and the remaining 10m automatically goes towards the stadium. Found money they never anticipated, so they shouldn't miss it.
October 31, 200717 yr Well that is 1 year of arod for us Now Swifty find us 9 more It says 30 million annually. Like he said, one year of A-Rod. Annually means year after year bud.
October 31, 200717 yr Well that is 1 year of arod for us Now Swifty find us 9 more It says 30 million annually. Like he said, one year of A-Rod. Annually means year after year bud. Yes, and we are making the half-joke that A-rod will make 30 million dollars a year, bud.
October 31, 200717 yr Awesome! More money for Loria to pocket and not even consider spending on the team!
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.