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.

You said 1 year. If you make 30 million annually from this alone you got more than one year. Thats what I was pointing out.

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.

 

So if ARod makes $30 million a year, wouldn't another way to say that be oh, I don't know, ANNUALLY

 

So, to recap. Marlins get $30 million annually, ARod's ideal salary is $30 million annually.

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.

You said 1 year. If you make 30 million annually from this alone you got more than one year. Thats what I was pointing out.

Bah, you are right, for some reason it didn't enter my mind that way. I understand what annually is though... I bow my head and back away slowly.

Thanks for starting this thread.

 

Loria:

"I love the sound of ccccashingggg!, cheap bastard? yeah. . . that's me. Stadium? who the heck needs it!. . ."

Thanks mlb.com for the stadium

Thanks mlb.com for the stadium

Despite the fact that the numbers make sense and it's obviously true, 30 millions dollars from mlb.com alone is just incredible to me in terms of profit sharing

It's not $900 million in REVENUE, it would have to be $900 million IN PROFITS.

 

You are quite right. That is an insane amount per year and not at all believable. A dotcom grossing close to $2 billion dollars per year?? Not including the merchandise sales because that figure goes in another column.

The overhead for MLB.com is probably pretty low. Maybe $200M, at most.

The overhead for MLB.com is probably pretty low. Maybe $200M, at most.

 

I would assume mlb.com includes all the team websites and MiLB.com, because otherwise it would be impossible to get to $900 million in revenue, nevermind profits. And running all those sites is not a a low-cost operation, the computer IT budget alone is probably more than $200 million because as they roll out new services that takes computing power an more software engineering. Just think of the difference in "gamelog" from 2006 to 2007, there was a quantum leap in products. That costs a lot of money to implement. And they've done so many other things as well.

 

I could go on and on with the direct and indirect costs of MLB.com they aren't that site for $200 million a year for thirty teams plus minor league baseball.

I wonder if linking directly to Ticketmaster has anything to do with this

The overhead for MLB.com is probably pretty low. Maybe $200M, at most.

 

I would assume mlb.com includes all the team websites and MiLB.com, because otherwise it would be impossible to get to $900 million in revenue, nevermind profits. And running all those sites is not a a low-cost operation, the computer IT budget alone is probably more than $200 million because as they roll out new services that takes computing power an more software engineering. Just think of the difference in "gamelog" from 2006 to 2007, there was a quantum leap in products. That costs a lot of money to implement. And they've done so many other things as well.

 

I could go on and on with the direct and indirect costs of MLB.com they aren't that site for $200 million a year for thirty teams plus minor league baseball.

 

You know, I'm not really sure. Maybe some tech guy here can tell us (are you listening, Admin?).

 

In any case, they get $250-300M in subscriptions alone, plus all the advertising.

 

They have no reason to make up a number like $30M, so I will take their word for it. It is possible that it is the first payout to the clubs, in which case the $30M could be for profits over the course of more than one year.

The overhead for MLB.com is probably pretty low. Maybe $200M, at most.

 

I would assume mlb.com includes all the team websites and MiLB.com, because otherwise it would be impossible to get to $900 million in revenue, nevermind profits. And running all those sites is not a a low-cost operation, the computer IT budget alone is probably more than $200 million because as they roll out new services that takes computing power an more software engineering. Just think of the difference in "gamelog" from 2006 to 2007, there was a quantum leap in products. That costs a lot of money to implement. And they've done so many other things as well.

 

I could go on and on with the direct and indirect costs of MLB.com they aren't that site for $200 million a year for thirty teams plus minor league baseball.

 

I'm on the tech industry (building proposals and cost models for this type of stuff). . . and I can't imagine this operation being more than 200million/year. I believe 200/mill a year is also high

 

Most of the infrastructure cost should be in networking and storage. Streaming video for mlb.tv, etc. . .

 

this is not a super complex environment. . . most of it is static data in the form of news, stats, etc.

The overhead for MLB.com is probably pretty low. Maybe $200M, at most.

 

I would assume mlb.com includes all the team websites and MiLB.com, because otherwise it would be impossible to get to $900 million in revenue, nevermind profits. And running all those sites is not a a low-cost operation, the computer IT budget alone is probably more than $200 million because as they roll out new services that takes computing power an more software engineering. Just think of the difference in "gamelog" from 2006 to 2007, there was a quantum leap in products. That costs a lot of money to implement. And they've done so many other things as well.

 

I could go on and on with the direct and indirect costs of MLB.com they aren't that site for $200 million a year for thirty teams plus minor league baseball.

 

You know, I'm not really sure. Maybe some tech guy here can tell us (are you listening, Admin?).

 

In any case, they get $250-300M in subscriptions alone, plus all the advertising.

 

They have no reason to make up a number like $30M, so I will take their word for it. It is possible that it is the first payout to the clubs, in which case the $30M could be for profits over the course of more than one year.

 

That is what I think it is. The site(s) have undergone a significant transformation over the last few years including MilB which used to be near worthless, they're doing live and podcasting, all kinds of things which cost money, so my guess is that is an initial distribution and they may be shooting for an annual number similar to this down the road.

 

Or it may be that they have gotten to some critical mass where they can start throwing off these kinds of dollars annually but to disperse $900 million a year takes a ton of revenue behind it.

Baseball is an absolute gold mine from revenues from attendance and luxury suites, local advertising, merchandising, TV and radio broadcasting, and now these rumored internet revenues from MLB.com. How on earth can Loria continue to claim poverty?? I think it is time, once and for all, to have the government step in under the antitrust exemption and review the Marlins' books under their oversight powers. If Loria is actually as poor as he says he is (in terms of the money generated by the franchise), I don't see how he could complain about opening the books. Everyone is just speculating how much money these teams make. If you're going to ask the government for a handout, you should be prepared to be audited.

MLBAM does more than just sell .tv packages, tickets and jerseys.

 

What's astonishing is that as late as 2000, when you typed "www.mlb.com" into your browser, you got a Philadelphia law firm. But just half a decade later, MLB.com is so good at what it does that ithas expanded beyond baseball. When the NCAA streamed its wildly popular men's basketball tournament over the Net a few months ago, MLB.com's pipes handled the traffic. MLB Advanced Media also manages Web sites for Major League Soccer and the World Track & Field Championships, and it recently signed an agreement to host online operations for a licensing and merchandising company that handles pop stars such as Madonna and Tom Petty. At this rate, it's not far-fetched to believe that MLB Advanced Media could someday rival ESPN – and end competitive imbalance.

 

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/start.html?pg=3

 

 

 

To put just a few numbers into the discussion, from 2004 to 2005 sales on MLB.com rose 220% from the year prior with a 200% increase in sales through just the MLB.com Shop. MLBAM revenues for 2005 are expected to rise 88% to $260 million, and annual revenue is expected to jump 30-50% over each of the next five years. A huge cash cow for the 30 owners in MLB that get to split the profits.

 

 

What really makes this arm of MLB stealthy and an absolutmoneymaking machine came to light somewhat quietly in October when the major league owners decided to scrap plans for an initial public offer for MLBAM. Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, First Boston and J.P. Morgan tried in vain to get the owners to go forward with the IPO. After all, they had good reason to want to see it happen, as these analysts predicted the value of the IPO to be $2-2.5 billion.

 

 

The reason it didn't move forward? Full public disclosure. MLB opening up the books? You must be joking. Besides, can you imagine how it would look to roll into the next round of collective bargaining after dispersing those kinds of funds around 30 ways? Somehow I doubt that selling a luxury tax again would gain much traction with the players' union, and forget about ever discussing a salary cap in the near-to-distant future.

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/...-money-machine/

I don't think the revenues for the dot com empire would have to be substantially higher than the $900 million + bandwith to generate the profits we're talking about. MLB's anti-trust prevents it from major federal corporate taxes, and HR 4308 (I think?) eliminates state and federal sales tax on internet transactions such as mlb.tv.

 

Really it's a hugely believable moneymaker. I of course see the reasoning behind this being an accumulated payout, but if the numbers are to be believed, I think this kind of income is likely sustainable.

First of all, from what IFesta Touch posted we know it includes their online shopping.

 

Right there you have to consider even with 100% markup you have to at minimum bring in two dollars to make one, plus as I said the infrastructure costs.

 

This idea you can run all these sites for no money is silly. I would bet some of the bigger sites, LA CHI NYC (x2) costs in the tens of millions to operate (not speaking revenues now, just the cost side incl bandwidth).

 

Dot Com or no Dot Com there is a cost of doing business here that is significant. Even with shopping you have to sell $2 billion to make your $900 million if you're lucky, that is unless you thnk they a) they get all the clothing for free, b) there is no cost of sales, c) no returns, d) they sell every single item at 200% of cost and have zero inventory.

 

C'mon, I'm not arguing this isn't big business or even theoretically they are now big enough to throw $30 million to each team, just that people underestimate wildly the cost of doing that business. For example, and so far I haven't found the exact number for Sun purchases but I did find one piece indicating MLBAM (Advanced media) had signing a $20 million contract with Sun Microsystems UK for computers in their European data center (if the computers in the data center cost $20 mil, how much did the datacenter cost, staffing, software, IT, mgmt., etc.) and that MLBAM runs five in the US, one of which is in a secret location (hehe).

 

The more one looks at MLBAM it is f*cking huge but with it comes a gigantic cost of doing business. I'm happy they're doing well. And thanks to swift for the tip, but I suspect after looking at this for a day, this is the iceberg theory at work, we see the tip, we forget 90% is underwater. No wonder they decided to not go public a few years ago (much to the dismay of the their investment bankers), this business plan of there's is working very well, thank you very much.

First of all, from what IFesta Touch posted we know it includes their online shopping.

 

Right there you have to consider even with 100% markup you have to at minimum bring in two dollars to make one, plus as I said the infrastructure costs.

 

This idea you can run all these sites for no money is silly. I would bet some of the bigger sites, LA CHI NYC (x2) costs in the tens of millions to operate (not speaking revenues now, just the cost side incl bandwidth).

 

Dot Com or no Dot Com there is a cost of doing business here that is significant. Even with shopping you have to sell $2 billion to make your $900 million if you're lucky, that is unless you thnk they a) they get all the clothing for free, b) there is no cost of sales, c) no returns, d) they sell every single item at 200% of cost and have zero inventory.

 

C'mon, I'm not arguing this isn't big business or even theoretically they are now big enough to throw $30 million to each team, just that people underestimate wildly the cost of doing that business. For example, and so far I haven't found the exact number for Sun purchases but I did find one piece indicating MLBAM (Advanced media) had signing a $20 million contract with Sun Microsystems UK for computers in their European data center (if the computers in the data center cost $20 mil, how much did the datacenter cost, staffing, software, IT, mgmt., etc.) and that MLBAM runs five in the US, one of which is in a secret location (hehe).

 

The more one looks at MLBAM it is f*cking huge but with it comes a gigantic cost of doing business. I'm happy they're doing well. And thanks to swift for the tip, but I suspect after looking at this for a day, this is the iceberg theory at work, we see the tip, we forget 90% is underwater. No wonder they decided to not go public a few years ago (much to the dismay of the their investment bankers), this business plan of there's is working very well, thank you very much.

 

20 million probably in the form of a long term contract (that's how is being done in the industry)

 

20 million is probably total price tag, spread out over the term of 5 years or so. (4mill/year), that probably includes the HW, base OS software, lease charge, and break fix support contracts.

Thanks mlb.com for the stadium

 

 

 

:lol so awesome, so perfect.

Why is everyone taking as a fact what this guy is only guessing at to begin with? That was obvious in the wording with just that little quote that was posted. I would think if every MLB team was getting such a huge chunk of change and MLB.com was doing so good, so fast we would be hearing it shouted from the rafters. Is everyone buying into it just because it is another opportunity to bash management, the FO, and ownership for not getting marquee players here to be watched on TV sets around South Florida?

News flash. No one on the Marlins staff was the guy (or guys) on the grassy knoll.

While I wouldn't doubt MLB.com is worth that much, but I hardly believe they are netting or distributing dividends to the tune of nearly a billion dollars.

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.

are you sure those prices were the actual ones because i thought premium was increased this year

While I wouldn't doubt MLB.com is worth that much, but I hardly believe they are netting or distributing dividends to the tune of nearly a billion dollars.

 

 

Yea. It just dosen't make sense why only one person would be commenting on it publicly if this were true. I'm filing it under trash jounalism.

Quick update to this:

USA Today reporter Jorge Ortiz suggests that MLBAM's, which operates MLB.com, revenues were $380 million this year. That's before expenses.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/20...ll-online_N.htm