Nationals to Sign Edwin jackson

[a700hitter]

The MLB has worked far too hard to cater to the bottom feeders of the league. If some teams can't compete' date=' then contract the league. There are a good number of teams that haven't fielded a competitive team in years, and there are some teams that will have a surprise team one year then completely disappear for 5-10 more years. The luxury tax is going straight into the pockets of baseball owners, and not back into baseball. Merchandising money from teams with superstars shouldn't go back to teams that don't have a single player on their team that I can name.[/quote']Could the top teams make just as much, if not more, without a few of the bottom teams. Sure. But which get eliminated? In 2002, baseball was considering getting rid of the Twins. Now, the Twins show up as the #12 team on the Forbes list. The bottom 20 teams are so tightly packed together that there can be a lot of movement up and down that list in 10 years, depending on how the ownerships market their brands and build their fanbase, or if they can get local politicians to build them new stadiums. The big boys have a tremendous advantage, but they need the small teams (granted they don't need them all). They are the Washington Generals to the big boys Globetrotters. The other reason that they can't get rid of a few teams is probably the players union. Those would be lost jobs- very valuable jobs.

[ORS]

The Forbes Report did take into account the other ventures of the ownership groups. Here' what it said about the Red Sox:

Yes, it mentions them for the Sox and Yankees, but it does not go into the team valuation. The Yankee Enterprises valuation is $5.1B, the team valuation, the data iortiz is leaning on heavily to support his argument, is $1.7B.

 

There's no mention about the Nat's Network. The report does show that the Nats were #27 out of 30 in ratings. Nothing supports your claim that they are a big market team. I have produced numerous figures and measures. All you counter with is "network, network, network". Where are the figures, figures, figures? Forbes mentions NESN and YES, but where is the mention of the Nats network? Did they just miss it?

These are the 2010 valuations. At the time of these valuations, the Nationals were still under their original contract with MASN and had no ownership stake. They renegotiated their contract this offseason and part of the deal included an ownersip stake in the network. It currently stands at 13%, so I admit, the impact is not as big as I suggested, but it is still there and should not be ignored. The ownership stake caps at 33% in the future.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/wizards/nationals-negotiations-with-masn-will-have-huge-impact-on-franchise/2012/01/18/gIQA26VD9P_story.html

 

You aren't going to get figures, figures, figures. This is a privately held company. Their financials are not public information. Maybe it's just me, but I think it much more reasonable to speculate as to what impact this has given there is no hard data available rather than sticking your head in the sand and ignoring it all together (the iortiz method).

 

Also, the $163M that Forbes attributed to market that you posted is kind of a misleading figure. Per the footnotes of that page, the market value is the portion of the overall value attributable to the market size. In other words, the market value is dependent upon overall value, which is heavily impacted by popularity (the brand), and includes the stadium deal for the team. I think you can get a closer approximation to market size valuations by looking at the ratio of market value/overall value.

 

The top-10 teams relative to the Nationals (value figures in millions)....

 

[table]Rank|Team|Market|Overall|Ratio

1|Yankees|867|1700|.51

2|Red Sox|402|912|.45

3|Dodgers|337|800|.42

4|Cubs|340|773|.44

5|Mets|326|747|.44

6|Phillies|246|609|.41

7|Giants|231|563|.41

8|Rangers|242|561|.43

9|Angels|245|554|.44

10|White Sox|225|526|.43

16|Nats|163|417|.39[/table]

 

Yes, they fall in the lower end of big market teams. I would expect them to. The DC market is not as big NY (2 teams), LA (2 teams), Chicago (2 teams), Dallas, and all of NE. But, it's similar to Philadelphia and SF.

 

Let's look at which teams are traditionally considered "small" market.....

 

[table]Team|Market|Overall|Ratio

Rays|87|331|.26

A's|80|307|.26

Pirates|82|304|.27

Royals|85|351|.24

Marlins|80|360|.22[/table]

 

I entered this discussion based on the commentary arguing against classifiying the Nationals as a "small" market team. They aren't. Their market is competitive with most of the top-10 and nowhere near the actual small markets.

 

Overall, I agree with a higher middle ground assessment (upper middle, lower big) of their market standing. If forced between big/small, I put them in the big category.

[iortiz]

Could the top teams make just as much' date=' if not more, without a few of the bottom teams. Sure. But which get eliminated? In 2002, baseball was considering getting rid of the Twins. Now, the Twins show up as the #12 team on the Forbes list. [b']The bottom 20 teams are so tightly packed together that there can be a lot of movement up and down that list in 10 years, depending on how the ownerships market their brands and build their fanbase, or if they can get local politicians to build them new stadiums[/b]. The big boys have a tremendous advantage, but they need the small teams (granted they don't need them all). They are the Washington Generals to the big boys Globetrotters. The other reason that they can't get rid of a few teams is probably the players union. Those would be lost jobs- very valuable jobs.

 

The value of a company is based from what it can generate by itself in the short/mid/long term based of course in its past and present. That is a basic econimics principle. In order to do that, you estimate the potential revenue that it can generate among other financial KPIs. A lot of professional sport teams belong to domestic/transnational large enterprises which support their operation. These enterprises typically make marketing through its sport teams teams, of course, in order to generate more revenue=customers. As you said, if these teams doesn't have followers=fanbase=customers, these companies face a huge challenge in that regard. Mostly if this company is a network/telco company. In the end, this company wants that its professional sport team becomes a profitable one. In other words, they expect that this professional sport team be profitable by itself at some point. Since the Washington Nationals and/or MASN are not a public companies is hard to say whether they are profitable or not, and if yes for how much...

 

The only thing I know is that The Wasnington Nationals is a young franchaise which plays in an interesting market place in the USA but that will/is challenging the biggest challenge that any company can face: gain customers=followers=fans=revenue among a lot other business aspects.

 

Any Big Market team beyond where it plays (big/small territory) has this issue resolved. Their challenges are in other aspects and areas, e.i. Expand their brand to other markets, Governance Risk and Compliance procedures, etc.

[ORS]

Any Big Market team beyond where it plays (big/small territory) has this issue resolved. Their challenges are in other aspects and areas, e.i. Expand their brand to other markets, Governance Risk and Compliance procedures, etc.

Expansion of the brand into other markets is beneficial overall, as expanded revenues are good, period. However, expansion beyond the local market provides no competitive advantage over the other teams. Everything outside of the local market is shared evenly through revenue sharing. This is why international popularity has no impact on big/small market classification.

[iortiz]

Expansion of the brand into other markets is beneficial overall' date=' as expanded revenues are good, period. However, expansion beyond the local market provides no competitive advantage over the other teams. Everything outside of the local market is shared evenly through revenue sharing. This is why international popularity has no impact on big/small market classification.[/quote']

 

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to attempt with this. As I said, it is another perspective in order to rate a Big market team. Read the thread.

 

You are missing the whole point (reason why we are debating this, I guess). The Nats are not a big market team yet. It is going to take time. Whether they are supported by other company like MASN or whether they play in an interesting market place doesn't make them a big market team. They need to WIN that market share. They have not. Nobody is disputing whether DC is a small/mid/large market or not. For once and for all, you need to understand that. They have a huge challange and threats in that regard. Do they face an interesting potential? Sure, it is an interesting market place. Yes, this network company financially will help them to face their challenges like gain customers=fans... its own revenue. The thing is that professional sport teams gain fans with Wins=championships. It takes time and money. Apparently they will/are opening the wallet, but it going to take time, though. Are they in that path? Well, seems like they just started last year. But again, It will take time.

 

BTW I recommend you to read the Sarbanes-Oxley act. In there, you can find out how the revenue recognition issues work out and Governance, Risk and Complaince procedures. It will help you to realize how the revenue must be accounted.

[ORS]

BTW I recommend you to read the Sarbanes-Oxley act. In there you can find out more interesting things about revenue recognition issues and Governance, Risk and Complaince procedures. It will help you to realize how the revenue must be accounted.

SOX governs public companies. This is another one of your smoke screens to sound intelligent on the matter. It does not apply.

[iortiz]

SOX governs public companies. This is another one of your smoke screens to sound intelligent on the matter. It does not apply.

 

Yes, it rules public companies, and tons of private enterprises follow those rules in order to lead their GRC procedures and operate in a more institutional-way, mostly if it is a large serious company and want to become a public one someday. If MASN is a serious company, I bet that they follow some of those rules, especially in revenue recognition matters across their businesses. Look at what happened with Enron and Arthur Andersen. Companies (public/private) want to avoid those issues.

[SoxSport]

And I doubt those market numbers mentioned above are very accurate these days.

The main market value of a MLB team is now the local TV revenues. Plus the luxury boxes.

 

The Dodgers, for example, are on the market for around $1.3billion? Most of that is the value of their local TV contract. That's what caused Cuban to withdraw. He saw most of the appreciation was built into the asking price. The same is true for the Angels, who just signed a huge TV contract with Fox, netting them an extra $100 mil per year. The growth of team TV revenues (both network and local) has been enormous the last 10 years, and tracks the increase in players' salaries. And it will probably keep growing.

So the Dodgers still look like a good investment to me--as long as fans can pay their cable bills. And Arte Moreno's Angels are right there with the Dodgers now with their cable package.

 

If you factor in local TV revenues plus luxury boxes, you can get the real value of these teams. And the ones that are on top are from NY, LA and maybe Chicago 3rd. Philly and Boston are up there, too, but not as high.

 

Keep in mind the base value of all the teams is pretty much the same, give or take for the size of the stadium and the luxury box receipts. And they share in network TV revenue. The big difference is the added value due to the local cable TV revenue.

[mvp 78]

Yes' date=' it rules public companies, and tons of private enterprises follow those rules in order to lead their GRC procedures and operate in a more institutional-way, mostly if it is a large serious company and want to become a public one someday. If MASN is a serious company, I bet that they follow some of those rules, especially in revenue recognition matters across their businesses. Look at what happened with Enron and Arthur Andersen. Companies (public/private) want to avoid those issues.[/quote']

 

SOX has zero to do with the market size of the Nationals.

 

Also, companies don't like voluntarily complying with 404 because it's a pain in the ass. If you don't havd shareholders, there's little reason to follow those regulations just for the hell of it.

 

Again, instead of just admitting that you were wrong, you're just changing the subject.

[User Name]

The point that the "global" interest a team generates has nothing to do with the classification of a team's market size has been proven several times.

 

This is the main leg his argument stood on and it's not accurate.

[iortiz]

SOX has zero to do with the market size of the Nationals.

 

Also, companies don't like voluntarily complying with 404 because it's a pain in the ass. If you don't havd shareholders, there's little reason to follow those regulations just for the hell of it.

 

Again, instead of just admitting that you were wrong, you're just changing the subject.

 

In fact, it is becoming easier, since tons of high-class ITs support those procedures. (i.e SAP GRC)

 

TONS of large private companies adopt some SOX procedures, specially in revenue recognition matters. GRC high class ITs are already flavored with those best practices and a lot of private companies are adopting those technologies in order to operate in a more institutional-way; mostly those who disire to become a public company at some point. Turn from private to public usually takes a lot of time and procedures. It is not easy at all. Some get stuck in the attempt but they still follow those SOX procedures already adopted. (e.i. revenue recognition).

 

Revenue recognition is a key element when you valuate a company. Since the size of a company is correlated with its revenue, it is a key element to determine the size of the company. You can not mix the company's revenue (MASN) with another's revenue (NATS) when you want to valuate only one company (e.i. NATS). That is a compliance violation issue (revenue recognition).

 

Back on topic.

 

Today, the Nats are a #16 Forbes baseball team. They are closer to the small market teams than the big market teams. Their audience rating is poor. Their fan base/followers (who generates its revenue) is small. Its global exposure is 0.

 

A700 and I have presented a lot perspectives and facts in order to rest our case. Check out the numbers.

 

Nevertheless, Since They are not a public company, I can not make a stronger case. All signs tell me that they are not a big market team (valuation/revenue). Signs tell me that they are more likely in the bottom; with the small.

 

I have showed you several facts about this team. The confusion started when you said that DC is not a small market territory... who cares? Nobody is disputing that.. Besides, They need to win that market. They have not. Look at the avaiable numbers. Facts.

 

BL.

 

1. The Washington Nationals baseball team is not a Big market team. No in this planet. No even close. That is my point. If you are terrified with the word "small", then call them mid-low class team.

2. DC market place is an interesting territory. They have to win market share in DC=revenue=customers=followers=fans. I would say that this is their biggest challange.

[iortiz]

The point that the "global" interest a team generates has nothing to do with the classification of a team's market size has been proven several times.

 

This is the main leg his argument stood on and it's not accurate.

 

Nahhhh...It is called perspective. Globally they are nothing. It is a characteristic of big market teams. Stick it in your head.

 

BTW didn't you say that the Marlins are not a small market team too? I want hear your arguments.

[User Name]

A perspective which is irrelevant to the context of this discussion. If the global marketing aspect of a team does not improve its revenue stream, it does not impact its status as a market in MLB. I don't need to stick anything in my head, because i understand the way revenue sharing works in MLB. You don't seem to have a grasp on it.

 

Also, where did i say that the Marlins were a big market team? Don't just throw out blanket statements out there. Quote me on it.

[iortiz]

1. Since it is a characteric of big market teams (beyond the sport) I used that argument in order to rest my case, among a lot others (revenue/fanbase/audience/forbes' ratings/etc).... Is it to hard to understand? Really?

 

2. You said that the Marlins are not a small market team anymore since their sudden ability to spend. Now you say that the revenue is a key element to rate a big/small market team, which is right, but when you take a look at Marlins' revenue contradicts your position. Today they are a small market team. Stop with your contradictions and no sense please (no offense)

[User Name]

1. Since it is a characteric of big market teams (beyond the sport) I used that argument in order to rest my case' date=' among a lot others (revenue/fanbase/audience/forbes' ratings/etc).... Is it to hard to understand? [/quote']

 

By this logic, only the Red Sox and Yankees are big market teams. That is incorrect, and so is the line of thinking.

 

Global standing is completely and utterly irrelevant to this discussion, as has been proven multiple times.

 

2. You said that the Marlins are not a small market team anymore since their sudden ability to spend. Now you say that the revenue is a key element to rate a big/small market team, which is right, but when you take a look at Marlins' revenue contradicts your position. Today they are a small market team. Stop with your contradictions and no sense please (no offense)

 

And here is where the issue with your line of thought starts. Because a team is not small market, it doesn't mean it is big market. There is a middle ground between the two, which teams like the White Sox, Orioles and Cardinals occupy.

 

There is no contradiction. The problem lies in your inability to look beyond the "white/black" lines of your own thought process.

[iortiz]

1. I put that perspective in order to rate the Nats who are nothing in that regard. Do not twist the things.

 

2. The Marlins are the bottom of the bottom. There's no middleground here. Look at the forbes' list. The problem lies in your inability to accept the facts.

[iortiz]

I insist, you said that they were a small market team and since they suddenly have the ability to spend, they are not anymore. Check out your quotes. Do not run from the true.

[User Name]

1. I put that perspective in order to rate the Nats who are nothing in that regard. Do not twist the things.

 

Perspective about what? It simply has absolutely no bearing whatsoever in whether a team is small or large market. It factors equally into the revenue stream.

 

2. The Marlins are the bottom of the bottom. There's no middleground here. Look at the forbes' list. The problem lies in your inability to accept the facts.

 

Case in point. New stadium, and a payroll for 2012 that will top out at 120 million. Their payroll will be triple that of the lowest spender in the league and in the upper half of the league. That is not a small market team anymore. The only thing stopping them from jumping straight into large-market instead of mid-market category is the lack of a new TV deal.

 

Your forbes' list for 2011 is irrelevant for the 2012 model of the Marlins.

 

Feel free to continue sticking your head in the sand and letting your non-baseball related theoretical knowledge interfere with the facts.

[User Name]

I insist' date=' you said that they were a small market team and since they suddenly have the ability to spend, they are not anymore. Check out your quotes. Do not run from the true.[/quote']

 

That's because they aren't. Just because you lack the capability to understand that there is a "middle" between small and large doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[iortiz]

1. Circles.

 

2. You are confused. One thing is the ability to spend and another the ability to generate revenue. If they do not generate revenue, they will be in problems. Nobody knows what is going to happen. All they have right now is a huge commited debt and an investment. 0 rhetorical, all related.

 

Do you realize that the valuation of a company is related with the ability to generate revenue? They haven't proved that ability. Will they prove that ability? I do not have a crystal ball.

[ORS]

Do you realize that the valuation of a company is related with the ability to generate revenue? They haven't proved that ability. Will they prove that ability? I do not have a crystal ball.

Do you realize that an ownership stake in the regional broadcast network represents a source of revenues that you routinely and consistenly ignore? This is a fact. The magnitude is indeterminant due to the private nature of that business, but it does mean the #16 flag you keep waving is extremely irrelevant.

[iortiz]

Do you realize that an ownership stake in the regional broadcast network represents a source of revenues that you routinely and consistenly ignore? This is a fact. The magnitude is indeterminant due to the private nature of that business' date=' but it does mean the #16 flag you keep waving is extremely irrelevant.[/quote']

 

One thing is the broadcast company and another the team. If I want to buy you only the team, I do not care what is going on in your broadcast company. I want to know the ability that this team has to generate revenue. The team by itself. Hence, that #16 tells me something, but I will need a deeper analysis, though. Unless I want to buy you your broadcast company/share as well.

[User Name]

A team's ability to generate revenue is directly related to the size of their market (density + TV market) and their ability to sell tickets. Neither of those, however, is the only determinant to defining a team's market status.

[iortiz]

The ability to generate revenue in a company (beyond the industry) is the key element to evaluate the size of a company. You consider other aspects as well, though. Agree.

[Spudboy]

Eye corumba!

[iortiz]

I think you meant, Ay caramba!

 

AsI es, Ay Caramba!

[mvp 78]

Copy and pasting from other sources doesn't make you sound smarter. Revenue recognition for American companies isn't the same as Mexican and other foreign companies as they fall under different accounting standards. Throwing concepts at a wall to see which ones will stick is no way to have an efective conversation about something.

 

My point all along has been that the Nationals are not a small market team since they are in DC. They don't have a huge following because they've only been around a few years and are in the O's backyard. However, by infusing capital in the team and generating fan excitement, the overall prospects for the Nationals doing well in DC are fairly high. However, infusing capital into a small market team (i.e. Rays) will not help as there just isn't enough of a market to keep attendence and tv ratings high enough to support a large payroll. The DC area is well populated and affluent enough to support a baseball team with a 150M payroll. Tampa is not.

[iortiz]

Copy and pasting from other sources doesn't make you sound smarter. Revenue recognition for American companies isn't the same as Mexican and other foreign companies as they fall under different accounting standards. Throwing concepts at a wall to see which ones will stick is no way to have an efective conversation about something.

 

I'm not copying and pasting anything. Tell me from where I'm copying and pasting?. If you can not prove it, I'll call you lair. That would be another fact. Instead of making accusations bring substance to the debate. You have not.

 

Besides, Do you realize that Mexico is a USA's top 1-3 business partner (number 3, If I remember well)? Tons of large private american companies operate in Mexico and are adopting those rules and their policies of revenue recognition are following those standards. That is a fact. Again, I'm not copying anything, that is common knowladge in our business environment. Do I sound smart? That is your call, no mine.

My point all along has been that the Nationals are not a small market team since they are in DC. They don't have a huge following because they've only been around a few years and are in the O's backyard. However, by infusing capital in the team and generating fan excitement, the overall prospects for the Nationals doing well in DC are fairly high. However, infusing capital into a small market team (i.e. Rays) will not help as there just isn't enough of a market to keep attendence and tv ratings high enough to support a large payroll. The DC area is well populated and affluent enough to support a baseball team with a 150M payroll. Tampa is not.

 

You refuse to see the facts. You run from the true. You insist in turning your lie in a true. That is called fallacy. The key element in order to rate the size of a company is from their ability to generate revenue. It doesn't matter where it operates (plays). Period. Read your economics books. it goes beyond the business. It goes beyond the industry.

 

Is DC an interesting potential market place? Sounds like it is. THEY NEED TO GAIN THAT MARKET, THEY HAVEN'T. How do I know that? Nobody follows them. How does their revenue comes from? From air? It comes from their customers. Who are their customers? Their fans/followers. In a stand alone scenario, today, The Washington Nationals is closer to small market teams. That is a fact. I already showed you several numbers and perspectives. Don't believe me? Forbes has made the job for you, look at it.

 

On the other hand, ORS has been saying that Forbes doesn't consider their revenue generated from its broadcast share. If I want to buy the Nats and only the Nats, this broadcast share doesn't matter to me at all. If I want to buy you only the team, my major concern will be Nats' ability to generate revenue by itself. They have a huge issue in that regard since nobody follows them. Will their fans (customers=revenue) follow them, if they invest? I have no idea.

 

Besides

 

1. This 13% broadcast share value is unknown.

2. He said that They just renegotiated their contract this offseason, Will it impact 2012 Nats? I do not know. if yes, For How much? Again, I do not know.

3. How much of this 13% value/revenue is directly related with the team? I do not know. How is this revenue accounted and how this revenue recognition will be applied? I do not know.

4.- All these speculation put them in a better position (size)? For 6th time, I do not know.

 

Sail in that see is clearly uncertain, it opens tons of speculation in both ways, reason why my whole analysis has been in a stand alone scenario using hard data; facts.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Why is it that every time I read this subforum, I want to light myself on fire?

[Youk Of The Nation]

Why is it that every time I read this subforum' date=' I want to light myself on fire?[/quote']

 

...because the subliminal messaging is working?