Nationals to Sign Edwin jackson

[iortiz]

********' date=' I'm asking direct questions now and all I get is nonsense about how I spend my free time. Your answer is not there, because if it was, you'd spit it out. You are spinning your wheels looking for traction.[/quote']

 

My direct answer is in the whole thread. Read it. Do not be lazy. I won't quote the whole thread.

[ORS]

My direct answer is in the whole thread. Read it. Do not be lazy. I won't quote the whole thread.

Nope, I think you are avoiding, so now I will not read it on principle.

[iortiz]

The amount attributable to the Nats market is $163 million. The lowest market amount for the top ten teams is 138% of that for the Nats. The Sox figure is almost 2 1/2 times that size and the Yanks is 5 times larger. From the Nats on down those figures are fairly compressed (bunched together) as is the portion of their value attributable to their brand management. They are way closer to being a small market team than a big market. They are far from the big market franchises at this point in time.

 

He refuses to see the facts. All He does is throw out hidden revenues that he doesn't even know.

[ORS]

The amount attributable to the Nats market is $163 million. The lowest market amount for the top ten teams is 138% of that for the Nats. The Sox figure is almost 2 1/2 times that size and the Yanks is 5 times larger. From the Nats on down those figures are fairly compressed (bunched together) as is the portion of their value attributable to their brand management. They are way closer to being a small market team than a big market. They are far from the big market franchises at this point in time.

Network, network, network.......

[iortiz]

Nope' date=' I think you are avoiding, so now I will not read it on principle.[/quote']

 

You avoid the facts. Nats are not a big market team. No in this planet.

[iortiz]

Network' date=' network, network.......[/quote']

 

is MASN a public company?

[ORS]

He refuses to see the facts. All He does is throw out hidden revenues that he doesn't even know.

Hidden, what are you talking about? Forbes directly mentions that ownership of the regional broadcast network is how teams fill the revenue gaps and how reported revenues do not represent actual values. I'm not making this up. It's not hidden. It's common knowledge. You are the one using supporting information that does not account for this data.

[iortiz]

Hidden' date=' what are you talking about? Forbes directly mentions that ownership of the regional broadcast network is how teams fill the revenue gaps and how reported revenues do not represent actual values. I'm not making this up. It's not hidden. It's common knowledge. You are the one using supporting information that does not account for this data.[/quote']

 

What is the value?

[ORS]

is MASN a public company?

To my knowledge, no. It is owned jointly by the Baltimore Orioles and the Washington Nationals.

[ORS]

What is the value?

This is a very open question, what are you looking for? Value of the network? No idea, check Forbes, but that is unlikely to give you anything useful. Value added to the baseball team? That's discretionary to ownership and likely not public information.

 

EDIT: However, Forbes has speculated that YES adds as much as $400M in revenues to the Yankees baseball operations. I fully admit, I do not expect MASN to add nearly that much value, but a reasonable fraction of that, even if you cut it in half (because of the Orioles), is nothing to ignore.

[ORS]

You avoid the facts. Nats are not a big market team. No in this planet.

Opinion.....a poorly formed one at that. The key components of your argument are Forbes valuations that do not account for a large source of revenues and popularity which is irrelevant.

 

Again, tell me how international popularity benefits the NYY revenues over the Nats revenues?

[iortiz]

To my knowledge' date=' no. It is owned jointly by the Baltimore Orioles and the Washington Nationals.[/quote']

 

All you say is speculation then... unless you audit them.

 

We only know that they are #16 forbes team. A700 already put some benchamarking. I put the Nats in a world wide perspective and they are nothing. They are nothing even in the US. Nobody gives a damn about them even in their own town. Investing in advertising in a Nat game is not attractive at all, again, since nobody gives a damn about them, hence MASN has a challenge there. They are a young franchise which is commencing to invest. Get followers going to take time. You refuse to accept the true, they are not a big market team.

[ORS]

All you say is speculation then... unless you audit them.

 

We only know that they are #16 forbes team. A700 already put some benchamarking. I put the Nats in a world wide perspective and they are nothing. They are nothing even in the US. Nobody gives a damn about them even in their own town. Investing in advertising in a Nat game is not attractive at all, again, since nobody gives a damn about them, hence MASN has a challenge there. They are a young franchise which is commencing to invest. Get followers going to take time. You refuse to accept the true, they are not a big market team.

Pure foolishness.

[ORS]

All you say is speculation then... unless you audit them.

 

We only know that they are #16 forbes team. A700 already put some benchamarking. I put the Nats in a world wide perspective and they are nothing. They are nothing even in the US. Nobody gives a damn about them even in their own town. Investing in advertising in a Nat game is not attractive at all, again, since nobody gives a damn about them, hence MASN has a challenge there. They are a young franchise which is commencing to invest. Get followers going to take time. You refuse to accept the true, they are not a big market team.

Why don't you answer my question about international popularity since it is such a big component in your argument?

[a700hitter]

He refuses to see the facts. All He does is throw out hidden revenues that he doesn't even know.

None of the values back up the notion of the Nats as a Big Market team. All of the reported values reflect that they are not a Big Market team. Add to that the fact that they are 14th out of 16 in league attendance ahead of only the Pirates and the Marlins, and it is obvious that their market footprint is not close to the big market teams. Should they be a big market team? I don't know the answer to that. Their is a dense population (almost 6 million), but Nats have not been able to tap into that. They are making moves and building an exciting team to try to build a following. Will it happen? Maybe. As I said earlier, it helps them that the O's suck balls. As of now, they are not a Big Market team. There is nothing to support that they are. A big population doesn't always translate to a big market for a team.

[a700hitter]

Network' date=' network, network.......[/quote']let's see figures.

[iortiz]

Pure foolishness.

 

Trying to put the Nats in the same level where NYY are (big market team) is not logic at all.

[iortiz]

None of the values back up the notion of the Nats as a Big Market team. All of the reported values reflect that they are not a Big Market team. Add to that the fact that they are 14th out of 16 in league attendance ahead of only the Pirates and the Marlins' date=' and it is obvious that their market footprint is not close to the big market teams. Should they be a big market team? I don't know the answer to that. Their is a dense population (almost 6 million), but Nats have not been able to tap into that. They are making moves and building an exciting team to try to build a following. Will it happen? Maybe. As I said earlier, it helps them that the O's suck balls. As of now, they are not a Big Market team. There is nothing to support that they are. [b']A big population doesn't always translate to a big market for a team.[/b]

 

Yup, Look at Toros Neza (mexican soccer team). They play in the biggest city of the world (population) and they are a very very small market team here and have a lot of money (Carlos Slim is the Owner who btw has a telco and network company among a lot of companies). I already put a lot of examples as well, in other sports and countries. LA Clippers, El Atletico de Madrid, Everton, etc; they play in big market territories but they are not big market teams at all.

[mvp 78]

The Clippers. You are still clueless. Justbecause you don't think a team is popular, doesn't mean they are a small market.

 

Would you have called the Rangers or Angels small market teams 2 years ago?

[a700hitter]

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

 

The skinny

Do not expect a repeat of the Red Sox missing the postseason in 2011. During the off-season, Red Sox majority owner John Henry opened up his wallet and signed free agent star outfielder Carl Crawford to a $142 million, 7-year deal. He also traded for first baseman Adrian Gonzalez who reportedly has a 7-year, $154 million deal that is waiting to be signed. Henry can afford it. Last spring The New York Times Company, which at the time owned 17.8% of Red Sox parent New England Sports Ventures, sold 1.2% of NESV to venture capitalist Henry McCance for $14 million. That deal placed an implied valuation on NESV of $1.2 billion. NESV also owns 80% of the New England Sports Network and 50% of Roush Fenway Racing (a NASCAR racing team).

 

Here's what it says about the Yankees:

 

The skinny

Yankee Global Enterprises is a three-engine money-making machine. The baseball team generated $325 million in revenue from regular-season tickets and luxury suites in 2010. The YES Network, the team's 34%-owned regional sports channel, is the most profitable RSN in the country and had over $400 million in revenue last year. The Yankees own a stake in Legends Hospitality Management, which manages stadiums, and generates $25 million in operating income. The enterprise value for the Yankees, YES and Legends is $5.1 billion. Although highly leveraged with $1.6 billion in debt (including Yankee Stadium's PILOT bonds), the team's enormous cash flow has easily covered the $64 million in stadium debt service payments.

 

Here's what it says about theNats:

 

The skinny

The Nationals showed some improvement last season by not losing 100 games (69-93) for the first time since 2007. And there are some signs the team is making important strides both through the draft and free agent signings. Last season young pitching sensation Stephen Strasburg showed great promise before hurting his arm (he might return late in the 2011 season). The latest phenom is 18-year outfielder Bryce Harper who is destined for the minors this year, but should be a building block in the majors for years to come. In December the Nationals broke out the checkbook to sign former Phillies outfielder Jayson Werth to a seven-year, $126 million contract. It is the biggest contract ever handed out by the franchise.

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?

[iortiz]

A700, The Clippers joins to the Nats as another big market team. At this pace, very soon, out there won't be small market teams

[iortiz]

Why don't you answer my question about international popularity since it is such a big component in your argument?

 

I already did. You are lazy. You do not want to read. On the other hand, Still waiting those revenues and sources.

[a700hitter]

The Clippers. You are still clueless. Justbecause you don't think a team is popular, doesn't mean they are a small market.

 

Would you have called the Rangers or Angels small market teams 2 years ago?

Teams have moved from major population centers before. The Dodgers and the Giants moved from NY when NY's population was 8 million and the population of Brooklyn was 3 million. While their population didn't shrink, their market shrunk for a number of demographic reasons, not the least of which was that families with disposable income were migrating to the suburbs. They were both successful competitive teams chock full of exciting stars, but they lost their market. Population size doesn't directly correlate to market size.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

LA Clippers' date=' El Atletico de Madrid, Everton, etc; they play in big market territories but they are not big market teams at all.[/quote']

 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IdBChZzJQww/TjTea6JwLgI/AAAAAAAAAWg/NClwpye5yhM/s640/jackie-chan-meme.png

[a700hitter]

A700' date=' The Clippers joins to the Nats as another big market team. At this pace, very soon, out there won't be small market teams [/quote']Los Angeles is a big city, but they don't have an NFL team. They are one of the largest cities and surrounding Metropolitan areas. Yet, there is no NFL owner that could tap into that market. Is LA a big football market? If population directly correlates to market size for sports franchises, may someone can explain to me why there is no NFL team in Los Angeles.

[a700hitter]

Show some figures to support the claim that the Nats are a big market. Please. I have put out a bunch of data that indicates otherwise. Where's are the figures proving the cases.

 

I guess ORS went back to playing video games. He presented absolutely nothing except population figures and mysterious unpublished unreported information about MASN.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

The Nationals play in Washington. Washington is a big market. The Nationals draw from Washington, which is a big market. Therefore, they're a big market team.

 

How the f*** could this be the least bit difficult to understand?

[Emmz]

Los Angeles is a big city' date=' but they don't have an NFL team. They are one of the largest cities and surrounding Metropolitan areas. Yet, there is no NFL owner that could tap into that market. Is LA a big football market? If population directly correlates to market size for sports franchises, may someone can explain to me why there is no NFL team in Los Angeles.[/quote']

 

Because the 49ers, Chargers and Raiders are all there. The Raiders and the Rams all took a shot, but LA is still a large market, which whatever team that plays there would inherit. Regardless, its right here that it becomes a subjective term.

[iortiz]

Los Angeles is a big city' date=' but they don't have an NFL team. They are one of the largest cities and surrounding Metropolitan areas. Yet, there is no NFL owner that could tap into that market. Is LA a big football market? If population directly correlates to market size for sports franchises, may someone can explain to me why there is no NFL team in Los Angeles.[/quote']

 

Raiders used to play in LA, didn't they? ...

 

Yes, population is one thing. Small/Big market team is another and big/small market territory is another completely different thing. Yes, sometimes they are correlated. Yes, thier Fan base an media market play a key roll too. Their world wide exposure is strategic and important. Only a handful of teams are big market teams, though.

[Emmz]

Raiders used to play in LA, didn't they? ...

 

Yes, population is one thing. Small/Big market team is another and big/small market territory is another completely different thing. Yes they are correlated. Yes, thier Fan base an media market play a key roll too. Their world wide exposure is strategic and important. Only a handful of teams are big market teams, though.

 

They were in Oakland, then LA, then back to Oakland. The Rams were there for ages, and the Chargers I believe were originally from LA as well.