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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

People hate Red Sox fans? Why would they do? Hate is not a good thing.

At this point I wouldn't disagree

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.

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.

Interesting story. In a survey of nearly 200 senior marketing managers, 67 percent responded that they found the "dollar market share" metric very useful, while 61% found "unit market share" very useful. In other words, you can mesure you market share in both, Revenue (via your cutomers) or quantity (number of customers)... in the end, it is always related with customers. Professional sport teams need quantity. Followers. Fanbase. They do not exist without fans. Their revenue comes from them. The more fanbase you have the more customers you have. The more fans you have, the more people wach you. The more fans you have the more revenue you have. The more revenue you have, the more market share you have. The more market share you have, the more the value of your company is. You can operate in a big territory. You can operate in small territory. If you have no fans, if you have no one who watches you, if you have no customers, you won't have revenue. Hence your company loses value. Hence your company loses market. That's the value chain. Advise, take care your customers. They are the most important thing. (local/domestic/foreign). Big Market teams have in common a huge fanbase/followers (customers), beyond where they play. if they play in big market places/territory, doesn't guarantee a big market share=revenue=customers=fans. Plenty of examples are out there. We have mentioned several. Are fans/followers a good thermometer in order to rate the value/market share/coverage/importance/size of a professional sport team?. If you agree from what I said, the answer is pretty simple.

Yup, your customers is your market. Your potential market is your potential customers.

Who are the big market NFL teams? I bet the Cowboys are one of them.

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

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

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.

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