|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 9, 2020 9:20:51 GMT -5
Another option I would like to explore is setting local media revenue to zero and equally sharing national media revenue. Media revenue is another financial component that is further driving the wedge between the top and bottom teams. I actually prefer this to increasing revenue sharing. On the surface this appears to be primarily driven by market size which is very slow to move one way or the other. It is less coupled with the success of a franchise than revenue.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 10, 2020 18:18:44 GMT -5
Any chance we could learn the two figures involved?
The League Governance suggests: Average media contract is $30,000,000 Media contract based on market size
I assume that is the "National Media Contract" (as the market size relates to that)? Is there a Local Media Contract number (Which are most definitely related to team market size)?
In PBL the range is $93.75M down to $28.75M.
If, for example, we at least changed the setting from market size to the other option, "same for every team" that would help a little bit and be a simply market correction on a number the individual GM's can affect very little.
A better suggestion would be to put everyone on the same "media" contract footing by totaling both numbers (Nat and Loc), and using that as "same for every team (and zero the other).
Again, without some other tweaks (cash max, owner control) this has minimal impact for those whose owner would take away anyway, but certainly a low impact change?
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 10, 2020 19:05:06 GMT -5
Current settings are:
National Media Contract Baseline: $18,750,000 National Media Contract Fixed: Yes, same for every team Local Media Contract Baseline: $20,000,000 Merchandising Revenue Baseline: $10,000,000
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 10, 2020 19:13:33 GMT -5
Thanks. So the rules are incorrect. At least unclear. But an even simpler tweak. Put both numbers on the NAT line (one could even round to $40M) and all teams would use that number going forward? Not a huge concession for the largest markets, smallest benefit a tiny bit, those in the middle virtually unaffected anyway.
Curious where that NAT number even came from?
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Mar 10, 2020 19:47:43 GMT -5
Please bear in mind that, while most teams won't change much, the Yankees will be absolutely creamed by this, probably to the tune of $40M+. That's one team, but it's a little more than "not a huge concession".
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Mar 10, 2020 21:46:24 GMT -5
I'm really confused why we are entertaining an idea that all markets are equal?
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 10, 2020 22:14:45 GMT -5
Just a suggestion.
Just seems odd that day one of the off-season one teams media revenue alone surpasses the entire revenue of three teams and almost a fourth.
Possibly just adjusting the fixed National budget up a bit? The number now is rather random or someone used some sort of formula to determine it?
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Mar 10, 2020 22:19:30 GMT -5
Just a suggestion. Just seems odd that day one of the off-season one teams media revenue alone surpasses the entire revenue of three teams and almost a fourth. Possibly just adjusting the fixed National budget up a bit? The number now is rather random or someone used some sort of formula to determine it? What seems odd to me is that you've had no problem with that as the Yankees in the ABL, but take issue with it here. I believe your revenue with the Yankees media contract is nearly bigger than half of the teams payrolls in that league, a league in which was created with very similar financials to this one.
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Mar 11, 2020 5:46:17 GMT -5
I'm really confused why we are entertaining an idea that all markets are equal? I think it is a tricky argument to claim that media earnings should be equal. However, I think it's also unrealistic to claim that media earnings are solely limited by the size of the city the team is in. That kind of thinking is highly based on the idea of local TV stations paying to show ball games. But, I've been paying MLB.TV to let me stream Red Sox games, even though I haven't lived in Boston for the last 15 years. So it's not that all markets are equal, but rather, it's that location no longer is the be-all-end-all for determining how media dollars are spent. So, my question is going to be, are we trying to replicate how the system makes money in our present day? If so, it seems to me that a realistic media earning situation would be determined by three factors: 1) Local TV contracts. A local team only showing it's games on a local station. The amount earned would definitely be based on market size. 2) National TV contracts. For example, Sunday night games on Fox. These don't discriminate between markets, and would be doled out (more or less) equally. 3) National streaming media. So a diehard Reds fan in Spokane can still pay for the chance to watch his team play online. This seems like it would primarily be based on fan loyalty. Though I'm unsure if that's even a thing the Commish can do. Currently, 1) and 2) are still ascendant, though 3) is catching up. On the other hand, if we are trying to imagine how the system makes money in 2053, that's another story. In that case, I believe TV would be less relevant that it currently is and streaming more so. Though, of course, I can't read the future or anything.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 11, 2020 5:58:41 GMT -5
Just a suggestion. Just seems odd that day one of the off-season one teams media revenue alone surpasses the entire revenue of three teams and almost a fourth. Possibly just adjusting the fixed National budget up a bit? The number now is rather random or someone used some sort of formula to determine it? What seems odd to me is that you've had no problem with that as the Yankees in the ABL, but take issue with it here. I believe your revenue with the Yankees media contract is nearly bigger than half of the teams payrolls in that league, a league in which was created with very similar financials to this one. Sean,
Focus! One has nothing to do with the other. Not that everyone needs to know about conversations we have had in an entirely different league that have zero to do with this one, but I have repeatedly said I am willing to look at exactly what is being looked at here.
Maybe if you contributed with an idea, it might work in both?
|
|
|
Post by craigWhiteSox on Mar 11, 2020 11:04:15 GMT -5
Yes, Sean focus! We should all be concerned on how to make Montreal good. Don’t convolute the thread with salient points about how David has no issue with the way the finances work in the league where he’s the Yankees (the big bad budget monster). Wants budget changes in THIS league where he has the lowest budget (due to no one else’s fault but his own) however, these budget changes should NOT be in the best interest of the league as a whole, remember, don’t float ALL boats. Just float the Montreal boat, just that one. Stay on topic, Sean
|
|
|
Post by NickP_Marlins GM on Mar 11, 2020 15:07:17 GMT -5
Yes, Sean focus! We should all be concerned on how to make Montreal good. Don’t convolute the thread with salient points about how David has no issue with the way the finances work in the league where he’s the Yankees (the big bad budget monster). Wants budget changes in THIS league where he has the lowest budget (due to no one else’s fault but his own) however, these budget changes should NOT be in the best interest of the league as a whole, remember, don’t float ALL boats. Just float the Montreal boat, just that one. Stay on topic, Sean Couldn’t agree more! 💯!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 11, 2020 19:22:37 GMT -5
Seriously guys? Don't pile on and don't be dicks. If it's not productive keep it to yourself or in DMs.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Mar 11, 2020 19:44:43 GMT -5
I will say, David's voice is needed in this league and is welcomed from my point of view. I like his ability to logically present his opinions. It doesn't mean everyone has to agree, but it is healthy to have all opinions shared.
|
|
|
Post by kendalld00(GM for hire) on Mar 12, 2020 22:13:05 GMT -5
I made this suggestion to Derek about 8 seasons ago when the Cardinals were in the bottom of the budgets.. If we just cap the bottom of the media revenue at $40M, that would help the bottom 10-12 teams in the league. David and I also had this conversation when he took over the ABL as a possible solution, but we didn't want to change the rules that mirrored the PBL.
|
|