Angels and Fox Sports new TV deal

[irishff1014]

LA Times is reporting that the deal is 20 year 3 billion dollars WOW

Angels' deals with Pujols, C.J. Wilson enabled by TV deal - latimes.com

 

[irishff1014]

The Perfect Storm and Why We Should Have Seen the Angels Coming

 

[irishog77]

Guess this helps with the devastating blow they will receive from these overpriced contracts.

(That overpriced bit isn't my opinion, but certainly of some on here as to how they'll be wasting/losing money)

 

[Carlyle Javar Holiday]

There is an extra $100m a year.

 

[woolybug25]

Dude. You are terrible at math. The deal they opted out of, but must maintain until 2014, is $80mm a year. So getting a $150mm a year deal ($3B/20) is $70mm increase. This deal has also not officially been announced, so it may or may not be the actual number.

So this contract, if true. Would only move them into the black as far as revenue, and it wouldnt do so until 2014. So they will need the extra revenue to make up for the 3 years of losing signigicant money because of their spending spree.

I know you dig the Angels, fine. But can you please do at least the bare minimum of math before starting another useless thread about the Angels?

 

[irishff1014]

I didn't do any math these are both links. And if didn't care about the Angels or the deal you shouldn't have cliked on the title

 

[ACamp1900]

Moreno could have made this work without this deal, that's what people are missing... he told his new GM to make it happen (winning) period... this contract only makes it easier. Moreno has very deep pockets to begin with.

 

[woolybug25]

I didn't do any math these are both links. And if didn't care about the Angels or the deal you shouldn't have cliked on the title

I do care about the Pujols deal because I am a Cards fan. My comment to Carlyle is just a continuation from our conversation from that thread. You would know that if you were actually part of the conversation.


Didnt realize that you were the one that started the thread, not Carlyle. So sorry about that. Either way though. There is another thread that talks in depth about this, so that would have been a better place to post this.

 

[irishff1014]

My bad i didn't see it.

 

[woolybug25]

Moreno could have made this work without this deal, that's what people are missing... he told his new GM to make it happen (winning) period... this contract only makes it easier. Moreno has very deep pockets to begin with.

These contracts are not sustainable without this tv deal, and the extra millions of this deal wont benefit the Angels until at least three seasons after it starts in '14. Until that time, they will be taking significant losses considering they only made $12mm of profit last season with a payroll of $142mm. They will now have a bear minimum of $170mm of payroll. So they will need to make up that deficit for the first few years of the new contract.

 

[ACamp1900]

Few points:
-They have good attendance, but the numbers were actually down last year... every game will sell out this year...
-Merchandise sales will go up... a lot
-Food and bev prices will go up, but not anything like haters here are suggesting...
-Many different factors come into play, such as contracts coming off the books, contracts coming on, a number of different factors...
-Again, Moreno's pockets are very deep, he, like the Yankees ownership can actually take a loss with his team and not worry about it... not that he has done that, or will do that, but there is that to consider.

and honestly wooly, from the comments I have read in different threads discussing this, I just sense a lot of sour grapes... you are the defending world champions... enjoy it... we will enjoy a great offseason of free agent signings.

 

[Carlyle Javar Holiday]

Dude. You are terrible at math. The deal they opted out of, but must maintain until 2014, is $80mm a year. So getting a $150mm a year deal ($3B/20) is $70mm increase. This deal has also not officially been announced, so it may or may not be the actual number.

So this contract, if true. Would only move them into the black as far as revenue, and it wouldnt do so until 2014. So they will need the extra revenue to make up for the 3 years of losing signigicant money because of their spending spree.

I know you dig the Angels, fine. But can you please do at least the bare minimum of math before starting another useless thread about the Angels?

Your numbers are wrong. The old tv deal was $500m/10yrs or $50m/yr. New tv deal is $3b/20yrs or $150m/yr. You do that math. You can prove me wrong if you want. I could care less but those are the numbers. And who is to say that the Angels are not getting money upfront like McCourt wanted so he could pay off his debts. Dodgers new contract should net upwards of $4b/20yrs. They are going on a shopping spree soon too. Again, I don't know where you got your numbers from.

The Angels new TV deal more than pays for Albert Pujols and C.J. Wilson | HardballTalk

Los Angeles Angels New TV Deal Worth $3 Billion Over 20 Years, Per Report - SB Nation Los Angeles

 

[woolybug25]

Few points:
-They have good attendance, but the numbers were actually down last year... every game will sell out this year...
-Merchandise sales will go up... a lot
-Food and bev prices will go up, but not anything like haters here are suggesting...
-Many different factors come into play, such as contracts coming off the books, contracts coming on, a number of different factors...
-Again, Moreno's pockets are very deep, he, like the Yankees ownership can actually take a loss with his team and not worry about it... not that he has done that, or will do that, but there is that to consider.

and honestly wooly, from the comments I have read in different threads discussing this, I just sense a lot of sour grapes... you are the defending world champions... enjoy it... we will enjoy a great offseason of free agent signings.

It's not sour grapes, its simple math. All being the same, they will take heavy losses until then. Let me address your other points.

- Attendence: The Angels had the 5th highest attendence in MLB last year with 99% capacity. So how do you see that drastically improving?
- Merchandise: Given
- Food: Sounds like we agree
- Contacts: Go look at their actual contracts. The best decrease will be Wells, but that wont happen until the new TV contract kicks in, so it wont help them avoid losses in the next few years.
- Moreno: Lets not compare Moreno to Steinbrenner. Most of all because its moot. The Yankees can take on their contracts not because of deep owner pockets, but because their revenues support it.

Am I pissed we lost Pujols, sure. But I am not pissed that my team refused to take on this type of financial burden. Everybody's excuses for why this is ok is based off of "hopes" and "should happen's". My points are on math and facts.

 

[Carlyle Javar Holiday]

And wooly, I am not arguing that the Angels did not overpay because they did. Unfortunately for Cardinals fans, Angels now have the luxury to overpay now. I would expect the Dodgers to follow suit as well when they sign there tv deal. I am sure that the Pujols signing for the Angels bumped the tv number up because they now have a superstar that is a marketable product on tv and advertisement.