Forbes MLB Most Valuable Rankings: Jays 18th, Tampa dead last

[jaysfan2014]

http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/#page:1_sort:0_direction:asc_search:

 

2014 rankings, with the Yankees on top again, and the Dodgers 2nd. 10 of the teams are losing money, including the Yankees, Blue Jays and Dodgers. And you wonder why the Yanks refuse to go after Stephen Drew.

[G-Snarls]

I don't trust these "losing money" stories sometimes

 

There are so many ways to "hide" revenues to make it look like you're worse off than you are

[Dylan]

If rogers is willing to dish out more money, and if the jays can actually put a winning team for several years, the Jays could move up this chart pretty high.

[NorthOf49]

I don't trust these "losing money" stories sometimes

 

There are so many ways to "hide" revenues to make it look like you're worse off than you are

+1

 

Teams have a huge incentive to suppress their profits. I wouldn't look into the specific $ amounts that Forbes provides.

[jaysfan2014]

Well, that's true. We all remember the story about the Astros last year supposing to be very profitable.. when they weren't.

[G-Snarls]

Holy money

 

-

 

Even after kicking in $95 million towards the league’s 34% local revenue sharing pool and their $64 million PILOT bond payments for Yankee Stadium last season, the Bronx Bombers led the league in revenue ($461 million)

[JJippidy]

I don't trust these "losing money" stories sometimes

 

There are so many ways to "hide" revenues to make it look like you're worse off than you are

 

I'd be shocked if the Jays actually lose money, hard to imagine they aren't recouping that 15 million and then some after they sell themselves broadcast rights that are a fraction of what other teams get for substantially less viewers, even with differences in Canada US ad revenue rates.

[jaysfan2014]

I imagine we pay revenue sharing, which is why we're losing money.

[jaysfan2014]

Only ones I can see legitimately losing money are the Dodgers, Reds, Marlins, Royals and D-Backs, due to their market size.

[TheHurl]

Value of the team went up a solid percentage at least. People have to still look at that loss as a loss, they always showed a small profit in the past. They increased costs considerably for a very small revenue increase. Long term when the non baseball guys look at future payroll...they can see payroll goes up but income does not, no more increases (although the valuation does help even things out a bit). I remember a couple people talking about this last year and getting shut down.

[JJippidy]

I imagine we pay revenue sharing, which is why we're losing money.

 

Which is the benefit of paying yourself for your own TV rights, it protects the money not being shelled out from going into the shared revenue formulas.

 

This going forward is huge when in a couple years the formula changes for the large markets.

[jaysfan2014]

Teams like LA, Texas, Philly, etc. who sold TV rights are going to have to pay a lot of money to revenue sharing due to those big deals.

[JJippidy]

Value of the team went up a solid percentage at least. People have to still look at that loss as a loss, they always showed a small profit in the past. They increased costs considerably for a very small revenue increase. Long term when the non baseball guys look at future payroll...they can see payroll goes up but income does not, no more increases (although the valuation does help even things out a bit). I remember a couple people talking about this last year and getting shut down.

 

They're going to be getting tens of millions extra starting this season from the new national TV deal, right?, which is something I imagine was acknowledged during the budget expansion last year.

 

Even if we assume that the numbers Forbes came up with represent the actual value of the club to Rogers, though we shouldn't, this team is still reasonably positioned to be in the black this season with the new flow of money.

 

Frankly, a Jays team that is popular and losses a couple million is still of more value to Rogers than a Jays team that is unpopular and generates 20 million a year in profit.

 

Next to the billions Rogers rakes in the actual financial earning power of the Jays is minimal, the clubs significance is mostly in it's ability to cross-promote the brand.

 

Think of it this way, if networks are throwing around 100+ million a year to teams for their TV rights because they can make that back and then some from ad's then how much is the constant smattering of Rogers EVERYTHING worth during Jays broadcasts not to mention the teams ability to make all those extra channels viable during the summer months?

 

I'd say a lot more than the miniscule losses being suggested.

[jaysfan2014]

Exactly. And the Dodgers had that big loss because of an unsustainable payroll long-term(they're not even close to the Yankees in popularity or revenue), heavy revenue sharing and luxury taxes.

 

If you think the Jays did very little, the Dodgers have a cruddier bench than the Jays, as they barely added anyone this offseason, and their 2B are worse than Goins, such as Alex Guerrero, who's not even MLB-ready to play 2B.

 

And they have Chone Figgins on that roster.. they've actually sunk that low to bring in Chone Figgins. 29 other teams wouldn't even touch him.

[awsomest]

Value of the team went up a solid percentage at least. People have to still look at that loss as a loss, they always showed a small profit in the past. They increased costs considerably for a very small revenue increase. Long term when the non baseball guys look at future payroll...they can see payroll goes up but income does not, no more increases (although the valuation does help even things out a bit). I remember a couple people talking about this last year and getting shut down.

 

That loss is with a "$36 million" tv deal. Rogers is raking

[Stangstag]

Exactly. And the Dodgers had that big loss because of an unsustainable payroll long-term(they're not even close to the Yankees in popularity or revenue), heavy revenue sharing and luxury taxes.

 

If you think the Jays did very little, the Dodgers have a cruddier bench than the Jays, as they barely added anyone this offseason, and their 2B are worse than Goins, such as Alex Guerrero, who's not even MLB-ready to play 2B.

 

And they have Chone Figgins on that roster.. they've actually sunk that low to bring in Chone Figgins. 29 other teams wouldn't even touch him.

 

Shut up

[Stangstag]

They're going to be getting tens of millions extra starting this season from the new national TV deal, right?, which is something I imagine was acknowledged during the budget expansion last year.

 

Even if we assume that the numbers Forbes came up with represent the actual value of the club to Rogers, though we shouldn't, this team is still reasonably positioned to be in the black this season with the new flow of money.

 

Frankly, a Jays team that is popular and losses a couple million is still of more value to Rogers than a Jays team that is unpopular and generates 20 million a year in profit.

 

Next to the billions Rogers rakes in the actual financial earning power of the Jays is minimal, the clubs significance is mostly in it's ability to cross-promote the brand.

 

Think of it this way, if networks are throwing around 100+ million a year to teams for their TV rights because they can make that back and then some from ad's then how much is the constant smattering of Rogers EVERYTHING worth during Jays broadcasts not to mention the teams ability to make all those extra channels viable during the summer months?

 

I'd say a lot more than the miniscule losses being suggested.

 

Spot on

[TheHurl]

That loss is with a "$36 million" tv deal. Rogers is raking

 

I never said that Rogers isn't raking...it's that Rogers is raking at the same or less than what they were when the payroll was lower. Rumour was that 2013 it was $39 million which is still middle of the pack for MLB.

 

The best estimates I saw about TV rights was that on the open market it's estimated that the Jays would probably draw between 80 and 100 million on a 20 year deal. Which would lose that network money for the first few years of the deal. I'll find the article and post it

[JJippidy]

I never said that Rogers isn't raking...it's that Rogers is raking at the same or less than what they were when the payroll was lower. Rumour was that 2013 it was $39 million which is still middle of the pack for MLB.

 

It all goes back to the less tangible value though.

 

Is Rogers making less than before, that's possible or probable.

 

But like I said, I don't believe the value of the Jays is about the $39 million it can contribute to Rogers' multi-billion dollar profits.

 

The value is in having as many eyes watching the Jays as possible because that allows Rogers a platform to advertise their brand and provides a ton of content for their TV, radio, magazines, web etc.

 

I get that they're a public company and the team certainly can't justify the crazy 50 - 100 million dollar losses like it was way back when.

 

But those were legitimate losses back then, now the landscape has evolved so much, truly massively, that I have to believe 15 million in losses or 40 million in profit are no longer the important numbers. It's viewership, SN1 subscribers, web hits... and keeping those numbers healthy are more important than the manufactured numbers the club reports.

 

If they can do it cheaper, then they may, but I also have to believe they understand that sometimes it'll cost to keep the engine going and if things really get going they know they're going to cash in huge.