dont believe the reds can't pay
We're hearing already about how the Reds won't be spending on free agents or making trades involving big-salary players. Here's what we're not hearing: The money they'll get from revenue sharing and the Internet and satellite radio and the nearly across-the-board increase in their ticket prices.
Getting this info is close to impossible, mainly because teams don't want you to know how awash in cash baseball is. The closest I could get was this:
In 2006, the Pirates got $24 mil in rev sharing, the Brewers 23mil... that would seem to place the Reds in the $20 mil range... Buster Olney on ESPN.com apparently has reported that each team will realize somewhere close to $30mil from mlb.com and its affiliates... that doesnt include satellite radio rights fees and money from jacking ticket prices... so let's start at an extra 50 mil for the Reds this year...
sound like they're strapped to you?
If anyone out there knows where to confirm this, I'm listening. I've Googled my little fingers off the last few days...
Nothing worse than rich people, crying poverty... the local NFL monopoly has made a career of it.
posted by Paul Daugherty at 8:53 AM
18 Comments:
at 9:53 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11:01 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 12:11 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 3:00 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 6:25 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 7:38 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 7:39 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11:11 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 7:32 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 8:07 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 2:21 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 3:39 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 4:01 PM 
Paul Daugherty said...
-
-
at 6:02 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 7:23 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 6:49 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 9:07 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 9:30 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
Post a Comment*Hi Paul,
Just wanted to thank you for your great work at The Enquire and WLW. At least somebody has the BALLS to give us Reds fans facts. Since obviously Cashllini and Wayne won't. Look Reds fans this team has stunk the last few years. These Rich arrogant owners only want money, and they're getting it in many other ways besides ticket sales. Thanks @$$holes for raising ticket prices again. And STILL WE HAVE No pitching, besides Harang to compete next year. Reds will easily finish 5th or Last if they don't spend money on pitching. REDS FAN 1974
Paul, great topic. Try to get ahold of noted baseball economist Andrew Zimbalist for all of these answers. If you strike out, on a local level there is a professor at NKU in the Sports Marketing Business College named Matt Shank(sp) who is very knowledgable on these things. But hopefully you can treat this entire topic objectively, because you may find that the Reds have felt it necessary to accept undermarket deals from WLW and Foxsports. Hopefully your conflict of interest will not prevent Daaaaarryl Paaaaarks from allowing you to do this topic justice.
All good points Paul. When talking about revenue sharing and satellite radio money, it's probably safe to assume that the Reds will get similar to what they got last year. So that isn't new money that we should expect to raise the payroll.
www.hoovers.com has a full report you can buy on Cincinnati Reds LLC. Not sure if it includes detailed financial statements (versus rough estimates). I emailed them to ask before spending $69 bucks.
I also checked the Edgar database at http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html to see if they had to issue any financial statements with the SEC, given they have multiple shareholders. I did not see anything out there.
I did notice on Hoovers that there are different D&B reports for the Reds here in Cincinnati, the Reds in Sarasota, and the HoF Museum. Don't forget about the take from Spring Training in FL, merchandise, endorsements, etc. Whew, it has to be a big number, even with ~20K average fans per game.
Paul,
You do a great job - one of only two columnists (posnanski being the other) that I'll actively seek out to read.
12:11 makes an interesting observation - Sure, the reds will get money from revenue sharing, sattelite radio etc, but didn't they also get at least some of that money last year? So it's not all entirely new money...
Still, I'm sure the Reds executives are a long way from the poor house.
Go get 'em, PDaug!
As you alluded, I personally believe the Bengals financials would be breath-taking.
If that were ever exposed, no one would put up with the mess we have.
Go get 'em, PDaug!
As you alluded, I personally believe the Bengals financials would be breath-taking.
If that were ever exposed, no one would put up with the mess we have.
Major league sports franchises allow rich people to buy monopolies. Some of them like to win, and they make it a priority. Others like to make money, and that is their priority.
I imagine this will all continue until someone(s) does something to change that equation.
Pro Basketball has lost me. I didn't watch one single game last year.
I love baseball, though. I grew up with the Reds like so many around here. I did one game last year, though. It was just too painful watching a lousy team.
The Bengals? I've stopped intentionally watching their programming. It's not very exciting.
They will bore me into some alternate amusement, and then they'll have lost me until they do something to get my attention.
I don't know that that works for others, but it does for me.
Marvin Lewis and Wayne Krivsky are driving me crazy with their attitude and silence. I wish they could get a taste of the New York, Boston or Chicago press. They would be eaten alive. Is it too much for them to answer a question other than "I'm not saying."
The Bengals still stink.
I'm the first to admit I have a bad memory, so someone help me here: How many big name, high paid, free agent pitchers have really worked out well for the acquiring club lately? We all agree that the Reds need starting pitching (who doesn't?). But, even if they have $100 million laying around, who is out there that will really help? And, if they spend the money on a bust, the same people here complaining that they're not spending will be complaining that they spent foolishly. High priced free agent pitching is fool's gold.
Let's review the facts ...
(1) In the early 1990's, Mike Brown started a public campaign for a new stadium, arguing that the Bengals could not draw enough revenues from Riverfront Stadium/Cinergy Field to be competitive.
(2) By the mid-1990's, this campaign turned into veiled and not-so-veiled threats of both professional teams (Bengals and Reds) leaving, because they could not be competitive at Cinergy.
(3) Paul, your employers (Enquirer and WLW) strongly supported the stadium tax, as did probably many of the sports fans who are now complaining about these mediocre teams that are keeping all of these revenues (and let's just ignore the increase in the value of their franchise for the moment).
(4) Both franchise perform the same, or worse, than they did at Cinergy Field, and neither franchise is ANY closer to seriously competing for anything.
(5) The owners of these franchises are keeping the extra cash, rather than making their teams competitive.
(6) We are STILL paying for the construction of Riverfront/Cinergy Field, which no longer even exists.
(7) Our grandchildren will be paying for the nearly $1 Billion dollars in stadia costs, now sitting on our riverfront.
(8) The only way to make a meaningful statement to the ownership of the Reds and Bengals is for local fans to stop attending the games, stop watching the games on television, stop purchasing the merchandise, stop reading your articles about the team.
(9) If that would happen, which it never will, the ownership would threaten to move the franchises due to lack of fan support. My guess is that there is provisions in both lease agreements that give them this right (for the same reason that it cost $12 to attend a high school game at PBS this weekend).
(10) And IF that ever happened, if the fans ever sent such a message, with the normal and expect reactions and veiled and not-so-veiled threats by ownership ...
You and your employers would back the teams again.
Hey, 221... who said anything about free agents?
Paul,
I rented "Diner" based on your recommendation. I was confused as to how there could be an "ultimate guy movie" out there that I hadn't seen. I figured it was worth a shot.
I've got to tell you... I don't think it was very good. No wonder it doesn't pop up on cable all that often. Interesting cast, but not a laugh-out-loud moment in the whole movie. And what kind of guy movie culminates with some soft piano music and a wedding bouquet landing slow-motion amongst the fellas. What was that supposed to mean? Time for them to grow up? That's no theme for a guy move!
Give me slapstick comedy and/or nudity. This movie had neither. Stay away folks, stay away!
Paul:
You know I admire your work. I'm glad you finally agreed with me that Reds ownership is amateurs, it took you from early spring when i pointed it out to you untill almost season's end. We have two of the worst ownership groups in pro sports, and nobody forced them to become owners.FH
Trade Griffey for pitching--nuff said...
Paul -
You asked me at 4:01 who said anything about free agents. You did - check out the first line of your original entry.
Rich companies getting richer 1 Whether Gannett, Bengals, Clear Channel , or Reds, same story different day
* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.
By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site. << Home