Royals Royals worth $700M according to Forbes - Page 3

Hootie · 03-25-2015, 01:37 PM

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/12...orbes-magazine

...which means Glass could surely sell the Royals for $1B (minimum)

which means Glass ROI is INSANE

which means we should never hear this asshole ever tell us "we don't have the $$$" again. So far he's off to a good start.

SPchief · 03-25-2015, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good

We've let James Shields and Ervin Santana walk in the past two years.

Three7s · 03-25-2015, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good

We've let James Shields and Ervin Santana walk in the past two years.

There's a big difference between trading a guy because he was too expensive and not resigning someone as a free agent.

SPchief · 03-25-2015, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Three7s

There's a big difference between trading a guy because he was too expensive and not resigning someone as a free agent.

You could convince me that not signing Ervin was a mistake. But EVERYONE misjudged his market and he signed a 1 year prove it deal afterwards. You won't ever be able to convince me that letting Shields go was a wrong move.

**DaneMcCloud** · 03-25-2015, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eDave

That Diamond Back contract is insane. Everyone is from somewhere else here. I only watch when they play the Royals. More Cubs fans here than anything. Plenty of Dodger fans too.

I don't see AZ as a 'big' market team. Big city sure but I'd like to see the viewership numbers. DB's suck, and will continue to do so. It can be argued that the spending Colangelo did to win his ring has royally dorked the DB's. Still.

The Dodgers have a $2 billion dollar deal with Time Warner, yet with their disputes with local networks, Dish and Direct TV, I didn't see a single game last year until the playoffs.

I might get the MLB package again but the games usually start around 7ish in KC, which is 5pm here and the kids want dinner, attention, to watch their shows, etc. By the time I could relax and watch most games, it would be 2 hours after completion.

Strongside · 03-25-2015, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

The Dodgers have a $2 billion dollar deal with Time Warner, yet with their disputes with local networks, Dish and Direct TV, I didn't see a single game last year until the playoffs.

I might get the MLB package again but the games usually start around 7ish in KC, which is 5pm here and the kids want dinner, attention, to watch their shows, etc. By the time I could relax and watch most games, it would be 2 hours after completion.

Tell your kids to **** off and man up. You raising a bunch of limp wristed nancies? Baseball is on.

**DaneMcCloud** · 03-25-2015, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strongside

Tell your kids to **** off and man up. You raising a bunch of limp wristed nancies? Baseball is on.

Yeah, you're right. My 2 year old is pussy. **** Mickey Mouse!

Prison Bitch · 03-25-2015, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alnorth

That agreement expired a few years ago. If Glass sells now, all the money goes to him.

There was never any restriction on him selling the team and keeping any profit. That only applied to the original sellers. The IRS restricted the Kauffman's from profiting since it was left in a tax-free vehicle. No investor would ever buy something he could not profit from, but only lose money on.

That said I don't see why anyone cares what Glass does with his $. If you don't like his product don't buy it. If he hoards money don't give him any of yours.

SPchief · 03-25-2015, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

That said I don't see why anyone cares what Glass does with his $. If you don't like his product don't buy it. If he hoards money don't give him any of yours.

Because it's the easy thing to do. He ran this club as shitty as possible the first few years he owned it. So yeah, the criticism is well earned from that stand point. That being said, in the last 7 years he's pumped money into this team whenever asked by GMDM no questions asked and has been a great owner.

WhawhaWhat · 03-26-2015, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

The Dodgers have a $2 billion dollar deal with Time Warner, yet with their disputes with local networks, Dish and Direct TV, I didn't see a single game last year until the playoffs.

Time Warner Cable expected to take $1B loss for bad Dodger deal

ChiefsCountry · 03-26-2015, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Yep. That's exactly what's killed the Royals in terms of revenues.

And David Glass is supposedly smart.

It was market value at that time it was signed same as similar cities like St. Louis, Milwaukee, and Cincinnati.

kcchiefsus · 03-26-2015, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

It was market value at that time it was signed same as similar cities like St. Louis, Milwaukee, and Cincinnati.

With the way markets fluctuate they shouldn't sign such a long freaking contract then, or at least negotiate in the ability to renegotiate in the instance the contract is clearly not in line with what the market is dictating.

DJ's left nut · 03-26-2015, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Yep. That's exactly what's killed the Royals in terms of revenues.

And David Glass is supposedly smart.

Eh, bad timing.

You won't find a savvier businessman than DeWitt and he got stuck in the middle as well - the Cards television deal runs through 2017. They signed it in 2007 and it pays them a whopping $15 million/season.

At the time, that was a pretty good deal. 36 months later it was dogshit.

Yeah, I guess they could have gone year to year, but most television networks won't get on board with that either.

**alnorth** · 03-26-2015, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcchiefsus

With the way markets fluctuate they shouldn't sign such a long freaking contract then, or at least negotiate in the ability to renegotiate in the instance the contract is clearly not in line with what the market is dictating.

short contracts and opt-outs cost money. Not many people saw the sports TV boom coming, and all these monster contracts being signed now are very, very long, like 15-20 years long. Our next deal will also need to be very long if we want the best AAV we can get.

DJ's left nut · 03-26-2015, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhawhaWhat

Time Warner Cable expected to take $1B loss for bad Dodger deal

Yeah, I'm really worried that the cable TV bubble will burst before the Cards get their bite at it.

And by 19, I'd really be sweating it as a Royals fan.

**alnorth** · 03-26-2015, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Yeah, I'm really worried that the cable TV bubble will burst before the Cards get their bite at it.

And by 19, I'd really be sweating it as a Royals fan.

Yeah, sports on TV will still be very valuable and the Royals are going to get a raise regardless, but it would be much better if their deal had expired this year.

The cord-cutters sent the networks and cable companies into a blind panic, and since live sports is one of the only things left keeping many people in cable there was a big bidding war every time a team or sports league/conference went to market.

By 2019, it could be the case where sports on TV is still very valuable and Fox will still pay a nice amount to keep the Royals, but by then they may have a better idea on how much they have to pay to win a contract and how badly they need the contract, and the networks may take a more measured logical view of live sports in 2019.

03-25-2015, 01:37 PM
Hootie Banned Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Dallas, Texas Casino cash: $10004900	Royals worth $700M according to Forbes http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/12...orbes-magazine ...which means Glass could surely sell the Royals for $1B (minimum) which means Glass ROI is INSANE which means we should never hear this asshole ever tell us "we don't have the $$$" again. So far he's off to a good start.
Posts: 56,356