Archive for the ‘Rogers Communications’ Category

Wait. That‘s Keith Pelley?

It seems as though ol’ Twitter got a bit of a bee in its collective bonnet this morning thanks to this tweet from Steve Laudrantaye of the Globe and Mail, reporting from the Prime Time Sports and Entertainment Conference:

He later clarified that it was a paraphrase, not a direct quote from the Rogers Media president, but I trust that we’re getting the gist here. More importantly, I don’t see what the big deal is, or why anyone should expect the head of a sports-and-media conglomerate to slavishly pander at every opportunity to fans we all know he’s already got in his pocket.

Read the rest of this entry »

When they’re discussing stats, or strategy, or closers, or pitcher wins, or clubhouse issues, or indulging Zaun Cherry, the baseball talk on Prime Time Sports tends to get a little bit unbelievably insufferable. But there are certain areas that are right in their fucking wheelhouse over there, and Bob McCown and Stephen Brunt hit on one during the 4 PM hour of Wednesday’s show this week (audio here), discussing strife between Paul Beeston and the ownership group at Rogers, and the incredibly tricky position the club finds itself in heading into the winter.

It’s a scene, man.

“For some weeks now, people have been whispering to me that Beeston is going to be done with the Blue Jays, suggesting somehow that Rogers may not be happy with him– that Beeston may not be a good fit with this ownership,” begins Bob McCown. “And I have steadfastly resisted that notion and argued that I have not seen anything that suggests that. Now, I’m not in meetings between Pelley and Beeston– I don’t know exactly how they get along. But I’ve never seen anything that’s suggested to me that Beeston wouldn’t continue, unless he’d decided he’d had enough.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Where’s the money, Anthopoulos?

As Parkes just posted over at Getting Blanked, MLB has announced an extension of their national (US) broadcast TV partnerships with FOX and TBS, which will add a cool $6.8-billion to be spread amongst the 30 ballclubs starting in 2014, until the deal expires in 2021.

Money quote [Note: heh.]:

“This means that each team, beginning in 2014 and lasting until 2021, will receive almost $52 million annually, which is more than double what clubs received under the previous agreements with ESPN, FOX and TBS.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Danny Knobler of CBS Sports would like you all to kindly go fucking nuts…

This, as you internet-savvy readers will have noticed, comes from a tweet he posted earlier today. (I’d embed it via Twitter as normal, but the code they offer has made one of its many intermittent disappearances at the moment).

Knobler is not wrong about the notion that it would be difficult to find a non-filler arm on the trade market without being able to assume some salary. As for the question of the Jays’ supposed money concerns, while I’m sure certain segments of the fan base will be quick to throw up their hands in triumph at more evidence that Rogers are tight fist-fucking fisted cheapfuck-fists, it’s probably worthwhile to point out that it’s not exactly Chapter One in the Negotiator’s Handbook to come right out and tell clubs that you’ve got a huge blank cheque ready to hand them cash. So…

Update: And, of course, almost as soon as he says that, Knobler tweets that the Jays have acquired Sean O’Sullivan in a trade, in exchange for cash. So, unless they’ve given the Royals their advance scout– HEYO!– I guess the Jays do have some funds at their disposal. Granted, I don’t think that’s the kind of money Knobler was talking about in the first tweet, but… whatever.

O’Sullivan, for the record, has been a shade (ok 8/10th of a win) below replacement level over 193 career innings with the Angels and Royals. He has a 5.02 FIP at Omaha in the PCL this season.

 Get your very own fucking awesome Paul Beeston Hall of Fame PhotoBall here!

I’d like to say that this week Stephen Brunt of Sportsnet made the long trip up a couple flights of Rogers Campus stairs to have a little chat with ever-optimistic Jays President and CEO Paul Beeston, but… it turns out the both of them were in Dunedin. Brunt still managed to sit him down for a Q&A though, and while there’s still a lot of typical Beeston PRspeak, a couple comments did stand out– even if, y’know, they don’t cover much ground that hasn’t already been mined to shit.

Firstly, Beeston admitts that the Yu Darvish situation got out of hand on the club, and that they should have handled it differently.

“We have to be a little bit more transparent than we were,” Beeston tells Brunt. “Alex and I probably have a minor difference of opinion on what we should do. Alex doesn’t tell anybody anything. He believes that’s a competitive disadvantage, playing things out through the press, and I tend to agree with him. That said, with the Darvish situation–and that was the real killer– they said he went over to Japan to look at him and then all of a sudden we were supposed to sign Darvish.

“It doesn’t make any sense that just because he saw him, we were going to sign him. We let that thing build over a period of five days and then we got hammered. We should have said we’re not in, or we are in. We just kind of went rope-a-dope. I think we could have handled that a little differently, and I think we will in the future. And then the Prince Fielder thing happened.”

Beeston is right here, in a way. It doesn’t make any sense that, just because they saw him, they were going to sign him. But it did make sense when coupled with the fact that so many obstacles to making a big free agent signing didn’t exist when it came to Darvish– having negotiating exclusivity meant that the Jays wouldn’t have to worry about making a competitive offer yet still being spurned because of things like the division or the country they play in, or the turf they play on– and the club’s unflinching failure to extinguish the rumours.

Later in the interview Beeston also sort of endorsed the notion that any publicity is good publicity, in a way, so it’s hard to know just what to make of his comments, except as being the most prudent thing for someone in his position to say– which, when you think of it, is basically what his whole job is.

And he keeps with when asked about the much-debated notion of “payroll parameters,” and statements from Alex Anthopoulos this winter that fans need to come out before the club will put resources in– which he says were misinterpreted.

“The fans can count on Rogers spending the money,” he says, “because we’ve had the discussion with ownership. But at the same time, we’re running a business here. It’s not saying the fans have got to come out and then we’ll spend money. That was misinterpreted.

“The fact is, we’ve got to win to make the fans come out, and then we spend the money. But we have to give them the reason to come out. That got lost in Alex’s comment that day. It was that we win, you come out, we’ll spend the money–it won’t be money we put in our pocket; it will be money reinvested in the team.”

He also notes that while Tampa is trying to keep their salaries down, the Jays are looking to take theirs up, long-term.

It’s easy to get cynical about this stuff– especially when it comes from Beeston– but I tend to think that’s all basically correct. They build the club to win on a lower MLB payroll, like Tampa or Texas (who were in the $55- to $68-million range from 2004 to 2011), and then they continue to spend to keep their top players, rather than following in the Rays’ footsteps of losing or divesting themselves of guys like Crawford and Garza.

It really does make sense. Not that, y’know, we didn’t already know all this.

I’m pretty sure there’s enough magical accounting going on inside a mega-corporate oligopoly like Rogers to make us all not take too seriously the figures provided in the MLB franchise valuation pieces we see annually by Forbes.

That said, their just-released 2012 edition provides some interesting food for thought– as one might expect.

The basics? Let’s start with the fact that, while still just the 25th-most valuable franchise in the majors, the Jays value has jumped by $76-million since their 2011 report– up to $413-million from $331-million last year. That’s a 23% rate of growth, which was the fifth-best in the Majors.

Their operating income– aka the difference between operating revenues and operating expenses– was at $24.9-million. That’s the second highest figure the team has pulled in over the last decade– and $14.9-million more than the operating income of the Yankees and ninth overall.

You’ll never guess why they believe that is.

“The television rights fee paid to the Toronto Blue Jays by Rogers Sportsnet doubled in 2011,” they write. “TSN, which had been televising a handful of games, no longer shows the team’s games. Both the Blue Jays and Sportsnet are subsidiaries of Rogers Communications. This jump in television revenue helped boost the team’s operating income to $25 million from $4 million the previous season. The bottom line was also goosed by the team’s low payroll. The Blue Jays have been in the lower third of the league’s payroll the past two seasons.”

Weird.

Forbes also provides a breakdown of the franchise’s valuation, which interestingly reports that only $44-million of the club’s value (10.6%) is attributable to its brand. Forbes doesn’t say what goes into this number, but the number for the Yankees is $363-million (19.8%), while the Red Sox– who were passed as the second most valuable franchise by the Dodgers– are at $192-million (19.2%). Clearly the Jays aren’t misguided in their attempts to re-brand and to strengthen their brand across the country– nebulous as the terminology Forbes is using may be.

So… ya. Bottom line is, as far as I can tell, the Jays made some money last year. And while it would be easy to get offended at how they failed to re-invest it over the off-season, let’s not forget that the operating income Forbes reported for them in 2011 was just $3.6-million. If they’re able to sustain such levels and still won’t budge, then we’re probably safe to lose our shit.

For now… I don’t know… maybe it bodes well for the future. I mean the stuff about the increase in TV revenues certainly sounds like it does, as long as it doesn’t somehow end up back in Rogers’ pocket. And, y’know, assuming that we should even take what Forbes says seriously. Which, frankly, we probably shouldn’t.

Ugh.