billsfan_34 Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 If anything that article hurts your argument. It explains a lot about the networks big contracts paying the NFL billions and other revenues but little to nothing about ratings. Even in LA. The networks get all the money from commercials not the NFL. Thats why they pay billions to broadcast the games. Ok cool
ALF Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 "As part of Tuesday's compromise, the NFL promised the Chargers and the Raiders each $100 million for new stadiums if they stay in San Diego and Oakland, respectively. " http://ktla.com/2016/01/13/los-angeles-rams-likely-to-begin-playing-at-coliseum/ Stay put, no $550M relocation fee , sounds like the best option to me.
Gordio Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 Thousands of empty seats? Are you daft? Dodger attendance from 2010 thru 2014 was 17 million plus. The only team with more was the Yankees, by about 300,000. In 2015, it was just shy of 3.8 million. The Dodgers have led MLB attendance in 8 out of the last 12 seasons. On top of that, everything about a Dodgers game is highly expensive, from parking, to tickets, to concessions. It will cost you at least as much as a Bills game. Here's a link on MLB attendance: http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/attendance.htm Agreed, they may show up late & leave early but the Dodgers always have good attendance. Not sure what that poster was talking about.
KD in CA Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 "As part of Tuesday's compromise, the NFL promised the Chargers and the Raiders each $100 million for new stadiums if they stay in San Diego and Oakland, respectively. " http://ktla.com/2016/01/13/los-angeles-rams-likely-to-begin-playing-at-coliseum/ Stay put, no $550M relocation fee , sounds like the best option to me. So neither team has any excuse for not contributing at least $650MM toward a new stadium.
nucci Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 "As part of Tuesday's compromise, the NFL promised the Chargers and the Raiders each $100 million for new stadiums if they stay in San Diego and Oakland, respectively. " http://ktla.com/2016/01/13/los-angeles-rams-likely-to-begin-playing-at-coliseum/ Stay put, no $550M relocation fee , sounds like the best option to me. yet there are no plans for a new stadium in Oakland or San Diego so why is staying the best option?
BarleyNY Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) The TV contract is not going to get any bigger because of a team or teams in LA. The networks pay as much as they possibly can now anyway. If it made any difference whatsoever there would have been a team in LA 20 years ago.The TV contracts are driven by advertising dollars which are driven by eyeballs watching. If LA teams drive that up (which is a big question), then TV revenue will rise. And we all know that TV revenue is what drives the NFL. So I'd say that the question of whether or not these moves increase revenue is yet to be answered. There was a team in LA twenty years ago and it was the Rams. (Okay, they moved in '94.) They were there for almost fifty years. I didn't see many care when the Rams bailed LA for St. Louis. Now that they're moving back (as in getting the team that they lost back) everybody is outraged. Why? Because LA is easy to hate? Edited January 15, 2016 by BarleyNY
KD in CA Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 The TV contracts are driven by advertising dollars which are driven by eyeballs watching. If LA teams drive that up (which is a big question), then TV revenue will rise. And we all know that TV revenue is what drives the NFL. So I'd say that the question of whether or not these moves increase revenue is yet to be answered. There was a team in LA twenty years ago and it was the Rams. (Okay, they moved in '94.) They were there for almost fifty years. I didn't see many care when the Rams bailed LA for St. Louis. Now that they're moving back (as in getting the team that they lost back) everybody is outraged. Why? Because LA is easy to hate? Because we're living in the age of outrage. Everything is broken and must be changed because a team moved for the first time in 20 years.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 Because we're living in the age of outrage. Everything is broken and must be changed because a team moved for the first time in 20 years. Q: Would you have been outraged if the Bills moved for --at best-- specious reasons?
KD in CA Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 Q: Would you have been outraged if the Bills moved for --at best-- specious reasons? Outraged? No. And I certainly wouldn't have expected the 99.9% of the country who doesn't give a rat's ass about the Buffalo Bills to care one iota. That's where the real faux outrage becomes comical. People who couldn't name 3 guys on the St Louis Rams going on and on about how terrible it is they are moving.
BarleyNY Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) Q: Would you have been outraged if the Bills moved for --at best-- specious reasons? That's a bit different than a team moving BACK to the city that was its home for almost 50 years. It'd be like if the Ravens never existed and the Colts moved back to Baltimore. Obviously there is a big financial incentive for the Rams, too. Everyone should remember that just because a team uses the name of the city in which it resides doesn't mean it's that city's team. It's not - it's the owner's team. It's only in that city because it's their best financial option. Green Bay excepted, of course. The Rams are moving for financial reasons (what's specious about that?), but I'm having a difficult time getting worked up over St. Louis losing the team that they took from LA to the city they took them from, LA. Edited January 15, 2016 by BarleyNY
Kelly the Dog Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 The TV contracts are driven by advertising dollars which are driven by eyeballs watching. If LA teams drive that up (which is a big question), then TV revenue will rise. And we all know that TV revenue is what drives the NFL. So I'd say that the question of whether or not these moves increase revenue is yet to be answered. There was a team in LA twenty years ago and it was the Rams. (Okay, they moved in '94.) They were there for almost fifty years. I didn't see many care when the Rams bailed LA for St. Louis. Now that they're moving back (as in getting the team that they lost back) everybody is outraged. Why? Because LA is easy to hate? The tv contracts are not really driven by advertising dollars for the NFL. The networks already pay way more than they are worth. And every penny they possibly can. They won't go higher than they were going to go (they always increase a lot) because of LA. The networks are terrified of not having football and a lot of the reason they do it is for promoting their other shows. That's why nbc panicked when they lost the AFC to Cbs years ago and paid out the ass for Sunday night.
Wayne Cubed Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 The TV contracts are driven by advertising dollars which are driven by eyeballs watching. If LA teams drive that up (which is a big question), then TV revenue will rise. And we all know that TV revenue is what drives the NFL. So I'd say that the question of whether or not these moves increase revenue is yet to be answered. There was a team in LA twenty years ago and it was the Rams. (Okay, they moved in '94.) They were there for almost fifty years. I didn't see many care when the Rams bailed LA for St. Louis. Now that they're moving back (as in getting the team that they lost back) everybody is outraged. Why? Because LA is easy to hate? TV revenue does drive what the NFL can ask TV affiliates for, you are correct in that aspect but NFL doesn't get a yearly check from the TV affiliates based on how many people were watching, they've signed a contract. So a team moving to Los Angeles doesn't immediately impact how much money they can make. CBS, NBC, ESPN/ABC and FOX contracts run through 2022. Could they ask for more money in 2022? Sure, but the NFL has been getting more money on each contract since the 1980s. Also, it's not like the NFL hasn't been seen on TV in LA, so it's not like they are gaining a brand new audience. There are still the same number of possible eyes watching in LA.
BarleyNY Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 The tv contracts are not really driven by advertising dollars for the NFL. The networks already pay way more than they are worth. And every penny they possibly can. They won't go higher than they were going to go (they always increase a lot) because of LA. The networks are terrified of not having football and a lot of the reason they do it is for promoting their other shows. That's why nbc panicked when they lost the AFC to Cbs years ago and paid out the ass for Sunday night. Some networks pay a premium beyond what advertising brings in in order to pimp their other shows and gain the prestige that comes with carrying NFL games. It's often a loss on the NFL games, but is made up elsewhere due to viewership of other shows, etc. The contract is still based on advertising revenue though.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 Some networks pay a premium beyond what advertising brings in in order to pimp their other shows and gain the prestige that comes with carrying NFL games. It's often a loss on the NFL games, but is made up elsewhere due to viewership of other shows, etc. The contract is still based on advertising revenue though.It's really not. Not like other shows and contracts. And LA is not going to make a dent in the ratings. Do you really think the NFL would have waited 20 years to put a team or teams in LA if there was any appreciable difference in the ratings and tv contracts? That's the single biggest driving force and source of income in the NFL.
BarleyNY Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 TV revenue does drive what the NFL can ask TV affiliates for, you are correct in that aspect but NFL doesn't get a yearly check from the TV affiliates based on how many people were watching, they've signed a contract. So a team moving to Los Angeles doesn't immediately impact how much money they can make. CBS, NBC, ESPN/ABC and FOX contracts run through 2022. Could they ask for more money in 2022? Sure, but the NFL has been getting more money on each contract since the 1980s. Also, it's not like the NFL hasn't been seen on TV in LA, so it's not like they are gaining a brand new audience. There are still the same number of possible eyes watching in LA. You don't think their eyes are on that next contract with this move? I sure do. It can be argued that this won't have much of an impact on viewership - and I allowed for that - but I expect that it will. it might not be immediate, but I bet you'll see it before that next TV contract gets negotiated. Die hard fans will still root for their old team, but they'll probably root for an LA team (that's on local TV) too. Casual fans will put eyes on the new games as well - especially if one of those teams is winning. It sure doesn't hurt to hedge on that winning thing with two teams either. Done expect Bills-level loyalty either. How many more Clippers fans appeared when they got better than the Lakers?
BarleyNY Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 It's really not. Not like other shows and contracts. And LA is not going to make a dent in the ratings. Do you really think the NFL would have waited 20 years to put a team or teams in LA if there was any appreciable difference in the ratings and tv contracts? That's the single biggest driving force and source of income in the NFL. Advertising dollars during football games and programs really are the basis for the network contracts. That's what pays for virtually all of the contract. Feel free to tell me what else is paying for it and how that works if you honestly think it's something else. As for waiting 20 years, how about this? 20 years ago the NFL was vastly different in many ways, including revenue sources. TV revenue didn't factor into the equation nearly as much and has only exploded in recent years. Thus we have the push for the lucrative LA market now, when finances are driving it.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 That's a bit different than a team moving BACK to the city that was its home for almost 50 years. It'd be like if the Ravens never existed and the Colts moved back to Baltimore. Obviously there is a big financial incentive for the Rams, too. Everyone should remember that just because a team uses the name of the city in which it resides doesn't mean it's that city's team. It's not - it's the owner's team. It's only in that city because it's their best financial option. Green Bay excepted, of course. The Rams are moving for financial reasons (what's specious about that?), but I'm having a difficult time getting worked up over St. Louis losing the team that they took from LA to the city they took them from, LA. Kronke's argument was that the city wasn't dealing fairly about a stadium...kind of like San Diego. Only it wasn't. It was offering a 1.1 billion dollar riverfront stadium. Let's not sugarcoat it. Kronke wanted LA, and was going to create any excuse necessary to get back to LA.
BarleyNY Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 Kronke's argument was that the city wasn't dealing fairly about a stadium...kind of like San Diego. Only it wasn't. It was offering a 1.1 billion dollar riverfront stadium. Let's not sugarcoat it. Kronke wanted LA, and was going to create any excuse necessary to get back to LA. I didn't even address the politics or offers and counter-offers of the situation. There's no way St. Louis (or San Diego) can compete with stadium revenue in LA. None. The money in LA to buy luxury suites, local advertising/sponsorship, etc. is worlds apart. That argument concerns why those owners want to move to LA, not why the NFL wants teams there. I was primarily addressing the latter as the former seemed pretty obvious. And I thought I covered that with my teams-belong-to-their-owners-not-their-host-cities bit. It sucks (and as a native Clevelander I know it all too well), but it's reality.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) I didn't even address the politics or offers and counter-offers of the situation. There's no way St. Louis (or San Diego) can compete with stadium revenue in LA. None. The money in LA to buy luxury suites, local advertising/sponsorship, etc. is worlds apart. That argument concerns why those owners want to move to LA, not why the NFL wants teams there. I was primarily addressing the latter as the former seemed pretty obvious. And I thought I covered that with my teams-belong-to-their-owners-not-their-host-cities bit. It sucks (and as a native Clevelander I know it all too well), but it's reality. Then my proposal is they need to lose their monopoly status and should no longer regard public funds when building stadiums. Edited: didn't mean non-profit, meant monopoly. Edited January 15, 2016 by joesixpack
Kelly the Dog Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 Advertising dollars during football games and programs really are the basis for the network contracts. That's what pays for virtually all of the contract. Feel free to tell me what else is paying for it and how that works if you honestly think it's something else. As for waiting 20 years, how about this? 20 years ago the NFL was vastly different in many ways, including revenue sources. TV revenue didn't factor into the equation nearly as much and has only exploded in recent years. Thus we have the push for the lucrative LA market now, when finances are driving it. Obviously advertising dollars is where the networks make their money back. My point is the NFL is just different than all other TV contracts and it's not derived from a formula of dollars from advertising. Like ESPN pays 3-4 times as much as the other networks. There are a lot of reasons for that. One is they can then gouge cable companies for a bigger share of monthly bill. Their games are prime time. Because it's weekday they get more highlight rights and their pregame show is an entire other money generator. They get more digital rights than the others. Cbs just spent an extra billion for Thursday's. That makes them not have to produce or buy so many shows for their lineup. They cut out three hours of prime time shows. It also allowed them to move their biggest show to Monday to hurt the other networks. They also over pay just to get a Super Bowl every four years because that draws so much attention to your network. One could argue that the main chunk of that is advertising dollars but they pay SO much more, every penny they can spend, because they cannot afford not to. They would lose too much prestige. And the loss leader concept. Because the NFL is so huge. They actually pay about $2 for every person who watches each game. ESPN pays $8.
Recommended Posts