45s wrote: ↑05 Feb 2026 09:54 am
The Rangers and Astros built their own networks when Ballys and ATT Sportsnet discontinued operations..
Just curious, do the Cardinals come down to TX so the Rangers can broadcast games? Do the Rangers come to STL so the Rangers can broadcast games?
If there weren’t the others teams to actually complete the competition loop…..would there be any games to broadcast?
It’s foolish for you and I to continue to exchange comments…
We have diametrically opposing points of view…..and there is not anything wrong with that..
The poster asked about network options….I passed along some information..
My final thought is that the big boys are not going to participate without a fight….let the lawsuits begin…
Well you have to acknowledge these teams need other other to exist……therefore the bounty should shared to survive. Posters comment that each team is a separate business competing with each other…..like Walmart or target…..it’s not ….they don’t require each other to exist
Shared….
That suggests equal distribution……and should include equal contributions…
Please correct me if I am wrong….but your plan seems to suggest the Dodgers pay …for example 1/4 of the pie……but only get 1/30 to eat…
You still pretend like the Dodgers earn their right to he e an absurdly large advantage over everyone else. The reality is they are just one of the lucky few in the right market. It’s their lottery ticket. Not years of hard work and dedication. Something I have noticed you conveniently ignore several times in this thread.
Just remember every other league disagrees with you and the Dodgers….
45s wrote: ↑05 Feb 2026 09:54 am
The Rangers and Astros built their own networks when Ballys and ATT Sportsnet discontinued operations..
Just curious, do the Cardinals come down to TX so the Rangers can broadcast games? Do the Rangers come to STL so the Rangers can broadcast games?
If there weren’t the others teams to actually complete the competition loop…..would there be any games to broadcast?
It’s foolish for you and I to continue to exchange comments…
We have diametrically opposing points of view…..and there is not anything wrong with that..
The poster asked about network options….I passed along some information..
My final thought is that the big boys are not going to participate without a fight….let the lawsuits begin…
Well you have to acknowledge these teams need other other to exist……therefore the bounty should shared to survive. Posters comment that each team is a separate business competing with each other…..like Walmart or target…..it’s not ….they don’t require each other to exist
Shared….
That suggests equal distribution……and should include equal contributions…
Please correct me if I am wrong….but your plan seems to suggest the Dodgers pay …for example 1/4 of the pie……but only get 1/30 to eat…
You still pretend like the Dodgers earn their right to he e an absurdly large advantage over everyone else. The reality is they are just one of the lucky few in the right market. It’s their lottery ticket. Not years of hard work and dedication. Something I have noticed you conveniently ignore several times in this thread.
Just remember every other league disagrees with you and the Dodgers….
Does every mlb club get a cut of the espn/fox/nbc national contracts?
45s wrote: ↑05 Feb 2026 09:54 am
The Rangers and Astros built their own networks when Ballys and ATT Sportsnet discontinued operations..
Just curious, do the Cardinals come down to TX so the Rangers can broadcast games? Do the Rangers come to STL so the Rangers can broadcast games?
If there weren’t the others teams to actually complete the competition loop…..would there be any games to broadcast?
It’s foolish for you and I to continue to exchange comments…
We have diametrically opposing points of view…..and there is not anything wrong with that..
The poster asked about network options….I passed along some information..
My final thought is that the big boys are not going to participate without a fight….let the lawsuits begin…
Well you have to acknowledge these teams need other other to exist……therefore the bounty should shared to survive. Posters comment that each team is a separate business competing with each other…..like Walmart or target…..it’s not ….they don’t require each other to exist
Shared….
That suggests equal distribution……and should include equal contributions…
Please correct me if I am wrong….but your plan seems to suggest the Dodgers pay …for example 1/4 of the pie……but only get 1/30 to eat…
You still pretend like the Dodgers earn their right to he e an absurdly large advantage over everyone else. The reality is they are just one of the lucky few in the right market. It’s their lottery ticket. Not years of hard work and dedication. Something I have noticed you conveniently ignore several times in this thread.
Just remember every other league disagrees with you and the Dodgers….
Do the Dodgers have a TV contract without these other teams? Perhaps LA fans would tune in to watch Team Betts v Team Ohtani for 162
45s wrote: ↑05 Feb 2026 09:54 am
The Rangers and Astros built their own networks when Ballys and ATT Sportsnet discontinued operations..
Just curious, do the Cardinals come down to TX so the Rangers can broadcast games? Do the Rangers come to STL so the Rangers can broadcast games?
If there weren’t the others teams to actually complete the competition loop…..would there be any games to broadcast?
It’s foolish for you and I to continue to exchange comments…
We have diametrically opposing points of view…..and there is not anything wrong with that..
The poster asked about network options….I passed along some information..
My final thought is that the big boys are not going to participate without a fight….let the lawsuits begin…
Well you have to acknowledge these teams need other other to exist……therefore the bounty should shared to survive. Posters comment that each team is a separate business competing with each other…..like Walmart or target…..it’s not ….they don’t require each other to exist
Shared….
That suggests equal distribution……and should include equal contributions…
Please correct me if I am wrong….but your plan seems to suggest the Dodgers pay …for example 1/4 of the pie……but only get 1/30 to eat…
You still pretend like the Dodgers earn their right to he e an absurdly large advantage over everyone else. The reality is they are just one of the lucky few in the right market. It’s their lottery ticket. Not years of hard work and dedication. Something I have noticed you conveniently ignore several times in this thread.
Just remember every other league disagrees with you and the Dodgers….
Do the Dodgers have a TV contract without these other teams? Perhaps LA fans would tune in to watch Team Betts v Team Ohtani for 162
Does every mlb club get a cut of the ESPN/fox/NBC national contracts?
I think they would be better off having their own network and providing it to cable, satellite and streaming services very inexpensively to get widespread viewership and thereby increase interest and ticket sales.
45s wrote: ↑05 Feb 2026 09:54 am
The Rangers and Astros built their own networks when Ballys and ATT Sportsnet discontinued operations..
Just curious, do the Cardinals come down to TX so the Rangers can broadcast games? Do the Rangers come to STL so the Rangers can broadcast games?
If there weren’t the others teams to actually complete the competition loop…..would there be any games to broadcast?
It’s foolish for you and I to continue to exchange comments…
We have diametrically opposing points of view…..and there is not anything wrong with that..
The poster asked about network options….I passed along some information..
My final thought is that the big boys are not going to participate without a fight….let the lawsuits begin…
Well you have to acknowledge these teams need other other to exist……therefore the bounty should shared to survive. Posters comment that each team is a separate business competing with each other…..like Walmart or target…..it’s not ….they don’t require each other to exist
Shared….
That suggests equal distribution……and should include equal contributions…
Please correct me if I am wrong….but your plan seems to suggest the Dodgers pay …for example 1/4 of the pie……but only get 1/30 to eat…
You still pretend like the Dodgers earn their right to he e an absurdly large advantage over everyone else. The reality is they are just one of the lucky few in the right market. It’s their lottery ticket. Not years of hard work and dedication. Something I have noticed you conveniently ignore several times in this thread.
Just remember every other league disagrees with you and the Dodgers….
Does every mlb club get a cut of the espn/fox/nbc national contracts?
ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑05 Feb 2026 10:56 am
I think they would be better off having their own network and providing it to cable, satellite and streaming services very inexpensively to get widespread viewership and thereby increase interest and ticket sales.
It would certainly motivate them to pursue the best advertising deals..
Under the goldfan plan….if the club sends their fees to mlb, why pursue the best deals?
And is mlb going to have an audit process for these possibilities?
45s wrote: ↑05 Feb 2026 09:54 am
The Rangers and Astros built their own networks when Ballys and ATT Sportsnet discontinued operations..
Just curious, do the Cardinals come down to TX so the Rangers can broadcast games? Do the Rangers come to STL so the Rangers can broadcast games?
If there weren’t the others teams to actually complete the competition loop…..would there be any games to broadcast?
It’s foolish for you and I to continue to exchange comments…
We have diametrically opposing points of view…..and there is not anything wrong with that..
The poster asked about network options….I passed along some information..
My final thought is that the big boys are not going to participate without a fight….let the lawsuits begin…
Well you have to acknowledge these teams need other other to exist……therefore the bounty should shared to survive. Posters comment that each team is a separate business competing with each other…..like Walmart or target…..it’s not ….they don’t require each other to exist
Shared….
That suggests equal distribution……and should include equal contributions…
Please correct me if I am wrong….but your plan seems to suggest the Dodgers pay …for example 1/4 of the pie……but only get 1/30 to eat…
You still pretend like the Dodgers earn their right to he e an absurdly large advantage over everyone else. The reality is they are just one of the lucky few in the right market. It’s their lottery ticket. Not years of hard work and dedication. Something I have noticed you conveniently ignore several times in this thread.
Just remember every other league disagrees with you and the Dodgers….
Does every mlb club get a cut of the espn/fox/nbc national contracts?
Your point?
All these references to other leagues…mlb is already doing that…they are sharing national contract fees…..
45s wrote: ↑05 Feb 2026 09:54 am
The Rangers and Astros built their own networks when Ballys and ATT Sportsnet discontinued operations..
Just curious, do the Cardinals come down to TX so the Rangers can broadcast games? Do the Rangers come to STL so the Rangers can broadcast games?
If there weren’t the others teams to actually complete the competition loop…..would there be any games to broadcast?
It’s foolish for you and I to continue to exchange comments…
We have diametrically opposing points of view…..and there is not anything wrong with that..
The poster asked about network options….I passed along some information..
My final thought is that the big boys are not going to participate without a fight….let the lawsuits begin…
Well you have to acknowledge these teams need other other to exist……therefore the bounty should shared to survive. Posters comment that each team is a separate business competing with each other…..like Walmart or target…..it’s not ….they don’t require each other to exist
Shared….
That suggests equal distribution……and should include equal contributions…
Please correct me if I am wrong….but your plan seems to suggest the Dodgers pay …for example 1/4 of the pie……but only get 1/30 to eat…
You still pretend like the Dodgers earn their right to he e an absurdly large advantage over everyone else. The reality is they are just one of the lucky few in the right market. It’s their lottery ticket. Not years of hard work and dedication. Something I have noticed you conveniently ignore several times in this thread.
Just remember every other league disagrees with you and the Dodgers….
Does every mlb club get a cut of the espn/fox/nbc national contracts?
Your point?
All these references to other leagues…mlb is already doing that…they are sharing national contract fees…..
So that argument is without merit
And they already share 48% local, so your argument doesn’t hold water…..it’s already in effect. The battle will be for the 52%. So if you want to set a number that you think is fair…..75%
45s wrote: ↑05 Feb 2026 09:54 am
The Rangers and Astros built their own networks when Ballys and ATT Sportsnet discontinued operations..
Just curious, do the Cardinals come down to TX so the Rangers can broadcast games? Do the Rangers come to STL so the Rangers can broadcast games?
If there weren’t the others teams to actually complete the competition loop…..would there be any games to broadcast?
It’s foolish for you and I to continue to exchange comments…
We have diametrically opposing points of view…..and there is not anything wrong with that..
The poster asked about network options….I passed along some information..
My final thought is that the big boys are not going to participate without a fight….let the lawsuits begin…
Well you have to acknowledge these teams need other other to exist……therefore the bounty should shared to survive. Posters comment that each team is a separate business competing with each other…..like Walmart or target…..it’s not ….they don’t require each other to exist
Shared….
That suggests equal distribution……and should include equal contributions…
Please correct me if I am wrong….but your plan seems to suggest the Dodgers pay …for example 1/4 of the pie……but only get 1/30 to eat…
You still pretend like the Dodgers earn their right to he e an absurdly large advantage over everyone else. The reality is they are just one of the lucky few in the right market. It’s their lottery ticket. Not years of hard work and dedication. Something I have noticed you conveniently ignore several times in this thread.
Just remember every other league disagrees with you and the Dodgers….
Does every mlb club get a cut of the espn/fox/nbc national contracts?
Your point?
All these references to other leagues…mlb is already doing that…they are sharing national contract fees…..
So that argument is without merit
And they already share 48% local, so your argument doesn’t hold water…..it’s already in effect. The battle will be for the 52%. So if you want to set a number that you think is fair…..75%
Locally generated fees should remain local…
Success should not be penalized…
and with that, I have now exhausted my interest in this subject…
ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑05 Feb 2026 10:56 am
I think they would be better off having their own network and providing it to cable, satellite and streaming services very inexpensively to get widespread viewership and thereby increase interest and ticket sales.
It would certainly motivate them to pursue the best advertising deals..
Under the goldfan plan….if the club sends their fees to mlb, why pursue the best deals?
And is mlb going to have an audit process for these possibilities?
Bloom III has a business degree. I expected something better than this. He should be capable of setting up a tv network. Even if they piggyback off another team's live feed while hiring their own broadcasters and engineer.
It is not a problem.
The revenue model has evolved.
The Cardinal owners have made hundreds of millions of dollars from Ballpark Village over the years and will continue to do so.
They also get a share of all the various streaming deals MLB now has in place.
20M in revenue from allowing MLB to handle their local broadcast is a drop in the bucket compared to all other revenue the team earns.
Money is not an issue.
BV is a 50/50 joint venture financed with hundreds of millions of dollars in debt in top of the tif bonds. They've made hundreds of millions? That seems ludicrous.
I don't think you know how corporate debt works.
It allows capitalization - and drives revenue.
Healthy, managed debt is a very good thing for them.
Corporations can hold hundreds of millions of dollars in long term debt - and still produce hundreds of millions in annual revenue.
Yes - with BPV having been open for more than a decade now, the team/owner have easily realized hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.
You just moved the goalposts.... there is a material difference between "realizing 100s of millions of dollars in revenue", and asserting BPV had made 100s of millions to the extent that the free cash flow could support the lost media revenue.
Total revenue less any overhead less mgmt fees to loews and cordish, less debt service (is not capitalized) less cap ex (capitalizing doesn't mean you don't have to pay for it), translates roughly to free cash flow. Then take that times the pro- rata ownership and you have the funds from the JV available to the Cardinals.
I don't know why you're correlating debt with revenue. For a fixed amount of developed space market lease rates are gong to determine revenue not debt outstanding. If they have the free cash flow to distribute from the jv, they don't need debt. If they have to capitalize any of this to push money up the mlb team, you've already lost the argument...
Jatalk wrote: ↑04 Feb 2026 10:03 am
I honestly don’t know but it just feels like the organization dropped the ball and limited their options. This has been an issue for two years or more.
Ha, always the team's fault. Their partner stopped paying them. What ball did the Cardinals drop in this case?
I read about options of starting own network for example. I’m no expert just saying they had time to better address an obvious problem.
If starting a network was a great idea, many more teams would do it. The Braves are going to try it. Will be interesting to see how it works. There aren't many options. The Cardinals run a baseball organization. They're not a media company. It's not like it's a simple task that is clearly profitable. Seemingly to many, it would be a surprise to learn the Cardinals don't own KMOX either
“Clarifying figures here re: Cardinals TV revenue. St. Louis is expected to see roughly $40 million in revenue under MLB model, opposed to the roughly $60 million they expected last year. Unlike set fees with FanDuel SN, MLB broadcast revenue is based on subscriptions/ad sales.” Woo
Looks like BDW will need to work for his Local TV rev. As he rolls out the least entertaining, interesting, and non-competitive team in my lifetime.
Not sure where the 20mil number came from but Woo says 40mil. And you have to remember that 42% is split with league and 52% was kept by home team. Not sure if that is same arrangement under MLB network….so in theory they may not be losing all that much $$
It is not a problem.
The revenue model has evolved.
The Cardinal owners have made hundreds of millions of dollars from Ballpark Village over the years and will continue to do so.
They also get a share of all the various streaming deals MLB now has in place.
20M in revenue from allowing MLB to handle their local broadcast is a drop in the bucket compared to all other revenue the team earns.
Money is not an issue.
BV is a 50/50 joint venture financed with hundreds of millions of dollars in debt in top of the tif bonds. They've made hundreds of millions? That seems ludicrous.
I don't think you know how corporate debt works.
It allows capitalization - and drives revenue.
Healthy, managed debt is a very good thing for them.
Corporations can hold hundreds of millions of dollars in long term debt - and still produce hundreds of millions in annual revenue.
Yes - with BPV having been open for more than a decade now, the team/owner have easily realized hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.
You just moved the goalposts.... there is a material difference between "realizing 100s of millions of dollars in revenue", and asserting BPV had made 100s of millions to the extent that the free cash flow could support the lost media revenue.
Total revenue less any overhead less mgmt fees to loews and cordish, less debt service (is not capitalized) less cap ex (capitalizing doesn't mean you don't have to pay for it), translates roughly to free cash flow. Then take that times the pro- rata ownership and you have the funds from the JV available to the Cardinals.
I don't know why you're correlating debt with revenue. For a fixed amount of developed space market lease rates are gong to determine revenue not debt outstanding. If they have the free cash flow to distribute from the jv, they don't need debt. If they have to capitalize any of this to push money up the mlb team, you've already lost the argument...
Kindly, you do not know how debt works - and how it actually increases revenue.
Again, you brought it up - and are simply wrong.
