Cards only netting 20 mil from their MLB deal

[hofmann13]

https://x.com/joshjaco98/status/2019042 ... 18543?s=20

Yikes. That won't work long term

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.

I lend for a living... but you explain it to me. You have jvs with specific parcels of land, fully developed, a hotel with a finite number of rooms, apartments with a finite number of rooms, office and mixed use space. All bound by the inability to build additional square footage, all subject to market lease rates...So, youre taking out more debt... that changes revenue how?. If you invest the capital in returning assets sure, but you're apparently proposing to take the cash out off the JV. So again, how is levering the company and taking the money out going to increasing the jvs revenue...

[renostl]

“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 $$

Good question as to IF the MLB money is given only to then go right back into the pooled money,

It could indeed work if the 48%/52% were done without exceptions.
They aren't. Neither is the low spending enforced.

https://sporthiatus.com/mlb-revenue-sha ... the-money/