Read the entire article here on the San Antonio Express-News website

Marlins boss says San Antonio TV deal crucial

By Tom Orsborn
The San Antonio Express-News
Web Posted: 04/03/2006 12:00 AM CDT

HOUSTON "” A lucrative television contract tops the conditions that would persuade the Florida Marlins to seek permission from Major League Baseball to move to San Antonio, a high-ranking team official said Sunday.

For the first time since preliminary talks about a possible Marlins' move to San Antonio began in December, team President David Samson spelled out many details that would have to be met for the club to agree to relocation.

No. 1 is the team's need for a TV deal that would generate millions of dollars per season.

"(Stadium) naming rights, suite deals, season-ticket sales, corporate support "” without all of that there is no franchise," Samson said. "But TV revenue is the engine that keeps the train rolling."

Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff, who is spearheading local efforts to lure the Marlins, has received 36 nonbinding commitments from area businesses and individuals to rent suites at a cost of $100,000-$200,000 a season. A proposed stadium for the Marlins in Bexar County would include 69 suites.

"I'm not trying to say suites aren't important, because that is very high on the list," Samson said. "But all those suites put together don't add up to what can be generated through broadcasting."

Samson addressed the team's relocation needs in an interview with the San Antonio Express-News before the Marlins' opener tonight against the Houston Astros. Several local leaders, including Wolff, District Attorney Susan Reed and Mayor Phil Hardberger will attend the game as guests of Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria.

Loria kept his comments to a minimum and spoke mainly in generalities Sunday, but he made it clear San Antonio is the team's top relocation option.

"Our talks with San Antonio are serious," Loria said. "We like what we see and will continue this process. But like all processes it takes time, and we want to be thorough and deliberate."

Bexar County has offered $200 million toward a ballpark, which the team estimates would cost at least $310 million, if voters approve an extension of the tourism taxes paying for the AT&T Center. An election could come as early as November.

The Marlins repeatedly have said they wish to remain in South Florida, but the team says it needs an additional $100 million and free land to put together a deal with Miami-Dade County for a $400 million baseball-specific stadium. The Marlins have offered to spend as much as $212 million for the project.

The Marlins play at Dolphins Stadium, home of Miami's NFL team. It ranked near the bottom of the National League in attendance last season.

The team's lease expires after the 2007 season, but a series of one-year options would allow it to remain through 2010.

"It's overstating it to say talks have stalled (in Florida)," Samson said. "We aren't going back and forth with term sheets, but we are still having global discussions not unlike the talks we are having with Nelson."

Samson called Bexar County's stadium financing plan "an extraordinarily good start to the framework of a deal" but said the Marlins need more specifics and revenue guarantees from Wolff before committing $212 million for a stadium in San Antonio.

"When baseball examines this deal at the end of the day, it is my opinion they would not allow us to move anywhere for the same deal," Samson said. "They would want us to be in a better position."

That's where TV comes into play, Samson said.

FSN Florida, an affiliate of Fox Sports Net, recently received exclusive rights to televise Marlins games in South Florida beginning this season. Samson declined to reveal the amount Fox is paying the Marlins to broadcast as many as 150 of their 162 games.

"The biggest issue we are having right now as we go through the numbers in San Antonio is trying to figure out where we fit in the broadcast market," Samson said.

"It's the No. 1 factor we can't firmly come to grips with, and it's a huge area of competition between Major League Baseball teams and a huge factor in revenue sharing."

Sources said the Marlins already have had exploratory talks with Fox Sports Southwest.

"They are aware of our current situation and recognize the possibility of us moving into one of their markets," Samson said.

San Antonio is the nation's No. 37 media market. Fox Sports Southwest broadcasts Astros games to San Antonio.

Asked what would happen with the Astros and Fox if the Marlins move to San Antonio, Samson said: "It's complicated. A TV territory would have to be carved out and then monetized."

Samson said he is convinced San Antonio's impressive "growth cycle" will continue. But it's not clear whether MLB agrees, he said.

"The worst thing that can happen with a relocation is that it doesn't work," Samson said. "So baseball has to make sure about San Antonio. Beyond the honeymoon, what is the market going to look like. Is this the right move? That's critical."

But there are other factors, Samson said.

"They are looking at revenue, they are pondering the impact relocation would have on divisional alignments, they are pondering the historical significance of a relocation, they are pondering a two-time World Series-winning franchise relocating," Samson said.

"Relocation is hard in all sports. It doesn't just happen overnight. And that's not a stall tactic to get leverage in Florida by any stretch. It's just the reality of the process baseball has embraced for relocation. It's a seldom used, very burdensome process, and it takes intestinal fortitude on behalf of a city and an owner to get to the end of the day."

torsborn@express-news.net

Orsborn the hitman!

I just want to laugh when I read articles like this. SA just isn't where it is at. I am convinced that SA is nothing more than a leverage market in this whole thing. I wonder how hard the folks of Miami-Dade are laughing about this one.

I wouldn't laugh too hard, though. If you don't get anything done, the team could leave for a smaller market.

The linchpin to the Hornets deal in NOLA was the TV contract with Cox Cable. Cox created a brand new sports channel with the Hornets as it's anchor. Of course, it broadcasts other games as well, LSU and Voodoo (AFL). Cox Sports Television (CSTV) was the end result, so SA could get something together potentially. Not sure how much FSN would offer up to broadcast games to South Texas.

I still think a couple of things about all of this.

1. South Florida is a much better market than South Texas.

2. It's a shame Portland is just sitting on the sidelines with this one. You could guys could whip SA in terms of most of your numbers and demographics. You are getting beat by an inferior city. That's too bad. Hello, Mr. Potter!

3. I don't think SA gets the Marlins or any other team in the near future, but if they are the only relo option, for whatever reason, then I could be wrong.

Sports Business Journal lists the most influential individuals in baseball.

17. Drayton McLane
Owner, Houston Astros

One of Commissioner Bud Selig's closest confidantes, McLane holds a unique perspective among owners. Representing baseball's middle class, an aggressive marketer within his own market and a league-first executive, McLane is well-respected by fellow owners both above and below him in the sport's economic pecking order. Even-keeled yet decisive, McLane is an important voice on several MLB committees. And, his insurance dispute with Jeff Bagwell aside, McLane is also one of the game's most popular owners among his players.

Maury, are you thinking that McLane's influence might keep a team OUT of San Antonio?

Number 17... in baseball.

Not oo worried.

quote:

Originally posted by twosomeca:
2. It's a shame Portland is just sitting on the sidelines with this one. You could guys could whip SA in terms of most of your numbers and demographics. You are getting beat by an inferior city.

Whipped? Inferior?

lol

Someone needs to rethink what they write and quit with the bais.

P.S. Nice sig.

quote:

Originally posted by CLARKfromSA:
Number 17... in baseball.

Not [t]oo worried.

Well, if he was #17 in the NFL then it would be? You're not making sense here

quote:

Originally posted by Maury:

quote:

Originally posted by CLARKfromSA:
Number 17... in baseball.

Not [t]oo worried.

Well, if he was #17 in the NFL then it would be? You're not making sense here

17th in all of pro sports, sure.

17th in the NFL, nope.

If he were the Jerry Jones of the MLB, then yes, yes I would be worried.

But he's not.

quote:

Originally posted by framefive:
Maury, are you thinking that McLane's influence might keep a team OUT of San Antonio?

Absolutly.

If the SA group only brings up $200 million, someone would have to indemnify McLane and Hicks for the lost revenue. As Samson says

quote:

"It's the No. 1 factor we can't firmly come to grips with, and it's a huge area of competition between Major League Baseball teams and a huge factor in revenue sharing."

and

quote:

Asked what would happen with the Astros and Fox if the Marlins move to San Antonio, Samson said: "It's complicated. A TV territory would have to be carved out and then monetized."

As I mentioned a few days ago, this compensation issue would certainly have to occur in Portland, as well.

The SA deal being offered is not nearly enough to work. Relocation has to come with as much wrapped up in a nice bow as possible to make it worthwhile.

$200 million... minus the monies needed to compensate the Astros and Rangers?... SA will need to look deeper in the couch cushions for any of this to move beyond exploratory.

quote:

Originally posted by CLARKfromSA:
If he were the Jerry Jones of the MLB, then yes, yes I would be worried.

But he's not.

No, he's someone more powerful than that. He's one of Selig's closest confidants. Suggest you pick up some books on MLB's inner workings. Start with Lords of the Realm and In the Best Interest of Baseball?

Baseball is baseball. Don't think that the inner political workings apply to any other sports business industry.

quote:

Originally posted by Maury:

quote:

Originally posted by CLARKfromSA:
If he were the Jerry Jones of the MLB, then yes, yes I would be worried.

But he's not.

No, he's someone more powerful than that. He's one of Selig's closest confidants. Suggest you pick up some books on MLB's inner workings. Start with Lords of the Realm and In the Best Interest of Baseball?

Baseball is baseball. Don't think that the inner political workings apply to any other sports business industry.

What does that have to do with anything when its the owners who will vote, not Bud.

How do you quantify how much a team would lose by another team in its so-called TV market. I mean, what about the superstations? Don't all the teams in the majors "lose" something every time TBS televises the Braves nationwide, or the Cubs and White Sox get shown in, say, Philadelphia on WGN? The "lost revenue" argument by having another team 200 miles away is a guess at best, and extortion at its worst. If Drayton McLane is as "fair" as everyone paints him out to be, he'll vote FOR the Marlins' relocation to San Antonio because it creates a natural rivalry the Astros currently don't have and could guarantee full ballparks every time the teams play each other!

quote:

Originally posted by CLARKfromSA:

quote:

Originally posted by Maury:

quote:

Originally posted by CLARKfromSA:
If he were the Jerry Jones of the MLB, then yes, yes I would be worried.

But he's not.

No, he's someone more powerful than that. He's one of Selig's closest confidants. Suggest you pick up some books on MLB's inner workings. Start with Lords of the Realm and In the Best Interest of Baseball?

Baseball is baseball. Don't think that the inner political workings apply to any other sports business industry.

What does that have to do with anything when its the owners who will vote, not Bud.

I don't know, see Paul Tagliabue. You underestimate the power of the Commissioner. In fact, your analysis is skin deep at best. You should listen to people like Maury and TCL. They are trying to give you an education on how MLB works, but you consistently throw it back in their faces. Why? Because you just want the team, any team, and you don't care how you get it. You don't want to analyze the issue, you just want it, dam everyone else.

You are pretty easy to read, dude.

quote:

Originally posted by CLARKfromSA:
What does that have to do with anything when its the owners who will vote, not Bud.

Because Bud is the one that will allow for a vote, not the owners.

As mentioned here, you need to read up on how Selig conducts business. It's all about consensus. Bud will hold off any vote until he gets it in line with what he feels is best.

Read... In... The... Best... Interest... Of... Baseball? - Andrew Zimbalist

quote:

Bud will hold off any vote until he gets it in line with what he feels is best.

Emphasis on "what he feels is best" ... in other words, Bud is the GOD of baseball.

quote:

Originally posted by BC in Newberg:

quote:

Bud will hold off any vote until he gets it in line with what he feels is best.

Emphasis on "what he feels is best" ... in other words, Bud is the GOD of baseball.

Well, he's certainly the god of the owners right now. Amazing article by Eric Fisher today in the Sports Business Journal showing how much revenues are up in MLB over the last few years.

Of course, I contend that it's due to being able to have labor peace for the first time since the MLBPA came on the scene. The other is that MLB is trying to get all the markets stablized. Milwaukee and Tampa Bay look better, and Oakland has a chance, as well.

From the SBJ article:

quote:

Oakland A's owner Lewis Wolff felt confident he'd made a good deal when he bought the club early last year for $180 million, even without the certainty of a new stadium. Then he attended his first owners meeting and heard MLB executives present their financial forecasts. What had been a sport slowly, at times awkwardly, regaining its fiscal footing was now utterly flush with new cash.

Attendance is one of the key economic indicators
that has climbed for MLB. A record 74.9 million fans
attended a regular-season game in 2005.
"It was sort of a surprise, to be honest. We went from happy to triple-happy," Wolff said. "But there's really been such a dedication, particularly on the part of [MLB Commissioner] Bud [Selig] to enhancing the value of the clubs, enhancing the total value of our game, and it's really paid off. We couldn't be happier with where this is going."

MLB financial data obtained by SportsBusiness Journal shows the backing behind Wolff's jubilation. Less than five years ago, Selig was testifying before a skeptical Congress not about steroids but on the financial distress in the industry. The then-embattled commissioner outlined a $232 million operating loss for MLB and all of its teams in 2001, which then deepened to $418 million the following year.

Fast forward to 2006, and baseball now projects a complete reversal, with anticipated earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) of $450 million, up a whopping 50 percent from $300 million in earnings in 2005.

Just five of 30 clubs showed individual profits in 2001; 21 teams did so in 2005, and the number should reach 25 in 2006, MLB executives say.

The EBITDA component is really something. Selig has been pushing the 60/40 rule (read more on that here: Is Selig's Enforcement of the 60/40 Rule Working?), and it seems to have positive effects.

You want MLB healthy. You have to be careful cannibalizing markets. If a market is big enough, both in terms of television and overall population for ticket and suite sales, then relocating into a new market through relocation or expansion makes sense.

SA is going to find out that they will need to bring more than $200 million to the table.... considerably more. Bet on it.

quote:

"When baseball examines this deal at the end of the day, it is my opinion they would not allow us to move anywhere for the same deal," Samson said. "They would want us to be in a better position."

In other words... forget $212 million. More... Mo Money... SA will need more money.

quote:

Originally posted by Maury:
In other words... forget $212 million. More... Mo Money... SA will need more money.

And that's probably one thing the Marlins and the Mayor, County Judge, District Attorney, and the four other county commishioners will be discussing today at the season opener.

quote:

Originally posted by CLARKfromSA:

quote:

Originally posted by Maury:
In other words... forget $212 million. More... Mo Money... SA will need more money.

And that's probably one thing the Marlins and the Mayor, County Judge, District Attorney, and the four other county commishioners will be discussing today at the season opener.

Not a chance in Hades. Today is about fostering relationships. Trust me, no details will come out of today.

From Neil DeMause of Field of Dreams:

Read the entire article here on the Field of Dreams website

Play (hard)ball!

It's a baseball Opening Day tradition: the throwing out of the first
franchise relocation threat of the season. This year's entry, it will
come as no surprise, came from the Florida Marlins, whose owner
Jeffrey Loria declared yesterday that while the team is "still looking
at all our options ... our talks with San Antonio are serious." How serious? Loria has invited San
Antonio officials to join him today at the Marlins' season opener
"to learn more about San Antonio." You think Jerry
Reinsdorf gets royalties for this?

With Loria handling the saber-rattling for once, it was left to Marlins
president David Samson to talk about what the Fish would actually need
in order to relocate. And the bottom line, he told the San Antonio
Express-News, isn't the luxuriousness of their corporate suites, but the size of their cable contract. "Naming rights,
suite deals, season-ticket sales, corporate support - without all of
that there is no franchise," said Samson. "But TV revenue is the engine
that keeps the train rolling. ... The biggest issue we are having right
now as we go through the numbers in San Antonio is trying to figure out
where we fit in the broadcast market."

That'd be #37 in
the U.S., according to the Nielsen figures. But the bigger problem is
that the Houston Astros currently view San Antonio, even though
it's not technically their MLB-designated "territory," as part of their
media market, with Astros games being broadcast there on Fox Sports
Southwest. Admitted Samson: "A TV territory would have to be carved out
and then monetized." In other words, last year's Baltimore Orioles-Washington
Nationals deal has set the precedent: Either the Marlins or MLB
would have to indemnify the Astros for encroaching on their media
domain, adding tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars to their
relocation costs. Add in that San Antonio officials aren't offering any
more public money than Florida has (the Marlins' share would go down,
but only because of a crazy-low $300 million stadium price tag - sound familiar?) and that the whole deal would be
contingent on a November referendum of San Antonio voters, and this
move still sounds like a longshot - sorry, make that a "serious"
longshot.

quote:

Add in that San Antonio officials aren't offering any more public money than Florida has

This is exactly the issue that San Antonio and their press has neglected to approach, and with good reason. Why would the Marlins leave an area as prized as S. Florida for a much smaller and unproven market, especially if the offer isn't any better? The obvious answer is that they wouldn't. Baseball is a business, and you don't just give up a potential gold-mine (Miami) for San Antonio. I don't care what the SA press is saying, what Samson and Loria are hyping to SA, or whatever. No WAY they leave S. Florida for SA.

quote:

But TV revenue is the engine
that keeps the train rolling. ..

I'm amazed how much emphasis is put on this revenue stream. Sure there is big bucks in it yesterday and today but the TV industry is changing at warp speed. The lines of territory or media market will blur as new forms of technology evolve. I could envision a day when all TV revenue nationally will have to go directly to MLB to be split equally among all teams. Here is just one of many examples of what is being rolled out today.

www.slingbox.com

quote:

Originally posted by CubbieBlue:

quote:

Add in that San Antonio officials aren't offering any more public money than Florida has

This is exactly the issue that San Antonio and their press has neglected to approach, and with good reason. Why would the Marlins leave an area as prized as S. Florida for a much smaller and unproven market, especially if the offer isn't any better? The obvious answer is that they wouldn't. Baseball is a business, and you don't just give up a potential gold-mine (Miami) for San Antonio. I don't care what the SA press is saying, what Samson and Loria are hyping to SA, or whatever. No WAY they leave S. Florida for SA.

I'm trying to figure out what your POV or approach would be if it were Portland officials who were invitied to the game.

hmmm.. me thinks it wouldn't be that.

Well, let's see. Portland is basically offering more than SA in money, but far less in terms of cooperation. We have untapped resources that "potentially" would be better than even Miami's FINANCIAL Offer, but there is no way we can match their demographics. SA's offer is lousy, their demographics suspect, and their issues with TV revenue will continue to grow as a problem. Portland's demographics are better, we would also have to deal with the TV revenue problem, but we lack SA's direction and political will. And to be honest, from a purely business standpoint, the Marlins would be stupid to leave Florida for Portland or SA. That's a fact. My OPINION is that if they were to leave Florida, they would be better off in Portland than SA. I'm biased, as are you. The Marlns are, too. They are biased towards money. I wish we were meeting with them, but we're not. At least not yet. But just because they are meeting doesn't mean they are locking up the final agreements. SA hasn't shown them enough to warrent a move. All they've done is give Marlin's ownership a bargaining chip with S. Florida.

FYI... the FSN deal brokered in Nov. of 2004 between the Astros, Rangers and Rockets was $600 million (I am locking down the length of term of the deal at this time, but it's lengthy). This deal was done when talk of an RSN occurred.

I have some other interesting info regarding broadcast territory but I'm waiting to confirm it. Had no idea how vast the territory for the Astros and Rangers (they are one in the same) is.

It's amazing that there is only 197 miles between SA and Houston and from SA to Dallas is only 274 miles. SA would be competing with both of these markets for seats and tv viewers I believe. We have Seattle at 174 miles to deal with, but at least that is only 1 team. With WA, OR, ID, AK and BC there is around 12 million viewers to be divided up between the two teams; In TX there would be 3 teams divided up between 20 million or so (it would be just about a tie for viewers per team).

It's possible that we would deal with the Giants, as well. The bottom three counties in Oregon are shared between the Giants and Mariners.

Looks like the whole country is covered, so no one can move anywhere without intruding on someone else's territory. The Washinton/Baltimore compensation deal set a really bad precedent (as we all knew it would). Now everyone is so jealous of their space that baseball has no more viable markets for either relocation or expansion (expect outside the country or overseas), no one is happy where they are, and every owner wishes everyone else would just go away!

It's time Bud and MLB realized they should be in this together, that they need competition or there is no game, that they will never be able to grow the game if they keep trying to kill each other off! Perhaps a better way to share all this TV revenue will help the situation .., but I doubt it.

Blair - there is no MLB, remember? It's a legally protected oligarchy of large market owners who prop up the favored or pitied smaller markets as punching bags.

TV Revenue sharing sure hasn't hurt the NFL.

You know, in a lot of ways, pro sports is a lot like the NCAA with its three levels. At the top is Division I, and THAT is where all the moeny is, so ambitious D-II and even some D-III teams look at that and say, "Maybe we can make money if we move to D-I, too." So they work hard, and apply for membership at the D-I level, and then the NCAA steps in and says, "If we let you in, then we have to divide up the money among more and more members, and our richest members will get less, so we're placing a moratorium on membership and we aren't going to let anybody else in."

So here we are in professional sports, with cities that are in the process (such as Portland) of trying to prove we can play in the "big leagues", and the current owners have such a monopoly, and they are so afraid of anyone else having success, that they say, "We are NOT going to let you in."

Folks, it is up to us in Portland to present them with so attractive a package that they will WANT to bring us in, even via expansion. That's how teams used to get in, by banging on the door long enough. Let's keep banging!