most fans are oblivious to the *cost* of what some of the big market teams pay out in salaries and luxury taxes. these teams are able to absorb higher payrolls because of access to larger fan bases and cable TV rights. Fans who own watch these games pay a fee in their bill which goes directly to the Knicks/Rangers[CVC] or Yankees{YES} no matter what system cable/satelite or provider[CVC TW Comcast etc..}-- you are paying a fee for every game televised which increases the revenue streams to the teams. What has happened--and I will use the Knicks as example--is that the free spending habits of this team and it's concurrent run-up of luxury taxes forces the company to raise premiums to providers. This is the mAIN cause of what actually increases your cable bill from time to time. But like anything in the world--there is a limit and a bottom line. When TW pulled the plug on MSG--you can thank all of the personell decisions made by MSG ownership and management. Their failure to impose a reasonable payroll--a payroll that is in line with what the average NBA team pays out--has now had the consequence of those chanells being terminated on Time -Warner and those customers being shut out from Knick/Ranger/Mets programming. So for those who think that a business plan of trading massive ending contracts to take on excessive extra slaries driving up cost structure--you better have CVC Cable Systems or you might just be watching the cooking channel where MSG used to be on your cable system.

Get NBA League pass with a Knicks package and relax. If you truly think player salaries affect the MSG bottom line by much you are not looking at the whole picture. The revenue they collect from 20 games covers the entire payroll. Why do you tink the cap exists. So rich teams can't just keep buying players out of the smaller markets and teams theretically cam compete with fewer resources.

That's great news. That means they just have to raise the viewing price a little to continue pulling off more Marbury type trades. We're only one or two Marbury type trades away from being a title conteder if everyone stays reasonably healthy

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 08/01/2004 15:34:40]

Where do you get your info, pleae post a link.

Also, they are running a business. If it really hurt them they would not do what they do. You are also the one who raves about how everything they do is for the money. Now you are just contradicting yourself and sayin what they do at MSG is bad financially.

Posted by simrud:

Where do you get your info, pleae post a link.

He posts whatever he thinks people don't want to hear. He doesn't have to actually have a source; he just has to figure out what fans want and then he claims that he's found out that the opposite is true.

cablevision lost a fortune. The Knicks revenue was down but it was still revenue. That franchise is cash cow. Dont confuse MSG w/ Cablvisions problems.

FYI: Knick franchise is worth $401M, 2nd overall (Source: Forbes, 2004). Only the Lakers are worth more at $447M.

Who cares Briggs? Are you going bankrupt because of cable bills or something?

no you dont get it--it's pretty simple


Time warner has 1.5 mm paying customers who pay around 2 $ in their cable bill that goes directly to CVC in a contract that pays for the broadcast rights to MSG. That cash is used directly to pay costs associated with MSG--primarily the huge cost of players salaries from the Knicks and Rangers. What Cablevision owns seprately is not an issue here. they dont want to take money from peter to pay paul. they use these huge dollars from the cable companies[including their own] to pay these salaries out. When you take a 40+mm$ hit like that, that is BIG on the bottom line. If they can't make a deal going forward with TW-there will have to be a major cost reduction somewhere and that likely starts with the Rangers since they are so-called rebuilding.

this is a known fact--cable sports programming i.e ESPN TNT MSG FOXetc... is the primary reason why cable bills keep increasing and that is due directly to increasing player salary costs. Time Warner finnally came to a bottom line and said we cant increase this anymore because we are not staying competitive.

As far as cable bill increasing by a dollar or two a month, I don't care. I'm willing to pay that to see a better team.

So am I. In fact, if they were explicitly asking for fan donations this summer to help pay for Crawford, I'd give some of my money.

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 08/01/2004 22:18:11]

http://www.nypost.com/sports/28423.htm

August 2, 2004 -- Once again, a dispute with Cablevision has resulted in the removal of valued sports programming from a competing local cable system. As of yesterday, MSG/FSN has been dropped from Time-Warner's two million households.
But could it be that Cablevision, the original Evil Empire, has, at long last, something of a legit position?

The deal Cablevision sought with T-W would provide a slight increase for MSG/FSN programming, yet would cost T-W less than what it pays for YES.

MSG/FSN may be down inventory with the loss of the Yanks and Nets, but it still has the Mets, Knicks, Liberty, Rangers, Islanders, Devils, MetroStars and lots of college sports. YES has just the Yanks, Nets and some college stuff.

Then again, Cablevision has long hollered that sports are so expensive that it must pass the cost to subscribers. But the loss of such programming is never reflected in monthly subscriber fees. And Cablevision, which owns the Garden, doesn't pay rights fees for the Knicks and Rangers.

In fact, this latest cable dispute might have been averted had an Attorney General's office, a couple of years ago, asked Cablevision to explain why, upon the loss of wildly expensive Yankee rights, it gave back pennies to subscribers for what it had charged dollars. Phil Mushnick


The best point this article makes and relevant to the discussion is that TW customers aren't going to see any reduction in their bills as a result of NOT carrying MSG/FSN. It's ok to cut programming if it becomes too expensive, that's a legit business decision but to charge the same rates as previous for a lesser programming package is unfair. I'm a Comcast customer here in CT, so I didn't miss out on YES that first year they had the dispute, but CVC had so many defections to Direct TV that they were forced back to the negotiating table and basically had to accept the deal the Yankees were offering, $2/subscriber. I hope the same fate awaits TW in their attempt to be cheap with their customers. But, do the Knicks/Rangers fan bases with TW have the clout that Yankees fans had w cablevision? Not likely.

it's very easy to understand what im saying. if CVC contained salaries for their pro sport teams--even to a reasonable high amount compared to other teams-lets use the Knicks as example--if the Knicks contained their players salaries to a cap limit of 65 [which would still leave them as a top 3 payroll] Cablevision would save 60 MILLION dollars a year just on the Knicks. It is proven between the Knicks and the Trailblazers that a high payroll doesnt guarantee even a good team. When you are not indiscriminantly spending--you wont have contracts like Andersen or for that fact you would be paying H2) 12 mm instead of 20mm etc... CVC --by driving up their own costs starts a viscious cycle which ultimately hurts the fan. Any reasonable fiscal restraint would temper the problem. If they had a reasonable payroll for the Knicks and Rangers, they could afford to stablize fees.
Going forward the Knicks need to diversify how they obtain talent and let some ending contracts run dry instead of flipping them.