Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
Rogers are the richest owners in baseball, by a significant margin too. Teams mentioned like the Yankees and Red Sox and Dodgers all spend absurd money, but I'm guessing they aren't losing much, if any money at all. They also are unique like the Yankees in that they own the network that broadcasts games, which allows them to make more money without the middle man. Rogers, even when the Jays weren't winning, likely weren't losing any significant money.
We saw it last year with the spike in ratings and undoubtedly merchandise sales, the Jays can be the 2nd or 3rd most popular sports entity in Canada after the Habs and Leafs. Just imagine how popular they could be if they were a consistent contender. Yes, seven years and $217 million is a ridiculous contract and likely an albatross by year five, but if the Jays won even one World Series in those first four years, wouldn't it be worth it? All that extra money and support? Developing long term fans?
|
According to Bob McCown (who has very close ties to Paul Beeston), the Jays were hemorrhaging money the past few seasons. I think a lot of that has to do with the rumors that the Jays business operations were run like the stone ages and were way behind other teams with modern front offices. That's exactly why Beeston was forced out and exactly why the Jays went after a modern, progressive thinker like Shapiro.
There is a ton of potential for the Jays to make a lot of money, but I think that potential has been mostly untapped. Ideally, Shapiro can revamp the Jays' business ops and make the most of their unique situation of having a whole country to profit off of.
The problem with being owned by a publicly traded company is that the Rogers can't just throw money at the Jays and appease the shareholders until there's some raw data that says it will be profitable. Last year was obviously a great start, but that was one special year where everyone jumped on the bandwagon after being out the playoffs for so long. Can the team be profitable when the years the team is merely good (80-85 wins) and not great? That's unproven and that's exactly why it was unrealistic to see Rogers invest in Price for 31 million dollars for 7 full seasons. I'm sure that price was fine for the next year or two, but in 7 years who knows how good the team is? A private owner can take that risk, but unfortunately a public owner cannot no matter how much fans complain. That fan backlash can have an impact on a private owner, but shareholders of Rogers aren't going to be swayed by it.