From: chuq@Apple.COM (Eeyore's Evil Twin)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Florida awaits the Giants!
Date: 7 Nov 92 22:09:01 GMT
Organization: Pooh Corner Country Club -- A Planned Community

COP80196@UCF1VM.BITNET (Bill Laird) writes:

> But
>baseball is a business, and like any other business is driven by money,

LEGALLY, baseball is not a business. So ruled the Supreme Court when they
upheld their exemption from the anti-trust agreements. They are a sport.
Hence they can restrict franchise moves, conduct drafts, limit free-agency
and do lots of stuff businesses can't get away with. 

(Now, we ALL know that it's a business, and a pretty big, greedy one. But
what reality is and what legally is are different matters).

This is yet another reason the owners have to be careful, because they
really, really don't want to lose that anti-trust exemption and if they
tread on the wrong toes, they very well might. (Frankly, I think treading on
Tampa's toes is a lot more likely to cause them grief here than treading on
San Francisco's, by the way).

And when you're talking money, you have to talk *MONEY*. The difference
between a $115m deal in Tampa and a $100M deal in San Francisco is
meaningless to the owners. It's mouse nuts, and besides, the owners that are
left don't see any of that, so what do they care? They're worried about
other things more than whether Lurie gets an extra few bucks. On Tampa's
side, it'd be a bad precedent to force a franchise to stay for less money,
because what happens when they want to sell?

On San Francisco's side, though, are a few very real problems, like the
National League abandoning one of the largest media markets for Florida, and
the fact that adding a NL team to Tampa permanently locks out the AL from
that market (Miami, Tampa and Atlanta means that the AL doesn't get anywhere
close to that lucrative market. That's really not a well-balanced setup;
Tampa really OUGHT to be an AL team). If they put the NL into Tampa anyway,
they might never get that problem fixed. 

And when you're talking money, you have to stop focussing on purchase price.
It's mouse nuts. It's the media money and how it's divvied up that matters.
Whether the price is $100 or $115 may be important to Lurie, but he's a lame
duck on this issue, adn the other owners basically don't care which number
he gets. He gets the number that happens to be attached to whatever overall
package baseball thinks is best for them.

(in other words, the sale of the Giants isn't about which offer is more,
except as a basic, abstract level -- it has to be 'enough', and MLB has
evidently decided that $100m is 'enough' if it's structured right. The rest
is inner politics in the owner's group and which factions decide to do what.
So trying to apply logic to this issue is silly, because these are baseball
owners we're talking about).

>and more specifically profit. Do you think Lurie is going to stand and
>take a $15 million hit?

Baseball's already said publicly he doesn't get a vote. 

>Tampa has a lot to offer to the Giants. Baseball is very big down here,
>even college and high school baseball have a loyal following.

How long has the ownership of MLBaseball cared one whit about fans? Except
as their revenue source, that is....

>Given the Giants poor attendence over the past several years, one has to
>wonder even if the Giants stay in SF, how long is it going to last?

Again, attendance figures are somewhat misleading, since what's important
are the media revenue packages. Baseball wouldn't particularly care if they
drew 5,000 a game if they had a $10 million local TV package. 

-- 
Chuq "IMHO" Von Rospach, ESD Support & Training (DAL/AUX) =+= Member, SFWA
  chuq@apple.com | GEnie: MAC.BIGOT | ALink:CHUQ =+= Editor, OtherRealms

    I wanna drive the zamboni! I wanna drive the zamboni, yes I do.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball