The Red Sox' grubby hands in the current Entercom mess

[BoscoGoldBear]

I have always said to people I know that the Red Sox, whose three biggest owners (Pinch Sulzberger with the single largest plurality at 16.666etc.%, followed by John Henry and Tom Werner respectively) are well known liberals, wanted to run its Boston radio flagship they way they personally see fit, just like they run NESN on the TV side. I know that it will be several years before the Red Sox are in such bad shape that they will need a real TV station (i.e. 38) like the B's and C's currently do (that will be in a TV post, except that the illegal alien sport, aka the Revs, are Boston's new #3 team behind the Sox and Pats because of a real TV station).

Anyway, my point: the Red Sox, angry over the years that their longtime flagship WEEI was basically conservative talk in both drive times, did not want that to continue. So rather than have WEEI outbid everyone else, the Sox wanted to go to WBOS (accept a lower bid but get away from D&C and Big O's conservatism), but Entercom made the Sox an offer that not only kept the Sox (largely) off WEEI, but also gave them carte blanche in WRKO's affairs, hence the firings of John DePetro and Scott Alan Miller AND now the defection of Howie Carr to WTKK (which Howie not long ago called WTKKK when **** got canned). The Red Sox got what they wanted: no conservatalk on their flagship, and a whole station to build. BTW, Sox, there's no way you can transfer the "appeal" of Charlie Moore over to radio!

How soon before Graham Crackers gets replaced by Eagan and Braude in mid-mornings (hopefully he does evenings), and El Rushbo comes to WTKK in middays?

 

[Varulven]

Excellent points, Steve N. As STAPLES has a lot to say with what is printed in The Boston Herald (just ask Robin Washington how he was treated after a fair and balanced expose' on a big advertiser), The Red Sox have mucho input on RKO.

Jason Wolfe coming from WEEI speaks volumes. Methinks the "smashing of the glass award" was all for show -
believe it or not, they probably wanted Carr to walk. Think about it, it's the same thing as forgetting to put
Carlton Fisk's contract in the mail. These corporations are MUCH too smart to let someone get away if they really want them.

The IMUS thing and "Towel Heads" Carr and "Fat Lesbian" Depetro just do not blend nicely with Family Day at Fenway Park.

So something big is in the wind. Keep in mind I posted months ago that Carr and The Sox were not a good fit.
This appears to be a calculated move to push Howie out the door and revamp the station. Wonder how soon Finneran will get his walking papers. Todd Feinburg will be on 24/7 till the new format kicks in, which is kind of like playing Ton-Loc's "Funky Cold Medina" for 3 days straight...

Todd Feinburg - the biggest indicator that RKO wants to push what little audience they have left out the door.

 

[ChrisNH]

Well, I think it's a very sad commentary when a small handful of 'baseball guys' use their political ideology to rule the roost over a once-thriving-and-now-dying radio station. How would you like to be some employee that gets sacked later this year at WRKO because ratings have sunk along with ad revenues? How can that NOT be the outcome for a lot of hard-working people whose ambition was to get into an interesting industry and earn a steady living? But all that gets hijacked because of a small band of socialist Liberals who got angry that 'their' station was swaying in the wrong direction. I guess by casting them out onto the street, these socialist Liberal 'baseball guys' get some more 'victims' that they can add to their ranks.

 

[TSBench]

Well, I think it's a very sad commentary when a small handful of 'baseball guys' use their political ideology to rule the roost over a once-thriving-and-now-dying radio station

Sorry, Chris, but that was Maloney's conspiracy theory a couple of months ago. It came after the 'moonbat liberal David Field is trying to remake WRKO into AAR' theory and the "WRKO is using Red Sox day games to make Howie quit' theory. These have all gone past their sell-by dates. I believe the new theory is that WRKO wanted to keep Howie and lost him due to the incompetence of Wolfie.

I know its hard to keep track, they change about as often as the SaveWRKO mission statement, and, of course, there could be a new one tomorrow, so you do have to stay flexible.

Regards,
TSB

 

[Varulven]

Hey Chris,

a LOT of talented people stay away from radio because in 2007 it has become an industry where you are rewarded for obedience, not creativity:

CHRIS WRITES:

"How can that NOT be the outcome for a lot of hard-working people whose ambition was to get into an interesting industry and earn a steady living? "

Tune in to http://radioparadise.com if you want creativity, or spend money on XM & Sirius.

Terror-give-it-a-restrial radio is all about advertising, advertising, advertising and conservative propaganda.

What will be really interesting is if Stern comes back in the mornings somewhere via a deal similar to
Opie & Anthony. You know that's around the corner. Stern wants the platform, morning radio wants Howard.
As in Howard Stern. Let's see Howie Carr compete with that. He's had absolutely no competition in the afternoons.

 

[brightonboris]

I have always said to people I know that the Red Sox, whose three biggest owners (Pinch Sulzberger with the single largest plurality at 16.666etc.%, followed by John Henry and Tom Werner respectively) are well known liberals, wanted to run its Boston radio flagship they way they personally see fit, just like they run NESN on the TV side. I know that it will be several years before the Red Sox are in such bad shape that they will need a real TV station (i.e. 38) like the B's and C's currently do (that will be in a TV post, except that the illegal alien sport, aka the Revs, are Boston's new #3 team behind the Sox and Pats because of a real TV station).

Anyway, my point: the Red Sox, angry over the years that their longtime flagship WEEI was basically conservative talk in both drive times, did not want that to continue. So rather than have WEEI outbid everyone else, the Sox wanted to go to WBOS (accept a lower bid but get away from D&C and Big O's conservatism), but Entercom made the Sox an offer that not only kept the Sox (largely) off WEEI, but also gave them carte blanche in WRKO's affairs, hence the firings of John DePetro and Scott Alan Miller AND now the defection of Howie Carr to WTKK (which Howie not long ago called WTKKK when **** got canned). The Red Sox got what they wanted: no conservatalk on their flagship, and a whole station to build. BTW, Sox, there's no way you can transfer the "appeal" of Charlie Moore over to radio!

How soon before Graham Crackers gets replaced by Eagan and Braude in mid-mornings (hopefully he does evenings), and El Rushbo comes to WTKK in middays?

Entercom-Red Sox contract gives the team an option to buy WRKO. Make your own conclusions which will probably become quite valid in about 3-4 months.

 

[Varulven]

a fire sale. Jason Wolfe allegedly smashing the glass award is just the beginning of the move out, he was just dumping unnecessary items so there's less to cart out the door. The higher ups at Red Sox Nation probably already bought the station - thus, Todd Fineberg is the proverbial Tone-loc record played over continuously to dump the listenership

 

[TSBench]

Entercom-Red Sox contract gives the team an option to buy WRKO. Make your own conclusions which will probably become quite valid in about 3-4 months.

Well, no, it doesn't. It gives the team the option to buy a minority interest in the station.

Before you come back and say its the same thing, I just I'll just point out in advance that it isn't.

Regards,
TSB

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

I realize that actual, provable facts are anathema around here, but nevertheless, try these on for size:

Fact 1: The Red Sox have a contract with Entercom Boston to broadcast their games on WEEI and WRKO. That does not give the Red Sox any control over either station. No editorial control. No content control. No sponsorship control. No control at all. Until and unless they obtain a controlling interest, they have NOTHING to say about anything at any station carrying their games. NOTHING. Look it up. It's the law. FCC licensees cannot cede control to other parties without putting their license at risk. No matter how much Sulzberger, Werner or Henry wish to control their own press and publicity, until they own a controlling interest in a radio station they are SOL.

Fact 2: Investors in a baseball team, or any financial venture, are after one thing, and one thing only: Money. Their political leanings matter not in the least. What all you theorists seem to forget is the number of times that rock-ribbed conservatives have invested in ventures promoting liberal values (and vice versa), including Clear Channel putting Air America, while it was still a viable operation, on many of its stations (and even succeeding on a few of them). You're over-thinking things. Follow the money.

 

[Finn]

I realize that actual, provable facts are anathema around here, but nevertheless, try these on for size:

Fact 1: The Red Sox have a contract with Entercom Boston to broadcast their games on WEEI and WRKO. That does not give the Red Sox any control over either station. No editorial control. No content control. No sponsorship control. No control at all. Until and unless they obtain a controlling interest, they have NOTHING to say about anything at any station carrying their games. NOTHING. Look it up. It's the law. FCC licensees cannot cede control to other parties without putting their license at risk. No matter how much Sulzberger, Werner or Henry wish to control their own press and publicity, until they own a controlling interest in a radio station they are SOL.

Fact 2: Investors in a baseball team, or any financial venture, are after one thing, and one thing only: Money. Their political leanings matter not in the least. What all you theorists seem to forget is the number of times that rock-ribbed conservatives have invested in ventures promoting liberal values (and vice versa), including Clear Channel putting Air America, while it was still a viable operation, on many of its stations (and even succeeding on a few of them). You're over-thinking things. Follow the money.

Have you EVER worked in business?

Fact 1 - you are right. they don't have 'control'. But anyone who has ever actually had any kind of partnership or investor relationship knows that you also have to get along. So, a successful partnership starts with making sure they have the same goals, corporate culture, style. A deal is unlikely if those aren't in place in the beginning. Second, since you're going to be working together, you tend to not to do things that you know are going to really piss off the other party or directly conflict with their goals, even if it works for your's.

Fact 2 - it ISN'T just the money. in fact, it often isn't the money at all. Like when an American consumer products company moved its European headquarters from Zurich (high wages, high costs, but low taxes, low gov mandated labor costs) to London (high costs, higher taxes, higher gov mandated labor costs) because the new top dog preferred to live in London (this significantly increased their operating costs and they now have important operations in Vienna and Prague to reduce costs). I can cite many, many cases where lifestyle decisions are made to suit senior executives that are not justified by the numbers.

The 'glamour' of being associated with the Red Sox enhances the investment in a way that investing in a cement company simply would not. Ultimately, the bottom line has to work. But, it ISN'T just about the money, especially in a glamour industry. (it's about status, and money is one way to get it. hanging out with top athletes is another way. and we all know why guys want status, right??)

Fact 3 - the fact that Clear Channel had Air America on its stations does not necessarily mean they did so to make money. Ever heard of a loss leader? I have been told by someone who was told by someone at Clear Channel this: CC wanted concessions from the FCC. The FCC said we're getting complaints that you're too partisan. CC threw AA on a handful of their multitudes of stations (crappy ones), didn't invest in the formats, but were able to say with a straight face, 'we're broadcasting the other point of view'. When they didn't get what they wanted from the FCC, they started flipping to other formats and have, in general, put much more into those operations. Interestingly, many of these stations are not necessarily doing better (like Rhumba here in Boston). Or maybe CC was just incompetent at developing the format. It's a possibility. Or, maybe, it just isn't viable. Any of these could be true, and I find that people tend to promote the explanation they supports their vision of the world.

Like the Howie Wolfe thing. Can you believe anything? This from the station where Adams locked himself in the studio and did that whole theatrical thing which Wolfe later admitted was entirely staged? You think they aren't feeding Baloney Maloney the stuff for his website? Maybe, maybe not. Who knows? The WRKO haters are thrilled. The Kahn/Wolfe haters are thrilled. The Carr lovers are thrilled. Everyone is talking about it. What could be better for the station?

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

Have you EVER worked in business?

All my life.

Fact 1 - you are right. they don't have 'control'. But anyone who has ever actually had any kind of partnership or investor relationship knows that you also have to get along. So, a successful partnership starts with making sure they have the same goals, corporate culture, style. A deal is unlikely if those aren't in place in the beginning. Second, since you're going to be working together, you tend to not to do things that you know are going to really piss off the other party or directly conflict with their goals, even if it works for your's.

Since you ignored what I wrote, I'll spell it out for you: The Red Sox have NO say over what Entercom programs. None. Nada. Zilch. Zero. "Go along to get along" doesn't apply when you have the law on your side. A sports team and a radio broadcasting group do not inherently have the same goals, save one: Make money. That's what ultimately mattered. That's why the ten-year deal was done. Bucks. If you don't understand this from the start, you don't understand the broadcasting business.

Fact 2 - it ISN'T just the money. in fact, it often isn't the money at all. Like when an American consumer products company moved its European headquarters from Zurich (high wages, high costs, but low taxes, low gov mandated labor costs) to London (high costs, higher taxes, higher gov mandated labor costs) because the new top dog preferred to live in London (this significantly increased their operating costs and they now have important operations in Vienna and Prague to reduce costs). I can cite many, many cases where lifestyle decisions are made to suit senior executives that are not justified by the numbers.

The 'glamour' of being associated with the Red Sox enhances the investment in a way that investing in a cement company simply would not. Ultimately, the bottom line has to work. But, it ISN'T just about the money, especially in a glamour industry. (it's about status, and money is one way to get it. hanging out with top athletes is another way. and we all know why guys want status, right??)

And what does status ultimately lead to? Five letters: M-O-N-E-Y. Status doesn't put Rolls-Royces in the garage or caviar on the table. Status doesn't buy player contracts for seven figures a year. Status doesn't let a radio station's sales department sell commercials for thousands of dollars a minute. If you think it's about anything other than money, dream on.

Fact 3 - the fact that Clear Channel had Air America on its stations does not necessarily mean they did so to make money. Ever heard of a loss leader?

You have obviously never worked in broadcasting, if this is what you really believe.

I have been told by someone who was told by someone at Clear Channel this:<worthless speculation snipped>

Thanks for the best laugh of the day. Can you spell "naïve?"

Like the Howie Wolfe thing. Can you believe anything? This from the station where Adams locked himself in the studio and did that whole theatrical thing which Wolfe later admitted was entirely staged? You think they aren't feeding Baloney Maloney the stuff for his website? Maybe, maybe not. Who knows? The WRKO haters are thrilled. The Kahn/Wolfe haters are thrilled. The Carr lovers are thrilled. Everyone is talking about it. What could be better for the station?

Oh, I don't know...losing the only show that had ratings and revenue, except for the Red Sox? BETTER for the station? I want some of what you're smoking. Once October comes around, WRKO is going to be headed straight for the nearest Dumpster...and you say "what could be better?"

Keep posting those fantasies, though. We all need a laugh.

 

[radiotony]

AHahahahahaahahahaahahahaahahahahaahahahhahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHhHAHAHAHAHAHAHhahahahah

What? Like every other programmer in radio who let their own political ideology dictate what they program? Where the heck have you been, boy?!

Well, I think it's a very sad commentary when a small handful of 'baseball guys' use their political ideology to rule the roost over a once-thriving-and-now-dying radio station.

 

[TSBench]

Fact 1: The Red Sox have a contract with Entercom Boston to broadcast their games on WEEI and WRKO. That does not give the Red Sox any control over either station. No editorial control. No content control. No sponsorship control. No control at all.

I believe the contract does give the Sox final approval on the play-by-play announcers, which seems to be pretty standard in the industry.

Of course, some folks seem to think the Sox are doing Entercom a favor. Entercom is writing the Red Sox very large checks. If the Sox don't like what WRKO is programming, what are they going to do, refuse to cash those checks in protest?

No matter how much Sulzberger, Werner or Henry wish to control their own press and publicity, until they own a controlling interest in a radio station they are SOL.

Of course, along with NYTs, they own 80% of NESN, that well-known bastion of liberal political thought.

Besides not owning a controlling interest in WRKO, they don't own any interest. They have a option to purchase a minority interest in the station, and emphasized, in the press release, that it was not an obligation, just a option. Of course, if the Sox become a license to print money for Entercom, it would make sense for them to exercise the option and get some of the advertising revenue for themselves. It would also be smart for Entercom to sell it to them for, besides the option fee, the minority interest in the station would become part of the team's assets and essentially guarantee Entercom owning the broadcast rights in perpetuity, even if the team is eventually sold.

But, as of right now, being a potential minority owner isn't worth the paper it's potentially printed on. Through my rollover IRA, I have an option of buying a minority stake in Ford. I think I'll give them a call and insist they do something about the mileage I get from my Explorer, after all, I am a potential minority owner. Whaddya think my chances are of getting through?

Investors in a baseball team, or any financial venture, are after one thing, and one thing only: Money. Their political leanings matter not in the least.

Henry also owns a big chunk of Fenway Roush Racing, and NASCAR is probably the most politically conservative organization in sports, with the possible exception of the PGA. Since Fenway Rouse is a major player, anyone think that it won't be long before they start playing the Internationale at NASCAR events in place of the Star Spangled Banner?

IIRC, this whole theory is just old crap from Brian Maloney, who has turned counterintuitiveness into a one-man cottage industy.

(parts recycled from the last time this theory was run up the foul pole)

Regards,
TSB

 

[bjohns]

I don't know who "Dumber Than A Box of Hair" is, but he's clearly smarter than most of the people who post on this board.

Conspiracy theorists have no idea what happens inside a real, commercial, non-college, non-pirate, "we have to pay our own bills" radio station. Nor do most of the uninformed people who post on this board.

I'm a radio fan and have been for a long time. I have never seen a board dominated by more uninformed people than this one. Across America, there are websites in Top 10 markets run out of people's basements with more knowledge of how radio works than 90% of the postings here.

Until the Howie story broke, I had stopped checking this board. I stopped by to read the usual partisan-yet-clueless-about-radio reactions. The gang didn't disappoint.

DTABOH's posting was a glaring reminder of the distance between people who do radio for a living, and people who sit around saying "Why don't they put Air America on? It would be HUGE!"

Read DTABOH's posting. Learn something. Or better still (Casablanca and Finn) stop posting and embarrassing yourselves. You're probably wonderful people and a hit at cocktail parties. I mean that. You sound like interesting and entertaining people.

But you don't know [expletive deleted] about ratings and revenue, i.e. the actual business of radio.

 

[Bring Back F-105]

Charlie Moore is the Biggest Over Hyped Crap on New England Television. Fishing ? Are we south of the mason dixon line ? Henry must think so because he wasted his hard earned money (or was it ours by wasting our time and $ at Fenway) on a Race Car.

 

[radiotony]

Hmm, well, OK. I don't know how to respond to this, having worked in media and politics for more than two decades now, including almost 13 years in radio - granted, only 2.5 on commercial radio - and almost five years in newspapers. I don't think it is that bad out here.

I don't know who "Dumber Than A Box of Hair" is, but he's clearly smarter than most of the people who post on this board.

Conspiracy theorists have no idea what happens inside a real, commercial, non-college, non-pirate, "we have to pay our own bills" radio station. Nor do most of the uninformed people who post on this board.

I'm a radio fan and have been for a long time. I have never seen a board dominated by more uninformed people than this one. Across America, there are websites in Top 10 markets run out of people's basements with more knowledge of how radio works than 90% of the postings here.

Until the Howie story broke, I had stopped checking this board. I stopped by to read the usual partisan-yet-clueless-about-radio reactions. The gang didn't disappoint.

DTABOH's posting was a glaring reminder of the distance between people who do radio for a living, and people who sit around saying "Why don't they put Air America on? It would be HUGE!"

Read DTABOH's posting. Learn something. Or better still (Casablanca and Finn) stop posting and embarrassing yourselves. You're probably wonderful people and a hit at cocktail parties. I mean that. You sound like interesting and entertaining people.

But you don't know [expletive deleted] about ratings and revenue, i.e. the actual business of radio.

 

[Finn]

Since you ignored what I wrote, I'll spell it out for you: The Red Sox have NO say over what Entercom programs. None. Nada. Zilch. Zero. "Go along to get along" doesn't apply when you have the law on your side. A sports team and a radio broadcasting group do not inherently have the same goals, save one: Make money. That's what ultimately mattered. That's why the ten-year deal was done. Bucks. If you don't understand this from the start, you don't understand the broadcasting business.

Fact 2 - it ISN'T just the money. in fact, it often isn't the money at all. Like when an American consumer products company moved its European headquarters from Zurich (high wages, high costs, but low taxes, low gov mandated labor costs) to London (high costs, higher taxes, higher gov mandated labor costs) because the new top dog preferred to live in London (this significantly increased their operating costs and they now have important operations in Vienna and Prague to reduce costs). I can cite many, many cases where lifestyle decisions are made to suit senior executives that are not justified by the numbers.

The 'glamour' of being associated with the Red Sox enhances the investment in a way that investing in a cement company simply would not. Ultimately, the bottom line has to work. But, it ISN'T just about the money, especially in a glamour industry. (it's about status, and money is one way to get it. hanging out with top athletes is another way. and we all know why guys want status, right??)

And what does status ultimately lead to? Five letters: M-O-N-E-Y. Status doesn't put Rolls-Royces in the garage or caviar on the table. Status doesn't buy player contracts for seven figures a year. Status doesn't let a radio station's sales department sell commercials for thousands of dollars a minute. If you think it's about anything other than money, dream on.

Hey DTABOH, I saw this in the paper this morning and thought of you immediately

Warren Buffet has this to say about owning baseball teams:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/10/sports/baseball/10chass.html?_r=1&ref=sports&oref=slogin

“Up until the age of about 20, I probably did think if I got rich I would buy a baseball team,” he said. “Then I got rich, and I changed my mind.”

Two groups have approached him about buying the Chicago Cubs, he said, and he recalled receiving a half-dozen calls about the Royals when they were available in the late 1990s.

“If I was in a major league city, who knows?” Buffett said. “But the answer is no, I will not be buying a major league team.”

Buffett also recalled advice he gave in the early 1990s to Bill Gates, who tops the Forbes list. The Nintendo people were buying the Seattle Mariners, and they were seeking investors.

“Bill Gates asked me if he should buy into it,” Buffett said. “I said: ‘If you love baseball, buy it. But if you buy and you don’t win every year, you’ll be a bum.’ ”

Asked about baseball as an investment, Buffett said: “If you buy teams at present prices, you will not do well, in my view, in terms of the actual income that will result from that ownership compared with the price you pay. But as the super-rich get richer and there are a limited number of teams, they love the sport, and just like they buy paintings, there will be more of those people who buy teams.”

This is what I meant when I said baseball is a glamour industry as opposed to the cement industry. If it's just about the money, there are better investments.

 

[TSBench]

Hi, Finn. Hows tricks?

Warren Buffet has this to say about owning baseball teams:

Since 2002, stock in Buffet's flagship Bershire Hathaway, has gone from a share price of $75,000 to a current share price of $110,000, a rise of 46%.

Since 2002, when the current ownership bought the Sox for 380 million, the Sox now have a current value (according to Forbes) of $724 million, a rise of 89%.

And, I think it can be safely said that investors in the Sox, besides doing twice as well investment wise, had more fun and better seats.

Two groups have approached him about buying the Chicago Cubs, he said, and he recalled receiving a half-dozen calls about the Royals when they were available in the late 1990s.

Too bad, the Cubs would have been a remarkably good investment ($200 mil in 1998 to $600 mil today), and the Royals, despite having horrendous teams, have also gone up in value (bought in 2000 for $96mil, today worth around $300 mil.) If he was looking at buying teams a decade ago, he passed just in time to miss out on the greatest upward bump in franchise values in history.

The Nintendo people were buying the Seattle Mariners, and they were seeking investors.
“Bill Gates asked me if he should buy into it,” Buffett said. “I said: ‘If you love baseball, buy it. But if you buy and you don’t win every year, you’ll be a bum.’ ”

Good advice. The Mariners have been a money machine and one of the best run and most profitable baseball investments anyone could have made. Nintendo bought them for $125 mil and they have a current value of around $436 mil. Not that it matters to Gates, but Buffet looks to be the 'bum' with this piece of advice. If he had given me this advice, I'd be stalking him right about now.

This is what I meant when I said baseball is a glamour industry as opposed to the cement industry.

Yep, and some of the glamour is that cement factories don't double in value in five years.

If it's just about the money, there are better investments.

And a lot of worse ones. And there are always better investments, it's just that you don't know what they are. I can't believe your point is that someone who happens to not pick the world's greatest investment isn't serious about business.

So, what exactly was your point here? That while Buffet's a genius at finding good investments, giving advice on the potential of professional sports teams isn't his long suit?

And, to get back to Hair's point, even if the Sox had turned out to be a mediocre investment, it would still be run like a business in the pursuit of money and not to further some political agenda.

Regards,
TSB

 

[webcastboy]

I don't quite get this: the Sox had an opportunity to buy WBOS/92.9. Ultimately they did not, presumably because of a combination of the up-front cost (to Greater Media) was too high and the payment from Entercom (from the existing deal) was high enough that it made more business sense.

Certainly business is not always about money...companies do fiscally stupid things all the time, and sometimes they even do things that do not make fiscal sense but make sense in other ways, like providing for their employees on the theory that happy employees make better employees...stuff like that.

But if politics were the driving factor behind the Sox-Entercom deal, then I have to think the Sox would've bought 92.9FM; even an obscenely high price (perhaps $125-$150 million...although more likely closer to $100-$110mil) would not have been impossible (or even difficult) for the Sox to meet. And there's no denying that with the cash machine WEEI was with the Sox ($36mil in revenue in 2005, IIRC) that it would've been a smart investment. Even with startup costs, the Sox could've recouped their purchase of 92.9 in less than a decade; that's the approximate standard for most businesses. Hell, they probably could've done it in less than five years...look at how they made NESN into the money machine it is.

Would it have put a crimp on their total available cash? Damn straight it would have. I wouldn't be surprised if they wouldn't have afforded big contracts like DiceK had they bought WBOS; too much cash outflow at once. But, again, if personal politics were driving the deal, then it wouldn't have been such a ridiculous fiscal strain that they couldn't have done it.

As such, I'm inclined to agree that it was about the money. The talk on WEEI that the Sox didn't like was probably less about conservative politics, and more about hosts & callers bashing the team's decisions on a regular basis; to some degree that hurts the Sox brand which means it hurts the Sox bottom line. Hence the goofy arrangement with WRKO; it was a "free" way for the Sox to help their bottom line.

The only reason WRKO was chosen was because it has a similar coverage area to WEEI and, to a lessor degree, because games would be less disruptive to WRKO than to other Entercom properties. But it's mostly the coverage; all of Entercom's other stations (WMKK, WAAF and WKAF) don't get good penetration downtown and that's critical for marketing and listener expectation purposes. If WMKK were transmitting from the Pru or RT.128, I suspect they would've put the games on there...and while WRKO's decline still probably would've happened, we wouldn't be arguing about the Sox's politics influencing it.

Of course, this is all rampant speculation and invective. Ultimately none of us really know what Entercom or the Sox were really thinking when they did this deal. But that's Radio-Info for you..."Where 'slander' means never having to say you're sorry." :-\

 

[Finn]

So, what exactly was your point here? That while Buffet's a genius at finding good investments, giving advice on the potential of professional sports teams isn't his long suit?

Hey TSB,

Okay, okay!! Look, I was responding to Dumber's point which was that investors in baseball are only interested in money, and I'd like to make clear (which I did not do the first time), this does not mean I think they have a political agenda.

I posted this because I found it interesting (and validating!) that Warren Buffet, who is generally considered to be a great investor, wasn't, and isn't, recommending the baseball industry as an investment unless you also love it. That was the point that I was trying to make - that most investors in professional sports actually do follow that advice and invest not only for the money.

So, you've done a great job pointing out that if they all sell now, they'll make piles of money. As a value investor, Buffet does tend to forego high risk/high reward scenarios for things he understands (he used to say that he did not invest in hi-tech because he said he didn't understand it at a time when people were making gazillions - everyone ignored him and thought he was a fogey until after the bubble burst when everyone thought he was a genius). He also says that since there are a limited number of teams and folks with more money the value will likely go up, like fine art. Do you think the values will always go up? Is that because of the limited number of teams?

So anyway, Buffet isn't perfect, but he's darn good so I thought his POV was worth mentioning!

With Japan getting involved - http://www.projo.com/redsox/content/soxjapan_08-02-07_V96JFF2.502e795.html - it will be interesting to see how the fun/money tradeoffs work out. Will local fans be less interested if US teams appear to be pandering to an international audience? Will it increase interest? Will the number of teams expand? What will that do to values??

And, to get back to Hair's point, even if the Sox had turned out to be a mediocre investment, it would still be run like a business in the pursuit of money and not to further some political agenda.

I think Hair, bjohns and others misunderstood the point I was trying to make. Unlike Steve N who started the thread and others who chimed in, I didn't intend to suggest that the Red Sox or Clear Channel were furthering their political agendas, liberal or conservative. I was suggesting that it was more along the lines that they want to invest in sports because it's fun (and high status) whether or not it's good financially. But as you've pointed out, they are making buckets of money so...