The Dodgers have not had their TV deal with Time Warner Cable (for SportsNet LA) cleared by the MLB yet, as I mentioned yesterday, and chances that it’ll be allowed to stand as is are bleak, according to Bob Nightengale of USA Today.

Major League Baseball has major concerns over the Los Angeles Dodgers’ record new TV deal, and unless an agreement can be reached within a few months, their differences may have to be resolved in federal court, according to a high-ranking MLB official with direct knowledge of the negotiations.

When the Dodgers emerged from bankruptcy in April, their agreement stipulated that the club’s fair-market TV value would be set at $84 million a year, with 4% increases each season. MLB teams with high revenues are required to share 34% of their local TV rights with low-revenue teams.

But the $7 billion, 25-year deal with Time Warner, as reported by Sports Business Journal and the Los Angeles Times, would provide the Dodgers roughly $280 million annually, leaving some $196 million not subject to revenue sharing at the outset of the contract.

In the revenue-sharing agreement among the 30 teams, if teams assume the risk of ownership in their own TV network, they are permitted to keep their revenue. Still, MLB has the right to establish a fair-market broadcasting rights fee to those teams, and require teams to contribute 34% to revenue sharing, such as the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox, with the YES Network and NESN, respectively

MLB argues that the Dodgers won’t be taking a significant risk since Time Warner Cable is guaranteeing $7 billion. Time Warner announced it plans to be the exclusive advertising affiliate sales network of the channel, vowing to cover affiliate fees from distributors who refuse to carry the channel.

So basically, a billion dollars are at stake here, which is ~$40 million a year and hardly pocket change. The difference comes down to whether or not the parties involved can agree on how much risk the Dodgers are actually taking by creating their own network/channel. From the viewpoint of a totally uninformed layman (me), it honestly doesn’t seem like the team is taking much risk at all considering what Time Warner Cable is guaranteeing them at the outset, but we don’t know all the intricacies of the deal yet either, so maybe it looks different in court.

Regardless, it seems highly unlikely that things are allowed to stand as is. What the exact changes will be though? No idea.

—–

Unfortunately, that’s not the only issue still left unresolved, as whether any games will be broadcast for free on local television is still at odds, according to Bill Shaikin.

The Dodgers declined to comment beyond prepared statements that did not say what non-Dodgers programming the channel might carry, sports or otherwise. Also, even as a statement said the new channel would be the “exclusive local home” of the team, the Dodgers would not say whether they might broadcast any games on free local television.

I always hated games on KCAL because it meant that I literally couldn’t watch, but I’m not sure how many people would be affected if those free games were taken away. To me, it seems like you’re a dinosaur if you don’t have cable, or maybe that’s just in my world?

—–

Additionally, as I alluded to in the previous post on this agreement, TWC still has to negotiate with other carriers over rights, and that could always take a while/get ugly.

Millions of Lakers fans could not see the team at the start of this season because of extended negotiations between Time Warner Cable and rival cable and satellite distributors. Such negotiations are typical when a new channel starts, so it is possible millions of Dodgers fans might not be able to see their team on opening day in 2014.

“There’s always some variation of the distribution dance,” Time Warner Cable executive vice president Melinda Witmer said. “I would expect this won’t be any different.”

So yeah, don’t expect a resolution soon, as it might not even be resolved until we’re into the 2014 season, much like the Lakers situation in 2012.

The Dodgers new ownership group created American Media Productions in December of last year with the goal of launching a regional sports network dedicated to the team, and now they’ve announced that the network will be called SportsNet LA and will be home to the Dodgers starting in 2014, according to a Time Warner Cable press release.

The press release also gave some plans for the programming apart from games, which I wanted to know about, and talks about the involvement of TWC.

In addition to being the exclusive local home for all of the Dodger games, SportsNet LA will provide comprehensive behind-the-scenes Dodger programming, featuring more insights, analysis and commentary about the team than ever available before.

Time Warner Cable (TWC) has agreed to be SportsNet LA’s charter distributor, and will carry the new network for its customers throughout Southern California and Hawaii under a long-term affiliation deal. In addition, in return for agreeing to make payments over the life of the deal, TWC will be the exclusive advertising and affiliate sales agent for the new network and will have certain branding and programing rights with respect to the network. TWC will also provide certain non-game production and technical services to AMP.

This has been a bit of a foregone conclusion for almost a week now, but the part we’re all still waiting on are the exact terms of the deal, which have not been released yet. Also, I guess I don’t care as much since I get TWC in Hawaii, but for those who don’t have TWC, it’s yet to be seen how negotiations with other carriers will work out.

Regardless, it’s nice to finally see this officially confirmed, even if it does still need MLB approval.

The #Dodgers do not yet have MLB approval for TV deal. The pending revenue-sharing issue does not involve Time Warner.

— Bill Shaikin (@BillShaikin) January 28, 2013

—–

Update

John Ourand of Sports Business Daily reports that the deal is for $7 billion over 25 years.

The Dodgers have reached a deal with Time Warner Cable on a television contract worth between $6 billion and $7 billion dollars, according to Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times, but that’s not the most interesting part to me.

The Dodgers have agreed with Time Warner Cable on a new television contract that will provide the team with a channel of its own, according to two people familiar with the deal but not authorized to discuss it.

The Dodgers’ deal is expected to be finalized and announced Thursday. The team has not yet submitted the deal to Major League Baseball for approval, but the control of the channel is expected to rest with the Dodgers’ owners rather than with Time Warner.

The Time Warner Cable deal is believed to be worth between $6 billion and $7 billion.

Most are focused on the staggering amount of money, which is certainly amazing, but we already sort of knew the total would be around there since it was rumored that the team was close with FOX on a deal. However, the news to me is that the team will now have its own channel on Time Warner Cable.

—–

I’m interested for a couple of reasons: one revolves around whether or not this means the Dodgers assume part ownership of the channel, like the courts and MLB apparently want them to (increases their risk), and one revolves around how the hell they are going to fill that channel with content.

From the ownership perspective, does this mean the Dodgers will be forced to take on a share? And if so, how much?

The league believes — and there are indications the court might agree — that the Dodgers must take some element of risk with any money not subject to revenue sharing.

In other words, this deal seems far from over, as there are still a lot of questions to be answered and a lot of details still to come out. Nevertheless, this eases concerns about the payroll going forward, I think.

From the programming perspective, how does this work? Have you ever watched Prime Ticket when there’s no Dodgers on? There’s basically nothing on that channel, so I don’t understand why the team needs their own channel or what they’re going to do with the rest of the time blocks. My hope is that they come up with exclusive content and interesting programs, but judging by the current state of television, I highly doubt it.

This can all be redeemed by giving A.J. Ellis his own show for “Between Two Palm Trees“, where he continues to troll teammates.

—–

Update

Bill Shaikin now writes that the deal is in the $7 billion to $8 billion range.

MLB.com: The Dodgers are making extensive upgrades to Dodger Stadium, and I have to say that it all sounds awesome.

The most obvious upgrade — and the one senior vice president of planning and development Janet Marie Smith mentioned first — is the replacement of the scoreboards located above the right- and left-field pavilions with larger, 1080 high-definition LED boards, as well as replacement of message boards, including ribbon boards at the Loge level and outfield wall.

The rectangular one that has been in left field since the last All-Star Game is being returned to the hexagon shape of the original. The boards will be 22 percent larger with an active viewing area 66 percent larger, allowing for more video and statistical information to be displayed.

A new, sharper sound system comes with it, designed to direct sound to each seating section and minimize echoes.

Worried that it’ll look too modernized and lose its charm? Don’t. The changes are actually quite subtle and they aren’t gaudy or ridiculous.

Responding to complaints from fans, a state-of-the-art Wi-Fi and cellular antenna system will go live to support cellphone and Internet connectivity.

There also is major work being done to widen concourses, expand and renovate restrooms, enhance food service, build new entry plazas and create bullpen overlooks for standing-room views of the game. Restrooms will be installed under the outfield pavilions and more wheelchair locations will be created.

The Wi-Fi has long been a complaint among people covering/attending Dodger games, so I’m guessing this will be a welcome fix.

For the players, a new clubhouse is being installed, along with an expanded weight room and underground batting cages.

“That was a hot-button issue for Mark [Walter, chairman],” said Kasten. “He wants the finest training center in all of sports.”

For the on-the-field product, this is the one improvement that could actually have an impact, so at least it isn’t all superficial.

Playground areas will be created for children in the pavilion and Reserve Level that will include life-size bobbleheads.

Smith said the franchise’s history will be celebrated by displaying retired uniform numbers at the Top of the Park, giant World Series rings representing the six World Series championships and a display of Gold Glove, MVP and Cy Young Awards at the Dugout Club as “an inspiration to fans and players.”

Like most things the new owners have done so far, it all sounds great, so hopefully the honeymoon ends up lasting.

Los Angeles Times: Bill Shaikin has an update on the ongoing Dodgers television contract negotiations.

Whether the Dodgers keep their television broadcasts on Fox Sports or move them to Time Warner Cable appears to be a “50-50″ proposition, according to a person familiar with the team’s TV negotiations but not authorized to discuss them.

The Dodgers’ discussions with MLB center on whether all of their guaranteed television revenue should be subject to baseball’s revenue-sharing program. At issue in a $6-billion deal: whether the team’s contribution to the program would be about $1 billion or about $2 billion.

The league believes — and there are indications the court might agree — that the Dodgers must take some element of risk with any money not subject to revenue sharing.

The Dodgers must contribute 34% of the annual rights fee to baseball’s revenue-sharing program. The team plans to launch its own regional sports network, in part to avoid the prospect of Fox or TWC paying a much higher rights fee.

However, in order to get dividends from a regional sports network, the league believes the team should be required to take the accompanying risk of ownership. The Dodgers are looking at other ways to structure a deal that would shield that money from revenue sharing and satisfy MLB as well.

I feel more uncomfortable now than before, when it was basically reported as a done deal with FOX, but it does appear that the team will be getting their due windfall at some point, regardless.

Of course, none of this will likely affect 2013 anyway, but if the team is asked to take on extensive risk or if there’s a $1 billion difference in revenue from what the owners thought they would get out of the deal, I would have to think it would affect payroll somewhat.

—–

Mike Scioscia’s Tragic Illness: Somebody has to hit leadoff … right?

—–

FanGraphs: HGH testing in baseball? Public relations.

So what we see here appears — to my admittedly skeptical self, at least — less MLB and MLBPA joining hands to do what is right and rid the game of a great evil and more an appeal to doping fears and the court of public opinion. Personally, I just hope its intrusion into the game is minimal.

The public thinks HGH is a big deal, so why wouldn’t the MLB do testing and appear concerned as well? That way the MLB can beat their chest about being serious on PEDs, even though it makes basically no impact at all.

It’s an idiot test to me anyway, as I’m not sure why an athlete would waste their time with it. Placebo effect, I guess.

FanGraphs: David Laurila with the quotes of the year that he’s gathered. An interesting read.

“If you are what you say you are…”

—–

Dodgers Now: Bill Shaikin reveals that the Dodgers are no longer exclusively talking with Fox, as they’ve met with Time Warner now.

The Dodgers and Time Warner Cable have met to discuss a potential deal for the team’s television rights, according to two people familiar with the talks but not authorized to comment on them.

The Dodgers are considering at least three options for their next television home: the Prime Ticket cable channel owned by Fox Sports, the SportsNet cable channel owned by TWC or a new channel owned by the team.

Not sure whether this is a positive or a negative in terms of potential television money, but I figure competition rarely generates a lower return.

Baseball Prospectus: Maury Brown had an interview with Stan Kasten at the Winter Meetings.

—–

Los Angeles Times: Bill Shaikin warns about the perils of long-term big-money contracts.

But…

They do take players to 2017, and beyond. If the Dodgers win in 2013, well, who cares?

…that’s always the rub. If they win, even if the players start to implode in the context of their contracts, it’s justifiable. Flags fly forever, after all.

But they have to win.

FanGraphs: Jeff Sullivan reminds us that even if the Dodgers literally had an unlimited payroll and bought every top player they could on the free agent market, it still wouldn’t have resulted in a division winner in 2012.

Smarts still matter. The limit though becomes roster spots.

—–

FanGraphs: Dave Cameron questions why people assume prospects are always unknown quantities but are fine assuming that veterans always provide consistent results.

Wil Myers is a risk, but so is James Shields. So is Albert Pujols. So is Justin Verlander. So is everyone.

When we start using labels like “prospect” or “proven veteran” to describe players, we lose that reality. Myers and Shields both have the chance to be good, bad, or anything in between. Let’s not let the terms we use to describe player types obscure that fact. The Royals didn’t trade a lottery ticket for a paycheck; they traded a few lottery tickets for a scratch-off card. They probably did reduce their overall performance risk for 2013, but it didn’t go to zero. Let’s not pretend that we know so much about projecting the future of Major League players that we create an artificial divide where one does not exist.

Prospects come with uncertainty, but so do Major League players. Everyone is a risk. You weigh that risk against the potential rewards, and you figure out which trade-offs are worth making. Once you cross over into treating some players as non-risks, though, you’ve stopped evaluating players properly. And then you make trades like the one the Royals just made.

This is precisely how I’ve thought since I started blogging. Everybody has a percentage of relative success, and things can always go against that, but what you want to try and do is play the odds as best you can and hopefully the cards go your way.

With the Los Angeles Dodgers in the news for the impending bidding war over the ownership of the team, I thought this would be as appropriate a time as ever to run through the publicly declared bidders, as the deadline for submission has come and gone.

Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times breaks down the specifics of the bidding process in nice and tidy parts.

If McCourt has the final say on the new owner, what role does Major League Baseball play in the process?

MLB has agreed to approve up to 10 bidders. Yet Blackstone is unlikely to clear even that many bidders for MLB consideration, given the time needed for the league to investigate the structure and financing of each potential ownership group. To cover the costs of the investigation, MLB will charge $25,000 to each bidder cleared by Blackstone.

If MLB rejects a prospective bidder cleared by Blackstone, does McCourt have any recourse?

Yes. He can appeal to the mediator who brokered his settlement with MLB.

Do the other MLB owners have a say?

Yes. They can approve or reject any bidder that passes the MLB investigation. However, once the league informs Blackstone of which prospective buyers have been approved by MLB owners, McCourt conducts the final round of bidding and determines the winner. If the winning bidder’s final offer is dramatically higher than the initial offer, MLB reserves the right to review the financing.

When will this happen?

There is no set date, but the calendar suggests the end of March. McCourt has agreed to select the winning bidder by April 1 and disclose the winner to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court by April 6.

Outstanding stuff, as always.

Regarding the bidders themselves though, who are the groups and what good or bad traits do they bring to the table?

Let’s find out.

=====

Mark Cuban

The Good: A charismatic fan favorite of an owner, basically the exact opposite of Frank McCourt. His tenure as the Dallas Mavericks owner has obviously been a successful one, as he turned a joke of a franchise into a perennial contender. While his money has often been cited as the reason for the change, he has proven that he will explore any avenue that could potentially give his franchise an advantage. As such, he is unlikely to be as sabermetrics averse as the current Dodgers front office, as evidenced by his implementation of analytics in basketball to score his first NBA Championship.

The Bad: I’m not convinced he’s that legit of a threat to win. He’s not an idiot and he’s unlikely to go over whatever he has the Dodgers valued at, as he showed in the bidding for the Texas Rangers. While I’m confident he would find quality baseball men to run the franchise, he’s not going into the process with anybody in place.

My Take: I would love for him to be owner, as his history suggests he would make winning a priority and would explore the most efficient ways to do so. Unfortunately, I think it’s a long shot.

—–

Magic Johnson/Stan Kasten/Mark Walters

The Good: Magic Johnson instantly becomes the face of the ownership and it should go over extremely well with fans. Stan Kasten employs his experience with the Atlanta Braves and Washington Nationals to run the baseball operations. Mark Walters could use his eleventy trillion dollars to supplement the payroll and buy elite players. Seriously, Guggenheim Partners has over $100 billion in assets and he’s the CEO.

The Bad: Uh…none?

My Take: My current preference to win the bidding. I can’t see a better combination.

—–

Steven Cohen/Steve Greenberg/Arn Tellem

The Good: Founder of SAC Capital Advisors and a hedge fund manager, Steven Cohen is worth over $8 billion. The group’s baseball experience will come from Steve Greenberg, who served as a deputy commissioner of baseball, and Arn Tellem, who is a player agent for the Wasserman Media Group. Get to use puns on Arn Tellem’s name.

The Bad: In today’s political environment, it’s not exactly ideal in the public relations department to have a hedge fund manager as an owner, and especially not one whose company is under investigation by the SEC. Went through an ugly divorce that led to lawsuits. Sound familiar?

My Take: Do. Not. Want. I don’t want to deal with yet another owner with baggage. Haven’t Bud Selig and the other owners learned their lesson yet? Yes, other ownership groups could have drama, but this one has already been confirmed to have been involved in messes before, so why bother? My fear is that the Blackstone Group, which is in control of the sale, is a significant investor in SAC Capital Advisors, and that could give the latter a gigantic advantage.

—–

Rick Caruso/Joe Torre/Byron Trott

The Good: Joe Torre becomes the face of the franchise and has a ton of baseball experience. Despite his tenure with the Dodgers, I get the feeling that fans love him, and given that he just left a position with the MLB, he and Bud Selig should have a solid working relationship. Byron Trott, named by Warren Buffett as the only banker he trusts, heads BDT Capital Partners and was previously the vice chairman for Goldman Sachs. I would have the same concerns with him as I do with Steven Cohen, but he has no legal issues with his comapny and Buffett’s word carries weight. Rick Caruso is a local developer who is worth around $1.7 billion and has tons of local popularity.

The Bad: Honestly? Torre as the baseball man frightens me. A lot. He’s not progressive with his thinking at all and he never seemed to have a problem with Ned Colletti, leading me to believe he just might keep him around. Disastrous.

My Take: I don’t necessarily have a problem with the group, but the risk that Torre could regress the Dodgers to decades old thinking and retain Colletti is too much for me to bear. Out.

—–

Dennis Gilbert/Larry King/Jason Reese/Randy Wooster

The Good: Both Larry King and Dennis Gilbert are Dodgers fans, which is always a plus. King’s name carries weight, though I’m not sure he has any name value as a sports personality. Gilbert has extensive baseball experience as a former player agent, former player, and current special assistant to Jerry Reinsdorf, who owns the Chicago White Sox. Jason Reese and Randy Wooster are Chairman/CEO and President of Imperial Capital, a Los Angeles area investment bank, and the two will be providing the financial thump in the group.

The Bad: Not much public motivation, honestly. No idea if they actually have the money to compete.

My Take: If they have the money to spend competitively, then I have no issue with the group, but as of now, that’s a big unknown. There are rumors that they might have to hook up with Fox or Time Warner to get the finances to work. Ugh.

—–

Leo Hindery/Marc Utay

The Good: Leo Hindery is a Managing Partner at private equity fund InterMedia Partners, and he founded the YES Network for the New York Yankees and served as Chairman & CEO until 2004. Marc Utay is a Managing Partner at private equity firm Clarion Capital Partners. The pair of them tried to buy the Chicago Cubs back in 2009, so there’s a history there.

The Bad: They’ve been under the radar, and as a result not much has been revealed as to their finances or plans, so the biggest downside right now is the uncertainty.

My Take: Hard to judge what you know little about, so I can’t provide much positive or negative feedback until more is revealed.

—–

Steve Garvey/Orel Hershiser

The Good: Their resume in baseball speaks for itself, though little is known about their actual qualifications as executives. They certainly figure to have local support and can become the faces of the franchise.

The Bad: They don’t seem to have funding. Last time they spoke on the Dodgers, they were still looking for investors and it’s unknown who they found.

My Take: Not enough information to endorse two former players with unknown finances and unknown executive experience.

—–

Josh Macciello

The Good: He’s not a hedge fund manager or a banker or an executive, he’s a regular guy like you or me. He’s the CEO of ArmItal Sports and plans to use the gold mines he owns, which are valued in the tens of billions, as collateral for the purchase, so he says he has the financial backing.

The Bad: He’s a regular guy like you or me. The lack of baseball connections, the lack of executive experience, the lack of community support, and the legitimate questions about whether he would even be taken seriously by the commissioner and fellow owners. All of those are negatives.

My Take: I understand why fans might want to side with him, but I just can’t. It has little to do with his looks or his spelling or whatever else. It has more to do with the lack of experience in everything that I think an owner should be about.

—–

Stan Kroenke

The Good: Stan Kroenke is the largest shareholder in Arsenal F.C., owns the St. Louis Rams, Colorado Mammoth, and Colorado Rapids, and he formerly owned the Denver Nuggets, Colorado Avalanche, and Colorado Crush, all of which he transferred to his son to comply with NFL ownership rules. Needless to say, he has experience with this sort of thing and his teams have generally performed well under his tenure in charge.

The Bad: Perhaps his money will be spread a bit thin and I’m wondering if this has more to do with trying to move the Rams to Los Angeles than actually caring about the Dodgers. No idea about the baseball side of things.

My Take: I’m okay with this in theory, but I’m going to hold off on endorsing the move until more is revealed. We know a lot about him as an owner, but not a lot about his interest in the Dodgers.

—–

Potential Mergers And/Or Group Joiners

Peter O’Malley: Submitted an ownership bid himself, but has been rumored to be in discussions to link up with the bid of Stanley Gold & Roy Disney’s Family and/or Tony Ressler. A throwback to the good old days of Dodgers family ownership, but it’s probably not gonna help that he was talking about how terrible McCourt was as an owner considering McCourt will hold the ultimate decision.

Stanley Gold/Roy Disney’s Family: Submitted an ownership bid as their own group, but have been rumored to be linking up with Peter O’Malley and/or Tony Ressler. Gold is the President & CEO of Shamrock Holdings and has local popularity, but his financial clout is not known. Not much is known about what Roy Disney’s Family brings to the table either, I assume it’s money but nobody knows. Group is short on baseball experience.

Tony Ressler: Rumored to be linking up with either Stanley Gold & Roy Disney’s Family or Peter O’Malley or either or both. Co-founder of local investment firm Ares Capital, which has in excess of $40 billion in assets.

Tom Barrack: Chairman & CEO of investment firm Colony Capital has a net worth over $1 billion. Has been rumored to join several groups, but no specifics have popped up yet.

Fox: Seriously? No. Please no.

Time Warner Cable: They haven’t actually done anything wrong, but why get involved in this type of ownership situation again? Fool me once…

—–

Rumored Bidders

Alan Casden: A real estate developer worth over $1 billion, he might have more interest in the property the Dodgers own more than the team itself, which is disconcerting. Remember, this is the guy who tried to buy the team last time around and had plans to move Dodger Stadium to a different location. MLB didn’t want him last time because of an investigation into illegal campaign contributions to local politicians. Why deal with the headache?

Ron Burkle: Worth over $3 billion dollars, he is the current co-owner of the Pittsburgh Penguins. While no baseball people are rumored to be on board yet, he seems to carry a lot of weight locally. Divorce was…uh…messy.

Fred Claire/Andy Dolich/Ben Hwang: Fred Claire has experience as an executive with the Los Angeles Dodgers and Andy Dolich has experience as an executive with the Oakland Athletics. Ben Hwang, former executive at Life Technologies, will provide the finances for the group. The question mark revolves around money and whether they have enough of it.

Tom Golisano: Founder of Paychex is worth $1.4 billion and is the former owner of the Buffalo Sabres. Was preparing a bid, but it’s unknown whether he followed through or not. Worth noting is that Sabres fans criticized his lack of spending, and he’s on record as saying that the biggest payroll doesn’t lead to championships, which is correct in theory, but seems like code for not wanting to spend much.

Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times reports that Time Warner Cable is interested in pursuing a bid on the Los Angeles Dodgers.

Of all the parties that might like to buy the team — a distinguished group that includes Magic Johnson, Peter O’Malley, Mark Cuban, Joe Torre and Dennis Gilbert — the party with the most urgent need to buy the team might be Time Warner Cable.

Time Warner Cable and the Lakers are set to launch two cable channels later this year, one in English and one in Spanish. The Angels have reached a new, long-term deal with Fox Sports, leaving the Dodgers as the one baseball team in town available for live summer programming on the TWC channels.

“The Los Angeles Dodgers are at the top of that wish list,” TWC Sports President David Rone told Sports Business Daily in November.

With a court preventing the Dodgers from selling their television rights — at least for now — Time Warner Cable could seek to buy the team outright.

A perfect example of the idiom “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me”.

Or as Rob McMillin put it: