With all of the recent talk surrounding the disparity between the Rangers' and Angels' TV deals, I found this exchange on Twitter last night rather interesting:
Ben Rogers (ESPN) to Bob Nightengale (USA Today): "You initially reported Rangers upcoming TV deal as being worth $3B. In meantime some have speculated less. You still say $3B?"
Nightengale: "yes people involved in negotiations say it is 3b"
Rogers: "That's what I'm hearing too. Thank you."
Meanwhile, every other source that I can think of has reported $1.6 billion. Jonah Keri, the author of the definitive piece on the Rangers' TV deal, says that it's $1.6 billion, and remarks in a footnote that the $3 billion report was "erroneous."
But now we have Rogers saying differently, and Nightengale standing by his original report.
This is very, very confusing, and I'm not convinced that it's simply a matter of the $1.6 billion figure being the NPV of the entire deal. If that were the case, why wouldn't every media rights deal be reported at its NPV?
I'm actually beginning to think that there's a vital piece of information being left out here (a contractual option/opt out, or some such) that would bring these two numbers into congruence andhave all of this make some sense ... but, instead, we're left in the dark wondering who in the hell is actually closer to the truth here.
Somebody armed with the ability to get right down to the bottom of this really, really needs to get to the bottom of this.