We've had approve polls for Alex Anthopoulos, John Gibbons and even Buck and Pat, so I figured it was time to do an approval poll on ownership, the wonderful Rogers Corp.
I know I'm setting things up to hear a bunch about 'cheap' Rogers comments. I'm not really in the cheap Rogers camp. Every business has budgets. It is part of life. And the Jays have gone from $64.6 million in 2011, to $82.3 million in 2012, to $124.5 million in 2013 and then $136.4 million last year. To me, that's a pretty huge jump. I'm ok with the payroll at that level. I have more problems with how the money was spent than how much is being spent.
Attendance has come up some too, from 1.5 million in 2010 to 2.5 million in 2013, dropping a bit (2.37 million in 2014). I'm sure Rogers isn't losing a ton of money on the Jays.
I get the occasional email telling me that Rogers should sell to someone that would 'run the Jays properly'. Since there aren't a lot of folks sitting around with $600 million of spare change that they would like to put into a team, and then a bunch more to bring payroll up to the level that fans would like. And, since the Jays are worth more to Rogers than the book value, since they give Sportsnet a lot of content.
Of course, if the blundering of the Duquette/Beeston saga is an example of how things are going to go with Edward Rogers at that I might not be so understanding of ownership's flaws.
And I am curious about Rogers' plan for real grass, or if they have a plan for real grass. I do wish they would be more transparent on their plans in that area. They have to know, or at least, they should know, by now, if it is a possibility or not. Why not tell us?
They could make some upgrades at Rogers Centre, but then, as much as I can complain about the place, you couldn't ask for a better location for the park.
It is hard for me to separate my feelings for ownership with the Jays won/loss record. If they make the playoffs, I'll think they are great owners. If they win the World Series...I'll gladly buy any product they come out with.