The DOYERS (that's the Dodgers for you non So Cal folks) may now sign with Time Warner for $7 billion instead of FOX. The amount is gigantically ridiculous on all levels, but the point is that FOX could lose another huge property. They lost the Lakers to Time Warner to start this season (as a Laker hater and Doyer hater, I can only hope that if they move to Time Warner Sports it does the same for them that it did for the Lakers).
http://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgersnow/la-sp-dn-dodgers-time-warner-fox-tv-20130118,0,2289117.story
One of several possibilities here. FOX ups the ante one more time, meaning they have to spend more money. Or, they do lose the Lakers and it potentially benefits the new conference with a more attractive offer. We'll see. The buckets where these dollars come from are not always the same. Fox Sports One is a national channel while Prime Ticket \ Fox Sports West , the two RSNs in So. Cal operated by FOX, are from another. That being said, they are from the same parent and have the same top down controlling structure.
Chicos - Any chance that we see games broadcast over the internet or some sort of internet package available with the new contract? Obviously it's a fairly broad question, but it seems silly that I can't purchase a package that would allow me to watch every MU game (or even the just conference ones).
My assumption is that this is currently due to the BE contact - my hope is the new league could be a bit more progressive, but I have no clue as to all that would be involved to pull that off.
$7 B for the 'local' TV? What might the poor Brewers have in their TV deal? Not to turn this into a baseball thread but it is amazing to me when small market teams win at all. That's why I always cheer for them in post season.
Anyway, hopefully the BEast 2.0 has perfect timing.
DOYERS?
Los Doyers, the Hispanic pronunciation of the Dodgers. Guess it has caught on....
Quote from: mr.MUskie on January 20, 2013, 03:57:27 PM
DOYERS?
Going to Doyers games now is quite an experience...it's like going to the old Raiders games. Catch a game, maybe get mugged, certainly verbally assaulted if you are wearing an opposing team's colors, quite the experience. ::)
Quote from: eaglewarrior08 on January 20, 2013, 02:35:50 PM
Chicos - Any chance that we see games broadcast over the internet or some sort of internet package available with the new contract? Obviously it's a fairly broad question, but it seems silly that I can't purchase a package that would allow me to watch every MU game (or even the just conference ones).
My assumption is that this is currently due to the BE contact - my hope is the new league could be a bit more progressive, but I have no clue as to all that would be involved to pull that off.
If the rumors are true that Fox is spending $500 million, then they are going to control most of the digital rights as well. I would guess it would be an authentication scenario online much like Big Ten Network is, not a separate by-through. If its a buy through, then I'm going to have a problem with it just like every other television distributor that ultimately has to pay for that $500 million and pass it on to customers just to break even....to ask a distributor to foot all those costs and then sell it outside the distributor, that's not going to fly....at least not for long.
Didn't someone mention FOX already has the technology in place for online streaming as they stream games on their soccer channel? I thought I saw that in an old scoop thread.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on January 20, 2013, 06:53:48 PM
Didn't someone mention FOX already has the technology in place for online streaming as they stream games on their soccer channel? I thought I saw that in an old scoop thread.
Yes, I mentioned it. The technology isn't really the issue, it's whether they wish to do it and what rights are negotiated with the distributor and also directly with the league. Fox is going to demand digital rights for that kind of money. In turn, distributors are going to demand authenticated rights from FOX.
Quote from: Nukem2 on January 20, 2013, 04:01:05 PM
Los Doyers, the Hispanic pronunciation of the Dodgers. Guess it has caught on....
You know, the pronunciation from the prohects.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on January 20, 2013, 06:53:48 PM
Didn't someone mention FOX already has the technology in place for online streaming as they stream games on their soccer channel? I thought I saw that in an old scoop thread.
And FOX has some room on that streaming platform as they've lost the rights to every league they once broadcasted over the last two years with only the pan-European Champions League (which takes place on Tuesday/Wednesday in the 14.45-17.00 EST period) left in their stable.
Fox Soccer Channel should become a new all sports channel sometime in August at this rate.
this has some decent info. apparently they are scrapping their current sports networks and airing sports on FX to set up an ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 model with their network channel. this tells me they probably have enough content (C7/Big East) to kick both these channels off in August...
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2013/01/sbj-fuel-to-become-fox-sports-2-fx-will-no-longer-carry-sports/
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on January 21, 2013, 08:40:00 AM
And FOX has some room on that streaming platform as they've lost the rights to every league they once broadcasted over the last two years with only the pan-European Champions League (which takes place on Tuesday/Wednesday in the 14.45-17.00 EST period) left in their stable.
Fox Soccer Channel should become a new all sports channel sometime in August at this rate.
I have no idea what they'll do without the Prem. Maybe push for Bundesliga or try to get La Liga or Serie A. No way they can live on Europe, the Championship, and MLS.
Quote from: jsglow on January 20, 2013, 02:51:06 PM
$7 B for the 'local' TV? What might the poor Brewers have in their TV deal? Not to turn this into a baseball thread but it is amazing to me when small market teams win at all. That's why I always cheer for them in post season.
Anyway, hopefully the BEast 2.0 has perfect timing.
Word today is the deal might be $8 billion.
Chicos, is there a chance DirecTV would move the Speed and Fuel channels out of the 600s into the 200s like they did NBCSports channel?.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on January 23, 2013, 04:22:14 PM
Chicos, is there a chance DirecTV would move the Speed and Fuel channels out of the 600s into the 200s like they did NBCSports channel?.
Also, it's odd that NBCSports was moved, but the B1G network is stuck in the 600s last I checked.
Quote from: JTBMU7 on January 23, 2013, 01:51:53 PM
this has some decent info. apparently they are scrapping their current sports networks and airing sports on FX to set up an ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 model with their network channel. this tells me they probably have enough content (C7/Big East) to kick both these channels off in August...
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2013/01/sbj-fuel-to-become-fox-sports-2-fx-will-no-longer-carry-sports/
Damn... Had no clue Fox Soccer lost the EPL. Sad news. Sounds like it'll start in August on NBC's various networks, who bid $250M for 3 years vs Fox's $23M bid for the last 3. What's great about Fox Soccer is that everything is in one place right now, and that they actually use the English announcers, who really make the broadcast. They also show the British broadcasts of the Preview/Review shows. Sinking feeling that NBC is going to f*ck it up with US announcers from the studio.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 23, 2013, 04:05:05 PM
Word today is the deal might be $8 billion.
Is this good? Bad? Fair market?
Quote from: Bocephys on January 23, 2013, 04:25:06 PM
Also, it's odd that NBCSports was moved, but the B1G network is stuck in the 600s last I checked.
What is even odder wasn't the B1G in the 200s when it first started? I maybe wrong.
Quote from: Tigidal on January 23, 2013, 04:25:20 PM
Damn... Had no clue Fox Soccer lost the EPL. Sad news. Sounds like it'll start in August on NBC's various networks, who bid $250M for 3 years vs Fox's $23M bid for the last 3. What's great about Fox Soccer is that everything is in one place right now, and that they actually use the English announcers, who really make the broadcast. They also show the British broadcasts of the Preview/Review shows. Sinking feeling that NBC is going to f*ck it up with US announcers from the studio.
Much of Fox's coverage is a direct feed from Sky Sports. The real question will be if NBC can use their feed and announce teams. If so, things will be fine. However, Sky is owned by News Corp, which is Fox's parent company.
Also out of the EPL will be ESPN. What will that mean for American fan favorite Ian Darke? ABC/ESPN also lost the World Cup, which will move over to Fox.
There is one and only one thing I care about: Will I be able to watch as many Marquette games as I do now if I maintain the same level of cable service (with Time Warner) that I currently have.
I don't like a lot of things about ESPN, but its family of networks (including ESPN3) and its relationship with the Big East has been a wonderful thing that has let us watch just about every game, and I'd hate to see us take a step backward.
Quote from: MU82 on January 23, 2013, 05:36:57 PM
There is one and only one thing I care about: Will I be able to watch as many Marquette games as I do now if I maintain the same level of cable service (with Time Warner) that I currently have.
I don't like a lot of things about ESPN, but its family of networks (including ESPN3) and its relationship with the Big East has been a wonderful thing that has let us watch just about every game, and I'd hate to see us take a step backward.
+1
Quote from: muwarrior69 on January 23, 2013, 04:22:14 PM
Chicos, is there a chance DirecTV would move the Speed and Fuel channels out of the 600s into the 200s like they did NBCSports channel?.
I believe NBCSports was moved into the 200's as a result of the NBC deal being consumated. Certain channel positions are more highly coveted that others and come with considerations. Anything is possible, but there are dominoes that need to fall as well.
Quote from: honkytonk on January 23, 2013, 04:28:05 PM
Is this good? Bad? Fair market?
That, is a loaded question that elicits a lot of different answers based on who the constituency is.
Is it good for the consumer? Hell no. That channel at that cost will command probably $5 or $6 per subscriber, per month. That is insane. All to carry ONE sport, the Doyers. In context, ESPN gets about $5 for 4 channels that carries a bunch of sports all the time. It just means when all these new ESPN deals come around again, the insanity will continue.
Is it good for the C7? I would say yes, a big hell yes. It's a sellers market so this is a chance for the C7 and the conference to help FOX lick their wounds and pay extra for the rights. Now, the word on the street is still that FOX has the ability to match this Dodgers offer, so we'll see what happens. If they do, then that could hurt our deal. All depends where the dollars are coming from. If Fox does lose the Dodgers after already losing the Lakers, wow are they going to be pissed.
Is it fair market? Honestly, how does one answer that in today's world. Some would argue any market driven price agreed to by two parties, by definition, is fair market. In my opinion, the rate is absolutely, grotesquely absurd and the ramifications for consumers and sports teams is going to get so out of hand by this and other recent deals that the landscape is going to get beyond wild.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 23, 2013, 09:10:17 PM
That, is a loaded question that elicits a lot of different answers based on who the constituency is.
Is it good for the consumer? Hell no. That channel at that cost will command probably $5 or $6 per subscriber, per month. That is insane. All to carry ONE sport, the Doyers. In context, ESPN gets about $5 for 4 channels that carries a bunch of sports all the time. It just means when all these new ESPN deals come around again, the insanity will continue.
Is it good for the C7? I would say yes, a big hell yes. It's a sellers market so this is a chance for the C7 and the conference to help FOX lick their wounds and pay extra for the rights. Now, the word on the street is still that FOX has the ability to match this Dodgers offer, so we'll see what happens. If they do, then that could hurt our deal. All depends where the dollars are coming from. If Fox does lose the Dodgers after already losing the Lakers, wow are they going to be pissed.
Is it fair market? Honestly, how does one answer that in today's world. Some would argue any market driven price agreed to by two parties, by definition, is fair market. In my opinion, the rate is absolutely, grotesquely absurd and the ramifications for consumers and sports teams is going to get so out of hand by this and other recent deals that the landscape is going to get beyond wild.
Sounds like the next bubble.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 23, 2013, 09:30:16 PM
Sounds like the next bubble.
The collapse will be in the sports sector, which honestly I won't shed a tear for. We'll see what happens. The Doyers are going to get their $8 billion, one way or the other. Now, how will Time Warner be able to give it to them...that's the $8 billion question. The Doyers, they don't care, they got theirs.
EDIT: I hate the iPhone spelling deal.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 23, 2013, 09:34:19 PM
The collapse with be in the sports sector, which honestly I won't shed a tear for. We'll see what happens. The Doyers are going to get their $8 billion, one way or the other. Now, how will Time Warner be able to give it to them...that's the $8 billion question. The Doyers, they don't care, they got theirs.
Don't know if it will be the Dodgers or some team 10-20 years down the road, but sooner or later a network is going to make a promise it won't be able to keep. I don't see the Feds bailing out the Dodgers or anyone else if that happens.
Quote from: brewcity77 on January 23, 2013, 05:17:42 PM
Much of Fox's coverage is a direct feed from Sky Sports. The real question will be if NBC can use their feed and announce teams. If so, things will be fine. However, Sky is owned by News Corp, which is Fox's parent company.
FSC gets the international EPL feed, which is produced by TWI/IMG. Both FSC and ESPN have the Sky feed as a backup in case something happens.
There shouldn't be any issues as far as NBC goes.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 23, 2013, 09:55:26 PM
Don't know if it will be the Dodgers or some team 10-20 years down the road, but sooner or later a network is going to make a promise it won't be able to keep. I don't see the Feds bailing out the Dodgers or anyone else if that happens.
On that, we agree. Most likely they will leverage other revenue streams if they can't get it from the video side. Broadband, telephone, etc. The margins on those products is pretty insane.
I'm pretty certain the C7 should start negotiations at eleventy-billion dollars.
here's the latest rumor on the Aresco Big East TV deals, which, at least for next season, includes the C7...
http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=4881
"Aresco and the Big East are close to finalizing a one-year deal in basketball using an 18-team model, which includes the Catholic 7 group of Big East schools who are expected to leave the conference following the 2013-2014 season and schools who are leaving for other conferences such as Notre Dame and Louisville (ACC) and Rutgers (Big Ten).
The package will include ESPN's Big East Big Monday time slots, the Big East tournament and a select games on CBS during the regular season.
In football, Aresco is selling a package of 10 teams for next season and 11 for 2014 and 12 for 2015. Aresco remains confident that the money for both sports will be "reasonable.""
Sounds like the new conference will take at least one more year and we'll still see Cincy, ND and Louisville one more time.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 23, 2013, 09:10:17 PM
That, is a loaded question that elicits a lot of different answers based on who the constituency is.
Is it good for the consumer? Hell no. That channel at that cost will command probably $5 or $6 per subscriber, per month. That is insane. All to carry ONE sport, the Doyers. In context, ESPN gets about $5 for 4 channels that carries a bunch of sports all the time. It just means when all these new ESPN deals come around again, the insanity will continue.
Is it good for the C7? I would say yes, a big hell yes. It's a sellers market so this is a chance for the C7 and the conference to help FOX lick their wounds and pay extra for the rights. Now, the word on the street is still that FOX has the ability to match this Dodgers offer, so we'll see what happens. If they do, then that could hurt our deal. All depends where the dollars are coming from. If Fox does lose the Dodgers after already losing the Lakers, wow are they going to be pissed.
Is it fair market? Honestly, how does one answer that in today's world. Some would argue any market driven price agreed to by two parties, by definition, is fair market. In my opinion, the rate is absolutely, grotesquely absurd and the ramifications for consumers and sports teams is going to get so out of hand by this and other recent deals that the landscape is going to get beyond wild.
An extra $5-6 per month for Dodgers baseball??? That's absolutely insane. What is the expected fallout from this? Will there be a massive backlash? Will current subscribers depart in droves? Is this the tipping point?
Chicos, what do you think will happen after this agreement is signed?
Quote from: Groin_pull on January 24, 2013, 12:30:45 PM
An extra $5-6 per month for Dodgers baseball??? That's absolutely insane. What is the expected fallout from this? Will there be a massive backlash? Will current subscribers depart in droves? Is this the tipping point?
Chicos, what do you think will happen after this agreement is signed?
The good news is it is not this year, but the year after. So time to figure it out.
Obvious solutions, however, aren't there. Dodger fans are going to want the channel and scream for it. The team will have $250 million payroll and become the new Yankees so they're expected to be good. LA is very much a Dodger and Laker town. However, all the data still shows that 60% to 70% of people don't give a rip and aren't watching them. Because the Dodgers will demand wide distribution, meaning basically in every (or most) channel packages, it means that those 60% to 70% are going to pay for something they don't want. That happens today, of course, but it happens for channels that cost $0.05 or maybe $0.80 for the most part (ESPN the exception). You're now looking at a situation where between the Lakers and Dodgers, $9.00+ cost per subscriber per month will be charged just to break even.
There will be a lot of customers (regardless of company....DISH, DIRECTV, CHarter, COX, AT&T, FIOS, etc) that will not be happy. If the distributor says they aren't going to carry it, they will lose customers to someone that will carry it. That's the dilemma. Of course, if it goes "a la carte", the charge will not be $5 to $6...it will be more like $20 to $30 per month to make up for all those that don't give a rip about it.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 24, 2013, 01:10:26 PM
The good news is it is not this year, but the year after. So time to figure it out.
Obvious solutions, however, aren't there. Dodger fans are going to want the channel and scream for it. The team will have $250 million payroll and become the new Yankees so they're expected to be good. LA is very much a Dodger and Laker town. However, all the data still shows that 60% to 70% of people don't give a rip and aren't watching them. Because the Dodgers will demand wide distribution, meaning basically in every (or most) channel packages, it means that those 60% to 70% are going to pay for something they don't want. That happens today, of course, but it happens for channels that cost $0.05 or maybe $0.80 for the most part (ESPN the exception). You're now looking at a situation where between the Lakers and Dodgers, $9.00+ cost per subscriber per month will be charged just to break even.
There will be a lot of customers (regardless of company....DISH, DIRECTV, CHarter, COX, AT&T, FIOS, etc) that will not be happy. If the distributor says they aren't going to carry it, they will lose customers to someone that will carry it. That's the dilemma. Of course, if it goes "a la carte", the charge will not be $5 to $6...it will be more like $20 to $30 per month to make up for all those that don't give a rip about it.
Thanks. what does your crystal ball predict, say...10 years from now?
Will all monthly cable bills be double—or triple—what they are now? Will we be able to go "a la carte?"
Quote from: Groin_pull on January 24, 2013, 01:26:30 PM
Thanks. what does your crystal ball predict, say...10 years from now?
Will all monthly cable bills be double—or triple—what they are now? Will we be able to go "a la carte?"
I don't believe a la carte is possible in the context that people associate with music...it's apples to oranges. The cost of content too high, the cost to produce content too high with many misses. For every Game of Thrones there are 10 series that bomb and don't make it, but still cost a crapload to make. A la carte is currently being tried in Canada and having poor results because consumers now realize that they are spending a ton more per channel than under bundling. So where they were paying $60 for 100 channels, they are not paying $45 for 40 channels and can do the math in their head that they lost value.
Today's LA Times is saying only 106,000 households tuned into Dodger games....the cost per HH is something I have never seen before based on this deal. It's something I would never even dream of seeing until the last few months. The current admin is so in bed with Hollywood, I would look for anything to come down that path either. Money talks and they fund a lot of campaigns.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-twcable-dodgers-pay-20130124,0,4911540.story
I know here in the East that many cable providers carry the Yes Network, however, some areas that have the Yes network carry all the programming on the channel except the Yankee/Nets/hockey games which are blacked out to the dismay of many customers. It would behoove the cable companies to at least let the customer know the games are blacked out in their area but they don't. It's not the fault of the Yankees/Nets etc. but due to local blackout agreements. I live in central Jersey and depending on where you live Yes can carry the games or not. Where I live I get the games, but my daughter who lives in the next town over, just a mile further south (closer to Philly) does not. They should not be able to offer the channel if the games are blacked out; after all that is the reason to have the channel.
Chicos, would the games for the Dodgers be blacked out on cable systems that carry the new channel say where the Angels or Padres are the local team?