TV deal may get more interesting

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[MUfan12]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[JakeBarnes]

I'm pretty certain the C7 should start negotiations at eleventy-billion dollars. 

[JTBMU7]

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.

[Groin_pull]

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?

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[Groin_pull]

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?"

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

[muwarrior69]

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?