It is currently Fri Nov 15, 2024 9:43 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 6:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 55844
pizza_Place: Barstool One Bite Frozen
Trib's got this behind its paywall, but I hit ctrl-A/ctrl-C/ctrl-V before I got locked out of the article and was able to capture this turd for you. Give it to me, Ed:

Quote:
Chicago viewers might have to get up to speed on what a multicast station is to watch Cubs games next year.

As the Cubs sort out what to do with the WGN-9 portion of their 70 to 75 television games in 2015, the team is considering an option that is highly unconventional, if not a bit out there: Launching a version of a Cubs network on a multicast station, according to sources familiar with the situation.

This takes some explaining.

A multicast outlet is a sub-channel for local over-the-air broadcast stations. They became more prevalent with cable and satellite providers converting to digital platforms in the last decade. On Comcast's channel guide, most of the multicast stations are bunched in the mid 300s. Currently, these stations mostly air classic TV shows such as "Bonanza" and "The Brady Bunch," or syndicated programming such as cooking shows.

The Cubs reportedly are eager to start their own network. They currently can't do it on cable because of terms of their deal with Comcast SportsNet, which runs through 2019.

However, the multicast stations aren't considered cable; they are broadcast because they are transmitted over-the-air. That would provide the Cubs the opportunity to start some sort of a team-branded channel. The Cubs would produce the telecasts and sell and keep all the advertising revenue.

Crane Kenney, Cubs president for business operations, and WGN officials declined comment on the multicast possibility. A Cubs source said the team still is considering many options and isn't close to making a final decision.

Why would the Cubs go the multicast route and leave a powerful and familiar station as WGN-9?

Last fall, the Cubs exercised an option to opt out of their deal with WGN, which ran through 2022. At a minimum, the team needed to sync up their TV contracts so they all conclude after 2019, enabling them to start a network with all their games in 2020 outside Major League Baseball's national deals.

WGN, which pays the Cubs in the neighborhood of $250,000 per game, reportedly is losing as much as $200,000 per telecast because of record low ratings in recent years. The station wants to continue its long relationship with the Cubs, but also is anxious to stem some of the financial bleeding. Sources say WGN has offered the Cubs a new deal that would include a small rights fee and a revenue sharing component. Fees would remain low for poor ratings during the rebuilding process, but they could be much higher if viewers return in droves for a contending team.

According to sources, Kenney isn't eager to sign a deal that would give the Cubs considerably less in guaranteed money, especially at a time when the Dodgers are doing a multi-billion dollar local TV contract.

One industry insider said it would be "tough for Crane to go back to WGN for less than what he had originally had."

That has forced Kenney to get creative and at least take a look at the multicast option. On the surface, it would seem to be complicated and highly questionable as to whether it would be more profitable for the Cubs.

The Cubs would incur production costs to air the games; probably in the $25,000-35,000 range per game plus studio shows. They also would have to pay a fee for time on a multicast outlet.

Unlike cable, it seems highly unlikely the Cubs would earn much in the way of subscriber fees for a multicast station from the cable and satellite companies, according to industry sources. That would leave advertising as their main source of income. If advertising revenue is down for WGN, why would it be any different for the Cubs on a multicast station?

Also, the Cubs would lose viewers because a multicast station doesn't have the reach of WGN. Currently, AT&T doesn't have multicast stations and DirecTV and Dish almost never carry them, according to industry sources. The Cubs also would have to negotiate deals one-by-one with providers outside of Chicago in Downstate Illinois, Iowa and Indiana, areas that are considered their local territory.

Plus in Chicago and elsewhere, the concept would require a considerable learning curve for viewers to find the games on the new and relatively unknown outlet.

Then there is the time element. It is nearing July, very late in the game with a TV contract expiring at the end of the year. If the Cubs are going to go the multicast route, they need to assemble an in-house production and sales team quickly, no small task.

The Cubs' options appear to be limited. The WGN games can't be shifted to CSN, because its menu is full, and the network reportedly isn't interested in using spillover outlets. There had been speculation Fox might become involved in some way, laying the foundation for a partnership in a new Cubs network in 2020. However, all appears to be quiet on that front.

What else is out there? Only Kenney knows for sure, and perhaps he is working on something else that is unconventional. The pressure is on him to deliver much-needed TV revenue to help Theo Epstein turn the Cubs into a winner.

The clock is ticking and there has to be a resolution soon. The easy answer would be for the Cubs to stay with WGN through 2019. However, just in case, Chicago sports viewers might want to learn where to find the multicast stations.


In short: Holy shit, what the fuck? Going from WGN to fucking digital subchannels isn't just killing the golden goose that is a broadcast institution, it's...man, I don't know what it is. This makes SportsVision/ON-TV look good. This makes offloading Cubs games to CLTV/WCIU look good. This makes fucking Comcast Sportsnet Houston look good. To repeat:

Quote:
The Cubs would incur production costs to air the games; probably in the $25,000-35,000 range per game plus studio shows. They also would have to pay a fee for time on a multicast outlet.

HOLY BALLS, YOU'RE BROKERING YOUR TV TIME. Every team down to the goddamn San Diego Padres is getting a money truck to show baseball games and the buttfucking Cubs are talking about buying time, actually paying to produce games, and then sticking them on Me-Too like some sketchy infomercial for getting rich with promissory notes. I guess that's fitting; the Cubs under Ricketts and his court Jews are like the ultimate promissory note.

So they've burned their bridges with WGN, Comcast SportsNet (40% owned by Jerry Reinsdorf) is like "no thanks we'd rather not show 90 more Cubs games," and won't even let them use CSN+ for them, either. Hey, come on: people need the Comcast Info Channel. They might have to do this multicast bullshit, which means:

1) fewer viewers
2) paying for production costs out of pocket
3) paying for air time out of pocket
4) having to negotiate carriage with the owners of digital subchannels outside Chicago

So congratulations, Crane Kenney! You've fucked up the hallmark of the Chicago Cubs. Now you're going from a superstation to the same deal the Chicago Wolves have.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 6:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40614
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
THE. REALLY. SMART. PLAN.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 7:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 40983
Location: Chicago
pizza_Place: Lou Malanati's
You know somewhere Mike North is telling people "I did this first!"

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:29 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
Posts: 33998
Wait a second. WGN TV pays 250k a game. And they claim they lose 200k a game? So they only sell 50k worth of ads per game? Really?

I know the Cubs have sucked and ratings are down, but that doesn't make sense. Just off the top of my head I'll bet a Cubs game has 50 spots. At least. I mean they go to break after every half inning and during pitching changes.

So that means they are only selling those spots for $1,000 each. It's WGN. Seen across the country. Cubs fans are everywhere. That's the best they can do?

I think I read that the Dodgers are getting paid like 3 million a game in their new deal and they're not on a super station.

I'm willing to bet WGN TV is not telling the truth. If WGN claims to lose 200k a game and they have 70 games, it means they are losing 14 million a year. That can't be right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Beardown wrote:
Wait a second. WGN TV pays 250k a game. And they claim they lose 200k a game? So they only sell 50k worth of ads per game? Really?

I know the Cubs have sucked and ratings are down, but that doesn't make sense. Just off the top of my head I'll bet a Cubs game has 50 spots. At least. I mean they go to break after every half inning and during pitching changes.

So that means they are only selling those spots for $1,000 each. It's WGN. Seen across the country. Cubs fans are everywhere. That's the best they can do?

I think I read that the Dodgers are getting paid like 3 million a game in their new deal and they're not on a super station.

I'm willing to bet WGN TV is not telling the truth. If WGN claims to lose 200k a game and they have 70 games, it means they are losing 14 million a year. That can't be right.


They also have expenses. Not just anyone can take shots of hot chicks in bikinis.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:35 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
Posts: 33998
leashyourkids wrote:
Beardown wrote:
Wait a second. WGN TV pays 250k a game. And they claim they lose 200k a game? So they only sell 50k worth of ads per game? Really?

I know the Cubs have sucked and ratings are down, but that doesn't make sense. Just off the top of my head I'll bet a Cubs game has 50 spots. At least. I mean they go to break after every half inning and during pitching changes.

So that means they are only selling those spots for $1,000 each. It's WGN. Seen across the country. Cubs fans are everywhere. That's the best they can do?

I think I read that the Dodgers are getting paid like 3 million a game in their new deal and they're not on a super station.

I'm willing to bet WGN TV is not telling the truth. If WGN claims to lose 200k a game and they have 70 games, it means they are losing 14 million a year. That can't be right.


They also have expenses. Not just anyone can take shots of hot chicks in bikinis.


Broadcasters get paid by the Cubs. I know that. So, ok, they have a camera crew, producers and some other expenses. Still, 14 million dollar loss per year? No. I don't buy that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
They share accountants with Ricketts, maybe?

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:41 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
Posts: 33998
Just go with my Math. Would you say, despite the Cubs sucking, that at least 100 thousand people are watching the Cubs on WGN? The answer is yes, of course. Much more than that. Christ, they get 25k in the park so you know at least 4x that are watching.

So 100 thousand people is only worth $1,000 per commercial? No way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:15 pm
Posts: 48800
Location: Bohemian Club Annual World Power Consolidation Conference & Golf Outing
pizza_Place: World Fluoridation Conspiracy Pizza & WINGS!
You're putting almost no cost to production. That is incorrect.

_________________
You know me like that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:58 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
Posts: 33998
Super Bowl gets 3 million a spot for 100 million people watching. So that means the advertisers pay 3 cents for every person watching.

If the Cubs have 100,000 people watching, by the above ratio, they should be selling the spots for 3,000 a spot. And I'd say it's more like 200,000 watching the Cubs game. So that's 6k a spot. Which means they make 300k (assuming my 50 spots is correct) a game while paying 250k a game. Which mean, with their 70 games, WGN TV makes a 3.5 million dollar profit. Let's account for expenses and cost production and knock off 1 million for that. So it's a net 2.5 million dollar profit for WGN TV per year.

Boo-ya!!!!

Caught WGN in their lie. I win.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 40983
Location: Chicago
pizza_Place: Lou Malanati's
6 30 second spots per half inning.
pregame, post, etc

WGN was never famous for the accounting over there. It was one of the huge issues with The Cubs/WGN/Tribune same ownership.

At one point the Cubs made almost nothing from commercials, WGN got the TV for free and just sold it, so no money went into the Cub account.

WGN might lose it on paper, but thats their own problem and the way a deal was constructed.

Of course then again Leary makes $275K

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:15 pm
Posts: 48800
Location: Bohemian Club Annual World Power Consolidation Conference & Golf Outing
pizza_Place: World Fluoridation Conspiracy Pizza & WINGS!
350k

_________________
You know me like that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 40983
Location: Chicago
pizza_Place: Lou Malanati's
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote:
350k


I just love that he lost and job and got a raise!

That Webio deal must be huge money!

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:15 pm
Posts: 48800
Location: Bohemian Club Annual World Power Consolidation Conference & Golf Outing
pizza_Place: World Fluoridation Conspiracy Pizza & WINGS!
He's worth more when he's not spread so thin.

_________________
You know me like that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 1135
pizza_Place: aurelios
$1000.00 for a spot? Looks like I need some talent for the new Katie O'S commercial.
Anyone know a film maker I can get a hold of? Camps you in :D

_________________
https://www.backroadspubandgrill.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 40983
Location: Chicago
pizza_Place: Lou Malanati's
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote:
He's worth more when he's not spread so thin.


More effort directed into Hater Tuesday makes it all worth it.

Never seen a guy have a chance at more jobs and not got them, since LaTroy Hawkins!

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:46 am
Posts: 26636
Location: NW SUBURBS OF CHICAGO
pizza_Place: any from anywhere
I read that about a week ago. This guy gets an extension from the Cubs for getting them a worse TV deal?


side note: Any Trib article can be read by highlighting a sentence and doing a search on Yahoo for that sentence. Do it all the time.

_________________
favrefan said:"Chris Coghlan isn't gonna pay your rent, Jimmy."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 91931
Location: To the left of my post
Beardown wrote:
If the Cubs have 100,000 people watching, by the above ratio, they should be selling the spots for 3,000 a spot. And I'd say it's more like 200,000 watching the Cubs game. So that's 6k a spot. Which means they make 300k (assuming my 50 spots is correct) a game while paying 250k a game. Which mean, with their 70 games, WGN TV makes a 3.5 million dollar profit. Let's account for expenses and cost production and knock off 1 million for that. So it's a net 2.5 million dollar profit for WGN TV per year.
Super Bowl commercials are different because you not only get the viewers at the time of the commercial but also the buzz leading up to it and being a topic of conversation the next day.

Also, your numbers are high on the number of people watching.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130610/BLOGS04/130619996/sox-cubs-tv-ratings-down-double-digits

This indicates it is 60k, and not 200k. If the Cubs were good, the numbers would obviously be much higher.

This is pretty interesting though. For the first time, "The Plan" is having actual repercussions as no one seems willing to trust that the Cubs will start trying to win soon.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 55844
pizza_Place: Barstool One Bite Frozen
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
This is pretty interesting though. For the first time, "The Plan" is having actual repercussions as no one seems willing to trust that the Cubs will start trying to win soon.


Yeah, imagine that. It's almost as if you can't shit up the joint for years on end in the #3 media market without the #3 media getting sick of it. I mean, the Cubs are getting less money from WBBM than they were getting from WGN, with the proviso that CBS Radio would help them book concerts at Wrigley to make up the difference. I don't trust that Wilco At Wrigley: An XRT Show will make up the difference. The neighborhood hates having more concerts as it is.

EDIT: ooh, I didn't even see the part about how AT&T doesn't carry digital subchannels. So no one with U-Verse will be able to watch about half the Cubs games if this happens. The Plan! I sure hope City of Fools and denisdman have Xfinity.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 82152
pave paradise and put up a parking lot

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 3:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:22 am
Posts: 15138
pizza_Place: Wha Happen?
Curious Hair wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
This is pretty interesting though. For the first time, "The Plan" is having actual repercussions as no one seems willing to trust that the Cubs will start trying to win soon.


Yeah, imagine that. It's almost as if you can't shit up the joint for years on end in the #3 media market without the #3 media getting sick of it. I mean, the Cubs are getting less money from WBBM than they were getting from WGN, with the proviso that CBS Radio would help them book concerts at Wrigley to make up the difference. I don't trust that Wilco At Wrigley: An XRT Show will make up the difference. The neighborhood hates having more concerts as it is.

EDIT: ooh, I didn't even see the part about how AT&T doesn't carry digital subchannels. So no one with U-Verse will be able to watch about half the Cubs games if this happens. The Plan! I sure hope City of Fools and denisdman have Xfinity.

I do not. I don't have cable. Therefore I personally am happy about this potential development selfishly, because I have an antenna that gets nearly all the chicago and rockford stations.

_________________
Ба́бушка гада́ла, да на́двое сказа́ла—то ли до́ждик, то ли снег, то ли бу́дет, то ли нет.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2014 3:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 55844
pizza_Place: Barstool One Bite Frozen
http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2014/6/2 ... tv-network

Good analysis in the comment section here, confirming my suspicion that broadcasting high-definition sports on a subfeed is practically impossible, and adding that without DirecTV/Dish clearance, showing these Cubs games in bars is also practically impossible.

Image

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2014 3:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:45 am
Posts: 16762
pizza_Place: Salerno's
Can't see old man Ricketts letting them fuck up this bad. It's one thing to let the kid eat out of the ashtray, yank the cat's tail or stick a penny in a the light socket a few times, but when they're about to run into traffic on the Kennedy chasing a baseball, you gotta step in and save them from their own stupidity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2014 3:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 55844
pizza_Place: Barstool One Bite Frozen
You think they'll come back to WGN with their tails tucked? I don't know. I feel like they may have already burned their bridges with Tribune by taking the radio to CBS for less money and opting out of this contract in the first place. None of the other OTAs in town are going to pre-empt daily programming for bad baseball, not even in daytime. I really think the best-case scenario at this point is channel 50, but even that loses the secondary broadcast territory and sends you back to scurrying for South Bend/Blo-No/C-U/Peoria/Rockford subchannels. They fucked up.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2014 4:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:45 am
Posts: 16762
pizza_Place: Salerno's
If Lebron and Dan Gilbert can kiss and make up...going back to WGN on WGN's terms--which tie how much WGN pays the Cubs to ratings/revenue--is less worse a choice than the multi-cast, OTA route.

Quote:
Why would the Cubs go the multicast route and leave a powerful and familiar station as WGN-9?

Last fall, the Cubs exercised an option to opt out of their deal with WGN, which ran through 2022. At a minimum, the team needed to sync up their TV contracts so they all conclude after 2019, enabling them to start a network with all their games in 2020 outside Major League Baseball’s national deals.

WGN, which pays the Cubs in the neighborhood of $250,000 per game, reportedly is losing as much as $200,000 per telecast because of record low ratings in recent years. The station wants to continue its long relationship with the Cubs, but also is anxious to stem some of the financial bleeding. Sources say WGN has offered the Cubs a new deal that would include a small rights fee and a revenue sharing component. Fees would remain low for poor ratings during the rebuilding process, but they could be much higher if viewers return in droves for a contending team.

According to sources, Kenney isn’t eager to sign a deal that would give the Cubs considerably less in guaranteed money, especially at a time when the Dodgers are doing a multi-billion dollar local TV contract.
http://www.shermanreport.com/multicast- ... J2cE7.uxfs


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2014 5:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 5:02 pm
Posts: 11735
pizza_Place: Angelo's Pizza in Downers Grove
Dodgers games are only shown on Time Warner Cable. And very few people have Time Warner Cable. It is backfiring in LA.

Cubs shouldn't sign a new TV deal until they put a better product on the field.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2014 5:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 5:02 pm
Posts: 11735
pizza_Place: Angelo's Pizza in Downers Grove
Big Chicagoan wrote:
Dodgers games are only shown on Time Warner Cable. And very few people have Time Warner Cable. It is backfiring in LA.

Cubs shouldn't sign a new TV deal until they put a better product on the field.



That is to say, it backfired on TWC. Dodgers don't give a shit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2014 9:04 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38265
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Big Chicagoan wrote:
Big Chicagoan wrote:
Dodgers games are only shown on Time Warner Cable. And very few people have Time Warner Cable. It is backfiring in LA.

Cubs shouldn't sign a new TV deal until they put a better product on the field.



That is to say, it backfired on TWC. Dodgers don't give a shit.



Exactly.

Which is why this deal is actually a very smart move, (for once), by the Cubs and ole Crane.

It means that the Cubbies are betting that there product will be very good for years to come by 2019. And by owning their rights at that time, they will be looking at a payday similar to what the Dodgers received. Which would make the $250K per broadcast for a couple of years look like a drop in the ocean compared to what they will get on their own.

It's a risk. But it's a VERY SMART MOVE. Not something stupid like it has been portrayed here.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2014 9:13 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79461
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
Seacrest wrote:
Big Chicagoan wrote:
Big Chicagoan wrote:
Dodgers games are only shown on Time Warner Cable. And very few people have Time Warner Cable. It is backfiring in LA.

Cubs shouldn't sign a new TV deal until they put a better product on the field.



That is to say, it backfired on TWC. Dodgers don't give a shit.



Exactly.

Which is why this deal is actually a very smart move, (for once), by the Cubs and ole Crane.

It means that the Cubbies are betting that there product will be very good for years to come by 2019. And by owning their rights at that time, they will be looking at a payday similar to what the Dodgers received. Which would make the $250K per broadcast for a couple of years look like a drop in the ocean compared to what they will get on their own.

It's a risk. But it's a VERY SMART MOVE. Not something stupid like it has been portrayed here.


But it is stupid. The Padres got a stupid TV deal. That became the baseline for bigger and more stupid deals like the Dodgers. But when the cable companies are choking on it, it's not just going to keep happening.

Also, I think the Dodgers should care. The Blackhawks nearly destroyed a strong brand because the games weren't televised, and the only reason the Cubs haved "owned" Chicago for the last thirty years is because the Sox foolishly went to UHF in the late 60s/early 70s.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2014 9:23 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38265
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
Big Chicagoan wrote:
Big Chicagoan wrote:
Dodgers games are only shown on Time Warner Cable. And very few people have Time Warner Cable. It is backfiring in LA.

Cubs shouldn't sign a new TV deal until they put a better product on the field.



That is to say, it backfired on TWC. Dodgers don't give a shit.



Exactly.

Which is why this deal is actually a very smart move, (for once), by the Cubs and ole Crane.

It means that the Cubbies are betting that there product will be very good for years to come by 2019. And by owning their rights at that time, they will be looking at a payday similar to what the Dodgers received. Which would make the $250K per broadcast for a couple of years look like a drop in the ocean compared to what they will get on their own.

It's a risk. But it's a VERY SMART MOVE. Not something stupid like it has been portrayed here.


But it is stupid. The Padres got a stupid TV deal. That became the baseline for bigger and more stupid deals like the Dodgers. But when the cable companies are choking on it, it's not just going to keep happening.

Also, I think the Dodgers should care. The Blackhawks nearly destroyed a strong brand because the games weren't televised, and the only reason the Cubs haved "owned" Chicago for the last thirty years is because the Sox foolishly went to UHF in the late 60s/early 70s.


Your Blackhawks example is why this is NOT a stupid deal.

The Hawks had no brand at all for over 20 years. Winning made them a brand again. But they had to win the Cup to become the brand they are now.

The Cubs have one of the better sports brands in the country. If they start winning again, that brand will take off. Without them even winning a championship. Like it or not, the White Sox are not going to ever really challenge that brand short of winning 2 or 3 championships in a row.

There is much bigger money in owning your rights. The revenue loss over a couple of years would be dwarfed by any sale of the Cubs rights with the club as the sole beneficiary.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group