15 Years - 1.5 Billion Dollars

[DrungoHazewood]

And the commercials will cover all the rest of their costs?

Where is the profit?

Yes! Or something. Maybe they'll just charge every man, woman and child $30 a year?

[Can_of_corn]

Fair enough. Let's assume the deal looks something like this: it starts at $50 mm and escalates $6.5 mm a year for 15 years. Do you think that sounds unsustainable in the D-Backs market?

I don't frankly know enough about the market. Seems like a lot but I am probably biased from when I lived there for a short period of time in the early '90's.

[Frobby]

I don't frankly know enough about the market. Seems like a lot but I am probably biased from when I lived there for a short period of time in the early '90's.

Well, I don't know any more than you do. TV economics are somewhat beyond me.

[Ruzious]

The D-Backs, apparently. No idea why, though!

Ok, at least we're not alone here in the Twilight Zone. :scratchchinhmm:

[DrungoHazewood]

Well, I don't know any more than you do. TV economics are somewhat beyond me.

I'm mostly in the same place, but it does seem to me that a lot of regional sports networks are currently able to extract several dollars a month from almost every household in a fairly sizeable area. And are using that, and the assumption that this will continue for the foreseeable future, as a business model that greatly benefits sports teams. To me it seems like an obvious bubble. Something like 1/3 (?) of people say they're baseball fans of any sort, but your business model is all about getting 100% of people to pay for your baseball content? I don't see how the status quo can stand. Eventually people will figure out a way to not pay for stuff they don't want.

I'll repeat I'm no economist, but this seems like a sports equivalent to having to pay $22 for a CD at the mall because you heard this one song you liked on the radio. And now you pay 99 cents for it because the old model was so, so broken.

[weams]

E

Wait what? Are we talking about the O's or the D-Backs?

Lots of legerdemain in contracts of this sort. I wonder what the real number is and if the Diamondbacks will actually see it.

I find it unlikely that Fox Sports Arizona can make a profit while paying out an average of 150 million a year.

The D-Backs, apparently. No idea why, though!

The Oriolws have an RSN to sell. And they are involved in a right dispute. This is about the most recent of 30 teams to sell their rights.

[Fan4Life]

Arizona has about 6.7M people, so $150M is only $22/person/year. Or for just a low, low price of $1.86 a month you, too, can have Paul Goldschmidt as your team's cleanup hitter. Just so long as everyone has to pay for Fox Sports Arizona along with the channels they actually want.

This one should be on your HOF list. Well done.

[Fan4Life]

I'm mostly in the same place, but it does seem to me that a lot of regional sports networks are currently able to extract several dollars a month from almost every household in a fairly sizeable area. And are using that, and the assumption that this will continue for the foreseeable future, as a business model that greatly benefits sports teams. To me it seems like an obvious bubble. Something like 1/3 (?) of people say they're baseball fans of any sort, but your business model is all about getting 100% of people to pay for your baseball content? I don't see how the status quo can stand. Eventually people will figure out a way to not pay for stuff they don't want.

I'll repeat I'm no economist, but this seems like a sports equivalent to having to pay $22 for a CD at the mall because you heard this one song you liked on the radio. And now you pay 99 cents for it because the old model was so, so broken.

I work for a telecom company and one of the services we offer is cable... due to content provider increases its understood that all cable companies will be raising their rates about $8 a month this quarter. In other news About 7.6m US households no longer get cable. From 2010 to 2014, the number of cord cutters – those who have decided to forgo life with cable and opted to get their TV and news on the internet – increased by 44%. courtesy of DSLReports. So you are right, this model is going to crash sooner rather than later.

[Can_of_corn]

E

The Oriolws have an RSN to sell. And they are involved in a right dispute. This is about the most recent of 30 teams to sell their rights.

How did my quote get mixed up in there? I refrained from questioning why this was in Orioles Talk.

I had a bad enough afternoon without getting dragged into this!

[Can_of_corn]

I work for a telecom company and one of the services we offer is cable... due to content provider increases its understood that all cable companies will be raising their rates about $8 a month this quarter. In other news About 7.6m US households no longer get cable. From 2010 to 2014, the number of cord cutters – those who have decided to forgo life with cable and opted to get their TV and news on the internet – increased by 44%. courtesy of DSLReports. So you are right, this model is going to crash sooner rather than later.

Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, Chormecast, Google TV ect are all taking market share. If consumers ever get a la carte pricing then the whole current cable model falls apart. How many folks in AZ would pay to watch the DBacks?

[Norfolk orioles]

This thread is most definitely not this boards finest hour.

[Frobby]

More than 90% of the cable channels I get are of zero interest to me. I don't really understand who it is that decides which channels to carry and what to pay for them. I don't see any reason why some non-baseball fan shouldn't have to pay for MASN if I have to pay for some cooking channel I never watch.

Mind you, I'm not making an argument that having to pay for bundled programming is a good thing. I'm just saying that I don't think paying for an RSN is any worse than paying for many other specialty channels.

[DrungoHazewood]

More than 90% of the cable channels I get are of zero interest to me. I don't really understand who it is that decides which channels to carry and what to pay for them. I don't see any reason why some non-baseball fan shouldn't have to pay for MASN if I have to pay for some cooking channel I never watch.

Mind you, I'm not making an argument that having to pay for bundled programming is a good thing. I'm just saying that I don't think paying for an RSN is any worse than paying for many other specialty channels.

I doubt you're paying 10% of ESPN's cost for the cooking channel.

[Frobby]

I doubt you're paying 10% of ESPN's cost for the cooking channel.

Good! BTW, ESPN is the 10th-ranked cable channel right now. TNT, Disney, Fox News, AMC, Discovery, TBS, USA, HGTV, History Channel, ESPN. http://www.medialifemagazine.com/this-weeks-cable-ratings/

[DrungoHazewood]

Good! BTW, ESPN is the 10th-ranked cable channel right now. TNT, Disney, Fox News, AMC, Discovery, TBS, USA, HGTV, History Channel, ESPN. http://www.medialifemagazine.com/this-weeks-cable-ratings/

While I'm very much opposed to paying for stuff I don't use/watch, I am concerned that all those channels you just mentioned will thrive under an a la carte plan and more obscure channels that I watch will go away or have a hefty premium. My kids may watch some versions of some Disney channel sometimes, and I watch Mythbusters on Discovery, and occasionally a Virginia Tech game on ESPN... but otherwise those channels are what you watch when you're stuck in a hotel or a waiting room with basic cable. I don't know what Directv might do with $billion satellites and bandwidth for hundreds of now-bundled stations, most of which draw tens of viewers, if a la carte comes in and forces each channel to stand on its own. It's not just MASN and other RSNs that might lose 80% of their revenues.