+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: Swofford: ACC, ESPN still 'bullish' about channel negotiations, future (Link) (/thread-779819.html)
Swofford: ACC, ESPN still 'bullish' about channel negotiations, future (Link) - CardinalJim - 05-12-2016 04:22 PM
https://floridastate.n.rivals.com/news/swofford-acc-espn-still-bullish-about-channel-negotiations-future
RE: Swofford: ACC, ESPN still 'bullish' about channel negotiations, future (Link) - Maize - 05-12-2016 04:26 PM
(05-12-2016 04:22 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: https://floridastate.n.rivals.com/news/swofford-acc-espn-still-bullish-about-channel-negotiations-future
This is what I wanted to see if they don't get it done:
An FSU source confirmed to Warchant previously that the school is expecting such a payment if the deal isn’t reached
RE: Swofford: ACC, ESPN still 'bullish' about channel negotiations, future (Link) - bullet - 05-12-2016 04:39 PM
(05-12-2016 04:26 PM)Maize Wrote:(05-12-2016 04:22 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: https://floridastate.n.rivals.com/news/swofford-acc-espn-still-bullish-about-channel-negotiations-future
This is what I wanted to see if they don't get it done:
An FSU source confirmed to Warchant previously that the school is expecting such a payment if the deal isn’t reached
The only way that makes sense is that this is a one time payment to offset any costs the ACC may have incurred.
RE: Swofford: ACC, ESPN still 'bullish' about channel negotiations, future (Link) - muffinman - 05-12-2016 07:56 PM
So does the ACC or Big12 implode first?
RE: Swofford: ACC, ESPN still 'bullish' about channel negotiations, future (Link) - Rabbit_in_Red - 05-12-2016 08:01 PM
BigXII. Their issues are far more public and far more detrimental to the overall well being of the conference. The ACC is comprised of schools that generally want to be together. The same cannot be said for the BigXII.
RE: Swofford: ACC, ESPN still 'bullish' about channel negotiations, future (Link) - BruceMcF - 05-12-2016 08:08 PM
(05-12-2016 04:39 PM)bullet Wrote:How doesn't it make sense? In negotiations, ACC says it wants a network, they are willing to sign for a little less guaranteed money if they get a network and a profit share in the network. The ESPN says it is willing to include terms that ESPN works on a network. ACC says they want an iron-clad commitment. ACC says they will give ESPN time, but they won't agree to ESPN's offer unless the network comes through. So after some more higgling and haggling, they end up agreeing to a deal that says that if the network is not forthcoming, the media rights payment goes up.(05-12-2016 04:26 PM)Maize Wrote:(05-12-2016 04:22 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: https://floridastate.n.rivals.com/news/swofford-acc-espn-still-bullish-about-channel-negotiations-future
This is what I wanted to see if they don't get it done:
An FSU source confirmed to Warchant previously that the school is expecting such a payment if the deal isn’t reached
The only way that makes sense is that this is a one time payment to offset any costs the ACC may have incurred.
It would be a one-time lump sum payment, if the purpose is to be halfway between "we'll try" and an ironclad commitment to roll out a network with the contract beached if it fails to materialize.
RE: Swofford: ACC, ESPN still 'bullish' about channel negotiations, future (Link) - Hokie Mark - 05-12-2016 08:19 PM
(05-12-2016 04:39 PM)bullet Wrote:(05-12-2016 04:26 PM)Maize Wrote:(05-12-2016 04:22 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: https://floridastate.n.rivals.com/news/swofford-acc-espn-still-bullish-about-channel-negotiations-future
This is what I wanted to see if they don't get it done:
An FSU source confirmed to Warchant previously that the school is expecting such a payment if the deal isn’t reached
The only way that makes sense is that this is a one time payment to offset any costs the ACC may have incurred.
Everything I've read points to this being a raise, not a one-time payment. Of course, if the network is only delayed one year, it wold be the same thing...
RE: Swofford: ACC, ESPN still 'bullish' about channel negotiations, future (Link) - goodknightfl - 05-13-2016 11:32 AM
(05-12-2016 07:56 PM)muffinman Wrote: So does the ACC or Big12 implode first?
Neither, They make 20 mil per year, so what they are not Big or SEC, It is still tons of $$.
RE: Swofford: ACC, ESPN still 'bullish' about channel negotiations, future (Link) - The Cutter of Bish - 05-13-2016 11:50 AM
So, has this been narrowed down to a guaranteed look-in increase if the network doesn't happen this time around? Because this still looks like the look-in window chatter. To hear the chatter back when the ACC inked the deal, that increase seemed like an entitlement.
Either it is an entitlement or it isn't. And if it is, why can't just one school official speak to it? The ACC has its share of private institutions, but the public ones...what, doesn't this stuff show up in budgets or in other meetings' minutes? Are people in the ACC states anti-FOIA or OPRA?
RE: Swofford: ACC, ESPN still 'bullish' about channel negotiations, future (Link) - Dasville - 05-13-2016 11:53 AM
(05-12-2016 08:19 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:(05-12-2016 04:39 PM)bullet Wrote:(05-12-2016 04:26 PM)Maize Wrote:(05-12-2016 04:22 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: https://floridastate.n.rivals.com/news/swofford-acc-espn-still-bullish-about-channel-negotiations-future
This is what I wanted to see if they don't get it done:
An FSU source confirmed to Warchant previously that the school is expecting such a payment if the deal isn’t reached
The only way that makes sense is that this is a one time payment to offset any costs the ACC may have incurred.
Everything I've read points to this being a raise, not a one-time payment. Of course, if the network is only delayed one year, it wold be the same thing...
I'm wondering if the $45 million a year is a floor payment? If ESPN is using the ACC to break new ground in distribution technologies, seems like they would protect against failure in order to make the school's more at ease.
RE: Swofford: ACC, ESPN still 'bullish' about channel negotiations, future (Link) - JRsec - 05-13-2016 12:09 PM
Not only will the ACC get a boost in pay until the network is started, and one will be started it's just the makeup and delivery mode of such has yet to be determined, but look for ESPN to go hard and heavy to keep Texas solidly in its line up, work to acquire more of Kansas's rights, and go after Oklahoma. Why?
If the Big 10 doesn't gain access to any of those brands they can't increase further the revenue gap they currently have over the ACC. ESPN could pay the ACC more, but that doesn't increase their content and doesn't keep FOX from expanding their content. It is cheaper to do what is necessary to land those 3 brands and possibly a couple of tag a longs than it is to simply give the SEC and ACC a boost. They stand to more than cover the cost if they use those three brands as content multipliers for the SEC and ACC.
ESPN's profits last year in spite of all the twitter chatter and negativity by those touting the FOX coup was 45 Billion with a "B". I'd say their war chest is just fine and that really all they have been doing is converting outdated plans, talking heads, and programming into something more current and more oriented towards the brands they will carry.
I have no doubts that now that their decisions have been actualized via contracts, or lack thereof, that the ACC will be secured.
So those of you who like your rainbows and unicorns can take them out of the closet now, but please use them sparsely as gloating won't set well in some quarters around here.
RE: Swofford: ACC, ESPN still 'bullish' about channel negotiations, future (Link) - adcorbett - 05-13-2016 01:00 PM
If the ACC is smart, said payment would be used to purchase Raycom (or used to help fund the purchase if it costs more than $45 million), to both get the rest of their third tier rights back, and to have inhouse production resources both produce and run said network.
RE: Swofford: ACC, ESPN still 'bullish' about channel negotiations, future (Link) - adcorbett - 05-13-2016 01:03 PM
(05-13-2016 11:50 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote: why can't just one school official speak to it? The ACC has its share of private institutions, but the public ones...what, doesn't this stuff show up in budgets or in other meetings' minutes? Are people in the ACC states anti-FOIA or OPRA?
Exactly what purpose does that serve to anyone?
RE: Swofford: ACC, ESPN still 'bullish' about channel negotiations, future (Link) - Rabbit_in_Red - 05-13-2016 01:10 PM
Wasn't NCState building something for broadcasting purposes, or did I misunderstand?
RE: Swofford: ACC, ESPN still 'bullish' about channel negotiations, future (Link) - TexanMark - 05-13-2016 01:27 PM
(05-13-2016 01:10 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote: Wasn't NCState building something for broadcasting purposes, or did I misunderstand?
Yes but that is going to do with NCSt game producing. I think all the schools are moving this way to produce more content.
RE: Swofford: ACC, ESPN still 'bullish' about channel negotiations, future (Link) - MplsBison - 05-13-2016 01:33 PM
ESPN getting/keeping Texas (Independant - LHN), Oklahoma (SEC - ESPN SECN) and Kansas (ACC - ESPN SECN), is just fine with me.
None of those belong in the Big Ten.
RE: Swofford: ACC, ESPN still 'bullish' about channel negotiations, future (Link) - Dasville - 05-13-2016 01:35 PM
(05-13-2016 01:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote: If the ACC is smart, said payment would be used to purchase Raycom (or used to help fund the purchase if it costs more than $45 million), to both get the rest of their third tier rights back, and to have inhouse production resources both produce and run said network.
$45 million from ESPN + $34 million from Maryland/B1G should be more than enough to cover such an investment.
That darn ninja!
RE: Swofford: ACC, ESPN still 'bullish' about channel negotiations, future (Link) - Hokie Mark - 05-13-2016 02:01 PM
(05-13-2016 01:35 PM)Dasville Wrote:(05-13-2016 01:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote: If the ACC is smart, said payment would be used to purchase Raycom (or used to help fund the purchase if it costs more than $45 million), to both get the rest of their third tier rights back, and to have inhouse production resources both produce and run said network.
$45 million from ESPN + $34 million from Maryland/B1G should be more than enough to cover such an investment.
That darn ninja!
$45M + $34M = $79 million... sounds like enough... for ONE year's worth maybe!
Figure each Tier 2 game is worth about $2.5 million. Last year Raycom showed 15 of them, and FoxSports showed another 17. That's 32 games X $2.5 million each = $80 million per year. Multiply that by 12 years!
Now, if those games are truly considered Tier 3 (and they might be) then the price drops to about a quarte of a million each; 32 X $0.25M = $8 million/year. At this price, the remaining 12 years' worth of ACC football could be bought back for 12 X $8M = $96 million. Still more money than the ACC has just sitting around, but within reach at least.
RE: Swofford: ACC, ESPN still 'bullish' about channel negotiations, future (Link) - Dasville - 05-13-2016 02:54 PM
(05-13-2016 02:01 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:(05-13-2016 01:35 PM)Dasville Wrote:(05-13-2016 01:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote: If the ACC is smart, said payment would be used to purchase Raycom (or used to help fund the purchase if it costs more than $45 million), to both get the rest of their third tier rights back, and to have inhouse production resources both produce and run said network.
$45 million from ESPN + $34 million from Maryland/B1G should be more than enough to cover such an investment.
That darn ninja!
$45M + $34M = $79 million... sounds like enough... for ONE year's worth maybe!
Figure each Tier 2 game is worth about $2.5 million. Last year Raycom showed 15 of them, and FoxSports showed another 17. That's 32 games X $2.5 million each = $80 million per year. Multiply that by 12 years!
Now, if those games are truly considered Tier 3 (and they might be) then the price drops to about a quarte of a million each; 32 X $0.25M = $8 million/year. At this price, the remaining 12 years' worth of ACC football could be bought back for 12 X $8M = $96 million. Still more money than the ACC has just sitting around, but within reach at least.
How much is Raycom Sports worth? I'm talking about the company itself.
Re: RE: Swofford: ACC, ESPN still 'bullish' about channel negotiations, future (Link) - Hokie Mark - 05-13-2016 03:10 PM
(05-13-2016 02:54 PM)Dasville Wrote:(05-13-2016 02:01 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:(05-13-2016 01:35 PM)Dasville Wrote:(05-13-2016 01:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote: If the ACC is smart, said payment would be used to purchase Raycom (or used to help fund the purchase if it costs more than $45 million), to both get the rest of their third tier rights back, and to have inhouse production resources both produce and run said network.
$45 million from ESPN + $34 million from Maryland/B1G should be more than enough to cover such an investment.
That darn ninja!
$45M + $34M = $79 million... sounds like enough... for ONE year's worth maybe!
Figure each Tier 2 game is worth about $2.5 million. Last year Raycom showed 15 of them, and FoxSports showed another 17. That's 32 games X $2.5 million each = $80 million per year. Multiply that by 12 years!
Now, if those games are truly considered Tier 3 (and they might be) then the price drops to about a quarte of a million each; 32 X $0.25M = $8 million/year. At this price, the remaining 12 years' worth of ACC football could be bought back for 12 X $8M = $96 million. Still more money than the ACC has just sitting around, but within reach at least.
How much is Raycom Sports worth? I'm talking about the company itself.
I assume it's more than that.