http://coacheshotseat.com/chsblog/archives/1453

We've been spoiled with such a great commissioner of the B1G for the past 25+ years that it's a little surreal to see a conference commissioner coming under heat. I thought Larry Scott was a great hire to bring in fresh ideas to the conference as they moved forward but patience is apparently wearing thin. The only issue that matters (as far as I'm concerned) is the lack of revenue created by the Pac 12 Networks. It is obvious that the decision to go it alone was not the right move in retrospect.

The models that have been successful have been 100% ownership by ESPN ala the SEC Network & the 51% stake Fox holds in BTN. Assuming the Pac will want to retain an ownership interest in their conference network. The 51% Model appears to be a better fit if in fact the conference wishes to sell a stake to promote wider distribution and increased revenue streams.

Right now, being extremely generous, the conference is paying out 2 Million per year per school. We'll call it 25 Million per year. Using a simple 10 Times earnings valuation the Network would be worth 250 Million Dollars. 51% of that would be 127.5 million which would be a one time payout of 10.625 million per school plus increased expected revenue by having a muscular (thank you Hillary for the verbage) partner behind the distribution efforts.

Given the rumors earlier this week (not sure of the credibility of those reports) that BTN may have an interest in helping the Pac 12 and Big 12 with distribution. Let's assume BTN is interested in a stake. Questions to be answered: If Larry Scott is fired does the Pac sell a percentage? Who are the bidders besides BTN (Fox/B1G)? What is a solid valuation for the Network in order to determine what a suitor would pay?

What say ye?

and a Should do it

LOLOLOLOL!!!

it is pretty much worth nothing to anyone that could help it

ESPN and Fox do not need studios and talking heads and production trucks they have too many of those as it is especially ESPN which is why they are cutting them

so all of those "assets" have zero value

then there is the simple fact that the general public has spoken and they do not want the PAC12n nor do they care that they are not getting it nor are they demanding it

there seems to be this constant attempt to frame the argument that it is the cable MSOs and sat providers that are denying their consumers the chance to get the PAC12n that all those consumers are demanding when nothing could be further from the truth

pretty much anyone with the exception of a few that might have a tree in their yard in the wrong place can get can get dish network anywhere on the country so if they want the PAC12n and their cable MSO does not carry it or if they are with direct TV they can simply switch providers and it has been WELL past the amount of time that anyone with a fixed contract would have to wait to switch providers and yet none are doing so

AT&T that has traditional cable, fibre and now direct TV sees no reason to have direct TV carry the network and their losses of subscribers for not doing so seem to be meaningless to them to the point they made such a bad offer to the PAC 12 that the PAC 12 did not even vote on it

so again no one really wants the PAC12n that is not already getting it now

so there is no need for Fox or ESPN especially to try and take a piece of the PAC12n (especially paying anything for it) and then trying to cram it onto MSOs and sat providers with the threat of withholding 100% of Disney. ABC and ESPN content until they capitulate because cable MSOs and subscribers are pushing back at that at an ever growing rate and the small small amount of money they could hope to make is meaningless compared to the money they would lose if a large cable MSO or sat provider simply said "fine we will have a standoff and good luck to you losing $5 a month or more X 10 million subscribers to try and push the PAC12n on us)

and with over 50% of people saying they would gladly dump 100% of ESPN content to save $5 a month on their cable bill well Disney has to pay attention to that

(05-05-2016 07:47 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  http://coacheshotseat.com/chsblog/archives/1453

We've been spoiled with such a great commissioner of the B1G for the past 25+ years that it's a little surreal to see a conference commissioner coming under heat. I thought Larry Scott was a great hire to bring in fresh ideas to the conference as they moved forward but patience is apparently wearing thin. The only issue that matters (as far as I'm concerned) is the lack of revenue created by the Pac 12 Networks. It is obvious that the decision to go it alone was not the right move in retrospect.

The models that have been successful have been 100% ownership by ESPN ala the SEC Network & the 51% stake Fox holds in BTN. Assuming the Pac will want to retain an ownership interest in their conference network. The 51% Model appears to be a better fit if in fact the conference wishes to sell a stake to promote wider distribution and increased revenue streams.

Right now, being extremely generous, the conference is paying out 2 Million per year per school. We'll call it 25 Million per year. Using a simple 10 Times earnings valuation the Network would be worth 250 Million Dollars. 51% of that would be 127.5 million which would be a one time payout of 10.625 million per school plus increased expected revenue by having a muscular (thank you Hillary for the verbage) partner behind the distribution efforts.

Given the rumors earlier this week (not sure of the credibility of those reports) that BTN may have an interest in helping the Pac 12 and Big 12 with distribution. Let's assume BTN is interested in a stake. Questions to be answered: If Larry Scott is fired does the Pac sell a percentage? Who are the bidders besides BTN (Fox/B1G)? What is a solid valuation for the Network in order to determine what a suitor would pay?

What say ye?

PAC 12 network? Ick. LHN? Ick. If I was offered either of those for free I would decline them.
Cheers!