Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Potential Fox-Disney Deal & ESPN impact
Author Message
MissouriStateBears Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,117
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 74
I Root For: Missouri State
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Potential Fox-Disney Deal & ESPN impact
ESPN now also has a the perfect filler and place for ESPNews if its gets the FSN regionals. They all need programming. ESPN still has ESPNews and can rebrand that channel, while still getting it on every cable and satellite system through the regionals.
12-06-2017 09:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 20,262
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 569
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #42
Potential Fox-Disney Deal & ESPN impact
(12-06-2017 09:36 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  ESPN now also has a the perfect filler and place for ESPNews if its gets the FSN regionals. They all need programming. ESPN still has ESPNews and can rebrand that channel, while still getting it on every cable and satellite system through the regionals.

Excellent point and there will be layoffs as some ESPN beat reporters in the field will be competing with the former Fox RSN employees for one job.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
12-06-2017 10:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MissouriStateBears Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,117
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 74
I Root For: Missouri State
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Potential Fox-Disney Deal & ESPN impact
(12-06-2017 10:56 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 09:36 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  ESPN now also has a the perfect filler and place for ESPNews if its gets the FSN regionals. They all need programming. ESPN still has ESPNews and can rebrand that channel, while still getting it on every cable and satellite system through the regionals.

Excellent point and there will be layoffs as some ESPN beat reporters in the field will be competing with the former Fox RSN employees for one job.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I just see the regionals becoming ESPNews/ESPN Region. It just makes perfect sense.
12-06-2017 11:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jjoey52 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 600
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 20
I Root For: ISU
Location:
Post: #44
Potential Fox-Disney Deal & ESPN impact
I don’t see ESPN doing too much with them as they are laying employees off and are losing money now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
12-07-2017 01:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 43,972
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 1089
I Root For: GT, USC Upstate
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #45
RE: Potential Fox-Disney Deal & ESPN impact
Wow. Why would you sell if you're Fox?? The only reason I can come up with is Fox wants to move towards OTA. It would also make Disney the biggest bundler bar none. Bigger than Turner. Bigger than Discovery Networks. That's a lot of eggs in one basket.
12-07-2017 02:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,750
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 852
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Potential Fox-Disney Deal & ESPN impact
(12-06-2017 05:29 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 05:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(12-06-2017 04:23 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  It is well worth remembering the approach ESPN took with the AAC and MAC.
They bought the whole banana and then sliced and diced it out.

A friend who should know said that ESPN was expensing the rights fees across all telecasts (including ESPN3) and because of that, they were selling CBSSN some AAC games for less than what CBSSN was paying per game for CUSA under the contract prior to the most current one.

Anyone ESPN is willing to do business with can likely buy content direct from ESPN for less than what they have to pay in a bidding environment.

We will have to see, but Im pretty sure the AAC now realizes that was a mistake. I dont think you'll see that same deal next time up unless ESPN offers a really lucrative early renewal that offers increased money well before 2020. Otherwise, there isn't much reason to make a deal that clearly prevents you from maximizing your inventory value. There is simply little (if any) upside to selling any broadcaster more inventory than they are willing to guarantee windows for. That said, I could see ESPN becoming the buyer/reseller for low value third tier stuff. That might make some sense for both the conferences and ESPN.

But who will be bidding?
Fox Sports is obviously scaling back. CBS is relying more on sublicensing. NBC is still out there but by history they are bargain hunters who only pay big for really big things (like SNF and Olympics).

NBC is a bargain hunter. The AAC is a bargain. Its falls somewhere between MLS Soccer and Premier Soccer (US rights only) ratings and will probably cost the same or less. As fro CBS-Sports---do they really want to rely on a direct competitor for their inventory? The current deal works right now--but CBS kinda fell into it. It wasnt like it was some sort of planned out strategy. They just ended up with the rump CUSA contract that didnt really have the teams they wanted to televise. I wouldnt assume their current use of sublicensing represents the preferred long term strategy of CBS-Sports. Most networks prefer directly select and control their content inventory. Hell, with ESPN buying the Fox Regionals that inventory might not be readily available at all.

The real key for the AAC is there are likely 3 bidders---none that need all 65 games---with each bidder fully aware that most of the value is in the top 20 games. So, the key is a selection mechanism that makes all 3 packages reasonably attractive and valuable. I'd also sell the CCG as a stand alone product--otherwise you wont get full value. Bottom line, selling it as single package is the absolute worst way to maximize value. Maybe nobody values the AAC package they need more than 25 million. But if you get that from 3 different bidders--the AAC comes out doing alright.
(This post was last modified: 12-07-2017 03:17 AM by Attackcoog.)
12-07-2017 03:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 8,678
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 282
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #47
RE: Potential Fox-Disney Deal & ESPN impact
(12-07-2017 02:10 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Wow. Why would you sell if you're Fox?? The only reason I can come up with is Fox wants to move towards OTA. It would also make Disney the biggest bundler bar none. Bigger than Turner. Bigger than Discovery Networks. That's a lot of eggs in one basket.

You're not thinking bigly enough. What the article said was that the Murdochs/Fox/News Corp brain trust don't believe that the Fox group is big enough to compete in an age of "MAGAF" Microsoft Amazon Google Apple Facebook. They tried to get bigger (Time Warner bid, 2014) and that didn't work out, so they're trying to cash out.

If that's the play, they'd like to cash out all of their media properties, but putting Fox Sports 1 and ESPN, or FOX OTA and ABC under the same corporate roof wouldn't pass US antitrust. And I suspect Fox News is a property that is hard to sell because of its reputation--any channel actively hated by 10-40% of the population is hard to sell, no matter how much money it makes.

It's not that Fox looked at the RSNs and said "Get rid of these." It's that the RSNs are part of the Fox/Newscorp cable media empire that is being sold.

It's very likely that, if a Fox/Disney sale goes through, the next step would be the Murdochs selling off the Fox OTA/Fox News/Fox Sports group. I don't know if that would be a coherent package, or if you'd split into Fox OTA and Fox Cable at that point, or if you'd split the three separately, or spin off Fox News into its own thing. (Fox OTA and Fox Sports would fit nicely with Time Warner, who doesn't have an OTA network. But Fox News/CNN would not pass muster.)

Or maybe the Fox / Fox News morning show makes it too hard to separate Fox OTA from Fox News? I don't watch morning newstalk tv so I don't pay much attention, but it's a big part of the TV network business--Matt LAuer and Katie Couric and Megyn Kelly and Al Roker are/were making big money because Good Morning America and Today etc make big money. (I may have those names wrong. But I think those all are/were big players on network morning shows.)
12-07-2017 07:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,935
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 481
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Potential Fox-Disney Deal & ESPN impact
(12-07-2017 07:11 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 02:10 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Wow. Why would you sell if you're Fox?? The only reason I can come up with is Fox wants to move towards OTA. It would also make Disney the biggest bundler bar none. Bigger than Turner. Bigger than Discovery Networks. That's a lot of eggs in one basket.

You're not thinking bigly enough. What the article said was that the Murdochs/Fox/News Corp brain trust don't believe that the Fox group is big enough to compete in an age of "MAGAF" Microsoft Amazon Google Apple Facebook. They tried to get bigger (Time Warner bid, 2014) and that didn't work out, so they're trying to cash out.

If that's the play, they'd like to cash out all of their media properties, but putting Fox Sports 1 and ESPN, or FOX OTA and ABC under the same corporate roof wouldn't pass US antitrust. And I suspect Fox News is a property that is hard to sell because of its reputation--any channel actively hated by 10-40% of the population is hard to sell, no matter how much money it makes.

It's not that Fox looked at the RSNs and said "Get rid of these." It's that the RSNs are part of the Fox/Newscorp cable media empire that is being sold.

It's very likely that, if a Fox/Disney sale goes through, the next step would be the Murdochs selling off the Fox OTA/Fox News/Fox Sports group. I don't know if that would be a coherent package, or if you'd split into Fox OTA and Fox Cable at that point, or if you'd split the three separately, or spin off Fox News into its own thing. (Fox OTA and Fox Sports would fit nicely with Time Warner, who doesn't have an OTA network. But Fox News/CNN would not pass muster.)

Or maybe the Fox / Fox News morning show makes it too hard to separate Fox OTA from Fox News? I don't watch morning newstalk tv so I don't pay much attention, but it's a big part of the TV network business--Matt LAuer and Katie Couric and Megyn Kelly and Al Roker are/were making big money because Good Morning America and Today etc make big money. (I may have those names wrong. But I think those all are/were big players on network morning shows.)

Total nonsense. Its all about $$$. Lots of people hate ESPN. Lots of people hate MSNBC. Lots of people hate CNN. Lots of people hate McDonald's. Microsoft? Walmart? Totally irrelevant.
(This post was last modified: 12-07-2017 09:06 AM by bullet.)
12-07-2017 09:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,604
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 454
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #49
RE: Potential Fox-Disney Deal & ESPN impact
(12-07-2017 02:10 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Wow. Why would you sell if you're Fox?? The only reason I can come up with is Fox wants to move towards OTA. It would also make Disney the biggest bundler bar none. Bigger than Turner. Bigger than Discovery Networks. That's a lot of eggs in one basket.

Remember that, unlike most faceless corporate conglomerates, there is a clear person behind Fox: Rupert Murdoch. It’s a public company on paper, but it’s effectively run like a private family business. If this deals goes through, Murdoch and his family become the largest shareholders of the Walt Disney Company by a wide margin while still separately retaining control over Fox OTA, Fox News and Fox Sports. If Fox was like 99% of the organizations out there, I agree with you since all of that scale that it built up over the years in entertainment would be eliminated. However, if you look at it from the standpoint of the Murdoch family, they become even more powerful than ever (especially if Rupert’s son James ends up being the next Disney CEO). Don’t ask why *Fox* would do this deal - the relevant analysis would be why the Murdoch family wants to do this deal.
12-07-2017 09:28 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,604
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 454
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #50
RE: Potential Fox-Disney Deal & ESPN impact
(12-07-2017 09:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 07:11 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 02:10 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Wow. Why would you sell if you're Fox?? The only reason I can come up with is Fox wants to move towards OTA. It would also make Disney the biggest bundler bar none. Bigger than Turner. Bigger than Discovery Networks. That's a lot of eggs in one basket.

You're not thinking bigly enough. What the article said was that the Murdochs/Fox/News Corp brain trust don't believe that the Fox group is big enough to compete in an age of "MAGAF" Microsoft Amazon Google Apple Facebook. They tried to get bigger (Time Warner bid, 2014) and that didn't work out, so they're trying to cash out.

If that's the play, they'd like to cash out all of their media properties, but putting Fox Sports 1 and ESPN, or FOX OTA and ABC under the same corporate roof wouldn't pass US antitrust. And I suspect Fox News is a property that is hard to sell because of its reputation--any channel actively hated by 10-40% of the population is hard to sell, no matter how much money it makes.

It's not that Fox looked at the RSNs and said "Get rid of these." It's that the RSNs are part of the Fox/Newscorp cable media empire that is being sold.

It's very likely that, if a Fox/Disney sale goes through, the next step would be the Murdochs selling off the Fox OTA/Fox News/Fox Sports group. I don't know if that would be a coherent package, or if you'd split into Fox OTA and Fox Cable at that point, or if you'd split the three separately, or spin off Fox News into its own thing. (Fox OTA and Fox Sports would fit nicely with Time Warner, who doesn't have an OTA network. But Fox News/CNN would not pass muster.)

Or maybe the Fox / Fox News morning show makes it too hard to separate Fox OTA from Fox News? I don't watch morning newstalk tv so I don't pay much attention, but it's a big part of the TV network business--Matt LAuer and Katie Couric and Megyn Kelly and Al Roker are/were making big money because Good Morning America and Today etc make big money. (I may have those names wrong. But I think those all are/were big players on network morning shows.)

Total nonsense. Its all about $$$. Lots of people hate ESPN. Lots of people hate MSNBC. Lots of people hate CNN. Lots of people hate McDonald's. Microsoft? Walmart? Totally irrelevant.

As someone that would gouge my eyes out before watching Fox News, I agree. From a business standpoint, Fox News is worth a ton of money (over $14 billion by itself from an estimate that I’ve seen in the past few days) with very high profits, which means that every media company based in NYC and/or Hollywood would buy them in a heartbeat regardless of personal political leanings.
12-07-2017 09:35 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.