This is how it will change Sports Programming...
But Murdoch is not selling out completely. He is holding onto certain properties, including Fox News, the Fox broadcast network, television stations and Fox Sports 1 and Fox Sports 2. His newspapers such as Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Times of London and a portfolio of Australian properties are housed in a second company, News Corp., that the Murdoch family controls with 39% of the voting shares. Some analysts expect Murdoch to eventually fold the remaining Fox assets into News Corp.
Then came a shift. This year, Disney spent $1.6 billion to gain a majority stake in BamTech, an online streaming platform that Disney plans to use to launch two streaming services in the next two years, including an ESPN service next year. Disney decided its future was in selling its shows and sports channels directly to consumers. That meant taking on Netflix
A Disney-branded streaming service, set to launch in 2019, will have more firepower with Fox’s assets. Disney would gain 22 regional Fox Sports networks, which could help entice more sports fans to sign up for the proposed ESPN streaming services if the service eventually includes access to Los Angeles Kings, San Diego Padres or New York Yankees games.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywoo...story.html
(12-14-2017 07:20 AM)Maize Wrote: [ -> ]This is how it will change Sports Programming...
Then came a shift. This year, Disney spent $1.6 billion to gain a majority stake in BamTech, an online streaming platform that Disney plans to use to launch two streaming services in the next two years, including an ESPN service next year. Disney decided its future was in selling its shows and sports channels directly to consumers. That meant taking on Netflix
A Disney-branded streaming service, set to launch in 2019, will have more firepower with Fox’s assets. Disney would gain 22 regional Fox Sports networks, which could help entice more sports fans to sign up for the proposed ESPN streaming services if the service eventually includes access to Los Angeles Kings, San Diego Padres or New York Yankees games.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywoo...story.html
This also fits with what we saw from the articles that talked about the Murdochs believing that the Fox empire wasn't big enough to compete with "MAGAF" Microsoft Amazon Google Apple Facebook. Fox tried to buy (or, in this perspective, merge with) Turner, and is now selling to (or, in this perspective, merge with) Disney.
The Disney and Fox back catalogs make them instantly a player in the Netflix/Amazon Prime/Disney market. Especially if/when they can add sports content from ESPN and RSNs.
So, I'm guessing the plan is for Disney-Fox to run Netflix out of business--Netflix is already rushing headlong into the content-creation business, probably since they know they're doomed as a middleman selling us other studio's old TV shows at $10 a month--the other studios will either get absorbed by bigger streaming players (TV networks, Amazon, Netflix) or launch their own subscription services.
http://beta.latimes.com/business/hollywo...story.html
Older article about Netflix. They are rapidly expanding the amount of company debt. Im no economist but long term that is not sustainable and will make them susceptible to a takeover.
Their biggest asset IMO is not their content, anyone can do that, but their subscriber base. Over 100 million subscribers worldwide is hard to beat.
If they don't get their debt under control they look to be a sitting duck waiting for a bigger fish to gobble them up
This is kind of a head-scratcher.
Fox is holding on to FS1, FS2, and BTN, but giving up their regional sports networks?
You'd think is they wanted to be a player in sports they would have held on to those regional networks and somehow merged content with the FS networks. On the other hand, if they were looking to divest their sports holdings, why not sell off BTN and decrease the size of the FS networks?
Guess that's why they pay some people the big bucks.
(12-14-2017 09:28 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote: [ -> ]This is kind of a head-scratcher.
Fox is holding on to FS1, FS2, and BTN, but giving up their regional sports networks?
You'd think is they wanted to be a player in sports they would have held on to those regional networks and somehow merged content with the FS networks. On the other hand, if they were looking to divest their sports holdings, why not sell off BTN and decrease the size of the FS networks?
Guess that's why they pay some people the big bucks.
problem is they couldn't merge the content with the FS networks. They couldn't take a Milwaukee Bucks game from FS Wisconsin(or whatever it's called) and put it on FS1.
(12-14-2017 09:28 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote: [ -> ]This is kind of a head-scratcher.
Fox is holding on to FS1, FS2, and BTN, but giving up their regional sports networks?
You'd think is they wanted to be a player in sports they would have held on to those regional networks and somehow merged content with the FS networks. On the other hand, if they were looking to divest their sports holdings, why not sell off BTN and decrease the size of the FS networks?
There's a logic to it: They wanted to remain a player in national sports but not regional sports.
Disney, OTOH, is a strong national sports player but lacked regional reach.
IMO, this is a phenomenal deal for FOX, we know the holders of current FOX shares are massive winners. For Disney, any $60B acquisition is a huge risk, so this is a huge risk.
(12-14-2017 08:44 AM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ]http://beta.latimes.com/business/hollywo...story.html
Older article about Netflix. They are rapidly expanding the amount of company debt. Im no economist but long term that is not sustainable and will make them susceptible to a takeover.
Their biggest asset IMO is not their content, anyone can do that, but their subscriber base. Over 100 million subscribers worldwide is hard to beat.
If they don't get their debt under control they look to be a sitting duck waiting for a bigger fish to gobble them up
Amazon would be the logical "bigger fish" in that scenario. Combine Netflix with Amazon's streaming service for greater firepower to compete against Disney's expanded library of content.
(12-14-2017 09:28 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote: [ -> ]This is kind of a head-scratcher.
Fox is holding on to FS1, FS2, and BTN, but giving up their regional sports networks?
You'd think is they wanted to be a player in sports they would have held on to those regional networks and somehow merged content with the FS networks. On the other hand, if they were looking to divest their sports holdings, why not sell off BTN and decrease the size of the FS networks?
Guess that's why they pay some people the big bucks.
I've read 3 articles on this so far but the one thing that stood out was that with the cord cutting that is accelerating, those RSN's are losing subscribers also because you have to buy a very high tier cable or satellite package to get them.
The value of those RSN's are declining each year. Disney/ESPN may be better equipped to handle the RSN's for the new ESPN streaming service but I also have to wonder if even those won't be as valuable down the road.
The MLB can venture out on its own....kinda like it is doing right now and probably soon when contracts are up each sports team will cut ESPN's RSN off and go direct to the fans and keep all the money.
It's not to hard or expensive now a days for sports teams/organizations to produce the games themselves. The problem before was getting distribution and why the cable/sat and RSN were valuable to them. Now distribution isn't a problem to go direct to the customer with how the internet streaming has changed everything. It's a total game changer because fans of a sports team can subscribe directly with the team no matter where they live in the US or the world really.
(12-14-2017 09:40 AM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2017 09:28 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote: [ -> ]This is kind of a head-scratcher.
Fox is holding on to FS1, FS2, and BTN, but giving up their regional sports networks?
You'd think is they wanted to be a player in sports they would have held on to those regional networks and somehow merged content with the FS networks. On the other hand, if they were looking to divest their sports holdings, why not sell off BTN and decrease the size of the FS networks?
Guess that's why they pay some people the big bucks.
I've read 3 articles on this so far but the one thing that stood out was that with the cord cutting that is accelerating, those RSN's are losing subscribers also because you have to buy a very high tier cable or satellite package to get them.
The value of those RSN's are declining each year. Disney/ESPN may be better equipped to handle the RSN's for the new ESPN streaming service but I also have to wonder if even those won't be as valuable down the road.
The MLB can venture out on its own....kinda like it is doing right now and probably soon when contracts are up each sports team will cut ESPN's RSN off and go direct to the fans and keep all the money.
It's not to hard or expensive now a days for sports teams/organizations to produce the games themselves. The problem before was getting distribution and why the cable/sat and RSN were valuable to them. Now distribution isn't a problem to go direct to the customer with how the internet streaming has changed everything. It's a total game changer because fans of a sports team can subscribe directly with the team no matter where they live in the US or the world really.
Only thing for a lot of the RSN's they have a pretty long term deal in place for a lot of them.... I mean just looking at FS San Diego- they in 2012 started a 20 year deal with the Padres. So that's good thru 2031.
If ESPN+ the tentative name for the streaming service integrates the regional content to subscribers in theory my ESPN+ subscription gives me an app that has all the ESPN channels, ESPN3 content, the Memphis Grizzlies, OKC Thunder, St. Louis Cardinals, Kansas City Royals, Dallas Stars, Dallas Mavericks, and Texas Rangers.
My interest in retaining Dish plummets.
Watch for the long promised ACC Network to rollout with ESPN+
Here is another thought regarding this deal. What do the additions of the RSN's do for CBS Sport Net sub-licensing deal with ESPN? Could we see no more of that since ESPN will put those games sub-licensed to CBSSN to the ESPN RSN?
(12-14-2017 09:44 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2017 09:40 AM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2017 09:28 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote: [ -> ]This is kind of a head-scratcher.
Fox is holding on to FS1, FS2, and BTN, but giving up their regional sports networks?
You'd think is they wanted to be a player in sports they would have held on to those regional networks and somehow merged content with the FS networks. On the other hand, if they were looking to divest their sports holdings, why not sell off BTN and decrease the size of the FS networks?
Guess that's why they pay some people the big bucks.
I've read 3 articles on this so far but the one thing that stood out was that with the cord cutting that is accelerating, those RSN's are losing subscribers also because you have to buy a very high tier cable or satellite package to get them.
The value of those RSN's are declining each year. Disney/ESPN may be better equipped to handle the RSN's for the new ESPN streaming service but I also have to wonder if even those won't be as valuable down the road.
The MLB can venture out on its own....kinda like it is doing right now and probably soon when contracts are up each sports team will cut ESPN's RSN off and go direct to the fans and keep all the money.
It's not to hard or expensive now a days for sports teams/organizations to produce the games themselves. The problem before was getting distribution and why the cable/sat and RSN were valuable to them. Now distribution isn't a problem to go direct to the customer with how the internet streaming has changed everything. It's a total game changer because fans of a sports team can subscribe directly with the team no matter where they live in the US or the world really.
Only thing for a lot of the RSN's they have a pretty long term deal in place for a lot of them.... I mean just looking at FS San Diego- they in 2012 started a 20 year deal with the Padres. So that's good thru 2031.
I "cut the cord" an subscribe to the Hulu package with all the sports ($39.99/mo). I get Fox Sports Ohio with this package, no cable or satellite either. Is this what you're referring to as RSN'S?
Sent from my SM-G920V using
CSNbbs mobile app
(12-14-2017 09:44 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2017 09:40 AM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2017 09:28 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote: [ -> ]This is kind of a head-scratcher.
Fox is holding on to FS1, FS2, and BTN, but giving up their regional sports networks?
You'd think is they wanted to be a player in sports they would have held on to those regional networks and somehow merged content with the FS networks. On the other hand, if they were looking to divest their sports holdings, why not sell off BTN and decrease the size of the FS networks?
Guess that's why they pay some people the big bucks.
I've read 3 articles on this so far but the one thing that stood out was that with the cord cutting that is accelerating, those RSN's are losing subscribers also because you have to buy a very high tier cable or satellite package to get them.
The value of those RSN's are declining each year. Disney/ESPN may be better equipped to handle the RSN's for the new ESPN streaming service but I also have to wonder if even those won't be as valuable down the road.
The MLB can venture out on its own....kinda like it is doing right now and probably soon when contracts are up each sports team will cut ESPN's RSN off and go direct to the fans and keep all the money.
It's not to hard or expensive now a days for sports teams/organizations to produce the games themselves. The problem before was getting distribution and why the cable/sat and RSN were valuable to them. Now distribution isn't a problem to go direct to the customer with how the internet streaming has changed everything. It's a total game changer because fans of a sports team can subscribe directly with the team no matter where they live in the US or the world really.
Only thing for a lot of the RSN's they have a pretty long term deal in place for a lot of them.... I mean just looking at FS San Diego- they in 2012 started a 20 year deal with the Padres. So that's good thru 2031.
That is a factor...didn't know some of those deals are that long. Maybe there will be some caveats in those deal to be able to make some changes.
(12-14-2017 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2017 09:28 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote: [ -> ]This is kind of a head-scratcher.
Fox is holding on to FS1, FS2, and BTN, but giving up their regional sports networks?
You'd think is they wanted to be a player in sports they would have held on to those regional networks and somehow merged content with the FS networks. On the other hand, if they were looking to divest their sports holdings, why not sell off BTN and decrease the size of the FS networks?
There's a logic to it: They wanted to remain a player in national sports but not regional sports.
Disney, OTOH, is a strong national sports player but lacked regional reach.
IMO, this is a phenomenal deal for FOX, we know the holders of current FOX shares are massive winners. For Disney, any $60B acquisition is a huge risk, so this is a huge risk.
I agree, Fox share holders made out like bandits.
I wonder if, as you stated, Fox wants to remain a national player how this will effect the college sports landscape? Since Fox held on to BTN, they must want to at least have a presence. Makes me wonder if they'll focus their attention on trying to work a deal with the PACN and/or the XII. Could make for an interesting few years leading up to 2024/25.
(12-14-2017 09:40 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2017 08:44 AM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ]http://beta.latimes.com/business/hollywo...story.html
Older article about Netflix. They are rapidly expanding the amount of company debt. Im no economist but long term that is not sustainable and will make them susceptible to a takeover.
Their biggest asset IMO is not their content, anyone can do that, but their subscriber base. Over 100 million subscribers worldwide is hard to beat.
If they don't get their debt under control they look to be a sitting duck waiting for a bigger fish to gobble them up
Amazon would be the logical "bigger fish" in that scenario. Combine Netflix with Amazon's streaming service for greater firepower to compete against Disney's expanded library of content.
I could see that actually happening. Currently Amazon offers Amazon Prime Music as a part of the Amazon Prime package and the for an additional $7 I think you can get Amazon Music Unlimited, which is a much broader version of Amazon Prime music with greater selection.
They could do something similar for Netflix. Current Amazon Prime Video would be scaled down while full Amazon Netflix would be what you see now with tons of original programming and greater archive of video content.
(12-14-2017 10:31 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2017 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2017 09:28 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote: [ -> ]This is kind of a head-scratcher.
Fox is holding on to FS1, FS2, and BTN, but giving up their regional sports networks?
You'd think is they wanted to be a player in sports they would have held on to those regional networks and somehow merged content with the FS networks. On the other hand, if they were looking to divest their sports holdings, why not sell off BTN and decrease the size of the FS networks?
There's a logic to it: They wanted to remain a player in national sports but not regional sports.
Disney, OTOH, is a strong national sports player but lacked regional reach.
IMO, this is a phenomenal deal for FOX, we know the holders of current FOX shares are massive winners. For Disney, any $60B acquisition is a huge risk, so this is a huge risk.
I agree, Fox share holders made out like bandits.
I wonder if, as you stated, Fox wants to remain a national player how this will effect the college sports landscape? Since Fox held on to BTN, they must want to at least have a presence. Makes me wonder if they'll focus their attention on trying to work a deal with the PACN and/or the XII. Could make for an interesting few years leading up to 2024/25.
I think Fox is going to eventually sell what's left to someone else. The assets they kept, I think they kept them -- for now -- primarily because including them in the deal would have raised more antitrust concerns for the feds.
(12-14-2017 10:59 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2017 10:31 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2017 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2017 09:28 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote: [ -> ]This is kind of a head-scratcher.
Fox is holding on to FS1, FS2, and BTN, but giving up their regional sports networks?
You'd think is they wanted to be a player in sports they would have held on to those regional networks and somehow merged content with the FS networks. On the other hand, if they were looking to divest their sports holdings, why not sell off BTN and decrease the size of the FS networks?
There's a logic to it: They wanted to remain a player in national sports but not regional sports.
Disney, OTOH, is a strong national sports player but lacked regional reach.
IMO, this is a phenomenal deal for FOX, we know the holders of current FOX shares are massive winners. For Disney, any $60B acquisition is a huge risk, so this is a huge risk.
I agree, Fox share holders made out like bandits.
I wonder if, as you stated, Fox wants to remain a national player how this will effect the college sports landscape? Since Fox held on to BTN, they must want to at least have a presence. Makes me wonder if they'll focus their attention on trying to work a deal with the PACN and/or the XII. Could make for an interesting few years leading up to 2024/25.
I think Fox is going to eventually sell what's left to someone else. The assets they kept, I think they kept them -- for now -- primarily because including them in the deal would have raised more antitrust concerns for the feds.
Scrubbing my post here as this link provides some great insight.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017...sense.html
“There’s a lot of change coming, people watch television differently, not news or business, but entertainment they watch very differently. We are seeing that in the mergers of new companies. Silicon Valley has spent tens and tens of billions on entertainment programming—so it makes sense,” Murdoch told FOX Business’ Maria Bartiromo on “Mornings with Maria.”
"Immediately prior to the acquisition, 21st Century Fox will separate the Fox Broadcasting network and stations, Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, FS1, FS2 and Big Ten Network into a newly listed company that will be spun off to its shareholders."
“The new Fox,” Murdoch said, “It will have a cash flow of at least $2 billion a year after everything, so you know
we can see expanding that and taking other opportunities and building another great company there.”
"When asked whether he would consider combining News Corp. (NWSA) and the remaining assets of Fox, Murdoch replied: “I don’t know, ideally yes,
but I think that’s years away. We’ll have to think about that.”
(12-14-2017 10:48 AM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2017 09:40 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2017 08:44 AM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ]http://beta.latimes.com/business/hollywo...story.html
Older article about Netflix. They are rapidly expanding the amount of company debt. Im no economist but long term that is not sustainable and will make them susceptible to a takeover.
Their biggest asset IMO is not their content, anyone can do that, but their subscriber base. Over 100 million subscribers worldwide is hard to beat.
If they don't get their debt under control they look to be a sitting duck waiting for a bigger fish to gobble them up
Amazon would be the logical "bigger fish" in that scenario. Combine Netflix with Amazon's streaming service for greater firepower to compete against Disney's expanded library of content.
I could see that actually happening. Currently Amazon offers Amazon Prime Music as a part of the Amazon Prime package and the for an additional $7 I think you can get Amazon Music Unlimited, which is a much broader version of Amazon Prime music with greater selection.
They could do something similar for Netflix. Current Amazon Prime Video would be scaled down while full Amazon Netflix would be what you see now with tons of original programming and greater archive of video content.
Amazon would not be allowed to buy Netflix.
The problem with this "bigger fish" theory is that Netflix is selling at such a huge multiple a deal would need to be done with debt, not stock or the existing shareholders of the new company would get screwed.
So how many companies can issue $100 billion in debt? You might get Apple or Google to do it but for that kind of money you could buy a Time Warner or Fox or build your own.