(08-08-2013 10:07 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: (08-08-2013 09:32 AM)Lou_C Wrote: (08-07-2013 05:52 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: (08-07-2013 04:12 PM)Lou_C Wrote: Wow, this is another level of complication to buying back rights for an ACC Network, right?
If I'm following this completely, ACC has sold these games to ESPN, who subleased them to Raycom, who subleased them to Fox, who now is leasing them to MSG?
These are a lot of parties to unwind if we go forward with this...
Q: when do these sub-deals expire?
Don't know. I think the ESPN sublease to Raycom is for the length of the TV contract. I suspect the Raycom subleases to other outlets are of varying lengths.
A lot of things obviously piss me off about the Raycom deal, but it's one thing if the ACC pressures ESPN to sublease a few games for Raycom to broadcast on its networks. Maybe that's throwing a bone to an good long-time partner.
It burns me that Raycom gets MORE games than they can show though, which it subleases and just makes money on. That's just a payoff/subsidization, and there's no justifiable reason for that.
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the motivation was for more exposure... the ACC didn't want a bunch of games on ESPN3, so they pushed for the Raycom deal to insure that whatever is not on ABC/ESPN/2/U ends up on either OTA or regional cable. Just the sense I get.
Oh, you are not wrong, that's a viable point. For all the money the Big 12 is making, between the LHN and FS1 not being picked up everywhere, they aren't getting the same exposure.
I agree that exposure is important. My issue is, why the Raycom middleman? Or, frankly, the ESPN middleman? If ESPN can't show al the games, the ACC should have cut a second deal. NO other conference is all in with one provider like the ACC is. It's what the ACC wanted, but the market has proven that was not the smartest move $$-wise.
It's done, so not much that can be done about it. I'm going to just chalk it up to a bad move, executed before the ACC leadership really had their eyes opened to how this game really works. I think they are much more prepared now.
And frankly I'm not sure an ACC network is going to pay enough to get married for ALL content to ESPN in perpetuity. Might be better to wait it out, and explore options of a network with an ACC ownership stake, in full or part, or a secondary rights deal with another partner.
If the ACC Network promises $5-10M a year, ok. But if it's something that's not even going to generate revenue for 3-4 years, and then it's throwing off an extra $1-2M, I say wait it out.