(12-07-2017 02:41 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 10:56 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Sounds like Fox is streamlining quite a bit and cashing out while the getting is good. Those RSN's are valuable now, but with the cord cutting that isn't stopping, those RSN's are going to be an anchor as more the costs goes up while the revenue from the cable subs keep declining down as more people cut cable completely or skinny down to streaming TV package.

Getting cash out of properties that are in decline before they become worthless is good. Fox will have the cash they need to adjust to an ever swifter change in viewing of the customers.

Maybe an offbeat thought here: ATSC 3.0 has just been finalized for 4k OTA broadcasting. I wonder if Fox, in addition to stream lining there business, will use the cash to upgrade their O&O stations and help affiliate stations with the cost to upgrade to 3.0. This 4k broadcasting may change the viewership of OTA broadcasts, because also if I understand correctly, the 3.0 standard will be able to have mobile devices receive the OTA signals and have live TV on phones/tablets and other devices.

If you can bundle the RSN content to sell regionally online, they might be pretty valuable.

Fox own YES so if acquired, ESPN can sell an online package ESPN+ New York and offer all ESPN programming plus the Yankees, Nets, and NYCFC soccer.

ESPN+ Wisconsin would have the Brewers, Bucks and Minnesota Wild.

Lot of potential to make money.

The RSN's are EXTREMELY valuable for multiple reasons. One is cord cutting. I can get every network I need to follow the college teams I am interested in via a very reasonably priced streaming service. It would save me at least $100-150 a month. I havent done it because the Rockets and Astros games are only available on the local RSN and it is only available via cable. So...Im stuck paying for cable. The lack of a straming option on the RSN's actually tethers me to cable for now.

Well, this could happen.....

(12-07-2017 10:56 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Sounds like Fox is streamlining quite a bit and cashing out while the getting is good. Those RSN's are valuable now, but with the cord cutting that isn't stopping, those RSN's are going to be an anchor as more the costs goes up while the revenue from the cable subs keep declining down as more people cut cable completely or skinny down to streaming TV package.

Getting cash out of properties that are in decline before they become worthless is good. Fox will have the cash they need to adjust to an ever swifter change in viewing of the customers.

Maybe an offbeat thought here: ATSC 3.0 has just been finalized for 4k OTA broadcasting. I wonder if Fox, in addition to stream lining there business, will use the cash to upgrade their O&O stations and help affiliate stations with the cost to upgrade to 3.0. This 4k broadcasting may change the viewership of OTA broadcasts, because also if I understand correctly, the 3.0 standard will be able to have mobile devices receive the OTA signals and have live TV on phones/tablets and other devices.

One very important point: this is NOT proposed as a cash deal. Instead, it’s a stock exchange where Fox shareholders will each receive Disney stock on a proportional basis. The upshot of this is that the Murdoch family will become the largest shareholders of The Walt Disney Company by far. As a result, this isn’t really a “cash out” for Fox. It’s about the Murdochs getting plurality power over the biggest entertainment behemoth on Earth (Disney) while still retaining control of Fox OTA/News/Sports on the side. No cash is involved here. As I noted previously, Fox isn’t a faceless corporation - it’s very much a family business that happens to be public company, so this is about what’s best for the Murdoch family long-term as opposed to what’s best for Fox (as I don’t think there’s any way that a completely independent Fox would sell off its cable and entertainment assets like this).

(12-12-2017 08:18 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 10:56 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Sounds like Fox is streamlining quite a bit and cashing out while the getting is good. Those RSN's are valuable now, but with the cord cutting that isn't stopping, those RSN's are going to be an anchor as more the costs goes up while the revenue from the cable subs keep declining down as more people cut cable completely or skinny down to streaming TV package.

Getting cash out of properties that are in decline before they become worthless is good. Fox will have the cash they need to adjust to an ever swifter change in viewing of the customers.

Maybe an offbeat thought here: ATSC 3.0 has just been finalized for 4k OTA broadcasting. I wonder if Fox, in addition to stream lining there business, will use the cash to upgrade their O&O stations and help affiliate stations with the cost to upgrade to 3.0. This 4k broadcasting may change the viewership of OTA broadcasts, because also if I understand correctly, the 3.0 standard will be able to have mobile devices receive the OTA signals and have live TV on phones/tablets and other devices.

One very important point: this is NOT proposed as a cash deal. Instead, it’s a stock exchange where Fox shareholders will each receive Disney stock on a proportional basis. The upshot of this is that the Murdoch family will become the largest shareholders of The Walt Disney Company by far. As a result, this isn’t really a “cash out” for Fox. It’s about the Murdochs getting plurality power over the biggest entertainment behemoth on Earth (Disney) while still retaining control of Fox OTA/News/Sports on the side. No cash is involved here. As I noted previously, Fox isn’t a faceless corporation - it’s very much a family business that happens to be public company, so this is about what’s best for the Murdoch family long-term as opposed to what’s best for Fox (as I don’t think there’s any way that a completely independent Fox would sell off its cable and entertainment assets like this).

What percentage of Disney is the Murdoch family looking to get?

If/When this goes through, I could see ESPN and the new "Mini Fox" company partnering on college deals instead of competing against each other.

(12-12-2017 09:45 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 08:18 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 10:56 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Sounds like Fox is streamlining quite a bit and cashing out while the getting is good. Those RSN's are valuable now, but with the cord cutting that isn't stopping, those RSN's are going to be an anchor as more the costs goes up while the revenue from the cable subs keep declining down as more people cut cable completely or skinny down to streaming TV package.

Getting cash out of properties that are in decline before they become worthless is good. Fox will have the cash they need to adjust to an ever swifter change in viewing of the customers.

Maybe an offbeat thought here: ATSC 3.0 has just been finalized for 4k OTA broadcasting. I wonder if Fox, in addition to stream lining there business, will use the cash to upgrade their O&O stations and help affiliate stations with the cost to upgrade to 3.0. This 4k broadcasting may change the viewership of OTA broadcasts, because also if I understand correctly, the 3.0 standard will be able to have mobile devices receive the OTA signals and have live TV on phones/tablets and other devices.

One very important point: this is NOT proposed as a cash deal. Instead, it’s a stock exchange where Fox shareholders will each receive Disney stock on a proportional basis. The upshot of this is that the Murdoch family will become the largest shareholders of The Walt Disney Company by far. As a result, this isn’t really a “cash out” for Fox. It’s about the Murdochs getting plurality power over the biggest entertainment behemoth on Earth (Disney) while still retaining control of Fox OTA/News/Sports on the side. No cash is involved here. As I noted previously, Fox isn’t a faceless corporation - it’s very much a family business that happens to be public company, so this is about what’s best for the Murdoch family long-term as opposed to what’s best for Fox (as I don’t think there’s any way that a completely independent Fox would sell off its cable and entertainment assets like this).

What percentage of Disney is the Murdoch family looking to get?

Current Disney market cap is around $162 billion, while the proposed Fox purchase is around $50 billion. That means that Fox shareholders would receive about 30% of Disney. In turn, the Murdoch family holds about 40% of the voting shares of Fox. That translates into over 12% of Disney by my rough calculation, although I'll disclaim that this isn't taking into account non-voting shares and how those are treated (so the actual total may be a little less). The largest current shareholders of Disney stock is actually the family of the late Steve Jobs (via the 2006 sale of Pixar to Disney, as he was the top shareholder in that computer animation company alongside Apple) and they hold less than 5% of the company's shares as of now.

EDIT: Ignore my back-of-the-napkin calculations and see this Bloomberg article:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...sney-stake

The current proposal looks like Fox shareholders would receive 25% of Disney, which would translate into the Murdoch family getting about 5% of the company (which would still make them the largest Disney shareholders).

(12-12-2017 08:18 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 10:56 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Sounds like Fox is streamlining quite a bit and cashing out while the getting is good. Those RSN's are valuable now, but with the cord cutting that isn't stopping, those RSN's are going to be an anchor as more the costs goes up while the revenue from the cable subs keep declining down as more people cut cable completely or skinny down to streaming TV package.

Getting cash out of properties that are in decline before they become worthless is good. Fox will have the cash they need to adjust to an ever swifter change in viewing of the customers.

Maybe an offbeat thought here: ATSC 3.0 has just been finalized for 4k OTA broadcasting. I wonder if Fox, in addition to stream lining there business, will use the cash to upgrade their O&O stations and help affiliate stations with the cost to upgrade to 3.0. This 4k broadcasting may change the viewership of OTA broadcasts, because also if I understand correctly, the 3.0 standard will be able to have mobile devices receive the OTA signals and have live TV on phones/tablets and other devices.

One very important point: this is NOT proposed as a cash deal. Instead, it’s a stock exchange where Fox shareholders will each receive Disney stock on a proportional basis. The upshot of this is that the Murdoch family will become the largest shareholders of The Walt Disney Company by far. As a result, this isn’t really a “cash out” for Fox. It’s about the Murdochs getting plurality power over the biggest entertainment behemoth on Earth (Disney) while still retaining control of Fox OTA/News/Sports on the side. No cash is involved here. As I noted previously, Fox isn’t a faceless corporation - it’s very much a family business that happens to be public company, so this is about what’s best for the Murdoch family long-term as opposed to what’s best for Fox (as I don’t think there’s any way that a completely independent Fox would sell off its cable and entertainment assets like this).

I'll wait for the details as nobody has any idea of what the stock swap/cash payout is going to be. Murdoch may get some shares of Disney, but there is some chatter of taking the Fox assets that are leftover private and that will need some hefty cash to do.
From the sounds of it, it looks like we'll find out possibly tomorrow.

(12-12-2017 09:47 AM)solohawks Wrote:  If/When this goes through, I could see ESPN and the new "Mini Fox" company partnering on college deals instead of competing against each other.

Despite the public sniping between ESPN and FS1 over the past couple of years, there's actually quite a bit of precedent for this. Look at this article from 2013 about how much ESPN and Fox worked together regarding sports rights:

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journ...a/ESPN-Fox

Note that Disney and Fox always had (and still have) a mutual interest in keeping the power of Comcast down (who is simultaneously their biggest business partner since they pay the most cable subscriber fees and their biggest threat since they have their own networks and studios to compete with them directly). The old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" adage applies here.

(12-11-2017 09:38 PM)TerpsNPhoenix Wrote:  http://awfulannouncing.com/local-network...-2018.html

Some interesting things in the article. Not a long read and worthwhile.

"Local media rights revenue for MLB, NBA and NHL teams will surpass revenue from ticket sales for the first time in 2018 according to research from PriceWaterhouseCoopers."

"The increasing local RSN rights are the main reason why Fox is considering selling its 20 Fox Sports Net affiliates to Disney."

"Even with cord cutting, PwC feels that there won’t be much disruption in media rights deals. The company says rightsholders will do all they can to keep the status quo and provide unique content that won’t be available on other channels."

The PwC analysis echoes the feeling that I've had for awhile: the worry about a TV sports rights "bubble" is way overblown because the *relative* value of sports programming compared to every other type of programming is still going up. To the extent that cable companies are paring down, mobile and streaming services are ramping up. Verizon just signed a new deal with the NFL for streaming rights for Sunday, Monday and Thursday night games for $500 million per year (and that's on top of what the broadcasters and cable networks are already paying the NFL):

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/21737...25-billion

Premium content will continue to command premium prices and revenue in a barbell curve fashion. We have seen that to be the case with movies (see the Star Wars and Marvel franchises) and music (see Taylor Swift and Adele) and we're seeing it with sports (where the NFL, MLB, NBA and P5 conferences dominate rights fees). The entities that are most at risk are the middle class sports properties (as those movies and music groups are the ones that have been wiped out in the current online paradigm). Entertainment companies have shown to pay a ton for a few superstar marquee names and a tiny amount for lots of commodified bit players with little in between... and those same entertainment companies are the ones that run the sports networks.

(12-12-2017 10:01 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 09:45 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 08:18 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 10:56 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Sounds like Fox is streamlining quite a bit and cashing out while the getting is good. Those RSN's are valuable now, but with the cord cutting that isn't stopping, those RSN's are going to be an anchor as more the costs goes up while the revenue from the cable subs keep declining down as more people cut cable completely or skinny down to streaming TV package.

Getting cash out of properties that are in decline before they become worthless is good. Fox will have the cash they need to adjust to an ever swifter change in viewing of the customers.

Maybe an offbeat thought here: ATSC 3.0 has just been finalized for 4k OTA broadcasting. I wonder if Fox, in addition to stream lining there business, will use the cash to upgrade their O&O stations and help affiliate stations with the cost to upgrade to 3.0. This 4k broadcasting may change the viewership of OTA broadcasts, because also if I understand correctly, the 3.0 standard will be able to have mobile devices receive the OTA signals and have live TV on phones/tablets and other devices.

One very important point: this is NOT proposed as a cash deal. Instead, it’s a stock exchange where Fox shareholders will each receive Disney stock on a proportional basis. The upshot of this is that the Murdoch family will become the largest shareholders of The Walt Disney Company by far. As a result, this isn’t really a “cash out” for Fox. It’s about the Murdochs getting plurality power over the biggest entertainment behemoth on Earth (Disney) while still retaining control of Fox OTA/News/Sports on the side. No cash is involved here. As I noted previously, Fox isn’t a faceless corporation - it’s very much a family business that happens to be public company, so this is about what’s best for the Murdoch family long-term as opposed to what’s best for Fox (as I don’t think there’s any way that a completely independent Fox would sell off its cable and entertainment assets like this).

What percentage of Disney is the Murdoch family looking to get?

Current Disney market cap is around $162 billion, while the proposed Fox purchase is around $50 billion. That means that Fox shareholders would receive about 30% of Disney. In turn, the Murdoch family holds about 40% of the voting shares of Fox. That translates into over 12% of Disney by my rough calculation, although I'll disclaim that this isn't taking into account non-voting shares and how those are treated (so the actual total may be a little less). The largest current shareholders of Disney stock is actually the family of the late Steve Jobs (via the 2006 sale of Pixar to Disney, as he was the top shareholder in that computer animation company alongside Apple) and they hold less than 5% of the company's shares as of now.

EDIT: Ignore my back-of-the-napkin calculations and see this Bloomberg article:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...sney-stake

The current proposal looks like Fox shareholders would receive 25% of Disney, which would translate into the Murdoch family getting about 5% of the company (which would still make them the largest Disney shareholders).

I saw 25% as the reported interest of Fox shareholders, which would translate into a 10% stake for the Murdoch family. Still a huge stake.

(12-12-2017 08:18 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 10:56 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Sounds like Fox is streamlining quite a bit and cashing out while the getting is good. Those RSN's are valuable now, but with the cord cutting that isn't stopping, those RSN's are going to be an anchor as more the costs goes up while the revenue from the cable subs keep declining down as more people cut cable completely or skinny down to streaming TV package.

Getting cash out of properties that are in decline before they become worthless is good. Fox will have the cash they need to adjust to an ever swifter change in viewing of the customers.

Maybe an offbeat thought here: ATSC 3.0 has just been finalized for 4k OTA broadcasting. I wonder if Fox, in addition to stream lining there business, will use the cash to upgrade their O&O stations and help affiliate stations with the cost to upgrade to 3.0. This 4k broadcasting may change the viewership of OTA broadcasts, because also if I understand correctly, the 3.0 standard will be able to have mobile devices receive the OTA signals and have live TV on phones/tablets and other devices.

One very important point: this is NOT proposed as a cash deal. Instead, it’s a stock exchange where Fox shareholders will each receive Disney stock on a proportional basis. The upshot of this is that the Murdoch family will become the largest shareholders of The Walt Disney Company by far. As a result, this isn’t really a “cash out” for Fox. It’s about the Murdochs getting plurality power over the biggest entertainment behemoth on Earth (Disney) while still retaining control of Fox OTA/News/Sports on the side. No cash is involved here. As I noted previously, Fox isn’t a faceless corporation - it’s very much a family business that happens to be public company, so this is about what’s best for the Murdoch family long-term as opposed to what’s best for Fox (as I don’t think there’s any way that a completely independent Fox would sell off its cable and entertainment assets like this).

Looks that way. Apparently, part of the Disney-Fox deal is that James Murdoch will become a high-ranking Disney executive and might be a candidate to succeed the Disney CEO, who will be retiring about a year and a half from now.

And then the Murdoch's will sell FOX/FOX News/FOX Sports to AT&T once the TimeWarner merger gets through and they will have a nice chunk of AT&T stock to control.

(12-12-2017 11:06 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  And then the Murdoch's will sell FOX/FOX News/FOX Sports to AT&T once the TimeWarner merger gets through and they will have a nice chunk of AT&T stock to control.

I agree that they will sell the remaining Fox assets if James Murdoch has ambitions of running Disney. He wouldn't be a serious candidate for Disney CEO if his family still controls the competing Fox assets.

I think Sinclair will ultimately end up with "mini Fox"
AT&T after Time Warner merger couldn't own Fox News as it already has CNN

(12-12-2017 11:18 AM)solohawks Wrote:  I think Sinclair will ultimately end up with "mini Fox"
AT&T after Time Warner merger couldn't own Fox News as it already has CNN

CNN will get spun off to get the Justice Department off its back before the merger to take place.

(12-12-2017 11:24 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 11:18 AM)solohawks Wrote:  I think Sinclair will ultimately end up with "mini Fox"
AT&T after Time Warner merger couldn't own Fox News as it already has CNN

CNN will get spun off to get the Justice Department off its back before the merger to take place.

but why would the Justice Department let them have Fox News after making them sell CNN?

(12-12-2017 10:05 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 09:47 AM)solohawks Wrote:  If/When this goes through, I could see ESPN and the new "Mini Fox" company partnering on college deals instead of competing against each other.

Despite the public sniping between ESPN and FS1 over the past couple of years, there's actually quite a bit of precedent for this. Look at this article from 2013 about how much ESPN and Fox worked together regarding sports rights:

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journ...a/ESPN-Fox

Note that Disney and Fox always had (and still have) a mutual interest in keeping the power of Comcast down (who is simultaneously their biggest business partner since they pay the most cable subscriber fees and their biggest threat since they have their own networks and studios to compete with them directly). The old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" adage applies here.

The world of soccer will be very interesting. Will ESPN assume Fox's dominant role in the soccer world or will "mini Fox" still want to focus on that?

(12-12-2017 11:25 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 11:24 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 11:18 AM)solohawks Wrote:  I think Sinclair will ultimately end up with "mini Fox"
AT&T after Time Warner merger couldn't own Fox News as it already has CNN

CNN will get spun off to get the Justice Department off its back before the merger to take place.

but why would the Justice Department let them have Fox News after making them sell CNN?

Politics 101

(12-12-2017 11:38 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 11:25 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 11:24 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 11:18 AM)solohawks Wrote:  I think Sinclair will ultimately end up with "mini Fox"
AT&T after Time Warner merger couldn't own Fox News as it already has CNN

CNN will get spun off to get the Justice Department off its back before the merger to take place.

but why would the Justice Department let them have Fox News after making them sell CNN?

Politics 101

If politics is involved, the current administration is going to make sure Fox News goes to the friendly Sinclair Corporation

(12-12-2017 11:18 AM)solohawks Wrote:  I think Sinclair will ultimately end up with "mini Fox"
AT&T after Time Warner merger couldn't own Fox News as it already has CNN

Sinclair would have to sell the Fox O&O stations or divest itself of a similar number of their stations.

Sinclair getting Fox could be huge because my recollection is a lot of their properties are CBS and ABC though I think they are already the largest ownership group of Fox affiliates.