https://awfulannouncing.com/local-networ...llion.html

Sinclair is the reported winner of the former Fox RSNs, with a “handshake agreement” to buy them for up to $10 billion

If true, I think this will be the best result for sports fans, especially for local sports fans.

They are saying that the FCC could stop it because it would give Sinclair too much market penetration. However, Sinclair is more conservative than Fox – and there’s no way that the FCC or the Trump administration is ever going to get in the way of further conservative media domination.

(04-26-2019 04:55 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  They are saying that the FCC could stop it because it would give Sinclair too much market penetration. However, Sinclair is more conservative than Fox – and there’s no way that the FCC or the Trump administration is ever going to get in the way of further conservative media domination.

Who are they?

(04-26-2019 04:57 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 04:55 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  They are saying that the FCC could stop it because it would give Sinclair too much market penetration. However, Sinclair is more conservative than Fox – and there’s no way that the FCC or the Trump administration is ever going to get in the way of further conservative media domination.

Who are they?

Sinclair is a corporation that owns a bunch of OTA stations who is a partner in the STADIUM sports network endeavor. Before the STADIUM partnership with "Campus Insiders" and "120 Sports", Sinclair was trying to do something similar by themselves calling it the American Sports Network. This is potentially huge for conferences who have lots of content on STADIUM like CUSA and the MW.

(04-26-2019 05:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 04:57 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 04:55 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  They are saying that the FCC could stop it because it would give Sinclair too much market penetration. However, Sinclair is more conservative than Fox – and there’s no way that the FCC or the Trump administration is ever going to get in the way of further conservative media domination.

Who are they?

Sinclair is a corporation that owns a bunch of OTA stations who is a partner in the STADIUM sports network endeavor. Before the STADIUM partnership with "Campus Insiders" and "120 Sports", Sinclair was trying to do something similar by themselves calling it the American Sports Network. This is potentially huge for conferences who have lots of content on STADIUM like CUSA and the MW.

I sure hope you are right, because our commissioner hasn't done anything to get our games on TV, and beIN Sports all but extinct. I'd love for our North Texas games to air on Fox Sports Southwest, like they did when we first joined C-USA.

FCC has nothing to do with cable stations like these RSNs. Department of Justice could do antitrust suit but if Fox, a much big company than Sinclair was allowed to own them, i dont see why Sinclair couldn't

(04-26-2019 05:28 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 05:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 04:57 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 04:55 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  They are saying that the FCC could stop it because it would give Sinclair too much market penetration. However, Sinclair is more conservative than Fox – and there’s no way that the FCC or the Trump administration is ever going to get in the way of further conservative media domination.

Who are they?

Sinclair is a corporation that owns a bunch of OTA stations who is a partner in the STADIUM sports network endeavor. Before the STADIUM partnership with "Campus Insiders" and "120 Sports", Sinclair was trying to do something similar by themselves calling it the American Sports Network. This is potentially huge for conferences who have lots of content on STADIUM like CUSA and the MW.

I sure hope you are right, because our commissioner hasn't done anything to get our games on TV, and beIN Sports all but extinct. I'd love for our North Texas games to air on Fox Sports Southwest, like they did when we first joined C-USA.

It seems like a no brainer. RSN's have small defined footprints and they cant share their biggest asset (local teams pro rights) with the other RSN's. Becasue of that, there isnt really much advantage to owning a bunch of them. However, Ive been saying for some time that Sinclair is the one bidder who could really leverage these 21 independent free standing RSN's into something more than the sum of the parts. They could use those RSN's as the core of an affiliate network for their STADIUM content. That said, Ive been wrong before on Sinclair. I thought that was what they were going to do when the purchased the Tennis Channel....and they didnt do that....

(04-26-2019 05:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 04:57 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 04:55 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  They are saying that the FCC could stop it because it would give Sinclair too much market penetration. However, Sinclair is more conservative than Fox – and there’s no way that the FCC or the Trump administration is ever going to get in the way of further conservative media domination.

Who are they?

Sinclair is a corporation that owns a bunch of OTA stations who is a partner in the STADIUM sports network endeavor. Before the STADIUM partnership with "Campus Insiders" and "120 Sports", Sinclair was trying to do something similar by themselves calling it the American Sports Network. This is potentially huge for conferences who have lots of content on STADIUM like CUSA and the MW.

he is not asking who Sinclair is he ha asking who the "they" is that might try and stop the purchase

For the record, I was citing this passage:
“Presuming this deal goes through (if the other groups involved don’t up their own offers) and doesn’t draw opposition from regulators (it could, as it gives Sinclair even more concentration in a lot of markets, and it’s notable that regulation and a veto from the FCC last summer eventually killed Sinclair’s attempt to merge with Tribune to gain even more local stations), this puts Sinclair in quite a prominent position on the sports side. They now have the 21 Fox RSNs, plus the upcoming Marquee RSN with the Cubs, and they have a minority stake in YES (which was sold separately back to the Yankees for about $3.5 billion; Sinclair teamed up with the Yankees, Amazon and others there). That’s a whole lot of local sports in many areas.”

(04-26-2019 06:11 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 05:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 04:57 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 04:55 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  They are saying that the FCC could stop it because it would give Sinclair too much market penetration. However, Sinclair is more conservative than Fox – and there’s no way that the FCC or the Trump administration is ever going to get in the way of further conservative media domination.

Who are they?

Sinclair is a corporation that owns a bunch of OTA stations who is a partner in the STADIUM sports network endeavor. Before the STADIUM partnership with "Campus Insiders" and "120 Sports", Sinclair was trying to do something similar by themselves calling it the American Sports Network. This is potentially huge for conferences who have lots of content on STADIUM like CUSA and the MW.

he is not asking who Sinclair is he ha asking who the "they" is that might try and stop the purchase

Yup. Makes sense. lol....pronoun issues.

The FCC did block the Sinclair takeover of Tribune. They may have that Republican majority, but they still don’t like people totally breaking their rules. Oddly, the Twit-in-Chief took to social media to blast his own appointees, but they didn’t change their decision. That said, the FCC shouldn’t have a role in a deal that doesn’t involve OTA stations. Say what you will about Sinclair, but a stronger Stadium brand is likely good for sports competition.