1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Lakers New Regional TV Network - NOW ON THE AIR

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by kb24sd, Jul 1, 2012.

  1. Sep 3, 2012 #201 of 2097
    kb24sd

    kb24sd The Specialist

    191
    0
    Jun 21, 2012
    That may actually happen as soon as after the Dodgers 2013 season if Time Warner throws billions at them also like they did to get the new TV deal with the Lakers.
     
  2. Sep 4, 2012 #202 of 2097
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,526
    1,086
    Nov 13, 2006
    Maybe because that channel will also have plenty of prime ticket programing during the nba and NHL season, and that DIRECTV may have also cut a deal for it along with all the other RSNs at the same time long before it actually launched. Who knows....
     
  3. Sep 4, 2012 #203 of 2097
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,526
    1,086
    Nov 13, 2006
    I still think if anything, it might go Spanish to compete with twc spanish channel if they lose the Dodgers... If they don't lose the Dodgers, I expect no changes what so ever, accept maybe gaining other second tier sports...
     
  4. Sep 4, 2012 #204 of 2097
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    In theory, with the loss of the Lakers Directv should be pushing Fox for some rebates on programming for these channels (i.e. pay less due to less content). They've still got hockey and the Clippers, but these properties are simply worth less than the Lakers.

    As for the $3.95 cost for the new Laker channel, it's both sides that need to find some common ground. Not every sub is interested in paying another $5 a month (hey, need to include some profit for the distributor) extra just to get the Lakers.....and is that extra $5 just a charge for the LA market? Why should the rest of the USA absorb that $5 hit when LA has (now or soon to be) six RSNs (with Pac 12, Time Warner, possibly Dodgers, etc.)?

    This is why I see the Viacom deal as dumb for Directv to even renew across the board.....people want sports and will change for sports.....they rarely will change for the Viacom channels, there just isn't much there for someone to pay extra. This is one place where Directv could have put a provider in its place.
     
  5. Sep 4, 2012 #205 of 2097
    JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    4,612
    33
    Jul 21, 2008
    $3.95 is English + Spanish language. Maybe they can put the Spanish one in the Spanish pack so they are only paying about $2 to add it to the main pack in that area.
     
  6. Sep 4, 2012 #206 of 2097
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    Yeah I am not quite sure how this works contractually.... GOLTV just lost loads of soccer rights, and now GOLTV will be removed from sports pack, which means they are allowed to make changes to the contract on the fly, probably under certain conditions.

    I would imagine that if you signed a deal with a channel, and 25% of the "worth" of the channel walks off to another channel, there would be clauses in said channel contract that would allow certain changes. If they also lose the Dodgers in 2013, Fox Sports will have lost 2 of the three biggest franchises in the region (the 3d one being the MLB Angels), as the Clippers and NHL are, although very much revenue sports, not as big as the Lakers and the 2 MBL teams around here.

    I would imagine that when they setup these contracts, that it is not only DirecTV that needs to deliver the channel under certain terms, but that the channel also needs to deliver the programming under certain terms, ESPECIALLY with sports as the rights to those are worth many many millions and could change channel from time to time.
     
  7. Sep 4, 2012 #207 of 2097
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,526
    1,086
    Nov 13, 2006
    Personally, I a would expect nothing less....

    And if they can secure a lower fee via contract in place for fsn west, then we might be looking at more like $1.80 for the channel net. Of course the key thing is that fsn west just upgraded the number of games is year for the Angels, and the kings, so I don't know that DIRECTV will be able to use the loss of the Lakers & sparks & galaxy to get lower fees, since fsn has to a certain extent replaced the lost programing, all Be it with less popular programing, but popular programing none the less.
     
  8. Sep 4, 2012 #208 of 2097
    fleckrj

    fleckrj Icon

    1,568
    146
    Sep 4, 2009
    Cary, NC
    I think you are right when it comes to percent of viewers - a higher percent will leave for sports than for Viacom; however, those who will leave for the Lakers are in one region. Viacom covered the entire country. If 10% leave DirecTV because they do not have the Lakers versus 1% leaving because they do not have Viacom, that is 10% of the Lakers territory versus 1% of the entire country.

    I have to believe that DirecTV knows how much each channel is worth to them and decides what they are willing to pay based on the cost of carrying the channel versus the loss in revenue by people leaving if they do not carry it.
     
  9. Sep 4, 2012 #209 of 2097
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    In this argument you are forgetting the most single important difference between CSN Philadelphia's and the new TWC SN LA.

    - The teams that CSN Philly carries, were NEVER EVER carried by DirecTV.
    - The teams that TWC LA is going to carry have been carried by DirecTV for pretty much 18 years (since their start).

    In essence, they aren't losing any customers by not carrying CSN Philly, because they never had the customers that liked CSN Philly to begin with. With TWC SN LA however.... DirecTV customers are losing the most important major league franchise in the Los Angeles area. Combine that with the fact that DirecTV is a Los Angeles company, marketing has always been heavy here, and together with favorable weather conditions DirecTV is a tremendously important carrier here.

    Unlike CSN Philly, where they would lose pretty much 0 customers, in Los Angeles they could easily lose hundreds of thousands of customers when Lakers season starts.

    Also, Mike White has said that it is focusing on "retaining customers", rather than "gaining customers", which is a strike for CSN Philly (which would only gain customers not retain them) and a big plus for TWC SN LA which would not gain customers so much.... but would retain a LOT of them.
     
  10. Sep 4, 2012 #210 of 2097
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    A big question to me is why teams would enter into a contract that limits their visibility. Many have not (the Chicago teams with CSN come into mind as they made sure they would be available on non-Comcast systems). Would the Lakers really jump on the money and lose their fan visibility? The TrailBlazers have lost a lot of fan exposure due to their contract with Comcast.
     
  11. Sep 4, 2012 #211 of 2097
    celticpride

    celticpride Icon

    971
    1
    Sep 6, 2006
    TWC is being greedy the lakers should of thought this out better,its clear they were only thinking of the billions, but thats unfair to the fans. TWC and the lakers assumed directv would just get this programming automaticly!I hope the fcc can force twc to make it more resonable price! I hope directv and verizon get this channel and i'm not even a lakers fan!:nono: if they make us pay a fee to get the channel i can do without it , laker celtics games are usally on TNT or ESPN anyway! those are the only 2 laker games i watch every year unless they play my celtics in the finals. P.S. I'm currently with verizon fios but plan on returning to directv .
     
  12. Sep 4, 2012 #212 of 2097
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    They already have. TWC already has the rights WITHOUT securing agreements with satellite carriers. As far as I understand it, those contracts are inked and in stone, and the Lakers can no longer back out and say.... "well, we will take the rights back and sell them to Fox instead because of DirecTV".

    This will be a VERY DIRTY negotiation, and fans should be prepared to lose up to two weeks of games..... We know how hard DirecTV plays things now (as seen with Viacom, PAC12) and although I firmly believe the channel is a *must have* for DirecTV, I also believe DirecTV isn't going to drop their trousers and bend over for this channel. They will negotiate hard, and they will not be intimidated by the start of the season. (And you can probably certainly forget about ANYTHING pre-season).

    Those in TWC cable territory can at least get it for a month.... they do month to month, so you can just cancel it as soon as DirecTV reaches a deal. If you do not want to miss a game, this may be necessary.... As it really seems that DirecTV will roll over for no-one.
     
  13. Sep 4, 2012 #213 of 2097
    TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    7,257
    198
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    Because its all about the money. They get paid up front regardless if anyone is watching their games or not. Look at Portland. Look at Philly. Maybe soon to be Houston. If Portland really cared about their fans they would have pulled out of the contract, which they had the optoin to do. But they didn't. Its all about money and greed.

    Like I've said before, the leagues need to take control of their TV contracts and provide all games to all providers.
     
  14. Sep 4, 2012 #214 of 2097
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,599
    370
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    Wow... 29 of 82 games are on ESPN, TNT, ABC, or NBATV. I hope the rest are on LP for us out of market fans. I have a feeling it'll get on DirecTV.
     
  15. Sep 4, 2012 #215 of 2097
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    We have no idea what kind of clauses are in the contract for coverage. After the Trailblazer fiasco, you'd think a team would be a bit more proactive in making sure their games get to their fan base. It happened in Chicago and happens elsewhere. The teams have a say in distribution.
     
  16. Sep 4, 2012 #216 of 2097
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Portland is an acknowledged mistake by the Trailblazers. They even tried to find a way out.

    Philly is different. There are team/Comcast ties all over the place either in existence or at one point. Philly is a bad example to use because, by an large, the teams didn't want to be available elsewhere.

    But I would hope the Lakers had learned from the Trailblazers. Don't marginalize your fan base. Or you may lose them.
     
  17. Sep 4, 2012 #217 of 2097
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    I think there was one unintended glitch that screwed the Blazers. I think that they had some deal that required a certain # of households be represented as a backup plan....so then when Comcast wasn't doing what they needed to do they brought it up....but by then the Supersonics moved out of town and Blazers ended up with all of Northwest as their territory....Comcast added CSN NW to all it's Washington customers and then somehow met this criteria. Basically it was bad lawyer advice that got them into this mess. They trusted Comcast and got screwed - as has everyone else who has ever dealt with them.


     
  18. Sep 4, 2012 #218 of 2097
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    Directv's test channel is the Pac 12 Network....if they don't get it and fans don't leave them maybe they'll negotiate real hard on the Lakers....if fans do actually leave for Pac 12 then maybe it will come to the table sooner.

     
  19. Sep 4, 2012 #219 of 2097
    kb24sd

    kb24sd The Specialist

    191
    0
    Jun 21, 2012
    Yup very well explained.

    I'm already making plans to suspend my Directv account come late September and have Time Warner Cable come out and install service and of course will not sign a contract and will go month to month with TWC.

    Problem is though I have a family friend member renting a room in my house who is a HARCORE Raider fan.

    Sorry for him. But push come to shove I'm the one making the TV viewing decisions in my house which I own and I'm paying the Directv monthly bill so he really has no say on the matter when this year NFL Sunday Ticket is free since I just signed up this past June.

    He can go to a local bar and watch his pathetic Raiders lose while getting drunk.
     
  20. Sep 4, 2012 #220 of 2097
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,526
    1,086
    Nov 13, 2006
    Or he can pay the twc bill and you can have both! :)
     

Share This Page