Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Lakers New Regional TV Network - NOW ON THE AIR


  • Please log in to reply
2096 replies to this topic

#101 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,789 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 19 August 2012 - 12:32 AM

When you say duel feeds, if you mean home and away, then yes they do when the game is carried on both teams RSNs. And they don't necessarily have to be RSNs carried by D*. I get 90-95% of the Blazers games that are televised on CSNNW, an RSN that D* doesn't carry. The only occasions where they don't uplink the games is when there's bandwidth issues (US Open, Masters, etc.). If it's a rare occasion where both teams broadcasts are only on local channels, then they don't uplink either feed. This happened last year in one case when the Blazers (KGW 8) where playing the Lakers (KCAL 9). They NEVER offer LIL on D* LP, but they do on the NBA's online version.

If you're a Lakers fan that subscribes to LP in LA, the away feeds are always blacked out to protect your local broadcast. And if you're a Blazers fan living in Oregon, both feeds are blacked out since they don't carry the local RSN. Ironically, I can see most of the Blazer games broadcast on CSNNW via LP, when a lot of the state of Oregon cannot.

Regarding the Lakers new RSNs, I have no idea how they will handle the Spanish network since it's unprecedented, but I doubt they will offer it on LP. Perhaps they will on the NBA's online version, but who knows?

On a side note, I wish the NBA would do their online version like MLB, offering both home and away feeds, and monthly subscriptions. Some people travel and only need it for a few weeks, rather than an entire season. I also like their two-tier system where you can subscribe to home feeds only, or home and away. MLB is doing a much better job online than the NBA to date. Although, kudos to the NBA for offering their online version for free with LP subscriptions via cable, satellite or telco.


Well based on this, the guy earlier wondering about stu will be glad to know he will get every game except national only ones, and this will be the first year that will happen on lp....

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#102 OFFLINE   kb24sd

kb24sd

    The Specialist

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 185 posts
Joined: Jun 21, 2012

Posted 23 August 2012 - 06:54 PM

Now if Directv came out and offered a dish like this:

Posted Image

I'd get one in a heartbeat .

:D

#103 OFFLINE   kb24sd

kb24sd

    The Specialist

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 185 posts
Joined: Jun 21, 2012

Posted 28 August 2012 - 01:16 AM

Well I did a search on google news and typed in "Lakers Time Warner Cable Sportsnet" and found this article:

New Time Warner Cable SportsNet to air Mountain West games

Time Warner Cable’s new sports network, Time Warner Cable SportsNet, will be the home for San Diego State, UNLV and Fresno State football and basketball games this season.

The network launches Oct. 1 and will broadcast live 12 Mountain West Conference football games and at least 24 Mountain West basketball games in 2012-13. Time Warner Cable SportsNet’s college football schedule begins with Fresno State at Colorado State on Saturday, Oct. 6.

Time Warner Cable SportsNet also is the home for the Los Angeles Lakers, LA Galaxy, LA Sparks and CIF high school action.

The schedule of live Mountain West Conference football games that will air on Time Warner Cable SportsNet is as follows:


Link:

http://sports.blogs....ain-west-games/

Just more proof that this new RSN won't be a part time channel like what's happened with Fox Sports San Diego.

Directv & Time Warner seriously need to step up the negotiations and get a deal done before October 1st when the RSN is suppose to launch.

#104 OFFLINE   kb24sd

kb24sd

    The Specialist

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 185 posts
Joined: Jun 21, 2012

Posted 28 August 2012 - 01:45 AM

Found this also:

Ironically, Time Warner Cable is set to become one of the biggest bullies on the block.
The firm is in heated discussions with DirecTV, Dish, Cox and AT&T for carriage of its two regional sports channels — Time Warner Cable SportsNet and Time Warner Cable Deportes, which will air LA Lakers and LA Galaxy games — for a price tag of $4 per subscriber. The channels launch in October.
Some say DirecTV will find it all but impossible not to carry the Time Warner Cable service given that the Lakers play in DirecTV’s biggest market.
“We, as an industry, need to work together to figure out a solution that works for the content rights holders and distributors, but most importantly, one that works for the customer,” Derek Chang, executive vice president of content at DirecTV, told The Post.


Link:

http://www.nypost.co...Qode3eA476rlvXO

$4 a month IMHO is not bad considering the content they will be providing on the RSN.They got the Lakers, LA Galaxy, high schools sports coverage, and now the Mountain West college football & basketball games.

I really can't see how Mike White and Directv can hold out and try to form an allegiance with the other TV providers like (AT&T U-Verse, Cox, Verzion Fios, Charter) to get under $4 a month fee per household.

Directv also has to realize they are going to suffer in the commercial zone where a lot of companies like sports bars & restaurants use them for sports programming.

As a residential customer I'd HATE if it gets to a point where there is a hold out between D* & Time Warner which causes me to miss Laker games and I would go the route of suspending my D* account and have Time Warner Cable installed until D* came to an agreement to carry the RSN channels.

Trust me when I say I HATE & Loathe Time Warner Cable.But at the same time I'd go that route instead of giving Directv more $$$ to pay for NBA League Pass.Which I suspect D* would go that route and even offer D* customers a discounted rate for NBA League Pass if they still hadn't come to an agreement with Time Warner Cable to carry the Lakers RSN channels.

Also NBA League Pass really isn't a option for us customers in the Lakers DMA zone coverage.The Laker games would get blacked out due to NBA broadcast rules and the only Lakers games we would be able to watch would be the games shown on national TV.

Edited by kb24sd, 28 August 2012 - 01:57 AM.


#105 OFFLINE   Shades228

Shades228

    Hall Of Fame

  • Banned User
  • 5,914 posts
Joined: Mar 18, 2008

Posted 28 August 2012 - 02:05 AM

Found this also:



Link:

http://www.nypost.co...Qode3eA476rlvXO

$4 a month IMHO is not bad considering the content they will be providing on the RSN.The got the Lakers, LA Galaxy, high schools sports coverage, and now the Mountain West college football & basketball games.

I really can't see how Mike White and Directv can hold out and try to form an allegiance with the other TV providers like (AT&T U-Verse, Cox, Verzion Fios, Charter) to get under $4 a month fee per household.

Directv also has to realize they are going to suffer in the commercial zone where a lot of companies like sports bars & restaurants use them for sports programming.

As a residential customer I'd HATE if it gets to a point where there is a hold out between D* & Time Warner which causes me to miss Laker games and I would go the route of suspending my D* account and have Time Warner Cable installed until D* came to an agreement to carry the RSN channels.

Trust me when I say I HATE & Loathe Time Warner Cable.But at the same time I'd go that route instead of giving Directv more $$$ to pay for NBA League Pass.Which I suspect D* would go that route and even offer D* customers a discounted rate for NBA League Pass if they still hadn't come to an agreement with Time Warner Cable to carry the Lakers RSN channels.

Also NBA League Pass really isn't a option for us customers in the Lakers DMA zone coverage.The Laker games would get blacked out due to NBA broadcast rules and the only Lakers games we would be able to watch would be the games shown on national TV.



I can understand team devotion but $4 a month for this channel is ridiculous. Outside of the Lakers it has 0 national appeal and yet everyone would have to pay the price unless they put in an RSN fee just for the LA markets of $5 a month. There late to the Mountain West conference and high school teams get so little ratings it's not even a talking point. You have to remember the Lakers don't care if you watch their games or not. They get paid regardless it's TWC that has to pay the bill. If people don't agree to the ridiculous fees then TWC will get into a more reasonable range.

Of course they want you to switch which is why they make it a ridiculous price to other companies. Hopefully a deal will get done but it has to make sense financially.
All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#106 OFFLINE   kb24sd

kb24sd

    The Specialist

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 185 posts
Joined: Jun 21, 2012

Posted 28 August 2012 - 02:32 AM

I can understand team devotion but $4 a month for this channel is ridiculous. Outside of the Lakers it has 0 national appeal and yet everyone would have to pay the price unless they put in an RSN fee just for the LA markets of $5 a month. There late to the Mountain West conference and high school teams get so little ratings it's not even a talking point. You have to remember the Lakers don't care if you watch their games or not. They get paid regardless it's TWC that has to pay the bill. If people don't agree to the ridiculous fees then TWC will get into a more reasonable range.

Of course they want you to switch which is why they make it a ridiculous price to other companies. Hopefully a deal will get done but it has to make sense financially.


It's not even about team devotion.And like I've pointed out before in this thread that you have to consider the size of the Laker TV fan base for this RSN. It covers more than the "LA area" Socal is HUGE with the in between cities, central CA cities like Ventura, Oxnard, Santa Barbra, and as far north up to Fresno which all fall under the Lakers DMA zone.That's also not including Hawaii, Las Vegas, and Clarke County Nevada which also falls in the Lakers DMA zone.

That alone seriously dwarfs YES network DMA coverage.Which is the main incentive and reason why Time Warner agreed to a 20 year or 25 year deal worth $3 billion or $5 billion with the Lakers where Time Warner will pay the Lakers on average $150 to $200 million per year in TV revenue.

Directv's biggest customer base in the US is also in the LA area and they are headquartered in El Segundo CA which is LA County.

I understand the gripe and how D* customers outside of the Laker DMA zone may view this monthly RSN fee being ridiculous because your guys argument is why should you guys pay for a channel that won't be available for you customers to view content.

Edited by kb24sd, 28 August 2012 - 02:50 AM.


#107 OFFLINE   Paul Secic

Paul Secic

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,084 posts
Joined: Dec 16, 2003

Posted 28 August 2012 - 11:14 AM

No offense but after reading that thread there really wasn't that much info regarding this new channel.That thread really more is a wishlist & request thread on future channels for Directv.


I was watching Sunday Night Baseball and they said that that network won't be ready for a year & a half.

Enjoying AT 250 HBO, 

 

Equipment: VIP 722 reciever


#108 OFFLINE   Devo1237

Devo1237

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 354 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2008

Posted 28 August 2012 - 11:48 AM

Found this also:



Link:

http://www.nypost.co...Qode3eA476rlvXO

$4 a month IMHO is not bad considering the content they will be providing on the RSN.They got the Lakers, LA Galaxy, high schools sports coverage, and now the Mountain West college football & basketball games.


$4 a month is ridiculous. Doesn't CSN NW want like $2/mo or something? And DirecTV has repeatedly laughed them out of the room. That's ESPN's price, not a regional network. Sheesh. This whole system is gonna collapse on itself soon if these teams/networks keep this up.

#109 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,789 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 28 August 2012 - 11:57 AM

$4 is beyond ridiculous, but I question if it's really $4. As we have all seen, everything is just a rumor and not fact. I would not be surprised if the $4, if it where true, where for both channels, and that would mean more like $2 for the regular packages and $2 if someone had a Spanish package, assuming that the Spanish channel would be only in Spanish packages.

I think they will all have a better time getting a good deal now than if they wait till this channel grabs the Dodgers... Wo knows if this includes treating fits and other things as well, which we know DIRECTV always wants, and would be awesome to have for a RSN.

#110 OFFLINE   maartena

maartena

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,795 posts
Joined: Nov 01, 2010

Posted 28 August 2012 - 12:05 PM

There are some different dynamics in play here that could force DirecTV to pay a much heftier price than it wants for these networks....

A few things for starters:

- DirecTV has always carried the Lakers.
- DirecTV is the most popular carrier in the Los Angeles region.
- The Lakers are the most popular NBA team, and one of the most important Major League teams overall.

Not carrying the Lakers, will have MORE impact on customers (and the losing of customers) than PAC12, CSN Northwest, CSN Philly, and CSN Houston combined. They will almost NEED to carry these two networks, somehow....

On the other hand though, TWC has gambled big. They NEED not only the money that DirecTV would provide, they also NEED the money that advertising would bring (and with DirecTV on board, advertising prices would go up as there are more potential viewers).

I think from a financial point of view, DirecTV can go without the channels mentioned above a lot longer than it can with a channel carrying the Lakers. They will really start losing customers over this one, so they will have to come to terms at some point.

I am expecting a huge battle till the very last minute, possibly with DirecTV not carrying the first game or two.
[Disclaimer] The definition of "soon" is based solely on DirecTV's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.

I am the Stig.

#111 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,789 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 28 August 2012 - 01:12 PM

There are some different dynamics in play here that could force DirecTV to pay a much heftier price than it wants for these networks....

A few things for starters:

- DirecTV has always carried the Lakers.
- DirecTV is the most popular carrier in the Los Angeles region.
- The Lakers are the most popular NBA team, and one of the most important Major League teams overall.

Not carrying the Lakers, will have MORE impact on customers (and the losing of customers) than PAC12, CSN Northwest, CSN Philly, and CSN Houston combined. They will almost NEED to carry these two networks, somehow....

On the other hand though, TWC has gambled big. They NEED not only the money that DirecTV would provide, they also NEED the money that advertising would bring (and with DirecTV on board, advertising prices would go up as there are more potential viewers).

I think from a financial point of view, DirecTV can go without the channels mentioned above a lot longer than it can with a channel carrying the Lakers. They will really start losing customers over this one, so they will have to come to terms at some point.

I am expecting a huge battle till the very last minute, possibly with DirecTV not carrying the first game or two.


I agree, this is a bigger Chanel than the pac12 ones and so on combined. Losing 65 to 70 games is a no go, I hope...

#112 OFFLINE   Devo1237

Devo1237

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 354 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2008

Posted 28 August 2012 - 01:36 PM

I agree, this is a bigger Chanel than the pac12 ones and so on combined. Losing 65 to 70 games is a no go, I hope...


Agree it's a bigger deal from a local fan base perspective, but everything has a price. And if it's really $4/mo and they want it in the same tiers as FSW and PT, then they are simply asking too much. Maybe they could get the $2/mo they won't pay for the Blazers, but twice that? And with the Dodgers new mega-deal coming up, you know FSW's gonna be asking for whatever the Lakers get. DirecTV is gonna have to draw a line in the sand, and this might be it. Hell, I'm sure TWC is hoping they priced DTV out of the running, so they can pull the B.S. Comcast move to pull in subscribers. This cableco-owned channel thing makes me sick, and I'm someone who happily pays for the sportspack and multiple sports packages.

#113 OFFLINE   TravelFan1

TravelFan1

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 206 posts
Joined: Apr 01, 2009

Posted 28 August 2012 - 02:20 PM

The whole $4/month per subscriber, I have to assume that it's per La Lakers market subscriber, not the 20mi+ Directv subscribers. Heck, it can't even count on the Sports Package subscribers, since live pro sports are always blacked out.

Now, $4 per LA Lakers DMAs subscribers, it's still a bit too much - YES charges closer to $3, according to the link below:
http://www.adweek.co...blackout-138386

And I can't see the Lakers TV costing more than the Yankees TV on a per subscriber basis.

Rip: Comcast: July 2005 - April 2009 & Dish Network: April 2009-July 2011
Directv since June 2011 and loving it!
Directv wish list:BBC World News, Fox Deportes HD, WatchEspn, FoxSports2Go


#114 OFFLINE   maartena

maartena

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,795 posts
Joined: Nov 01, 2010

Posted 28 August 2012 - 03:24 PM

And I can't see the Lakers TV costing more than the Yankees TV on a per subscriber basis.


Don't know. YES Network has the Yankees, and some AAA Baseball rights, but not much other sports.

TWC Sportsnet has NBA Lakers and WNBA Sparks, as well as the Los Angeles Galaxy Soccer MLS team.

The Lakers (and Galaxy, for that matter) DMA is also quite a bit larger in size, almost 30 million people in California south of Fresno to the Mexican border, the entire states of Hawaii and Nevada, and a small portion (Yuma) of Arizona.

So if you look at it that way.... the $4 for TWC vs $3 for YES, might be right on the money.

But don't forget, this will be the ASKING price, it will never be known what they eventually come to terms to.
[Disclaimer] The definition of "soon" is based solely on DirecTV's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.

I am the Stig.

#115 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,789 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 28 August 2012 - 03:32 PM

Agree it's a bigger deal from a local fan base perspective, but everything has a price. And if it's really $4/mo and they want it in the same tiers as FSW and PT, then they are simply asking too much. Maybe they could get the $2/mo they won't pay for the Blazers, but twice that? And with the Dodgers new mega-deal coming up, you know FSW's gonna be asking for whatever the Lakers get. DirecTV is gonna have to draw a line in the sand, and this might be it. Hell, I'm sure TWC is hoping they priced DTV out of the running, so they can pull the B.S. Comcast move to pull in subscribers. This cableco-owned channel thing makes me sick, and I'm someone who happily pays for the sportspack and multiple sports packages.


Again I'd bet that it's $2 for each channel and you won't see the Spanish one in a regular programming package only a Spanish one on DirecTV, at least that's my guess.

And it's a twc channel not a lakers channel even though we all call it that. Lakers getting paid no matter what.

And twc can't be thinking price high and keep drv out. They'd lose to much money doing that. They need all the other carriers to pickup this channel. They can't make money on it if they don't.

And your assuming fox will get the dodgers. I'd bet they won't. twc will I think.

My hope is that happens then they turn one of the fox rsns into a Spanish channel and cut it back to two rsns instead of three, in a round about way.

#116 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,286 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 28 August 2012 - 03:35 PM

Don't know. YES Network has the Yankees, and some AAA Baseball rights, but not much other sports.

TWC Sportsnet has NBA Lakers and WNBA Sparks, as well as the Los Angeles Galaxy Soccer MLS team.

The Lakers (and Galaxy, for that matter) DMA is also quite a bit larger in size, almost 30 million people in California south of Fresno to the Mexican border, the entire states of Hawaii and Nevada, and a small portion (Yuma) of Arizona.

So if you look at it that way.... the $4 for TWC vs $3 for YES, might be right on the money.

But don't forget, this will be the ASKING price, it will never be known what they eventually come to terms to.


Stop.

To try to compare any market and any team to the Yankees and New York shows a lack of understanding of the American sports market place.

The lakers have nowhere near the fan base that the Yankees have. And I'm a lakers fan saying that.

And soccer? That is still a blip on the American sports scene. YES has the Nets, which counters any soccer team. But both are throw ins compared to the Yankees.

The Yankees are far and away the #1 American sports franchise in money, fans and media attention.

I am sitting here shaking my head watching a delusional LA sports market (I include the PAC 12 in that as without LA, the PAC 12 is pretty much a blip on the TV scene) thinking it is much more important than it is.

They may learn a hard lesson.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#117 OFFLINE   maartena

maartena

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,795 posts
Joined: Nov 01, 2010

Posted 28 August 2012 - 03:39 PM

The whole $4/month per subscriber, I have to assume that it's per La Lakers market subscriber, not the 20mi+ Directv subscribers.


On this, I would have to think so yes. But I think at this moment, most RSN's are added up and divided by all subscribers, or in essence everyone pays for every RSN.

Exceptions are zipcodes that have a "Regional Sports Fee", which is an added fee to help cover the costs of expensive RSN's that are part of the Choice packages. Los Angeles currently does NOT have a "Regional Sports Fee", or at least.... not on my last bill. There is a pretty fair chance that once the deal is concluded, Los Angeles WILL get this "Regional Sports Fee", so we will see our bills increase. From what i hear, the RSF is about $2, so they cover some cost from within the Choice package, but not everything.

Interestingly, you can't opt-out of the RSF if you are not a sports fan.
[Disclaimer] The definition of "soon" is based solely on DirecTV's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.

I am the Stig.

#118 OFFLINE   Devo1237

Devo1237

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 354 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2008

Posted 28 August 2012 - 04:02 PM

And twc can't be thinking price high and keep drv out. They'd lose to much money doing that. They need all the other carriers to pickup this channel. They can't make money on it if they don't.


I think you're wrong on this one. The $4/mo (or whatever it is) from the LA-region DTV subscribers that they'd be getting is at best break-even to the amount of money they'd make from new cable subscribers that would ditch DTV to get their beloved Lakers. That's what they're really hoping for, just like Comcast does. They want to be the only option for the die hards and pick up a ton of new subscribers who will then buy PPV, internet, telephone, etc. Honestly, if the feds didn't require them to offer their product to DTV, I bet they wouldn't even bother talking to at all.

#119 OFFLINE   Devo1237

Devo1237

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 354 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2008

Posted 28 August 2012 - 04:04 PM

Los Angeles currently does NOT have a "Regional Sports Fee", or at least.... not on my last bill. There is a pretty fair chance that once the deal is concluded, Los Angeles WILL get this "Regional Sports Fee", so we will see our bills increase. From what i hear, the RSF is about $2, so they cover some cost from within the Choice package, but not everything.

Interestingly, you can't opt-out of the RSF if you are not a sports fan.


I've had the $2 Regional Sports fee in the LA area for 2 months now. My guess is that'll go up if the Lakers, Dodgers, and Pac-12 nets require it.

#120 OFFLINE   maartena

maartena

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,795 posts
Joined: Nov 01, 2010

Posted 28 August 2012 - 04:09 PM

Stop.

To try to compare any market and any team to the Yankees and New York shows a lack of understanding of the American sports market place.

The lakers have nowhere near the fan base that the Yankees have. And I'm a lakers fan saying that.


I realize that. On a national level, there are way more Yankees fans than lakers fans. Hell, worldwide the Yankees probably have more fans than any sports team in the U.S.

But I am not talking about fan base here. I am talking about market size. I am talking the amount of eyeballs that YES would have (within the non-blackout DMA) vs the amount of eyeballs that the new TWC would have. Because THAT is where the price is decide. Not by the Yankee fans in Chicago or Atlanta, not by the Lakers fans in Cleveland or Dallas..... but by the number of millions of viewers that lie within the authorized zipcodes for both DMA's.

I know that the Lakers DMA comes to about 30-32 million, or 10% of the country. About 20 Million in the Greater Los Angeles region + Palm Springs + the Desert counties, about 4 Million in San Diego + Desert, the entire state of Nevada, entire state of Hawaii, and Central California and a piece of Arizona.

The Yankees DMA comes to about 24-25 Million, which includes parts of New Jersey, Connecticut, and of course New York State.

The Yankees are far and away the #1 American sports franchise in money, fans and media attention.


Money: Yes.
Fans: Yes.
Media Attention: Yes.
Market SIZE: No.

Part of the issue here is of course that the east is a lot more condensed. The Yankee DMA can't "expand" a lot on the map before it hits the Boston or Philly market, where the Lakers DMA is more than half of the State + 2 other full states + a bite from a 4th state. Of course, the Lakers are just "lucky" that Nevada and Hawaii have no NBA team, and the two other closest teams are both 7 hour drives away.

It gives the Lakers market, however, a larger RSN viewer market than the Yankees. And more eyes mean more commercials, etc, etc.

I am sitting here shaking my head watching a delusional LA sports market (I include the PAC 12 in that as without LA, the PAC 12 is pretty much a blip on the TV scene) thinking it is much more important than it is.

They may learn a hard lesson.


I don't think PAC12 is as important as the Lakers. You forget there is no NFL team here, and Lakers are huge.

As a matter of fact, a 2011 listing of most popular sports franchises in the WORLD listed the top 3 as such:

1. Manchester United.
2. New York Yankees.
3. Los Angeles Lakers.

Source: http://bleacherrepor...-sports/page/49

Now, whether the $4 price is justified.... that is another question. I personally think it is a bit excessive. I know they are trying to pay for 2 networks, and they have paid $150 million a year for the Lakers TV rights (+ $5.5 Million a year for the Galaxy, you are right in the sense that it is much much smaller), whereas YES is owned by the Yankee organization.

So from a financial point of view this deal is looking different, as YES doesn't have to buy the rights from the Yankees, they ARE the Yankees, and are raking in commercials money. TWC is the "in between" here, who has PAID dearly for rights, and has to recoup this money somehow.

I know you think that we west coasters think we are more important or something like that.....Not the case. The whole dynamics of this deal is very different than that of the Yankees relation to the YES Network.
[Disclaimer] The definition of "soon" is based solely on DirecTV's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.

I am the Stig.




spam firewall