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
- - - - -

$5.00 for the new Dodgers channel.


  • Please log in to reply
583 replies to this topic

#501 OFFLINE   SomeRandomIdiot

SomeRandomIdiot

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 1,191 posts
Joined: Jan 06, 2009

Posted 11 August 2014 - 02:09 PM

Who controls SportsNet LA? Are they 100% owned by TWC? If so, what stops TWC from deciding, "OK we made a mistake with this deal, we're just throwing away money at this point" and stop making payments to SportsNet LA? If that happens, SportsNet LA no longer has money to pay the Dodgers, and has no choice but to file bankruptcy. It is pretty easy to default on payments to a company you 100% own, because you know you won't get sued.

 

At this point, what recourse do the Dodgers have? Unless TWC guaranteed the payments SportsNet LA makes to the Dodgers, allowing the Dodgers to go directly after TWC, there's nothing for them to do but try to sell their rights again, presumably for less since no one would be likely to repeat TWC's mistake with an $8 billion deal.

 

The perfect time to do this would be right at the end of the regular season. The channel would go bankrupt in the off-season when no one would be watching it, and the Dodgers would have a chance to re-sell their rights before the spring if the bankruptcy went quickly through court (without parties with different interests fighting over it, it wouldn't be like the CSN Houston bankruptcy)

 

Clearly you do not know the ownership makeup of SportsNet LA which has been stated in this thread and is also readily available on the net, which makes your comments, null and void.



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

#502 OFFLINE   SomeRandomIdiot

SomeRandomIdiot

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 1,191 posts
Joined: Jan 06, 2009

Posted 11 August 2014 - 02:10 PM

So, it is possible. Thanks for the clarification. :)


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk mobile app

 

Its also possible for Google and Apple to go Chapter 11.



#503 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,949 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 11 August 2014 - 02:16 PM

It's pretty likely the payments are guaranteed by the parent. If not, it's pretty likely that there will be an argument that the parent constructively owes the money. But that is what lawyers get paid big bucks for!

 

Sometimes such disputes are less about who is right (if it isn't 100% clear) than a game of chicken for who loses the most. Who loses most in this scenario?

 

1) TWC stops paying SportsNet LA

2) SportsNet LA stops paying Dodgers, files bankruptcy protection, ceases broadcast of channel

3) Dodgers sue TWC

4) Case slogs through court with expensive lawyers on both sides filing a lot of motions

5) 2015 season starts, with Dodgers not on TV anywhere

 

Both are losers in the short term, though if the Dodgers eventually force TWC to make good on the payments they lose much less in the long run. The Dodgers better be damn sure of winning if they do that, because if they lose, they'll probably have lost some fans along the way who are sick of all the battling and not being able to watch them on TV, which will hurt them when they're shopping themselves around for a new TV deal.

 

If there's a guarantee by TWC, then this scenario won't happen in the first place, better to try to minimize the losses after their Hail Mary play of trying to get legislators/FCC involved to somehow force Directv and others to carry it fails, not add to them with a lengthy court case. If there's no guarantee, I think the Dodgers would have a tough time making the case that TWC owes them the money. The judge will say, "if TWC was supposed to guarantee the payments, why didn't you insist on that as a condition of the contract?" Most judges will have little patience for one party's highly paid lawyers in an $8 billion deal claiming the other party's highly paid lawyers took advantage of them with a loophole in the contract.


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL 3xSWM16, 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#504 OFFLINE   SomeRandomIdiot

SomeRandomIdiot

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 1,191 posts
Joined: Jan 06, 2009

Posted 11 August 2014 - 04:44 PM

Sometimes such disputes are less about who is right (if it isn't 100% clear) than a game of chicken for who loses the most. Who loses most in this scenario?

 

1) TWC stops paying SportsNet LA

2) SportsNet LA stops paying Dodgers, files bankruptcy protection, ceases broadcast of channel

3) Dodgers sue TWC

4) Case slogs through court with expensive lawyers on both sides filing a lot of motions

5) 2015 season starts, with Dodgers not on TV anywhere

 

Both are losers in the short term, though if the Dodgers eventually force TWC to make good on the payments they lose much less in the long run. The Dodgers better be damn sure of winning if they do that, because if they lose, they'll probably have lost some fans along the way who are sick of all the battling and not being able to watch them on TV, which will hurt them when they're shopping themselves around for a new TV deal.

 

If there's a guarantee by TWC, then this scenario won't happen in the first place, better to try to minimize the losses after their Hail Mary play of trying to get legislators/FCC involved to somehow force Directv and others to carry it fails, not add to them with a lengthy court case. If there's no guarantee, I think the Dodgers would have a tough time making the case that TWC owes them the money. The judge will say, "if TWC was supposed to guarantee the payments, why didn't you insist on that as a condition of the contract?" Most judges will have little patience for one party's highly paid lawyers in an $8 billion deal claiming the other party's highly paid lawyers took advantage of them with a loophole in the contract.

 

Again, your lack of knowledge as to structure of SportsNet LA makes your comments irrelevant.

 

But as long as you are writing fiction, might as well throw in the scenario that MLB rules all TV contracts null and void - and charges everyone $20 per game PPV.

 

It is as likely as your fictional scenarios.


Edited by SomeRandomIdiot, 11 August 2014 - 04:47 PM.


#505 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,243 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 11 August 2014 - 06:21 PM

Again, your lack of knowledge as to structure of SportsNet LA makes your comments irrelevant.

 

But as long as you are writing fiction, might as well throw in the scenario that MLB rules all TV contracts null and void - and charges everyone $20 per game PPV.

 

It is as likely as your fictional scenarios.

$20 a game???

 

What about $10 a month?


I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#506 OFFLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,266 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 11 August 2014 - 07:40 PM

OK, well to sum up then it seems that the Dodgers are simply guaranteed their money from TWC. And TWC will simply have to cover the cost for every eligible subscriber in the market which they are not able sign another MVPD to pay it.

 

Little wonder then why the Dodgers are so quiet and won't really help out here. They want that big money and have no interest in voiding and restructuring this contact. Irrespective of the beating they're taking in the PR dept. on this.    


  • Laxguy likes this

DIRECTV sub. since Sep. of '95


#507 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Never say 'never'.

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 13,307 posts
  • LocationWinters, CA, between Napa and Sacramento
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 11 August 2014 - 07:45 PM

Ja, and unless they see a real risk in the $$ not coming through, they'll stay that way. And still be able to spend $100MM on a player or two.....

 

- Your humble and suffering Giants fanatic........


"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#508 OFFLINE   TXD16

TXD16

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 874 posts
Joined: Oct 29, 2008

Posted 11 August 2014 - 10:58 PM

The Rangers and Astros own 77% of CSN Houston - and Comcast only owned 23%, which is why it was structured differently than almost every other RSN in America. Comcast owned the majority of the other RSNs it has invested in. Again, this is why Houston does not equal LA.

While it changes nothing concerning your multiple salient points with regard to the two vastly disparate RSNs, the (Texas) Rangers own(ed) no part of CSN Houston. The network is(was) owned by the Houston Astros, the Houston Rockets, and NBC Universal/Comcast. The Rangers' deal, and thank goodness for that, is with Fox Sports Southwest.


"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." - Ayn Rand


#509 OFFLINE   Devo1237

Devo1237

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 387 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2008

Posted 12 August 2014 - 01:05 PM

Instead of telling people to Google it, why don't you quit acting all superior and just tell us the ownership structure of SportsNet LA.

Probably because he doesn't actually know it, since he didn't even seem to know about American Media Productions.

 

This article actually makes it sound like AMP is owned by the Dodgers, and TWC simply promised to "make payments over the life of the deal" and work as the network's "exclusive advertising and affiliate sales agent." 

 

http://ir.timewarner...14/default.aspx


Edited by Devo1237, 12 August 2014 - 02:27 PM.


#510 OFFLINE   SomeRandomIdiot

SomeRandomIdiot

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 1,191 posts
Joined: Jan 06, 2009

Posted 12 August 2014 - 02:02 PM

While it changes nothing concerning your multiple salient points with regard to the two vastly disparate RSNs, the (Texas) Rangers own(ed) no part of CSN Houston. The network is(was) owned by the Houston Astros, the Houston Rockets, and NBC Universal/Comcast. The Rangers' deal, and thank goodness for that, is with Fox Sports Southwest.

 

Correct, Rockets, not Rangers. I stand corrected. Put in the R and went to Rangers instead of Rockets. Obviously the Astros and Rangers are both MLB teams, with the Rangers being in Dallas, not Houston, and not on a RSN in Houston.


Edited by SomeRandomIdiot, 12 August 2014 - 02:06 PM.


#511 OFFLINE   Devo1237

Devo1237

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 387 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2008

Posted 12 August 2014 - 03:36 PM

So, to summarize, according to the TWC website, the LA Dodgers Ownership Group owns American Media Productions LLC which owns SportsNetLA, while TWC pays them to be the exclusive sales and distribution agent.

 

According to SomeRandomIdiot, since TWC pays SportsNet LA, and there is no LP or LLC involved like there was in Houston, there is no way the channel could ever file for bankruptcy and everyone else on the thread is a dummy.  

 

Only thing I'm still foggy on is if it's worse to be a dummy or an idiot...


  • TJNash likes this

#512 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 16,218 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 12 August 2014 - 09:05 PM

anything can go bankrupt, in this case its not very likely, but it is possible.....  I don't think they would though, i think Comcast would write it off or "short sell" it off to someone else to deal with before they tried to file bankruptcy.



#513 OFFLINE   SomeRandomIdiot

SomeRandomIdiot

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 1,191 posts
Joined: Jan 06, 2009

Posted 16 August 2014 - 04:57 PM

So, to summarize, according to the TWC website, the LA Dodgers Ownership Group owns American Media Productions LLC which owns SportsNetLA, while TWC pays them to be the exclusive sales and distribution agent.

 

According to SomeRandomIdiot, since TWC pays SportsNet LA, and there is no LP or LLC involved like there was in Houston, there is no way the channel could ever file for bankruptcy and everyone else on the thread is a dummy.  

 

Only thing I'm still foggy on is if it's worse to be a dummy or an idiot...

 

At least the Idiot understands that CSN has (had) no big pocket Corporation guaranteeing it revenue for every basic cable subscriber in the Houston TV Market, whether subscribed to the channel or not, which in turn it paid to the Astros and Rockets who owned 77% of the channel, which speaks volumes about the dummies.

 

It makes one wonder how the dummies even handle their simple household finances.

 

In terms a 1st grader can understand, CSN is not given a set allowance, only a partial allowance depending on how many tasks it does every week, so it might not have the money to buy a soft drink or candy bar every week, while Sportsnet LA is given the same allowance every week by its single funding parent regardless of how many tasks it does, so it never worries about if it can afford soft drinks or candy bars.

 

In real terms, the first person has to work for a living, the second is a trust fund baby and can live it's life off what it is guaranteed by the deep funded trust.

 

The only way for the trust fund baby to go broke is for the deep pocket trust fund to go chapter 11, as it cannot possibly spend more money than it takes in, as expenses are capped.


Edited by SomeRandomIdiot, 16 August 2014 - 05:26 PM.


#514 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 40,266 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 16 August 2014 - 05:36 PM

Lets get away from referring to anyone as "dummy" or "idiot" or using other insulting labels and focus on discussing the Dodgers (SportsNet LA).

Personal comments directed at each other should also NOT be part of the conversation.
Welcome to DBS Talk - Let's talk about DBS! (The Digital Bit Stream)
DISH Network vs DirecTV: HD Channel List - DISH Network HD Capacity, HD Conversion and more.
DISH Network complete channel lists and lists by satellite location are in The Uplink Activity Center.
Unless otherwise noted, I speak for myself. Content is not controlled by DISH Network, DirecTV or any other company.

#515 OFFLINE   SomeRandomIdiot

SomeRandomIdiot

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 1,191 posts
Joined: Jan 06, 2009

Posted 21 August 2014 - 07:12 PM

Lets get away from referring to anyone as "dummy" or "idiot" or using other insulting labels and focus on discussing the Dodgers (SportsNet LA).

Personal comments directed at each other should also NOT be part of the conversation.

 

 

As i have been called an Idiot often, it is part of my name....not an insult.


  • tonyd79 likes this

#516 OFFLINE   acostapimps

acostapimps

    Hall Of Famer

  • Registered
  • 1,864 posts
  • LocationIllinois
Joined: Nov 05, 2011

Posted 21 August 2014 - 08:01 PM

Is that price per sub still in effect now for Dodgers channel?

Because that is not worth it. I haven't been reading this thread so not sure.

Directv Genie DVR HR44-700
Directv HD DVR HR24-500
Directv HD Receiver H24-200
Directv Wireless Mini Client C41W-100 (Deactivated)
Directv Standard SD Receiver D12-700 

SWM 16  SWM 8-Way Splitter  SWM 2-Way Splitter  Slimline 5LNB  

Directv Subscriber From 2009-?


#517 OFFLINE   SomeRandomIdiot

SomeRandomIdiot

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 1,191 posts
Joined: Jan 06, 2009

Posted 21 August 2014 - 11:09 PM

Is that price per sub still in effect now for Dodgers channel?

Because that is not worth it. I haven't been reading this thread so not sure.

 

TWC is actually charging $3.84 per sub to other MVPDs on the basic tier. It is the most expensive Regional Sports Net - almost 2x the others. Obviously that is the Wholesale cost and your MVPDs will then mark it up before you end up paying for it.


Edited by SomeRandomIdiot, 21 August 2014 - 11:10 PM.


#518 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 16,218 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 21 August 2014 - 11:27 PM

And everyone has said they have a sharp price increase yearly with it too..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

#519 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 16,218 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 21 August 2014 - 11:27 PM

TWC is actually charging $3.84 per sub to other MVPDs on the basic tier. It is the most expensive Regional Sports Net - almost 2x the others. Obviously that is the Wholesale cost and your MVPDs will then mark it up before you end up paying for it.


Where did you get that number? It's the most specific I have ever heard.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

#520 OFFLINE   coolman302003

coolman302003

    2014 NBA CHAMPIONS!

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 1,459 posts
  • LocationSoutheast
Joined: Jun 01, 2008

Posted 22 August 2014 - 12:00 AM

Where did you get that number? It's the most specific I have ever heard.

 

Most likely from this article here.

 

"It’s asking competitors to pay $3.84 a month per subscriber to air the games, according to data from SNL Kagan."


List of networks with HD VOD content available on DIRECTV   DIRECTV Customer Service Live Online Chat (available from 8am-1am ET)   DIRECTV Regional Sports Network (RSN) fee lookup tool (zip code required)
 
DIRECTV Premium Channel Pricing: 1=$13.99 ($17.99 for HBO) | 2=$25 ($30 with HBO) | 3=$35 ($40 with HBO) | 4=$43 ($48 with HBO) | All 5=$55 per month 
 
My Setup: 5-LNB SlimLine with SWM-16 | HR44-700 w/AM-21N | HR24-200 | H25-100 | H25-100 | C41-500





Protected By... spam firewall...And...