Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Athlon646464, Jun 29, 2013.
Nice to know the Chinese can now get it before us
I think the cost is a lot lower per sub then the in market rate
Doesn't help us at all but:
The Pac-12, like the Cubs, missed their window.
Difficult to see how any distributors will ask a subscriber to pay more for sports channels he doesn't watch
Article sounds as if the natives are getting restless and that all is not as well as Larry Scott would have us believe!
The gap is even worse than what was quoted in that article. The Big Ten will distribute over $50 million per school in the 2017-2018 (current) season, the first year the new split ABC/ESPN and Fox/FS1 contract goes into force.
The Pac 12's revenue presumably goes up a bit from the $27 million quoted since TV contracts usually pay a bit more each year, but that still leaves at least a $20 million gap per team. Getting Pac 12 on Directv wouldn't really help much, it would only add $3 - $4 million a year. Even if the Pac 12 Network paid what BTN and SECN do, they'd still be well over $10 million behind.
The Pac 12 simply cannot get the kind of TV money the others can because of the time zone. The earliest games don't start until 2 or 3 eastern, so they miss out on that noon eastern time slot entirely, and their night games finish well after midnight so many out east don't watch. Unless they want to add 9am starts and abandon night games, there really isn't any way to get around this problem.
the cubs have to do something and if they can pull in the hawks then can let jerry reinsdorf fend on his own with the bulls and sox.
Feel bad for people losing their job but it doesn't surprise me:
The boss is the one show should be fired for not making wider distribution deals.
It amazes me the Pac12 presidents and athletic directors still support Larry Scott.
The reason they are announcing this cost-cutting is probably to improve the bottom line and make good (or come closer to making good) on whatever promises he made them about revenue distribution to the schools or the growth in that revenue distribution.
It certainly isn't good for the long term of the Pac 12 Network, but every year he can keep his job he pockets another $4 million and he doesn't have to care what condition the network is in when he's finally forced out (or sees the writing on the wall over this debacle and announces his retirement)
This thread began June, 2013. I thought the Pac12 v Directv impasse would be resolved after maybe one year. When AT&T acquired Directv, I again believed some type of a deal would be finalized. But here we are, almost five years later, and there is no end in sight. I live in a Pac12 market and would enjoy having Pac12 Network available to watch. But I am like a lot of sports fans the Pac12 area, I'm not going to move from Directv to another provider for Pac12 network. As mentioned in a previous thread, making a deal with Directv isn't going to give schools a windfall of cash but it would be a step in the right direction.
"The final big-picture topic on my agenda was the conference’s relationship with AT&T. At stake is carriage on DirecTV and so much more.
In 2013, the Pac-12 agreed to a sweeping partnership with AT&T that included equipment, signage in arenas and stadiums, wireless sponsorships and U-verse distribution. The contract expires this summer.
Might the comprehensive nature of the partnership force the sides to finally agree on DirecTV distribution?
Or might the DirecTV impasse prompt AT&T to walk away from the conference altogether, taking U-verse with it?
Shuken seemed to draw a line in the airwaves.
“The AT&T sponsorship works very well for both entities,’’ he said. “The fact that DirecTV does not carry the networks does not work for us, and we’re not inclined to treat those as separate initiatives.
“We’re hopeful that DirecTV will choose to launch the networks the way everyone else carries the networks.
“But I would rather work with another wireless partner than an entity whose television partner doesn’t choose to carry the networks.”
Thank you for posting this. With the partnership with AT&T expiring soon, the PAC12 does have some leverage. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming months.
Mr. Shuken's remarks seem a bit hostile and threatening to DIRECTV®, though I may be misinterpreting what he reportedly said.
I don't know if it is hostile, but it is straight and to the point which provides a framework for the discussion. Hopefully, things get worked out. Personally, I would like to have the Pac-12 Networks on DIRECTV.
All I take from those quotes is that the status quo is going to change when the UVerse deal is up, to which I would say that is not one bit surprising.
A mild threat ... "if we can't have your DIRECTV business then you may lose us for AT&T/Uverse." Turning away paying subscribers seems to be a bad business decision, but I can see Pac-12 wanting to jack up the prices for a "Uverse only" renewal.