+- Sons of Ivy (https://sonsofivy.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Chicago Cubs (https://sonsofivy.com/forum/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Friendly Confines (https://sonsofivy.com/forum/forum-8.html)
+--- Thread: WGN No More? (/thread-2324.html)
WGN No More? - MrSheps - 01-03-2019
He talks about the deal like it's a given, but has anything changed re: the Cubs denying the report? I don't like Sinclair, but I just want the Cubs to land a big deal with lots of protected money, even if it's through them. I hope it frees up (mythical) budget soon and it's not a "well, we'll have the money when/if Comcast agrees to our terms to carry the channel."
WGN No More? - rok - 01-03-2019
I swear the BN folk must lurk here for stories on slow days. They just reposted the same article. It was published on 12/24. I dont believe in coincidences.
Also, I have no idea how credible this guy is, but the idea that Sinclair would have much leverage in this case is a stretch. Getting a carriage deal for a brand new premium channel wont be tied to their local broadcast networks. Its not as though Time Warner didnt have other basic and premium cable channels with existing distribution deals when other providers declined to carry the Dodgers network.
WGN No More? - Kid - 01-03-2019
Quote:I swear the BN folk must lurk here for stories on slow days. They just reposted the same article. It was published on 12/24. I dont believe in coincidences.
Jon Greenberg of the Athletic tweeted it today, I think that triggered the attention.
WGN No More? - Kid - 01-03-2019
Quote:Also, I have no idea how credible this guy is, but the idea that Sinclair would have much leverage in this case is a stretch. Getting a carriage deal for a brand new premium channel wont be tied to their local broadcast networks. Its not as though Time Warner didnt have other basic and premium cable channels with existing distribution deals when other providers declined to carry the Dodgers network.
Addressing this separately, I'm not sure that is a fair analogy. I think the idea would be that Sinclair could hold up cable providers throughout the Cubs' market by threatening to withhold broadcast networks unless the providers also agreed to carry the Cubs' network. Notably, it doesn't look like Sinclair has any networks in Chicago itself (and won't for the time being with the Tribune deal falling apart), but presumably the carriers in Chicago will be pressured into carrying it.
The Dodgers' analogy doesn't work because, interestingly, Time Warner Cable was unaffiliated with Time Warner since it was spun off in 2009. Since the purchase of Time Warner Cable in 2016, that channel has been 50% owned by both Charter and the Los Angeles Lakers, neither of which own other channels.
That said, Sinclair would have less leverage in some ways than Time Warner/Spectrum in LA because Sinclair doesn't control any cable providers. Time Warner/Spectrum have been able to hold out for a very high price with the thinking being that all people who want the channel will just sign up for their service (if available). Sinclair wouldn't have that option and would need to price it low enough that at least some provider in Chicago will bite in order to pressure the rest.
WGN No More? - 1060Ivy - 01-03-2019
Quote:This guy predicts the Cubs partnership with the facilitators of right-wing authoritarianism is expected to be a big success.
https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2018/12/24/Media/Sports-media.aspx
How are you - or the writer - defining success?
Believe that Cubs organization will make more cash but will fans have greater access to watching games and at what costs?
WGN No More? - rok - 01-03-2019
Agreed with your final conclusion, Kid. And guess I got my timeline of the TWC split all wrong.
Who knew that Greenberg had a bigger following than SOI?
WGN No More? - Bricklayer - 01-03-2019
Quote:
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rok" data-cid="340545" data-time="1546542182">
<div>
I swear the BN folk must lurk here for stories on slow days. They just reposted the same article. It was published on 12/24. I dont believe in coincidences.
Jon Greenberg of the Athletic tweeted it today, I think that triggered the attention.
</div>
</blockquote>
That's where I saw it.
WGN No More? - MrSheps - 01-03-2019
The Dodgers channel situation is extra unique because in a little to no bad weather city, Directv became the dominate pay TV provider, where as in many cities the cable co. is the biggest player. For the first few years of the Dodgers' network's existence, on one had it was a big loss to the channel's ownership not having a Directv carriage agreement, but on the other hand it did result in switching service for some from Directv to, at the time, Time Warner Cable. But no one knows for sure how many people switched, and it apparently wasn't enough to get Directv to budge.
Anyway, in Chicago, I would imagine Comcast has way more power than either Directv or TWC had in a much more split market in LA back in 2014. So I think it's hard for anyone to predict how it'll shape up, particularly as cord-cutting increases, and other players like ATT and verizon look for more market share and might want to be the "exclusive provider of Cubs baseball" at great expense, as in say the NFL Sunday Ticket package on directv.
WGN No More? - Kid - 01-03-2019
Quote:
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bricklayer" data-cid="340543" data-time="1546536152">
This guy predicts the Cubs partnership with the facilitators of right-wing authoritarianism is expected to be a big success.
<a class="bbc_url" href="https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2018/12/24/Media/Sports-media.aspx" title="External link">https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2018/12/24/Media/Sports-media.aspx</a>
How are you - or the writer - defining success?
Believe that Cubs organization will make more cash but will fans have greater access to watching games and at what costs?
</blockquote>
Jesus fucking Christ, in case anyone wondered whether he was just biting his tongue for the last 4 years, here you go.
WGN No More? - 1060Ivy - 01-03-2019
Quote:<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="1060Ivy" data-cid="340548" data-time="1546544387">
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bricklayer" data-cid="340543" data-time="1546536152">
This guy predicts the Cubs partnership with the facilitators of right-wing authoritarianism is expected to be a big success.
https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2018/12/24/Media/Sports-media.aspx
How are you - or the writer - defining success?
Believe that Cubs organization will make more cash but will fans have greater access to watching games and at what costs?
</blockquote>
Jesus fucking Christ, in case anyone wondered whether he was just biting his tongue for the last 4 years, here you go.</blockquote>
Typically won’t respond to your crap but the central question remains.
The writer expects the new channel to be successful. How is the writer defining success and to what parties? By the ownership group of the channel, by the distribution carrier, by fans, etc.
What might be deemed a success for one group typically comes at an expense to other parties.
Days of expected the Cubs being on “free” TV have been dwindling for some time and few expect free content but what I’ld and some others would like to know is what we can/should expect as Cubs move to their own network. e.g. Will we be able to watch games from different devices? Will reply of games be widely available? Will channel provide further in depth analysis of games? Can fans expect similar content to YES channel during and off season?
Fans would be more likely to get on board for paying costs if Marquee - or whatever channel maybe named - communicates what - and in some cases how - the channel will enhance fan’s experience. In addition, how Marquee will avoid the mistakes that other teams have experienced with establishing their channels.
A sport media reporter writing that the potential endeavor looks like a success doesn’t mean shit to an average Cub fan.
WGN No More? - Kid - 01-03-2019
And if anyone believes that you're just asking questions, rather than making implications about the Cubs' ownership, I have a bridge to sell them.
WGN No More? - Kid - 01-03-2019
Quote:Anyway, in Chicago, I would imagine Comcast has way more power than either Directv or TWC had in a much more split market in LA back in 2014. So I think it's hard for anyone to predict how it'll shape up, particularly as cord-cutting increases, and other players like ATT and verizon look for more market share and might want to be the "exclusive provider of Cubs baseball" at great expense, as in say the NFL Sunday Ticket package on directv.
Keep in mind that AT&T and DirecTV are now one and the same. I know Chicago used to have AT&T as a separate TV provider. I'm not sure whether that's still the case or whether AT&T just pushes everyone to DirecTV.
WGN No More? - MrSheps - 01-03-2019
I know what you mean Ivy, but starting with the basic idea, I'm sure you'd agree most fans would rather pay to see a winning team than see a crappy one even if it's for free, and even free is subjective as it really isn't because advertising makes the fan the currency so to speak. Now your best argument is probably LA, where more than half the TV homes can't see the games outside of the ones put on local stations. If the Cubs end up in a situation where there games aren't on TV for a majority of Chicago, it'll be a problem. If the argument is essentially, you have to cable to see the Cubs, I think that ideal has sort of sailed, and I think you agree. As for:
Quote:Will we be able to watch games from different devices? Will reply of games be widely available? Will channel provide further in depth analysis of games?The answer would almost certainly be yes to all, assuming you consider replay to include on demand and/or season passes on DVRs. The first 2 come from the providers and already exist, and the third would kind of be a given, at least it has been for other team channels.
WGN No More? - Kid - 01-03-2019
In-market streaming is something MLB controls. I believe that the Fox and NBC-affiliated channels allow for in-market streaming using their respective apps, but those are platforms available to cable subscribers nationwide, they just add in local channels if you are in a Fox or NBC RSN market and subscribe to the channel on cable. For example, I believe that Cubs games are available in-market on the NBC Sports app for those games on NBC Sports Chicago. By contrast, the games on WGN and WLS are not available for in-market streaming. I would not necessarily assume that the Cubs' network, which will be a one-off and will not have an existing platform like Fox or NBC to support it, will immediately offer in-network streaming.
WGN No More? - MrSheps - 01-03-2019
Quote:
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MrSheps" data-cid="340552" data-time="1546547726">
<div>
Anyway, in Chicago, I would imagine Comcast has way more power than either Directv or TWC had in a much more split market in LA back in 2014. So I think it's hard for anyone to predict how it'll shape up, particularly as cord-cutting increases, and other players like ATT and verizon look for more market share and might want to be the "exclusive provider of Cubs baseball" at great expense, as in say the NFL Sunday Ticket package on directv.
Keep in mind that AT&T and DirecTV are now one and the same. I know Chicago used to have AT&T as a separate TV provider. I'm not sure whether that's still the case or whether AT&T just pushes everyone to DirecTV.
</div>
</blockquote>
Yeah, and I think they're still two services in Chicago, but their purchase of Directv shows they're very serious about getting into as many homes as possible, so the outside chance of an "exclusive provider" play by someone could be a worry. To me that's the only actual negative I could see in any of this, if the channel becomes an exclusive in a battle between providers. But since Sinclair is not tied to anyone, as the Dodgers channel originally was, I doubt that's their preference.