WGN No More?

[rok]

That's what it sounded like from the official press release.

[Kid]

No, you're right, it doesn't disprove that WGN only got $50K/game in revenue. Maybe WLS just decided it seemed like a good idea to pay 15 times that per game because reasons.

[Kid]

And as for the "sources" thing, ESPN is under the same corporate umbrella as WLS, so, you know, a little different.

[MrSheps]

I posted lots of sources not from Tribune. But wasn't the argument that you can't trust the Tribune in their family matters, but now you can trust ESPN with their family matters?? I don't follow.


Like I said, I don't know that they weren't overstating losses, or that wasn't for some games not the majority, and also like I said their own ineptitude in their sales department could be to blame. But knowing ad rates there's no way to make money with the ratings the cubs had unless you've pre-sold long before they went sub 50K homes.

[Kid]

How about this, find one time, other than this post, I've ever said to doubt the Tribune about WGN because they're part of the same corporate family.  If you find that post, I'll concede this entire argument to you.  If you don't, you concede it to me.  Deal?

 

Now, for this particular post, I would say that there's a distinction between the Trib saying WGN was losing money and ESPN saying WLS paid a substantial price.  The former would seem to benefit WGN as they try to negotiate a new deal with the Cubs.  WGN would want to spread that story.  The latter would have no effect once a deal has already been signed and, if anything, WLS wouldn't want it to seem like they're giving away money.

[MrSheps]

How about this, find one time, other than this post, I've ever said to doubt the Tribune about WGN because they're part of the same corporate family.  If you find that post, I'll concede this entire argument to you.  If you don't, you concede it to me.  Deal?

 

Now, for this particular post, I would say that there's a distinction between the Trib saying WGN was losing money and ESPN saying WLS paid a substantial price.  The former would seem to benefit WGN as they try to negotiate a new deal with the Cubs.  WGN would want to spread that story.  The latter would have no effect once a deal has already been signed and, if anything, WLS wouldn't want it to seem like they're giving away money.

So one time you stepped in it by using a corporate family structure to both legitimize and delegitimize "sources" in the same argument?  Other than this time?? 

 

Look, for the record, I am not questioning the ESPN source at all.  I'm in no way saying we shouldn't believe it's 750, I don't think that's a hard to believe, particularly if it includes resell which is sounds like it does. I was reacting to your picking and choosing when to ignore and accept (or even mock) "sources", even outside of Tribune columns, when they don't or do support your POV.  To me it's hard to believe WGN wasn't losing money towards the end based on the ratings, and it's hard to believe Tribune columnists were in cahoots to help them, the same way I wouldn't think ESPN columnist are in cahoots to help ABC7 now.  Now, could "sources" lie to columnists?  Sure, and as I said from the beginning, I'm sure WGN was inflating losses or cherry picking certain games or stretches.

 

So again, I'm not questioning the 750 number, I don't think it's hard to believe or at all, but if you want to know why ABC7 would want the number high, if they're even the source:

 

-ABC7 needs to set a market for advertisers, what they think the time is worth and thus what they paid for it.

-ABC7 needs to set a market for broadcasters outside of Chicago, what they think the product is worth and thus they paid for it, for when they try and sell games outside of Chicago to other broadcasters. 

 

If the source is from the Cubs:

 

-In the same way WGN would want to lower the market by reporting losses, the Cubs would want to up the market value by floating high numbers, if they haven't yet completed the deal for the rest of the games. 

 

Again, I don't believe the above, the 750 number for 25 choice games seems reasonable (keep in mind I thought this whole thing was going to result in much more) I'm just playing devil’s advocate to show arguments of not trusting sources based on corporate ownership could go both ways.  My big point is simply when I showed articles, even from non-tribune writers, citing sources talking about the toll ratings have taken on the Cubs negotiations (and those assertions are all still there all in the announcements about this deal too by the way) you basically said sources be damned, but here they're good again. That's all.    

[Kid]

So one time you stepped in it by using a corporate family structure to both legitimize and delegitimize "sources" in the same argument?  Other than this time?? 

 

See, this is why I'm done with you on this topic.  Literally 2 posts above this one, you specifically and clearly implied that I had previously claimed that the Tribune wasn't reputable because of its being the same corporate family as WGN.  Then you use a post made after that one to try to prove your accusation.  Because you sure as shit couldn't point to anything that existed as of the time of your accusation because it never fucking happened.

 

All you've done in this entire debate is obfuscate to try to cover where you've been wrong over and over again so, once again, I'm done on this.

[MrSheps]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MrSheps" data-cid="233090" data-time="1418527158">
<div>
So one time you stepped in it by using a corporate family structure to both legitimize and delegitimize "sources" in the same argument?  Other than this time?? 

 

See, this is why I'm done with you on this topic.  Literally 2 posts above this one, you specifically and clearly implied that I had previously claimed that the Tribune wasn't reputable because of its being the same corporate family as WGN.  Then you use a post made after that one to try to prove your accusation.  Because you sure as shit couldn't point to anything that existed as of the time of your accusation because it never fucking happened.

 

All you've done in this entire debate is obfuscate to try to cover where you've been wrong over and over again so, once again, I'm done on this.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
Why is it that every time we debate anything you quit?  "I'm done with this" is sort of a common refrain.  I guess there's no sense in replying further because you quit, again?  What is it that you want me to find?  I'm honestly not following you??  I'm not claiming that outside of this subject you've said to not trust the Tribune sources/articles re: Cubs.  I'm not sure what you mean by "outside of this post", do you mean outside of this subject of their reporting on WGN losses?  I'm honestly not sure what you're challenging me to do because I'm not claiming you said to not trust the sources outside of this topic of TV revenue and negotiations.  But, to explain the point I was trying to make, when I said it might be wise to wait and see what the figures are, you cited sources as evidence that the deal was for 750 per.  Now, I'm not disputing the numbers, I don't think they're hard to believe at all, I just found that ironic because a few pages back you wrote things like:

 

No!  "Sources" said it in an article.  It is indisputable fact.

 

Multiple times I would post articles supporting an opposing point of view to your own, that you would dismiss that as any sort of evidence and mock the notion of "sources", correct?  I can post other examples:

 

I'm not getting bogged down in this again.  You want to go with "sources" saying why the Cubs did or didn't get what "sources" said the Cubs thought they were going to get a year ago, and think that's proof of something, you go nuts.

 

How else can one discuss something if any article citing sources is dismissed when it negates your POV, but then you will accept similar articles if they say something you agree with?  Again, I was never even dismissing the sources' info, it just struck me as surprisingly counter to your view of "sources" previously.  

 

Look Kid, here's a challenge to you, point out what I've been wrong about if I've been wrong "over and aver again"?  I think you're ascribing arguments to me I haven't made. Now, I fully admit I thought the Cubs, despite my concerns about bad ratings hurting them in negotiations, would still get a massive deal now with FOX or the like for a bridge and then triggered part ownership net for 2019 on.  It appears they didn't, is that you mean?  Anyway, show me what I've been so horribly wrong about that you think I'm covering up?  

[nakedman1664]

Shit, I am out of popcorn....

[Kid]

No popcorn.  I'm not engaging.

[TrueBlueBlood]

The Cubs got John Lester!!!! !

[jstraw]

Whoa.

[rok]

I feel like we are getting punked here.

[Kid]

Sounds like the Cubs are going to announce 45 games a year for WGN-TV (but not WGN America).

[rok]

I'm good with that. Hopefully there's an opt out in this desk as with the WLS contract.