WGN No More?

[MrSheps]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MrSheps" data-cid="233048" data-time="1418419742">
<div>
Waiting for the financial terms to come out might inform the deal better.  Does the tweet say the deal IS worth 750 per or is it quoting "market value" to make a guess?  To your point, WGN may not have been losing 200K per game, but it's hard to imagine they were profiting based on their ratings.  

 

ESPN Chicago reports that sources say the deal actually is for $750K/game, thoroughly disproving both WGN's claims that they were only receiving $50K/game in revenue last season, and certain other arguments about the effect of recent years' ratings (I'm still not debating this again).

</div>
</blockquote>
 

First, Kid, I swear I'm not trying to bait you into an argument about this, I don't think either of us wants to go down that road yet again.  But, contrary to reports about the ABC deal, that some believed negated claims of WGN losses and ratings effects negotations, it worth noting the reporting re: the new WGN deal for the 45 games:

 

 

The previous contract called for a payout of about $240,000 per game from WGN to the Cubs. Industry sources say the Cubs will get less in the new WGN deal. A revenue-sharing aspect of the contract would mean more money based on advertising sales. That could be available for <span style="font-weight:normal;font-size:100%;color:rgb(0,153,0);background-color:transparent;">profit</span> on both sides, although it’s unconfirmed at this point.

Reportedly, WGN will pay less upfront money, but there are some revenue-sharing components that could reap the Cubs additional cash if ratings improve significantly with the team’s promised turnaround. However, they aren’t expected to pull in significantly more than the estimated $60-70 million value of their current local TV deals, which includes games and an ownership stake in Comcast SportsNet.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/01/08/l...e-options/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/sma...story.html

 

Now, as with the ABC7 deal we don't know the ACTUAL terms, these too are simply from sources, but if this reporting is correct the Cubs are getting less upfront/.guaranteed money and are now more reliant on ratings, thus supporting WGN claims of loss and the notion that ratings weakened the Cubs position in negotiations. 

[Kid]

Cubs say they are going to try to syndicate the WLS and WGN games to channels within the blackout zone but outside the Chicago market.  Failing that, they'll try to get MLB to lift the blackout so fans can watch on MLB.TV, which I doubt MLB will go along with.

 

But it does raise the point that a lot of meathead fans outside of the local market (either outside of the Chicago market or outside of the blackout zone depending on how the previous paragraph turns out) are going to go nuts when roughly half the games won't be on free TV anymore with the end of games on WGN America.  Of course, that's the way it is for the other 29 teams, and it was WGN's call, but still, there will be endless bitching.

[jstraw]

Wait, what? Aren't the same games as before going to be on MLB.tv...just not the FOX and ESPN games?

[Kid]

Wait, what? Aren't the same games as before going to be on MLB.tv...just not the FOX and ESPN games?

 

Yes, if you're out of the blackout area.  But the blackout area is much larger than just the Chicago broadcast market.  The Chicago blackout area includes almost all of Illinois (except for the St. Louis market), almost all of Indiana (except for the Cincinnati market), all of Iowa, and a little bit of Wisconsin.  If nothing changes, all of the people in the blackout zone that aren't in the Chicago broadcast market won't get the WLS or WGN games on TV, and they'd be blacked out from them on MLB.TV.  Previously, if they didn't have access to WGN-TV, they would probably have gotten WGN America so they could watch those games.

 

My point on cost is that people will have gotten used to getting almost half of the Cubs' games on WGN America and those won't be available anymore, only on WGN-TV.  So people that weren't previously paying for MLB.TV or Extra Innings because they at least got the WGN games for free, will now have to pay if they want to see any games other than nationally-televised games.  Expect bitching about that.

 

On the plus side, MLB did pull back on the national blackouts.  Last year, Fox games were available on MLB.TV unless your local Fox station actually got the game.  So if it's one of those Saturdays where there are 3 or 4 Fox games, you should have access on MLB.TV to the games that aren't on your local Fox station.  The only out-of-market games blacked out are ESPN Sunday Night and the game actually shown on your local Fox station.

[nakedman1664]

+2 points to kid for the explanation.

[MrSheps]

As a long time out of market sports package buyer I get frustrated when people take watching the cubs locally for granted, but I don't think we should look down on people who are upset that the cubs are no longer on wgn (America), or face blackouts, call them "meatheads" and stuff. Wgn was a huge reason the cubs gained a national following, they have a ton of fans all over the country because of gn. It sucks. And it's not the cubs fault (though obviously the last several seasons didn't help make their case) but it is sad that that part of the cubs is gone now, as it was a cool part of being a cubs fan, and a Bulls fan for that matter.


The cubs were special for a long time because of wgn, now they're not special in that way. Again, not their fault really, but this isn't like the bleachers reno where we're better off despite the headache, this is just a negative, at least for the next several years. So I'll cut people some slack on complaints about wgn (or blackouts downstate) only because a lot of them wouldn't have been fans of the cubs in the first place without it.

[Kid]

A. I never said people complaining about blackouts are meatheads.  There's nothing meatheaded about that.  I'd be furious if I couldn't even pay to see the games (and 99%+ of fans aren't tech savvy enough to get around blackouts).

 

B. I also never said people were meatheads just for not being happy that games are no longer going to be free because they're not on WGN America (even though no other team has had non-nationally televised games on free TV for years).  The point is that meatheads are going to blame the Cubs for out-of-market games no longer being free.  That's meatheaded because it's not the Cubs that made the decision.  It's just the same meatheads that blame the Cubs for everything.

 

C. On a completely unrelated note, nice try to suggest that the Cubs' record the last few years had something to do with WGN's decision.  The Cubs must really have sucked to keep WGN America from showing Bulls and White Sox games.

[jstraw]

Thanks, Kid.

 

This really sucks for people in the blackout area.

[MrSheps]

A. I never said people complaining about blackouts are meatheads.  There's nothing meatheaded about that.  I'd be furious if I couldn't even pay to see the games (and 99%+ of fans aren't tech savvy enough to get around blackouts).

 

B. I also never said people were meatheads just for not being happy that games are no longer going to be free because they're not on WGN America (even though no other team has had non-nationally televised games on free TV for years).  The point is that meatheads are going to blame the Cubs for out-of-market games no longer being free.  That's meatheaded because it's not the Cubs that made the decision.  It's just the same meatheads that blame the Cubs for everything.

 

C. On a completely unrelated note, nice try to suggest that the Cubs' record the last few years had something to do with WGN's decision.  The Cubs must really have sucked to keep WGN America from showing Bulls and White Sox games.

 

I mentioned the Bulls and said twice it's not the Cubs fault, just that they didn't make it a harder decision by being poorly rated for so long.  It's not unreasonable to think that if they were raking in money WGN America might have looked at things differently, money talks in broadcasting. But to your point, TBS went a different way some time back when the Braves were likely doing good numbers, so again, I don't and didn't blame the Cubs, it's the market changing.  Now, the Cubs ratings are though reflected in their new, reportedly less favorable local WGN deal though, but I digress.

[Andy]

I know I'm a broken record with this (and I completely understand the business logic for the change), but I am a Cubs fan due to WGN.  Growing up and living most of my life in east central WI, I would undoubtedly be a Brewer fan had I not had WGN showing the Cubs every day.  I know it's been fading out for years and it's a money loser.  I get that.  It's still disappointing to have the Cubs not on WGN any longer.  Just wish I had an easy way to watch the Cubs regularly without paying for MLB TV.

[Kid]

I don't think WGN was much of a pull for attracting Cubs fans anymore.  It's absolutely true that kids used to get home from school and the only thing worth watching on TV would be Cubs games on WGN because afternoon TV sucked.  But everything changed long before WGN stopped putting sports on the superstation.  For one thing, the Cubs play very few weekday afternoon games anymore.  Almost all Monday-Thursday home games are night games now, and virtually all weekday road games are night games.  So it's not the case that kids have been coming home from school and able to put on the game.

 

More importantly, the media dynamic has obviously changed.  When I was a kid, we got maybe 50 channels and there was no internet.  That's obviously not the case anymore.  Entertainment options are limitless.

[Andy]

I don't think WGN was much of a pull for attracting Cubs fans anymore.  It's absolutely true that kids used to get home from school and the only thing worth watching on TV would be Cubs games on WGN because afternoon TV sucked.  But everything changed long before WGN stopped putting sports on the superstation.  For one thing, the Cubs play very few weekday afternoon games anymore.  Almost all Monday-Thursday home games are night games now, and virtually all weekday road games are night games.  So it's not the case that kids have been coming home from school and able to put on the game.

 

More importantly, the media dynamic has obviously changed.  When I was a kid, we got maybe 50 channels and there was no internet.  That's obviously not the case anymore.  Entertainment options are limitless.

 

I don't disagree with you at all Kid.  They'll have to find ways to get their content to multiple media formats.  Just miss how much simpler it was in the 80's. 

[jstraw]

"When I was a kid, we got maybe 50 channels..."

 

Seven for me...if you counted 32 and 44.

 

You guys can't even imagine that, can you?

[rok]

We didn't have cable until I was 14, and even when we finally did it was about 30-35 channel basic cable. I remember when HBO was its own standalone service with fancy set-top box in the early 80s.

[jstraw]

Before we had a tv with a remote I was only able to sit and see what was on all seven channels by bullying my little brother.