|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 4, 2023 9:28:12 GMT -8
Canzano came up with that 420 million in future revenues number. I’m wondering if there’s Bowl and Playoffs monies coming in for multiple years as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by beaver55to7 on Sept 4, 2023 9:35:31 GMT -8
Canzano came up with that 420 million in future revenues number. I’m wondering if there’s Bowl and Playoffs monies coming in for multiple years as well? I believe Canzano's number includes all of 2023/24 media revenue. Theory being since we control the ceo group we can vote ourselves all the $$$. This Theory leads to lawsuit which we will lose, so everyone stopped using that number. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 4, 2023 13:58:40 GMT -8
Canzano came up with that 420 million in future revenues number. I’m wondering if there’s Bowl and Playoffs monies coming in for multiple years as well? Yes, it covers all of the money. I am not sure, if it is inflated for this year. (I.e. it may be a gross number with the net lower for the years we actually care about.) But you usually can't get paid immediately for what you do that year, because of the way that media outlets are paid. I know that they can't possibly pay out all of the football money until at least March in the year following, and you can't pay out basketball until at least June, because most of the big media outlets make their money quarterly. There is always a lag. I am no expert, though, so I will allow other to chime in, in case they know more. |
|
|
|
Post by 93beav on Sept 4, 2023 15:30:07 GMT -8
Canzano came up with that 420 million in future revenues number. I’m wondering if there’s Bowl and Playoffs monies coming in for multiple years as well? Yes, it covers all of the money. I am not sure, if it is inflated for this year. (I.e. it may be a gross number with the net lower for the years we actually care about.) But you usually can't get paid immediately for what you do that year, because of the way that media outlets are paid. I know that they can't possibly pay out all of the football money until at least March in the year following, and you can't pay out basketball until at least June, because most of the big media outlets make their money quarterly. There is always a lag. I am no expert, though, so I will allow other to chime in, in case they know more. I thought that there were NCAA credits but also the CFB money that was paid as being part of the "P5"? |
|
|
|
Post by 93beav on Sept 4, 2023 15:33:20 GMT -8
The MWC has a media deal for 4 million a team for the next couple years, with Boise State getting a bit more. The Pac 2 had a 25+ million a team offer when it was the Pac 9. If Apple wants football, and the rumor is out there that they do, a reconstituted Pac something is the ONLY conference with an open media contract. Likely Apple would not be willing to pay what they offered earlier, but it's also likely it'll be a good bump over what the MWC is getting now, with higher top end potential. Too many people are selling a rebuilt league short. If an Apple deal doesn't materialize the short sellers may be right, if it does materialize they could be very wrong. I have heard Apple does want in. And Fox wants them out. That much sounds true. The theory goes that when the Apple deal was presented, and when everyone was ready to sign, Fox became alarmed that Apple might grab a toe-hold and ponied up the extra money to move uw/uo. Now, no one but the execs at Fox know if this is really true, but if it was, then pairing that with their facilitation of USC/UCLA, I'd say Fox is the biggest a-hole in the last two seasons and the way this has played out. It's not like ESPN is an angel, either. They did offer us a low-ball contract at $30 (really? below Big12?  ) but then the "unofficial" word again is that once things fell apart they were pushing to get Calford in a couple of places. I really do wish OSU/WSU would set aside $3-$4 million and take a shot at collusion efforts by those two and ask for damages. I mean, AFTER they secure a media deal with Apple. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Sept 4, 2023 15:50:58 GMT -8
I have heard Apple does want in. And Fox wants them out. That much sounds true. The theory goes that when the Apple deal was presented, and when everyone was ready to sign, Fox became alarmed that Apple might grab a toe-hold and ponied up the extra money to move uw/uo. Now, no one but the execs at Fox know if this is really true, but if it was, then pairing that with their facilitation of USC/UCLA, I'd say Fox is the biggest a-hole in the last two seasons and the way this has played out. It's not like ESPN is an angel, either. They did offer us a low-ball contract at $30 (really? below Big12? ) but then the "unofficial" word again is that once things fell apart they were pushing to get Calford in a couple of places. I really do wish OSU/WSU would set aside $3-$4 million and take a shot at collusion efforts by those two and ask for damages. I mean, AFTER they secure a media deal with Apple. Yeah. The more I look into everything, it just seems like lawyers are going to have to be involved (I think they already are for some purposes). |
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Sept 4, 2023 17:12:28 GMT -8
I really do wish OSU/WSU would set aside $3-$4 million and take a shot at collusion efforts by those two and ask for damages. I mean, AFTER they secure a media deal with Apple.
Um, no.
Sharp business is not illegal. It's not illegal for ESPN and Fox to decide independently to outbid any third network that tries to get into the business. It's only illegal if ESPN and Fox collectively act to fix prices or divide up the market, limiting their bidding against each other.
And there is no basis for damages as we never had a contract. You can't sue over losing something that you never had!
|
|
|
|
Post by speakthetruth on Sept 4, 2023 17:21:39 GMT -8
Just wondering did Fox try to outbid espn for the sec? And likewise did espn try to outbid fox for the big10?
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 4, 2023 17:36:44 GMT -8
And meanwhile, apparently people (41 million subscribers) on Spectrum/Charter were not able to watch cable ESPN (if they wanted to) on opening weekend. Disney and all of it's subsidiaries were in a huff with Spectrum. I don't know if that's still ongoing.
Another good reason to consider streaming. I've seen that type of thing on Comcast and Oceanic cable happen as a customer, usually only lasts a few days.
|
|
|
|
Post by sparty on Sept 4, 2023 17:42:44 GMT -8
I really do wish OSU/WSU would set aside $3-$4 million and take a shot at collusion efforts by those two and ask for damages. I mean, AFTER they secure a media deal with Apple.
Um, no.
Sharp business is not illegal. It's not illegal for ESPN and Fox to decide independently to outbid any third network that tries to get into the business. It's only illegal if ESPN and Fox collectively act to fix prices or divide up the market, limiting their bidding against each other.
And there is no basis for damages as we never had a contract. You can't sue over losing something that you never had!
That and the fact that basically everything would be frozen and tied up in the courts for about two years.
Let alone appeals and you are about 4 years out.
|
|
|
|
Post by sparty on Sept 4, 2023 17:45:33 GMT -8
All these false narratives are just silly. All this talk that there is not a Pac-12 right now not entirely accurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 4, 2023 19:15:10 GMT -8
I have heard Apple does want in. And Fox wants them out. That much sounds true. The theory goes that when the Apple deal was presented, and when everyone was ready to sign, Fox became alarmed that Apple might grab a toe-hold and ponied up the extra money to move uw/uo. Now, no one but the execs at Fox know if this is really true, but if it was, then pairing that with their facilitation of USC/UCLA, I'd say Fox is the biggest a-hole in the last two seasons and the way this has played out. It's not like ESPN is an angel, either. They did offer us a low-ball contract at $30 (really? below Big12? ) but then the "unofficial" word again is that once things fell apart they were pushing to get Calford in a couple of places. I really do wish OSU/WSU would set aside $3-$4 million and take a shot at collusion efforts by those two and ask for damages. I mean, AFTER they secure a media deal with Apple. There has to be an underlying crime for their to be collusion. What's the crime? How did they violate the law? |
|
|
|
Post by avidbeaver on Sept 4, 2023 20:24:27 GMT -8
I have heard Apple does want in. And Fox wants them out. That much sounds true. The theory goes that when the Apple deal was presented, and when everyone was ready to sign, Fox became alarmed that Apple might grab a toe-hold and ponied up the extra money to move uw/uo. Now, no one but the execs at Fox know if this is really true, but if it was, then pairing that with their facilitation of USC/UCLA, I'd say Fox is the biggest a-hole in the last two seasons and the way this has played out. It's not like ESPN is an angel, either. They did offer us a low-ball contract at $30 (really? below Big12? ) but then the "unofficial" word again is that once things fell apart they were pushing to get Calford in a couple of places. I really do wish OSU/WSU would set aside $3-$4 million and take a shot at collusion efforts by those two and ask for damages. I mean, AFTER they secure a media deal with Apple. ESPN offered 30 mil, which was in line with evaluations. Dumb move by the schools to reject that offer. Then they wanted 50 mil. That was a joke. Also 3 to 4 million to prove collusion would be a drop in the bucket for what it would take to get it to even a trial. That being said, there is no chance a collusion charge would get anywhere. Would be a waste of money. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Sept 4, 2023 20:40:49 GMT -8
I have heard Apple does want in. And Fox wants them out. That much sounds true. The theory goes that when the Apple deal was presented, and when everyone was ready to sign, Fox became alarmed that Apple might grab a toe-hold and ponied up the extra money to move uw/uo. Now, no one but the execs at Fox know if this is really true, but if it was, then pairing that with their facilitation of USC/UCLA, I'd say Fox is the biggest a-hole in the last two seasons and the way this has played out. It's not like ESPN is an angel, either. They did offer us a low-ball contract at $30 (really? below Big12? ) but then the "unofficial" word again is that once things fell apart they were pushing to get Calford in a couple of places. I really do wish OSU/WSU would set aside $3-$4 million and take a shot at collusion efforts by those two and ask for damages. I mean, AFTER they secure a media deal with Apple. First, $30 mil was $9 mil more than the last contact. Not lowball. The Pac12's initial, or counter depending on who you read, of $50 mil was the deal killer. Where is the collision? Fox and ESPN are competitors. So you think they worked together to disrupt the media market's balance? What unfair market advantage did they gain. Was CBS & NBC also involved? If not, if be them suing. |
|
|
|
Post by 93beav on Sept 5, 2023 7:00:06 GMT -8
Wow, everyone wants to take a pot shot at collusion. Take your turns with the bats, boys!
I'll play along. The collusion would exist between ESPN and Fox in attempting to freeze out a potential new market player in Apple, and to divide the market share in an unofficially agreed upon method. Regardless of whether CBS or NBC are there, ESPN and Fox are the vast majority rights holders in the market and have the means to substantially shape the market at their market rates. The question would become whether there was any evidence of collusion, because tacit collusion would be extremely difficult, but not impossible, to get across the goal line. You're just trying to validate that the big market players had some sort of market division agreement. Could it be Apple suing? Sure, but Apple has other remedies that only occur when you have dozens of billions of dollars sitting around. If Apple, let's say, did sue and collusion was proved, the damages for OSU would be that had they not intervened to break apart the PAC, OSU would have stood to make a theoretically larger media deal (I say theoretically because we don't know what the new one will offer).
Now before everyone screams, "They wouldn't be stupid enough to have documents showing collusion!" let me just say it obviously has happened before, and yes even with vast corporate legal teams (I mean, Apple itself was found guilt of collusion in a case against Amazon), and yes, I realize it's a long shot. Hence why I'm not saying blow the whole wad on legal fees.
|
|
) but then the "unofficial" word again is that once things fell apart they were pushing to get Calford in a couple of places.