|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 20, 2024 15:02:18 GMT -8
Pretty much gave an itemized list of why. The Pac-12 network may largely be sold off for parts but the infrastructure is there and the Pac2 own it. Estimated value is $250M and this has a solid value to building a conference or joining an established conference that does not own its' own network. Another lever is currently having so-called P5 status and the PacX branding, permitting OSU/WSU to operate as a 2 team conference and retain the conference as long as they add 6 new members prior to the beginning of the 3rd season. Perhaps you're thinking that I'm using "leverage" in the manner of "being able to force your will". If that's where the disagreement lies, I'll explain further - leverage is something in the business world that you have in varying degrees. It means you bring something to the negotiation which helps you gain some leverage in the negotiation process. If you have absolutely ZERO leverage, it means that you are basically reduced to groveling. I don't believe that is how you see the situation. I think we have a miscommunication of terms here. I also think you're unnecessarily pessimistic that OSU might receive an invitation to another conference in the future based on new developments, just because they did not receive any offer during *this* round. Things are changing fast. They will not remain static, you can bet on that. None of what you mention is leverage unless someone else wants it. I'm not guessing about the future. We're taking right now and at this time the Pac2 has zero leverage to create a media deal. They have zero funds to run a network... meaning it's essentially worth nothing. They have two teams, not a conference worth. They are a tiny media market. No leverage doesn't mean groveling. It means your not able to create a deal from a position of power. The Pac2 needs a media member to want them. The Pac2 can "want" all they like, but until a media partner comes forth they are at the mercy of what they can currently find. Hence, the two alliances. The Pac2 needs schedules. They had to pay to get them. Is that leverage or having to negotiate from a position of need? As for the future... reverse merger or another offer... again the Pac2 doesn't have a superior negotiating position and it will depend on those that provide the funds... media partners. By my definition that's not leverage. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 20, 2024 15:55:19 GMT -8
The Pac-12 network may largely be sold off for parts but the infrastructure is there and the Pac2 own it. Estimated value is $250M and this has a solid value to building a conference or joining an established conference that does not own its' own network. Another lever is currently having so-called P5 status and the PacX branding, permitting OSU/WSU to operate as a 2 team conference and retain the conference as long as they add 6 new members prior to the beginning of the 3rd season. Perhaps you're thinking that I'm using "leverage" in the manner of "being able to force your will". If that's where the disagreement lies, I'll explain further - leverage is something in the business world that you have in varying degrees. It means you bring something to the negotiation which helps you gain some leverage in the negotiation process. If you have absolutely ZERO leverage, it means that you are basically reduced to groveling. I don't believe that is how you see the situation. I think we have a miscommunication of terms here. I also think you're unnecessarily pessimistic that OSU might receive an invitation to another conference in the future based on new developments, just because they did not receive any offer during *this* round. Things are changing fast. They will not remain static, you can bet on that. None of what you mention is leverage unless someone else wants it. I'm not guessing about the future. We're taking right now and at this time the Pac2 has zero leverage to create a media deal. They have zero funds to run a network... meaning it's essentially worth nothing. They have two teams, not a conference worth. They are a tiny media market. No leverage doesn't mean groveling. It means your not able to create a deal from a position of power. The Pac2 needs a media member to want them. The Pac2 can "want" all they like, but until a media partner comes forth they are at the mercy of what they can currently find. Hence, the two alliances. The Pac2 needs schedules. They had to pay to get them. Is that leverage or having to negotiate from a position of need? As for the future... reverse merger or another offer... again the Pac2 doesn't have a superior negotiating position and it will depend on those that provide the funds... media partners. By my definition that's not leverage. So if the Pac-2 has zero leverage to create a media deal, do you think it will get a media deal for the non-MWC games in 2024? The Pac-12 Network is absolutely worth money. Do you think the Pac-2 would give it away (in whatever form)? |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jan 20, 2024 16:17:33 GMT -8
What does leverage and "giving" an asset away have anything to do with one another??
As of this second the Pac12 network will cease to function after Spring sports. Staff already laid off. The Pac2 can't run it alone. Hence, it's a "plus" if a media partner wants it, but not leverage.
OSU will sell home games, but OSU isn't going to have the upper hand in negotiations.
Having some "positives"... bring a bigger market than MWC, Pac12 network assets... isn't leverage. They are helpful selling points.
Not sure what's so difficult to comprehend. The Pac2 has no deal. A 2 team league has no leverage as they have no inventory. Unless they are in a conference, which will require a media partner to want to negotiate. The leverage to get a media deal lays with the media partner(s) and whatever conference offers an invite or merger possibilities.
The MWC & WCC had leverage.
Again... I've given specifics. What leverage do you think the Pac2 has that isn't solely dependent on a media partner wanting to offer a deal.
Even more simplistic... no media partner or conference needs the Pac2. The Pac2 desperately needs both, sooner rather than later!
|
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 20, 2024 16:55:45 GMT -8
You asked, "What does leverage and "giving" an asset away have anything to do with one another??"
Well, you said: "They have zero funds to run a network (Proof? Sources?)... meaning it's essentially worth nothing."
So I asked: "The Pac-12 Network is absolutely worth money (this first part is a factual statement). Do you think the Pac-2 would give it away (in whatever form)?" This is a rhetorical question. The meaning is that the Pac-12 Network absolutely has value and therefore can be used as leverage. The Pac-2 obviously would not give it away.
You said the Pac-2 has zero leverage to create a media deal. So I asked:
"So if the Pac-2 has zero leverage to create a media deal, do you think it will get a media deal for the non-MWC games in 2024?"
Are the leaders of a media company going to make deals with the Pac-2 for these games out of the kindness of their hearts? A financial deal of this nature is clearly made because both parties stand to benefit. Therefore, both have some level of leverage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jan 20, 2024 16:59:38 GMT -8
You asked, "What does leverage and "giving" an asset away have anything to do with one another??" Well, you said: "They have zero funds to run a network (Proof? Sources?)... meaning it's essentially worth nothing." So I asked: "The Pac-12 Network is absolutely worth money (this first part is a factual statement). Do you think the Pac-2 would give it away (in whatever form)?" This is a rhetorical question. The meaning is that the Pac-12 Network absolutely has value and there can be used as leverage. The Pac-2 obviously would not give it away. You said the Pac-2 has zero leverage to create a media deal. So I asked: "So if the Pac-2 has zero leverage to create a media deal, do you think it will get a media deal for the non-MWC games in 2024?" Are the leaders of a media company going to make deals with the Pac-2 for these games out of the kindness of their hearts? A financial deal of this nature is clearly made because both parties stand to benefit. Therefore, both have some level of leverage. They are laying off all staff in the spring. If we have no staff to run the network and no media deal to pick up the network, it has no value, other than the equipment. I think that’s what he’s getting at. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 20, 2024 17:09:31 GMT -8
You asked, "What does leverage and "giving" an asset away have anything to do with one another??" Well, you said: "They have zero funds to run a network (Proof? Sources?)... meaning it's essentially worth nothing." So I asked: "The Pac-12 Network is absolutely worth money (this first part is a factual statement). Do you think the Pac-2 would give it away (in whatever form)?" This is a rhetorical question. The meaning is that the Pac-12 Network absolutely has value and there can be used as leverage. The Pac-2 obviously would not give it away. You said the Pac-2 has zero leverage to create a media deal. So I asked: "So if the Pac-2 has zero leverage to create a media deal, do you think it will get a media deal for the non-MWC games in 2024?" Are the leaders of a media company going to make deals with the Pac-2 for these games out of the kindness of their hearts? A financial deal of this nature is clearly made because both parties stand to benefit. Therefore, both have some level of leverage. They are laying off all staff in the spring. If we have no staff to run the network and no media deal to pick up the network, it has no value, other than the equipment. I think that’s what he’s getting at. That should be specified as such then. It clearly has value. But yeah, nobody is going to operate it, at least for the near future. But the statement was also that the Pac-2 has zero funds to run it. I would like proof and/or reliable sources. It probably is too costly to make it beneficial to run. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jan 20, 2024 18:47:37 GMT -8
You asked, "What does leverage and "giving" an asset away have anything to do with one another??" Well, you said: "They have zero funds to run a network (Proof? Sources?)... meaning it's essentially worth nothing." So I asked: "The Pac-12 Network is absolutely worth money (this first part is a factual statement). Do you think the Pac-2 would give it away (in whatever form)?" This is a rhetorical question. The meaning is that the Pac-12 Network absolutely has value and there can be used as leverage. The Pac-2 obviously would not give it away. You said the Pac-2 has zero leverage to create a media deal. So I asked: "So if the Pac-2 has zero leverage to create a media deal, do you think it will get a media deal for the non-MWC games in 2024?" Are the leaders of a media company going to make deals with the Pac-2 for these games out of the kindness of their hearts? A financial deal of this nature is clearly made because both parties stand to benefit. Therefore, both have some level of leverage. They are laying off all staff in the spring. If we have no staff to run the network and no media deal to pick up the network, it has no value, other than the equipment. I think that’s what he’s getting at. Yep, they're basically folding up tent, at which point a used tent is worth pennies on the dollar in a lot of cases. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 20, 2024 19:19:26 GMT -8
They are laying off all staff in the spring. If we have no staff to run the network and no media deal to pick up the network, it has no value, other than the equipment. I think that’s what he’s getting at. Yep, they're basically folding up tent, at which point a used tent is worth pennies on the dollar in a lot of cases. Yes, to an extent. But when the estimated operational value is $250 million, the value of the hardware and software and everything else needed to operate the network still is very significant. It also depends quite a bit on who would be interested in obtaining the network and why. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jan 20, 2024 19:24:13 GMT -8
Yep, they're basically folding up tent, at which point a used tent is worth pennies on the dollar in a lot of cases. Yes, to an extent. But when the estimated operational value is $250 million, the value of the hardware and software and everything else needed to operate the network still is very significant. It also depends quite a bit on who would be interested in obtaining the network and why. But, with 2 teams, we’re not spending millions to operate it, when no network wants it. So, yes, it is worthless. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 20, 2024 19:37:29 GMT -8
"Worthless." "zero value" LOL. One network level camera alone can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
But it's worthless because the Pac-2 isn't going to use it. LOL. The Pac-2 clearly has no option to sell or use it as leverage. After all, it's worthless.
I'm done with this argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jan 20, 2024 19:41:05 GMT -8
"Worthless." "zero value" LOL. One network level camera alone can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. But it's worthless because the Pac-2 isn't going to use it. LOL. The Pac-2 clearly has no option to sell or use it as leverage. After all, it's worthless. I'm done with this argument. I already said we could liquidate the equipment, but yes, if no network wants to broadcast it, it’s worth very little. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Jan 20, 2024 19:45:09 GMT -8
"Worthless." "zero value" LOL. One network level camera alone can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. But it's worthless because the Pac-2 isn't going to use it. LOL. The Pac-2 clearly has no option to sell or use it as leverage. After all, it's worthless. I'm done with this argument. I already said we could liquidate the equipment, but yes, if no network wants to broadcast it, it’s worth very little. OK, fine. The Pac-2 can liquidate the equipment. So it's not worthless. And the cameras (provided they are in good condition) will go for quite a bit of money. OK, now I will take my leave. This is really more about the stuff rgeorge has been claiming, not really too much about your points. |
|
|
|
Post by p8nted on Jan 20, 2024 20:20:03 GMT -8
So for the next two years the PAC 2 lives with maybe a $1 million dollar TV deal while bleeding cash. We will have little incoming TV money while paying the MWC $14 million a year and the WCC about $1 million a year for giving us schedules. Why stop at 1 million? The Pac 2 should ask for a thousand dollar deal! Seriously, the Pac-2 are probably going to lose money, as far as comparative media deal values go when comparing the last deal to whatever short term deal they can dig up this upcoming year, but I think they'll do better than a million. PAC 2 has about 17 games to sell. WCC BB games are worthless other than Gonzaga. ESPN and FOX will have Pacific and western times zone Football games with the BIG 12 and BIG 10 that they never had before. MWC home games with OSU and WSU, at their stadiums, can be picked up under their TV deal. We don't offer much to a media company. |
|
|
|
Post by p8nted on Jan 20, 2024 20:30:34 GMT -8
None of what you mention is leverage unless someone else wants it. I'm not guessing about the future. We're taking right now and at this time the Pac2 has zero leverage to create a media deal. They have zero funds to run a network... meaning it's essentially worth nothing. They have two teams, not a conference worth. They are a tiny media market. No leverage doesn't mean groveling. It means your not able to create a deal from a position of power. The Pac2 needs a media member to want them. The Pac2 can "want" all they like, but until a media partner comes forth they are at the mercy of what they can currently find. Hence, the two alliances. The Pac2 needs schedules. They had to pay to get them. Is that leverage or having to negotiate from a position of need? As for the future... reverse merger or another offer... again the Pac2 doesn't have a superior negotiating position and it will depend on those that provide the funds... media partners. By my definition that's not leverage. So if the Pac-2 has zero leverage to create a media deal, do you think it will get a media deal for the non-MWC games in 2024? The Pac-12 Network is absolutely worth money. Do you think the Pac-2 would give it away (in whatever form)? Who needs it? Pac 2 cannot afford to run it and the pac 2 does not provide enough content anyway. BIG 10 has its own network as does the BIG 12. MWC used to have a TV network but it folded when BYU, UTAH, and TCU left. G5 leagues simply cannot support their own TV network. Something is only worth what someone will pay for it. |
|
|
|
Post by p8nted on Jan 20, 2024 20:30:54 GMT -8
Why stop at 1 million? The Pac 2 should ask for a thousand dollar deal! Seriously, the Pac-2 are probably going to lose money, as far as comparative media deal values go when comparing the last deal to whatever short term deal they can dig up this upcoming year, but I think they'll do better than a million. PAC 2 has about 13 games to sell. WCC BB games are worthless other than Gonzaga. ESPN and FOX will have Pacific and western times zone Football games with the BIG 12 and BIG 10 that they never had before. MWC home games with OSU and WSU, at their stadiums, can be picked up under their TV deal. We don't offer much to a media company. |
|
