PDA

View Full Version : Big Market vs Small Market


Fenway
12-25-2011, 05:40 PM
A San Diego columnist looks at 2 TV deals 60 miles apart....

Anaheim will get $150 million a year

Padres will get $20 million

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/dec/19/big-money-hurting-small-market-teams-padres/


One look at the rank of TV markets shows you at a glance where the powerhouse RSN's are being built.

http://www.tvb.org/media/file/TVB_Market_Profiles_Nielsen_Household_DMA_RANKS.pd f

HOWEVER the key stat is number of cable or satellite homes - Chicago has a lower percentage than other markets

http://admin.tvb.org/iframe/dma/cable_and_ads_penetration_by_dma.asp?sortby=DMAWir edCable

I think we will see in the next 5 years a push to split local TV revenue 30 ways...but you would need two-thirds of teams to agree.

Compounding the issue are the team owned RSN's like YES and NESN who collect both ways.

San Diego is the second largest city in California but doesn't have vast suburbs or any chance of growth as it has LA to the north, a desert to the east, an ocean to the west and Mexico to the south.

I don't have an answer.

Southsider101
12-25-2011, 05:58 PM
With Las Vegas ranked 40th behind Birmingham, AL, this is probably the number one reason they will never get a major league team. I never realized their market was that small.

Fenway
12-25-2011, 06:04 PM
With Las Vegas ranked 40th behind Birmingham, AL, this is probably the number one reason they will never get a major league team. I never realized their market was that small.

And there is no region to build a network - go 25 miles out of town and you are looking at nothing.

Carolinas offer a lot of TV homes when you combine Raleigh, Charlotte and Greenville markets.

Southsider101
12-25-2011, 06:15 PM
And there is no region to build a network - go 25 miles out of town and you are looking at nothing.

Carolinas offer a lot of TV homes when you combine Raleigh, Charlotte and Greenville markets.

And, that Las Vegas may well show a decline in population when the 2020 census is taken. It will take a LONG time before the economy returns to normal in that city and casinos return 1990s employment levels.

Fenway
12-25-2011, 06:20 PM
And, that Las Vegas may well show a decline in population when the 2020 census is taken. It will take a LONG time before the economy returns to normal in that city and casinos return 1990s employment levels.

It may never happen...

High rollers now seem to prefer casinos in China. Then with more and more states opening casinos the market is getting spread around.

Johnny Mostil
12-25-2011, 07:09 PM
http://admin.tvb.org/iframe/dma/cable_and_ads_penetration_by_dma.asp?sortby=DMAWir edCable



What is ADS?

Why is Boise so low for cable/ADS penetration? (I didn't see any market lower, but may have overlooked one.)

MisterB
12-25-2011, 07:21 PM
What is ADS?

Why is Boise so low for cable/ADS penetration? (I didn't see any market lower, but may have overlooked one.)

ADS = Alternate Delivery Systems

Which basically means satellite dish (as opposed to wired cable TV).

See this (http://www.tvb.org/media/file/TVB_PB_Political_Bulletin_What_is_ADS.pdf).

DSpivack
12-25-2011, 07:26 PM
ADS = Alternate Delivery Systems

Which basically means satellite dish (as opposed to wired cable TV).

See this (http://www.tvb.org/media/file/TVB_PB_Political_Bulletin_What_is_ADS.pdf).

That says that 60% of Americans have wired cable while 30% of Americans have satellite. 90% of Americans have either cable or satellite? Why does that seem really high to me?

Johnny Mostil
12-25-2011, 07:26 PM
ADS = Alternate Delivery Systems

Which basically means satellite dish (as opposed to wired cable TV).

See this (http://www.tvb.org/media/file/TVB_PB_Political_Bulletin_What_is_ADS.pdf).

Thanks!

Johnny Mostil
12-25-2011, 07:27 PM
That says that 60% of Americans have wired cable while 30% of Americans have satellite. 90% of Americans have either cable or satellite? Why does that seem really high to me?

I was a little surprised at first, but then I remembered some time (years) ago that 75 percent had cable or satellite. And that was before troglodytes like me finally got it. Aside from my parents, I don't know anybody without it. Maybe I don't get out enough.

Fenway
12-25-2011, 07:28 PM
What is ADS?

Why is Boise so low for cable/ADS penetration? (I didn't see any market lower, but may have overlooked one.)


Alternate delivery system (ADS) -- mostly via direct broadcast satellite.

Maybe Lip can shed some light those Idaho numbers.

Fenway
12-25-2011, 07:33 PM
That says that 60% of Americans have wired cable while 30% of Americans have satellite. 90% of Americans have either cable or satellite? Why does that seem really high to me?

One factor in the past few years was OTA television switching to digital - with old analog signals you could get at least a snowy picture OTA - example I used to get the Providence stations 40 miles away - with digital I can't get a picture. I know on the north side and Evanston it is next to impossible to get WBBM-TV with a digital box.

DSpivack
12-25-2011, 07:36 PM
One factor in the past few years was OTA television switching to digital - with old analog signals you could get at least a snowy picture OTA - example I used to get the Providence stations 40 miles away - with digital I can't get a picture. I know on the north side and Evanston it is next to impossible to get WBBM-TV with a digital box.

I get it fine over the air in Evanston--and that tv/antenna is in the basement.

Fenway
12-25-2011, 07:42 PM
I get it fine over the air in Evanston--and that tv/antenna is in the basement.

You are lucky - New York City is hideous for OTA digital - everybody is on the Empire State Building but the signal is nowhere as good as it was from the WTC :whiner:

Daver
12-25-2011, 07:46 PM
I think we will see in the next 5 years a push to split local TV revenue 30 ways...but you would need two-thirds of teams to agree.


Bill Veeck tried to accomplish that over forty years ago, when the revenues were a penny on the dollar to what they are today, with the numbers being what they are now you will never see this happen without a strong autonomous commissioner.

Fenway
12-25-2011, 07:52 PM
Bill Veeck tried to accomplish that over forty years ago, when the revenues were a penny on the dollar to what they are today, with the numbers being what they are now you will never see this happen without a strong autonomous commissioner.

Veeck was screaming 60 years ago when he owned the Browns.

The Yankees out of pure hatred for Veeck would schedule weekday afternoon games to deprive the Browns of a night game gate ( visiting teams back then got a share of the gate )

One person knew Veeck was right - Pete Rozelle who broke up the Giants, Browns and Bears networks to the equal TV revenue for all. Halas went along with it knowing otherwise Green Bay would be forced to move to Milwaukee.

A lot of people think Selig knows who will replace him - Larry Lucchino.

DSpivack
12-25-2011, 07:53 PM
You are lucky - New York City is hideous for OTA digital - everybody is on the Empire State Building but the signal is nowhere as good as it was from the WTC :whiner:

Will they switch to 1WTC when that is completed?

Fenway
12-25-2011, 08:08 PM
Will they switch to 1WTC when that is completed?

As of now - no

http://www.observer.com/2009/real-estate/signal-trouble-freedom-tower

A little background

http://www.ab9il.net/new-york/tv-september11.html

ComiskeyBrewer
12-26-2011, 12:09 AM
Veeck was screaming 60 years ago when he owned the Browns.

The Yankees out of pure hatred for Veeck would schedule weekday afternoon games to deprive the Browns of a night game gate ( visiting teams back then got a share of the gate )

One person knew Veeck was right - Pete Rozelle who broke up the Giants, Browns and Bears networks to the equal TV revenue for all. Halas went along with it knowing otherwise Green Bay would be forced to move to Milwaukee.

A lot of people think Selig knows who will replace him - Larry Lucchino.

Is that a bad thing?

Fenway
12-26-2011, 12:25 AM
Is that a bad thing?

The man has run 3 teams - Orioles, Padres and Red Sox. I can tell you that he does love the game.

A Princeton basketball teammate has said Larry was the smartest guy in the room and that is pretty high praise coming from Bill Bradley.

TDog
12-26-2011, 12:51 AM
Veeck was screaming 60 years ago when he owned the Browns.

The Yankees out of pure hatred for Veeck would schedule weekday afternoon games to deprive the Browns of a night game gate ( visiting teams back then got a share of the gate )

One person knew Veeck was right - Pete Rozelle who broke up the Giants, Browns and Bears networks to the equal TV revenue for all. Halas went along with it knowing otherwise Green Bay would be forced to move to Milwaukee.

A lot of people think Selig knows who will replace him - Larry Lucchino.

There is a huge difference between football television and baseball television. And 60 years ago, there were teams that only had a couple dozen games televised at all. All football games are national telecasts with regional distribution. I have no idea why people would watch a football game involving two teams in which they have no interest, but people who post here do, apparently the requirement being that it be on. At the same time, many people who post here wouldn't watch a regular season baseball game unless the White Sox are playing.

The nature of football, with teams playing no more than once a week, fits well with national television. But there are more major league baseball games in a month than there are football games in an entire NFL season.

If local broadcast rights money were divided equally among MLB teams, it certainly would close the gap between the haves and the have-nots, although if MLB negotiated local contracts, there might not be as much paid for local contracts.

Baseball evolved differently as a professional sport than others did. If baseball had nationalized their television 60 years ago, I don't know that baseball would be any better off today.

Fenway
12-26-2011, 01:01 AM
The whole situation is nuts. Anaheim has terrible ratings yet FOX thinks they are worth 150M a year.

This gives you an idea at the monster YES has become

http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4015:nesn-highest-rated-regional-sports-network-in-2009&catid=57:television&Itemid=122




There is a huge difference between football television and baseball television. And 60 years ago, there were teams that only had a couple dozen games televised at all. All football games are national telecasts with regional distribution. I have no idea why people would watch a football game involving two teams in which they have no interest, but people who post here do, apparently the requirement being that it be on. At the same time, many people who post here wouldn't watch a regular season baseball game unless the White Sox are playing.

The nature of football, with teams playing no more than once a week, fits well with national television. But there are more major league baseball games in a month than there are football games in an entire NFL season.

If local broadcast rights money were divided equally among MLB teams, it certainly would close the gap between the haves and the have-nots, although if MLB negotiated local contracts, there might not be as much paid for local contracts.

Baseball evolved differently as a professional sport than others did. If baseball had nationalized their television 60 years ago, I don't know that baseball would be any better off today.

PKalltheway
12-26-2011, 09:35 PM
I have no idea why people would watch a football game involving two teams in which they have no interest, but people who post here do, apparently the requirement being that it be on. At the same time, many people who post here wouldn't watch a regular season baseball game unless the White Sox are playing.


:offtopic:
Gambling, especially fantasy football. Sure, you have die-hard football fans who will watch any game, but gambling is the biggest reason by far.

I'm exactly the opposite. I'll watch just about any MLB game, regardless of the time of season, White Sox or not. However, I cannot watch any NFL game, regardless of who's playing. I don't have a favorite NFL team, so unless the game is of significance, I usually have no interest in watching.

Regarding the topic at hand, with these teams getting huge TV deals, I see no reason why the Sox can't do the same in the near future. They may have their hand forced if they want to stay competitive. In the third-largest city in the country, I see no reason why they shouldn't go after this. What would be the detriment?

Daver
12-26-2011, 09:52 PM
A lot of people think Selig knows who will replace him - Larry Lucchino.

If that happens there will be no change whatsoever to the current status quo, in fact I would not be surprised to see things become worse. Larry Lucchino is a businessman first and foremost, I doubt he gives a rat's ass about the sport itself.

TDog
12-26-2011, 10:40 PM
:offtopic:
Gambling, especially fantasy football. Sure, you have die-hard football fans who will watch any game, but gambling is the biggest reason by far.

I'm exactly the opposite. I'll watch just about any MLB game, regardless of the time of season, White Sox or not. However, I cannot watch any NFL game, regardless of who's playing. I don't have a favorite NFL team, so unless the game is of significance, I usually have no interest in watching.

Regarding the topic at hand, with these teams getting huge TV deals, I see no reason why the Sox can't do the same in the near future. They may have their hand forced if they want to stay competitive. In the third-largest city in the country, I see no reason why they shouldn't go after this. What would be the detriment?

Except, perhaps, that the Cubs are more popular and are notoriously better at supporting their team. I don't see the White Sox getting anywhere near the sort of deal you're talking about, regardless of the size of the Chicago market.

Not that I disagree with your entire post. It's nice to see someone who sort of agrees with me on the football, although I wouldn't consider a football game significant unless the fate of civilization as we know it hangs in the balance.

Fenway
12-26-2011, 11:37 PM
The way RSN's work is they charge $x.xx per all subscribers to the cable and satellite companies. The only figure I have seen for CSN-Chicago is that WOW and RCN pay $2.35 a month. How Comcast bills itself I have no idea.

Chicago consumers are lucky as they only have one RSN to feed - Boston has 2 (NESN and CSN) and NY has 3 (YES, SNY and MSG)

As this chart shows Boston is heavily wired for cable ( very small percentage for satellite) because of the way Comcast and Verizon bundle internet.

http://admin.tvb.org/iframe/dma/cable_and_ads_penetration_by_dma.asp?sortby=DMAWir edCable

Cable companies can insert local ads on games, and really make them local - dish companies can't do that.

The conventional wisdom is Ricketts will try to start Cubs TV as soon as he can. Comcast to prevent that might offer the Cubs a deal at a higher rate and start a second channel like they did in the Bay Area (A's and Giants were split). The betting is Ricketts will still go off on his own and would try and take the Hawks with him.

Bottom line is both Chicago teams will be in the Top 10 for TV. What WILL happen is the number of games on WGN will shrink as OTA simply can not compete with the 2 way revenue stream that cable has.

The explosion of RSN fees started in 2001 and can be traced backed to NESN deciding to go from being a pay channel like HBO to basic.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-74946142.html

That move prompted the Yankees to leave MSG cable and form YES in 2002.

Up until 2001 NESN cost $10-12 a month and had a buy rate of about 30% in the Boston market. 50% of the games were OTA.

The Red Sox fell into this because it was their partner with NESN the Bruins who refused to sell off or dissolve the channel so they limped along. There is a reason Jeremy Jacobs is in the Forbes 400. The man looks at things long term.

Steinbrenner starting YES forced the Mets to form SNY and it left Dolan (MSG) with no summer games.

One thing about Chicago puzzles me is why there has been no massive attempt to cultivate the Hispanic market by either team. Now granted Northeast Hispanics tend to be from Puerto Rico and the Dominican and Illinois the population tends to be Mexican. But Hispanics love baseball in SoCal so...

Lip Man 1
12-27-2011, 01:04 AM
Some have been posting that games on WGN America will shrink or disapper completely for how many years now???????????????? Five? Six??

:cool:

Hasn't happened yet (and won't...) But fee free to keep saying that they will.

Lip

DSpivack
12-27-2011, 01:09 AM
Some have been posting that games on WGN America will shrink or disapper completely for how many years now???????????????? Five? Six??

:cool:

Hasn't happened yet (and won't...) But fee free to keep saying that they will.

Lip

Aren't there fewer games every year on WGN?

Lip Man 1
12-27-2011, 01:26 AM
Spivak:

No. The Sox continue to have around 35 games or so every season on WGN America.

They may have one or two or three less, depending on a year than originally planned for when all was said and done, because the game was moved to ESPN or Fox because the team was in contention.

My point was that some have been saying on these boards for literally years (feel free to look it up) that the Sox are going to go off WGN America completely.

All I can say is that the Sox continue to have games on WGN America and when I bring these comments up to the folks in the Sox broadcasting department directly they chuckle and then say the Sox aren't going anywhere, that they feel the games on WGN America help promote the team nationally something that is important to JR.

In fact JR has communicated to me directly that he realizes that because of the way things have shook out there are a lot of Sox fans who don't live in the Chicago area and that giving them the chance to see some games is important.

Take it for what that's worth to you.

Lip

DSpivack
12-27-2011, 02:28 AM
Spivak:

No. The Sox continue to have around 35 games or so every season on WGN America.

They may have one or two or three less, depending on a year than originally planned for when all was said and done, because the game was moved to ESPN or Fox because the team was in contention.

My point was that some have been saying on these boards for literally years (feel free to look it up) that the Sox are going to go off WGN America completely.

All I can say is that the Sox continue to have games on WGN America and when I bring these comments up to the folks in the Sox broadcasting department directly they chuckle and then say the Sox aren't going anywhere, that they feel the games on WGN America help promote the team nationally something that is important to JR.

In fact JR has communicated to me directly that he realizes that because of the way things have shook out there are a lot of Sox fans who don't live in the Chicago area and that giving them the chance to see some games is important.

Take it for what that's worth to you.

Lip

Lip:

Thanks.

Fenway
12-27-2011, 09:53 AM
The truth is MLB (for reasons only known to Selig) did not enforce the superstation ban on WGN. Selig was able to eliminate superstations in NY, Boston, Dallas and LA. The current deal has WGN America paying MLB directly for the rights to show games outside of the Chicago market and the revenue is split by all 30 teams.

TBS agreed to give up the Braves but in turn got the MLB package. The Braves are still on Channel 17 in Atlanta but that is not distributed (with the exception of Canada) outside of Georgia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WPCH-TV#Transition_to_Peachtree_TV

The Red Sox no longer care as they severed all relationships with WSBK after 2004 but the team angry about this is the Yankees. NYY and WWOR (Rupert Murdoch) want the same right to deliver games outside of NY.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWOR-TV#Sports_programming

The Yankees still despises Tribune owned WPIX for the way they dropped Yankees telecasts for the Mets.





Spivak:

No. The Sox continue to have around 35 games or so every season on WGN America.

They may have one or two or three less, depending on a year than originally planned for when all was said and done, because the game was moved to ESPN or Fox because the team was in contention.

My point was that some have been saying on these boards for literally years (feel free to look it up) that the Sox are going to go off WGN America completely.

All I can say is that the Sox continue to have games on WGN America and when I bring these comments up to the folks in the Sox broadcasting department directly they chuckle and then say the Sox aren't going anywhere, that they feel the games on WGN America help promote the team nationally something that is important to JR.

In fact JR has communicated to me directly that he realizes that because of the way things have shook out there are a lot of Sox fans who don't live in the Chicago area and that giving them the chance to see some games is important.

Take it for what that's worth to you.

Lip

palehozenychicty
12-27-2011, 10:54 AM
Except, perhaps, that the Cubs are more popular and are notoriously better at supporting their team. I don't see the White Sox getting anywhere near the sort of deal you're talking about, regardless of the size of the Chicago market.

Not that I disagree with your entire post. It's nice to see someone who sort of agrees with me on the football, although I wouldn't consider a football game significant unless the fate of civilization as we know it hangs in the balance.

The Angels just got a $150 million television deal and rank in the bottom third of local ratings viewership. The Sox could get that as a starting point in negotiations. The Angels are considered the second team in the LA metro area. It's not impossible.

We get that you don't like football. Who cares?

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

Fenway
12-27-2011, 11:29 AM
The Angels just got a $150 million television deal and rank in the bottom third of local ratings viewership. The Sox could get that as a starting point in negotiations. The Angels are considered the second team in the LA metro area. It's not impossible.

We get that you don't like football. Who cares?

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

Negotiate with who? Anaheim lucked out as Time-Warner wants baseball badly for the new Lakers channel. FOX has 2 sports channels in LA and doesn't want to lose baseball.

JR has always had the leverage because of his Bulls ownership. What happened in the Bay Area is most likely how Chicago will play out

Oakland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_SportsNet_California

San Francisco
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSN_Bay_Area

There have been some whispers that CSN would like to use WMAQ-TV (which they now own) for some overflow games which has happened in SF on NBC11.

PKalltheway
12-27-2011, 01:28 PM
The Red Sox no longer care as they severed all relationships with WSBK after 2004 but the team angry about this is the Yankees. NYY and WWOR (Rupert Murdoch) want the same right to deliver games outside of NY.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWOR-TV#Sports_programming

The Yankees still despises Tribune owned WPIX for the way they dropped Yankees telecasts for the Mets.
As strange as it sounds, could that be why MLB still allows WGN America broadcasts? Just to spite the Yankees? Could that be MLB's way of telling the Yankees to **** off? Heck, they can't get their way all of the damn time just so they can further their ridiculous stranglehold on baseball.

I would love for the Yankees to give one good reason as to how WGN America is hurting them. Also, I'd love for them to articulate their reasoning without getting laughed out of the room. They really have no need to have their own superstation because they're on national TV all the damn time anyway, they make more money than any other team and they have a national following. Honestly, I have to agree with Lip here. I'll believe it when I see it.

Fenway
12-27-2011, 01:45 PM
I think it is more Rupert Murdoch behind this as he owns WWOR. 20 years ago channel 9 in NY was a major superstation but they shut it down when they were told they could not show sports outside of NY.

Murdoch has no love for any of the Chicago players. Remember FOX Sports Chicago just vanished when CSN started up. In other markets the old SportsChannel (Philly, Boston, and San Francisco) was bought by Comcast but that didn't happen in Illinois.

The reality is that games on WGN will become less and less simply because the teams make more money from cable. When a second sports channel in Chicago is launched ( and that WILL happen) - you will see the WCIU games vanish. The only reason WCIU has games now is there is no other place to put them. Come April and into May the Hawks and Bulls should still be playing and early round games will bump baseball.

Since analog shut down 2 years ago, how many people have you seen ( like watchman, desk clerks ) watching a small portable TV? Most people have basic cable now....it is a non issue.

Out of market MLB wants you to buy Extra Innings or MLB.tv. That is just the way it is.

BTW many cable systems that do offer WGN America do not offer it in HD.

As strange as it sounds, could that be why MLB still allows WGN America broadcasts? Just to spite the Yankees? Could that be MLB's way of telling the Yankees to **** off? Heck, they can't get their way all of the damn time just so they can further their ridiculous stranglehold on baseball.

I would love for the Yankees to give one good reason as to how WGN America is hurting them. Also, I'd love for them to articulate their reasoning without getting laughed out of the room. They really have no need to have their own superstation because they're on national TV all the damn time anyway, they make more money than any other team and they have a national following. Honestly, I have to agree with Lip here. I'll believe it when I see it.

Lip Man 1
12-27-2011, 02:03 PM
PK:

Like I told Spivak, I asked the folks actually in charge of the Sox broadcasting end on this subject, not (and I say this with respect...) a technician, a producer or a camera guy.

They laughed and said there's nothing to it.

Can they be lying? Sure...but that would be out of character for them.

Could JR be "shading the truth" in his comments to me? Again it's possible but I don't know what he'd stand to gain. He'll do what he wants regardless of if the fans like it or not, he always has...so why lie? He seems to understand the importance of allowing the Sox to have some games shown to their fans who don't live in the Chicago area.

As to the Yankees "argument" I agree with you...my heart bleeds for those "poor" souls. Just another example where the Northeast wants to play by a different set of rules from everyone else because they think they are better somehow.

Ultimately of course the person postulating these comments year after year, crying wolf! could turn out to be right....it may be in another 20 years, but he could be right. LOL. :D:

Lip

Lip Man 1
12-27-2011, 02:37 PM
There's also potentially another factor involved in this situation from a legal precedent standpoint.

The NBA and David Stern tried to force Superstation WGN and JR to stop showing Bulls games nationally. JR (and I'm surprised at this) didn't back down, took the NBA to court and won. Ultimately both sides compromised and about 10 - 15 games a year are shown on WGN America (what it's called now...)

I don't know specifically why he won (restraint of trade?) but if MLB (or more specifically the Red Sox / Yankees tandem) try to play hardball and force the Sox off nationally they are going to have to show how this case differs from the NBA one and how it is harming them.

That may be very hard to do given the income they get (which they might not want revealed under cross examination since their books would have to be opened ) and how much they spend on team payroll.

Perhaps some folks with a legal background can weigh in on this.

Lip

TDog
12-27-2011, 08:05 PM
The Angels just got a $150 million television deal and rank in the bottom third of local ratings viewership. The Sox could get that as a starting point in negotiations. The Angels are considered the second team in the LA metro area. It's not impossible.

We get that you don't like football. Who cares?

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner


I wasn't the first to bring up football in this thread. And I agree that the way the NFL handles television and television money is 100 percent irrelevant to major league baseball. It shouldn't have been brought up in the first place, which would have spared you the agony of my commenting on the point.

It is also ridiculous to think that anyone is handing out television contracts like the one Anaheim got. The White Sox don't have some sort of right to that kind of money just because Anaheim got lucky.

When the White Sox don't get such a huge broadcast contract, I'm sure there will be a segment of WSI that will complain that they had no interest in seeking more money to generate more money that they could spend on building a winning team.

ComiskeyBrewer
12-27-2011, 08:06 PM
I think it is more Rupert Murdoch behind this as he owns WWOR. 20 years ago channel 9 in NY was a major superstation but they shut it down when they were told they could not show sports outside of NY.

Murdoch has no love for any of the Chicago players. Remember FOX Sports Chicago just vanished when CSN started up. In other markets the old SportsChannel (Philly, Boston, and San Francisco) was bought by Comcast but that didn't happen in Illinois.

The reality is that games on WGN will become less and less simply because the teams make more money from cable. When a second sports channel in Chicago is launched ( and that WILL happen) - you will see the WCIU games vanish. The only reason WCIU has games now is there is no other place to put them. Come April and into May the Hawks and Bulls should still be playing and early round games will bump baseball.

Since analog shut down 2 years ago, how many people have you seen ( like watchman, desk clerks ) watching a small portable TV? Most people have basic cable now....it is a non issue.

Out of market MLB wants you to buy Extra Innings or MLB.tv. That is just the way it is.

BTW many cable systems that do offer WGN America do not offer it in HD.


I can vouch for this. Charter doesn't offer WGN America in HD, and i live less than about 2 hours from downtown chicago. I usually won't watch them because of that.

Fenway
12-27-2011, 08:38 PM
There's also potentially another factor involved in this situation from a legal precedent standpoint.

The NBA and David Stern tried to force Superstation WGN and JR to stop showing Bulls games nationally. JR (and I'm surprised at this) didn't back down, took the NBA to court and won. Ultimately both sides compromised and about 10 - 15 games a year are shown on WGN America (what it's called now...)

I don't know specifically why he won (restraint of trade?) but if MLB (or more specifically the Red Sox / Yankees tandem) try to play hardball and force the Sox off nationally they are going to have to show how this case differs from the NBA one and how it is harming them.

That may be very hard to do given the income they get (which they might not want revealed under cross examination since their books would have to be opened ) and how much they spend on team payroll.

Perhaps some folks with a legal background can weigh in on this.

Lip

I don't know how many times I have to write this. First it is a non-issue with Boston since they have no local OTA games except what is on FOX.

However from a legal standpoint the Yankees and Murdoch WWOR have a valid argument. If the White Sox and Cubs games can be carried out of market, why can't the Yankees do the same?


What is really odd about WGN America is they are NOT allowed to show Hawks games on the nationwide feed. The NHL flat out refused it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WGN_America#Sports_programming

In Canada you can see Hawks games as the cable outlets there pickup the Chicago feed.

WGN America is for the most part not available on cable in New England. We used to get Tribune owned WPIX New York but that vanished years ago.

Brian26
12-27-2011, 10:35 PM
The Angels just got a $150 million television deal and rank in the bottom third of local ratings viewership. The Sox could get that as a starting point in negotiations. The Angels are considered the second team in the LA metro area. It's not impossible.

Not a chance in hell that happens with the Sox.

Daver
12-27-2011, 11:10 PM
There's also potentially another factor involved in this situation from a legal precedent standpoint.

The NBA and David Stern tried to force Superstation WGN and JR to stop showing Bulls games nationally. JR (and I'm surprised at this) didn't back down, took the NBA to court and won. Ultimately both sides compromised and about 10 - 15 games a year are shown on WGN America (what it's called now...)

I don't know specifically why he won (restraint of trade?) but if MLB (or more specifically the Red Sox / Yankees tandem) try to play hardball and force the Sox off nationally they are going to have to show how this case differs from the NBA one and how it is harming them.

That may be very hard to do given the income they get (which they might not want revealed under cross examination since their books would have to be opened ) and how much they spend on team payroll.

Perhaps some folks with a legal background can weigh in on this.



The main difference is that the NBA is a business, and MLB is not.

Fenway
12-28-2011, 02:14 AM
Not a chance in hell that happens with the Sox.

Ahhh but it could. JR controls a summer and winter team.

Problem is that Bob Grim is considered to be a lightweight in the baseball TV biz ( he does what he is told to do )

Tribune still only clears the Sox on WGN when it works for them, otherwise the games go to WCIU ( produced by WGN ) - in the city The U is a viable option, go 40 miles out of Chicago not so much.

I know for a fact that WPWR-TV offered the Sox a deal and it would have included some games on WFLD-TV but the Sox decided to stay with Tribune for less money.

Seriously, the White Sox have been on WGN for 2 decades and have made NO dent nationally - that is a fact. A deal with My50 and sister station WFLD would make far more sense to the team in attracting people who will buy seats. Easy promotion - SOX ON FOX.



The main difference is that the NBA is a business, and MLB is not.

The NHL has done a gar better job in recent years than MLB.

PKalltheway
12-28-2011, 03:52 AM
Seriously, the White Sox have been on WGN for 2 decades and have made NO dent nationally - that is a fact.
Well, when you have only 30 or so games on WGN per year (with a lot of them being on Saturday nights), would you expect them to? Especially with the Cubs having significantly more games on the same channel during the same timeframe? Are you surprised by this? If the Sox had the amount of games on WGN that the Cubs had, or even the amount the Braves had on TBS, it would be a different story.

If MLB wanted to stop games from being broadcasted nationally on WGN, they would have do so already. If the Yankees were that upset by not being allowed to broadcast nationally while the Cubs and Sox are still allowed to, I'm sure they would have pressed the issue considerably further than they have. They're making out fine with the YES Network, and really, what reason do they have to be upset about anything?

Brian26
12-28-2011, 10:11 AM
Ahhh but it could. JR controls a summer and winter team.

Problem is that Bob Grim is considered to be a lightweight in the baseball TV biz ( he does what he is told to do )

Tribune still only clears the Sox on WGN when it works for them, otherwise the games go to WCIU ( produced by WGN ) - in the city The U is a viable option, go 40 miles out of Chicago not so much.

I know for a fact that WPWR-TV offered the Sox a deal and it would have included some games on WFLD-TV but the Sox decided to stay with Tribune for less money.

Seriously, the White Sox have been on WGN for 2 decades and have made NO dent nationally - that is a fact. A deal with My50 and sister station WFLD would make far more sense to the team in attracting people who will buy seats. Easy promotion - SOX ON FOX.


If that is true, the Sox made a wise decision to stay on WGN. Channel 9 is easy to find on satellite and cable, and they always will have a good lead-in and a good follow with the local news, especially on the weekends. I can't tell you the last time I watched Ch. 50, and I'm not even sure where it is on the satellite. It wouldn't have been a disaster like move to Channel 44 was 35+ years ago, but it would have hurt the Sox marketability. I don't think they're worried about making a dent nationally. WGN gives them more presence locally than being buried again on the dead high-number former UHF station. Also, the Tribune plays commercials on WGN and runs ads in the paper promoting Sox games. It's a win-win.

Brian26
12-28-2011, 10:16 AM
Well, when you have only 30 or so games on WGN per year (with a lot of them being on Saturday nights), would you expect them to? Especially with the Cubs having significantly more games on the same channel during the same timeframe?

Actually, the Cubs don't have that many more games than the Sox on WGN anymore, and you could actually argue that the Sox get better timeslots. The Cubs only run about 50+ games on Channel 9, and most of those are day games. Most of the 30 Sox games on WGN are weekend games.

Considering the Cubs used to broadcast all 162 games on WGN, and now the number is down to 50, I wouldn't say they get significantly more coverage than the Sox.

Lip Man 1
12-28-2011, 12:40 PM
Fenway:

You make the claim that you know of a deal potentially for more money that the Sox turned down.

Please list the specifics. (when, how much money, how long ago, with whom, details etc.) I want to follow up on this with the individuals that I know.

I'd like to try to get to the bottom of this and see, if this took place, how much money the Sox are 'losing.' If its not a sizable amount then I quote Spock..."a difference, that makes no difference is no difference.'

Like I said list the details, PM me if you prefer and I'll take it from there. This sounds like a serious charge to me and I'd like to find out the facts.

Lip

gobears1987
12-28-2011, 12:50 PM
Actually, the Cubs don't have that many more games than the Sox on WGN anymore, and you could actually argue that the Sox get better timeslots. The Cubs only run about 50+ games on Channel 9, and most of those are day games. Most of the 30 Sox games on WGN are weekend games.

Considering the Cubs used to broadcast all 162 games on WGN, and now the number is down to 50, I wouldn't say they get significantly more coverage than the Sox.

I'd imagine the Cubs want to make that number lower too since they get a good deal more money from a CSN game than they do from a WGN game.

Lip Man 1
12-28-2011, 10:16 PM
There are some serious items being discussed in this thread, if any are true, it could have a real impact on the Sox franchise themselves.

I've passed along to all of you what I've been told but there's always a chance that things could have changed.

So this evening I sent out an e-mail summarizing the three main points that have been brought up in this thread:

1. The 'fact' the Sox turned down a deal with WPWR and WFLD for more money.

2. The possibility of Tom Ricketts starting his own 'Cubs TV' network and potentially taking the Hawks with him. (which could devalue the existing deals the Sox have in the market.)

3. The 'fact' that the Sox are going to be taken off WGN America in part because of pressure from the Yankees and Mets.

I sent this out to 17 individuals connected with the Sox organization, the mainstream Chicago media and Comcast Sports Chicago that I know with a request for any information they can provide for a potential story. I promised them that unless they gave me permission I would not use their names.

We'll see what comes from this. With New Year's approaching I don't expect many responces until next week.

Whatever I get I'll pass along, perhaps in a story for the main page. I'm curious to know if any of these suggestions are in fact true or just the product of an active imagination.

Time will tell I guess.

Lip

Fenway
12-28-2011, 10:24 PM
If you read the PM I wrote you the issue is more WCIU than anything else.

The Mets to the best of my knowledge are not involved - their OTA partner happens to be Tribune owned WPIX.

If you didn't include the WCIU issues in your email you were 'sloppy'.






There are some serious items being discussed in this thread, if any are true, it could have a real impact on the Sox franchise themselves.

I've passed along to all of you what I've been told but there's always a chance that things could have changed.

So this evening I sent out an e-mail summarizing the three main points that have been brought up in this thread:

1. The 'fact' the Sox turned down a deal with WPWR and WFLD for more money.

2. The possibility of Tom Ricketts starting his own 'Cubs TV' network and potentially taking the Hawks with him. (which could devalue the existing deals the Sox have in the market.)

3. The 'fact' that the Sox are going to be taken off WGN America in part because of pressure from the Yankees and Mets.

I sent this out to 17 individuals connected with the Sox organization, the mainstream Chicago media and Comcast Sports Chicago that I know with a request for any information they can provide for a potential story. I promised them that unless they gave me permission I would not use their names.

We'll see what comes from this. With New Year's approaching I don't expect many responces until next week.

Whatever I get I'll pass along, perhaps in a story for the main page. I'm curious to know if any of these suggestions are in fact true or just the product of an active imagination.

Time will tell I guess.

Lip

Lip Man 1
12-28-2011, 10:33 PM
I have not received any type of message from you with any information. I checked in my personal e-mail as well as the one here at WSI. I rechecked both just to be sure a few moments ago.

I just got a phone call here at home from an individual connected with the Cubs broadcasting area. They have no knowledge of this matter but also said that if this is taking place it is in upper management which is above their station and they probably wouldn't be getting any of that type of information ahead of time.

From your own comment here on the site at WSI:

"I know for a fact that WPWR-TV offered the Sox a deal and it would have included some games on WFLD-TV but the Sox decided to stay with Tribune for less money" which is exactly what I stated in the e-mail. The issues with WCIU are well known and in fact Bob Grim addresses those issues directly in my interview with him for the web site. That doesn't factor into your original statement however that the Sox turned down a deal with the two stations you specifically named with more money at stake.

For any who may be interested here is the link to the interview with Bob that I did for WSI. He goes into detail on many Sox broadcasting issues:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=11&id=3669

Update: I just read the e-mail sent to me by Fenway at 9:06 and a lot of it is material that Bob Grim talked about in the interview with WSI. Some of the other information was informative and helped provide context to the claims, however (and this might be a matter of semantics) the original comment was "I know for a fact..." etc... but apparently he doesn't know for "a fact" because it's stated that he was told this information by a source. Now that source may be correct, I have no idea who the person is but to state it as "I know for a fact..." implies that the individual was either a direct part of the negotiations or somehow involved in the process and that is not the case.

Lip

Fenway
12-28-2011, 11:02 PM
I sent you a PM 4 hours ago

Lip Man 1
12-28-2011, 11:09 PM
Never received anything.

Lip

Lip Man 1
12-28-2011, 11:13 PM
I just now received your e-mail with a time stamp of 9:06PM.

I'll read it and digest your information.

Lip

Fenway
12-28-2011, 11:19 PM
I just now received your e-mail with a time stamp of 9:06PM.

I'll read it and digest your information.

Lip

The email is a paste from the WSI sent folder from 7 eastern.

TDog
12-28-2011, 11:34 PM
There are some serious items being discussed in this thread, if any are true, it could have a real impact on the Sox franchise themselves.

I've passed along to all of you what I've been told but there's always a chance that things could have changed.

So this evening I sent out an e-mail summarizing the three main points that have been brought up in this thread:

1. The 'fact' the Sox turned down a deal with WPWR and WFLD for more money.

2. The possibility of Tom Ricketts starting his own 'Cubs TV' network and potentially taking the Hawks with him. (which could devalue the existing deals the Sox have in the market.)

3. The 'fact' that the Sox are going to be taken off WGN America in part because of pressure from the Yankees and Mets.

I sent this out to 17 individuals connected with the Sox organization, the mainstream Chicago media and Comcast Sports Chicago that I know with a request for any information they can provide for a potential story. I promised them that unless they gave me permission I would not use their names.

We'll see what comes from this. With New Year's approaching I don't expect many responces until next week.

Whatever I get I'll pass along, perhaps in a story for the main page. I'm curious to know if any of these suggestions are in fact true or just the product of an active imagination.

Time will tell I guess.

Lip

I'm confused. Are you suggesting that it is a serious accusation against White Sox management to suggest they turned down more money to stay on WGN, while it would also be a serious charge to suggest that management is looking to take games off of WGN in the future? The White Sox, under previous management, took more money to move their games to Channel 32 in 1968, and I've never seen anyone praise that decision.

I don't care if the White Sox are on WGN. Since 1983, I've lived in Arizona, Alaska and Wisconsin, and only in Wisconsin, where I lived 125 miles from US Cellular Field, was WGN offered by the local cable company. But I don't know enough about the business decisions that management made to consider anything suggested here to be a serious charge.

Lip Man 1
12-28-2011, 11:43 PM
T-Dog:

1. Yes it is serious and I'm not making that claim, it's Fenway who is stating that he knows for a fact that they turned down more money and a chance to eliminate issues with WCIU. To me that sounds like a win / win proposition for the Sox on the surface. And with the new deals signed by the Rangers and Angels putting them into the stratosphere along with the Yankees and Red Sox, ANY deal that gives the Sox more money to play with is important no?

My point is that I know of no such deal or offer, have not been told anything by my sources in the past and am simply trying to find the truth or non truth in the claim. Nothing more.

2. Again according to Fenway it's not the Sox trying to get off WGN America... he has claimed for the past three years that the games are going away and cites 'pressure' from the Yankees on MLB as part of the reason. As of this date they still are on WGN America. I'm simply trying to get to the truth to see if there is anything behind his claims or if they are just rumors or personal impressions.

As far as my personal opinion on the Sox / WGN America issue... it is important to me. I get WGN America via DirecTV. I can not afford the MLB Extra Innings package. Those 35 games a season on WGN America are a big deal, especially in seasons where they have at least a winning record or are in contention. Personally I do not want to have that option taken away from me because the Yankees are pissed they can't get another billion dollars to inflate their already bloated payroll.

Lip

Lip Man 1
12-29-2011, 12:29 AM
Have just gotten a response from a friend / source who works at WFLD-TV. Here is the reply:

"Well, well. Conspiracy theories abound. Afraid I can't add much to this, at least as far as WGN is concerned.

The Ricketts rumors could well be true. It makes sense and I've heard rumblings, but nothing definitive. The deal though with CSN still has several years to run. I would doubt the Blackhawks would just follow in lock-step because Reinsdorf and Rocky Wirtz are very close.

"Sox on Fox" is definitely cool, but I don't know if we'd clear out our prime time for baseball."

Lip

Tragg
12-29-2011, 10:37 AM
Actually, the Cubs don't have that many more games than the Sox on WGN anymore, and you could actually argue that the Sox get better timeslots. The Cubs only run about 50+ games on Channel 9, and most of those are day games. Most of the 30 Sox games on WGN are weekend games.

Considering the Cubs used to broadcast all 162 games on WGN, and now the number is down to 50, I wouldn't say they get significantly more coverage than the Sox.
WGN superstation created a generation of Cubs fans all over the country. But that started dwindling when Harry Carey passed. His charismatic personality was a large part of that (he was always a personality, but he was a much more positive and "lovable" and magnetic dude when he went to the Cubs). Now the coverage is down (probably due to lower ratings, due to no Harry) and that Cubs era of a national phenom is over. That said, it's hard for me to understand how reruns of Bewitched make more money for WGN than baseball on a Wed afternoon, but so be it.

Lip Man 1
12-29-2011, 12:53 PM
Have gotten more responces this morning to my inquiry.

First off here is a follow up from my friend / source at WFLD-TV who talks about their own technical issues:

"FOX has its own problems. Our HD, frankly, sucks. It's only recently that we've actually been able to get HD highlights (tough to believe in the #3 market) and our NFL signal is routinely terrible and ripped by viewers. It's embarrassing.

CSN is well-positioned with the Comcast/NBC union. Who knows how that's going to play out. My guess is that CSN will be doing sports for WMAQ eventually."

It seems like from a technical standpoint you'd have a lot of the same issues if the Sox were to have taken this supposed deal.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Here's an answer from an individual who knows all the principals involved and deals with them on a regular basis (the bolded part is from the individual, not by my doing):

1. I completely disagree on the Tribune/Sox national telecasts. I think that helps the Sox tremendously. You see games in Idaho, my father watches games in California. I don't know about the financial ramifications, but the Sox should be worried about their national presence.

I don't think having a strong local TV package is going to help them until they field a legitimately competitive team.

I'm not sure about the finances and options on this one, but I don't think much has changed since your last discussion with Bob Grim, whom I hold in high regard. I don't know for fact, but Brooks has been known to stick to the same landscape. He did this with the radio contract when it came up at the end of the 2010 season. They had some options but Brooks realized the Sox's identity with the Score (there is some tension there, so stay tuned).

2. Ricketts has said publicly that he hopes to have a Cubs network. I might mention this casually to Dave Kaplan, since he's a big Cubs honk and would LOVE to work for the Ricketts. Crane Kenney, arguably the most hated man in Chicago baseball circles, is one of his big sources.

3. I can't see the Sox caving in to MLB over removing games from WGN, especially with the role Jerry played in the last Collective Bargaining Agreement. Jerry had his fingerprints all over this.

I had two scouting directors tell me that they were penalized for being aggressive in finding and spending for talent, and the Sox will continue to be lazy in this new cap for amateur talent.

The big picture is that I wonder how much attention Jerry will pay to his struggling club and the mistakes KW and Co. have made now that there's a new CBA. I think Jerry has let things fall through the cracks for years, and the Sox are paying the price instead of shaking things up and resolving the KW/Ozzie spat sooner.

If I'm a Sox fan, I'm wondering what the heck Jerry thinks about the future of the franchise and the people running it on the baseball side."

------------------------------------------------------------------

This is from a reporter who follows the business aspects of sports closely:

"I don't have all the inside info. However, I suspect much of what you talked about never occurred.

Hard to think WFLD would want the Sox. Ch. 32 isn't going to interrupt prime time programming for a Sox game. It is part of a network, much like WMAQ-Ch. 5.

Regarding the Cubs, I believe they are committed to CSN through 2019. Remember they own 20 percent of the operation. So they are cashing in on Bulls and Blackhawks.

I haven't heard anything new about WGN America, but the Sox clearly like the idea of at least a handful of games on Ch. 9...Mostly weekend day or Saturday night.

Having said all that, I am going to do a future story on the Angels and Rangers deals. Not sure how the Angels snagged that kind of contract. Considering the Angels barely move the meter in LA, it really suggests the Cubs are undervalued."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on the responces to me there appears to be very little evidence (so far) backing the original comment about "knowing for a fact" that the Sox turned down a TV deal for more money other then a source saying it happened to Fenway. No one else seems to have heard anything about this based on whom I've heard back from as of now.

Apparently the technical issues would not have been solved with a switch and the logistical issues regarding Fox prime time programming makes you think they'd have to air games basically in the time slots that WGN now does for the Sox (i.e. weekends or in the afternoon.)

There seems to be a consensus growing that Ricketts does want to start his own TV Network but because of contractual obligations that isn't going to happen for at least another eight years.

And there seems to be no evidence at this time of the Sox leaving WGN America any time soon or in the near future for any reason. The comments told to me originally by those involved, that the Sox place a value on showing games nationally is ringing true according to these other sources.

I'll continue to post information that I get on this matter and will try to tie everything up in a few weeks. I want to wait until after the New Year holiday to see what else I'm able to find out.

Hope this helps and clarifies some of the statements that are being made. At this juncture the ones directly involving the White Sox appear to be false.

Lip

Lip Man 1
12-30-2011, 12:33 PM
Have heard back on these matters from a member of the Sox front office (a high ranking member) The Sox offices are closed for the holidays but they said they'd get back to me with info next week.

I did get something back today from a member of the media who follows the Cubs closely. Here is what they know:

"Ricketts would love to have a Cubs Network but doesn't have the money to make it happen, since obviously there are six months of offseason programming that have to be considered as well.

I do know MLB doesn't like games on WGN America because it cuts into their Extra Innings package. Sox don't get good ratings unless they are kicking ass, and even then it's not like the Cubs ratings when they are doing well, so I'm not surprised if WGN America only wants to televise a few games and leave the rest to the U."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will continue working on this story and the claims being made next week after the holidays when I can. Have an upcoming road trip to Montana schools, leave next Wednesday morning.

Again at this time there appears to be very little evidence (so far) backing the original comment about "knowing for a fact" that the Sox turned down a TV deal for more money other then a source saying it happened to Fenway.

There seems to be a consensus growing that Ricketts does want to start his own TV Network but that isn't going to happen for years.

And there seems to be no evidence at this time of the Sox leaving WGN America any time soon or in the near future for any reason. Again at this juncture (Friday December 30) the claims directly involving the White Sox appear to be false.

Lip

Fenway
12-30-2011, 12:59 PM
MLB doesn't like it and yet they allow it???? 27 teams can NOT televise out of market ( only the Jays, Cubs and White Sox can ).

Phil Mushnick of the NY Post has harped on this for a few years. Now granted Mushnick is employed by Rupert Murdoch who owns WWOR who was shutdown as a superstation when owned by Universal to keep baseball.

The Jays have Canada wide rights which is understandable. But why are the two Chicago teams allowed to do it when nobody else can?

I am no fan of Murdoch but I see his point. The Yankees are a national brand and the station would get viewers nationwide. More importantly it would keep a number of free games OTA in New York so people who can not afford cable can watch a game. That is a major issue for seniors.

I am still angry the Red Sox pulled games off WSBK to put everything on NESN because a lot of older people are now shut out.



Have heard back on these matters from a member of the Sox front office (a high ranking member) The Sox offices are closed for the holidays but they said they'd get back to me with info next week.

I did get something back today from a member of the media who follows the Cubs closely. Here is what they know:

"Ricketts would love to have a Cubs Network but doesn't have the money to make it happen, since obviously there are six months of offseason programming that have to be considered as well.

I do know MLB doesn't like games on WGN America because it cuts into their Extra Innings package. Sox don't get good ratings unless they are kicking ass, and even then it's not like the Cubs ratings when they are doing well, so I'm not surprised if WGN America only wants to televise a few games and leave the rest to the U."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will continue working on this story and the claims being made next week after the holidays when I can. Have an upcoming road trip to Montana schools, leave next Wednesday morning.

Again at this time there appears to be very little evidence (so far) backing the original comment about "knowing for a fact" that the Sox turned down a TV deal for more money other then a source saying it happened to Fenway.

There seems to be a consensus growing that Ricketts does want to start his own TV Network but that isn't going to happen for years.

And there seems to be no evidence at this time of the Sox leaving WGN America any time soon or in the near future for any reason. Again at this juncture (Friday December 30) the claims directly involving the White Sox appear to be false.

Lip

Lip Man 1
12-30-2011, 01:17 PM
Out of the responces (five) that I have gotten so far with direct knowledge of at least a part of the points that were brought up originally, only one at this point has made any comment acknowledging any issue with the Sox / Cubs being on WGN America.

I repeat that based on the information at hand at this time, and from what I was told by members of the Sox organization themselves in the past, it appears the Sox aren't going anywhere regarding WGN America however much Phil Muschick, the Yankees and the Eastern media screams, wrings their hands, holds their breath and pouts.

Personally my responce is **** them. LOL! It's about damn time they don't get their way on everything.

I'll continue to work on this and try to get as complete a picture I can on what is going on from the individuals who actually have a better idea about it than someone on the East Coast.

Lip

Fenway
12-30-2011, 01:56 PM
Lip - I want you to answer this question. ( and I am betting you will not )

Why should the White Sox and Cubs be allowed to beam games out of market on a local station when nobody else can anymore.


MLB shut down the Braves and they had developed a far larger following nationwide than either Chicago team. But TBS was given a national TV deal so they went along.

The Diamondbacks seethe about WGN America because there were several times last year that the Cubs got a higher rating in Phoenix than they did.

The only markets that the White Sox even show up in the ratings are Indianapolis, Buffalo, Tampa and Ft.Myers. Buffalo always was had a pocket of White Sox fans because WCFL came in like a local station at night.

The fact is Chicago is getting special treatment from MLB - not New York, not Boston, not Atlanta or Los Angeles.

People want to know why.



Out of the responces (five) that I have gotten so far with direct knowledge of at least a part of the points that were brought up originally, only one at this point has made any comment acknowledging any issue with the Sox / Cubs being on WGN America.

I repeat that based on the information at hand at this time, and from what I was told by members of the Sox organization themselves in the past, it appears the Sox aren't going anywhere regarding WGN America however much Phil Muschick, the Yankees and the Eastern media screams, wrings their hands, holds their breath and pouts.

Personally my responce is **** them. LOL! It's about damn time they don't get their way on everything.

I'll continue to work on this and try to get as complete a picture I can on what is going on from the individuals who actually have a better idea about it than someone on the East Coast.

Lip

Lip Man 1
12-30-2011, 02:18 PM
The only people who apparently want to know "why" are the ones who have been getting their way in baseball for far to long.

It doesn't seem to bother anybody else.

Life isn't fair sometimes...deal with it.

Seriously I think (and I have no evidence to support this conclusion) the legal action taken by JR vs. the NBA when they tried to take Bulls games off WGN is preventing MLB from doing anything. A legal precedent has been set and that's hard to break.

I mean no personal disrespect but you have been trying to make this case and have gone so far as to say the "Sox are going off WGN America" for three years now here on these boards. It's getting old.

Give it up Fenway. The Sox aren't going anywhere...not now and not in the near future.

I've passed along what I've been told by members of the Sox broadcasting end, I've passed along what was communicated to me by JR, I am passing along the responces I'm getting from varied members of the media including those in different organizations based on your three "claims" in this thread.

1. "I know for a fact" the Sox turned down a new TV deal for more money. (When you don't, you were told this by one "source")

2. Ricketts is going to pull the Cubs (and maybe the Hawks) from Comcast Chicago.

3. The Sox are going off WGN America.

At this point there seems to be little evidence to back your claim in #1 (outside of the individual who told you). No one else has yet confirmed this or even knows about it that I've asked.

There seems to be a general feeling that #2 will happen but because of money issues and contractual obligations not for years. And no guarantees the Hawks are going anywhere because of JR's close relationship with Rocky Wirtz.

And there is no evidence (as of now) that anything is going to happen with #3.

Next week or in the next two weeks after I've had time to hear back from others including the Sox organization, I'll put together a detailed breakdown of whom (in general terms) I sent my inquiries to, and sum up the responces.

Those who read this particular thread then can draw their own conclusions based on that.

Lip

Paulwny
12-30-2011, 02:19 PM
[QUOTE=Fenway;2871427]Lip - The only markets that the White Sox even show up in the ratings are Indianapolis, Buffalo, Tampa and Ft.Myers. Buffalo always was had a pocket of White Sox fans because WCFL came in like a local station at night. QUOTE]


I find it hard to believe that Buffalo had any pocket of White Sox fans because of WCFL.
During 1985-86 there were some Sox fans, but it was due to the Buffalo Bisons being the Sox AAA team.

Fenway
12-30-2011, 02:23 PM
[QUOTE=Fenway;2871427]Lip - The only markets that the White Sox even show up in the ratings are Indianapolis, Buffalo, Tampa and Ft.Myers. Buffalo always was had a pocket of White Sox fans because WCFL came in like a local station at night. QUOTE]


I find it hard to believe that Buffalo had any pocket of White Sox fans because of WCFL.
During 1985-86 there were some Sox fans, but it was due to the Buffalo Bisons being the Sox AAA team.

A good hockey friend who lived in Hamburg is still a huge White Sox fan and he says that was the reason. He told me that no Buffalonian back then could ever root for a New York City team.

This is a man who had his honeymoon in Chicago so he could go to Comiskey.

Lip Man 1
12-30-2011, 02:27 PM
So obviously because a single friend said so that makes it true?

:?:

OK...

Lip

Paulwny
12-30-2011, 02:36 PM
[QUOTE=Paulwny;2871434]

A good hockey friend who lived in Hamburg is still a huge White Sox fan and he says that was the reason. He told me that no Buffalonian back then could ever root for a New York City team.

This is a man who had his honeymoon in Chicago so he could go to Comiskey.


Back in my teen years all my friends were Yankee and some Indian fans.
A Niagara Falls station carried all Indian day games which were more prevelant than night games back then. I only knew one other Sox fan whom I met when I was in my 20's.

Fenway
12-30-2011, 02:38 PM
So obviously because a single friend said so that makes it true?

:?:

OK...

Lip

He told me most of his friends were White Sox fans - in any event White Sox games in Buffalo do much better than the Cubs.

Today the Yankees do have a following in Buffalo simply because MLB considers Western NY to be NYY and Mets territory ( even though Toronto is only 80 miles away and not 400 ) - Cleveland, Detroit and Pittsburgh are also much closer.

Paulwny
12-30-2011, 03:20 PM
He told me most of his friends were White Sox fans - in any event White Sox games in Buffalo do much better than the Cubs.

Today the Yankees do have a following in Buffalo simply because MLB considers Western NY to be NYY and Mets territory ( even though Toronto is only 80 miles away and not 400 ) - Cleveland, Detroit and Pittsburgh are also much closer.


I find it extremely hard to believe that there a that many sox fans in the Buffalo area.
Buffalo has been and will always be yankee country. As an example, faced with threats of cancellations of yankee fan subscribers , in the tens of thousands, the cable company ( Adelphia?) caved and agreed to carry the YES net.

SI1020
12-30-2011, 04:59 PM
I can't speak for Buffalo, I've never been there, but have passed through many times on my way somewhere else. I have long noticed that people from Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago and Milwaukee have the same hard vowel accent. It is true that WCFL's signal could be heard hundreds of miles east of Chicago. I often listened to Sox games at night when we visited family in Pennsylvania. I suppose that WCFL helped win Sox fans in NW Indiana and SW Michigan. When I attended ISU in the early 70's it seemed like the Sox had very few fans downstate. It was Cubs territory down to about Peoria, Bloomington and Champaign and then turned into hard core Cardinals territory by the time you reached Decatur and Springfield. WGN's signal was easily picked up to the south and west. I suppose that's why Iowa has long been considered a bastion of Cub fandom. My relatives homes were all in Pirates territory. Youngstown, Ohio was split among Indians and Pirates fans, IMO more Pirates than Indians. The same with Erie, Pa. Buffalo, I don't know. It would have been easy to listen to the Sox on WCFL back then if you were so inclined.

Paulwny
12-30-2011, 05:18 PM
[QUOTE=SI1020;2871505]I can't speak for Buffalo, I've never been there, but have passed through many times on my way somewhere else. I have long noticed that people from Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago and Milwaukee have the same hard vowel accent. QUOTE]


Its called the "Great Lakes Accent".

SI1020
12-30-2011, 06:50 PM
[QUOTE=SI1020;2871505]I can't speak for Buffalo, I've never been there, but have passed through many times on my way somewhere else. I have long noticed that people from Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago and Milwaukee have the same hard vowel accent. QUOTE]


Its called the "Great Lakes Accent". You are correct, and I probably should have labeled it that. I recently watched two cop programs, one set in Buffalo and the other Cleveland. The natives sounded just like those I grew up with in Chicago. Some slang expressions are of course different, but the accent is the same.

Fenway
12-30-2011, 06:52 PM
[QUOTE=Paulwny;2871511] You are correct, and I probably should have labeled it that. I recently watched two cop programs, one set in Buffalo and the other Cleveland. The natives sounded just like those I grew up with in Chicago. Some slang expressions are of course different, but the accent is the same.

Buffalo really feels like a midwestern city. Like Detroit, traffic lights hang from wires instead of poles.

Lip Man 1
01-02-2012, 01:23 PM
Have heard back this morning from the 1st of the three Sox high front office officials that I sent an e-mail to on the areas Fenway was talking about last week.

Here is the reply:

"This is speculation. I can make predictions too, just like the media does. 'Fenway' has no one to be accountable to, so if any of his predictions work out, he looks like he is in the know, if they don't, oh well.

Clearly the big TV contracts for the Angels and Rangers put them in a terrific financial positions (see:Darvish and Pujols/Wilson deals). Their timing and market conditions could not have been better.

As for Chicago, time will tell what direction all teams take. All the teams want the best possible deal that can be made for the benefit of the individual clubs. Where that shakes down at this point, no one knows, not the teams and not even 'Fenway'."

Lip

Fenway
01-02-2012, 03:18 PM
Notice he did not deny the report.

A lot seems to hinge on will Weigel upgrade their transmission equipment at Sears Tower.


Have heard back this morning from the 1st of the three Sox high front office officials that I sent an e-mail to on the areas Fenway was talking about last week.

Here is the reply:

"This is speculation. I can make predictions too, just like the media does. 'Fenway' has no one to be accountable to, so if any of his predictions work out, he looks like he is in the know, if they don't, oh well.

Clearly the big TV contracts for the Angels and Rangers put them in a terrific financial positions (see:Darvish and Pujols/Wilson deals). Their timing and market conditions could not have been better.

As for Chicago, time will tell what direction all teams take. All the teams want the best possible deal that can be made for the benefit of the individual clubs. Where that shakes down at this point, no one knows, not the teams and not even 'Fenway'."

Lip

Lip Man 1
01-02-2012, 03:44 PM
True this particular member of the Sox front office didn't but as I've pointed out in the thread every other person I've heard back from so far either denies it happened, doesn't know anything about it or seriously doubts that it took place. I've posted all the replies, have held nothing back.

Two sources pointed out specifically the issues that would make any games being moved to Fox a very remote possibility.

Couple that with what I posted before, passing along what I was told by some in the front office and what I had communicated to me by JR on the WGN America situation and I have to conclude you are being misled or are interpreting the situation incorrectly.

IF your first point took place, the only person who seems to know anything about it is your "source." (and I don't think something with this magnitude would remain completely hidden...someone would know about it, someone would have heard something, someone would have talked.)

The only thing that seems to be close to having a basis in fact to your comments is #2. It appears Ricketts eventually would like to start his own network but he has no money right now and is locked into a deal with Comcast through 2019.

Put it this way, no one has confirmed your story (the flip side of 'well he didn't deny it did he?')

Lip

Fenway
01-02-2012, 03:53 PM
My source volunteered the info :scratch:


The core issue is better distribution of games in Illinois - I don't think you are aware at how bad WCIU looks on some cable outlets. ( and IF available )


No TV station in the US has as many subchannels as they do.... and the main channel suffers. There is only so much bandwidth available and they max it out.


True this particular member of the Sox front office didn't but as I've pointed out in the thread every other person I've heard back from so far either denies it happened, doesn't know anything about it or seriously doubts that it took place. I've posted all the replies, have held nothing back.

Two sources pointed out specifically the issues that would make any games being moved to Fox a very remote possibility.

Couple that with what I posted before, passing along what I was told by some in the front office and what I had communicated to me by JR on the WGN America situation and I have to conclude you are being misled or are interpreting the situation incorrectly.

IF your first point took place, the only person who seems to know anything about it is your "source." (and I don't think something with this magnitude would remain completely hidden...someone would know about it, someone would have heard something, someone would have talked.)

The only thing that seems to be close to having a basis in fact to your comments is #2. It appears Ricketts eventually would like to start his own network but he has no money right now and is locked into a deal with Comcast through 2019.

Lip

Lip Man 1
01-02-2012, 05:08 PM
With respect the "core issue" is that claims have been made that the White Sox turned down a deal for more money with Channels 50 and 32 which would improve the picture when games aren't being shown on WGN.

There is no evidence that I've found, as of yet, to prove that claim. I continue to look for it. I never made the statement that "I know for a fact" this took place.

Another "core issue" is that claims have been made for the past few years that the Sox are going to be forced off WGN America.

There is no evidence that I've found, as of yet, to prove that claim. I continue to look for it.

We'll see what develops with this. The simple answer to the first point is for you to e-mail me with your source, I'll contact them and see what I can find out from them regarding specific information (when did the offer supposedly take place, for how long, how much money, when would it start and so forth...)

I understand that person doesn't want it coming back to them but if the claim is true this is the way to help prove it. Without someone going on the record, at least right now, this is all BS, speculation and rumors. What the motivation is behind it, I have no idea.

Lip

AZChiSoxFan
01-02-2012, 08:00 PM
[COLOR=teal]

[B]I mean no personal disrespect but you have been trying to make this case and have gone so far as to say the "Sox are going off WGN America" for three years now here on these boards. It's getting old.



LOL, of course you meant disrespect. You always dog Fenway in every thread. I get it, he talks to owners, reporters, etc. You do the same and you want to prove the yours is bigger than his.

For the record, I also want to know why two teams are allowed to do something that the rest of the teams aren't allowed to do.

Fenway
01-02-2012, 08:25 PM
LOL, of course you meant disrespect. You always dog Fenway in every thread. I get it, he talks to owners, reporters, etc. You do the same and you want to prove the yours is bigger than his.

For the record, I also want to know why two teams are allowed to do something that the rest of the teams aren't allowed to do.


It is a fair question but Lip turns it into how the mighty east coast is picking on little old Chicago. Maury Brown at the Biz of Baseball has been trying to get an answer from MLB for 3 years and they refuse to answer the question.

I work in ballparks all summer and I have contacts. I am sure Lip does as well but he is also in Idaho where the nearest ballpark is Seattle.

I wish he still had White Sox his blog with the Tribune but not only did they kill it - they wiped out the archives of it. I am friends with somebody that also has a blog on ChicagoNow and he worries that the Tribune will someday do the same thing to him.

Lip Man 1
01-03-2012, 12:36 PM
Az:

OK. :rolleyes:

I gave what I thought was a possible answer earlier in the thread, feel free to read it.

I also stated that I personally have no desire to see the Sox leave WGN America and stated why.

I have nothing personal against anyone on these boards but when statements are made that are pretty incredible they need to be followed up on.

It's not about 'technical issues' or any issues on the fringe of the problem.

The issue is a statement was made, a very provocative, important statement that a deal was offered that would have given the Sox more money, help solve the problems picture-wise and was turned down.

I'm not just going to let something like that go. I'm going to do the best that I can to check the statement out to see if there's any truth to it. Given Fenway's connections I'm not going to dismiss it as completely impossible but I am very skeptical.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Fenway sent me a personal message with some additional info that I appreciated and will use to follow up on this.

Lip

FielderJones
01-03-2012, 01:50 PM
Its called the "Great Lakes Accent".

Inland Northern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_Northern_American_English)

SI1020
01-03-2012, 02:12 PM
Inland Northern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_Northern_American_English) Sorry for the brief hijack but regional accents have always fascinated me. As for the topic, only having a few contacts at this point, those of you who are better connected are are valued sources of information. Media wise, things are so changeable. Big money deals consummated by the Rangers and Angels all but force their competitors to respond. We shall see how it affects the Chicago market, but unforeseen changes won't be shocking to me.

Fenway
01-03-2012, 02:57 PM
Chicago even with 2 teams has a lot of TV homes to harvest.

http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/public%20factsheets/tv/nielsen-2012-local-DMA-TV-penetration.pdf

The Reds even though they are in smallest market gets 'saved' by Indianapolis.
( and they also share Columbus with Cleveland )

One has to admire what the Brewers have done in a small market with no chance of growth.