(12-14-2017 08:34 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 07:20 AM)Maize Wrote:  This is how it will change Sports Programming...

Then came a shift. This year, Disney spent $1.6 billion to gain a majority stake in BamTech, an online streaming platform that Disney plans to use to launch two streaming services in the next two years, including an ESPN service next year. Disney decided its future was in selling its shows and sports channels directly to consumers. That meant taking on Netflix

A Disney-branded streaming service, set to launch in 2019, will have more firepower with Fox’s assets. Disney would gain 22 regional Fox Sports networks, which could help entice more sports fans to sign up for the proposed ESPN streaming services if the service eventually includes access to Los Angeles Kings, San Diego Padres or New York Yankees games.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywoo...story.html

This also fits with what we saw from the articles that talked about the Murdochs believing that the Fox empire wasn't big enough to compete with "MAGAF" Microsoft Amazon Google Apple Facebook. Fox tried to buy (or, in this perspective, merge with) Turner, and is now selling to (or, in this perspective, merge with) Disney.

The Disney and Fox back catalogs make them instantly a player in the Netflix/Amazon Prime/Disney market. Especially if/when they can add sports content from ESPN and RSNs.

So, I'm guessing the plan is for Disney-Fox to run Netflix out of business--Netflix is already rushing headlong into the content-creation business, probably since they know they're doomed as a middleman selling us other studio's old TV shows at $10 a month--the other studios will either get absorbed by bigger streaming players (TV networks, Amazon, Netflix) or launch their own subscription services.

And what your seeing with Netflix is the probably the future for ESPN. ESPN is also a middle man. As they have already figured out---people dont watch ESPN for the talking heads. They pay $7 a month for ESPN because of the live game content.

The problem is ESPN doesn't own a single league or a single conference. They have to buy he rights from those leagues and conferences. This isnt the 1970's. With streaming technology, its now relatively easy and cheap to create a "network". There isnt a big barrier to entry anymore. These pro leagues and bigger conferences will eventually reach a point where it just makes more sense to keep thier content and monetize it themsleves.

(12-14-2017 10:59 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 10:31 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 09:28 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  This is kind of a head-scratcher.

Fox is holding on to FS1, FS2, and BTN, but giving up their regional sports networks?

You'd think is they wanted to be a player in sports they would have held on to those regional networks and somehow merged content with the FS networks. On the other hand, if they were looking to divest their sports holdings, why not sell off BTN and decrease the size of the FS networks?

There's a logic to it: They wanted to remain a player in national sports but not regional sports.

Disney, OTOH, is a strong national sports player but lacked regional reach.

IMO, this is a phenomenal deal for FOX, we know the holders of current FOX shares are massive winners. For Disney, any $60B acquisition is a huge risk, so this is a huge risk.

I agree, Fox share holders made out like bandits.

I wonder if, as you stated, Fox wants to remain a national player how this will effect the college sports landscape? Since Fox held on to BTN, they must want to at least have a presence. Makes me wonder if they'll focus their attention on trying to work a deal with the PACN and/or the XII. Could make for an interesting few years leading up to 2024/25.

I think Fox is going to eventually sell what's left to someone else. The assets they kept, I think they kept them -- for now -- primarily because including them in the deal would have raised more antitrust concerns for the feds.

Seems like a good fit for At&t after their merger. It's pretty much CBS or Fox if they want to add a national network. It would require selling CNN but there will be a lot of buyers interested.

(12-14-2017 12:35 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 10:59 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 10:31 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 09:28 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  This is kind of a head-scratcher.

Fox is holding on to FS1, FS2, and BTN, but giving up their regional sports networks?

You'd think is they wanted to be a player in sports they would have held on to those regional networks and somehow merged content with the FS networks. On the other hand, if they were looking to divest their sports holdings, why not sell off BTN and decrease the size of the FS networks?

There's a logic to it: They wanted to remain a player in national sports but not regional sports.

Disney, OTOH, is a strong national sports player but lacked regional reach.

IMO, this is a phenomenal deal for FOX, we know the holders of current FOX shares are massive winners. For Disney, any $60B acquisition is a huge risk, so this is a huge risk.

I agree, Fox share holders made out like bandits.

I wonder if, as you stated, Fox wants to remain a national player how this will effect the college sports landscape? Since Fox held on to BTN, they must want to at least have a presence. Makes me wonder if they'll focus their attention on trying to work a deal with the PACN and/or the XII. Could make for an interesting few years leading up to 2024/25.

I think Fox is going to eventually sell what's left to someone else. The assets they kept, I think they kept them -- for now -- primarily because including them in the deal would have raised more antitrust concerns for the feds.

Seems like a good fit for At&t after their merger. It's pretty much CBS or Fox if they want to add a national network. It would require selling CNN but there will be a lot of buyers interested.

They'll be their own company for a few years but they'll be wrapped up into News Corp eventually.

(12-14-2017 10:06 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If ESPN+ the tentative name for the streaming service integrates the regional content to subscribers in theory my ESPN+ subscription gives me an app that has all the ESPN channels, ESPN3 content, the Memphis Grizzlies, OKC Thunder, St. Louis Cardinals, Kansas City Royals, Dallas Stars, Dallas Mavericks, and Texas Rangers.

My interest in retaining Dish plummets.

Watch for the long promised ACC Network to rollout with ESPN+

From what I read, ESPN+ will not show the a lot of the "main" programming that airs on the current ESPN networks. Maybe that's just in the early stages, until they have some of their current deals are up.

(12-14-2017 12:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 08:34 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 07:20 AM)Maize Wrote:  This is how it will change Sports Programming...

Then came a shift. This year, Disney spent $1.6 billion to gain a majority stake in BamTech, an online streaming platform that Disney plans to use to launch two streaming services in the next two years, including an ESPN service next year. Disney decided its future was in selling its shows and sports channels directly to consumers. That meant taking on Netflix

A Disney-branded streaming service, set to launch in 2019, will have more firepower with Fox’s assets. Disney would gain 22 regional Fox Sports networks, which could help entice more sports fans to sign up for the proposed ESPN streaming services if the service eventually includes access to Los Angeles Kings, San Diego Padres or New York Yankees games.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywoo...story.html

This also fits with what we saw from the articles that talked about the Murdochs believing that the Fox empire wasn't big enough to compete with "MAGAF" Microsoft Amazon Google Apple Facebook. Fox tried to buy (or, in this perspective, merge with) Turner, and is now selling to (or, in this perspective, merge with) Disney.

The Disney and Fox back catalogs make them instantly a player in the Netflix/Amazon Prime/Disney market. Especially if/when they can add sports content from ESPN and RSNs.

So, I'm guessing the plan is for Disney-Fox to run Netflix out of business--Netflix is already rushing headlong into the content-creation business, probably since they know they're doomed as a middleman selling us other studio's old TV shows at $10 a month--the other studios will either get absorbed by bigger streaming players (TV networks, Amazon, Netflix) or launch their own subscription services.

And what your seeing with Netflix is the probably the future for ESPN. ESPN is also a middle man. As they have already figured out---people dont watch ESPN for the talking heads. They pay $7 a month for ESPN because of the live game content.

The problem is ESPN doesn't own a single league or a single conference. They have to buy he rights from those leagues and conferences. This isnt the 1970's. With streaming technology, its now relatively easy and cheap to create a "network". There isnt a big barrier to entry anymore. These pro leagues and bigger conferences will eventually reach a point where it just makes more sense to keep thier content and monetize it themsleves.

But brand awareness and consumer habit are barriers to entry. You have to get consumers to download a new app and register. Big enough product that can work but its a risk.

(12-14-2017 12:59 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:35 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 10:59 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 10:31 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  There's a logic to it: They wanted to remain a player in national sports but not regional sports.

Disney, OTOH, is a strong national sports player but lacked regional reach.

IMO, this is a phenomenal deal for FOX, we know the holders of current FOX shares are massive winners. For Disney, any $60B acquisition is a huge risk, so this is a huge risk.

I agree, Fox share holders made out like bandits.

I wonder if, as you stated, Fox wants to remain a national player how this will effect the college sports landscape? Since Fox held on to BTN, they must want to at least have a presence. Makes me wonder if they'll focus their attention on trying to work a deal with the PACN and/or the XII. Could make for an interesting few years leading up to 2024/25.

I think Fox is going to eventually sell what's left to someone else. The assets they kept, I think they kept them -- for now -- primarily because including them in the deal would have raised more antitrust concerns for the feds.

Seems like a good fit for At&t after their merger. It's pretty much CBS or Fox if they want to add a national network. It would require selling CNN but there will be a lot of buyers interested.

They'll be their own company for a few years but they'll be wrapped up into News Corp eventually.

My guess is they'll leave it standalone for at least a little while to see whether the remaining assets can find a buyer. If there is no interest at a substantial gain, then fold it in to News Corp.

(12-14-2017 09:28 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  This is kind of a head-scratcher.

Fox is holding on to FS1, FS2, and BTN, but giving up their regional sports networks?

You'd think is they wanted to be a player in sports they would have held on to those regional networks and somehow merged content with the FS networks. On the other hand, if they were looking to divest their sports holdings, why not sell off BTN and decrease the size of the FS networks?

Guess that's why they pay some people the big bucks.

I'm guessing the stuff Fox held on to is stuff that Disney couldn't take on without attracting antitrust problems.

FOX OTA -- ABC OTA
FS1, FS2 -- ESPN
BTN -- ESPN, SECN, ACCN

And I think Fox News (and Fox Business which is integrated into FNC), even if it's profitable, is a cultural stomachache for a megacorporation. It's downscale and is a social embarrassment to the executives, much like WCW was for the AOL Time Warner executives. (Of course, WCW was losing tons of money, rather than making steady profits.)

I suspect that Fox OTA/Sports/News gets sold down the road a little. OR just spun off into its own company, to reduce conflicts-of-interest for the Fox stockholders who are now Disney stockholders.

(12-14-2017 01:32 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:59 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:35 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 10:59 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 10:31 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  I agree, Fox share holders made out like bandits.

I wonder if, as you stated, Fox wants to remain a national player how this will effect the college sports landscape? Since Fox held on to BTN, they must want to at least have a presence. Makes me wonder if they'll focus their attention on trying to work a deal with the PACN and/or the XII. Could make for an interesting few years leading up to 2024/25.

I think Fox is going to eventually sell what's left to someone else. The assets they kept, I think they kept them -- for now -- primarily because including them in the deal would have raised more antitrust concerns for the feds.

Seems like a good fit for At&t after their merger. It's pretty much CBS or Fox if they want to add a national network. It would require selling CNN but there will be a lot of buyers interested.

They'll be their own company for a few years but they'll be wrapped up into News Corp eventually.

My guess is they'll leave it standalone for at least a little while to see whether the remaining assets can find a buyer. If there is no interest at a substantial gain, then fold it in to News Corp.

Rupert Murdock has stated they will build and expand the new company and that ideally it would be wrapped up into News Corp but that would a few years away.

(12-14-2017 02:10 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 01:32 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:59 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:35 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 10:59 AM)Wedge Wrote:  I think Fox is going to eventually sell what's left to someone else. The assets they kept, I think they kept them -- for now -- primarily because including them in the deal would have raised more antitrust concerns for the feds.

Seems like a good fit for At&t after their merger. It's pretty much CBS or Fox if they want to add a national network. It would require selling CNN but there will be a lot of buyers interested.

They'll be their own company for a few years but they'll be wrapped up into News Corp eventually.

My guess is they'll leave it standalone for at least a little while to see whether the remaining assets can find a buyer. If there is no interest at a substantial gain, then fold it in to News Corp.

Rupert Murdock has stated they will build and expand the new company and that ideally it would be wrapped up into News Corp but that would a few years away.

I think that's just Murdoch's spin here since if the goal is build up the new company, why on Earth would they have sold off all of the other assets that they already built up to Disney? This does seem like Fox OTA/News/Sports/BTN are going to end up with some other larger company with more scale (e.g. AT&T)... or maybe (in a twist) end up with a tech-based firm like Netflix or Amazon (who would be looking at the reverse of Disney in wanting linear distribution channels as opposed to streaming while also adding on sports capabilities).

1 thing that'll be interesting to see what happens is actually with the Big East. Several of their games get put on FSN channels with that being a fox property. With those gone to ESPN now, will that continue, or will FS2 or CBSSN get more games?

(12-14-2017 08:07 AM)solohawks Wrote:  http://fortune.com/2017/12/14/its-offici...lion-deal/

Fox keeping majority stake in Big 10 Network as well

I think, given Maize's points in the OP, that if I were the Big 10 I would be concerned. If the preponderance of product is available through one service I would rather be a part of that than to be the cheese that stands alone. I realize that the BTN is easily streamed and that customers will be able to continue to utilize it, but the public tends to use the same familiar pathways to access most of their choices. The BTN will do well, but how much more traffic might it receive if it was available through the option that will provide the most choices?

We'll see.

As to Wedge's post, yes it prevents anti-trust laws from being invoked. There is plenty of competition in streaming and in Movies and made for TV shows. College sports could have looked too much like a monopoly if the that end of the business had been sold in total.

As to Murdoch's interview with Maria, It sounds like to me that he (Murdoch) wants to hold back his main interest (news) and wait and see whether he further wants to sell off his other endeavors or grow them. Given the international market's trends right now, and the level of debt in the middle class in this country, further investment in entertainment industries still might be shaky.

Bitcoin doesn't trend up for no reason. The mistrust that lead to the banking crisis in 2007-8 still lingers, especially in terms of international currency values. Too many well developed nations are still carrying way too much debt and we are one of them. And all that backs those currencies is the say so and military might of the some of those nations.

(12-14-2017 02:21 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:10 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 01:32 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:59 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:35 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  Seems like a good fit for At&t after their merger. It's pretty much CBS or Fox if they want to add a national network. It would require selling CNN but there will be a lot of buyers interested.

They'll be their own company for a few years but they'll be wrapped up into News Corp eventually.

My guess is they'll leave it standalone for at least a little while to see whether the remaining assets can find a buyer. If there is no interest at a substantial gain, then fold it in to News Corp.

Rupert Murdock has stated they will build and expand the new company and that ideally it would be wrapped up into News Corp but that would a few years away.

I think that's just Murdoch's spin here since if the goal is build up the new company, why on Earth would they have sold off all of the other assets that they already built up to Disney? This does seem like Fox OTA/News/Sports/BTN are going to end up with some other larger company with more scale (e.g. AT&T)... or maybe (in a twist) end up with a tech-based firm like Netflix or Amazon (who would be looking at the reverse of Disney in wanting linear distribution channels as opposed to streaming while also adding on sports capabilities).

Maybe AT&T takes the remaining Fox channels and AT&T/Time Warner shoots CNN over to Amazon.

(12-14-2017 04:37 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:21 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:10 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 01:32 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:59 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  They'll be their own company for a few years but they'll be wrapped up into News Corp eventually.

My guess is they'll leave it standalone for at least a little while to see whether the remaining assets can find a buyer. If there is no interest at a substantial gain, then fold it in to News Corp.

Rupert Murdock has stated they will build and expand the new company and that ideally it would be wrapped up into News Corp but that would a few years away.

I think that's just Murdoch's spin here since if the goal is build up the new company, why on Earth would they have sold off all of the other assets that they already built up to Disney? This does seem like Fox OTA/News/Sports/BTN are going to end up with some other larger company with more scale (e.g. AT&T)... or maybe (in a twist) end up with a tech-based firm like Netflix or Amazon (who would be looking at the reverse of Disney in wanting linear distribution channels as opposed to streaming while also adding on sports capabilities).

Maybe AT&T takes the remaining Fox channels and AT&T/Time Warner shoots CNN over to Amazon.

CBS or ABC might take CNN.

CBS seems the likely buyer for CNN IMO.

AT&T for the rest of the FOX package, and AT&T would then have the most attractive streaming package available with FOX, FOX News, TBS, TNT, FS1, FS2, TruTV, and HBO. An AT&T sports rights package with FOX, Turner, and HBO sports would be very nice as well.

(12-14-2017 03:31 PM)stever20 Wrote:  1 thing that'll be interesting to see what happens is actually with the Big East. Several of their games get put on FSN channels with that being a fox property. With those gone to ESPN now, will that continue, or will FS2 or CBSSN get more games?

I am curious if this bodes well for the G5 getting more TV exposure via the RSNs. For example, ACC games were getting pulled from Raycom and RSN in 2019 to the ACC network. With BYU, MW, CUSA and AAC coming up in 2019 and existing contracts with the MAC and Sun Belt, I could see these games move to RSNs for minimal costs with the option to move any potential larger games to ESPN Networks. Also, show the Olympic sports when Football and Basketball season is over to go along with Pro Sports regional deals.

(12-14-2017 05:52 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 03:31 PM)stever20 Wrote:  1 thing that'll be interesting to see what happens is actually with the Big East. Several of their games get put on FSN channels with that being a fox property. With those gone to ESPN now, will that continue, or will FS2 or CBSSN get more games?

I am curious if this bodes well for the G5 getting more TV exposure via the RSNs. For example, ACC games were getting pulled from Raycom and RSN in 2019 to the ACC network. With BYU, MW, CUSA and AAC coming up in 2019 and existing contracts with the MAC and Sun Belt, I could see these games move to RSNs for minimal costs with the option to move any potential larger games to ESPN Networks. Also, show the Olympic sports when Football and Basketball season is over to go along with Pro Sports regional deals.

I'm pretty sure the ESPN3 games were already available to the RSNs for money. Now they'd be available for "free", I suppose.

One upshot I could see is a junior version of the ABC/ESPN2 reverse-mirror, but with RSNs/ESPN-U or News.

Confirming that BTN is remaining with Fox. I guess it is a content they do not want to relinquish.

https://twitter.com/frankthetank111/stat...5163252736

Frank the Tank‏ @frankthetank111

According to the press release regarding the Disney/Fox deal, Fox’s share of the Big Ten Network is staying with Fox OTA/Sports/News and NOT going to Disney.
5:25 AM - 14 Dec 2017

(12-14-2017 06:06 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 05:52 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 03:31 PM)stever20 Wrote:  1 thing that'll be interesting to see what happens is actually with the Big East. Several of their games get put on FSN channels with that being a fox property. With those gone to ESPN now, will that continue, or will FS2 or CBSSN get more games?

I am curious if this bodes well for the G5 getting more TV exposure via the RSNs. For example, ACC games were getting pulled from Raycom and RSN in 2019 to the ACC network. With BYU, MW, CUSA and AAC coming up in 2019 and existing contracts with the MAC and Sun Belt, I could see these games move to RSNs for minimal costs with the option to move any potential larger games to ESPN Networks. Also, show the Olympic sports when Football and Basketball season is over to go along with Pro Sports regional deals.

I'm pretty sure the ESPN3 games were already available to the RSNs for money. Now they'd be available for "free", I suppose.

One upshot I could see is a junior version of the ABC/ESPN2 reverse-mirror, but with RSNs/ESPN-U or News.

I do know this, if the ACC game was on RSN, even though it was on ESPN3 it would say it was blacked out in the area. I wonder if this changes now since ESPN owns the RSNs?

(12-14-2017 07:40 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Confirming that BTN is remaining with Fox. I guess it is a content they do not want to relinquish.

https://twitter.com/frankthetank111/stat...5163252736

Frank the Tank‏ @frankthetank111

According to the press release regarding the Disney/Fox deal, Fox’s share of the Big Ten Network is staying with Fox OTA/Sports/News and NOT going to Disney.
5:25 AM - 14 Dec 2017

There is another consideration. There are enough Movie producers and enough producers of original TV content that neither of those acquisitions bordered on anti-trust issues. The News and the Sports both might have. Had ESPN acquired the BTN and especially if they had acquired FS1 & FS2 I'm sure the government would have had a lot more reason to say no dice.

I believe the omissions were precautionary to make sure the rest of the deal would likely go through.

This blogger thinks the RSNs will be used to send content regionally

https://www.nunesmagician.com/2017/12/15...all-rights