Of course contracts can be broken, changed, settled, etc. If the parties settle, what do they settle for? Usually money is included. What is one basis for setting the amount of the settlement? It is the wording and agreements stated in the contract - or more often contracts.
ACC Network Dead? Is that the End of the ACC?
- Thread starter SVPanther
- Start date
We don't disagree and I was reading your points more not SV!
I have no comment on SV's and let that discussion go on among him and the Posters. He butted in with my discussion with Counselor10 and we were discussing another subject about new trends and technology changing ESPN and other Sports Models and not relating to SV's Contract points at all.
We don't disagree at all on your points too as you clarified them with my own and I should have not butted in either on them, no problem and apologize.
So you are just making crap up without having any idea if the contract has an out? If ESPN could get out of their ridiculous tv contracts, they would have by now.
The guy didn't author the "definitive work" on ESPN. There are plenty of people who disagree with his opinion (including people who are actually spending money on this).
It doesn't matter if $50 or 100 million is chump change. By that logic, ESPN wouldn't be cost cutting in the first place. You just contradicted your whole point. You are claiming ESPN is going to need to dump the ACCN so they will have more money for other inventory. Well, if $100 million is chump change, no need to dump the ACCN. They could afford new inventory with no problem.
Now, if you are going to backtrack on that and say ESPN does need the money, it's better to have more money than less. Again, it makes ZERO sense to lose $50 million when you could make $50 million.
Anybody can get out of contract. Just pay damages for breach. What am I missing? Small potatoes to Disney to get rid of a drag on their bottom line. Yes, it will cause chaos in the Power 5, but Disney neither could nor should, care less. Money in college Athletics is so far out of wack, this would be a welcome correction.
What you're missing is that it's more expensive to pay for the damages than to just see out the contract.
Not so. That's exactly why ESPN bailed out the Big 12 in 2010.
Not how it works when you are a publicly traded corporation. Meet earnings or cut. ESPN is not a significant contributor to Disney's bottom line and the dynamics of their business are not good going forward- especially what they agreed to pay for broadcasting rights back in the day.
You're CEO of Disney. Construct an argument how ESPN will be a growth contributor to the bottom line to shareholders. Gotya.
Source? Let me help you...It's all speculation.
Right, and you aren't going to meet earnings by losing $50 million when you could make $50 million.
To your final point, that means ESPN as a whole goes away, meaning no more SECN either.
And your estimate of damages, and basis thereof, would be what? A previous poster said $50MM. I was conservative and doubled that (outrageous and highly unlikely, but whatever). Even under a worst case scenario, the loss to Disney's net doesn't move.
You're missing the point. The point is, there is no incentive for ESPN to even try to get out of the contract in the first place.
The funny thing is that you actually probably believe this BS is true. OK, now for some real numbers from Disney for last year.
Disney's cable tv unit, which gets almost all of it's profit from the ESPN networks, made $864 million last year. That's not the gross, that's the net. That's not a loss, that's the profit. Last year Disney made more money on television (again, almost entirely off the back of ESPN) than they did with their film division. They made more money on television than they did on consumer products (that's all the Disney stuff they sell on line and in stores). The only division of Disney that made more money last year than their television unit was the theme parks. Which is kinda funny, because it wasn't all that long ago that everyone thought that it was the theme park business that was going to drag Disney down.
But in any event, if you don't think that Disney thinks that $864 million profit is a significant contributor to the bottom line then you are simply nuts. The reason that Disney is so interested in making cuts at ESPN is because for years ESPN was the cash cow that made most of the money for Disney, and Disney wants to keep milking the cow. ESPN is in no danger of actually losing money any time soon.
What could change things is if Apple ends up buying Disney, as has been rumored to be of interest. How Apple might change how Disney handles or delivers ESPN, especially with regards to streaming services and synergies with products such as Apple TV and Apple streaming media services, could be interesting.
A
anon_vmuicqnzlyp3u
Guest
Peet this SV Panther asshole is a pompous lawyer and he comes off us much. He would love nothing more than to have the demise of Pitt football.
uh, oh, I think you're gonna get a "bro" coming your way.
I'm not going to pretend to know the economics of live sports programming, but it would surprise me if too much live sports programming was the biggest reason for ESPN's financial issue. If I want to be entertained by people talking about sports, there are many more outlets that I like more than ESPN. And truthfully, I'm not sure that ESPN can truly compete with those outlets. Sirius, local tv & radio, web sites like this one, & podcasts are way better than what ESPN offers. But ESPN still excels at live sports coverage. More live sports coverage and less ex-jocks blabbering on and on about nonsense is the key to ESPN's future in my opinion.
No, all conferences are not "in the exact same situation in regards to their networks." The SECN and B1GN are already established, part of carrier packages, and have much greater appeal. There is very little commonality between the SECN and ACCN with regard to the most important problems.
I didn't say there wouldn't be an ACCN, so perhaps you need to take a second and read things a little more thoroughly before commenting.
That makes a lot of sense, since the population within the physical footprint of the ACC is the largest of any college sports conference per most recent US census figures. And much of that footprint is in states where population growth is still happening (FL, Carolinas; GA).
Agree. Looks like a lot of the moves ESPN is making are being made to cut overhead costs. Not necessarily live game content. Think there is still a solid demand for live sports programming. Especially top level college football and men's basketball. With the ACC having the current national champions in both of those sports it puts the conference in an advantageous position at present.
The challenge for everyone will be in utilizing the best methods and platforms to deliver the live sports content to audiences in ways that are the most cost effective and appealing so that everyone can make money. Technological advances will continue to play a major factor in that regard and the ACC/ESPN network appears to be intent on being at the forefront (streaming and capabilities to reach mobile devices as well as a linear channel; use of existing facilities that ESPN already has in place; on-site production facilities at the respective school locations; all while making continued efforts to stay at the forefront of the way the sports programming business is evolving) in terms of creativity and innovation.
There are very smart people on both sides who have a huge interest in making this happen as scheduled and to be successful financially and quality-wise. The ACC has a great product in terms of their football and men's basketball and are located in an area with a whole lot of potential viewers. So the possibilities for the ACC network to be very successful for both sides is in place. Now the partners have do what it takes to make it happen.
In fact that could lead to an even more prosperous situation for the ACC. TV in general and sports programming delivery in particular are in a very dynamic and evolving situation. There will be continuous ongoing technological changes/advancements that will have an impact, too. There are fewer and fewer viewers who even tolerate watching commercials now, for example. So all of this is in somewhat of a state of flux looking ahead. But there are still going to be great opportunities that will arise for those capable of seizing them and taking advantage. No reason the ACC (and by association, Pitt) can't be one of them.
Yeah, ESPN is not getting out of live sports any time soon, but it does look like they will cut back their in person coverage and sports analysis/insider reporting and transition more to social commentary and pop culture crap. I expect it will be similar to an MTV type platform change to their non-live sports coverage, where they essentially dump most of their unique reporting, journalism, highlights, and analysis of the actual sports and instead focus on the social platforms and commentaries.
SV Panther wants all posts on a free PITT sports message board " sourced" as if this is a formal hearning or discovery formum.
ITS A FREAKIN CHEAP FREE UNRELIABLE PITT MESSAGE BOARD.
And who knows where half these people are posting from. They have internet access in prision, in institutions, drug & alcohol rehab centers, even under bridges where people are working out of their stolen shopping carts if they get lucky!
Some of the best discussion threads have been those where someone says:
"IMO I think--------------------------------------------------.
And the post start flying! That's what a message board is its not a court proceeding!
Not technically penalties...in contracts they are called "liquidated damages" provisions. The odds of ESPN entering bankruptcy are quite low, so most of the horrors described by SVP are merely theoretical--not likely. Hail to Pitt!
It takes far more than just population...the population has to actually care and watch programing for the "home team." In many states where the ACC has a team, that team is not the most popular college team in the market. Kind of like the silly meme that Rutgers brings the NYC market. Hail to Pitt!
You said:
That's clearly questioning whether there would be an ACC network. Also, the poster to whom you were responding (and the topic of this entire thread) was discussing the ACC not getting a network. I'd suggest you are the one who needs to read a little more before commenting.
The bottom line on this is clear. ESPN has already invested in the network. They are "stuck" with it as this point. Actually, it would make more sense that ESPN is doing these cost cutting measures to facilitate projects like the ACCN, rather than the opposite.
[QUOTE="PeetWeet1 said: ↑
Did you read the article? ACC generates more viewers for ESPN than anyone else.[/QUOTE]
The basis of my post was a reply to the bolded part of the post from PeetWeet1 directly above. That's the context.
Last edited:
No, it is not "clearly" something other than I said, which was: "the ACCN is certainly in jeopardy of being supported in a way that will allow it on air success or even over the internet success."
Read gooder.
The basis of my post was a reply to the bolded part of the post from PeetWeet1 directly above. That's the context.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but population growth in those states may or may not increase viewership of ACC programing [short term or long term]--which is/was my point. No doubt [and no argument] the ACC is important to ESPN based upon its present contractual relations. Hail to Pitt!
Everyone seems to be forgetting that viewership for all sports is down. Millennials don't enjoy sitting for 3-4 hours watching the game like the baby boomers. ESPN is in trouble.
Why do you think they layed off all their sports writers and experts but kept a jagoff like Stephen A. Smith? ESPN would rather create controversy on Twitter than cover live sports.
Why do you think they layed off all their sports writers and experts but kept a jagoff like Stephen A. Smith? ESPN would rather create controversy on Twitter than cover live sports.
I think ACCN will start out as a linear channel. Maybe 10 years later, once its developed a loyal customer base, I can see SECN and ACCN, maybe going stream-only. I can see ESPN offering a stream-only package for maybe $50/month. Or just subscribe to certain ESPN networks for cheaper. This is the future of TV. "Pay to stream" so you end up getting 20 channels for $150 instead of 200 channels for $150.
Covering live games and having all of the talking heads and commentators opining about them are 2 different things, though. Everyone has their own preferences but I form my own opinions about a game when I watch it. I could not care less what some "expert commentator" has to say. Most of them are useless to me and it doesn't bother me at all that they're gone.
People have definitely changed - and will continue to change - their sports viewing habits. Other than Pitt away games that I'm not attending in person, I now most often record other games (other CFB and CBB, NFL, MLB, NHL) and skip all commercials or breaks between halves, innings or periods when I watch. That can condense a game tremendously in terms of actual time spent watching.
Viewing habits in general are changing for many. Lots are now watching everything via streaming services on their own flexible timetable. Also skipping commercials. It will be up to the content providers to adapt. If they want to be successful they will do what's needed to stay in business. ESPN will be no different than their competitions in that regard. That they've recognized that and are making changes they feel are appropriate and necessary shows that they aspire to intend to remain one of the providers of sports content. From the outside that would appear to be a positive.
