HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

FSN Philadelphia / CSN philly bidding war for Phillies

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-02-2013, 03:12 PM
  #1
PHILOUDELPHIA
Registered User
 
PHILOUDELPHIA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: PHILADELPHIA
Posts: 643
vCash: 500
FSN Philadelphia / CSN philly bidding war for Phillies

Hi, I came accross this in a tv forum that I'm a member of, it looks like Fox Sports wants to get involved in a major city after losing several big cities over the past decade, will see standing in there way of course Comcast. but prehaps the Phillies hold the key to finally breaking the ice with comcast and CSN.

read the article and tell me what you think. the one thing i wish i knew is when all the teams tv contracts are up.

I know sixers are 2029, phillies i believe is 2014 or 2015, not sure on flyers and since comcast owns them I doubt they move.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/p...dding-war.html

PHILOUDELPHIA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 03:36 PM
  #2
SolidSnakeUS
Registered User
 
SolidSnakeUS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Pipersville, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 31,137
vCash: 500
If it means that Wheels and Sarge are off the air, I'll go with FSN.

SolidSnakeUS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 03:44 PM
  #3
King Forsberg
21 68 88 16 44 28
 
King Forsberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 5,387
vCash: 500
Nobody is outbidding Comcast.

King Forsberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 03:53 PM
  #4
Hiesenberg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Country: United States
Posts: 3,388
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Forsberg View Post
Nobody is outbidding Comcast.
Probably not, but that's good new for the Flyers & Phillies.

Hiesenberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 03:55 PM
  #5
PHILOUDELPHIA
Registered User
 
PHILOUDELPHIA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: PHILADELPHIA
Posts: 643
vCash: 500
this is a similar situation on what the padres went through.

Most likely, this will get resolved no differently than what happened in San Diego. Cox cable which like Comcast refused to make a fair deal with DTV. The Padres made it clear to fans they were not happy about Cox cable and their monopolistic practices.

The Padres waited till their contracts with Cox were finished and made it clear they would make their games availiable on multiple platforms.

The Phillies most likely will be thinking the same way because of money. Most likely like it was previously mentioned, a new FS Philly will emerge and get the tv rights.

The same is true concerning Comcast NW.The Trailblazers have already regretted their business with Comcast and will make sure to change to a different channel.

It's all about waiting for existing tv contracts to end. The sports teams know it doesn't work out when these worthless cable company's refuse to make their channels avail on multiple distributors.

PHILOUDELPHIA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 03:57 PM
  #6
PHILOUDELPHIA
Registered User
 
PHILOUDELPHIA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: PHILADELPHIA
Posts: 643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolidSnakeUS View Post
If it means that Wheels and Sarge are off the air, I'll go with FSN.
unless new talent is hired and FSN philly does happen, let see who works at fox 29 right now.

Howard Eskin, Mikey Miss, Anthony Gargano,

PHILOUDELPHIA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 03:58 PM
  #7
Hiesenberg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Country: United States
Posts: 3,388
vCash: 500
BTW, I can't find anything on the Flyers current deal, is it because there is none? Comcast owned channel, Comcast owned team?

Hiesenberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 04:02 PM
  #8
PHILOUDELPHIA
Registered User
 
PHILOUDELPHIA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: PHILADELPHIA
Posts: 643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiesenberg View Post
BTW, I can't find anything on the Flyers current deal, is it because there is none? Comcast owned channel, Comcast owned team?
well we know sixers got a new contract not long ago good through 2029, and ED even though he isn't techincally owner, still makes money off games on CSN and charges rent to current owners, almost like owning the team but not having to pay salary's or expenses.

so I wonder lets say by the powers of greyskull fox gets there channel and the phillies, what would FSN have on duirng the winter season.

PHILOUDELPHIA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 04:15 PM
  #9
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,027
vCash: 500
Philly.com:
Quote:
So it’s entirely possible that Comcast could refuse to carry a Fox channel with Phillies games. That would probably stop the channel from even existing in the first place.
My Anti-Trust Senses tingle when I read something like this. My initial reaction is that shouldn't be OK and the Phillies/Fox would win the legal battle against Comcast, should one result. Can anyone with some expertise in this tell me if that's true?

---

Edit: did some googling

NYT, March 2013:
Quote:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out a proposed class-action antitrust lawsuit against Comcast, the nation’s largest cable television company, in which a group of more than two million current and former Comcast subscribers sought to prove that the company had unfairly eliminated competition and overcharged customers.

In a 5-to-4 decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court said that the proposed class of Comcast subscribers failed to meet formal legal guidelines for how to certify that evidence of wrongdoing was common to the group and that damages could be measured on a classwide, rather than an individual, basis.

The decision evoked a harsh dissent, however, written jointly by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, that accused the majority of focusing on an issue other than that on which the court had agreed to hear the case. They said the court should not have heard the case.

The majority created a ruling that “is good for this day and case only,” the dissenting justices wrote, and “sets forth a profoundly mistaken view of antitrust law.”

Neither Comcast nor its subscribers had the chance to make their cases as to whether the company engaged in anticompetitive practices, established a monopoly or overcharged customers. The plaintiffs accused Comcast of creating a monopoly by buying cable groups in the Philadelphia area that gave it 69 percent of that market in 2007, up from 24 percent in 1998.
Welp, that clarified nothing.


Last edited by Damaged Goods: 08-02-2013 at 04:22 PM.
Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 04:17 PM
  #10
flybynite77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiesenberg View Post
BTW, I can't find anything on the Flyers current deal, is it because there is none? Comcast owned channel, Comcast owned team?
I would assume it's similar to how the Yankees/Red Sox are in that the network and team have the same owners so the TV deal is less value than it would on the open market.

The reason being the TV deal money goes into revenue sharing...But the profit that the network makes off the games which goes to the same company that owns the team *is not* subject to the revenue sharing pool.

It's kind of like working the books to pay less taxes, but with league revenue sharing.

flybynite77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 04:21 PM
  #11
PHILOUDELPHIA
Registered User
 
PHILOUDELPHIA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: PHILADELPHIA
Posts: 643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
Philly.com:


My Anti-Trust Senses tingle when I read something like this. My initial reaction is that shouldn't be OK and the Phillies/Fox would win the legal battle against Comcast, should one result. Can anyone with some expertise in this tell me if that's true?
Comcast could refuse the network, but let say they are allowed to start the network, they strike a deal with Directv or verizon or dish or RCN. if that were to happen of course the fans would become victims.

someone has comcast, has CSN for flyers and sixers, but oh I need another provider to watch phils, that would stink big time.



Actually I have a question for every single member or non member do any of you have Comcast or Verizon and also Directv?

I know people that have both but have directv on the cheapest package so they get all the sport packages in HD.

PHILOUDELPHIA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 04:31 PM
  #12
PHILOUDELPHIA
Registered User
 
PHILOUDELPHIA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: PHILADELPHIA
Posts: 643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
Philly.com:


My Anti-Trust Senses tingle when I read something like this. My initial reaction is that shouldn't be OK and the Phillies/Fox would win the legal battle against Comcast, should one result. Can anyone with some expertise in this tell me if that's true?

---

Edit: did some googling

NYT, March 2013:


Welp, that clarified nothing.


you know, this was released in march of 2013, the article i posted about this was reports in april 2013, so knowing the ruling and still putting out the press release that they still have a strong interest in starting the network is something.

They also have some ownership out of the Yes network, which they will use to hopefully get fsn philly started.

comcast may be able to prevent the network from its lineup. but they would be allowed to start the network and also strike deals with compeititors.

Imagine if your verizon, and you strike this deal now you are in the drivers seat, you can offer both FSN, CSN, TCN, alof of there sport packages are now in HD and oh they will have an opportunity to add NFL Sunday Ticket in 2 years.

PHILOUDELPHIA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 05:54 PM
  #13
LegionOfDoom91
Registered User
 
LegionOfDoom91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,951
vCash: 500
All this does is drive up the price for the Phillies when their deal runs up. Comcast will still outbid Fox but have to pay a little more than they orginally were planning to do.

I don't really see how this would effect the Flyers though seeing as their owned by Comcast.

LegionOfDoom91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 09:54 PM
  #14
PHILOUDELPHIA
Registered User
 
PHILOUDELPHIA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: PHILADELPHIA
Posts: 643
vCash: 500
the phillies next tv deal could be near what the dodgers tv contract is, maybe not at 7 billion but it will be up in the billions.

this gives and Idea on what the phillies are going to be asking for.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...gernaut-status

its possible the phils could ask between 5 and 7 billion.

PHILOUDELPHIA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2013, 03:17 AM
  #15
Mjoedgaard
Rookie User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 50
vCash: 500
Do the Phillies really have that many viewers consider the terrible state they are in right now?

Mjoedgaard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2013, 12:34 PM
  #16
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 112,547
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mjoedgaard View Post
Do the Phillies really have that many viewers consider the terrible state they are in right now?
The Phillies haven't had a losing season since 2002. It's hardly a 'terrible state.' Talk to Pirates, Royals, or Astros fans about being in a terrible state.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2013, 07:18 PM
  #17
kicksave27
Registered User
 
kicksave27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,255
vCash: 500
I love the flyers, but I'm so glad I got rid of Comcast and hit fios

kicksave27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2013, 05:57 AM
  #18
Ilya Bryzastor
Registered User
 
Ilya Bryzastor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolidSnakeUS View Post
If it means that Wheels and Sarge are off the air, I'll go with FSN.
I love sarge , just love his oldschool stories and perspective during the middle innings, I agree with Wheels though he is annoying , I can't stand his voice either , he ruins some decent commentary from McCarthy.

Ilya Bryzastor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2013, 10:13 AM
  #19
Stonehands77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waltham, MA
Posts: 1,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
Philly.com:


My Anti-Trust Senses tingle when I read something like this. My initial reaction is that shouldn't be OK and the Phillies/Fox would win the legal battle against Comcast, should one result. Can anyone with some expertise in this tell me if that's true?

---

Edit: did some googling

NYT, March 2013:


Welp, that clarified nothing.
Wait, Justice Scalia wrote an opinion that sides with a huge mega-corporation against regular people? I'm shocked!

Stonehands77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2013, 11:17 AM
  #20
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,977
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
Philly.com:


My Anti-Trust Senses tingle when I read something like this. My initial reaction is that shouldn't be OK and the Phillies/Fox would win the legal battle against Comcast, should one result. Can anyone with some expertise in this tell me if that's true?

---

Edit: did some googling

NYT, March 2013:


Welp, that clarified nothing.
The court didn't say that Comcast wasn't violating anti-trust laws. In a class action lawsuit, you have to certify a class. A class has to meet certain criteria, one of them is calculating damages. In this case the proposed plaintiffs put forth a bunch of legal theories as to why Comcast was violating the anti-trust laws. The District Court basically said only one of them was valid. The Supreme Court (after it went to the appelate level) basically said that the damages were not able to be calculated accurately so the class can't be certified. The reason being that the measure of damages used by the plaintiffs included all of the legal theories originally put forth.

Think of this way:

Plaintiffs say Defendant is violating the Sherman Anti Trust Act for reasons A, B, C, and D. You calculate your damages based on reasons A, B, C, and D. The trial court certifies a class, but says reasons A, B, and C are not valid. That leaves you with a class who can only pursue damages under reason D. The Supreme Court says that doesn't fly because your damages included reasons A, B, and C as well. The class needs to certify that the damages are based only on reason D because that is the only potential viable legal theory upon which they will be successful.

That doesn't mean all is lost. They can still certify a class, they just have to prove that their damages are common and based on the remaining theory (which has to do with what Comcast's actions reducing the number of what are termed "overbuilders", or companies that build competing cable networks in areas where an incumbent cable company already operates). The withholding of sports channels from satellite providers was one of the reasons that got thrown out. ()

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2013, 03:45 PM
  #21
04' hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: City of Brotherly Lo
Posts: 589
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolidSnakeUS View Post
If it means that Wheels and Sarge are off the air, I'll go with FSN.
AGREE about W-H-E-E-L-E-R !!.....one arrogant MF'er when Ashburn was getting older and failing "wheels" treated him like **** .....same with Kalas
like to see him selling newspapers on the corner for a living He's gotta have photos of D. Montgomery doing something

04' hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2013, 04:22 PM
  #22
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
The court didn't say that Comcast wasn't violating anti-trust laws.
I know, that's why I said it clarified nothing. They did not comment on the heart of the matter, only on a technicality/procedure.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2013, 04:27 PM
  #23
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,977
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
I know, that's why I said it clarified nothing. They did not comment on the heart of the matter, only on a technicality/procedure.
Oh, my bad. I thought you meant the article you quoted didn't clarify the case's holding.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2013, 02:42 PM
  #24
PHILOUDELPHIA
Registered User
 
PHILOUDELPHIA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: PHILADELPHIA
Posts: 643
vCash: 500
Looks like Phillies will be very soon announcing there new TV deal, looks like by end of the year.

http://http://www.thegoodphight.com/...ithin-the-next





http://http://www.thegoodphight.com/...watch-us-maybe



Quote:
Boras predicts the Phillies' next TV deal will even eclipse the Dodgers' pact when it expires in 2015.

http://http://articles.philly.com/20...ruben-amaro-jr


Quote:
In 2014, the Los Angeles Dodgers will begin a 25-year TV deal with Time Warner that will pay them approximately $320 million annually.


Last edited by PHILOUDELPHIA: 11-22-2013 at 02:46 PM. Reason: .
PHILOUDELPHIA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2013, 02:49 PM
  #25
Broad Street Elite
Registered User
 
Broad Street Elite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,419
vCash: 500
In 2011, Forbes speculated that the Comcast deal netted the Phillies about $35 million a year. Projections for the new deal range from $150 million to 320+ million a year. Let that sink in.

If the Phillies choose, they can easily spend as much as any team in baseball and still be crushing out a monster profit. Now, whether we choose to spend that money wisely.... is definitely in doubt.

Broad Street Elite is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:17 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.