Dish sues Disney

[Greg Bimson]

Legal-eagles should worry less about 'words' and 'more' about substance...

According to reports, DISH is suing ESPN for a sum somewhere around $1 million, because DISH feels they are not receiving "most favored nation" pricing. As others in this thread have stated, $1 million is a single-digit percentage of the amount DISH pays ESPN in one month. So the substance in the suit appears lacking:

While suits like these often provide some juicy details on contracts and prices, this one is sadly lacking. Dish Network claims that it "understands" that Comcast and DirecTV got more favorable deals, but it doesn't elaborate, citing confidentiality agreements.

"Understands"? Mr. Ergen must need the Legal "profit center" to try and start making a profit again. And to go after ESPN because of Comcast and DirecTV, two providers that have more subscribers than DISH, may have better pricing is a very simple way to lose. Those "most favored nation" clauses usually only apply to a distributor that has the same or less subscribers than other distributors.

ESPN said in a statement that: "We have repeatedly advised Dish that we are in full compliance with our agreement and have offered them a distribution opportunity with respect to ESPNU and ESPN Classic consistent with the rest of the industry. We will not renegotiate settled contracts and will vigorously defend this legal action, the apparent sole purpose of which is to get a better deal."

Uh oh, it appears there is another fight on the horizon.

Imagine that. DISH wants out of a contract.

Any other "substance" to add? Notice how this doesn't affect DISNEY at all, one of the parties in the subject of the thread.

 

[vampz26]

According to reports, DISH is suing ESPN for a sum somewhere around $1 million, because DISH feels they are not receiving "most favored nation" pricing. As others in this thread have stated, $1 million is a single-digit percentage of the amount DISH pays ESPN in one month. So the substance in the suit appears lacking:"Understands"? Mr. Ergen must need the Legal "profit center" to try and start making a profit again. And to go after ESPN because of Comcast and DirecTV, two providers that have more subscribers than DISH, may have better pricing is a very simple way to lose. Those "most favored nation" clauses usually only apply to a distributor that has the same or less subscribers than other distributors.Uh oh, it appears there is another fight on the horizon.

Imagine that. DISH wants out of a contract.

Any other "substance" to add? Notice how this doesn't affect DISNEY at all, one of the parties in the subject of the thread.

Disney owns ESPN. The subject is correct. You are wrong. Nothing to fight about. (unless you choose too...)

Go with God.


(Wow...my one line of text contains more substance than any five posts bickering about the topic name...lol)

 

[Lkr]

Disney owns ESPN. The subject is correct. You are wrong. Nothing to fight about. (unless you choose too...)

Go with God.


(Wow...my one line of text contains more substance than any five posts bickering about the topic name...lol)

And seeing how the ESPN family of networks is probably Disney's biggest money makers on the TV front, I think it affects them a lot

 

[Greg Bimson]

Disney owns ESPN.

Disney owns 80 percent of ESPN, yet this fight does not include Disney, nor ABC, nor SoapNet, nor ABC Family. Just ESPN, which is its own entity and does its own retransmission agreements.

(Wow...my one line of text contains more substance than any five posts bickering about the topic name...lol)

Sure. Diarrhea. Fertilizer. Those are substances which are similar to the citation.

Unless somehow the belief is that other wholly-owned "Disney" properties are subject to this suit.

 

[vampz26]

Disney owns 80 percent of ESPN, yet this fight does not include Disney, nor ABC, nor SoapNet, nor ABC Family. Just ESPN, which is its own entity and does its own retransmission agreements.Sure. Diarrhea. Fertilizer. Those are substances which are similar to the citation.

Unless somehow the belief is that other wholly-owned "Disney" properties are subject to this suit.

You know? Of all the ridiculous "I'm always right" arguments you get into around here...

I'll say this again:
Disney owns ESPN. The subject is correct. You are wrong. Nothing to fight about.

How can Disney not be affected by one of their largest properties being involved in a lawsuit?!?

I've accused you in the past of not having a firm grasp of the business before...that seems to be the case here.

Please...just stop already. Nobody is impressed...

 

[Greg Bimson]

I'll say this again:
Disney owns ESPN. The subject is correct. You are wrong. Nothing to fight about.

Then why are you fighting? Disney's spokesman did not come out and say they would fight this suit. It was ESPN's spokesman.

And I'll say this again:
Take a look at the suit and tell me where DISH is suing DIS. DISH is suing a unit which majority-owned by DIS. There is a difference.

How can Disney not be affected by one of their largest properties being involved in a lawsuit?!?

I've accused you in the past of not having a firm grasp of the business before...that seems to be the case here.

My "grasp" seems to be right. ESPN handles THEIR OWN LEGAL ITEMS. Disney has nothing to do with ESPN's carriages and contracts. And ESPN's carriage disputes have nothing to do with Disney, other than the fact Disney gets to report profits to their bottom line through their majority-owned partnership.

But, alas, none of the other Disney properties is affected. And the amount in question according to the article is around $1 million. Meanwhile, DISH is paying ESPN around $30 million per month. And there is no threat of removal of ESPN.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Then again, some would rather fight me than to pay attention to the issue. Just like DISH is trying to do with ESPN.

 

[vampz26]

Then why are you fighting? Disney's spokesman did not come out and say they would fight this suit. It was ESPN's spokesman.

And I'll say this again:
Take a look at the suit and tell me where DISH is suing DIS. DISH is suing a unit which majority-owned by DIS. There is a difference.My "grasp" seems to be right. ESPN handles THEIR OWN LEGAL ITEMS. Disney has nothing to do with ESPN's carriages and contracts. And ESPN's carriage disputes have nothing to do with Disney, other than the fact Disney gets to report profits to their bottom line through their majority-owned partnership.

But, alas, none of the other Disney properties is affected. And the amount in question according to the article is around $1 million. Meanwhile, DISH is paying ESPN around $30 million per month. And there is no threat of removal of ESPN.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Then again, some would rather fight me than to pay attention to the issue. Just like DISH is trying to do with ESPN.

Lmao! Dude! Disney OWNS ESPN!
An espn spokesman is by default disney spokesman!

And payments and profits are all the machinations of business. Obviously they are just words to you that you throw around. But to the rest of us, they mean something.

They mean that given the bonds of ownership and fiscal ties between disney and espn, that if you sue espn, you are suing disney. Period. Not a lot of useless words needed to describe that! Lol.

Go with God, Greg.

 

[Mr Tony]

KNOCK IT OFF

Who cares seriously if the title says Disney or ESPN??

Y'all need to find a new hobby

 

[vampz26]

KNOCK IT OFF

Who cares seriously if the title says Disney or ESPN??

Y'all need to find a new hobby

+1, that was kind of my original point all along.

Sounds better coming from you, I guess.

 

[Greg Bimson]

KNOCK IT OFF

Who cares seriously if the title says Disney or ESPN??

Y'all need to find a new hobby

I'm thinking Proud Staff Member may be a new hobby, especially when Proud Staff Members criticize posters by telling them they need a new hobby.

So looks like we will be losing our espn and Disney channels again . God they already charge higher than any other company for ESPN sports channels. I can only imagine the higher price once this lawsuit gets decided . Another Stand off with a channel provider.

The Disney Channels are not affected, but one wouldn't know it from the title of this thread. And this wasn't the only post here believing that the Disney channels are affected, especially when the quoted source is only discussing ESPN.

The only reason I suggested changing the name of the thread: to be helpful.

 

[vampz26]

I'm thinking Proud Staff Member may be a new hobby, especially when Proud Staff Members criticize posters by telling them they need a new hobby.The Disney Channels are not affected, but one wouldn't know it from the title of this thread. And this wasn't the only post here believing that the Disney channels are affected, especially when the quoted source is only discussing ESPN.

The only reason I suggested changing the name of the thread: to be helpful.

insulting staff members and acting like a pompous "you-know-what" is not the jedi way...

You were wrong. Acknowledge, and move on...

I may not be the model poster, but at least I show respect.

 

[mike123abc]

The Disney Channels are not affected, but one wouldn't know it from the title of this thread. And this wasn't the only post here believing that the Disney channels are affected, especially when the quoted source is only discussing ESPN.

The thread title would have been better noting ESPN. But, if there was a real problem between Dish and ESPN (this I expect is nothing), do not be fooled, Disney would band up the other channels it owns to increase leverage when they came up for renewal.

 

[Mr Tony]

I'm thinking Proud Staff Member may be a new hobby, especially when Proud Staff Members criticize posters by telling them they need a new hobby.

a new hobby instead of bickering about whether its Disney or ESPN