INDEMAND will carry MLB EI? No so fast says MLB... How about E*?
- Thread starter Sean Mota
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 348
- Views 41K
HD RSNs is great if you want your local team in HD but the EI package was alaways about watching the out of market games.
What happened to MLB's stance that they would not negotiate the deals in the press? Bob DuPuy couldn't resist.
It might be best to change the thread title. There is no agreement. just an offer that one side says matches the other's demands.
Well the heat is on. In Demand clearly wants to keep the package and is throwing the egg back in baseballs face. . .
Dish should make an answer this week I hope.
Dish should make an answer this week I hope.
Well this should answer the question if MLB wants to do an exclusive deal with Major League Baseball or be fan friendly.
If they turn down InDemands offer then I think we know the answer.
If they turn down InDemands offer then I think we know the answer.
Actually I know a few cable system that are looking to go all digital.
If the customers dont like it, where are they going to go? Satellite where they need a box?
Imagine the bandwidth that opens up for HD on cable.
If the customers dont like it, where are they going to go? Satellite where they need a box?
Imagine the bandwidth that opens up for HD on cable.
Unlike satellite... cable companies have to deal with local contracts and governing entities. Wanting to go all digital and being able to are a wide margin apart when you're dealing in community complexities.
It would be far easier I think if Dish wanted to go all mpeg4 than a cable company to go all digital.
It would be far easier I think if Dish wanted to go all mpeg4 than a cable company to go all digital.
This statement is not really fair. There is a SIGNED contract in place between DirecTV and MLB. While we might not know the specifics - they surely do (InDemand). They either do or do not match the terms required in an already executed contract. If they do match the required terms, MLB and DirecTV could NOT preclude them from joining the party. There is really no need to slur either MLB or D* in this regard (the fan friendly comment).
As Howie Mandel might ask: Deal or NO Deal?
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2806948
or this also may or may not explain whats up with all of this sudden activity on the IE topic.
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070321&content_id=1853091&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
or this also may or may not explain whats up with all of this sudden activity on the IE topic.
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070321&content_id=1853091&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
I really don't think any other provider will Fully Match the offer From D*.
Part of the MLB D* deal includes a 20% equity ownership of the new MLB channel.
If InDemand and E* fully match the deal (including the equity ownership) then MLB would only own 40% of the MLB channel. The providers would own controlling interest in the channel.
I don't see the MLB commisioner You're NOT MY BUD Selig letting that happen.
Part of the MLB D* deal includes a 20% equity ownership of the new MLB channel.
If InDemand and E* fully match the deal (including the equity ownership) then MLB would only own 40% of the MLB channel. The providers would own controlling interest in the channel.
I don't see the MLB commisioner You're NOT MY BUD Selig letting that happen.
Maybe I'm not seeing this right, and I am trying to be objective. I would like to see EI available everywhere - that gives me the most options going forward also.
That being said, and as I stated, there is a contract NOW IN PLACE for carriage rights between D* and MLB. I would have to believe that there are specific terms that are being asked of for additional providers - if a provider meets those terms, they will get the package.
I can't see why MLB WOULDN'T want additional providers to buy the rights. After all, the more people that can receive it, the HIGHER the ad rates are - that is a HUGE amount of additional revenue for MLB and the different teams.
And as for the comment that MLB said they wouldn't negotiate in the media - wasn't it InDemand that made the FIRST public statement? MLB is responding in public, AS IT SHOULD to an already publicly made statement and press release.
It's all part of the identical negotiations that seem to go on in this industry ALL of the time IMO.
That being said, and as I stated, there is a contract NOW IN PLACE for carriage rights between D* and MLB. I would have to believe that there are specific terms that are being asked of for additional providers - if a provider meets those terms, they will get the package.
I can't see why MLB WOULDN'T want additional providers to buy the rights. After all, the more people that can receive it, the HIGHER the ad rates are - that is a HUGE amount of additional revenue for MLB and the different teams.
And as for the comment that MLB said they wouldn't negotiate in the media - wasn't it InDemand that made the FIRST public statement? MLB is responding in public, AS IT SHOULD to an already publicly made statement and press release.
It's all part of the identical negotiations that seem to go on in this industry ALL of the time IMO.
MLB doesn't care how many providers buy the rights. There would be no additional revenue for MLB. They get the $100m, no matter how many providers join in paying it. Advertising revenue goes to those providers. Think of the NFL. NBC pays the league for the rights to broadcast SNF. The NFL gets that money, no matter how many people watch, and NBC gets the advertising revenue that it sells.
There have not been identical "negotiations" to these in recent memory. Please cite another instance where a league signs an agreement with a provider which includes an ownership stake of a broadcast channel, then offers other providers a chance to join in and become "partners" to mirror the same broadcasts.
Another article, note the time.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/21/news/companies/baseball_cable.reut/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote
http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/21/news/companies/baseball_cable.reut/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote
I di not believe that his is true. What in the announcement makes you say that?
I find it hard to believe that the $100 million is split among providers. I went back to check the anouncements and i don't see anything that says that. In fact the exact financial arrangements were not disclosed. so why do you think that the total price is fixed,
Last edited:
