Scott's View and YOURS on the MLB Deal

[jpn]

If we just sat around sitting on our hands the season will have started and then we will be kicking ourself for not doing anything why we could.

If we just shut up the only folks who would be happy are MLB and DirecTV. Remember it's the squeeky wheels that get the grease.

By that logic we should all be bitching about the asteroid that will pass close to Earth in 2018, and bitch that we aren't developing technology to shield the Earth.

Wouldn't it be prudent to press Dish and cable to make an honest attempt to cut a deal, before bitching?

When I read the part about agreeing to terms, my understanding was that they aren't going to allow Charlie to dictate a low-ball price like he always does. As for the breaking-even and $28M figures tossed around, those are purely speculative. I doubt that D* expects to break-even in year one, more likely they hope to add new subs and decrease churn. New subs can overcome a loss in this one package.

Even D* customers should expect a rate increase, but let's face the reality here: there is a point at which the price turns more people off than on and subs are lost. They aren't going to do that.

Next point: subscription fees. I have never subscribed to EI. Perhaps some who have can chime-in here. Did all the providers charge the same subscription fee? Did D*, E* and cable subscribers all pay the same annual subscription for EI? If they did, then it's reasonable to think that constant will remain.

Some rational discussion and investigation is probably in-order before the call-to-arms goes into effect. Today all you're doing is saying: Mr Congressman, I MIGHT lose my keys, help me!

IMO, the biggest danger to E* subs is Charlie. Write to him, encourage him to cut a deal so that baseball can be viewed from Opening Day. If you go past him initially, you have no rational basis to complain.

Try to think in terms of what makes good business sense to D*, since they currently hold the keys to the kingdom. Emotion says they're out to screw everybody, but that's terrible busines and they've deomonstrated better business-sense than that. Take the emotion out and try to be objective.

 

[jahlight]

I just talked to BHN csr and she said NO they will not being offering MLB EI and her words "because D* has won an exclusive contract with them". So yea, no one else is going to get it no matter what they try and portray in the media.

 

[EJMCOL]

According to my calculations, if D* was to go it alone at $100M, and at $160 per subscriber, they would need 625,000 subs just to break even. (I'm sure it's not that simple though). What's the figure on the count of MLB EI's total subs the past couple of years from all providers??

Sports bars pay D* a heck of a lot more than $160 for the MLB package . . . don't forget to take that into account.

 

[jcrash]

Baseball is probably the most boring professional sport in the US - even worse than NASCAR. If they stopped playing baseball today, I wouldn't even notice.

 

[db2]

The "non-exclusive" clause in the contract is a joke. D* is banking on the fact that other providers will not match the offer. E* definitely won't but I could see Comcast doing it.

IMHO the bottom line is that this contract does not benefit the customer/fans. This deal boils down to more guaranteed money for MLB, more subs for D* and no added benefit for the customer.

On another note, maybe E* will realize that the amount of money the RSN's are asking for the HD channels doesn't seem so bad after all...

...but probably not.

 

[Peter Parker]

i don't think that Congress had anything to do with the decsion not to put the Spiderman logo on the bases.

The situation here is not good for the fan/consumer but I suspect that it will occur as signed and that I will be without the Red Sox again.

 

[Peter Parker]

By that logic we should all be bitching about the asteroid that will pass close to Earth in 2018, and bitch that we aren't developing technology to shield the Earth.

Wouldn't it be prudent to press Dish and cable to make an honest attempt to cut a deal, before bitching?

.

Asteroids aside I think that the argument here is that the nature of the deal is such that it is unlikely that other providers will match it. It was done this way so that they could say it is avaiaable when they know full well that no one else will accept.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

By that logic we should all be bitching about the asteroid that will pass close to Earth in 2018, and bitch that we aren't developing technology to shield the Earth.

Wow, may I present you with your very own Tin Foil hat.

Wouldn't it be prudent to press Dish and cable to make an honest attempt to cut a deal, before bitching?

If we wait to bitch, it will be too late.

I can see DirecTV and MLB cutting their own throats on this one, as I expect the baseball diehards will just "move" to see their favoite teams city so they can see their team play and no an additional single cent goes to MLB.

 

[Trouthead]

I will be surprised if DISH cuts a deal to carry EI. From a buisness point of view they all might just let DIRECT TV suck it up and lose money. I would agree if it is just buisness, and anything with 700 million involved has to be either buisness or government, then it is time to lose the anti trust exemption.

I am a little amazed tht MLB thinks that what most baseball fans want is "ALL THE GAMES" Unless I am way off base, what most FANS want is all the games for the team they follow that happens to be 1000 miles away from their local RSN. I am a Red Sox fan. I watched most of their games, plus a few Yankee games and a few others when there is nothing else to watch. I am sure I never watched a Seattle game or a KC game. Those games are wasted on me.

MLB is lost because of Bud Selig. All that being said, I will have to bite the bullet and subscribe to DIRECT TV for a basic package.

I did that once with DISH, I got just the MLB EI package and nothing else. It worked out OK. There are lots of Direct TV receivers kicking around for cheap, so I will get the install done and subscribe.

Has anyone tried to do this yet?

 

[tfultz]

Typical MLB in the Bug Selig era.

Sell out the long-term interests of baseball for a short-term gain that will end up costing the MLB fans in the end.

Typical

 

[leo250]

I am wondering...It's hard to give MLB credit for ANYTHING, but as the fan/consumer is taking the cost and the slap in the face on this, is it just my own conspiracy theory or did MLB finally beat the NFL at the TV channel game? The NFL network can be considered stalled or a bust on most systems, but MLB is either going to have an exclusive home for their network or multiple systems overpaying for channel that will have a hard time coming up with "new" information that is not already available through ESPN or RSN's. This being said, can fans take HGH to help tendons heal from the hurt this deal is costing us?

 

[pabeader]

And now for a different view...

First some background; When I was first making the decision to pick Dish or the other guys. It was simple. Sports = other guy Movies = Dish. I would not mind seeing a return to those days. Much like Mac = Artsy PC = Real work.

Just think of all the available BW we'd have if they didn't carry stuff I don't watch. What?? You mean you watch it? HHmmmm well I'm not sure what to do then. Maybe we could have different providers for types of viewers. Kinda like the old days.

 

[ekilgus]

I think I read somewhere in this forum that E* had about 50,000 subs last year for MLB. If accurate, it doesn't make any kind of sense to continue with the MLB package at these now exhorbatent prices. It seems to me that there is no way E* can charge subs what they need to just to break even. I think if E* concentrated on movies, other content and especially HD, they will more than make up for any sub losses to D*.

I think D* is counting on lucrative (for them) deals with in demand, E* and other cable companies to offset the outlandish price they're paying MLB. It would be very interesting if there were no takers with respect to D*'s terms for carrying MLB thus forcing D* to shoulder the entire cost of the deal itself. It wouldn't be the first time some company miscalculated the demand for their product.

 

[mikew]

I think D* is counting on lucrative (for them) deals with in demand, E* and other cable companies to offset the outlandish price they're paying MLB. It would be very interesting if there were no takers with respect to D*'s terms for carrying MLB thus forcing D* to shoulder the entire cost of the deal itself. It wouldn't be the first time some company miscalculated the demand for their product.

Contrary. They have put the price/requirements at such a high level that neither E* or InDemand will want a piece. The only reason they are stating in the press that E*/I* can purchase the package is to appease the FCC & John Ketchup. I'm sure a sticky point in all of the negotiations is putting MLBTV on the basic tier. This isn't to get the most distribution, it is to ensure they can get X per sub. If it were on a digital tier, X would be a much lower number.

 

[NightRyder]

Let D* have it. MLB ceased to be the national pastime long ago, it's now the national joke. Have to have baseball? Watch college, high school and little league where the game still matters more than the money.

NightRyder

 

[jpn]

Contrary. They have put the price/requirements at such a high level that neither E* or InDemand will want a piece. The only reason they are stating in the press that E*/I* can purchase the package is to appease the FCC & John Ketchup. I'm sure a sticky point in all of the negotiations is putting MLBTV on the basic tier. This isn't to get the most distribution, it is to ensure they can get X per sub. If it were on a digital tier, X would be a much lower number.

ree

I agree with the basic-tier stipulation being a potential problem.
I don't buy into the digital-tier part. MLBTV does not launch until 2009; isn't April 2009 when analog gets its plug pulled?

 

[Peter Parker]

ree

I agree with the basic-tier stipulation being a potential problem.
I don't buy into the digital-tier part. MLBTV does not launch until 2009; isn't April 2009 when analog gets its plug pulled?

Analog OTA gets its plug pulled in 2009---not analog cable.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

There is no way that E* will even give a 2nd thought to signing a deal for MLB:EI.

If they have 50,000 EI subs and have to pay $100M a year for the rights, then those subs would have to pay $2000/yr each to cover the costs. Of course they aren't going to do that. E* would have a hard time charging more than $200/each.

That would leave E* with a $90M/yr loss on a single sports package. Why in the world would Charlie do that? And how many E* subs would support him in doing that? Very few.

So while this deal is technically not an exclusive, there is no way that E* could sign up for it without a significant cost reduction. And I don't see anyway that the cost would be reduced.

 

[pdxsam]

I read the press release and the resulant deal comments as:

If D* has the exclusive it's 100 million per yr. If it's not exclusive that 100 mill is divided among whoever signs for it. So if just D* and E* sign it could be a 50 mill cost per. Since Dish had 50K subs @ 200 per sub that's only 10 million bucks. No way would Charlie go for a loss and frankly as much as I want EI, I wouldn't want him to sign that deal.

 

[BobMurdoch]

It all depends on the rate each subscriber pays......

If it is to be $XXX.XX per subscriber, involve the agreement to add the Baseball Channel to the basic tier, and add missing RSNs, it has a chance of succeeding.

The problem is that the guy announcing the deal,was saying it like he knew that theother players inthis poker game would fold at the "raise bet" D* made here....

I still hope the the feds pressure them to nix the deal.....