Sunday Ticket litigation

[SamCdbs]

Once Googles streaming model fails..whats to stop them from reselling to cable and satellite companies?

Google's "model" is the old Fox model from 30 years ago. Fox was an unknown and off-beat TV network that no one watched. It got the NFL, and the general perception is that that "made" it the equal of the other three. Despite the fact that it paid many multiples of what the two incumbents (NBC and CBS) had offered.

And I think that is mostly true. The problem is that YTTV is not a broadcast network. It is a cheap linear provider and a re-seller of streaming services. The idea, somehow, is that people are going to put up with YTTV, despite all its limitations, to get a "discount" on ST; or that cord switchers who eschew linear TV and instead pay (more) for streaming services will, for some reason, choose to buy this from YT rather than just directly from the different (unprofitable) streamers or from Amazon or the other dongle makers.

Since we know that the market for ST is pretty small in the first place, and since we know that YT will only be allowed to show 2 minutes per hour of its own ads, the money bleed is going to be great. YT was expecting to lose money, everyone who knows this business knows that, but my opinion is that the money bleed will be yet greater by many multiples than YT thought.

Since YT is a horrible corporate citizen of the world, good.

 

[Bruce]

Yes, they can set the price anywhere they want, as long as it is a premium price. $400 has been widely reported as the minimum that Fox and CBS require.

And right now, it is not $400.

This, is, obviously, incorrect.

No, I am not-

DirecTV’s Sunday Ticket cost $300 and up to $400 bundled with the satellite carrier’s version of RedZone.

Right now, the prices are $249 and $349 with Redzone for the package on YouTube TV

So as I said, it is cheaper with YTTV then DirecTV, until June 6.

Right now, stand-alone pricing, which is new, is $349 for Sunday Ticket and $389 with Redzone.

That is new, never offered before as a standalone to the majority of the population.

 

[meStevo]

$400 has been widely reported as the minimum that Fox and CBS require.

It's wild that you post things like this when it's already wrong before you even typed it. Kind of like how you denied it would be offered standalone AFTER it was announced as being available standalone - multiple times. It's like you're repeating things to convince yourself more than to engage in an actual discussion.

 

[Bruce]

Google's "model" is the old Fox model from 30 years ago. Fox was an unknown and off-beat TV network that no one watched. It got the NFL, and the general perception is that that "made" it the equal of the other three. Despite the fact that it paid many multiples of what the two incumbents (NBC and CBS) had offered.

You do know that YTTV is the only Live TV provider gaining subscribers, roughly at 5.5 million in their short timeframe , only 4 million less then DirecTV Satellite and 4 million more then the streaming version of DirecTV.

And I think that is mostly true. The problem is that YTTV is not a broadcast network. It is a cheap linear provider and a re-seller of streaming services. The idea, somehow, is that people are going to put up with YTTV, despite all its limitations,

What limitation?

Unlimited DVR, 3 Streams ( boxes at no extra charge), 1080P Picture, Dolby Digital+ sound.

The only thing it does not have is the RSNs, but that will not matter soon enough.

Or shall we talk about the old equipment of DirecTV, the dot matrix of STBs.

.Since we know that the market for ST is pretty small in the first place, and since we know that YT will only be allowed to show 2 minutes per hour of its own ads,

Already have posted the links multiple times that you are incorrect, you have even responded to them, Google can run their own ads.

Do not know why you keep posting misinformation and total untruths, it is like you are taking this personal about the move to streaming and need to have revenge.

the money bleed is going to be great. YT was expecting to lose money, everyone who knows this business knows that, but my opinion is that the money bleed will be yet greater by many multiples than YT thought.

Doubtful, we have already proven to you they have multiple ways to make revenue with ST, the two biggest is subscriptions, both ST by itself and those who choose to get YTTV also, revenue from ads is also a big deal.

And Google has 100 Billion in cash, they would be fine if they did not sell one ST subscription.

Since YT is a horrible corporate citizen of the world, good.

Your opinion, I find myself watching regular YT more and more.

 

[Jimbo]

There is no evidence that is true, especially now, since the person who runs NFL Media said Google sets the pricing-

The pricing for Sunday Ticket will ultimately be set by YouTube, which will also determine various potential packages to offer customers, Prasad said Thursday. That leaves the door open for options like individual team subscriptions. “We hope it continues to be a very accessible price and great opportunity for our fans,” Prasad said.

NFL 'Sunday Ticket' goes to YouTube in seven-year, $2 billion annual deal

The NFL reached a deal with Google's YouTube for its "Sunday Ticket" subscription package.

www.cnbc.com

ST Pricing will be set by YouTube as long as its good enough for the NFL.

The NFL will have the final say in its pricing ...

Note, others wanted it to be lower and was booted out of the conversation.

As with everything NFL, its being run by the NFL pricing wise.

 

[Bruce]

ST Pricing will be set by YouTube as long as it’s good enough for the NFL.

I doubt the NFL cares as long as they get their $2-2.5 billion every year.

The NFL will have the final say in its pricing ...

I have posted the link multiple times with quotes from the head of NFL Media that said the pricing is up to Google, since right now it is cheaper with YTTV then it was with DirecTV, I have no reason to doubt.

Note, others wanted it to be lower and was booted out of the conversation.

no one has been booted and it is not up to us how much it is.

If you are referring to that stupid class action lawsuit ( that has been going on to 2016) and what it said about Apple, I will post again it is all ********.

First off, the article does not show what is alleged about the pricing, for example-

Second, further disclosures could show that the talks with Apple failed because Apple wanted to make the package significantly cheaper for consumers.

Key word-Could, not does show.

The plaintiffs in the Sunday Ticket antitrust litigation essentially are arguing that the league has withheld documents that would show Apple wasn’t selected due to its plan to offer the package for less than consumers have been paying.

More lawyer talk, basically saying release all the documents so that we can prove what we accuse the NFL of, not that they have evidence that the NFL did what they say.

As with everything NFL, it’s being run by the NFL pricing wise.

Again, the evidence (quotes from the NFL) shows otherwise, if Google ( or Apple) says/shows otherwise, that will be different.

But I doubt either company is in fear of the NFL and would speak up.if they wish.
Google has a market cap of $1.369 Trillion
Apple is $2.75 Trillion

The combined value of all 32 NFL teams is currently $142.87 billion

either company could buy every team in the NFL and plenty left over.

 

[Jimbo]

I doubt the NFL cares as long as they get their $2-2.5 billion every year.

I have posted the link multiple times with quotes from the head of NFL Media that said the pricing is up to Google, since right now it is cheaper with YTTV then it was with DirecTV, I have no reason to doubt.

no one has been booted and it is not up to us how much it is.

If you are referring to that stupid class action lawsuit ( that has been going on to 2016) and what it said about Apple, I will post again it is all ********.

First off, the article does not show what is alleged about the pricing, for example-

Second, further disclosures could show that the talks with Apple failed because Apple wanted to make the package significantly cheaper for consumers.

Key word-Could, not does show.

The plaintiffs in the Sunday Ticket antitrust litigation essentially are arguing that the league has withheld documents that would show Apple wasn’t selected due to its plan to offer the package for less than consumers have been paying.

More lawyer talk, basically saying release all the documents so that we can prove what we accuse the NFL of, not that they have evidence that the NFL did what they say.

Again, the evidence (quotes from the NFL) shows otherwise, if Google ( or Apple) says/shows otherwise, that will be different.

But I doubt either company is in fear of the NFL and would speak up.if they wish.
Google has a market cap of $1.369 Trillion
Apple is $2.75 Trillion

The combined value of all 32 NFL teams is currently $142.87 billion

either company could buy every team in the NFL and plenty left over.

Why do I bother posting anything when your here to refute everything Anyone says.

The NFL DOES CARE how much it is charging ... If they come out and charge $100 a sub, the NFL would COMPLAIN and put a STOP to it.

Apple was in the conversation, until they wanted to price it cheaper or in a particular package, the NFL didn't like that and Apple was gone.

Now your gonna tell me at $100 they won't cover the cost ...
Yet you all say they are not there to make a profit on ST anyways ...

You make everything spin to make you sound correct, regardless ...

I have been reading and posting less, but when you come after me, I'll be there.

No One is allowed to have an opinion around here any more ...

 

[Jimbo]

I doubt the NFL cares as long as they get their $2-2.5 billion every year.

I have posted the link multiple times with quotes from the head of NFL Media that said the pricing is up to Google, since right now it is cheaper with YTTV then it was with DirecTV, I have no reason to doubt.

no one has been booted and it is not up to us how much it is.

If you are referring to that stupid class action lawsuit ( that has been going on to 2016) and what it said about Apple, I will post again it is all ********.

First off, the article does not show what is alleged about the pricing, for example-

Second, further disclosures could show that the talks with Apple failed because Apple wanted to make the package significantly cheaper for consumers.

Key word-Could, not does show.

The plaintiffs in the Sunday Ticket antitrust litigation essentially are arguing that the league has withheld documents that would show Apple wasn’t selected due to its plan to offer the package for less than consumers have been paying.

More lawyer talk, basically saying release all the documents so that we can prove what we accuse the NFL of, not that they have evidence that the NFL did what they say.

Again, the evidence (quotes from the NFL) shows otherwise, if Google ( or Apple) says/shows otherwise, that will be different.

But I doubt either company is in fear of the NFL and would speak up.if they wish.
Google has a market cap of $1.369 Trillion
Apple is $2.75 Trillion

The combined value of all 32 NFL teams is currently $142.87 billion

either company could buy every team in the NFL and plenty left over.

Yippie ...

 

[Bruce]

Why do I bother posting anything when your here to refute everything Anyone says.

The NFL DOES CARE how much it is charging ... If they come out and charge $100 a sub, the NFL would COMPLAIN and put a STOP to it.

Apple was in the conversation, until they wanted to price it cheaper or in a particular package, the NFL didn't like that and Apple was gone.

Now your gonna tell me at $100 they won't cover the cost ...
Yet you all say they are not there to make a profit on ST anyways ...

You make everything spin to make you sound correct, regardless ...

I have ben reading and posting less, but when you come after me, I'll be there.

No One is allowed to have an opinion around here any more ...

$100 came out of you, I never wrote any such thing.

And again, there is no evidence about Apple wanting to price it cheap, all that has been written is those filing the lawsuit is seeking out information to see if it is true.

As far as what I post here, everything I post has links, I always back up what I post with prove, not just my opinion.

If you want more info about Sunday Ticket, there is a big story about it in the Pub, Scott posted it.

 

[Jimbo]

$100 came out of you, I never wrote any such thing.

And again, there is no evidence about Apple wanting to price it cheap, all that has been written is those filing the lawsuit is seeking out information to see if it is true.

As far as what I post here, everything I post has links, I always back up what I post with prove, not just my opinion.

If you want more info about Sunday Ticket, there is a big story about it in the Pub, Scott posted it.

I know, your happily shooting people down in at least 3 different threads we now have talking about the same stuff.

Fwiw, Someone said that they wanted to make the ST cheaper and was shot down ....
You go find it, I don't have time to look for someone that wrote an article about it.

Btw, just because you find a link doesn't mean its true, its speculation most of the time.

Yes, I am the one that mentioned $100, I was making a point, but it didn't fit your agenda, so it was dismissed.

I REALLY HATE coming in the forums and finding the same BS every day where so and so says one thing and so and so says No its not ...

You can probably quote your self and find both side to your dislike.

 

[Yespage]

I doubt the NFL cares as long as they get their $2-2.5 billion every year.

NFL cares because Fox and CBS will care. They bid a value for broadcasting rights and it is important that local eyeballs see local advertising. If ST is too cheap, people will watch whatever game they want, which is fine for national advertising but not local advertising revenue. Hence, a premium is needed for ST. If ST becomes cheap, the NFL game value drops, and Fox/CBS bid less.

 

[SamCdbs]

NFL cares because Fox and CBS will care. They bid a value for broadcasting rights and it is important that local eyeballs see local advertising. If ST is too cheap, people will watch whatever game they want, which is fine for national advertising but not local advertising revenue. Hence, a premium is needed for ST. If ST becomes cheap, the NFL game value drops, and Fox/CBS bid less.

This is 100% correct. Everyone who knows anything about this industry knows that.

Now the same poster can again remind us that he googled up an article which he, incorrectly, thinks says differently.

As I said, everyone who knows anything about this industry...

 

[Bruce]

NFL cares because Fox and CBS will care. They bid a value for broadcasting rights and it is important that local eyeballs see local advertising. If ST is too cheap, people will watch whatever game they want, which is fine for national advertising but not local advertising revenue. Hence, a premium is needed for ST. If ST becomes cheap, the NFL game value drops, and Fox/CBS bid less.

Once again, from the head of NFL Media-The pricing for Sunday Ticket will ultimately be set by YouTube, which will also determine various potential packages to offer customers, Prasad said Thursday. That leaves the door open for options like individual team subscriptions. “We hope it continues to be a very accessible price and great opportunity for our fans,” Prasad said.

NFL 'Sunday Ticket' goes to YouTube in seven-year, $2 billion annual deal

The NFL reached a deal with Google's YouTube for its "Sunday Ticket" subscription package.

www.cnbc.com

And right now, it is cheaper, with YTTV it is $250 and $300, with DirecTV it was $300 and $400.

And I already ordered it at $250.

 

[Yespage]

But I wouldn't consider that "cheap". Cheap compared to having to sub to Directv, blah blah blah and all, and cheap because you can get it a la carte. But it isn't "cheap" cheap. YouTube gets to set a sticker price, but there is very likely a basement number they can't drop below because of CBS and FOX (Fox?).

 

[Radioguy41]

The judge has ruled and it's going to court, tentatively in February. This is a big blow for the NFL as they will likely be required to, for the first time, open their books, something they have fought against for years. This could get very interesting and you have to wonder, depending on the length of the trial, how it might impact the draft. Roger the dodger can't be in court and at the draft at the same time if it goes on that long.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litig...icket-class-action-us-judge-rules-2024-01-12/

 

[Joe The Dragon]

The judge has ruled and it's going to court, tentatively in February. This is a big blow for the NFL as they will likely be required to, for the first time, open their books, something they have fought against for years. This could get very interesting and you have to wonder, depending on the length of the trial, how it might impact the draft. Roger the dodger can't be in court and at the draft at the same time if it goes on that long.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litig...icket-class-action-us-judge-rules-2024-01-12/

and will this court order that NFL st be offered to all systems non exclusive? Will the NFL put that up as a out of court settlement?

 

[meStevo]

The judge has ruled and it's going to court, tentatively in February. This is a big blow for the NFL as they will likely be required to, for the first time, open their books, something they have fought against for years. This could get very interesting and you have to wonder, depending on the length of the trial, how it might impact the draft. Roger the dodger can't be in court and at the draft at the same time if it goes on that long.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litig...icket-class-action-us-judge-rules-2024-01-12/

No reason to expect this to interfere with the draft.

Still don't see this really going anywhere.

 

[Yespage]

and will this court order that NFL st be offered to all systems non exclusive? Will the NFL put that up as a out of court settlement?

Why would a Court rule that there must be more middle-men? ST is already available to anyone who wants it a la carte.

Last thing I want to hear from a court is that the NFL isn't being fair to broadcasters. The consumers are the ones who ultimately foot the bill. NFL games are already 3+ hours long to manage the high cost paid to broadcast it.

 

[Radioguy41]

No reason to expect this to interfere with the draft.

Still don't see this really going anywhere.

The judge has ruled the plaintiff's have enough evidence to present a case so it's already going somewhere, to court. The next step, I suspect, is we will see just how protective the NFL is going to be of it's books. Depending on how much the NFL fears opening it's books will likely determine how hard they push for a settlement. The NFLPA has wanted to look at the books for years and been rebuffed. This could be there only chance so they might join the case as a friend of the court. Only time will tell but don't think this is just going to disappear into the woodwork, it's gone past that.

 

[meStevo]

The judge has ruled the plaintiff's have enough evidence to present a case so it's already going somewhere, to court. The next step, I suspect, is we will see just how protective the NFL is going to be of it's books. Depending on how much the NFL fears opening it's books will likely determine how hard they push for a settlement. The NFLPA has wanted to look at the books for years and been rebuffed. This could be there only chance so they might join the case as a friend of the court. Only time will tell but don't think this is just going to disappear into the woodwork, it's gone past that.

I didn't say it would disappear, I said it isn't going to go anywhere. I couldn't care less how embarrassing or revealing it is to the NFL, I just don't see why it would result in anything meaningful for fans or change how things are being done today, nor would it have any impact on the draft.