This is why we need ala-cart, let me buy what I want. Unfortunately that will never happen. Sadly there are way too many channels that nobody ever watches that we pay for.
Why are we still paying so much for sports?
- Thread starter ncted
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 39
- Views 5K
I don't know specifically about the pro sports leagues, but I know ACC schools don't get any money if the league's games aren't shown on TV. If no games are played, then no money goes to the schools. I assume it is similar for the rest of college athletics?
I know one thing they the NHL TV and MLB Tv aren't giving any refunds back to those that paid for this seasons games. I called both and they said since the seasons haven't been terminated there wasn't anything they could do and the only thing was to unscribe and cancel but you would get to see the games they play when and if they do come back.
And, here I was just hoping that things would get back to normal in my lifetime. You are a real optimist.
We're paying for a LOT of things we can't use right now.
Here is a partial list of closed things that we pay for in California (through taxes or directly):
State Parks.
Schools
Colleges
Health Clubs and Gyms
Department of Motor Vehicles
Courts
As for TV and Sports -- I would guess that there are a lot of unemployed people who are cancelling pay TV right now. It's a low priority if you need money for food and rent.
Here is a partial list of closed things that we pay for in California (through taxes or directly):
State Parks.
Schools
Colleges
Health Clubs and Gyms
Department of Motor Vehicles
Courts
As for TV and Sports -- I would guess that there are a lot of unemployed people who are cancelling pay TV right now. It's a low priority if you need money for food and rent.
They can put in substitute sports. Why, just 3 days ago I read that as Curling season ends, they can bring in the Intercontinental Outdoor Tiddly Winks Competition. That should bring in the money that Quidditch and Cheese Rolling brings in.
On that thought. Concerning DISH and their Contracts we have some information that the number of games is part of the contract. When games are added to an RSN either from no longer being on free tv or coming from another RSN they want DISH to pay more money while still in the contract. When DISH says no those added games are not shown.
So keeping that thought, at this moment there is nothing DISH can do because who says those games don't get played, just that now at a different time. When the time comes I think it is possible DISH and others if games are indeed greatly truncated like Baseball almost certainly will be, they will want some reduction. If they get that reduction, will it be passed on to the subscriber is the question.
So what I don't know to be possible - Can DISH play hardball now and tell the RSN's you are not producing any games so we are not paying the full contract price, or do they have to wait and see and then figure it out.....
Part of what you said... Would that reduction be passed along. That reduction would be paying for the previous months, correct? Doing this for my current job also, if they get a $5 reduction, the reduction to the customer should be limited to $1-$2. Is it a one month thing, permanent, or what? Save it as a retention credit? It all depends on the atmosphere at that time.
All I know is now was the best time to buy stock in Dish, so they officially became my first stock to buy and hold onto. If Boost goes through, and this passes, then I made a nice chunk of change for myself. Having a nice nest egg plus government retirement check and currently working in the private sector in what has been deemed essential... same with the wife(she gets an almost guaranteed promotion after the freeze ends), I am picking off more and more stock as it drops further down. I can’t imagine the hard hitting bankruptcy, so it feels like a decently calculated safe bet.
While true, all of those things require in-person participation that Sports on TV does not (aside from the athletes actually playing the sports). At least at the school I work for, they are providing refunds to students for things they cannot participate in directly due to social distancing requirements. I would expect gyms to at least extend memberships in most cases.
Now, I am not saying the leagues should in any way require the athletes to play, but it does seem pretty ridiculous that the most expensive non-premium channels have no new content specific to their genre still cost the same thing as before. Obviously, they can have talk shows about sports, and run documentaries like the Jordan one coming out soon, but it really isn't the same thing at all.
So, let me understand all this. DISH should not have to pay ESPN. ESPN should not have to pay MLB. MLB should not have to pay the teams. The teams should not have to pay the players. The players should not have to pay their agents. Hey, I kind of like this idea.
So does ESPN's contract with the MVPDs say "we will provide live sports"? If not, ESPN is fulfilling their contract by providing the programming. Therefore Dish needs to pay the contracted rate. Does your contract with Dish say you are getting live sports? If not, Dish is fulfilling their part of the contract with you and you need to pay the contracted rate.
Stretching your argument further, what if they switched from sports to 24/7 of chess matches or soap operas? Would Dish still be obligated to pay them?
I don't think so, but that is just my opinion.
You missed my point. It depends on how the contract was written. If it's as simple as "we'll give you $x/subscriber for your programming", then it doesn't matter what the programming is, yes, Dish would still be obligated to pay them. If they went into heavy detail with "we'll give you $x/subscriber for your programming to include <insert live sports here>", then maybe not.
I would think programming content is specifically implied in contracts now.
I can’t remember the details, but probably 20 yrs ago OLN acquired new content, (maybe NHL) and gave Dish a special feed of repeats when that content was aired, as they said Dish’s contract didn’t cover that new content.
I can’t remember the details, but probably 20 yrs ago OLN acquired new content, (maybe NHL) and gave Dish a special feed of repeats when that content was aired, as they said Dish’s contract didn’t cover that new content.
I don't know what "specifically implied" means, but I'll bet there are performance clauses in these contracts whereby each party must provide substantially. For DISH, that might mean substantially the same number of subscribers and for ESPN substantially the same product they were delivering when the contract was signed.
If this stupid world syndrome (SWS) ever passes, I would wager that there are some serious discussions happening between people on all ends of the street who are above our pay grade.
If this stupid world syndrome (SWS) ever passes, I would wager that there are some serious discussions happening between people on all ends of the street who are above our pay grade.
You're Still Paying for Live Sports on Cable. Here's Why
The pandemic has forced the suspension of all major leagues, but cable customers are being charged for access to live events anyway.
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)
Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)
Latest posts
-
Question About the FAST SmartTV Services- Latest: comfortably_numb
-
-
