Much later history showed Welch as average once the bloom fell off the roseWelch was lauded as a great manager. He essentially financialized the company and destroyed the talent base by his stupid rating system.
Much later history showed Welch as average once the bloom fell off the roseWelch was lauded as a great manager. He essentially financialized the company and destroyed the talent base by his stupid rating system.
It’s big enough to spin off as a pure play media. That way, they can also get into gambling, esports league ownership etc.If there is a change in ownership, maybe Connecticut can renegotiate its tax breaks with ESPN. The new agreement: ESPN uses its pull so UConn gets into B10 or ACC. By the way, is it going to be a Wall Street fund, another company or a self-run entity that will own ESPN?
Never say never…Disney just announced it will carve out espn as its own segment for financial reporting. That’s the obvious next step before a sale/spin off.
There's a lot of really good reasons to do this outside of trying to sell the property. Usually when you keep things together you're trying to hide losses so you don't have to explain them.Disney just announced it will carve out espn as its own segment for financial reporting. That’s the obvious next step before a sale/spin off.
I suspect that the Disney/Hulu/ESPN bundle justifies keeping ESPN in the Disney family. I could still see it being sold if the price was right. Disney is all about cross promotion and squeezing more dollars out of existing intellectual property. ESPN doesn’t fit that strategy as well as having Disney, ABC, and Hulu, all under a single roof.There's a lot of really good reasons to do this outside of trying to sell the property. Usually when you keep things together you're trying to hide losses so you don't have to explain them.
CNBC is just speculating. They've been speculating forever. Doesn't mean it's going to happen.Just this morning on CNBC, there was continued speculation that ESPN might be spun off as a separate company, not the same as a selloff, but possibly a preliminary move. It was also said that the Disney streaming platforms are in the red and that monthly subscription fees might have to increase.
Last July, a Disney spokesman told the press that the company had no intention of selling ESPN. CNBC and Bloomberg reported that the statement was made because corporate management feared that the bad press surrounding ESPN was reducing the value of the asset.
JMHO, I think they're on the chopping block.
You're right.CNBC is just speculating. They've been speculating forever. Doesn't mean it's going to happen.
CNBC is just speculating. They've been speculating forever. Doesn't mean it's going to happen.
You're right.
But where there's smoke . . .
That kind of thinking will help schools with unrealized value such as UConn (due to poor football for a decade as well as undervalued basketball programs), UCF (huge enrollment and alumni base that is still untapped), etc. Sign me up if I'm UConn - gotta break the paradigms that shackled us since the OBE days.This is the right answer and will happen at ABC too. Does anybody watch Sportscenter? There's no Chris Berman anymore. ESPN became overly political, and the sports fan audience is less political than the average person. They can fix ESPN. But my guess is that ESPN and the entire future of live sports is going to involve lower committed dollars for rights.
It's a solution for the conferences too in some ways. $X for every school + X% share based on the ratings of the games your team participates in or some similar measure (linear vs streaming has to be worked out to be fair). Reduces the risk to the network, reduces the unfair distribution that exists in conferences now.
It also makes it pretty damned hard for ADs/schools to budget. You'd need a reasonable floor.It's a solution for the conferences too in some ways. $X for every school + X% share based on the ratings of the games your team participates in or some similar measure (linear vs streaming has to be worked out to be fair). Reduces the risk to the network, reduces the unfair distribution that exists in conferences now.
In the first year of the deal, you make the “variable portion” pro rata, but adjust it due to the prior seasons, ratings, or whatever other criteria you are using. You’d have a seasons lag between results and profits, but at least you’d be some kind of logic to it.It also makes it pretty damned hard for ADs/schools to budget. You'd need a reasonable floor.
Sure. But they may just need to live with less guaranteed revenue. Sales people do it. Perhaps you could all get X and then a choice between Y + Z% or some lesser guarantee and higher %. You can get on yourself, but also adjust year to year.It also makes it pretty damned hard for ADs/schools to budget. You'd need a reasonable floor.