Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="mavblues, post: 1556778, member: 1841"] Ugh. I guess you're posting these articles in the key tweets thread now. I avoided reading the other thread because I told you I wasn't going to argue this point with you any more because your $21MM number was so stupidly low. However, you're now polluting this thread with your garbage, so here goes: How ridiculous to think that ESPN "doesn't have cash to spend" and that it's in a "precarious" position. Like any business, ESPN is adjusting to market forces. It no longer has the luxury to invest in unprofitable ventures. (Grantland, etc.) The key word here is [B][U]unprofitable[/U][/B]. It can, however, continue to invest in [B][U]profitable[/U][/B] ventures and conference networks have proven to be profitable. (Both the SECN and PAC12N were profitable in their very first year.) Here is an article discussing ESPN's operating results from the most recent quarter: [URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/business/media/with-espn-gains-disney-profit-rose-12-percent-in-fiscal-year.html[/URL] Takeaways: - Reported significant quarterly gains for its sports media business (even after one-time charges associated with 3,000 layoffs) - Income soared 27 percent, to $1.82 billion, in Disney’s Media Networks division, which houses ESPN. Disney said the increase was primarily due to higher ESPN affiliate and ad revenues Quote: “The brand is stronger than ever,” Thomas O. Staggs, Disney’s chief operating officer, said on a conference call with analysts, before reciting a list of viewer statistics showing the dominance of ESPN. Ad sales are pacing up “significantly” so far in the current quarter, added Christine M. McCarthy, Disney’s chief financial officer." You keep posting articles from sports reporters who are citing revenue guidance from Disney from three (3) quarters ago. Sports reporters and financial matters are not a good mix. Disney (and ESPN) have already shown they are adept at quickly reacting to market forces to remain hugely profitable (refer to the results from the most recent quarter). And that's without any increase to its subscription fees, ad rates, or changing its distribution model to charge for streaming its content. Related (PAC12N & SECN): Here is an article showing Pac12 profits, even though it is generally acknowledged that the PAC12 screwed up by doing everything itself (a huge mistake, IMO), and repeatedly walking away from DirecTV negotiations: [URL]http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2015/05/21/pac-12-conference-fy14-revenues-expenses-and-per-school-distributions/[/URL] Even though those numbers did not include any revenue from DirecTV (the nation's largest satellite provider), and the PAC12 runs everything itself (very inefficient) the network still managed to throw off a profit of over $30MM in 2014. And that's with starting its network on its own, from scratch. After only 2 years. 30% year over year revenue growth, BTW. When you analyze that figure, don't forget to add in DirecTV revenues to get a stabilized (normalized) idea of what the PAC12N's profits will be once it's fully distributed. Estimates are PAC12N would receive a [B][U]minimum[/U][/B] of .80 per in market subscriber and that goes straight to the bottom line. Add to that figure whatever they would get from out of market subs (presumably in sports packages). Also, do you think ESPN would have brought significant production cost savings to the table for PAC12N? You bet. Therefore, the stabilized (fully distributed) profits for the PAC12 network will be a hell of a lot higher than $30MM, and would be higher still if ESPN had been handling the production. And who here is saying that B12N will be as profitable as SECN? I certainly never said that. What I said was if SECN can do $120MM [B][U]in its first year[/U][/B], it's not unreasonable to assume B12N could do $100MM (once stabilized), [B][U]if B12 expands the conference's footprint.[/U][/B] I already posted the SECN profit numbers ($120MM), which were from its first year of operations. There have been articles claiming the SECN figure is going to climb to $200MM or more. PAC12N, in only its second year of operations (2014), and without any presence on the largest satellite provider in the US, and handling all of its own production, still managed to generate over $30MM in profit. PAC12 has done virtually everything wrong with its network, and yet they still show more profit than you're willing to grant to the B12N. Given all of the above, anyone that says a B12N (assuming an expanded conference footprint) would only generate $21MM in profits each year is just plain foolish. And all of these figures (except yours) explain why Boren wants the B12 to expand into new markets with lots of eyeballs, why he wants a network, and why he wants it done now. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach