Non-Key Tweets | Page 264 | The Boneyard

Non-Key Tweets

SubbaBub said:
That would be money made up elsewhere. Since we are evaluating deals. The next AAC deal should, if Aresco is any good be around $10M. I'd shoot for what the ACC is getting but would have to accept something closer to what they were getting before their latest deal.

A $10M deal would not be acceptable for a term longer than a handful of years and it would need to escalate consistent with the equity we'd add. A buy-in period is perfectly acceptable, akin to the distribution of the old BE credits. But as with the BE credits, some of that was shared with the new members of the AAC even thought they didn't earn it. I realize that the payout was a lot higher because the newcomers had leverage in forming the new league, but the same principle applies. Any new school is a partner, not a hired servant, except maybe to Texas.

And while we are at it, there will be a number G5 for the B12 or any conference they will want the best of the breed, which does limit their choices else they add a Rutgers without the cable boxes that make them so charming.
Expand ...

No offense but LOL. There is no way the AAC deal is going up 500%.
 
Hate to ask the question, but why wouldn't UConn just propose that deal? Big12 grabs UConn and Cincinnati. Gets a football title game and increases per team pay out.

Sure you hurt ticket sales a bit in football (facing OU, Texas less), but I'd imagine the title game would help offset that.
 
whaler11 said:
No offense but LOL. There is no way the AAC deal is going up 500%.
Expand ...

I suppose it depends on their ability to talk to multiple providers. The new AAC was hampered by a lack of ratings history and the matching clause in the old BE contract.

They now have a decent ratings history and hopefully would be free to talk to other networks. A 500% bump up of squadouche isn't the same. The market for mediocre football is somewhere just below the ACC. They should be able to get a nice bump.
 
SubbaBub said:
I suppose it depends on their ability to talk to multiple providers. The new AAC was hampered by a lack of ratings history and the matching clause in the old BE contract.

They now have a decent ratings history and hopefully would be free to talk to other networks. A 500% bump up of squadouche isn't the same. The market for mediocre football is somewhere just below the ACC. They should be able to get a nice bump.
Expand ...

Or, more simply, 500% of a small number is still five times the small number. We're not talking about the Big Ten quintupling its take here. It wouldn't be that hard for us to get five times more.
 
SubbaBub said:
I suppose it depends on their ability to talk to multiple providers. The new AAC was hampered by a lack of ratings history and the matching clause in the old BE contract.

They now have a decent ratings history and hopefully would be free to talk to other networks. A 500% bump up of squadouche isn't the same. The market for mediocre football is somewhere just below the ACC. They should be able to get a nice bump.
Expand ...

If you think someone like NBC or Fox is paying billions of dollars for the AAC over a decade - are you sure you've been paying attention?

There is no AAC bidding war coming.
 
5x the current money over a ten year deal is 1.2 billion dollars. I mean come on - that's absurd as soon as you get to the 'b'.
 
.-.
whaler11 said:
5x the current money over a ten year deal is 1.2 billion dollars. I mean come on - that's absurd as soon as you get to the 'b'.
Expand ...
It is absurd. What about CR is not absurd? What is the ACC getting over 10 years?
 
UCONN13KC said:
It is absurd. What about CR is not absurd? What is the ACC getting over 10 years?
Expand ...

Contrary to what people here want to beleive it's a lot more valuable.

They also wouldn't get their deal today - they are very lucky it was signed and long term.

ESPN is laying off peons they pay nothing to. The market has already changed - if you don't have something high end to sell you are in trouble.
 
whaler11 said:
Contrary to what people here want to beleive it's a lot more valuable.

They also wouldn't get their deal today - they are very lucky it was signed and long term.

ESPN is laying off peons they pay nothing to. The market has already changed - if you don't have something high end to sell you are in trouble.
Expand ...
Peons? Hardly.

If every one of the 350 being let go makes even the lowest of six figures, that is $35,000,000, plus benefits and tax expense, which roughly equate to 33-50% of gross wages.

ESPN Layoffs Begin Tomorrow: 350 Employees, Six-Figure Earners
 
Husky25 said:
Peons? Hardly.

If every one of the 350 being let go makes even the lowest of six figures, that is $35,000,000, plus benefits and tax expense, which roughly equate to 33-50% of gross wages.

ESPN Layoffs Begin Tomorrow: 350 Employees, Six-Figure Earners
Expand ...

Meant it in the sense they aren't going to be expensive talent under contract.

The fact they are taking out that much money further enforces my point - you aren't selling the AAC for a 500% markup to a company that is bledding 5% of it's workforce to cut expenses because the top line is shrinking.
 
whaler11 said:
Meant it in the sense they aren't going to be expensive talent under contract.

The fact they are taking out that much money further enforces my point - you aren't selling the AAC for a 500% markup to a company that is bledding 5% of it's workforce to cut expenses because the top line is shrinking.
Expand ...

No question that the people most at risk are middle management and production. There has to be all sorts of redundancy (at least some moderate over lap) in an organization of 8,000, but I would not be the least bit surprised if some on-air talent get the ax (Curt Schilling is already out of favor. He seems like a no-brainer). I don't watch much SportCenter anymore, but some of those guys are a dime a dozen. Craig Kilborn and Dan Patrick are not walking through that door anymore. The likes of Bob Ley, Chris Berman (unfortunately), or Mike Tirico are probably not in any danger. That'd be like firing Mickey Mouse himself, but do you really need a 6 personal panel doing Fantasy Focus Insider on Sunday mornings? Would I be surprised if Cris Carter was let go...especially in light of his "fall guy" rant? Absolutely not.
 
Husky25 said:
No question that the people most at risk are middle management and production. There has to be all sorts of redundancy (at least some moderate over lap) in an organization of 8,000, but I would not be the least bit surprised if some on-air talent get the ax (Curt Schilling is already out of favor. He seems like a no-brainer). I don't watch much SportCenter anymore, but some of those guys are a dime a dozen. Craig Kilborn and Dan Patrick are not walking through that door anymore. The likes of Bob Ley, Chris Berman (unfortunately), or Mike Tirico are probably not in any danger. That'd be like firing Mickey Mouse himself, but do you really need a 6 personal panel doing Fantasy Focus Insider on Sunday mornings? Would I be surprised if Cris Carter was let go...especially in light of his "fall guy" rant? Absolutely not.
Expand ...

Most of those guys have contracts. They don't lay them off they just don't renew them. Like they did with Simmons and Olberman.

You've already seen cost-cutting there it's just happening as deals expire and not at once.
 
.-.
whaler11 said:
Meant it in the sense they aren't going to be expensive talent under contract.

The fact they are taking out that much money further enforces my point - you aren't selling the AAC for a 500% markup to a company that is bledding 5% of it's workforce to cut expenses because the top line is shrinking.
Expand ...
tin-foil-hat.jpg

Conspiracy Kitty says:
Unless they are making cuts so they can afford a new huge contract for the American...

cough...
snicker...
bwaah ha ha haaaa

...sorry just couldn't keep a straight face on that one.
 
whaler11 said:
Most of those guys have contracts. They don't lay them off they just don't renew them. Like they did with Simmons and Olberman.

You've already seen cost-cutting there it's just happening as deals expire and not at once.
Expand ...
Contracts can be bought out. ESPN doesn't have to run them to ground and it would probably cost them little more than what they would offer in a severance package to an at-will employee (who will make up the bulk of the laid off roster).
 
What makes espn much different today is that it is all scripted and advertising. Very little original talent on air. They have their formula for delivery and can basically hire any talking head to put in front of the camera. Anyway, the 500% debate isn't really meaningful when your starting point was below what it should have been. Heck, Disney could pull a GM, fold shop at espn, get out of all those long term over priced contracts, then start up again at half price and still be the highest bidder.
 
So how do all these layoffs relate to all the money the state of CT gave ESPN to create and keep jobs?
 
geohusky said:
So how do all these layoffs relate to all the money the state of CT gave ESPN to create and keep jobs?
Expand ...
What do you mean? are you against companies receiving tax breaks? The salaries and the money spent locally far exceeds the lost tax revenue. At least that is my take on it. Maybe someone has quantified how much espn saved in tax expense vs. how much money was pumped into the local economy. I think it would be a landslide.
 
whaler11 said:
5x the current money over a ten year deal is 1.2 billion dollars. I mean come on - that's absurd as soon as you get to the 'b'.
Expand ...

That's about 10M per school. I don't think that's out of the realm of possibility for viable if not must see TV games.

If the market reduces to premium games only, maybe that changes.
 
.-.
MH3 ‏@MH3 · 7h7 hours ago
Was told that if B12 were to expand today then it would be Memphis and Cincy.obviously they aren't expanding today but still

MH3 ‏@MH3 · 7h7 hours ago
Memphis offering too much financially to be overlooked.

MH3 ‏@MH3 · 7h7 hours ago
Memphis has stated they will not take a cent from B12 for 5 year and will in fact buy their way in
 
If Memphis is this years UCF, who will be next years Memphis in the B12 CR shuffle?
 
I'm sorry, but there is no way Memphis takes a $100 million flyer for 5 years. It's just not sustainable for the University to forego conference-related TV, merchandise, gate etc. revenue and sustain an athletic program during that time. I don't care how big Mr. Fed Ex's pockets are. They would basically need to shutter all their non-revenue Olympic sports.

Now, if you told me that Fed Ex was prepared to sign a very lucrative 5-year sponsor deal for Big 12 sports, including a future football championship game, that is something way more believable.
 
Doesn't the BXII deal allow for two more schools without any affect on the TV money? Didn't OK's President Boren say that?

 
.-.
Christopher Lambert Retweeted

E. Gordon Gee ‏@gordongee · 3h3 hours ago
Making my way to Dallas today for a meeting with other Big 12 presidents. Always look forward to seeing them.

Christopher Lambert ‏@theDudeofWV · 3h3 hours ago
Big 12 presidents will talk expansion in Dallas.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire · 2h2 hours ago
http://mobile.twitter.com/gordongee/stat …
Will they talk expansion?
Of course..as I said last week the train is much further down the track than many believe
 
jostar1 said:
Christopher Lambert Retweeted

E. Gordon Gee ‏@gordongee · 3h3 hours ago
Making my way to Dallas today for a meeting with other Big 12 presidents. Always look forward to seeing them.

Christopher Lambert ‏@theDudeofWV · 3h3 hours ago
Big 12 presidents will talk expansion in Dallas.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire · 2h2 hours ago
http://mobile.twitter.com/gordongee/stat …
Will they talk expansion?
Of course..as I said last week the train is much further down the track than many believe
Expand ...

Dallas.

Home to SMU.

SMU plays Tulsa next week.

Tulsa's basketball coach is Frank Haith.

Haith used to coach at Mizzou.

Mizzou is playing at Rentschler Field in '17.

OMG. Guys, you know what this means?
 
Not a tweet but a rumor on Techsideline. The poster has almost 5000 posts on that board.

"I was passed on info / rumor from a reputable source that the ACC and ESPN were finalizing a new & bigger deal and would be announced before the end of football season. Is this the look-in clause from the existing contract? New channel announcement? New schools forcing a new contract?"

"It was relayed as a "huge" deal between the two
but not necessarily a channel. If not a channel, then that means more schools to me. Maybe that Wolfpack insider was correct with his ND predictions back in the winter/spring."
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,214
Messages
4,557,439
Members
10,442
Latest member
StatsMan


Top Bottom