Page 119 of 119 FirstFirst ... 1969109117118119
Results 2,951 to 2,971 of 2971

Thread: The Mets Ownership / Management Thread

  1. #2951
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    2,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Paulypal View Post
    Doug your making the classic mistake of counting dollars and cents in this instance. It wouldnt be about dollars and cents now would it?

    Picture the Mets having a home game and there is nobody in the stands but the ushers. What do you think happens? Dont you think that would get some national attention - hell everything else does. Now it becomes national news that the fans are boycotting the Met games. This does one of two things the way I see it - it forces them to sell (they dont have to of course) or forces them to put a major league team on the field. The third option is let it rot.............MLB would not allow that to happen.
    You write of a virtual impossibility. And what you must realize is, that a lot of people aren't going to give a damn if nobody shows up to a game. The Mets and ownership are already a butt of bad jokes... And to effectively pull this off, you'd need to have people buy tickets, and essentially not show up, because I am certain that if no tickets were sold to a game, there would be some donations to needy charities in an effort to put bodies in the ballpark.

    Its not all about hurting them in the pocket (which zero attendance would on some level) its about the public perception of this franchise in the league. MLB would step in at some point regardless of all the Wise Potato Chip money they have and force something to happen.

    You were way to quick to jump to "the Wilpons can afford the hit financially" angle, but you failed to realize that public perception in a major sports league is as important. Ask the NFL.
    I think you fail to realize the lack of prominence such a story would make in the press, if it could ever be achieved to begin with. For full effectiveness, you'd need something like a twi-night doubleheader fireworks night in July when the weather is a constant 75 and sunny sell-out and nobody show up...
    20-Game "A" Plan, Prom Box 423.

  2. #2952
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    5,735
    Quote Originally Posted by dstoffa View Post
    You write of a virtual impossibility. And what you must realize is, that a lot of people aren't going to give a damn if nobody shows up to a game. The Mets and ownership are already a butt of bad jokes... And to effectively pull this off, you'd need to have people buy tickets, and essentially not show up, because I am certain that if no tickets were sold to a game, there would be some donations to needy charities in an effort to put bodies in the ballpark.



    I think you fail to realize the lack of prominence such a story would make in the press, if it could ever be achieved to begin with. For full effectiveness, you'd need something like a twi-night doubleheader fireworks night in July when the weather is a constant 75 and sunny sell-out and nobody show up...
    Quite simply I know its impossible, but something like that actually happening would have a huge impact publicly. If you don't think so then we agree to disagree.

  3. #2953
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    2,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Paulypal View Post
    Quite simply I know its impossible, but something like that actually happening would have a huge impact publicly. If you don't think so then we agree to disagree.
    I think that the public's perception of professional sports has changed so much over the years that nobody would really care... The news would focus on the resolve of the fans to organize and stay away rather than the negative impact on the owner...
    20-Game "A" Plan, Prom Box 423.

  4. #2954
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    5,735
    Quote Originally Posted by dstoffa View Post
    I think that the public's perception of professional sports has changed so much over the years that nobody would really care... The news would focus on the resolve of the fans to organize and stay away rather than the negative impact on the owner...
    Yes until they actually asked fans why they weren't going.

    We agree to disagree.

  5. #2955
    Quote Originally Posted by dstoffa View Post
    You write of a virtual impossibility. And what you must realize is, that a lot of people aren't going to give a damn if nobody shows up to a game. The Mets and ownership are already a butt of bad jokes... And to effectively pull this off, you'd need to have people buy tickets, and essentially not show up, because I am certain that if no tickets were sold to a game, there would be some donations to needy charities in an effort to put bodies in the ballpark.



    I think you fail to realize the lack of prominence such a story would make in the press, if it could ever be achieved to begin with. For full effectiveness, you'd need something like a twi-night doubleheader fireworks night in July when the weather is a constant 75 and sunny sell-out and nobody show up...
    Also honestly when I go to games I care that Harvey or Wheeler or deGrom is pitching. I don't care who owns the team.

  6. #2956
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Beautiful Shea Stadium
    Posts
    3,035
    Quote Originally Posted by dstoffa View Post
    On this we do not agree.
    He can cry whatever he wants. He owns the team. He can choose to spend or not to. That is his right.

    If I were owner, I wouldn't want to sign overpriced talent, either. I hope they never do.


    Cheers!
    -Doug
    You might have a point if Fred didn't run the Mets like a public trust. The core reason he's been able to suck so gluttonously from the public tit is the purported benefit the Mets provide the community. All most expect of Fred, which isn't much, is to give the public a respectable team. Instead he loots the franchise and pockets its revenue.

    What Fred's done has nothing to do with not signing "overpriced" talent. We're talking about an organization that will non-tender a Justin Turner over a few hundred thousand dollars. Fred refuses to pay market rate for talent. His specialty is pinching pennies and cultivating an adversarial relationship with Mets fans. Not sure why you and a couple others always speak up on his behalf.


    "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

  7. #2957
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    2,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Paulypal View Post
    Yes until they actually asked fans why they weren't going.

    We agree to disagree.
    How are they going to ask the fans? It's not as if a reporter can knock on your door and ask you, "Why didn't you use your ticket for tonight's Mets game?" The reporter won't know who chose not to go unless that person made themselves known and asked for the attention.

    We may agree to disagree.
    20-Game "A" Plan, Prom Box 423.

  8. #2958
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    2,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose View Post
    You might have a point if Fred didn't run the Mets like a public trust. The core reason he's been able to suck so gluttonously from the public tit is the purported benefit the Mets provide the community. All most expect of Fred, which isn't much, is to give the public a respectable team. Instead he loots the franchise and pockets its revenue.

    What Fred's done has nothing to do with not signing "overpriced" talent. We're talking about an organization that will non-tender a Justin Turner over a few hundred thousand dollars. Fred refuses to pay market rate for talent. His specialty is pinching pennies and cultivating an adversarial relationship with Mets fans. Not sure why you and a couple others always speak up on his behalf.
    He can do what he wants with his money. I stick up for his right to do whatever he wants with his money. As I've stated before, if he takes advantage of opportunities in front of him provided by the public sector, blame the politicians who let him get away with it....


    Cheers!
    -Doug
    20-Game "A" Plan, Prom Box 423.

  9. #2959
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,050
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose View Post
    You might have a point if Fred didn't run the Mets like a public trust. The core reason he's been able to suck so gluttonously from the public tit is the purported benefit the Mets provide the community. All most expect of Fred, which isn't much, is to give the public a respectable team. Instead he loots the franchise and pockets its revenue.

    What Fred's done has nothing to do with not signing "overpriced" talent. We're talking about an organization that will non-tender a Justin Turner over a few hundred thousand dollars. Fred refuses to pay market rate for talent. His specialty is pinching pennies and cultivating an adversarial relationship with Mets fans. Not sure why you and a couple others always speak up on his behalf.
    I beg to differ and will try to word this in a way where I do not sound like I am defending Fred. Not signing Justin Turner was a mistake but if anyone knew for sure that Turner would have had the year he had they should apply for the GM job. Does' anyone think he would have had the same numbers in a Met uniform as he did in a Dodgers last year? And yes, signing "Overpriced talent" is a sign to many fans that believe it means their team is "Committed to winning". I think it is a lazy way of trying to build a winning team that usually just mortgages there future. I want a team that spends wisely so they do not put themselves in a position where they have to say no to real talent, whether it means resigning its own talented players or the slim chance that a free agent will become available that doesn't require the team to get into a bidding war they will regret in the future. I hope this is not defending Fred but rather expressing what I feel is the best way to build and maintain a successful team.

  10. #2960
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    5,735
    Quote Originally Posted by rjsallstars View Post
    I beg to differ and will try to word this in a way where I do not sound like I am defending Fred. Not signing Justin Turner was a mistake but if anyone knew for sure that Turner would have had the year he had they should apply for the GM job. Does' anyone think he would have had the same numbers in a Met uniform as he did in a Dodgers last year? And yes, signing "Overpriced talent" is a sign to many fans that believe it means their team is "Committed to winning". I think it is a lazy way of trying to build a winning team that usually just mortgages there future. I want a team that spends wisely so they do not put themselves in a position where they have to say no to real talent, whether it means resigning its own talented players or the slim chance that a free agent will become available that doesn't require the team to get into a bidding war they will regret in the future. I hope this is not defending Fred but rather expressing what I feel is the best way to build and maintain a successful team.

    So with the exception of a few signings........the Wilpons have followed your that plan you just outlined. How is it working out?

    Too many of the "build from within" folks think that the other point of view wants money spend unwisely. I love when you guys say "spend money wisely".

  11. #2961
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    2,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Paulypal View Post
    So with the exception of a few signings........the Wilpons have followed your that plan you just outlined. How is it working out?

    Too many of the "build from within" folks think that the other point of view wants money spend unwisely. I love when you guys say "spend money wisely".
    There are no guarantees in life. You can spend all you want and not win. Many were critical of George for paying for players back in the 80's, and he didn't win... If you believe in true parity, a MLB team should win a championship once every 30 years...

    So we are due...

    LETS GO METS!!!!

    Cheers!
    -Doug
    20-Game "A" Plan, Prom Box 423.

  12. #2962
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Beautiful Shea Stadium
    Posts
    3,035
    Quote Originally Posted by dstoffa View Post
    He can do what he wants with his money. I stick up for his right to do whatever he wants with his money. As I've stated before, if he takes advantage of opportunities in front of him provided by the public sector, blame the politicians who let him get away with it....


    Cheers!
    -Doug
    What you seem to be saying is if someone can get away with doing something wrong, that validates the wrong action and makes it right.

    Interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by rjsallstars View Post
    I beg to differ and will try to word this in a way where I do not sound like I am defending Fred. Not signing Justin Turner was a mistake but if anyone knew for sure that Turner would have had the year he had they should apply for the GM job. Does' anyone think he would have had the same numbers in a Met uniform as he did in a Dodgers last year? And yes, signing "Overpriced talent" is a sign to many fans that believe it means their team is "Committed to winning". I think it is a lazy way of trying to build a winning team that usually just mortgages there future. I want a team that spends wisely so they do not put themselves in a position where they have to say no to real talent, whether it means resigning its own talented players or the slim chance that a free agent will become available that doesn't require the team to get into a bidding war they will regret in the future. I hope this is not defending Fred but rather expressing what I feel is the best way to build and maintain a successful team.
    Talking about "overpriced talent" is a straw man argument. Fred won't pay market rate for talent.

    Furthermore you're acting like developing prospects and signing credible ML players can't both be done at the same time.

    Obviously this is incorrect and comes off as an excuse for Fred siphoning money from the team.

    Same with the point about Turner. Saying nobody knew he'd OPS .900 muddies the waters. The Mets should have kept him because even posting his career average numbers he was an asset and well worth the <$1 million he was due.

    But Fred considers that "overpriced talent".
    Last edited by Mongoose; 12-04-2014 at 11:02 PM.


    "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

  13. #2963
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    2,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose View Post
    What you seem to be saying is if someone can get away with doing something wrong, that validates the wrong action and makes it right.

    Interesting.
    Right in whose eye? You may consider abortion wrong, but it is a legal operation affordable to females under certain circumstances. You have the right to complain and protest, but that is about it. That person can do what he wants provided it is within the law.

    The owners of the Mets are doing what is within their right. Again, if you have a problem with terms given to them by the City or State of New York, do not vote for the incumbent who let it happen...




    Talking about "overpriced talent" is a straw man argument. Fred won't pay market rate for talent.
    Signing a player who gets paid based on his performance is not allowed under the current CBA. So, free agents demand to be paid for long terms. While the near terms may be favorable to the club, the late terms are typically detrimental to their finances. I cannot blame anyone for refusing to enter into such an agreement because if I had the money, I would not do entertain such a contract.

    If I were allowed to release a player with no further financial obligation should his slash line fall below some agreed upon series of numbers, sure, I'd overpay now. But I wouldn't tie up capital in a dead beat player simply because the public "demands I demonstrate winning" now unless the "public" is willing to pay his salary should he fail.

    Unfortunately, MLB is not "at-will"

    Furthermore you're acting like developing prospects and signing credible ML players can't both be done at the same time.

    Obviously this is incorrect and comes off as an excuse for Fred siphoning money from the team.

    Same with the point about Turner. Saying nobody knew he'd OPS .900 muddies the waters. The Mets should have kept him because even posting his career average numbers he was an asset and well worth the >$1 million he was due.

    But Fred considers that "overpriced talent".
    Buy the club Mongoose... Just buy the club....
    20-Game "A" Plan, Prom Box 423.

  14. #2964
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Beautiful Shea Stadium
    Posts
    3,035
    Quote Originally Posted by dstoffa View Post
    Right in whose eye? You may consider abortion wrong, but it is a legal operation affordable to females under certain circumstances. You have the right to complain and protest, but that is about it. That person can do what he wants provided it is within the law.

    The owners of the Mets are doing what is within their right. Again, if you have a problem with terms given to them by the City or State of New York, do not vote for the incumbent who let it happen...
    We weren't talking about whether Fred had the legal right to be a horrendous owner. We were talking about how Fred skims Mets revenue and pockets it. You seem to be saying you morally approve of Fred ransacking the team.


    Signing a player who gets paid based on his performance is not allowed under the current CBA. So, free agents demand to be paid for long terms. While the near terms may be favorable to the club, the late terms are typically detrimental to their finances. I cannot blame anyone for refusing to enter into such an agreement because if I had the money, I would not do entertain such a contract.

    If I were allowed to release a player with no further financial obligation should his slash line fall below some agreed upon series of numbers, sure, I'd overpay now. But I wouldn't tie up capital in a dead beat player simply because the public "demands I demonstrate winning" now unless the "public" is willing to pay his salary should he fail.

    Unfortunately, MLB is not "at-will"
    The contracts are dictated by the market. They wouldn't exist if MLB wasn't lucrative enough to support them.

    You can win with a "dead beat player" here and there. You can't win with a dead beat owner.

    And, if you'll recall, this discussion started with you pointing out the massive revenue streams Fred already gets from the "public". Better that money be spent on talent than Ponzi scheme #3.

    Buy the club Mongoose... Just buy the club....
    I'd ask you to be part of the syndicate if you weren't phobic about signing quality players.


    "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

  15. #2965
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    5,735
    Quote Originally Posted by dstoffa View Post
    There are no guarantees in life. You can spend all you want and not win. Many were critical of George for paying for players back in the 80's, and he didn't win... If you believe in true parity, a MLB team should win a championship once every 30 years...

    So we are due...

    LETS GO METS!!!!

    Cheers!
    -Doug
    There are no guarantees in life. There is no guarantee that spending money brings a WS trophy home.

    BUT --- there is one guarantee in baseball - Dont spend you will never be a consistent winner

    I know I know --- "spend wisely"

  16. #2966
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    2,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose View Post
    We weren't talking about whether Fred had the legal right to be a horrendous owner. We were talking about how Fred skims Mets revenue and pockets it. You seem to be saying you morally approve of Fred ransacking the team.
    Again, he owns the team. He can do with his money what he wishes. I defend his right to do what he wants with his money. If that means not spending it, then so be it. I don't want anyone telling me how to spend my money, and sure ain't gonna tell anyone else how to spend theirs.



    The contracts are dictated by the market. They wouldn't exist if MLB wasn't lucrative enough to support them.
    Contracts are handed out by owners who are spending money the way THEY see fit, not the way every owner sees fit. If the Mets don't want to spend their money on a player, then it is their right not to spend that money on a player. Maybe that player gets his asking price somewhere else... maybe not... The market didn't support Stephen Drew's demands last winter...

    And, if you'll recall, this discussion started with you pointing out the massive revenue streams Fred already gets from the "public". Better that money be spent on talent than Ponzi scheme #3.
    I pointed out that boycotting the Mets will not force them to sell because of the alternate revenue streams they have...

    While I'd like to see them spend money on talent, I defend their right not to.
    20-Game "A" Plan, Prom Box 423.

  17. #2967
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    2,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Paulypal View Post
    There are no guarantees in life. There is no guarantee that spending money brings a WS trophy home.

    BUT --- there is one guarantee in baseball - Dont spend you will never be a consistent winner

    I know I know --- "spend wisely"
    Actually, spending wisely is going to be more important going forward.

    I was reading up on the latest Dish / CBS fiasco, and was pointed to an article about Comcast SportsNet Houston. This RSN was started up by Comcast, the Astros, and the Rockets. The RSN went backrupt, and was gobbled up by AT&T and DirecTV. Apparently, the camel's back broke in Houston, and very few providers outside of Comcast were carrying the channel, and it could not afford to pay its bills for game-rights...

    Some are predicting the same demise for TWC in SoCal. Providers aren't paying the $4-$5 per sub to carry the channel.

    A TV deal isn't a deal if nobody is watching, so we are beginning to see another source of revenue max out... First tickets, now TV... What is the next new source to pay for ever escalating contracts? Not really sure.

    It is clear to me that owners need to spend wisely if they aren't going to use up all the trees on Easter Island.
    20-Game "A" Plan, Prom Box 423.

  18. #2968
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Orange County NY
    Posts
    5,719
    Quote Originally Posted by dstoffa View Post
    Actually, spending wisely is going to be more important going forward.

    I was reading up on the latest Dish / CBS fiasco, and was pointed to an article about Comcast SportsNet Houston. This RSN was started up by Comcast, the Astros, and the Rockets. The RSN went backrupt, and was gobbled up by AT&T and DirecTV. Apparently, the camel's back broke in Houston, and very few providers outside of Comcast were carrying the channel, and it could not afford to pay its bills for game-rights...

    Some are predicting the same demise for TWC in SoCal. Providers aren't paying the $4-$5 per sub to carry the channel.

    A TV deal isn't a deal if nobody is watching, so we are beginning to see another source of revenue max out... First tickets, now TV... What is the next new source to pay for ever escalating contracts? Not really sure.

    It is clear to me that owners need to spend wisely if they aren't going to use up all the trees on Easter Island.
    A la carte programming will be the actual camel breaking straw. Why should Mets fans have to pay for the Yankees channel? Why should the Islander fans have to pay for MSG? And why should every single subscriber be forced to pay for ESPN?

    YES increases nationwide lead in primetime, total-day delivery in third quarter
    10/08/2014 12:48 PM ET
    By YES Network Media Relations
    TweetFacebookfan commentsFan Comments PrintEmail
    NEW YORK, October 8, 2014 - The YES Network expanded its lead as the most-watched regional sports network (RSN) in the country in both Primetime and Total Day delivery in third-quarter 2014, and both its Total Day and its Primetime delivery surpassed that of the next two most-watched New York-based RSNs combined.
    In addition, YES' Yankees game telecasts and studio shows showed significant year-over-year improvement in TV Households and demo delivery, while its digital properties have also showed substantial year-over-year growth.

    YES' Highlights Through Q3 2014:

    Primetime Delivery

    YES' Primetime delivery through Q3 2014 averaged 73,000 TV Households in the New York DMA, a 26% increase from the 58,000 TV Households it averaged through Q2 2014.

    YES expanded its lead in Primetime delivery over the second most-watched RSN in the country to 33% in Q3 from 23% in Q2.

    YES' Primetime delivery through the first three quarters of 2014 was an 18% increase over its Primetime delivery through the first three quarters of 2013 (73,000 vs. 62,000 average TV Households).

    Total Day Delivery

    YES' Total Day delivery through Q3 2014 averaged 28,000 TV Households in the New York DMA, a 17% increase from the 24,000 TV Households it averaged through Q2 2014.

    YES expanded its lead in Total Day delivery over the second most-watched RSN in the country to 47% in Q3 from 41% in Q2.

    YES' Total Day delivery through the first three quarters of 2014 was a 12% increase over its Total Day delivery through the first three quarters of 2013 (28,000 vs. 25,000 average TV Households).

    YES' Dominance In The New York DMA

    YES' Primetime delivery of 73,000 average TV Households through Q3 2014 was 87% greater than that of the next most-watched New York-based RSN, SNY (39,000 average TV Households).

    YES' Primetime delivery of 73,000 average TV Households through Q3 2014 was greater than that of SNY's and MSG's combined (72,000 average TV Households) through Q3 2014.

    YES' Total Day delivery of 28,000 average TV Households through Q3 2014 was greater than that of SNY and MSG combined (25,000 average TV Households) through Q3 2014.

    New York Yankees on YES

    New York Yankees game telecasts on YES averaged 223,000 TV Households for the 2014 season, a 15% year-over-year increase from the 194,000 average TV Households YES delivered for its 2013 Yankees game telecasts.

    New York Yankees game telecasts on YES saw significant year-over-year increases in key demos: Men 25-54 (28%); Men 18+ (20%); Persons 25-54 (20%). Persons 2+ (18%); Persons 18+ (17%).

    Yankees pre-game shows on YES enjoyed a 25% year-over-year increase in average TV Household delivery (45,000 in 2014 vs. 36,000 in 2013)

    Yankees post-game shows on YES enjoyed a 23% year-over-year increase in average TV Household delivery (86,000 in 2014 vs. 70,000 in 2013)

    Yankees Batting Practice Today on YES enjoyed a 6% year-over-year increase in average TV Household delivery (18,000 in 2014 vs. 17,000 in 2013).

    YES' Digital Properties' Significant Growth

    Year-over-year video views across all YES digital platforms have grown by 165%.

    Year-over-year YESNetwork.com unique users have grown by 21%.

    YES counts 337,000 followers on social media, with a year-over-year growth of 125% on Facebook and 30% on Twitter.



    YES is impressed with their own ratings of averaging 223,000 households, except there are 7,384,340 households in Metro NY. That means a whopping 97% of households are NOT watching the Yankees.
    SNY is believed to have less than 180,000 average households, which means 97.6% of the NY market is not watching the Mets. It also means approximately 94.6% of the NY market isn't watching either the Yankees or the Mets. However every cable or satellite customer in metro NY must pay for both the Mets and the Yankees.

    The day when subscribers can opt out of ESPN (which everyone MUST purchase if they have pay TV), MSG, SNY , YES, etc is the day the sports money tree is felled. And I believe that day is coming.

  19. #2969
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    2,202
    Quote Originally Posted by mandrake View Post
    A la carte programming will be the actual camel breaking straw. Why should Mets fans have to pay for the Yankees channel? Why should the Islander fans have to pay for MSG? And why should every single subscriber be forced to pay for ESPN?
    ESPN is part of my Broadcast Basic package (Starter TV) up in Sullivan County... You can't even get Broadcast TV via cable w/o it up there... It costs $20 per month last check. To be fair, they also put CNN, TNT, Discovery, and FX on this $20 tier... and I do get CBS from both Binghamton and NYC, so two football markets...

    SportsChannel and MSG at one time were premium subscriptions on Cablevision. (And SportsChannel was a premium subscription on Manhattan Cable before TWC bought them...) That all changed when the Yankees finally got put on Cablevision.. Now everyone pays for everything... The tier I subscribed to at the time offered HBO and either SHO or MSG/FSN. I had MSG/FSN. Once the RSNs became put on the Standard Tier, I got SHO (and the RSNs).

    In a nutshell, as long as RSNs are owned by bog media companies, they will force the deliverers of content to take it all or leave it. Disney owns ABC, and can dictate that if you want WABC-TV, ABC Family, Disney, and ESPN, you must take them all...

    If a la carte pricing is ever makes it, you will see many channels go dark..

    [I]YES increases nationwide lead in primetime, total-day delivery in third quarter
    The increase in ratings was probably due to the retirement of Jeter.

    YES is impressed with their own ratings of averaging 223,000 households, except there are 7,384,340 households in Metro NY. That means a whopping 97% of households are NOT watching the Yankees.
    SNY is believed to have less than 180,000 average households, which means 97.6% of the NY market is not watching the Mets. It also means approximately 94.6% of the NY market isn't watching either the Yankees or the Mets. However every cable or satellite customer in metro NY must pay for both the Mets and the Yankees.

    The day when subscribers can opt out of ESPN (which everyone MUST purchase if they have pay TV), MSG, SNY , YES, etc is the day the sports money tree is felled. And I believe that day is coming.
    I am sure the same could be said about lots of channels... The question them becomes, how much is a person willing to pay per month to watch their ONE team.. Since in NY we have three RSN's, that can get pretty expensive if you need to pay HBO prices for each of MSG, YES, and SNY, although I can see one cancelling during off-season, and not needing both YES and SNY at the same time...

    How many channels would go broke if they were forced to follow the HBO model? If you are a current subscriber, would you pay $25 per month for SNY in-season?
    20-Game "A" Plan, Prom Box 423.

  20. #2970
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Orange County NY
    Posts
    5,719
    Quote Originally Posted by dstoffa View Post
    ESPN is part of my Broadcast Basic package (Starter TV) up in Sullivan County... You can't even get Broadcast TV via cable w/o it up there... It costs $20 per month last check. To be fair, they also put CNN, TNT, Discovery, and FX on this $20 tier... and I do get CBS from both Binghamton and NYC, so two football markets...

    SportsChannel and MSG at one time were premium subscriptions on Cablevision. (And SportsChannel was a premium subscription on Manhattan Cable before TWC bought them...) That all changed when the Yankees finally got put on Cablevision.. Now everyone pays for everything... The tier I subscribed to at the time offered HBO and either SHO or MSG/FSN. I had MSG/FSN. Once the RSNs became put on the Standard Tier, I got SHO (and the RSNs).

    In a nutshell, as long as RSNs are owned by bog media companies, they will force the deliverers of content to take it all or leave it. Disney owns ABC, and can dictate that if you want WABC-TV, ABC Family, Disney, and ESPN, you must take them all...

    If a la carte pricing is ever makes it, you will see many channels go dark..



    The increase in ratings was probably due to the retirement of Jeter.



    I am sure the same could be said about lots of channels... The question them becomes, how much is a person willing to pay per month to watch their ONE team.. Since in NY we have three RSN's, that can get pretty expensive if you need to pay HBO prices for each of MSG, YES, and SNY, although I can see one cancelling during off-season, and not needing both YES and SNY at the same time...

    How many channels would go broke if they were forced to follow the HBO model? If you are a current subscriber, would you pay $25 per month for SNY in-season?
    Of the $20 for Time Warner's basic tier, $6.50 goes to ESPN. And before the switch over from analog to digital transmission, many people in the Sullivan County/Orange County could pull in multiple networks free. Scranton, Binghamton, Albany, and Hartford-New Haven could be pulled in depending on antenna and location. While I can receive all NYC OTA stations now in HD, I can no longer pull in any distant markets OTA.

    Would I pay $25 for SNY yearly? Probably. When I discussed this issue of which channels my family would want with alacarte pricing, we only agreed on about a dozen and even with everyone picking favorites, we only came up with about 25 channels that we watch. 20 if you don't count free OTA stations.

    Any sports fan benefits from all subscribers being forced to pay for sports that they don't watch. If someone wants HBO, they have to fork over $180 per year...it would be $20 a year if every one in America was forced to pay for it. I would like to see ALL sports channels priced a la carte like HBO, SHowtime, Starz, etc. And I could care less which channels go dark, which channels flourish, and which channels lose 90% of their 'subscribers'. A free market is just that, and in a free market sports fans would pick and choose what they pay for, and non sports fan would pick and choose their own channels. Right now, sports programming is the largest subsidy handed to ALL owners of sports teams, By far.

    I could care less if any sports channels went broke, or if any non sports channels went broke. A free market is a free market. Capitalists love free markets, until they realize their market may not be free, but is actually fixed. And right now, all sports franchises are supported by a FIXED system of subsidies through TV contracts where all Americans must pay $$$ even if they don't watch sports.

  21. #2971
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    2,202
    Quote Originally Posted by mandrake View Post
    Of the $20 for Time Warner's basic tier, $6.50 goes to ESPN. And before the switch over from analog to digital transmission, many people in the Sullivan County/Orange County could pull in multiple networks free. Scranton, Binghamton, Albany, and Hartford-New Haven could be pulled in depending on antenna and location. While I can receive all NYC OTA stations now in HD, I can no longer pull in any distant markets OTA.
    My friend's sister owns a home not 5 miles from me up there... and can pull in all the Scranton Stations with an outdoor antenna (She's on a hill... I am not.. and ironically my street was wired for cable, while her's wasn't. I guess back then (60s / 70s) the cable company only wired streets where they could sell service. On a hill, you didn't need Community Antenna Television...)

    Would I pay $25 for SNY yearly? Probably. When I discussed this issue of which channels my family would want with alacarte pricing, we only agreed on about a dozen and even with everyone picking favorites, we only came up with about 25 channels that we watch. 20 if you don't count free OTA stations.
    I know my mom would pay. I probably wouldn't pay. I prefer to listen on the radio or attend in person. Call me cray.

    Any sports fan benefits from all subscribers being forced to pay for sports that they don't watch. If someone wants HBO, they have to fork over $180 per year...it would be $20 a year if every one in America was forced to pay for it. I would like to see ALL sports channels priced a la carte like HBO, SHowtime, Starz, etc. And I could care less which channels go dark, which channels flourish, and which channels lose 90% of their 'subscribers'. A free market is just that, and in a free market sports fans would pick and choose what they pay for, and non sports fan would pick and choose their own channels. Right now, sports programming is the largest subsidy handed to ALL owners of sports teams, By far.
    While sports channels are the most expensive, the same argument can be used for the other channels. If you are a fan of an eclectic tv channel, you benefit by having it bundled... The big difference is that the eclectic station has much lower costs as compared to the sports station.

    I could care less if any sports channels went broke, or if any non sports channels went broke. A free market is a free market. Capitalists love free markets, until they realize their market may not be free, but is actually fixed. And right now, all sports franchises are supported by a FIXED system of subsidies through TV contracts where all Americans must pay $$$ even if they don't watch sports.
    I guess the way to figure this out how this would impact a-la-carte pricing would be to multiply the number of cable / pay-tv homes by the amount each home pays to subscribe to the channel. Then you attempt to estimate, based on ratings, how much per month each home that tuned in would need to pay to generate the same amount of subscriber revenue. The counter argument is that prices would increase so much that there would be less choice... of course, that means more eyes on fewer stations, bringing down the overall costs.
    20-Game "A" Plan, Prom Box 423.

Page 119 of 119 FirstFirst ... 1969109117118119

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •