Jump to content

Welcome, Guest!

Sign In or Create my Account to gain full access to our forums. By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

LoadStar

Member
  • Content Count

    667
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

LoadStar last won the day on March 19

LoadStar had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

241 Excellent

About LoadStar

  • Rank
    AM Anchor
  • Birthday 09/12/1978
  1. Just call it The Crew... they could even just photoshop some old The Chew promo material then.
  2. I suspect, lacking any concrete information one way or another, that they'll continue to operate as if they were owned by Fox for the immediate future. There's just too much integration between the RSNs and Fox Sports. Obviously secondary programming is a big one, but internet services are another. The RSNs have no standalone apps and no separate website. All of that would have to be built out from scratch. Didn't the RSNs periodically provide production services for Fox Sports, if all the Fox Sports trucks were tied up, or involved in something that prevented them from reaching a site on time?
  3. Never mind. I was going to keep this going, but it's pointless.
  4. There is absolutely nothing in either of those clauses that talks about a requirement to retain the Fox Sports name, nor a duration of three years.
  5. Ok, we apparently talking in circles here. Let me take one more attempt to clarify. What specific part or parts of section 3.09 caused you to conclude that they "will have to use the Fox Sports name" for three years?
  6. No, I mean I don’t get how you came to the conclusion you did from the section you quoted. What in that section suggests that they “will have to use the Fox Sports name” for three years?
  7. I've read the section you quoted about three times, and I don't know where you got that from.
  8. Sinclair Closes Purchase of Fox Regional Sports Networks From Disney Does anyone have a link to the actual purchase agreement, or any details? I'm curious how long the Fox Sports brand licensing agreement will last.
  9. Short version: this doesn't necessarily mean *anything* for the CW. UPN had been sent to live off with CBS even before the Viacom-CBS divorce was finalized, and CBS kept full custody of CBS after the divorce went through. When UPN and The WB merged, CBS kept 50% ownership of the resulting network The CW. The ViacomCBS merger doesn't have any obvious implications related to The CW structure or its ongoing operations. Any potential change to the future of The CW would really be entirely separate from anything related to the ViacomCBS merger, and would be entirely speculation (and therefore best to be discussed over in the Speculatron.)
  10. No "field" graphics (first down line, etc.) that I've seen either. Very surprising these days. Clearly not one of the networks producing this.
  11. I'd say there are several others that would be ahead of Sam Champion. Sam's predecessor, Spencer Christian, would be one... and Spencer's predecessor, John Coleman (who went on to start a little channel called The Weather Channel.) I'd add Tom Skilling to the list, despite being only a local meteorologist. But I'll stop there to avoid this turning into a list thread.
  12. There wasn't anything "fake" about the XFL. It was a real football league, with real football games. The XFL was just a case of style over substance. It had too much of WWE's "style" surrounding what was rather mediocre (at best) football. Supposedly, the new XFL won't have the WWE trappings surrounding it, but I don't know if they'll be able to address the mediocre football. The AAF sure couldn't.
  13. Fox Business reports that at the close of the auction, at least for now, Sinclair appears to be the top bidder for the Fox Regional Sports Channels: https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/sinclair-broadcasting-nears-10-billion-deal-for-21st-century-foxs-regional-sports-networks
  14. It doesn't matter what kind of citation it is; whether "Scott" linked to the original or not. Citing your source does not give you permission to copy and paste almost the entire source article into yours verbatim. That's called plagiarism.
  15. That's not how it works. You can't just regurgitate almost their entire article word-for-word, just because you happened to credit them. You can quote specific portions of the original article... you can cite the article then paraphrase their basic idea... but you can't just copy and paste their article into yours, regardless of whether you give them credit for it.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using TVNewsTalk you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.