TVNewsLover 727 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 NBC, perhaps? If Comcast really wanted to, they could reclaim the AFC rights and scoot Sunday Night Football to NBC Sports Network, really giving that network a shot in the arm. I believe the NFL wants Sunday night to be the "marquee matchup" of the week and on a OTA network, so probably unlikely. That's why ESPN was moved to Monday nights (previously the "marquee matchup" was on Monday) and at the time ABC had real ratings winners/hits Sunday night to even think of bidding for the Sunday Night Football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundershock MN 169 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 First, Before I get started the discussion on NFL rights is a moot point. Almost all the NFL's TV partners are locked up in deals through the 2022-23 season. The exceptions being ESPN as their deal ends a year earlier, the CBS/TNF deal that expires after this season (with a one year league option for renewal) and Verizon's deal that expires after the 2017-18 season. IMO, Fox may be shooting itself in the foot. They gave Cox (owner of one of its strongest, if not its strongest, affiliates) a good deal (trading WFXT and WHBQ) to acquire KTVU-KICU, but opted to make a worse one with Tribune (its second-largest affiliate owner overall, and the largest Fox affiliate owner by market reach) in trying to trade WPWR for KCPQ. They should have traded them KRIV from the get-go. To make matters more complicated, Fox buys a low-rated station that doesn't have a full signal reach across the Seattle metro as a contingency, even though it would have a hard time getting FCC approval for a transmitter move due to the agency's freeze on signal coverage modifications. We've pointed out that Fox has five stations in markets without an NFC team (Houston, Orlando/Gainesville and Austin), but they didn't give them one of the only stations that Tribune could acquire without it going farther over the market cap sans the UHF discount. Is there something more of value to Fox in keeping KRIV (being one of its original O&Os doesn't qualify) that we don't see, or did Fox desire an O&O in Seattle so much that they felt they just had to give away something? To me, it almost feels that they took advantage of Tribune being limited in what Fox could trade with them for. Tribune has a station in Houston. So, trading a station (or, stations) in Houston means there would be a third wheel. So, either Fox ends up with a stand-alone MNT station or, Tribune has to jettison a station. In the latter case that would mean finding a third party for the divested station. Is the Buccaneers cash flowing into WOFL really so much as to keep their Orlando duopoly from being an option for trading? Fox has WTVT already in the Bucs' actual market. It's a problem if Tribune wants to stay in the Seattle market. The only way that they could do this is if Tribune gave up KCPQ and KZJO for WOFL(/WOGX) &WRBW. I think the fact that there is no indication this was ever proposed is just more proof Tribune wants to remain in Seattle and KZJO wasn't going to be a part of the rumored swap. Now, the dubious future of the St. Louis Rams - the team is supposedly rumored to eventually move back to LA - and the overall smallness of the market, may be why Fox didn't and hasn't demanded back KTVI. Yep. They likely don't want to get ahead of themselves and end up with another Memphis on their hands. And what do KSTW, WUPA and WTOG have in common? They are all CW O&O standalones in markets where CBS has or had radio stations in. WTOG is now by itself as CBS's Tampa radio cluster was traded to Beasley Broadcasting last week. And CBS's Seattle and Atlanta radio clusters are, for all intents and purposes, on the block because there is no practical radio/TV synergy available on CBS' end. (The trade with Beasley only strengthened this radio/TV synergy for CBS in Miami, where WFOR/WBPS now has all-sports WQAM under the same umbrella, and in Philadelphia, where one of the two FMs CBS acquired - Wired - is heavily rumored to become a simulcast of KYW's all-news format.) And unloading all three stations to Fox would result in Fox/MyTV O&O duopolies in all three markets. All three are also in NFC markets. Do the math here. Exactly. Not saying it's a sure thing. But, CBS's move unloading the Tampa radio cluster was kind of eyebrow raising as it leaves WTOG out there on an island. Fox has the cash (or, will have more of it) and CBS could use that plus the extra cap room to go shopping for replacements if they so choose. And Fox will make the mistake of buying another TV station with no local news presence. They should at least look at a station with an established news department and not make the same disastrous mistake they made in Charlotte (WJZY's morning news is treading "hash marks" - see Page 24 of PDF). But, this is Fox, and they've been known to make some boneheaded moves that have hurt the ratings of the network as a whole. Well they were/are trying to strong arm their way into acquiring KCPQ. Although, as I stated in my last post I wonder if including the newsroom might have been a sticking point...IDK. And, if you want to believe the rumors that they were sniffing around KIRO that's another station. So, if they end up building another newsroom from scratch it doesn't appear to be due to a lack of trying to acquire an established news operation. Fox wouldn't even need to do that. KSTW can run Fox at 11.1 and MyTV as 24.2, and KBCB can run MyTV at 24.1 and Fox as 11.2. KBCB would serve as a de facto satellite of KSTW, and vice versa. Yep. That's exactly what I meant when I mentioned they would simulcast each other. Only thing I'd do different is swap the 24.1 and 24.2 mapping so, the viewers in Seattle proper would see both stations on the ".1's" but, it's semantics I suppose. If they really go this route it's kind of a brilliant move as they would have a "combined OTA signal" that stretches from north of Vancouver, BC all the way Olympia, WA in the south. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frog 393 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 If Fox goes through with this, what response could we expect from Tribune? Dropping Fox from their other stations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundershock MN 169 Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 If Fox goes through with this, what response could we expect from Tribune? Dropping Fox from their other stations? You can expect "status quo." They aren't going to dump the Fox affiliation on all the other stations in the group. Especially, when they aren't paying reverse compensation on a good chunk of those stations (ie: legacy LocalTv Fox affiliates.) On top of that I really don't think things are as acrimonious between Tribune and Fox as others seem think they are. First, Tribune is moving "overflow" WGN Bulls (and likely White Sox) games from WCIU to WPWR. Now, of course you could draw the conclusion that if said swap takes place WPWR would be in the Tribune fold. But, on the flip side if it doesn't you are now left "working with" and/or clearing games on a Fox station. Second, it's entirely possible that both parties may want to do the swap but can't agree on the finer details. I brought this up in a previous post but, if it's a straight swap of KCPQ for WPWR I personally don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that something as simple as "Who gets the newsroom and/or building?" could become a sticking point. If Tribune was to be left with a standalone KZJO I could see why they'd want to keep the news operation around to build the station around. Likewise, if you are Fox why wouldn't you want to have an established news operation vs. starting one from scratch and then competing against said news operation? If both parties are steadfast in their positions on those finer points I could see how something that simple could derail a deal...even if they want to get it done and agree in principal on most everything else. Tribune isn't going to act like a girlfriend scorned that becomes spiteful and destroys everything in a fit of rage. They'll pick themselves up and move on. After all it's just business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1place4news 5 Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 This is highly speculative with a low probability of actually happening, but consider this: Bleacher Report has an interesting report that Raiders owner Mark Davis would consider moving his team to the NFC if it meant getting into Los Angeles. To replace the Raiders in the AFC, the logical choice would be the Seahawks, which was an AFC team before divisional realignment in 2002. Again, it's speculation, but what if it gains traction and inches closer to reality? The NFL says there could be a team in LA in 1-2 years. Would Fox back off on Seattle if that were to come to pass? It's something to think about, considering this whole thing is being driven by the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nelson R. 560 Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 This is highly speculative with a low probability of actually happening' date=' but consider this: Bleacher Report has an interesting report that Raiders owner Mark Davis would consider moving his team to the NFC if it meant getting into Los Angeles. To replace the Raiders in the AFC, the logical choice would be the Seahawks, which was an AFC team before divisional realignment in 2002. Again, it's speculation, but what if it gains traction and inches closer to reality? The NFL says there could be a team in LA in 1-2 years. Would Fox back off on Seattle if that were to come to pass? It's something to think about, considering this whole thing is being driven by the NFL. Both the Raiders and the Chargers would have to move to LA for that to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvcg66b3r 97 Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Both the Raiders and the Chargers would have to move to LA for that to happen. A little off topic here, but in the interim, one team would play at the Coliseum while the other would play at the Rose Bowl. If a new stadium gets built, it would be shared by both teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVNewsLover 727 Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 A little off topic here, but in the interim, one team would play at the Coliseum while the other would play at the Rose Bowl. If a new stadium gets built, it would be shared by both teams. The NFL's wish is for it to be shared by both teams (just like it wished for that in NY and Bay Area), but it is not a necessity. Jets explored options for its own stadium in Manhattan before agreeing to the current partnership in NJ, and obviously the Raiders are against that idea in the Bay Area. Anyway, I think this is all just a ploy to get San Diego, Oakland, and St. Louis to pony up $$ for new stadiums. Besides, the Jaguars are the team that should move to LA in my opinion. And now, back to our regularly scheduled topic.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4164 Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Both the Raiders and the Chargers would have to move to LA for that to happen. And with all due respect, these rumors of teams moving to LA almost always bear no fruit whatsoever, except to fearmonger existing NFL cities into paying for new stadiums. That proposal is ridiculous enough as it would result in a conference imbalance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrtraveler01 737 Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 The NFL's wish is for it to be shared by both teams (just like it wished for that in NY and Bay Area), but it is not a necessity. Jets explored options for its own stadium in Manhattan before agreeing to the current partnership in NJ, and obviously the Raiders are against that idea in the Bay Area. Anyway, I think this is all just a ploy to get San Diego, Oakland, and St. Louis to pony up $$ for new stadiums. Besides, the Jaguars are the team that should move to LA in my opinion. And now, back to our regularly scheduled topic.... I live in St. Louis so I know about this all too well. People here really are thinking the team is going to leave since the owner bought a parcel of land where the Hollywood Park track used to be and that officials in St. Louis aren't taking the whole situation seriously enough. I think St. Louis will ultimately cave (to be fair, they're just asking for renovations, not a brand new stadium), I'm just curious to see how much it'll end up being. Back on topic: It's also why Fox isn't too worried about KTVI. Which is perfectly fine with me, KTVI has been pretty watchable under Local TV/Tribune. I shudder to think what KTVI would've been like if it was still an O&O with Abernathy in charge of FTSG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadcowatbk 144 Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 I live in St. Louis so I know about this all too well. People here really are thinking the team is going to leave since the owner bought a parcel of land where the Hollywood Park track used to be and that officials in St. Louis aren't taking the whole situation seriously enough. I think St. Louis will ultimately cave (to be fair, they're just asking for renovations, not a brand new stadium), I'm just curious to see how much it'll end up being. Back on topic: It's also why Fox isn't too worried about KTVI. Which is perfectly fine with me, KTVI has been pretty watchable under Local TV/Tribune. I shudder to think what KTVI would've been like if it was still an O&O with Abernathy in charge of FTSG. WIll they be interested in KTVI is the Rams do stay in STL or some other team(s) beats them to LA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4164 Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 WIll they be interested in KTVI is the Rams do stay in STL or some other team(s) beats them to LA? I personally would doubt it. St. Louis isn't a top 20 market (it's at #21, IIRC) and the fate of the Rams may not be resolved entirely for a few more years. A more likely scenario would be CBS buying both WOIO and WUAB from Raycom. Yes, it is extremely unlikely... but Cleveland is at a similar market rank as St. Louis, and the Browns - although they stink - are tied to the city for years to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEOMatrix 1295 Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 I personally would doubt it. St. Louis isn't a top 20 market (it's at #21, IIRC) and the fate of the Rams may not be resolved entirely for a few more years. A more likely scenario would be CBS buying both WOIO and WUAB from Raycom. Yes, it is extremely unlikely... but Cleveland is at a similar market rank as St. Louis, and the Browns - although they stink - are tied to the city for years to come. I have more faith in CBS selling WCCO to Sinclair than Raycom even THINKING about selling WOIO/WUAB to anyone, much less CBS. As far as St. Louis, Charlotte is a little bit smaller (DMA #23) but Fox took a chance on buying WJZY/WMYT (a move they regret but another story for another time) because the Panthers aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvcg66b3r 97 Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 I have more faith in CBS selling WCCO to Sinclair than Raycom even THINKING about selling WOIO/WUAB to anyone, much less CBS. If that happens, will CBS keep the Minneapolis radio stations or put them on the block? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nelson R. 560 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tribune-media-company-and-21st-century-fox-renew-and-extend-affiliate-agreement-in-seattle-279554472.html KCPQ Fox affiliation agreement extended to July 2018. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRob 919 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 "As part of the extended affiliation agreement Tribune has agreed, as of January 1, 2015, to pay additional programming fees to FOX for the prime time and sports content provided by the network. Including this additional programming fee, Tribune expects that, for the term of the agreement, KCPQ will deliver profitability in excess of its previously disclosed 2013 annual EBITDA of $13 million." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samantha 2878 Posted October 17, 2014 Author Share Posted October 17, 2014 "As part of the extended affiliation agreement Tribune has agreed, as of January 1, 2015, to pay additional programming fees to FOX for the prime time and sports content provided by the network. Including this additional programming fee, Tribune expects that, for the term of the agreement, KCPQ will deliver profitability in excess of its previously disclosed 2013 annual EBITDA of $13 million." That's dodging a bullet. And Fox can still make money off KBCB in the spectrum auction (I'd imagine it will help clear space in Seattle) or call off the sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4164 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Wow. Fox really caved here. Yes, Tribune is increasing their retrans fees (remember, the LocalTV affils pay ZERO fees until 2018, a rather nice luxury for Tribune) but Fox wanted the whole kit-and-caboodle in Seattle... and just didn't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glimmer 238 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I wonder what trump card Tribune pulled to make Fox give in like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrtraveler01 737 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I wonder what trump card Tribune pulled to make Fox give in like that. Fox really had no other options. Looks like Gannett wasn't willing to give up KONG, CBS wasn't willing to give up KSTW, and Cox wasn't willing to give up KIRO (after just giving up KTVU). The fact that their plan B was KBCB, a station that would've meant that OTA viewers in Vancouver would've been able to watch Fox whereas OTA viewers in Seattle couldn't, shows that they had nothing and Tribune called their bluff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVIntheDesert 183 Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Fox really had no other options. Looks like Gannett wasn't willing to give up KONG, CBS wasn't willing to give up KSTW, and Cox wasn't willing to give up KIRO (after just giving up KTVU). The fact that their plan B was KBCB, a station that would've meant that OTA viewers in Vancouver would've been able to watch Fox whereas OTA viewers in Seattle couldn't, shows that they had nothing and Tribune called their bluff. It gives Fox three-and-a-half years for them to come up with a successful strategy to acquire KCPQ. This is how they play the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4164 Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 It gives Fox three-and-a-half years for them to come up with a successful strategy to acquire KCPQ. This is how they play the game. A lot can change in a year, let alone three-and-a-half years. Not saying that Fox won't attempt to get an O&O in Seattle again, but this may have been their best possible shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.20cbae3777de7f140153442a1bb805e7.png)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.