Jump to content
×
×
  • Create New...

Sinclair Apparent Winner of Fox Sports Networks


Recommended Posts

Chris Ripley has, time and time again, demonstrated this company's delusions of grandeur and utter lack of any knowledge of its place in the media landscape, or the landscape itself, and this strikes me as no different.

 

To hear it from Sinclair, you'd think they were a cross between the modern Disney and '90s Time Warner.

Edited by channel2
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 263
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Chris Ripley has, time and time again, demonstrated this company's delusions of grandeur and utter lack of any knowledge of its place in the media landscape, or the landscape itself, and this strikes

They've been on the same tower for years, and WDJT relays them on 58.3. Problem is Weigel has so many channels relaying on WDJT's main signal that none of them have a decent picture quality.

"The F stands for 'you all ask too many f-ing questions'." -Sinclair, probably

Posted Images

4 hours ago, channel2 said:

Chris Ripley has, time and time again, demonstrated this company's delusions of grandeur and utter lack of any knowledge of its place in the media landscape, or the landscape itself, and this strikes me as no different.

 

To hear it from Sinclair, you'd think they were a cross between the modern Disney and '90s Time Warner.

Those delusions and blantant ignorance showed up on the day Sinclair announced they were going to buy the RSNs from Disney as seen here: 

 

Skip to about 2:11 when CNBC's Sara Einsen asked Ripley a question about how cord cutting is affecting the RSN business and I won't say what Ripley's response was other than just blantant ignorance.

 

Murdoch is just sitting back enjoying this clownshow that is Sinclair.

 

I should add as well that Sinclair's stock price at that time  was closer to 60 dollars (was over that when it was announced) now they're down over 50 percent in the last 9 months (30 percent since Ripley's igornant comments to Sara Einsen on CNBC) and quite frankly as much as I hate to say it, Sinclair deserves it, and Chris Ripley and the folks in Hunt Valley need to know that their blantant ignorance is going to lead them straight into bankruptcy and if they think that it's going to end pretty I have bad news for them; it's not.

Edited by oknewsguy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on what's transpired with the Fox RSNs since Sinclair took over, I'm now surprised that they were able to renew with AT&T, which also included the local stations. I also wonder whether Sinclair will lower the asking price for the RSNs at some point or possible wait until the contract for the local stations comes up for renewal. If you want to point fingers:

 

  • Fox for selling the RSNs in the first place
  • DOJ for making Disney sell the RSNs instead of allowing them to become part of ESPN
  • Sinclair for being completely stubborn
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JCB4TV said:

Based on what's transpired with the Fox RSNs since Sinclair took over, I'm now surprised that they were able to renew with AT&T, which also included the local stations. I also wonder whether Sinclair will lower the asking price for the RSNs at some point or possible wait until the contract for the local stations comes up for renewal. If you want to point fingers:

 

  • Fox for selling the RSNs in the first place
  • DOJ for making Disney sell the RSNs instead of allowing them to become part of ESPN
  • Sinclair for being completely stubborn

I actually don't fault Fox for actually selling the RSNs in the first place, I think Rupert Murdoch saw the RSNs as a declining business with all the cord-cutting and he wanted to cut their losses before his company would suffer any real consequences that would lead to Bankruptcy (more on that in this post)

 

The latter 2 I truly believe that are to blame I think a lot of it is on the Justice Department for going after the RSNs instead of the overlap between the Disney and Fox film assets (like what they should have done as I think there were a lot more antitrust issues related to that than the RSNs) and Sinclair gets some of the blame for their stubborness and of course, Chris Ripley's ignorance of the overall business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I remember, an earlier iteration of the Disney-Fox deal didn't include the RSNs, but Disney wanted them and they were added to the deal, adding about $22 billion to its value. I think a lot of the reason they went to Disney and were subsequently spun off was because Murdoch didn't want to lower the amount of Disney holdings he would receive, since the deal was originally all-stock and I believe he opted to take stock and not cash when the cash component was added.

 

The Disney-Fox deal in general seems to have broken media.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is something I'm generally confused about. Why was the Fox deal only approved with the sale of the Fox RSNs? Fox owns FS1-3, and though it wasn't included in the deal, the RSNs could have been a great side-car for ESPN. Since FS1-3 and ESPN are cable nets, I can't see why the FEC wouldn't have approved the RSNs sold to Disney as ESPN RSNs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The RSNs are cable nets. Regulators had antitrust concerns over ESPN's already-dominant position in national sports rights, that adding the top RSN group to Disney's portfolio would have led to them wielding way too much power over MVPDs.

 

I don't know how badly Disney really wanted the Fox movie operations. They bought them almost entirely for the film library, and they really wanted the TV division more, since ABC Studios wasn't as big as 20th TV.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, channel2 said:

From what I remember, an earlier iteration of the Disney-Fox deal didn't include the RSNs, but Disney wanted them and they were added to the deal, adding about $22 billion to its value. I think a lot of the reason they went to Disney and were subsequently spun off was because Murdoch didn't want to lower the amount of Disney holdings he would receive, since the deal was originally all-stock and I believe he opted to take stock and not cash when the cash component was added.

 

The Disney-Fox deal in general seems to have broken media.

And not just broken the media as we know it but it has broken the current RSN business model as well.

 

I think Murdoch saw something in the media industry and he decided to exit the business, what exactly Rupert saw that made him leave the business? Who knows what he saw.

Edited by oknewsguy
Link to post
Share on other sites

He sold off 20th Century Fox, FX, and all that other stuff because he decided the streaming wars were one hurdle too many for him to clear. He's old and didn't seem to trust his kids to take the reins of 21CF as it was constituted.

 

And, quite frankly, I think he saw that his trashy ethos didn't really jibe with the tone set by the likes of Netflix. From what I could tell, 20th and FX were low on his priority list anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, channel2 said:

He sold off 20th Century Fox, FX, and all that other stuff because he decided the streaming wars were one hurdle too many for him to clear. He's old and didn't seem to trust his kids to take the reins of 21CF as it was constituted.

 

And, quite frankly, I think he saw that his trashy ethos didn't really jibe with the tone set by the likes of Netflix. From what I could tell, 20th and FX were low on his priority list anyway.

I imagine the RSNs were low on the priority list. Which even if it was the case do you think the Murdoch's would've been a lot better off hanging on to the RSNs or do you think the Murdoch's made the right call by selling.

 

To me the way I see it, the only reason why a lot of providers and MVPDs didn't drop the RSNs when it was owned by Murdoch was because Murdoch had a lot of clout in his pocket to ensure that the RSNs wouldn't go dark, now the RSNs are owned by Sinclair it just seems as if the RSNs are missing that negotiating clout they once had under Murdoch.

 

Overall I think given the way the RSNs were sold for, the Murdoch's should've held on to the RSNs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think that Fox should continue an affiliate agreement with Sinclair, allowing them to continue operating the RSNs as Fox Sports <region>. It gives Fox best of both worlds; they don't have to keep the RSNs on the books, but they get the advantages of still having the RSNs operated as if they were. Sinclair continues to get the benefit of affiliating with a strong sports brand in Fox Sports.

 

For the average sports watcher, I doubt anyone knows or cares that the RSNs are owned by Sinclair; to them, it still looks like Fox Sports.  Why not keep it that way?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ABC 7 Denver said:

There is something I'm generally confused about. Why was the Fox deal only approved with the sale of the Fox RSNs? Fox owns FS1-3, and though it wasn't included in the deal, the RSNs could have been a great side-car for ESPN. Since FS1-3 and ESPN are cable nets, I can't see why the FEC wouldn't have approved the RSNs sold to Disney as ESPN RSNs.

When was there a FS3? Haha. There's only a FS1 and FS2.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, channel2 said:

He sold off 20th Century Fox, FX, and all that other stuff because he decided the streaming wars were one hurdle too many for him to clear. He's old and didn't seem to trust his kids to take the reins of 21CF as it was constituted.

Despite the fact that 21st Century Fox once owned a stake in Hulu before the Disney deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So it seems like they're very slowly de-emphasizing the FOX Sports brand on air. Some of the graphics (Top/Bottom inning recap/L3's) are not showing FOX [team logo] on them.

 

Also heard a promo for college basketball but the voiceover did not say FOX Sports San Diego at the end, even though the Fox Sports logo appeared on screen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Viper550 said:

I begin to wonder if they could just go back to the name "FSN" but not have the F stand for Fox...

What would that F stand for if it's not going to stand for Fox?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/29/2020 at 8:36 PM, detroiter313 said:

Despite the fact that 21st Century Fox once owned a stake in Hulu before the Disney deal.

 

That was a holdover from the days before it became every conglomerate for themselves.

 

3 minutes ago, oknewsguy said:

What would that F stand for if it's not going to stand for Fox?

 

What did UPN stand for starting in 2000?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, oknewsguy said:

What would that F stand for if it's not going to stand for Fox?

 

"The F stands for 'you all ask too many f-ing questions'." -Sinclair, probably

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 24994J said:

 

"The F stands for 'you all ask too many f-ing questions'." -Sinclair, probably

Or that it could stand for  "F--- anybody asking us about the RSN business model suffering."

5 minutes ago, channel2 said:

What did UPN stand for starting in 2000?

Didn't it stand for United? I believe it did

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, channel2 said:

They dropped the full name after Chris-Craft bailed, so "UPN" didn't stand for anything.

So maybe perhaps Sinclair may just revert the RSNs from "Fox Sports (insert region/city name here" back to "FSN (insert city/region name here)" and have FSN not stand for anything

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mrschimpf said:

Knowing Sinclair's vexilological kink with the Stars and Stripes, 'Flag' could work 😜.

Flag may actually be very fitting because when you think about it in Sports (especially Football) you have that yellow flag that's ready to be thrown at the moment a foul has been committed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


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.