Is Stern this evil? Broadcasting rights

YouJustGotSUNSD · July 25th, 2007, 10:47 AM

So as I am engulfing myself deeper and deeper into conspiracy theories and reading articles til the crack of dawn, it dawns on me

holy crap, when did tnt/espn/abc negotiate rights to the 07-08 season...i could have sworn i read something recently about it

So I asked my friend google and he told me this:

Stern claims he found out about the scandal June 20th

Numerous articles from numerous news agencies are posted on June 27th, 1 week after Stern found out about the scandal

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6455866.html

Quote:

New NBA Deal for ESPN/ABC, TNT a Multiplatform Fast-Break

Published Reports Peg Eight-Year Agreements at Total of $7.6B

By Mike Reynolds -- Multichannel News, 6/27/2007 6:55:00 PM

Under their new eight-year multiplatform agreement with the National Basketball Association, ESPN/ABC and TNT have expanded their games.
While the new eight-season contracts -- which published reports have pegged collectively at some $7.6 billion, including fees from the league-owned NBA TV -- essentially replicate ESPN’s and TNT’s current regular-season and postseason schedules, the deals enable the networks to stream live games on their air and migrate other NBA-oriented content to an array of other platforms on live, delayed and on-demand basis.
The parties would not address the cost of the rights.
Covering the 2008-09 through the 2015-16 NBA seasons, the pact calls for ESPN to televise up to 75 regular-season games, primarily on Wednesday and Friday nights, while TNT will continue its exclusive Thursday-night doubleheader telecasts and retain rights to the NBA All-Star Game.
...

“The overall financial picture is where we need this to be,” ESPN executive vice president of content John Skipper said. “We’re quite confident that [the NBA deal] will have great value for all of our properties.”
To that end, he explained that sold-out ads accompanying online video starts -- 3.2 million over the course of the recently completed NBA season -- carry CPMs (cost per thousand homes) that are “consistent” with those for ESPN’s TV CPMs. Skipper said ESPN, which has launched seven new platforms since its current NBA deal tipped off, could add another 5-10 over the life of the new contract.
Turner Sports president David Levy -- who on the conference call said there wouldn’t be any loss leaders relative to the various rights Turner will hold under the new pact -- emphasized later in an interview that Turner wouldn’t have engaged in a deal of this magnitude “unless it would be profitable across all platforms.” He noted that the media landscape of today will look vastly different in “2011, 12, 13 and 14,” with digital assets becoming even more prevalent and key relative to advertisers, branding, viewers and consumers over the term of the deal.
Levy said the negotiations on Turner’s far-reaching deal took nine months. “This was a very complex deal. It’s not easy figuring out how long things could stay up on digital before rights revert back to the NBA,” he added. “The NBA has always been an innovator, and this will not only serve as model for future sports rights negotiations, but for [general] programming deals in terms of digital extensions.”
Skipper, also speaking to the deal’s intricacies, was ecstatic that “broadcast, cable, international, radio and digital rights all were done at one time.”
Speaking of international, Skipper said ESPN expanded its NBA game and studio programming presence in a number of territories. Moreover, there was “a significant increase” relative to its digital presence with the league abroad. “There was a big step up here,” he said, noting that “generally, where ESPN holds game rights, the same digital rights apply.”
The deal comes just weeks after the conclusion of the league’s lowest-rated Finals -- the San Antonio Spurs’ sweep of the Cleveland Cavaliers.
Both Turner and ESPN, though, expressed confident in the NBA’s long-term Nielsen health.

and this

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2918089

Quote:

"This agreement sets a new standard -- it is the most expansive package of rights we've acquired from a major professional league in our 27-year history," ESPN president George Bodeheimer said. "We're thrilled to take a major step forward in our relationship with David Stern and the NBA with this broad, global agreement. The scope of this deal and the new rights we obtained offer us tremendous opportunities to serve NBA fans like never before -- in the U.S., around the world, and through any device."

from a washington post article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062701028.html

Quote:

"I consider this to be a wonderful vote of confidence by our very sophisticated network partners who are making such a substantial and long-term commitment," NBA commissioner David Stern said.

...

"We are in this for the long term with the NBA," said George Bodenheimer, the president of ESPN, Inc. and ABC Sports. "Sports is cyclical; they go up and down.... But it's an incredibly consistent property for us."

...

Stern and network executives downplayed the league's declining TV ratings, insisting there is still plenty of demand for NBA-related content through other forms of media.

Is this as evil as it looks to me?

Mulli · July 25th, 2007, 10:54 AM

I must be missing something. I don't see the evil.

nowagimp · July 25th, 2007, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mulli

I must be missing something. I don't see the evil.

Could be that the networks could sue for nondisclosure of an ongoing investigation that would devalue the broadcast rights being negotiated. It may not be fraud, but its not far away.

YouJustGotSUNSD · July 25th, 2007, 10:58 AM

You dont think a tainted ref scandal would make broadcasting companies want to renegotiate or at least pause a 7.6 billion dollar purchase of game rights? Seriously?

If not, mind if I sell you my car without telling you the transmission is about to fall apart?

Mulli · July 25th, 2007, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nowagimp

Could be that the networks could sue for nondisclosure of an ongoing investigation that would devalue the broadcast rights being negotiated. It may not be fraud, but its not far away.

Thanks.

Mulli · July 25th, 2007, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YouJustGotSUNSD

You dont think a tainted ref scandal would make broadcasting companies want to renegotiate or at least pause a 7.6 billion dollar purchase of game rights?

I missed that.

YouJustGotSUNSD · July 25th, 2007, 11:00 AM

I also have some prime real estate in the florida swamplands you should sign the deed to before taking a look at :-p

thegrahamcrackr · July 25th, 2007, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nowagimp

Could be that the networks could sue for nondisclosure of an ongoing investigation that would devalue the broadcast rights being negotiated. It may not be fraud, but its not far away.

Can they though if Stern was given a complete gag order by the FBI? How does that play into it all??

YouJustGotSUNSD · July 25th, 2007, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thegrahamcrackr

Can they though if Stern was given a complete gag order by the FBI? How does that play into it all??

Pfft

You pause negotiations, no scandal is worth signing 7 billion dollars into play.

Thats like burning a house down to catch a graffiti artist

SunsFanVegas · July 25th, 2007, 11:36 AM

Very EVIL....but not surprising for Stern

fordronken · July 25th, 2007, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YouJustGotSUNSD

Pfft

You pause negotiations, no scandal is worth signing 7 billion dollars into play.

Thats like burning a house down to catch a graffiti artist

To catch a graffiti artist? It's about compromising an FBI investigation into organized crime. If networks suddenly have to pause their negotiations because of Stern and the mob finds out, it could ruin years of investigation work done by the government. It's not burning down a house to catch a grafitti artist, it's altering the amount of dollars being spent by a rich corporation to assist in the opportunity to catch murderers, raqueteers and thieves.

nowagimp · July 25th, 2007, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thegrahamcrackr

Can they though if Stern was given a complete gag order by the FBI? How does that play into it all??

I am not a lawyer, so I certainly dont know. I do know that if this was done in the sale of a company, people could go to jail for the nondisclosure. Certainly Stern couldnt say he didnt know it would effect the value of the agreement. It could be that the courts might rescind the agreement due to the gag order. If I were those networks, I'd be exploring my legal options right now as clearly the value of the agreement has been damaged.

YouJustGotSUNSD · July 25th, 2007, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fordronken

To catch a graffiti artist? It's about compromising an FBI investigation into organized crime. If networks suddenly have to pause their negotiations because of Stern and the mob finds out, it could ruin years of investigation work done by the government. It's not burning down a house to catch a grafitti artist, it's altering the amount of dollars being spent by a rich corporation to assist in the opportunity to catch murderers, raqueteers and thieves.

I dont see how the FBI could get away with mandating that stern not disclose that a 7.6 billion dollar deal may be tainted

just so they can catch some mobsters and a crooked ref? ESPN/ABC/TNT would sue the crap out of the FBI

I completely disagree with your assessment of the situation.

fordronken · July 25th, 2007, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YouJustGotSUNSD

I dont see how the FBI could get away with mandating that stern not disclose that a 7.6 billion dollar deal may be tainted

just so they can catch some mobsters and a crooked ref? ESPN/ABC/TNT would sue the crap out of the FBI

I completely disagree with your assessment of the situation.

They're allegations. He still hasn't even been charged with anything. And if the FBI tells him he can't disclose information, why the heck would he disclose information?

YouJustGotSUNSD · July 25th, 2007, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fordronken

They're allegations. He still hasn't even been charged with anything. And if the FBI tells him he can't disclose information, why the heck would he disclose information?

There is no rational reason that the FBI would put a gag order on information that would taint a 7.6 billion dollar deal

Either stern did it himself or I am completely missing something