Is Stern this evil? Broadcasting rights

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

Well, first of all, didn't he say that he didn't know anything about this until a few days ago? Secondly, he may not have been able to say anything legally. Third, the deal took 9 months as said in the article you posted. How much longer did you want this to be delayed?

First, he said he found out June 20th. This was stated in my first post. Stern said this in the conference yesterday.

Secondly, I dont see how tnt and espn could not win a court case against the fbi that made them lose potentially millions of dollars.

Third, 9 months wasnt a delay, 9 months was the negotiation period. how much longer do I want it to be delayed? Not relavent. How much longer would broadcasting companies want it to be delayed? As long as it takes to re-evaluate the situation and the affect it will have on ratings so a new price can be appraised.


I really need you to put yourself in TNT's shoes:

You buy rights to a television program

A week before that the guy you dealt with finds out a ref may be tainted

3 weeks later the story breaks

What happens to advertising on your channel when youre broadcasting the games you just bought the rights to?

Do you anticipate a decease in or even a pull-out of companies that advertise with you during those games?

When your advertising dollars drop because less people are watching the nba, where do you look for the reason? You look to stern.

 

[Maligzar]

3) It wouldn't have made a difference anyway since it was one ref, and there isn't any proof he actually effected the outcome of any games.

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

I think 1) he disclosed it behind closed doors to those he had to disclose it to, or 2) Agreement was reached long before he knew about the investigation.

These are very plausible explanations. The second is a bit iffy, because stern has publicly stated he knew June 20th, and the press released a statement about the new rights extensions June 27th

 

[Gaddabout]

I think 1) he disclosed it behind closed doors to those he had to disclose it to, or 2) Agreement was reached long before he knew about the investigation.

My old boss passed on this gem:

"Negotiations are always short because two parties always know what they need out of a deal. They either get it or they don't. It's always the contracts that take forever, because lawyers get paid by the hour."

Your second one is probably closest to the truth. Agreement was probably reached months ago, and lawyers have been ironing out important details of this multi-billion dollar deal, like who's responsible for the $10,000 incident insurance policy in case Stephen Jackson punches a camera man or Shaq has a "costume malfunction" and reveals his man boobs to the world.

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

3) It wouldn't have made a difference anyway since it was one ref, and there isn't any proof he actually effected the outcome of any games.

You dont think one tainted ref and the connected incompetency of the audit system will affect viewer statistics, which in turn would affect advertising dollars?

I find that very short-sighted.

 

[Cheesebeef]

My old boss passed on this gem:

"Negotiations are always short because two parties always know what they need out of a deal. They either get it or they don't. It's always the contracts that take forever, because lawyers get paid by the hour."

Your second one is probably closest to the truth. Agreement was probably reached months ago, and lawyers have been ironing out important details of this multi-billion dollar deal, like who's responsible for the $10,000 incident insurance policy in case Stephen Jackson punches a camera man or Shaq has a "costume malfunction" and reveals his man boobs to the world.

booooo!!!!!!! why bring some semblance of reality to the disucssion when it's obvious that Stern wear's tan face make-up to cover up the green complexion that is his actual skin color. It's blatantly obvious that he's really the Wicked Witch of the East who for some reason loves the Spurs and wants them to win even though it's a disaster for his league as far as advertising rates are concerned?! sheesh Gad, get a clue!

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

My old boss passed on this gem:

"Negotiations are always short because two parties always know what they need out of a deal. They either get it or they don't. It's always the contracts that take forever, because lawyers get paid by the hour."

Your second one is probably closest to the truth. Agreement was probably reached months ago, and lawyers have been ironing out important details of this multi-billion dollar deal, like who's responsible for the $10,000 incident insurance policy in case Stephen Jackson punches a camera man or Shaq has a "costume malfunction" and reveals his man boobs to the world.

but the ink doesnt hit the signature line until those details are ironed out, and im willing to bet an entire week didnt go by while the ink dried until the press reported it was done.

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

booooo!!!!!!! why bring some semblance of reality to the disucssion when it's obvious that Stern wear's tan face make-up to cover up the green complexion that is his actual skin color. It's blatantly obvious that he's really the Wicked Witch of the East who for some reason loves the Spurs and wants them to win even though it's a disaster for his league as far as advertising rates are concerned?! sheesh Gad, get a clue!

Your exaggeration is unnecessary, as I welcome responses like gaddabouts that actually put thought into possible reasons instead of dismissing them without discussion.

You'd pop a gasket if someone would be that sarcastic with you, why do it to others?

 

[Gaddabout]

but the ink doesnt hit the signature line until those details are ironed out, and im willing to bet an entire week didnt go by while the ink dried until the press reported it was done.

There are a lot of potential reasons it wasn't announced until the 27th, many of them having nothing to do with conspiracy theories. My best bet is it's been delayed for awhile by the NBA PR machine, embargoed until they could find a day where it would garner the most attention.

If you really wanted to lay down a conspiracy theory -- one that's probably close to a bullseye -- how about this one: The NBA embargoed the announcement of this agreement to wait until the initial frenzy of the ref scandal blew over. They announce it now to show the strength of the league. Stern can make it look like the NBA is back to business as usual, nothing to be alarmed about, they're still making money and the people that matter understand that.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Your exaggeration is unnecessary, as I welcome responses like gaddabouts that actually put thought into possible reasons instead of dismissing them without discussion.

You'd pop a gasket if someone would be that sarcastic with you, why do it to others?

in the words of Bill Paxton's Chet in the TV version of Weird Science: Because I goof off on it.

 

[Gaddabout]

Your exaggeration is unnecessary, as I welcome responses like gaddabouts that actually put thought into possible reasons instead of dismissing them without discussion.

You'd pop a gasket if someone would be that sarcastic with you, why do it to others?

I thought it was funny, but perhaps because cheese and I are on the same page on this. Wouldn't let it get under your skin, though, because I don't think he was trying to call you out. He was just being ... cheesebeef. It's a unique state of being.

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

There are a lot of potential reasons it wasn't announced until the 27th, many of them having nothing to do with conspiracy theories. My best bet is it's been delayed for awhile by the NBA PR machine, embargoed until they could find a day where it would garner the most attention.

If you really wanted to lay down a conspiracy theory -- one that's probably close to a bullseye -- how about this one: The NBA embargoed the announcement of this agreement to wait until the initial frenzy of the ref scandal blew over. They announce it now to show the strength of the league. Stern can make it look like the NBA is back to business as usual, nothing to be alarmed about, they're still making money and the people that matter understand that.

But the announcement was made a month ago, and we are living the "initial" frenzy

 

[Gaddabout]

But the announcement was made a month ago, and we are living the "initial" frenzy

My mistake on the timeline of events, but I'm very confident the announcement was not made shortly after things were finalized. Most agreements like this are delayed for public announcement to optimize coverage and impact.

When I was a metro desk clerk for the Tribune back in the 90s, one of my jobs was to distribute faxes. Virtually everything that came in from any professional league office had some kind of embargo notice on it, sometimes up to two weeks. They give notice to reporters to give them time to do their background interviews, but they're not going to hold the press conference until they know they're going to get the best possible coverage.

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

I thought it was funny, but perhaps because cheese and I are on the same page on this. Wouldn't let it get under your skin, though, because I don't think he was trying to call you out. He was just being ... cheesebeef. It's a unique state of being.

To be honest, the fact that people dont think business-wise that this would affect or even put the brakes on such a huge dollar agreement gets under my skin much more than the potential evil of hiding this info

When I see things like:

what am i missing
the fbi made him sign it
the fbi made him not talk about the ref before signing a 7.6 billion dollar deal
it would compromise the investigation
allegations dont need to be disclosed before the signing
not much disclosure is required in 7 billion dollar deals
he signed it so the mob wouldnt be tipped off
they couldnt postpone the deal any longer
it was only one ref, one ref wont make a difference in ratings or contract negotiations


it just screams ignorance

This would be a 5 response thread if people simply went "wow, that seems odd" or "we will have to keep an eye out for reports about this"

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

My mistake on the timeline of events, but I'm very confident the announcement was not made shortly after things were finalized. Most agreements like this are delayed for public announcement to optimize coverage and impact.

When I was a metro desk clerk for the Tribune back in the 90s, one of my jobs was to distribute faxes. Virtually everything that came in from any professional league office had some kind of embargo notice on it, sometimes up to two weeks. They give notice to reporters to give them time to do their background interviews, but they're not going to hold the press conference until they know they're going to get the best possible coverage.

you had the timeline reversed and are still ''very confident" ???

So at the very least, do you see the networks regretting, or wanting to renegotiate the terms of this deal? Please tell me as least one person thinks the value of such an agreement is altered now.

 

[Cheesebeef]

oh and my apologies for what was meant to be a joke. sorry if it rankled feathers. still, "evil" seems to be a pretty strong here.

 

[nowagimp]

My old boss passed on this gem:

"Negotiations are always short because two parties always know what they need out of a deal. They either get it or they don't. It's always the contracts that take forever, because lawyers get paid by the hour."

Your second one is probably closest to the truth. Agreement was probably reached months ago, and lawyers have been ironing out important details of this multi-billion dollar deal, like who's responsible for the $10,000 incident insurance policy in case Stephen Jackson punches a camera man or Shaq has a "costume malfunction" and reveals his man boobs to the world.

No agreement is a deal until it is signed, regardless on how long it has been worked upon. So if it was signed a few months ago, sure its already done before stern found out. If it was signed more recently than the allegations were revealed, there is a problem, houston. I suspect that stern saying he didnt know until the 20th coincides (favorably for the NBA) with the signing of the agreement. After all he is a lawyer with a whole bunch of legal advisers. If he'd missed this one, I'd call him stupid, and I doubt that.

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

No agreement is a deal until it is signed, regardless on how long it has been worked upon. So if it was signed a few months ago, sure its already done before stern found out. If it was signed more recently than the allegations were revealed, there is a problem, houston. I suspect that stern saying he didnt know until the 20th coincides (favorably for the NBA) with the signing of the agreement. After all he is a lawyer with a whole bunch of legal advisers. If he'd missed this one, I'd call him stupid, and I doubt that.

A valid and thought out point, thank you.

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

oh and my apologies for what was meant to be a joke. sorry if it rankled feathers. still, "evil" seems to be a pretty strong here.

Thats why I worded it as questions and potentials, and not accusations or statements.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Thats why I worded it as questions and potentials, and not accusations or statements.

"Is this as evil as it looks to me?" this is the question you asked. I'm not sure how to read that as anything other than this deed looks evil TO YOU and you're looking to see if anyone else agrees or disagrees, no? That's the implication I got.

Personally, I save the word "evil" for people who torture, murder, rape people, not people who might have done shady business. Hell, almost ALL business is shady. That's why I made the joke - the presumption of "evil" just seems out of bounds in this area to me.

 

[Griffin]

This would be a 5 response thread if people simply went "wow, that seems odd" or "we will have to keep an eye out for reports about this"

How do you know that the networks were not told about the ongoing investigation at the time of the negotiations? Certainly if they knew, you wouldn't read that in the press. Now if they didn't know, and now they have doubts about the deal, they may be able to void the deal. Now if Stern should have legally told them but did not, then I agree he was wrong on this. But nothing here indicates whether he was allowed to disclose it or not, and whether he did or not.

But that brings me to a my second question. Who here thinks that this scandal is going to considerably affect th ratings? The viewers who are hurt the most by this are the hard-core fans. But the hard-core fans will still watch. How many people here are not going to watch Suns games anymore? As for the casual viewers, I don't think they will stop watching either. Most of them won't even know what point-shaving is or how that would affect the game. In fact, you might have a few more non-basketball fans watching precisely to see if any refs may be doing something illegal. The ratings will be down for sure, but that's mostly due to last season's playoffs.

 

[fordronken]

Thats why I worded it as questions and potentials, and not accusations or statements.

Oh, like "is youjustgotsunsd being an idiot?"

Question marks are accusations when used in certain ways. Yours was.

 

[Gaddabout]

you had the timeline reversed and are still ''very confident" ???

So at the very least, do you see the networks regretting, or wanting to renegotiate the terms of this deal? Please tell me as least one person thinks the value of such an agreement is altered now.

Of course I'm very confident because I have intimate knowledge of how their PR system works. They planned this date and delayed the announcement. No major PR exec goes straight to podium to announce something, especially not a billion dollar organization like the NBA.

Networks never regret anything because they live with the presumption they control public perception, and there is precedence for this. Or have you not watched any college basketball since the point shaving scandals at Tulane, ASU, or Boston College?

Probably most importantly, I can't see any reasoning where I should feel any remorse for the networks.

 

[Mulli]

Of course I'm very confident because I have intimate knowledge of how their PR system works. They planned this date and delayed the announcement. No major PR exec goes straight to podium to announce something, especially not a billion dollar organization like the NBA.

Networks never regret anything because they live with the presumption they control public perception, and there is precedence for this. Or have you not watched any college basketball since the point shaving scandals at Tulane, ASU, or Boston College?

Probably most importantly, I can't see any reasoning where I should feel any remorse for the networks.

Amen to that.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Oh, like "is youjustgotsunsd being an idiot?"

Question marks are accusations when used in certain ways. Yours was.

ouch. that's a little harsh.