PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

WCVB in court today over simulcast


Status
Not open for further replies.
As much as I dislike him it wasn't Goodell's fault. It was the Governments' threats of Congressional hearings that caused the NFL to hastily cave.

The NFL didn't have to play the game nationally; Playing the game over-the-air in all of New England, New York, and New Jersey would've been good enough to satify everyone (since no one expects OTA broadcasts of non local teams).

They basically went from one extreme (screwing over some local fans) to the other extreme (screwing over the initial local carriers).

I think in both cases they screwed up. The government didn't force them to do anything; they just suggested they let all local residents have it for free. They didn't say that it should appear on every single channel. The NFL decided to do that.
 
The government didn't force them to do anything; they just suggested they let all local residents have it for free. They didn't say that it should appear on every single channel. The NFL decided to do that.

The NFL must have realized that simulcasting on CBS and NBC will allow them to "showcase" their network... for free. Sounds like a good economical decision!
 
You can best believe the NFL had fine print in the contract which allows them to wiggle out of committment due to unforseen changes in conditions.

Of course.
 
The NFL must have realized that simulcasting on CBS and NBC will allow them to "showcase" their network... for free. Sounds like a good economical decision!

Exactly, the NFL changed their tune for some very good reasons. They weren't coerced by a handful politicians. Just like any business, part of what the NFL does is to generate immediate revenue, but another big part is create new fans and thus create new viewers. This game has become huge and there is a great deal of interest in it. The NFL has decided that the value of having a huge audience out weighs the negative aspects of changing tack. This was not brought on by the big, bad government. This was a solid business decision.
 
Last edited:
Right or wrong, good or bad, I don't give a dam. I get to watch the Patriots play. :rocker:

I've long sinced cared what happens to big corporations, the bottom line is "how does that effect me". Its only a football game, not a life changing event, so I DON"T CARE.
 
You can best believe the NFL had fine print in the contract which allows them to wiggle out of committment due to unforseen changes in conditions.

I believe not. Well run business do not sign contracts that let the other party opt out for nebulous 'unforseen conditions'. Force Majure, yes, but WTF, no.
 
I know that NBC and CBS are going to be allowed to play different ad's, but do any of us really know they didn't also commit to play the AD's of companies the NFLN had already sold time to?

CBS and NBC are allowed to share in the revenue from 18 commercial spots with their local affiliate.

I believe there are approximately 1 gazillion-billion tv ads in the typical NFL game, so it would seem that the NFL Network national spots will have a much larger audience now.
 
I believe there are approximately 1 gazillion-billion tv ads in the typical NFL game, so it would seem that the NFL Network national spots will have a much larger audience now.

Which is quite motivating.
 
There are many contracts between advertisers and the various channels and networks that were materially affecting by the NFL's latest decision. To say that the NFL made a sound economic decision is simply not to understand. The NFL will pay up to Channel 5 and others who sign agreements with advertisers based on their contract with the NFL. This will cost the NFL lot of mony, but perhaps it will all be worth it. Yes, this will great for NFLN in the long run. They "did the right thing". In fact they did the only thing they could; they folded to government pressure.

And maybe next year, all these companies will fold to government pressure and have NFLN as part of basic service. Of course, basic service will be more expensive and all consumers will pay so that we can see our favorite NFL game. Next, John Kerry will be on vacation and will have no access to DirectTV and Sunday Ticket. He'll threaten suits, and then all NFL games can be provided for "free". And cable fees will go up and taxes will go up.
 
all i know is i'm getting the game on a national braodcast. the cable companies screw us over plenty. i have no love for monopolies. if cvb messes this up i will be pissed.
 
There are many contracts between advertisers and the various channels and networks that were materially affecting by the NFL's latest decision. To say that the NFL made a sound economic decision is simply not to understand. The NFL will pay up to Channel 5 and others who sign agreements with advertisers based on their contract with the NFL. This will cost the NFL lot of mony, but perhaps it will all be worth it. Yes, this will great for NFLN in the long run. They "did the right thing". In fact they did the only thing they could; they folded to government pressure.

True I don't know all the contract details.

But most fans know the NFL Network isn't "doing the right thing" out of the goodness of their hearts. Whether it was pressure from the govt or it was the chance to showcase their network to a larger audience (with the hopes/expectations that they get more NFL Network subscriptions, meaning more money)... or a combination of these issues as well as others, I think it comes down to money. If the NFL Network saw that they would lose money in this, they would have fought alot harder to keep the game off CBS and NBC.
 
Let's be real here: There was never a real threat of government hearings. It was just a pro forma mention, Kerry putting on a little display. And all of the parties involved (even us) knew that, or should have.

Kerry just expressed what many people were feeling, and since he's a Senator, he has a louder megaphone. That's the beginning and end of it.

By the way, Sliego...at the risk of being political...there is no housing bailout, in the sense you mean. The government isn't giving money to anyone. The banks have just agreed to delay the interest adjustment for awhile, on a case by case basis. No one--repeat, no one--is paying a dime more in taxes for this.

Why are the banks doing this? Because they'd rather have something than nothing. No bank wants to foreclose on houses in a falling real estate market. They're in the money business, not the house business. If delaying the interest hike can do that, everyone benefits.

By everyone, I don't just mean the banks and the home owners who took on those adjustable rate mortgages. I mean ALL of us, including you, Sieglo. A couple of million homes in foreclosure will sending the housing market tumbling even further--and the value of all houses will go down.

For the last few years, a large number of us have been refinancing our homes and taking out equity and spending in cars, TVs, and everything else. Our purchases have supported the economy. But when house values drop, equity vanishes. So does purchasing power. Even yours, Sieglo.

And what happens then? The economy tanks. It's probably going to tank anyway, but anything that can slow the drop in real estate value will help by lightening the blow.

There are millions of people who are still at risk. There may not be any justice in helping them, after they volunteered for the ARM mortgages, even if they didn't understand (which, of course, is what the banks intended). But for the sake of the national economy, let's hope the banks give them a little slack. It will help us all.
 
What I see is Channels 5 and 9 (NH) to go to court and ask for an injunction to prevent Channels 4 and 7 from being allowed to broadcast the game. Whichever over-the-air station in NYC should also be doing the same. Channel 5 should be allowed to receive the exclusivity it thought it was getting. It's not like the Boston/Manchester area will be deprived if the game isn't on Channels 4 and 7.

That said, I still think the NFL should have gone to the mat on this one. If this came about only because of Kerry and Leahy, then Goodell is definitely no Pete Rozelle. I really can't comment nor speculate on how Tagliabue would have handled this, but handling television was Rozelle's chief claim to fame. Goodell seems more skilled in handling discipline, it certainly isn't in imposing the league's will on television.

Take away the pressure from various Senators, then what? I think Goodell would have eventually brought some capitulation from the cable companies if the game turns out to be all it's hyped up to be. It would have made the NFL Network a lot stronger and a more viable player in the battle over televised football games.

To play my own devil's advocate, I think the NFLN has a ways to go before it really deserves extra subscription money. They need more original programming, they need to get HD cameras into their studios, they need to get a better play-by-play man for live games, they need to do something to make it "must see". Without the latter element, there is no point in paying extra for this network other than the live football games.

Now that the precedent has been set for airing games nationally if they be of such great importance, the position of the NFLN is forever weakened. The network may still have its day in the sun someday, it just won't have the clout it so dearly sought.

Bob G
 
They "did the right thing". In fact they did the only thing they could; they folded to government pressure.

And maybe next year, all these companies will fold to government pressure and have NFLN as part of basic service. Of course, basic service will be more expensive and all consumers will pay so that we can see our favorite NFL game. Next, John Kerry will be on vacation and will have no access to DirectTV and Sunday Ticket. He'll threaten suits, and then all NFL games can be provided for "free". And cable fees will go up and taxes will go up.

So true!
And here's some quick pics from the Kerry front! Hey, my name on the football!!!
 
Last edited:
The first thing I thought when I saw that NBC and CBS were going to get the game is, boy is Channel 5 going to be pissed. ABC in NH also negotiated to show the game. The NFL really screwed this up. They should give a rebate to advertisers who signed up for Channel 5 or NFLN, but I'm sure that has a snowball's chance in hell of happening.

Same here lol but then their local programming for the Pats is pretty lame outside of the Belistrator segments. So screw them :p
 
Last edited:
CBS and NBC are allowed to share in the revenue from 18 commercial spots with their local affiliate.

I believe there are approximately 1 gazillion-billion tv ads in the typical NFL game, so it would seem that the NFL Network national spots will have a much larger audience now.

This is what I thought. So, I doubt we'll be hearing any complaints from the companies who bought ad time with the NFLN, as those spots are actually going to see increased viewership. Really, the only people who will be complaining are the local stations they had contracts with, and the companies who bought Ad time from those local stations.
 
Last edited:
The more controversy, as long as the game goes out on regular TV, the better. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the lawsuit was a wink and nod kind of thing between WCVB and the NFL. A couple of grand to get a lawyer to draw up and file a suit is cheap compared to the free publicity. I'm not a gambler; but if I was I'd be more willing to bet that this suit goes away within a week of Saturday than I would be willing to bet on the Pats covering.
 
Why. There is no such right.

The NFL was threatened and coercied and you think it's the right thing to do.

Because as an American I have a right to view a game that is a product of the NFL because I am a consumer/customer of the NFL. I buy NFL tickets and merchandise. Therefore myself and every other consumer/customer of the NFL should be able to watch the product in which we invest our time and money.

Corporate America shouldn't be allowed to restrict my rights of viewership for their personal profit. When did the consumer/customer's rights get thrown out the window in favor of corporate financial gain?
 
Last edited:
WCVB has a right to complain only about other outlets televising the game in the WCVB broadcast area. Their advertisers base their purchases on their ads airing in that area only. As for the national telecast, I admire the NFL, and this was probably the plan all along before the politicians came along for the ride. This is the NFL's way of saying F**k you to the Cables.

Yet, the politicians will take full credit for this "resolution." What's new?
 
Because as an American I have a right to view a game that is a product of the NFL because I am a consumer/customer of the NFL. I buy NFL tickets and merchandise. Therefore myself and every other consumer/customer of the NFL should be able to watch the product in which we invest our time and money.

Corporate America shouldn't be allowed to restrict my rights of viewership for their personal profit. When did the consumer/customer's rights get thrown out the window in favor of corporate financial gain?

Right? You have no "right" at all. Its America. Home of the Brave. Land of the Free.

Free to charge you to watch a game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


TRANSCRIPT: Eliot Wolf’s Pre-Draft Press Conference 4/18/24
Thursday Patriots Notebook 4/18: News and Notes
Wednesday Patriots Notebook 4/17: News and Notes
Tuesday Patriots Notebook 4/16: News and Notes
Monday Patriots Notebook 4/15: News and Notes
Patriots News 4-14, Mock Draft 3.0, Gilmore, Law Rally For Bill 
Potential Patriot: Boston Globe’s Price Talks to Georgia WR McConkey
Friday Patriots Notebook 4/12: News and Notes
Not a First Round Pick? Hoge Doubles Down on Maye
Thursday Patriots Notebook 4/11: News and Notes
Back
Top