From a consumer perspective, if ESPN/ABC is generally staying the same and all that is happening is TNT games move to Prime, it's a net win IMO if you add NBC to the mix and get more national games overall. The issue is NBC is also going to use Peacock. Every Monday there will be a double header that will only be viewable on Peacock (and that will probably be exclusive to Peacock as well). That seems wild to me. Peacock is near the bottom of the top 10 streaming services in terms of subscribers, barely ahead of ESPN+ and AppleTV. It has half as many subscribers GLOBALLY as there are US households with cable TV subscriptions (note the global vs US comparison).
Switching from TNT to Amazon Prime (which holds most of its value from the non-entertainment services it provides) is fine and may be better for most since there are something like 3x as many Amazon Prime subscribers as there are cable subscribers in the US. The Peacock thing is just crazy to me. I assume they think this will pull more subscribers somehow. They really think people are going to get another monthly subscription for a couple of games one night a week (only during the regular season)? To me it is just the league trying their best to get people to pirate streams.
The NBA lawyers will probably argue that TNT doesn't have the platform that Amazon has, which is streaming and growth for the future. And for that argument there is some validity as there is cord cutting which is diminishing the customer base. For that business case it goes beyond simply matching numbers. The NBA as the commercial rights owner has the right to move to whatever platform it needs to suceed as a business.
Yeah, I heard the NBA was going to use this "platform argument" no matter which package WD/TNT chose to match. For instance, if they tried to match NBC's package, the NBA was going to argue that NBC, being a network, has a much bigger platform than TNT does.
That is an extremely valid argument. However, the courts don't care.
Here's what they care about: did you put it in writing? i.e., did you put it in the contract?
That's all the court cares about. And from what I've read, the matching clause is written in an extremely vague manner:
Quote:
“Both the NBA and Warner Bros. Discovery have begun poring over legal language to determine if the league can reject a potential match,” CNBC reported last week.
“The contractual wording is vague, and it’s unclear if the NBA has full discretion to walk away from Warner Bros. Discovery if it matches the bid.
This is a huge problem for the NBA, and here's why: in contract law, the assumption is, anything important was put into the contract. Anything left out must not have been important. That's the assumption.
From what I've read, there's nothing in there about the size of platforms. The NBA is now arguing that, the size of platforms is a HUGE deal. It's a difference maker, a deal breaker.
The courts are going to ask the NBA, if it was that important to you, why didn’t you put it into the contract?
These are multi-billion dollar contracts, drawn up by the best attorneys in the US. The matching clause is a huge deal and they just drew it up vaguely. Why?
Why didn't they put something in there explaining, describing exactly what WD/TNT needs to do to fully match a competitor's contract. Specifically, they could have put in there:
Quote:
"fully matching means, not only in terms of dollars, but also in terms of the size of the platform..."
This would have made things extremely easy. But they didn't. They left it vague but now they want the courts to give this vague matching clause more specificity.
The courts do not like to do this. This allows people/entities to draft up vague contracts and then force the courts to add specificity to it.
The NBA is going to have to have a very good explanation why they didn't make the matching clause more specific, especially terms which are deal breakers for them. Why didn't they put it in?
This is going to be a hard barrier for them to overcome. My prediction is, the "size of the platform" issue will be thrown out.
The NBA had a chance to put it into the contract, they chose not to. Now they're asking the courts to put it in for them. The courts won't do it.
The only way they win is that they claim somewhere in the wording of the matching clause, there's reference/mention of the size of the platform. That's really their only argument. But so far, doesn't seem like there is.
So, if it's not in there, then the NBA will lose on the "size of the platform" argument, in my opinion.
The courts don’t like to fix mistakes due to laziness, or incompetence, or forgetfulness or whatever. Those are the likely reasons why the NBA didn’t think to put in the “size of the platform” criteria in the matching clause.
Last edited by LongBeachPoly on Thu Jul 25, 2024 11:59 am; edited 3 times in total
From a consumer perspective, if ESPN/ABC is generally staying the same and all that is happening is TNT games move to Prime, it's a net win IMO if you add NBC to the mix and get more national games overall. The issue is NBC is also going to use Peacock. Every Monday there will be a double header that will only be viewable on Peacock (and that will probably be exclusive to Peacock as well). That seems wild to me. Peacock is near the bottom of the top 10 streaming services in terms of subscribers, barely ahead of ESPN+ and AppleTV. It has half as many subscribers GLOBALLY as there are US households with cable TV subscriptions (note the global vs US comparison).
Switching from TNT to Amazon Prime (which holds most of its value from the non-entertainment services it provides) is fine and may be better for most since there are something like 3x as many Amazon Prime subscribers as there are cable subscribers in the US. The Peacock thing is just crazy to me. I assume they think this will pull more subscribers somehow. They really think people are going to get another monthly subscription for a couple of games one night a week (only during the regular season)? To me it is just the league trying their best to get people to pirate streams.
There is also around 60 million Amazon subscribers outside of the US. The TNT studio show was far and away the best NBA content probably ever but if I was the league this is an absolute no brainier for me. The NBA audience in the US has been saturated for awhile now and they've been constantly looking to expand their international presence. There's no doubt in my mind almost all the marquee games are going on Amazon. _________________ KOBE
While I wish it stayed on TNT, I actually understand the Amazon move. TNT/WB had a long time to match, they waited until the very very end.
WWE is going to Netfix in Jan 2025. The broadcasting shifting from USA cable to a streaming service like that, enables being able to reach more audience.
Again, I hate that TNT was the casualty. I'm not sure what the courts will decide.
Next year will be a weird year in that TNT will be covering the NBA....
Joined: 13 Jan 2002 Posts: 8058 Location: Lake Forest
Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2024 4:13 pm Post subject:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
The NBA lawyers will probably argue that TNT doesn't have the platform that Amazon has, which is streaming and growth for the future. And for that argument there is some validity as there is cord cutting which is diminishing the customer base. For that business case it goes beyond simply matching numbers. The NBA as the commercial rights owner has the right to move to whatever platform it needs to suceed as a business.
Yeah, I heard the NBA was going to use this "platform argument" no matter which package WD/TNT chose to match. For instance, if they tried to match NBC's package, the NBA was going to argue that NBC, being a network, has a much bigger platform than TNT does.
That is an extremely valid argument. However, the courts don't care.
Here's what they care about: did you put it in writing? i.e., did you put it in the contract?
That's all the court cares about. And from what I've read, the matching clause is written in an extremely vague manner:
Quote:
“Both the NBA and Warner Bros. Discovery have begun poring over legal language to determine if the league can reject a potential match,” CNBC reported last week.
“The contractual wording is vague, and it’s unclear if the NBA has full discretion to walk away from Warner Bros. Discovery if it matches the bid.
This is a huge problem for the NBA, and here's why: in contract law, the assumption is, anything important was put into the contract. Anything left out must not have been important. That's the assumption.
From what I've read, there's nothing in there about the size of platforms. The NBA is now arguing that, the size of platforms is a HUGE deal. It's a difference maker, a deal breaker.
The courts are going to ask the NBA, if it was that important to you, why didn’t you put it into the contract?
These are multi-billion dollar contracts, drawn up by the best attorneys in the US. The matching clause is a huge deal and they just drew it up vaguely. Why?
Why didn't they put something in there explaining, describing exactly what WD/TNT needs to do to fully match a competitor's contract. Specifically, they could have put in there:
Quote:
"fully matching means, not only in terms of dollars, but also in terms of the size of the platform..."
This would have made things extremely easy. But they didn't. They left it vague but now they want the courts to give this vague matching clause more specificity.
The courts do not like to do this. This allows people/entities to draft up vague contracts and then force the courts to add specificity to it.
The NBA is going to have to have a very good explanation why they didn't make the matching clause more specific, especially terms which are deal breakers for them. Why didn't they put it in?
This is going to be a hard barrier for them to overcome. My prediction is, the "size of the platform" issue will be thrown out.
The NBA had a chance to put it into the contract, they chose not to. Now they're asking the courts to put it in for them. The courts won't do it.
The only way they win is that they claim somewhere in the wording of the matching clause, there's reference/mention of the size of the platform. That's really their only argument. But so far, doesn't seem like there is.
So, if it's not in there, then the NBA will lose on the "size of the platform" argument, in my opinion.
The courts don’t like to fix mistakes due to laziness, or incompetence, or forgetfulness or whatever. Those are the likely reasons why the NBA didn’t think to put in the “size of the platform” criteria in the matching clause.
Were online streaming rights a thing in 2012? Might not be cut and dry.
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 69283 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2024 4:59 pm Post subject:
I'm a Prime subscriber. If the contracts are approved I wonder if I'll have to pay an additional fee to watch the games they broadcast. _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be
because we destroyed ourselves.
Were online streaming rights a thing in 2012? Might not be cut and dry.
Let's say that's the NBA's position, that it was not foreseeable (online streaming) therefore that’s why it’s not in the contract.
Here's the burden they have to meet: they have to persuade the court that:
Quote:
1) had they'd known about online streaming in 2012, they would have put it into the contract
AND
2) WD/TNT would have (without a doubt) agreed to put it into the contract.
WD/TNT is going to argue that they wouldn’t have agreed to this provision (without compensation) because it doesn’t benefit them. It actually limits their power to match (as we see what’s happening now).
So it wouldn’t matter even if online streaming wasn’t a thing in 2012 and possibly wasn’t foreseeable to the NBA.
Joined: 13 Jan 2002 Posts: 8058 Location: Lake Forest
Posted: Fri Jul 26, 2024 8:57 am Post subject:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
LakersRGolden wrote:
Were online streaming rights a thing in 2012? Might not be cut and dry.
Let's say that's the NBA's position, that it was not foreseeable (online streaming) therefore that’s why it’s not in the contract.
Here's the burden they have to meet: they have to persuade the court that:
Quote:
1) had they'd known about online streaming in 2012, they would have put it into the contract
AND
2) WD/TNT would have (without a doubt) agreed to put it into the contract.
WD/TNT is going to argue that they wouldn’t have agreed to this provision (without compensation) because it doesn’t benefit them. It actually limits their power to match (as we see what’s happening now).
So it wouldn’t matter even if online streaming wasn’t a thing in 2012 and possibly wasn’t foreseeable to the NBA.
Thank you for the info. I guess TNT has a good chance then.
Were online streaming rights a thing in 2012? Might not be cut and dry.
Let's say that's the NBA's position, that it was not foreseeable (online streaming) therefore that’s why it’s not in the contract.
Here's the burden they have to meet: they have to persuade the court that:
Quote:
1) had they'd known about online streaming in 2012, they would have put it into the contract
AND
2) WD/TNT would have (without a doubt) agreed to put it into the contract.
WD/TNT is going to argue that they wouldn’t have agreed to this provision (without compensation) because it doesn’t benefit them. It actually limits their power to match (as we see what’s happening now).
So it wouldn’t matter even if online streaming wasn’t a thing in 2012 and possibly wasn’t foreseeable to the NBA.
Thank you for the info. I guess TNT has a good chance then.
Remember, only info I'm going off of is that the language was written in a vague way.
I never like change, but to me honestly I can't get too upset at this...yet.
To me, even Inside The NBA had gotten stale and I don't mind seeing some games on antenna TV (NBC) as part of the new deal.
I have Amazon Prime and even if the announcers suck, I was so spoiled from growing up with the legendary Chick Hearn that I think they all stink in comparison!
They can ram Peacock where the sun doesn't shine of course but maybe for streaming and such Amazon will be an improvement as the TNT App sucks. _________________ Love, Laker Lanny
I'm a Prime subscriber. If the contracts are approved I wonder if I'll have to pay an additional fee to watch the games they broadcast.
You don’t for the NFL
They got better on the NFL also after someone told Al Michaels to stop whining about every matchup and acting like he would rather be somewhere else. _________________ Love, Laker Lanny
I never like change, but to me honestly I can't get too upset at this...yet.
To me, even Inside The NBA had gotten stale and I don't mind seeing some games on antenna TV (NBC) as part of the new deal.
I have Amazon Prime and even if the announcers suck, I was so spoiled from growing up with the legendary Chick Hearn that I think they all stink in comparison!
They can ram Peacock where the sun doesn't shine of course but maybe for streaming and such Amazon will be an improvement as the TNT App sucks.
To me the NBA is still chasing growth even in the US audience. Putting it on Prime will give them a larger audience amongst people who don't even watch the NBA. Even though TNT had the best production among all the different networks the NBA is looking at growth long term. That means more money coming into the league. So in the end they decided to chase the money over production value (which while Inside the NBA has a terrific show it remains to be seen how much longer they could keep it going considering these guys are starting to get up there in age).
Feels like the league is going to go through a dead area. Parody, we aren’t relevant, the numbers showed no one cared about the team that won 8 of its titles before the moon landing, t wolves, nuggets, okc are 3 top teams no one cares about. Now this. _________________ Kobe.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Clw9scopegx/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
Feels like the league is going to go through a dead area. Parody, we aren’t relevant, the numbers showed no one cared about the team that won 8 of its titles before the moon landing, t wolves, nuggets, okc are 3 top teams no one cares about. Now this.
The NBA is a terrible product on the court. The players don't care about basketball just their brand and it shows. Endless 3 pointers, not much defense. Hardly any rivalries/real hatred.
Also none of the newer stars are going to be household names either. Maybe Reed Sheppard could pull it off but in general the age of the NBA superstar is a thing of the past tbh.
Feels like the league is going to go through a dead area. Parody, we aren’t relevant, the numbers showed no one cared about the team that won 8 of its titles before the moon landing, t wolves, nuggets, okc are 3 top teams no one cares about. Now this.
The NBA is a terrible product on the court. The players don't care about basketball just their brand and it shows. Endless 3 pointers, not much defense. Hardly any rivalries/real hatred.
Also none of the newer stars are going to be household names either. Maybe Reed Sheppard could pull it off but in general the age of the NBA superstar is a thing of the past tbh.
This is why the NBA is hoping that Wemby is as good as the hype. Because they are going thru a rough period where growth is going to be tough. This is also a large part of why they are putting their next TV package in as many homes as possible. The era where people will pay whatever to watch the NBA product is over. This is also a large part why they don't want to renew with TNT. The on air product might be good but its a cable/satellite only channel and in an era of cord cutting its not going to grow the NBA product.
Feels like the league is going to go through a dead area. Parody, we aren’t relevant, the numbers showed no one cared about the team that won 8 of its titles before the moon landing, t wolves, nuggets, okc are 3 top teams no one cares about. Now this.
The NBA is a terrible product on the court. The players don't care about basketball just their brand and it shows. Endless 3 pointers, not much defense. Hardly any rivalries/real hatred.
Also none of the newer stars are going to be household names either. Maybe Reed Sheppard could pull it off but in general the age of the NBA superstar is a thing of the past tbh.
This is why the NBA is hoping that Wemby is as good as the hype. Because they are going thru a rough period where growth is going to be tough. This is also a large part of why they are putting their next TV package in as many homes as possible. The era where people will pay whatever to watch the NBA product is over. This is also a large part why they don't want to renew with TNT. The on air product might be good but its a cable/satellite only channel and in an era of cord cutting its not going to grow the NBA product.
Wemby is the hope. I watch every laker game but could not care less about the league beyond that with the slight exception of the nyk. If Wemby pops teams will use him as the marketing draw just like the clippers have for their entire existence. Unless it pops up my feed I have never purposely gone to espn for a recap. I always mined yt to see what Chuck, shaq, Ernie and the other guy had to say. _________________ Kobe.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Clw9scopegx/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144971 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2024 9:08 am Post subject:
LakerLanny wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
jodeke wrote:
I'm a Prime subscriber. If the contracts are approved I wonder if I'll have to pay an additional fee to watch the games they broadcast.
You don’t for the NFL
They got better on the NFL also after someone told Al Michaels to stop whining about every matchup and acting like he would rather be somewhere else.
The point stands that Prime doesn’t charge extra for the NFL, why would one think that they would for the NBA? One is a ratings heavyweight while the other isn’t. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
I could see Prime raising their rates after all the sports rights acquisitions but it would still be far cheaper than a cable/satellite subscription. And Prime has like 4x the number of cable/satellite subscribers these days so its a bigger audience even if not everyone watches sports on there.
I could see Prime raising their rates after all the sports rights acquisitions but it would still be far cheaper than a cable/satellite subscription. And Prime has like 4x the number of cable/satellite subscribers these days so its a bigger audience even if not everyone watches sports on there.
I was a subscriber with Prime from day 1 in 2005 for $79 a month. That was worth it for me for the sheer amount of purchases I got and the fast/free shipping. That's about $135 with inflation which is right in line with the the $139 for the annual membership today. I was happily paying that when there was no Amazon Streaming no Amazon Music. Nada. Just free Prime shipping. All the rest of this is just icing on the cake.
Now if it were the opposite where I was paying for the streaming service and no Prime shipping? Yeah, they can all F off. _________________ KOBE
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 69283 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2024 12:50 pm Post subject:
jonnybravo wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
I could see Prime raising their rates after all the sports rights acquisitions but it would still be far cheaper than a cable/satellite subscription. And Prime has like 4x the number of cable/satellite subscribers these days so its a bigger audience even if not everyone watches sports on there.
I was a subscriber with Prime from day 1 in 2005 for $79 a month. That was worth it for me for the sheer amount of purchases I got and the fast/free shipping. That's about $135 with inflation which is right in line with the the $139 for the annual membership today. I was happily paying that when there was no Amazon Streaming no Amazon Music. Nada. Just free Prime shipping. All the rest of this is just icing on the cake.
Now if it were the opposite where I was paying for the streaming service and no Prime shipping? Yeah, they can all F off.
I'm a Prime member. They have a wide variety of movies and others. I don't like how many movies you have to buy or rent. I shop on Amazon quite often. I like the same day or next day deliveries. I also like if you buy something that doesn't live up to your expectations they take it back no questions asked. _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be
because we destroyed ourselves.
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
