• Welcome Guest
San Diego Padres

Welcome to the San Diego Padres.
Before posting, please review our Message Board Guidelines

    • SD is a wealthy region...why are Pads owners so "poor"?
  • 11/25/10
  • zeus1984
You're correct ALOT has changed including the ownership since that stupid cable tv only contract was signed. Back then everything was all cable so the ownership of the time had no idea of what was going to change in 95 when MLB started selling the out of market rights to those rsn games. I'm like you, going by an email I got from the SD Padres FO on this subject it does sound like the Padres will prolly move to one of the rsn's and I'm like you guessing it will be FS West. To answer you question when two sports games are going on at the same time ( I can guess you must be either a cable tv subscriber or Uverse/Fios) what they do on satellite is have alternate channels. For example I happen to be a Detroit Red Wings fan. If there is a Red Wings game going on at the same time the Detroit Pistons game is also playing, FS Detroit will have the Pistons game on one channel and put the Red Wings game on the FS Detroit Plus (alternate channel) to carry BOTH games at the same time. That's what you would see happen if FS West were to take on the Padres telecasts. But the fact does remain those teams who fully expose their telecasts on the rsn's do get more revenue since their games are not just avail locally ( via MLB EI) as well as the revenue the rsn pays the team for the local telecasts. This gets complicated to explain: The teams can ONLY sell their local rights to the rsn's so this means the rsn's DONT have the out of market rights to make those games avail outside of their markets. MLB itself owns the out of market rights to those same games and sells them to the various distributors like Directv etc and the revenue then is split between both all the teams and MLB itself. So either way you look at it the Padres would get WAY more money than just keeping themselves on that stupid Cox cable. The good news is Cox already said they were not going to renew a contract with the Padres so we have one year left before the Padres should FINALLY be on a regional sports network instead.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 11/25/10
  • kev28

LOL,,actually it wasn't a question really. Having worked in broadcasting, I do understand all that. But thanks!

The problem is down here, it's doubtful another RSN would be started. Since, we have really only one team whose games would be aired, other than college of course.

So more than likely, we would have to share an LA RSN already down here. Which on Cox the only English FSW is 29. So no options, at this time, on Cox to move games to another FSN channel. And we probably wouldn't be talking a lot of games anyway. So that's why they would probably either work out a deal with say KUSI, or try and work a deal with Cox to show it on ch. 4.

While I understand those who are out of market that suffer, I really don't have an issue with it. Cox had a product and they were able to lock up exclusive rights to it. Very smart on their end.

It's really no different than someone wanting an iPhone and at least at this point in time, being forced to go to AT&T.


Edited 11/25/10   by  kev28
  • Reply to this Message
  • 11/25/10
  • caminito
If memory serves Cox was in the drivers seat when the original deal was done because the Pads had virtually no other options did they? KUSI's cheap ownership was offering nothing and still didn't want to do all the games because it interfered with other program... and there is the size of the TV Market that enters into it... at the time we were like the 3rd smallest TV market in the baseball world - oh wait I guess we still are.... LOL
  • Reply to this Message
  • 11/25/10
  • kev28

4th smallest TV market.

I've posted about KUSI before not spending money.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 11/25/10
  • zeus1984
I still believe you're correct about which rsn will most likely be the one to take over the Padres games-FS West. I still think the Padres are too cheap to think of doing it, but one more option they could play is like what the Yankees did and create their own sports channel ( like YES) but I don't see that option being the most likely to happen. FS West already has two feeds-FS West and West 2. It would just be a matter of dividing the LA/Padres games between the two feeds I see it as. One last things once again Cox has already told the Padres they were not interested in a new contract so Cox will most likely not be in the picture soon unless for some odd reason they change their minds and also are willing to start allowing their SD4 to become avail nationally and not some cheap cable only channel. Cox has other sports channels throughout the south and was on the verge of making a deal with Directv to carry these channels but when it came to DTV attempting to get SD4 to be added in, thats when Cox backed out of the deal and refused any more talks.Comcast has been the same exact way with their CSN Philly channel too on this issue. The Padres have already via email assured me they have full intentions of their telecasts "being on multiple platforms " when a new deal with whatever rsn you name it takes over. That quote came directly from an email I got from them on this issue a year ago when I jumped them over the issue of Cox cable refusing at first to share their telecasts with MLB EI which they ARE supposed to be doing. This year they did get back the Cox telecasts unlike 09 in the MLB EI thank goodness! I think it took MLB to get Cox back to compliance.Even Comcast has to also share their CSN Philly telecasts as well for MLB EI.

Edited 11/25/10   by  zeus1984
  • Reply to this Message
  • 11/25/10
  • kev28

The point I was making is, I don't believe Cox carries/offers both FSW feeds.

They wouldn't need to divide the games up anyway on the two feeds. Down here, show the Padres games, up in LA show the Angel games or normal programming. Neither game can be shown in the other market anyway. They already have to either blackout or cover FSW down here when the Angels are on.

Heck since the system is basically in place already, have Cox air switch the feed. While the game is on, Cox feeds the signal over ch. 29, and to other cable outlets in town as well as sat feed. They switch the breaks and return to the net feed (FSW) once the game is over. Very much like any network affiliate would do if they were broadcasting a local game during prime time.

The only involvement for cox would be what is going out locally on FSW. They would not handle the production of the game or the commercial sales. Of course, they would get some compensation for their involvement the part they do.

And to clarify, I was saying FSW could put either the Pads/Kings/Lakers, on ch 4 if there was a conflict. It still would be the FSW broadcast however.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 11/25/10
  • kev28

One other point to consider on the Padres end. You need programming to start up a RSN, such as YES.
Just one MLB team is not going to do it.

Sure college teams would help some, but without a NBA/NHL team, it would be hard to do.

And honestly, I don't see a big demand outside of San Diego, like the Yankees get outside of NY.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 11/25/10
  • zeus1984
Yup that's also why I didn't see that as an option either next to the fact the Padres are too cheap anyways.lol
  • Reply to this Message
  • 11/25/10
  • zeus1984
Yeah when you take it from the cable tv angle, Cox wouldn't need to have or carry both of the FS West feeds.They would carry the main feed during non pro sports and when the pro sports games comes on, thats when Cox for example would only carry the feed with the Padres game and of course the LA cable companies are going to carry the LA team telecasts for the reasons you've already mentioned as far as out of market etc. Most cable companies don't seem to always carry both of the Comcast feeds or Fox sports feeds for some reason ( where you have more than one feed for the same rsn) if they ever do , its usually like when you have two pro sports games going on like what I described in the previous post regarding the FS Detroit carrying both the Red Wings telecast and Pistons game at the same time. Usually you only see both of the Comcast or FS feeds if you're a Directv or Dishnet subscriber
  • Reply to this Message
  • 11/25/10
  • kev28
It's a very large investment to start up any channel. Equipment is not cheap. Plus the fact of having to staff it, production, sales, traffic, promotion etc.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 11/25/10
  • field039

"It's a very large investment to start up any channel. Equipment is not cheap. Plus the fact of having to staff it, production, sales, traffic, promotion etc."

Exactly. There was no way Cox was going to start a production company, based on anything other than a long term exclusive agreement.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 11/25/10
  • zeus1984
Cox cable could have made HUGE money if they were not so non competitive and instead of being only a small stupid "cable only" channel allowed the other distributors such as Uverse,Fios,Directv, and Dishnet to carry them. They refuse to allow their channel to be carried for the same exact reasons Comcast wont allow any competitor to carry CSN Philly: they know in their local area they would lose business big time because most would dump cable if they had the chance and go to one of the other carriers. They use the sports telecasts like as a hostage to force people from dumping them. Philly happens to be one of the only areas nationwide which has the fewest subscribers for DishNet or Directv and it's very clearly been mentioned in the various forums especially the Dishnet and Directv forums as to why: they cannot watch their own local sports telecasts due to Comcast refusing to allow CSN Philly to be carried by their competitors. Cox has been playing the same cheap game yet could be making huge money selling the carriage rights to their channel if they were not so stubborn.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 11/25/10
  • kev28

Have to disagree with you here.

Cox, like Comcast, #1 are cable providers. That is their bread and butter. If they have the exclusive rights to something, such as the Padres, it's very smart on their end to force people to their primary product.

So Cox gets you to get a cable package so you can watch the Padres. Next they offer you internet, then maybe a bundle package including phone service. Maybe you also get a service such as HBO/Showtime, etc.

All of this of this because the customer wanting the Padre games.

It's no different that a store selling a product as a loss leader, to get you into the door of their business. Once inside, their hope is you then will buy more items in that store.

Also just like I mentioned before with the iPhone. The cell carriers sign contracts with phone manufacturers so they have exclusive rights to certain phones. So if you want a certain phone, you have to sign up with that provider.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 11/26/10
  • zeus1984
Currently that's been one of the big issues being discussed in the Directv/Dishnet forums: The cable companies AND satellite tv companies needing to being barred from also being content providers. Cox has its small sports channels, Comcast has not only rsn's but also so many of the everyday cable channels, Directv even owns/controls some of the Fox Sports channels and so on. The federal government needs to step in and make it where the content providers ( the channels ) are NOT owned by either the cable or satellite distributors because once again you're talking non competitive practices. I doubt you would be happy that Walmart is the only one who has your favorite washing detergent ( suppose you don't have one in town) and you have to drive all the way to the other city just to get it just because walmart has some stupid exclusive claim to that product. It just isnt competitive. This issue has been brought up to the front since the time Comcast decided they were wanting to buy NBC.

Edited 11/26/10   by  zeus1984
  • Reply to this Message
  • 11/26/10
  • kev28

It already goes on in stores where products are only sold at one store, such as some new CD releases only being sold at Best Buy, Target or Wal*Mart. Or DVD/CD releases that contain special features only available at a certain retailer.

In the days of the internet, driving to Wal*Mart is not really an issue, just buy it on-line.

Product exclusives goes on in many places. If you prefer Pepsi over Coke, then don't go to Rubio's.

As far as Comcast/NBC, it's going to happen. Enough money is being "contributed" where it will pass the eyes of the FCC.

Cox has already said they are willing to release the exclusive on the game. They have hired FSN to negotiate with the dish providers.

BTW, back in 2009 Basic and Basic Digital Cable Networks and Subscribers fees charged per subscriber had an industry average of .20 for every subscriber a system had. Leaving the top two off the list, they ran from .01 to .99 depending on the channel.

For Cox to carry C-Span, they would pay C-Span .05 for every subscriber Cox has. So I'm sure some money cruncher at some time, worked the numbers and felt Cox would get much more money if people had to sign on to their service as opposed to allowing another service, such as AT&T pay a rights fee.

I mentioned that I had left the top two off. They are ESPN/ESPN HD which gets 4.08 a subscriber and FSN which gets 2.37 per subscriber.

The list can be found here
http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason-why/

One thing to remember is these are channels that broadcast most of the day, if not all day. So for something like the Padres games, IMO, it would be at the lower end of the scale.


Edited 11/26/10   by  kev28
  • Reply to this Message
  • 11/27/10
  • zeus1984
As far as the Comcast/NBC deal goes, yeah it will pass thru but there was still question if the FCC may make Comcast have to sell off some of their channels ( one of them brought up was CSN Philly) but that's really speculation at this point. You're the first to tell me that Cox was finally willing to give up the exclusive bs. They had Directv wanting to make a deal with them ( this was supposedly like a year ago ) yet they had no intentions of letting SD4 become avail. Of course it was no surprise way back in SD that they were willing to let a deal go thru with fellow cable Time Warner since they are not competitors in the SD market. That only proved further it was about being non competitive.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 11/27/10
  • wecanwin

Another angle to consider. The Padres "small market" status might be jeopardized so to speak by negotiating with a carrier with higher coverage.

It has benefited the Padres substantially to use market size as an excuse to reduce payroll and continue to reduce payroll.

Although they may profit from an expanded media market I am not convinced that they are really inclined to do that.

What's the reason? Accountability.

There would be more scrutiny in regards to the amount of revenue generated from the TV deal.

Approximately how much of that TV deal revenue generated would be re-invested into player payroll would remain to be seen.

I am convinced that this "small market" tag serves a boon to the Padres organization, another smoke screen that can be used to justify not investing into player payroll.


Edited 11/27/10   by  wecanwin
  • Reply to this Message
  • 11/27/10
  • kev28
The Padres would still be in market 28 for TV.
  • Reply to this Message
  • To:All
  • 11/27/10
  • kev28

For those interested, I was able to find the Nielsen Local Television market size estimates.

This list compares 2009/2010 to 2010/2011 Broadcast "Season"

San Diego did not move up for the coming year.

http://en-us.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsen/en_us/documents/pdf/Misc/2010-2011%20DMA%20Ranks.pdf

edit: By move up, I mean in ranking. It did move up by about 16,000 TV Homes from the previous list.


Edited 11/27/10   by  kev28
Edited 11/27/10   by  kev28
  • Reply to this Message
  • 11/27/10
  • wecanwin

Absolutely but that doesn't change the fact that they still can negotiate with a carrier who can expand their coverage and pay out a more lucrative contract.

Market size may not allow us to compete with the Yankees but a new TV deal should allow us to stay "competitive" (I hate that word) within the division in regards to payroll.

The bottom line is; is this team willing to expand payroll?

Last year was an anomaly.

We were able to sign a majority of players to one year deal because the economic nature of MLB drove player salaries down.

This seems to be cyclical in nature. Guys like Adam Eaton and his contract with the Phillies represented the upswing in player payroll several years ago.

2010 saw a majority of players move into the "affordability" range but that won't always stay that way.

The only teams that can thrive with low payrolls are those with stellar farm systems( ie. Marlins and Rays).

Ours may have some depth in pitching but it lacks hitters and is far from stellar.

Eventually, if they 'want' to win, the Padres are going to have to increase payroll.

  • Reply to this Message
Powered by Mzinga