Sinclair...Again

[Thundershock MN 169]

 

I think part of the reason KDNL partnered with KSDK in terms of news sharing in the first place was because their latest contract with ABC did require a local newscast of some sort (the contract was renewed in Summer 2010). The newscast will end at the 3 year anniversary (It started on January 3, 2011).

 

That said, I wonder if this latest development will motivate KPLR and Tribune to go after the ABC affiliation like it tried to in the past.

 

The agreement between Sinclair & ABC runs until August 2015. So, if KPLR really wanted to make a run at the ABC affiliation, it's two years out. Plus, let's not forget KPLR is in a little bit of a state of flux, too. Tribune still really hasn't given a firm indication whether or not they want to stay in the business. And, Local TV who holds the LMA to KPLR has one foot out the door.

[Mrtraveler01 738]

 

The agreement between Sinclair & ABC runs until August 2015. So, if KPLR really wanted to make a run at the ABC affiliation, it's two years out. Plus, let's not forget KPLR is in a little bit of a state of flux, too. Tribune still really hasn't given a firm indication whether or not they want to stay in the business. And, Local TV who holds the LMA to KPLR has one foot out the door.

 

I think Tribune is slightly more stable than Local TV so that might work to KPLR's advantage. If Tribune gets rid of anything, it'll be their newspaper division.

 

But since KPLR and KTVI are operated as if they're both owned by the same company, it's going to make it awkward if the new owners of Local TV or Tribune decide to split up the two stations. I imagine the LMA's in both Denver and St. Louis are being taken into consideration as Local TV shops these stations around to prospective buyers.

[Rusty Muck 4374]

I know Media General, a company which seems to be held in a little higher regard, hubs all its NBC stations out of WCMH (I don't know what it is about Columbus that lends itself well to this), and all its CBS affiliates and WJBF out of WSPA...

 

How do you find out who hubs what where, anyway? Is this stuff officially available somewhere, or does it just get out via what employees say or something?

WCMH's studio facility was brand-new when MG bought it, so it likely had the capability to hub all the NBC affils right off the bat.

[tyrannical bastard 3951]

 

WCMH's studio facility was brand-new when MG bought it, so it likely had the capability to hub all the NBC affils right off the bat.

 

I think you're referring to the defunct downtown studio that NBC commissioned for WCMH (and now serves as a giant billboard for competitior WBNS) in Downtown Columbus. Media General ran it for about a year or so before undergoing staff cuts and eventually mothballing it entirely.

 

Under NBC, WCMH was a spoke on NBC's hub system....it was run out of New York along with several of their east coast stations at the time. Miami was another hub and so was Los Angeles.

When Media General purchased WCMH, they commissioned the hub for their NBC affiliates. They also initiated the push to HD and the set redesign that followed.

[CircleSeven 1955]

From the TVNewsCheck Q&A article, Harry Jessell interviews CEO David Smith on the future of broadcasting. They mostly talk about the testing of a new broadcast standard, ATSC 3.0. But also mentioned about how this new standard benefit advertisers, upcoming spectrum auctions & TV everywhere, just to name a couple.

 

And for anyone who cares about the real deal at hand (the M&A craze), here's last week's Bloomberg BusinessWeek article about Sinclair and the rest of the groups in the possible M&A craze going into overdrive. It's nothing expect for what we already heard but its a good read nevertheless.

[Rusty Muck 4374]

 

I think Tribune is slightly more stable than Local TV so that might work to KPLR's advantage. If Tribune gets rid of anything, it'll be their newspaper division.

 

But since KPLR and KTVI are operated as if they're both owned by the same company, it's going to make it awkward if the new owners of Local TV or Tribune decide to split up the two stations. I imagine the LMA's in both Denver and St. Louis are being taken into consideration as Local TV shops these stations around to prospective buyers.

 

The total number of TV stations in St. Louis prevents a true duopoly. Should be possible, tho, in Denver.

 

As speculation that a now-freed-from-their-faultering-newspaper-division Fox might be making a move at their former O&Os (the FoxCo holding portion of LocalTV), we might know if KDVR/KWGN becomes a true duopoly (or even a Fox/My O&O duopoly) and if Tribune might be starting to make some strategic moves prior to becoming freed of their newspaper chain.

 

I also noted on the LocalTV thread this possibility... Fox seemingly gave up WUTB to Sinclair, and declined to take any of the stations Sinclair offered. What's to say that Fox and Sinclair wound up making an informal agreement that, in exchange for WUTB, Sinclair won't bid on any of the former Fox O&Os BUT has right-of-first-refusal on the former NYT stations left over?

[Samantha 2895]

Back to KDNL:

 

Here is the typical language in an ABC affiliation contract about news programming. This is actually the WLOS copy (headings changed for forum formatting reasons):

 

"Station agrees to broadcast locally produced news Programs of at least one-half hour each leading into Monday through Friday broadcasts of: (i) ABC's morning news Program, (ii) ABC's evening news Program, and (iii) ABC's late night Programming. A failure to satisfy this requirement may, at ABC's option, result in a termination of this Agreement subject to notice and an opportunity to cure..."

 

Neither WXLV's or KDNL's individual contracts are available in the FCC public file, so we don't know if this language is in those contracts. Compensating for the much larger market size, WATN in Memphis has comparable language except that the Monday through Friday is not stated (weekend news is required) and that ABC can also reduce local ad inventory as punishment.

 

For KDNL to meet this typical contractual requirement, it would need to launch a 6:30am, 5pm and 10pm newscast. (That's it!) Obviously, that sort of newscast schedule would be an interim solution, as if Sinclair wanted to launch a full news operation, a 30-minute morning newscast would quite clearly not cut the mustard.

[hathawaynson2 39]

 

The total number of TV stations in St. Louis prevents a true duopoly. Should be possible, tho, in Denver.

 

As speculation that a now-freed-from-their-faultering-newspaper-division Fox might be making a move at their former O&Os (the FoxCo holding portion of LocalTV), we might know if KDVR/KWGN becomes a true duopoly (or even a Fox/My O&O duopoly) and if Tribune might be starting to make some strategic moves prior to becoming freed of their newspaper chain.

 

I also noted on the LocalTV thread this possibility... Fox seemingly gave up WUTB to Sinclair, and declined to take any of the stations Sinclair offered. What's to say that Fox and Sinclair wound up making an informal agreement that, in exchange for WUTB, Sinclair won't bid on any of the former Fox O&Os BUT has right-of-first-refusal on the former NYT stations left over?

 

is there an actual contract on line that clearly says Sinclair can not bid for the former fox o&o affiliates and also has an contract of the right-of first-refusal on the former NYT stations?

 

 

Back to KDNL:

 

Here is the typical language in an ABC affiliation contract about news programming. This is actually the WLOS copy (headings changed for forum formatting reasons):

 

"Station agrees to broadcast locally produced news Programs of at least one-half hour each leading into Monday through Friday broadcasts of: (i) ABC's morning news Program, (ii) ABC's evening news Program, and (iii) ABC's late night Programming. A failure to satisfy this requirement may, at ABC's option, result in a termination of this Agreement subject to notice and an opportunity to cure..."

 

Neither WXLV's or KDNL's individual contracts are available in the FCC public file, so we don't know if this language is in those contracts. Compensating for the much larger market size, WATN in Memphis has comparable language except that the Monday through Friday is not stated (weekend news is required) and that ABC can also reduce local ad inventory as punishment.

 

For KDNL to meet this typical contractual requirement, it would need to launch a 6:30am, 5pm and 10pm newscast. (That's it!) Obviously, that sort of newscast schedule would be an interim solution, as if Sinclair wanted to launch a full news operation, a 30-minute morning newscast would quite clearly not cut the mustard.

 

hmmmm...this means in translation, it has to start its own newscasts. Where can I find these contracts?

[Samantha 2895]

Go to FCC.gov and click on the Public Inspection Files. From there, type a station. The affiliation contracts like to show up in the "Ownership Reports" section under "Contracts and Additional Documents" (it's the tab that looks like a box with two boxes underneath).

 

Many stations will simply meet the required minimum of posting a list of contracts and saying "contact us if you want these". Station groups and individual stations vary wildly in how much they put up. If you get lucky, you might get several different affiliation agreements and older contracts (particularly old docs I've found include KPHO's 1994 affiliation agreement with CBS and the WBBH-WEVU (WZVN) local marketing agreement from 1994, arguably the first ever virtual duopoly situation).

 

Contracts often are redacted to remove primary information, typically reimbursement and local ad rates.

 

KDNL and WXLV's ABC contracts are not available, and we don't know if that news clause is written into their particular affiliation agreements. But that ABC language is what I'd expect to see if it were there.

[Thundershock MN 169]

is there an actual contract on line that clearly says Sinclair can not bid for the former fox o&o affiliates and also has an contract of the right-of first-refusal on the former NYT stations?

No. It's a theroy Myron Falwell developed from our discussion over in the Local TV Thread.

 

 

hmmmm...this means in translation, it has to start its own newscasts. Where can I find these contracts?

Raymie got the info from the FCC Public Inspection files. Search station -> Click on ownership reports tab -> Then, contracts and agreements folder.

If there is an affliate agreement on file, it would be here. Not all stations post everything. Some only post the required info, others just about everything.

 

KDNL & WXLV don't have affliate agreements posted. So, Raymie looked up a couple others as examples to gleen what might be in the KDNL/Sinclair ABC affliate agreement. That info coupled with my analysis earlier in the thread leads one to believe there is a high likelyhood of a "newscast agreement" in their affliation agreement.

 

EDIT: I see Raymie beat me on the FCC file info.

[Rusty Muck 4374]

Just noticed after posting this that Thundershock MN beat me to it with the link to my initial theory.

 

is there an actual contract on line that clearly says Sinclair can not bid for the former fox o&o affiliates and also has an contract of the right-of first-refusal on the former NYT stations?

No. It's only a theory I have right now, based on several facts:

 

1) Fox decided to sell WUTB to Sinclair* after a decade of it essentially being a UPN/My standalone and mirror of WDCA, and as a point of leverage toward Sinclair regarding WBFF's affiliation with Fox.

2) Sinclair offered Fox a selection of mid-market CW and My affilis as compensation for buying WUTB, and Fox ultimately turned all of them down.

3) Fox was successfully separated a few weeks ago from the News Corp. and Dow Jones newspaper chains (the latter's purchase forced Fox's hand in unloading their former O&Os to LocalTV - via the FoxCo holding group - in the first place).

4) Fox recently purchased WJZY and WMYT to strengthen their position in a growing market (Charlotte) at the expense of a highly regarded charter affiliate in WCCB. They are in a buying mood again.

5) Fox reps also recently have been quoted in B&C expressing interest in buying LocalTV, or at least the FoxCo holding group.

 

The timing of Fox's sale of WUTB, plus the declining to buy any of the stations Sinclair offered, plus their purchase of WJZY/WMYT, can hardly be coincidental.

 

And if Fox wants their former O&Os back (either for keeps or as serious trade bait with Tribune) there is only one group that could stand in their way... yup, you guessed it.

 

I wouldn't be shocked if Fox brass told Sinclair brass the following: "Look, we'll offer you WUTB so you can have a virtual triopoly in your flagship market. We appreciate the list of stations you offered, but let's do this instead: don't bid on any of our old O&Os in the upcoming LocalTV bidding process. If we succeed in getting the group, you can then take your pick of the NYT stations, and we'll call it a day. You get what you wanted, and we get what we wanted."

 

* Deerfield Media = Sinclair.

[hathawaynson2 39]

%2

[channel2 979]

I thought News Corp and 21st Century Fox didn't split until June 28, though...

[Thundershock MN 169]

 

Just noticed after posting this that Thundershock MN beat me to it with the link to my initial theory.

 

No. It's only a theory I have right now, based on several facts:

 

1) Fox decided to sell WUTB to Sinclair* after a decade of it essentially being a UPN/My standalone and mirror of WDCA, and as a point of leverage toward Sinclair regarding WBFF's affiliation with Fox.

2) Sinclair offered Fox a selection of mid-market CW and My affilis as compensation for buying WUTB, and Fox ultimately turned all of them down.

3) Fox was successfully separated a few weeks ago from the News Corp. and Dow Jones newspaper chains (the latter's purchase forced Fox's hand in unloading their former O&Os to LocalTV - via the FoxCo holding group - in the first place).

4) Fox recently purchased WJZY and WMYT to strengthen their position in a growing market (Charlotte) at the expense of a highly regarded charter affiliate in WCCB. They are in a buying mood again.

5) Fox reps also recently have been quoted in B&C expressing interest in buying LocalTV, or at least the FoxCo holding group.

 

The timing of Fox's sale of WUTB, plus the declining to buy any of the stations Sinclair offered, plus their purchase of WJZY/WMYT, can hardly be coincidental.

 

And if Fox wants their former O&Os back (either for keeps or as serious trade bait with Tribune) there is only one group that could stand in their way... yup, you guessed it.

 

I wouldn't be shocked if Fox brass told Sinclair brass the following: "Look, we'll offer you WUTB so you can have a virtual triopoly in your flagship market. We appreciate the list of stations you offered, but let's do this instead: don't bid on any of our old O&Os in the upcoming LocalTV bidding process. If we succeed in getting the group, you can then take your pick of the NYT stations, and we'll call it a day. You get what you wanted, and we get what we wanted."

 

* Deerfield Media = Sinclair.

 

Since, I said I disagree with portions of this I might as well give you my thoughts.

 

First, as I've stated and you agree WUTB was leverage for Fox to use against Sinclair. That's pretty much fact and the only reason Fox kept it around around. From Sinclair's press release at the time: "For us, a pivotal aspect of the agreement was securing our affiliation on WBFF-TV, our flagship station in Baltimore. Our FOX affiliate in Baltimore is one of our most important television assets, and over the years the station has built a strong local brand. We believe that this affiliation was at risk, and negotiated with Fox to acquire the option to purchase FTS' station, WUTB, in Baltimore in hopes that acquiring this station would solidify WBFF's position as a Fox affiliate in Baltimore in the long term," commented David Smith, CEO and President of Sinclair. However, Fox countered in statements to B&C (and other publications) that it was not intent on taking over the Fox affiliation in Baltimore. "Our only desire was to renew our affiliation with Sinclair," Fox said. This was the second affliation agreement where Fox has not carried though on their "threat." So, after awhile "empty threats" start to deminish any leverage you may have/had. Sinclair wanted the "threat" totally eliminated. Fox realized they were probably never going to go through with their "threat" and, sensing that got all they were going to get out of it using it as leverage parted ways.

 

Second, Again from the press release Sinclair's stated focus at the time was "to lessen our exposure to MNT and CW stations, particularly in markets where we do not have a duopoly structure with a 'big four' network." So, seeing an opportunity to unload some of these particluar stations, Sinclair put them up for grabs. This also allowed Sinclair to help "offset" their purchase of WUTB. After Fox declined to purchase any of these stations Sinclair was then forced to make the payments on the purchase. As mentioned in this article, David Amy, Sinclair EVP-CFO stated “So as previously announced, we will be making the $25 million installment payment [to Fox] in April.” In my mind the 6 stations only interested Fox for a few reasons. 1. Buy them with the intent of flipping them to another station group with assets you really desire. 2. As stated in that same B&C article above, they could use the threat purchasing & pulling an affliation against the ownership groups in those markets to demand more reverse compensation,etc. Basically, the same thing they did to Sinclair/WUTB. 3. Use the threat purchasing & pulling an affliation against the ownership groups in those markets to "parlay" your way into a market you really want to be in. This last one ended up happening with the WJZY/WMYT deal. I don't think they really wanted any of those 6 stations.

 

Lastly, as far as a "handshake" agreement. It's possible, but I don't see it. As stated above the reasons above for the WUTB purchase & the option on the 6 Sinclair stations were unrelated. Plus, Local TV's stations weren't really on the market at the time. So, I think the two are really unrelated.

 

However, It is possible Fox never executed their "option" that expired in March/April because they sensed a better opportunity (and a chance to "right a mistake" in the sale of some of those O&O's) when there was steam the Local TV stations were coming onto the market early this year. The Local TV stations offically went up in late March. So, really that's the only way I think you can tie the two together.

 

That stated I think we are on the same page most of the time, though.

[Thundershock MN 169]

 

I thought News Corp and 21st Century Fox didn't split until June 28, though...

 

Correct. They haven't split yet. However, as part of the lead up to the split their stocks started trading separately on a "when-issued basis" a week or so ago. So, I can see where there would be a little confusion that it has already taken place.

[tyrannical bastard 3951]

I think the next several months will determine the fate of Sinclair in St. Louis and KDNL as an ABC affiliate.

 

I know...many of you have fantasized for years about ABC moving either back to KTVI or over to KPLR...It just didn't seem right for ABC to be in such a lousy situation where their parent company all but drove KDNL into the ground by killing newscasts and outsourcing many functions to other cities, namely Columbus, Ohio.

 

Sinclair will have a choice...

...either they will buy KTVI (and possibly KPLR) THIS will give them a local property to run KDNL with, using LOCAL employees and producing LOCAL newscasts. They could even swap KPLR and KDNL, giving ABC the real estate it deserves and had before KTVI switched to FOX. ABC's patience is probably thin after close to two decades of poor ratings in STL, so this could be an opportunity to trade up.

With this, Local TV is for sale, and this could trigger Tribune to sell off some assets, especially with their creditors calling the shots now post-bankruptcy. St. Louis could be a market they want to divest themselves of...

Sinclair can easily step in and combine KDNL with KTVI/KPLR. With the damage inflicted already, this would give a chance to localize the station again.

 

Then again, KDNL may be a thorn enough in Sinclair's profile that they could put it up for sale. They've done it in Providence and Lansing....the only question is who would want KDNL? It's current state would require ownership that could either have the resources to run the station (Gannett?) or invest heavily in a facility that would be a self-sustaining TV station. Perhaps the buyer for KTVI may be willing to invest through some kind of deal.

I doubt Tribune would be interested...this would only be their second ABC affiliate (and they do such a wonderful job of running the one they already have!)

 

Just some thoughts, but it does seem closer to reality than ever before...

[hathawaynson2 39]

 

Just noticed after posting this that Thundershock MN beat me to it with the link to my initial theory.

 

No. It's only a theory I have right now, based on several facts:

 

1) Fox decided to sell WUTB to Sinclair* after a decade of it essentially being a UPN/My standalone and mirror of WDCA, and as a point of leverage toward Sinclair regarding WBFF's affiliation with Fox.

2) Sinclair offered Fox a selection of mid-market CW and My affilis as compensation for buying WUTB, and Fox ultimately turned all of them down.

3) Fox was successfully separated a few weeks ago from the News Corp. and Dow Jones newspaper chains (the latter's purchase forced Fox's hand in unloading their former O&Os to LocalTV - via the FoxCo holding group - in the first place).

4) Fox recently purchased WJZY and WMYT to strengthen their position in a growing market (Charlotte) at the expense of a highly regarded charter affiliate in WCCB. They are in a buying mood again.

5) Fox reps also recently have been quoted in B&C expressing interest in buying LocalTV, or at least the FoxCo holding group.

 

The timing of Fox's sale of WUTB, plus the declining to buy any of the stations Sinclair offered, plus their purchase of WJZY/WMYT, can hardly be coincidental.

 

And if Fox wants their former O&Os back (either for keeps or as serious trade bait with Tribune) there is only one group that could stand in their way... yup, you guessed it.

 

I wouldn't be shocked if Fox brass told Sinclair brass the following: "Look, we'll offer you WUTB so you can have a virtual triopoly in your flagship market. We appreciate the list of stations you offered, but let's do this instead: don't bid on any of our old O&Os in the upcoming LocalTV bidding process. If we succeed in getting the group, you can then take your pick of the NYT stations, and we'll call it a day. You get what you wanted, and we get what we wanted."

 

* Deerfield Media = Sinclair.

 

Agreed with your theory and its concepts!

[MidwestTV 1232]

"Home of the Sinclair Fan Club?

 

I'm assuming that this is a joke at us all, lol.

[hathawaynson2 39]

"Home of the Sinclair Fan Club"? lol! I thought it was the Anti-Sinclair club for a few moments.

[AaronQ 282]

"Home of the Sinclair Fan Club"? lol! I thought it was the Anti-Sinclair club for a few moments.

It was a joke.

[Rusty Muck 4374]

Since, I said I disagree with portions of this I might as well give you my thoughts.

 

First, as I've stated and you agree WUTB was leverage for Fox to use against Sinclair. That's pretty much fact and the only reason Fox kept it around around. From Sinclair's press release at the time: "For us, a pivotal aspect of the agreement was securing our affiliation on WBFF-TV, our flagship station in Baltimore. Our FOX affiliate in Baltimore is one of our most important television assets, and over the years the station has built a strong local brand. We believe that this affiliation was at risk, and negotiated with Fox to acquire the option to purchase FTS' station, WUTB, in Baltimore in hopes that acquiring this station would solidify WBFF's position as a Fox affiliate in Baltimore in the long term," commented David Smith, CEO and President of Sinclair. However, Fox countered in statements to B&C (and other publications) that it was not intent on taking over the Fox affiliation in Baltimore. "Our only desire was to renew our affiliation with Sinclair," Fox said. This was the second affliation agreement where Fox has not carried though on their "threat." So, after awhile "empty threats" start to deminish any leverage you may have/had. Sinclair wanted the "threat" totally eliminated. Fox realized they were probably never going to go through with their "threat" and, sensing that got all they were going to get out of it using it as leverage parted ways.

 

Second, Again from the press release Sinclair's stated focus at the time was "to lessen our exposure to MNT and CW stations, particularly in markets where we do not have a duopoly structure with a 'big four' network." So, seeing an opportunity to unload some of these particluar stations, Sinclair put them up for grabs. This also allowed Sinclair to help "offset" their purchase of WUTB. After Fox declined to purchase any of these stations Sinclair was then forced to make the payments on the purchase. As mentioned in this article, David Amy, Sinclair EVP-CFO stated “So as previously announced, we will be making the $25 million installment payment [to Fox] in April.” In my mind the 6 stations only interested Fox for a few reasons. 1. Buy them with the intent of flipping them to another station group with assets you really desire. 2. As stated in that same B&C article above, they could use the threat purchasing & pulling an affliation against the ownership groups in those markets to demand more reverse compensation,etc. Basically, the same thing they did to Sinclair/WUTB. 3. Use the threat purchasing & pulling an affliation against the ownership groups in those markets to "parlay" your way into a market you really want to be in. This last one ended up happening with the WJZY/WMYT deal. I don't think they really wanted any of those 6 stations.

 

Lastly, as far as a "handshake" agreement. It's possible, but I don't see it. As stated above the reasons above for the WUTB purchase & the option on the 6 Sinclair stations were unrelated. Plus, Local TV's stations weren't really on the market at the time. So, I think the two are really unrelated.

 

However, It is possible Fox never executed their "option" that expired in March/April because they sensed a better opportunity (and a chance to "right a mistake" in the sale of some of those O&O's) when there was steam the Local TV stations were coming onto the market early this year. The Local TV stations offically went up in late March. So, really that's the only way I think you can tie the two together.

 

That stated I think we are on the same page most of the time, though.

I actually tend to agree more with you on the above. The whole thing about an informal agreement is just a wild guess on my part.

 

But I do agree that they must sense an opportunity to get the old O&Os back, either for keeps or as leverage. And if anyone can outbid Sinclair on those stations, it is Fox. And they don't need an agreement on that. Money talks, and sometimes it screams.

[Mrtraveler01 738]

 

I actually tend to agree more with you on the above. The whole thing about an informal agreement is just a wild guess on my part.

 

But I do agree that they must sense an opportunity to get the old O&Os back, either for keeps or as leverage. And if anyone can outbid Sinclair on those stations, it is Fox. And they don't need an agreement on that. Money talks, and sometimes it screams.

 

I guess the question I have is if there is any indication Fox wants any of their old O&O's back?

 

I would love to see KTVI as a Fox O&O again if Local TV had to sell it to anyone.

[ABC 7 Denver 1715]

 

It was a joke.

 

No it isn't! You didn't know that SBG owns this site? *sarcasm*

[Weeters 1916]

 

No it isn't! You didn't know that SBG owns this site? *sarcasm*

 

No... This banner from a few years back is proof:

 

[LTSC1980 112]

My24 is now MyTV Baltimore, according to their website....

 

http://www.my24wutb.com/