Jump to content

Sinclair...Again


A3N

Recommended Posts

 

A ray of hope re: Sinclair and Allbritton:

 

 

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/72517/fcc-targets-sinclair-sidecar-deals-in-3-mkts

 

This is where the newly hired lobbyist comes in...I would hope that Sinclair is forced to at the very least divest WJLA.
  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Do low powered stations count for the eight independent voices rule? I see nothing that says they don't, and if they do, WHTM would fit in like a glove with Nexstar.

 

As for Charleston and Birmingham, I would assume they would keep WCIV and ABC 33/40, but I can't think of anyone who would to buy the others. I would guess they could probably keep at least one in each (probably WMMP in Charleston, they would probably get rid of WTAT being that it's top 4). Possibly Media General or LIN would want either WTTO/WABM, but I don't see many companies out there that want a CW/MyNet in a smaller market.

Here's the full letter in question.

 

I strongly think they won't go without any sort of fight, and try to keep everything under their fold. So I wouldn't be shocked, within 15 days, we're probably going to see a rebuttal from Sinclair, abouth the other similar arrangements in Flint and the others as well. But the ones that are really pissed off should be the Allbritton folks, which could've probably gotten this deal done by now if it was someone else other than SBG (doubtful).

 

Yeah, so not only the DOJ is asking for a second review, but the FCC have asked them for further infomation about those shells. I think they'll do that before trying to divest to other entities. The one station that I would see them divesting at least is the option for WLYH.

 

Wow, Sinclair is having a tough time with the new FCC 'eh. I guess they want to show those heathens it's not that easy to use those shells, in lieu of actually divesting it to completely different entities. Of course Harrisburg and Charleston was the major issue. I didn't see Birmingham with the major issue, because the current stations don't carry any news, but they probably looking at all the stations involved (even though LPs don't count, but they're proposing a sextopoly). Remember FCC considers the satellites of WBMA-LD, WCFT/WJSU as an "Enhanced Coverage Duopoly". We'll see how this goes. But this Allbritton episode is far from concluding.

 

Whoa. That's huge. Was not aware that LMAs are no longer legal. That said, Sinclair can easily restructure them into SSAs and carry on with the acquisitions, but it's still a sign that the temperature is going up on Beaver Dam Road.

Just when I thought the Barrington deal was in any issue, they had to amend one of their apps, now they have a real battle and they wouldn't have though this would be much of a battle, than it is now. Like I said, they'll probably go through other alternative avenues to keep everything in one fold, before divesting. But should they do divest, this would be another losing streak for Sinclair, even if the deal does get greenlighted or not. The only other option would to not have any LMAs and operate them independently, but you know the FCC is reading between their eyes now.

 

I see nothing that says they don't, and if they do, WHTM would fit in like a glove with Nexstar.

 

I disagree. I think WHP would be better. They already have WLYH, which is in an LMA with WHP as it is. They could work something out there. I mean, WHP was basically a carbon copy of KGPE. They used the same style logo and the same graphics. They could continue that and pick up the new Nexstar Look N graphics.

 

I disagree. I think WHP would be better. They already have WLYH, which is in an LMA with WHP as it is. They could work something out there. I mean, WHP was basically a carbon copy of KGPE. They used the same style logo and the same graphics. They could continue that and pick up the new Nexstar Look N graphics.

 

WLYH and WHP share a lot in common and have since 1961; they've been commonly managed since 1995. (That is including the CBS simulcast, which at one point involved channels 15, 21 and 43.)

 

I could see an arrangement where Nexstar gets WHP and operating rights to WLYH and Sinclair gets WHTM. It makes more sense since WLYH is the only station that Nexstar owns but does not operate.

 

WLYH and WHP share a lot in common and have since 1961; they've been commonly managed since 1995. (That is including the CBS simulcast, which at one point involved channels 15, 21 and 43.)

 

I could see an arrangement where Nexstar gets WHP and operating rights to WLYH and Sinclair gets WHTM. It makes more sense since WLYH is the only station that Nexstar owns but does not operate.

 

Another thing that is always strange for me to fathom:

 

The market where I live does not have a CW affiliate. Technically, the "in-leu" affiliate is WPCW, but it is not on cable where I live--as well as the entire eastern half of the market. We all get WPIX. I know that Nexstar is not big on subchannels, but they've added subchannels for CW and MNTV affiliates in many cases. Why not add either their own WTAJ-DT2 of a fresh CW affiliate for a 10PM news, or get a feed of WLYH?

 

I realize that this should go in the Nexstar thread and I'll bring it up there eventually... but it kind of has to do with Sinclair as well. Would Sinclair have something to do with the Altoona/Johnstown market not having a CW affiliate?

 

I realize that this should go in the Nexstar thread and I'll bring it up there eventually... but it kind of has to do with Sinclair as well. Would Sinclair have something to do with the Altoona/Johnstown market not having a CW affiliate?

 

It's not that so much as it is the economic reality of the market. It's tough sledding even for a station with better programming. It may also have to do with the relationship between WPCW and the market it left behind.

 

Whoa. That's huge. Was not aware that LMAs are no longer legal. That said, Sinclair can easily restructure them into SSAs and carry on with the acquisitions, but it's still a sign that the temperature is going up on Beaver Dam Road.

 

This is news to me, if anything it means that Sinclair no longer have the power they have. If anything they're probably shaking in their boots right now.

 

This is news to me, if anything it means that Sinclair no longer have the power they have. If anything they're probably shaking in their boots right now.

 

What this will affect is not Sinclair's ability to continue these in other markets where they exist (where SBG has been there for a while) but rather any further acquisition activity in those markets. For instance, if Landmark finally sold KLAS and Sinclair bought it, Sinclair would have to restructure the LMA relationship between KVCW and KVMY as an SSA because the grandfathered protection will be stripped.

 

What this will affect is not Sinclair's ability to continue these in other markets where they exist (where SBG has been there for a while) but rather any further acquisition activity in those markets. For instance, if Landmark finally sold KLAS and Sinclair bought it, Sinclair would have to restructure the LMA relationship between KVCW and KVMY as an SSA because the grandfathered protection will be stripped.

 

I thought KVMY and KVCW were both under the Sinclair ownership umbrella, being the fifth and sixth ranked stations in the market, respectively.

 

I thought KVMY and KVCW were both under the Sinclair ownership umbrella, being the fifth and sixth ranked stations in the market, respectively.

 

It is commonly owned. It would be easily to reassign one of them to one of those shells, similar to what happened in San Antonio with the Newport deal last year (KMYS was reassign while WOAI & KABB is now commonly owned). Here's a better example. I know they wouldn't do it over there but what if Sinclair want to acquire Meredith's WHNS Fox Carolinas, and have that assign to Sinclair proper, and spin-off WLOS. That LMA with Cunningham's WMYA could also be in jeopardy for that same reason.

 

It made me think, if they would've though of assigning Deerfield Media to those ABC stations, while Sinclair proper kept their incumbent stations, could've of those would've been approved without any hang ups? Another possible situation could also come up where an LMA could also probably be in jeopardy as well, with the pending sale of WWCP to Cunningham Broadcasting. As you know, WWCP has a granddaddied LMA with WATM (owned by Palm Television).

 

I even question why these markets in question, and not the situation in Flint, where they're two shells. I believe Sinclair didn't have similar LMAs in those markets, while Syracuse, they already had similar arrangements. And I guess Sinclair wanted to quickly go to Plan B, because of the inactivity early on. And of course Sinclair's hometurf, WUTB was assigned from Fox straight to Deerfield, they didn't move Sinclair proper to WUTB and let Deerfield be assigned to their flagship and oldest station of the bunch. I still think they'll probably do some quick fixes and do the reassignment to SSAs. But at this rate, I doubt they will divest anything. The one thing I probably see them do is to let go of their option of WLYH. But other than that, they'll try to go through every sort of avenue to keep everything in the fold, before divesting to a completely different entity, like they did with WSYT. But with all those stations they have, would it be wise for them to at least divest more?

 

But with this notice that came before them, If I was Sinclair, I would be thinking long and hard, should they go with any future acquisition, that would test the waters of the FCC (especially with the newly appointed heads over there). But I guess that's the reason why they appointed that former FCC employee, which I think they should have a team of lobbyists, and not just that one person (I seriously thought they already have lobbyists). They probably need that to go against policies like the plan to end the outdated UHF discount, and possibly altering those SSA/JSAs.

 

If they're so strong about those things, as they are the largest station group company by station count, why not write a complaint on MB Docket 13-236. Tell the real truth why the Discount is needed, if this would give them more stations. They shouldn't be on the defensive when someone is stating their use of those shells (that's what I said, using the "sidecar" term would kiss their asses). Folks are calling them out are calling a spade a spade, and all those Heathens do is to be pissed about it. We'll see what they'll do within the next couple of weeks or so, as they have 15 days for that letter to amend or withdrawl those spinoff applications. I have a feeling that they will amend, and maybe restructure those Cunningham LMAs, and I'm thinking the FCC will greenlight the Allbritton acquisition. But they really need to think long and hard, and ponder themselves, do I need to test the waters of the FCC with yet another acquisition, knowing what they'll do with that discount that could possibly go away soon?

 

Whoa. That's huge. Was not aware that LMAs are no longer legal. That said, Sinclair can easily restructure them into SSAs and carry on with the acquisitions, but it's still a sign that the temperature is going up on Beaver Dam Road.

 

The Charleston, SC deal is in question because it was one of those "grandfathered" LMAs that Glencairn/Cunningham entered into back into the 1990s, which was what originally put Sinclair under the microscope in the first place. They can't technically own more than one station in Charleston (and Charleston/Huntington, Columbus & Dayton) because all of these markets don't have enough stations/voices to permit such an arrangement under the current rules.

 

I don't think LMA's have been made illegal, they've just fallen out of favor because of dual ownership being legal and shared/joint service agreements that skirt the laws more so than the old-style LMA.

 

The Charleston, SC deal is in question because it was one of those "grandfathered" LMAs that Glencairn/Cunningham entered into back into the 1990s, which was what originally put Sinclair under the microscope in the first place. They can't technically own more than one station in Charleston (and Charleston/Huntington, Columbus & Dayton) because all of these markets don't have enough stations/voices to permit such an arrangement under the current rules.

 

I don't think LMA's have been made illegal, they've just fallen out of favor because of dual ownership being legal and shared/joint service agreements that skirt the laws more so than the old-style LMA.

 

What's changed is that the licensee must have final responsibility for programming which was not always the case with an LMA.

It's been a while, but my journey through the petition process has resulted in yet more snail mail. This time, it's the Federal Communications Commission itself.

 

It's actually the letter that the FCC wrote to Sinclair last week, and to which Sinclair replied yesterday.

 

The new filing says that "Sinclair is committed to full compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations, and to operation in the public interest and, if required by law, Sinclair is prepared to attempt to restructure the pending Charleston, Birmingham and Harrisburg transactions to conform with the principles set forth in the Letter." Sinclair contends that LMAs are between a servicing company and a programmed station, not two stations. They even say that an LMA with WTTO, Inc. is to the company, not the station (OK, that's preposterous).

 

They also contend that the WTAT LMA is valid. It is not entitled to grandfather status (it was entered into after November 5, 1996) but had a court motion stayed, apparently.

 

Also, I am going to be getting *that* by snail mail, the only person for which they apparently have no "electronic mail" address to send it to. At least Pillsbury now has found my physical mailing address.

Sinclair sure is getting desperate now it seems...maybe the FCC should deny the whole deal?

Yes. however, either the allbritton family either has cold feet or didn't have an emergency plan put into place if Sinclair did not close the deal at all.

 

Yes. however, either the allbritton family either has cold feet or didn't have an emergency plan put into place if Sinclair did not close the deal at all.

 

There is a plan B in case the deal doesn't go through. Any transaction like this always has a contingency plan just in case things don't work out. I remember reading about it in one of the articles that were published when the highest bidder was announced by Allbritton.

 

In 2008, Sinclair failed to get WTVR in Richmond, correct? (It went to Local TV LLC and now Tribune). So there is precedence for them being denied.

 

That's correct. The Justice Department denied it under provisions of a consent decree with Raycom.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using Local News Talk you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.