Allbritton could be selling too.......

[GoldenShine9 1513]

Conflicts if they purchase Allbritton whole (I can't see them going piecemeal, *indicates unlikely to buy WJLA, probably cannot afford them):

 

Sinclair - WBMA et al (x3 with 1 shelled), WCIV (x2 with 1 shelled), WHTM (x2 with 1 quasi-shelled)

 

Nexstar* - KATV (x4 with 2 shelled, that will make Gannett mad!), WHTM (quasi-shell with Sinclair)

 

Scripps - KTUL

 

Hearst - WHTM

 

Cox - KTUL (x2)

 

Media General* - WBMA et al, WCIV, WSET

 

Gannett - KATV, WJLA

 

Raycom* - WBMA et al, WCIV

 

LIN* - WBMA et al

 

Meredith* - can absorb whole, no conflicts

 

Almost every reasonable buyer would hit a wall somewhere. The most reasonable deal IMO is Hearst (especially if they want WJLA as well), since their only conflict is in the Susquehanna Valley, and they would surely get rid of WHTM since they own the ultra-dominant WGAL already.

[Guest Former Member 207]

 

Almost every reasonable buyer would hit a wall somewhere. The most reasonable deal IMO is Hearst (especially if they want WJLA as well), since their only conflict is in the Susquehanna Valley, and they would surely get rid of WHTM since they own the ultra-dominant WGAL already.

 

Another conflict is a lot closer to D.C., 40 miles up the road with WBAL.

[CircleSeven 1955]

 

Another conflict is a lot closer to D.C., 40 miles up the road with WBAL.

 

If would have been a conflict, if the overlap rules stayed in effect. For example like CBS having that conflict between WPRI & WBZ and Gray's conflict with WALB & WCTV. It has since been relaxed, once the duopoly laws went into effect in the early 2000s. Remember, Fox use to own WUTB, while having WTTG/WDCA. Sinclair wants WJLA bad and that's 50 miles to their home base (from Arlington, VA) where they have a triplestick there. Scripps could also be a possibility as well, despite having, WMAR 2.

[TexasTVNews 1377]

I would eat my hat if Sinclair buys WJLA, in which I hope and pray they don't. I can predict ABC O&O buys WJLA and maybe NewsChannel 8 (24 Cable News).

[GoldenShine9 1513]

 

I would eat my hat if Sinclair buys WJLA, in which I hope and pray they don't. I can predict ABC O&O buys WJLA and maybe NewsChannel 8 (24 Cable News).

 

Can Sinclair afford both Allbritton and Local TV LLC (combined would be about $2.5 to $3 billion) though? Although they seem to be buying everything in sight when the chance exists...

[Rusty Muck 4378]

Can Sinclair afford both Allbritton and Local TV LLC (combined would be about $2.5 to $3 billion) though? Although they seem to be buying everything in sight when the chance exists...

If Fox actually entered the bidding for LocalTV, that would ensure Sinclair won't win the bidding for all of the stations. But they could get a few, or all, of the NYT stations that Fox would logically spin off.

 

If Allbritron is still selling WJLA/NC8 and the rest of the group separately (all signs earlier in this thread indicated they are), then, yes, Sinclair could buy the rest. WJLA's asking price may be a bit too much, and ABC will work to make sure they get WJLA, no matter what.

[jero23 105]

 

If Fox actually entered the bidding for LocalTV, that would ensure Sinclair won't win the bidding for all of the stations. But they could get a few, or all, of the NYT stations that Fox would logically spin off.

 

If Allbritron is still selling WJLA/NC8 and the rest of the group separately (all signs earlier in this thread indicated they are), then, yes, Sinclair could buy the rest. WJLA's asking price may be a bit too much, and ABC will work to make sure they get WJLA, no matter what.

 

Sinclair would not be allowed to purchase or manage WBMA/WCFT/WJSU "ABC 33/40", so that is already out of the question

[sanewsguy 511]

 

Sinclair would not be allowed to purchase or manage WBMA/WCFT/WJSU "ABC 33/40", so that is already out of the question

 

No it's not. WBMA and satellites count as one station for ratings and regulatory purposes. They can always use one of their shells to purchase it. It could happen...

[CircleSeven 1955]

 

No it's not. WBMA and satellites count as one station for ratings and regulatory purposes. They can always use one of their shells to purchase it. It could happen...

 

Sadly, sanewsguy is right. I'd explained it one the possible scenario earlier in this thread.

[Thundershock MN 169]

Sinclair would not be allowed to purchase or manage WBMA/WCFT/WJSU "ABC 33/40", so that is already out of the question

No it's not. WBMA and satellites count as one station for ratings and regulatory purposes. They can always use one of their shells to purchase it. It could happen...

Sadly, sanewsguy is right. I'd explained it one the possible scenario earlier in this thread.

Ok, I have been thinking about this. Would Sinclair even need a shell? Hear me out here...

 

1. Low power stations do not count towards ownership/duopoly limits.

2. It is established that satellite stations count as one station.

3. The affliation agreement between Allbritton/ABC lists WBMA as the "primary station".

 

In part from the affliation agreement..."The following shall constitute the agreement (the "Agreement") between American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. ("ABC," "Network," "us" or "we") and WBMA-LD/TV Alabama, Inc. ("you" or "your" or "Allbritton"), for program carriage and promotion on your station, WBMA-LD, Channel 40.1 Birmingham, AL ("Station"). Channel 40.1 is WBMA-LD’s "Primary Channel" for purposes of this Agreement. Television Stations WCFT, Channel 33.1 and WJSU, Channel 9.1, shall serve as WBMA’s satellites, simultaneously transmitting Station’s Primary Channel."

 

So, If the FCC also recognizes WBMA is the primary or originating station that could present an interesting wrinkle. If WBMA is the "primary station" and you couple that with points 1 & 2 above then would the cluster of WBMA/WCFT/WJSU even count towards ownership/duopoly limits at all? :huh:

 

I really hope I didn't find another loophole for everyones favorite station group to come in and exploit.

[sanewsguy 511]

 

Ok, I have been thinking about this. Would Sinclair even need a shell? Hear me out here...

 

1. Low power stations do not count towards ownership/duopoly limits.

2. It is established that satellite stations count as one station.

3. The affliation agreement between Allbritton/ABC lists WBMA as the "primary station".

 

In part from the affliation agreement..."The following shall constitute the agreement (the "Agreement") between American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. ("ABC," "Network," "us" or "we") and WBMA-LD/TV Alabama, Inc. ("you" or "your" or "Allbritton"), for program carriage and promotion on your station, WBMA-LD, Channel 40.1 Birmingham, AL ("Station"). Channel 40.1 is WBMA-LD’s "Primary Channel" for purposes of this Agreement. Television Stations WCFT, Channel 33.1 and WJSU, Channel 9.1, shall serve as WBMA’s satellites, simultaneously transmitting Station’s Primary Channel."

 

So, If the FCC also recognizes WBMA is the primary or originating station that could present an interesting wrinkle. If WBMA is the "primary station" and you couple that with points 1 & 2 above then would the cluster of WBMA/WCFT/WJSU even count towards ownership/duopoly limits at all? :huh:

 

I really hope I didn't find another loophole for everyones favorite station group to come in and exploit.

 

Sinclair wouldn't have to use a shell if they didn't already own stations in this market. But they own WTTO/WDBB and WABM, which gives them a duopoly in the market. Therefore they have to use a shell to buy WBMA+. Sure, it's one station, but FCC says an owner can't have a triopoly. Yeah, right. That's where shells come in. So WBMA+ could very well go to Sinclair shell (more than likely Deerfield).

 

Although you bring up an interesting point by bringing up their affiliation contract. Yes, the FCC doesn't limit how many low power stations an owner can own in the same market. So technically Sinclair proper could get WBMA-LD while Deerfield gets the satellites. But the way their affiliation agreement seems to be setup as well as the fact that I don't think satellites can be owned by a different station group than the primary station, WBMA-LD would probably have to go to Deerfield (or Cunningham) as well. Or they could always divest WABM (or WTTO). Give one of them to Raycom or LIN to have a duopoly with their existing stations in the market.

[Thundershock MN 169]

 

Sinclair wouldn't have to use a shell if they didn't already own stations in this market. But they own WTTO/WDBB and WABM, which gives them a duopoly in the market. Therefore they have to use a shell to buy WBMA+. Sure, it's one station, but FCC says an owner can't have a triopoly. Yeah, right. That's where shells come in. So WBMA+ could very well go to Sinclair shell (more than likely Deerfield).

 

Although you bring up an interesting point by bringing up their affiliation contract. Yes, the FCC doesn't limit how many low power stations an owner can own in the same market. So technically Sinclair proper could get WBMA-LD while Deerfield gets the satellites. But the way their affiliation agreement seems to be setup as well as the fact that I don't think satellites can be owned by a different station group than the primary station, WBMA-LD would probably have to go to Deerfield (or Cunningham) as well. Or they could always divest WABM (or WTTO). Give one of them to Raycom or LIN to have a duopoly with their existing stations in the market.

 

But, if WBMA+ is treated as one station then it should go as one whole unit. We agree Sinclair proper can technically aquire WBMA-LD outright. And, when stations that have satellites are sold they all go as one unit. So, then wouldn't WBMA-LD's satellites (even if they are full powered) go with it by default?

 

Stated another way in the FCC's eyes Sinclair proper would own 2 full power stations and 1 low power station. That low power station just coincidentally happens to have 2 full power satellite stations.

 

I could be overanalyzing it. But, WBMA+'s unique structure could, in theory,create a loophole that can be exploited. It probably doesn't matter anyway. As you and CircleSeven pointed out they could just use a shell.

[GoldenShine9 1513]

Now with Tribune buying Local TV, I think it leaves Hearst as most likely if someone wants to stop Sinclair here, since they have the money (and can also afford WJLA if Disney passes on it). With the exception of WHTM, it all fits in their portfolio and creates clusters as well with them all very close to other assets but not in the same market.

 

WHTM could be sold off separately, perhaps Nexstar might want it as a loose asset (their only hope IMO).

[DirtyHarry 727]

 

Neither Hubbard nor the Dispatch are going to sell.

 

Dispatch Broadcast rakes in $100 million a year in revenues and recently made this Top-30 list.

 

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/67641/sinclair-hops-from-sixth-to-third-in-top-30/page/10#group-30

 

The amazing thing is that if you look at the rest of the list, practically nobody else can squeeze the kind of revenue out of their stations like Dispatch gets out of WBNS and WTHR. They make the kind of money with two stations that the others make with dozens (in some cases). Furthermore, the Wolfes have no debt and they can afford to outspend all the broadcast companies in their markets who answer to Wall Street bankers instead of their viewers. They run a quality outfit.

 

All hail the family broadcaster! I hope they are around forever.

[DirtyHarry 727]

 

 

So I'm going to surprise everyone and say this is probably the one, big, exception. Disney does not buy stations, yes, and they wouldn't buy the whole of the Albritton group. But if WJLA is on the market... it would be crazy to rule ABC out of any deal for this.

 

Why? Location, location, location. This is in market #9. Save for WTVD and KFSN, which apparently perform group functions, none of ABC's stations are below number ten.

 

What else is in Washington, DC? ABC News' Washington bureau. I'm not sure what the benefits of combining those would be but there would be some efficiencies, I'm sure. Plus having their own station in the area would enhance their reporting of any breaking news stories involving Washington.

 

 

Not only is Washington Market No. 9, it is a very wealthy and high income Market No. 9. There is a high concentration of six figure income jobs in and around the Washington area because of Uncle Sam.

 

Washington is also a moderate climate, which means that it gets cold in the winter time. Just an educated guess, but does that mean people stay indoors and actually watch TV as opposed to warm-weather areas?

[GoldenShine9 1513]

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/68824/for-tribunes-wert-bigger-is-much-better#comments

 

Count Tribune in the mix as well, they appear quite interested according to their President-GM.

 

That would create a duopoly in Washington DC with WJLA-WDCA (which I believe could be a legal duopoly) and a conflict in the Susquehanna Valley with WHTM-WPMT (they would need to shell or divest one of them). Otherwise that would actually fit quite well, and they would have sister stations in OKC-Tulsa and a strong Mid-Atlantic cluster.

[tyrannical bastard 3955]

Whether or not ABC gets their hands on WJLA could influence the future of WUSA....

 

If ABC gets WJLA, that leaves WUSA as the only non-O&O in the nation's capital. CBS could be hammering for WUSA....and Gannett COULD be willing to sell because....

 

1. They have been hammered over the past decade in the ratings, (and losing some of their most prominent staff to WJLA, fueling their rise in the ratings)

 

2. USA Today....how much longer can this "newspaper" last without taking Gannett under?

 

3. Selling WUSA would give them another 2% of reach they could use in other markets (since they've bought Belo and any cash could come in handy for more expansion!)

 

And if WJLA goes to another party, then it will give another owner the chance to own the 3rd largest ABC affiliate in the country...

[Mrtraveler01 738]

 

Whether or not ABC gets their hands on WJLA could influence the future of WUSA....

 

If ABC gets WJLA, that leaves WUSA as the only non-O&O in the nation's capital. CBS could be hammering for WUSA....and Gannett COULD be willing to sell because....

 

1. They have been hammered over the past decade in the ratings, (and losing some of their most prominent staff to WJLA, fueling their rise in the ratings)

 

2. USA Today....how much longer can this "newspaper" last without taking Gannett under?

 

3. Selling WUSA would give them another 2% of reach they could use in other markets (since they've bought Belo and any cash could come in handy for more expansion!)

 

And if WJLA goes to another party, then it will give another owner the chance to own the 3rd largest ABC affiliate in the country...

 

There are a few things to consider about this (and why I think that CBS isn't concerned about buying WUSA)

 

1. WUSA is a flagship station for Gannett (even though it doesn't seem to run like one). This would be similar to Cox selling WSB in that this would be one of the last stations Gannett would want to give up even though it is performing so poorly in the market.

2. Why would Gannett give up a station in a very lucrative market (political ads and overall market size) right after they said that they wanted to grow in markets similar to Dallas, Houston, and Washington?

3. I don't think CBS is in a buying mood. Their latest sale involved a TV station on Long Island in order to form a duopoly. I don't see the CBS O&O's growing outside of the markets they are currently in anytime soon.

[Leavellebrett 85]

 

There are a few things to consider about this (and why I think that CBS isn't concerned about buying WUSA)

 

1. WUSA is a flagship station for Gannett (even though it doesn't seem to run like one). This would be similar to Cox selling WSB in that this would be one of the last stations Gannett would want to give up even though it is performing so poorly in the market.

2. Why would Gannett give up a station in a very lucrative market (political ads and overall market size) right after they said that they wanted to grow in markets similar to Dallas, Houston, and Washington?

3. I don't think CBS is in a buying mood. Their latest sale involved a TV station on Long Island in order to form a duopoly. I don't see the CBS O&O's growing outside of the markets they are currently in anytime soon.

 

It WAS the flagship and always run like it until they packed up and moved flagship to Denver. If we're judging my market size, wouldn't it make the most sense for your flagship to be in the biggest market you own? I would think so... then shouldn't WXIA be the flagship?

[mike91 67]

It WAS the flagship and always run like it until they packed up and moved flagship to Denver. If we're judging my market size, wouldn't it make the most sense for your flagship to be in the biggest market you own? I would think so... then shouldn't WXIA be the flagship?

Not necessarily. Market rankings change every year, and I don't think it was that long ago that Atlanta overtook DC in market size and they xould trade places again in the future. I think it has to do more with importance to the group/prestige. One example is Raycom. Their largest market is Cleveland but their flagships are in Charlotte and Montgomery, AL.

[sanewsguy 511]

WJLA is an OK station in my opinion. It could stand to go to ABC but anybody who buys this station would need to make a considerable investment in it. New set would help because they have essentially had the same set since moving across the Potomac in 2001. The graphics could stand to be refreshed since they are about five years old. Some of the news and sports anchors can go. I won't name names but we all know a certain few are only there as eye candy and not because of their journalistic abilities. They can get rid of their GM Bill Lord who got rid of one of the best news anchors, Doug McKelway. That was politically charged so Bill Lord can go for pulling that crap. The content is just OK. A little edge on crime but they do a fair share of government, political, and investigative news. They would be my second choice for news in that market after WRC.

 

WRC is an O&O and by far, they put out the best product in that market (they're probably the only NBC O&O I actually like). They tend to stay away from fluff and they have a nice balance of political news, business news, national news, local news, crime, weather, sports, Jim Vance commentaries, human interest. No celebrity stories found here. The other three DC stations need to emulate WRC.

 

WTTG is the typical Fox O&O. Overemphasis on crime and fluff.

 

WUSA is far and away the worst station for news in the DC market. This is 100% the fault of their ND Fred D'Ambrosi than it is anybody else's. The content is amateurish. They hire A LOT of on-air from small markets and even more behind the scenes people fresh from college and that shows on the air. They used to have weekend morning news but they have since cut that. This is the station that decided to reenact RGIII's wedding. Although it was cute and funny, the news is not the place for this. Maybe the morning news but not the 11PM news. The meteorologist who played RGIII's wife was clearly embarrassed, you could see her (unsuccessfully) trying to toss off to break. See how red her face gets. Had KTVU not screwed up with those names, this would've been the dumbest thing a local news station did this week. D'Ambrosi is also the same ND who brought attention to his station by banning Lindsay Lohan stories at his station for a day. Now, while I do not think LiLo is news, this was unnecessary.

 

Having said that, I do not think CBS is going to buy WUSA nor do I think there is any reason for them to buy WUSA. Gannett is a great station owner. WUSA's problems don't lie with Gannett, they lie with Fred D'Ambrosi. This can easily be fixed by firing him and a lot of the more recent low quality hires. When they start putting out better content, more viewers will come their way. They should snag WRC's ND Mike Goldrick if they get a chance. The quality of the product WUSA puts out will improve almost immediately. They can stand to also hire a few more reporters but they don't really need to make many changes. Ousting D'Ambrosi and getting somebody with better news judgment would help tremendously.

 

 

It WAS the flagship and always run like it until they packed up and moved flagship to Denver. If we're judging my market size, wouldn't it make the most sense for your flagship to be in the biggest market you own? I would think so... then shouldn't WXIA be the flagship?

 

Once they close on Belo, they better make WFAA flagship (or a flagship). I think WUSA is the east flagship, KUSA the west.

 

 

Not necessarily. Market rankings change every year, and I don't think it was that long ago that Atlanta overtook DC in market size and they xould trade places again in the future. I think it has to do more with importance to the group/prestige. One example is Raycom. Their largest market is Cleveland but their flagships are in Charlotte and Montgomery, AL.

 

I read somewhere the WOIO WAS the flagship, with WSFA being their "home station". I don't know where people got WBTV being a flagship from. Just because Raycom happens to have Raycom Sports there doesn't really mean anything. The place where I read this from cited Paul McTear so I've always considered Raycom's flagships WOIO and WSFA, but not WBTV.

 

Also, I had asked this in another thread but which chopper is the pool chopper for the DC stations? It would be nice to know this and would help strengthen my arguments. I think it's either WJLA or WTTG but not sure.

[CircleSeven 1955]

 

It WAS the flagship and always run like it until they packed up and moved flagship to Denver. If we're judging my market size, wouldn't it make the most sense for your flagship to be in the biggest market you own? I would think so... then shouldn't WXIA be the flagship?

 

NO WUSA IS the flagship station, because it's adjacent to its Tyson Corners, VA Headquarters. KUSA is the flaggy of that graphics hub.

[Mrtraveler01 738]

I read somewhere the WOIO WAS the flagship, with WSFA being their "home station". I don't know where people got WBTV being a flagship from. Just because Raycom happens to have Raycom Sports there doesn't really mean anything. The place where I read this from cited Paul McTear so I've always considered Raycom's flagships WOIO and WSFA, but not WBTV.

Wikipedia seems to think that WBTV is a flagship with WSFA.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WBTV#Sale_to_Raycom

 

It's left over from the Jefferson-Pilot days. When Raycom acquired Jefferson-Pilot, WBTV became a second flagship of Raycom. I'm sure the fact that Raycom Sports is also there helped was a part of it as well.

[sanewsguy 511]

Wikipedia isn't always right...

[Mrtraveler01 738]

 

Wikipedia isn't always right...

 

Heh...I know. It does show up on a few more websites when you do a Google search for "WBTV Raycom Flagship". But whether that's based on the Wikipedia entry is anyones guess.

 

But I do think that WBTV does hold some prestiege at Raycom because of it's past with Jefferson-Pilot/Lincoln Financial.