Georgie56 3176 Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 (edited) https://awfulannouncing.com/local-networks/sinclair-fox-rsns-up-to-10-billion.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter Edited January 13, 2022 by Georgie56 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Action Newsroom 1180 Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 Wow (if confirmed). I didn't think Sinclair would have it in them to buy all these regionals, but then again they have the money to be gobble up all those stations, and did have the balls to start a short-lived kids cartoon block, so that's that I guess. Maybe they can rebrand them as "Marquee" or "Stadium (insert city here)" to expand either brand throughout regionals (again if confirmed). We'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dman748 1255 Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 3 17 minutes ago, Eyewitness News-man said: Wow (if confirmed). I didn't think Sinclair would have it in them to buy all these regionals, but then again they have the money to be gobble up all those stations, and did have the balls to start a short-lived kids cartoon block, so that's that I guess. Maybe they can rebrand them as "Marquee" or "Stadium (insert city here)" to expand either brand throughout regionals (again if confirmed). We'll see. Also, you'd have programming via Stadium and potentially the Tennis Channel that could air on the RSNs we should hear more about it today if not, by next week but this saga of the whole Fox RSN sale process is about to be totally done with (it would be up to Delhrim to decide he'll allow Sinclair to run the RSNs alongside the TV stations or not) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVLurker 174 Posted April 27, 2019 Share Posted April 27, 2019 I know they may be perfect to own them but why does Sinclair have to own everything? I don't like supporting Trump businesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColumbusNewsFan 217 Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 As much I don't care for Sinclair's politics and How it does business. Their Sports Coverage has been really well done and better then FOX has done of the last couple of years. Stadium is very serviceable as a brand and this now makes it better with local teams and brands as well. Maybe this will force Sinclair to actually invest in Sports Departments in general as connecting it with Stadium will now give them the reach to compete with ESPN. I know speculation and wishing, Sinclair and These RSN could be big deals if Sinclair does it right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frog 418 Posted May 3, 2019 Share Posted May 3, 2019 Done deal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/sinclair-to-acquire-sports-networks-from-disney-11556835269?mod=hp_lead_pos6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronQ 266 Posted May 3, 2019 Share Posted May 3, 2019 (edited) Confirmed via CNBC https://twitter.com/CNBCnow/status/1124407787294007297?s=20 Edited May 3, 2019 by AaronQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dman748 1255 Posted May 4, 2019 Share Posted May 4, 2019 I wouldn't be surprised if the same consumer advocacy groups that opposed the Tribune deal opposes this one as well (even though they'll be hypocrites because they were basically silent when Sinclair reached a deal to acquire a minority stake in YES and announced the launch of Marquee with the Cubs What's going to be interesting also is how does the DOJ feel about Sinclair even though they are buying cable channels and not TV stations and how much will Byron Allen have an influence on programming on the RSNs over Sinclair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenShine9 1509 Posted May 4, 2019 Share Posted May 4, 2019 The FCC and DOJ are irrelevant here since cable doesn't fall in their jurisdiction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dman748 1255 Posted May 4, 2019 Share Posted May 4, 2019 11 minutes ago, GoldenShine9 said: The FCC and DOJ are irrelevant here since cable doesn't fall in their jurisdiction? You're right about the FCC having no jurisdiction over the cable channels but the DOJ however, does (hence why they stepped in on the RSNs when they approved the Disney-Fox merger) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkolsen 1680 Posted May 4, 2019 Share Posted May 4, 2019 17 minutes ago, GoldenShine9 said: The FCC and DOJ are irrelevant here since cable doesn't fall in their jurisdiction? The FCC could be if they have uplink trucks and earth stations. When CNN/Time Warner was bought by AT&T they sold all their earth stations and mobile trucks (but permanently leased them back) specifically to avoid any FCC intervention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broadcastfan9751 136 Posted May 4, 2019 Share Posted May 4, 2019 22 minutes ago, GoldenShine9 said: The FCC and DOJ are irrelevant here since cable doesn't fall in their jurisdiction? Under Disney's agreement with the DOJ, the DOJ has to approve any buyer. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/walt-disney-company-required-divest-twenty-two-regional-sports-networks-order-complete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viper550 270 Posted May 5, 2019 Share Posted May 5, 2019 (edited) New tidbits not mentioned here: New owner is called Diamond Sports Group (perhaps they might be rebranding FSN with some sort of Diamond-based name? A diamond is a type of Stadium), and Entertainment Studios has an equity stake as a "content partner". Bryon Allen has been hitting some unexpected home runs recently. Edited May 5, 2019 by Viper550 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skbl17 188 Posted May 5, 2019 Share Posted May 5, 2019 27 minutes ago, Viper550 said: New tidbits not mentioned here: New owner is called Diamond Sports Group (perhaps they might be rebranding FSN with some sort of Diamond-based name? A diamond is a type of Stadium), and Entertainment Studios has an equity stake as a "content partner". Bryon Allen has been hitting some unexpected home runs recently. Your link is redirecting me to the Nostalgia subreddit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viper550 270 Posted May 5, 2019 Share Posted May 5, 2019 Darn it https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/sinclair-disney-regional-sports-network-deal-1203204685/ is the link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoadStar 363 Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 Sinclair Closes Purchase of Fox Regional Sports Networks From Disney Does anyone have a link to the actual purchase agreement, or any details? I'm curious how long the Fox Sports brand licensing agreement will last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broadcastfan9751 136 Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, LoadStar said: Sinclair Closes Purchase of Fox Regional Sports Networks From Disney Does anyone have a link to the actual purchase agreement, or any details? I'm curious how long the Fox Sports brand licensing agreement will last. Here is the purchase agreement from Sinclair's SEC filing. The licensing agreement was redacted from the filing. Edited August 23, 2019 by broadcastfan9751 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spring Rubber 662 Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 (edited) I have to wonder what the timetable will be on the transition, what might change with the names of the networks, and if they'll tie programming, content, and/or on-air appearance into the Cubs Marquee network that Sinclair will also be operating. Edited August 23, 2019 by Spring Rubber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dman748 1255 Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 1 hour ago, LoadStar said: Sinclair Closes Purchase of Fox Regional Sports Networks From Disney Does anyone have a link to the actual purchase agreement, or any details? I'm curious how long the Fox Sports brand licensing agreement will last. 30 minutes ago, broadcastfan9751 said: Here is the purchase agreement from Sinclair's SEC filing. The licensing agreement was redacted from the filing. I don't know if this answers your question or not but this is from Section 3.09. Quote SECTION 3.09. Intellectual Property Rights. (a) Section 3.09(a) of the Disclosure Letter sets forth a true and complete list, as of the date hereof, of all material IP Rights owned by the Transferred Company and its Subsidiaries that constitute patents, patent applications, trademark registrations or applications, copyright registrations or applications or domain names. (b) Except for non-exclusive licenses granted by or to third parties in the ordinary course of business or as otherwise contemplated by this Agreement, and except for “shrink wrap”, “commercially available off the shelf software package” or “click through” licenses, Section 3.09(b) of the Disclosure Letter, as of the date hereof, sets forth a true and complete list of all of the Contracts (i) pursuant to which the Transferred Company and its Subsidiaries (or, in the case of Transferred Contracts, Seller or its Subsidiary party thereto) obtain the right to use third party IP Rights that are material to the conduct of the Business or (ii) by which the Transferred Company and its Subsidiaries (or, in the case of Transferred Contracts, Seller or its Subsidiary party thereto) have licensed or otherwise authorized a third party to use any IP Rights included on Section 3.09(a) of the Disclosure Letter (collectively, the “Licensed IP Contracts”). Subject to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium or other similar Laws affecting or relating to creditors’ rights generally, each Licensed IP Contract is valid, binding and in full force and effect with respect to the Transferred Company or its Subsidiary party thereto (or, in the case of Transferred Contracts, Seller or its Subsidiary party thereto) and, to the knowledge of Seller, the other party thereto. Except as would not, individually or in the aggregate, have a Material Adverse Effect, none of the Transferred Company or its Subsidiaries (or, in the case of Transferred Contracts, Seller or its Subsidiary party thereto) is in default under any Licensed IP Contract and to the knowledge of Seller, none of the other parties to any Licensed IP Contract is in default thereunder. Except as would not, individually or in the aggregate, have a Material Adverse Effect, none of Seller, the Transferred Company nor any of their respective Subsidiaries has received written notice (i) alleging a breach of, or default under, any Licensed IP Contract or (ii) of a party’s intention to cancel or otherwise terminate or not renew any Licensed IP Contract. (c) Seller, the Transferred Company and their respective Subsidiaries have taken commercially reasonable measures to protect the confidentiality of trade secrets of the Business. (d) Except as would not, individually or in the aggregate, have a Material Adverse Effect, there are no adverse third party Proceedings pending or, to the knowledge of Seller, threatened against Seller, the Transferred Company or any of their respective Subsidiaries, in each case alleging that the operation or conduct of the Business constitutes an infringement of the IP Rights of such Person. 33 (e) There are no, and there have not been in the past three (3) years, Proceedings pending or, to the knowledge of Seller, threatened by Seller or any of its Subsidiaries, including the Transferred Company and its Subsidiaries, against any Person, nor have Seller or any of its Subsidiaries (including the Transferred Company and its Subsidiaries) sent any written notice to any Person, regarding any actual or potential infringement, dilution, misappropriation or other unauthorized use of the IP Rights owned by the Transferred Company and its Subsidiaries, in each case other than as would not, individually or in the aggregate, have a Material Adverse Effect. (f) Except as would not, individually or in the aggregate, have a Material Adverse Effect, the IT Assets used in the Business operate and perform in all respects as required to permit the Transferred Company and its Subsidiaries to conduct the Business as currently conducted. Except as would not, individually or in the aggregate, have a Material Adverse Effect, in the past three (3) years, no Person has gained unauthorized access to the IT Assets of the Transferred Company or any of its Subsidiaries and there have been no failures, crashes, security breaches or other adverse events affecting the IT Assets which has caused disruption to the Business. Except as would not, individually or in the aggregate, have a Material Adverse Effect, the Transferred Company and its Subsidiaries provide for the back-up and recovery of data and have implemented disaster recovery plans, procedures and facilities and, as applicable, have taken all steps to implement such plans and procedures. Except as would not, individually or in the aggregate, have a Material Adverse Effect, the Transferred Company and its Subsidiaries have taken commercially reasonable actions to protect the integrity and security of the IT Assets and the information stored therein from unauthorized use, access, or modification by third parties. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, it looks as if that Sinclair will have to use the Fox Sports name on the RSNs for at least 3 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoadStar 363 Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 51 minutes ago, oknewsguy said: I don't know if this answers your question or not but this is from Section 3.09. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, it looks as if that Sinclair will have to use the Fox Sports name on the RSNs for at least 3 years I've read the section you quoted about three times, and I don't know where you got that from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spring Rubber 662 Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 I hope they don't hold onto the brand for much longer. It doesn't feel right having another media company using the Fox name as their public brand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dman748 1255 Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 1 hour ago, LoadStar said: I've read the section you quoted about three times, and I don't know where you got that from. The link that @broadcastfan9751 posted above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoadStar 363 Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 20 minutes ago, oknewsguy said: The link that @broadcastfan9751 posted above No, I mean I don’t get how you came to the conclusion you did from the section you quoted. What in that section suggests that they “will have to use the Fox Sports name” for three years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dman748 1255 Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 19 minutes ago, LoadStar said: No, I mean I don’t get how you came to the conclusion you did from the section you quoted. What in that section suggests that they “will have to use the Fox Sports name” for three years? Section 3.09, link is in the post above Spring Rubber's post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoadStar 363 Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 1 hour ago, oknewsguy said: Section 3.09, link is in the post above Spring Rubber's post Ok, we apparently talking in circles here. Let me take one more attempt to clarify. What specific part or parts of section 3.09 caused you to conclude that they "will have to use the Fox Sports name" for three years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now