KKyuubi 0 Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80579400&template=with-video&confirm=true This means in New York and Boston, it'll be on 3 OTA channels XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSSZNews 1047 Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 And this is REALLY bad news for New York's WWOR and Boston's WCVB and WMUR...all of them undoubtedly sold tons of ad space at a premium under the idea that they had "exclusive" carriage rights. Those stations have touted the coverage for weeks...only to have the "get" usurped by not one, but TWO competing outlets (Why it's both CBS and NBC as opposed to either/or really perplexes me.) No doubt CVB/MUR, who have good Patriots club ties (WCVB produces Pats All Access, which uses WCVB talent), and FOX who ALSO has an NFL contract (they're airing the Super Bowl for God's sake) are REALLY mad. And if they're not, they should be. I suspect this will not end well in Boston by the end of the week. It may not end well in New York City but we'll see. I'm not sure about this being "political influence" in the classical sense either. Is your politican on Holiday? Or is he/she banging the gavel in Congress to avoid presidential recess appointments? Seriously...that's ALL they're doing. I don't see anyone holding hearings on Capitol Hill about this. This was broadcast network pressure...plain and simple. -T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Horn 78 Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 (Why it's both CBS and NBC as opposed to either/or really perplexes me.) It shouldn't. NBC had maxed out its "Flex Game" option with the Patriots, meaning the game could not be moved to NBC within the bounds of the NFL's contract with NBC. Beyond that, had the NFL offered the game only to one network, it would have created a competitive disadvantage for the other two broadcast networks that also hold contracts with the NFL. The two networks not offered the game would have valid claim, within their contracts, to seek damages from the NFL for diminishing the values of their contracts with the League. Contractually, there are two broadcast networks that would have had rights to broadcast the game were it not on NFL Network and were flexing available: CBS (as an AFC team is playing away at an NFC stadium) and NBC (with the above mentioned flexing option). Thusly, the NFL fulfilled contractual obligations the best it could while also accommodating this extraordinary situation. Per their contracts, Fox and ESPN would never have had opportunity to broadcast the game -- CBS and NBC would have had that opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSSZNews 1047 Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 NBC had maxed out its "Flex Game" option with the Patriots, meaning the game could not be moved to NBC within the bounds of the NFL's contract with NBC. Beyond that, had the NFL offered the game only to one network, it would have created a competitive disadvantage for the other two broadcast networks that also hold contracts with the NFL. The two networks not offered the game would have valid claim, within their contracts, to seek damages from the NFL for diminishing the values of their contracts with the League. Contractually, there are two broadcast networks that would have had rights to broadcast the game were it not on NFL Network and were flexing available: CBS (as an AFC team is playing away at an NFC stadium) and NBC (with the above mentioned flexing option). Thusly, the NFL fulfilled contractual obligations the best it could while also accommodating this extraordinary situation. Per their contracts, Fox and ESPN would never have had opportunity to broadcast the game -- CBS and NBC would have had that opportunity. BUT if I remember correctly, the "Flex Game" option was ONLY for games being held on Sundays...Saturdays and Thursdays, or Monday Night Football, was not a part of the Flex dea NBC had. So I can see CBS having this, but...NBC too? If NBC were to be (and should have been) denied broadcast rights of this...the other net with an NFL contract (and arguably the biggest--it includes the Super Bowl) is FOX. So...I think NBC got the better end of this...I'm not sure they should have the game at all in the first place...FOX should and likely will be suing, if only because WWOR (owned by them) got royally screwed. (Though, I wonder if FOX passed because of the Cops / AMW lineup...still relatively strong for them on Saturday nights.) Moot point--this will replace Good Night and Good Luck on CBS. Thanks a lot! >_< -T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Horn 78 Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 NBC had maxed out its "Flex Game" option with the Patriots, meaning the game could not be moved to NBC within the bounds of the NFL's contract with NBC. Beyond that, had the NFL offered the game only to one network, it would have created a competitive disadvantage for the other two broadcast networks that also hold contracts with the NFL. The two networks not offered the game would have valid claim, within their contracts, to seek damages from the NFL for diminishing the values of their contracts with the League. Contractually, there are two broadcast networks that would have had rights to broadcast the game were it not on NFL Network and were flexing available: CBS (as an AFC team is playing away at an NFC stadium) and NBC (with the above mentioned flexing option). Thusly, the NFL fulfilled contractual obligations the best it could while also accommodating this extraordinary situation. Per their contracts, Fox and ESPN would never have had opportunity to broadcast the game -- CBS and NBC would have had that opportunity. BUT if I remember correctly, the "Flex Game" option was ONLY for games being held on Sundays...Saturdays and Thursdays, or Monday Night Football, was not a part of the Flex dea NBC had. So I can see CBS having this, but...NBC too? If NBC were to be (and should have been) denied broadcast rights of this...the other net with an NFL contract (and arguably the biggest--it includes the Super Bowl) is FOX. So...I think NBC got the better end of this...I'm not sure they should have the game at all in the first place...FOX should and likely will be suing, if only because WWOR (owned by them) got royally screwed. (Though, I wonder if FOX passed because of the Cops / AMW lineup...still relatively strong for them on Saturday nights.) Moot point--this will replace Good Night and Good Luck on CBS. Thanks a lot! >_< -T The only games excluded from flexing are weekday games -- Monday and Thursday night games. The wrench in the machine is the NFL Network. Contractually, NBC isn't explicitly disallowed from flexing a game away from NFLN, but the NFL has made it known that's frowned upon, so NBC doesn't. This is why NBC maxed out their flexing option with the Patriots -- the NFL would have denied their request to flex this week's game, so they chose to flex the NE@BAL game instead. I doubt they would have flexed that game had they known NFLN would be willing to give it up/share. The NFL had to offer it to NBC, then, as well for all this. And you seem to be misunderstanding about Fox. Fox never would have had any rights to the game -- it was an AFC team playing at an NFC stadium, only CBS and NBC have any potential claim to that scenario. Fox can't sue on this basis -- really, had the NFL only offered the game to one network or the other, then Fox could have claimed that the NFL was diminishing the value of their contract by not abiding by the terms of their contract with CBS or NBC, whichever network wasn't offered the game. As for WWOR: local simulcasts of games on ESPN and NFLN are based on contractual agreements between stations and individual teams, not the NFL. Exclusivity can't be guaranteed by the local team, and the League has no standing within the contract. Look at it like this: if not for their contract with the Giants, WWOR wouldn't be airing the game at all. The NFL approaches TV rights as being more beneficial to the network/station than the League -- the station has been given the right and privilege to air NFL games. This attitude is at the very core of how the contracts are structured. Essentially, the only way FTSG could take NFL/Giants to court for airing the game on WCBS-TV and WNBC is if the NFL also took the simulcast rights away from WWOR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSSZNews 1047 Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 The only games excluded from flexing are weekday games -- Monday and Thursday night games. The wrench in the machine is the NFL Network. Contractually, NBC isn't explicitly disallowed from flexing a game away from NFLN, but the NFL has made it known that's frowned upon, so NBC doesn't. This is why NBC maxed out their flexing option with the Patriots -- the NFL would have denied their request to flex this week's game, so they chose to flex the NE@BAL game instead. I doubt they would have flexed that game had they known NFLN would be willing to give it up/share. The NFL had to offer it to NBC, then, as well for all this. And you seem to be misunderstanding about Fox. Fox never would have had any rights to the game -- it was an AFC team playing at an NFC stadium, only CBS and NBC have any potential claim to that scenario. Fox can't sue on this basis -- really, had the NFL only offered the game to one network or the other, then Fox could have claimed that the NFL was diminishing the value of their contract by not abiding by the terms of their contract with CBS or NBC, whichever network wasn't offered the game. As for WWOR: local simulcasts of games on ESPN and NFLN are based on contractual agreements between stations and individual teams, not the NFL. Exclusivity can't be guaranteed by the local team, and the League has no standing within the contract. Look at it like this: if not for their contract with the Giants, WWOR wouldn't be airing the game at all. The NFL approaches TV rights as being more beneficial to the network/station than the League -- the station has been given the right and privilege to air NFL games. This attitude is at the very core of how the contracts are structured. Essentially, the only way FTSG could take NFL/Giants to court for airing the game on WCBS-TV and WNBC is if the NFL also took the simulcast rights away from WWOR. OK, I have WCVB's GM saying this though: ""Today's action by the NFL was designed to let all of America see this potentially historic game. WCVB-TV's contract with the NFL Network for the Boston market exclusive broadcast rights to the Dec. 29 game against the New York Giants was completed last summer, and thus, the Boston market was always going to be able to see the game via Channel 5. We are now awaiting word as to whether or not the NFL will abide by their contract with WCVB." And we have WWOR saying this: ""The NFL is in clear violation of their agreement with WWOR/My9...We fully expect the league to honor their commitment to My9 as the exclusive free over-the-air broadcaster for Saturday's telecast of the New England Patriots at New York Giants game." If these are to be believed, the contract is with the NFL and the NFL Network...not the New England Patriots, or the New York Giants. Television stations have some smart legal counsel, so I don't think this type of rhetoric would be allowed to spill out if it weren't true. The League HAD to have taken this into account...how could they not have? I can still see WWOR and WCVB/WMUR suing on the basis that they ponied up a LOT of money for EXCLUSIVE OTA carriage. That WAS taken away and I have to think that was in the language of the contract. Now, their competitors get to have the game and it doesn't cost those affiliates a cent (if anything they'll MAKE money--every sales department at every CBS and NBC station in the country's prolly had their Holiday vacation cut short.) If those contracts were with the NFL and not the teams and there wasn't some sort of "out" written...if there isn't some sort of complaint filed today or tomorrow I will be VERY surprised. If nothing else, the teams, or the league are going to have to "make good" somehow for what will be TONS of lost advertising dollars for those stations that had "exclusive" coverage. That said though...if nothing hapens, will it be to fend off future tension between those stations and the NFL, or the respective home teams, or what have you? I still think this is not going to end well in those two markets. -T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSSZNews 1047 Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 One domino falls: WCVB's reportedly in court right now regarding this: http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=71867 If contractual agreement is proven...they may win. -T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KKyuubi 0 Posted December 27, 2007 Author Share Posted December 27, 2007 If I were in charge, I'd pick one broadcaster to broadcast the game nationally, but have it blacked out on affiliates of the chosen network in the team's markets (as per the "75 mile rule"), and have the stations who have contracts to broadcast the game be able to still show it exclusively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Horn 78 Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 I don't have much time to reply, but I will say this: It's posturing, lots and lots of posturing. WCVB and WWOR truly have no standing. Really. The courts have made sloppy rulings in the past; so it's always the case that HA and FTSG could find a friendly judge to make me be wrong, but from the knowledge I've been made privy to, they really don't have a leg to stand on versus the League. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSSZNews 1047 Posted December 28, 2007 Share Posted December 28, 2007 http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-nflnetworkflap&prov=ap&type=lgns Hm. -T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSSZNews 1047 Posted December 28, 2007 Share Posted December 28, 2007 Another update... http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1063214 " 'We are having private and confidential conversations with the NFL and are very hopeful that this unfortunate situation can be worked out to our satisfaction, in light of the fact we do have a valid contract for exclusive broadcast rights to the Patriots vs. Giants game in the Boston market,' (WCVB President and GM Bill) Fine said in an e-mail.' " So, this would disprove the previous information reported about the station going to court over it. What happens if talks break down Friday, however...is anybody's guess. -T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.