http://awfulannouncing.com/espn/espn-757...llion.html


I know this is going to put a crimp in the style of some of you who have deep schadenfreude for the Mouse. But a little dose of truth and reality is a danged good thing!

(05-08-2017 03:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  http://awfulannouncing.com/espn/espn-757...llion.html


I know this is going to put a crimp in the style of some of you who have deep schadenfreude for the Mouse. But a little dose of truth and reality is a danged good thing!

Good find JR

Thought the following was pretty telling and is in line with what you have been saying:

However, ESPN’s carriage fee continues to rise, and we’ve been told they’re getting the same fee or better from their presence in streaming bundles (SlingTV, PS Vue, YouTube TV and more). Many of those subscribers aren’t yet accounted for in cable coverage estimates (where ESPN actually gained last month, while Fs1 fell), so there are actually even more subscriber fees coming in to Disney regularly than are shown here


Also thought the following statements were interesting:

Is ESPN facing challenges today? Absolutely. But analysts’ estimates suggest the network is still profitable. The issue is that it’s not as ludicrously profitable as it used to be, and that’s posed problems for Disney’s stock price.

(05-08-2017 04:45 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 03:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  http://awfulannouncing.com/espn/espn-757...llion.html


I know this is going to put a crimp in the style of some of you who have deep schadenfreude for the Mouse. But a little dose of truth and reality is a danged good thing!

Good find JR

Thought the following was pretty telling and is in line with what you have been saying:

However, ESPN’s carriage fee continues to rise, and we’ve been told they’re getting the same fee or better from their presence in streaming bundles (SlingTV, PS Vue, YouTube TV and more). Many of those subscribers aren’t yet accounted for in cable coverage estimates (where ESPN actually gained last month, while Fs1 fell), so there are actually even more subscriber fees coming in to Disney regularly than are shown here


Also thought the following statements were interesting:

Is ESPN facing challenges today? Absolutely. But analysts’ estimates suggest the network is still profitable. The issue is that it’s not as ludicrously profitable as it used to be, and that’s posed problems for Disney’s stock price.

The layoffs were needed. They had spent money like the proverbial drunken sailor. The first quarter miss on Disney stock was just a great excuse to do what needed to be done. ESPN will be healthier in the long term if they have to do a little more serious accounting. All of the streaming is going to offset a large percentage of those cord cuts so when they figure out how to quantify that the numbers will get in line with the reality. The ACC and SEC are not only going to be fine, but we will be fine in style. Those associated with FOX have much less of an upside. In fact the BTN lost 448 millon (39.2%) of its total valuation between 2015 - 2016. Yet you don't here Bloomberg and CNBC ranting about that!

(05-08-2017 04:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 04:45 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 03:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  http://awfulannouncing.com/espn/espn-757...llion.html


I know this is going to put a crimp in the style of some of you who have deep schadenfreude for the Mouse. But a little dose of truth and reality is a danged good thing!

Good find JR

Thought the following was pretty telling and is in line with what you have been saying:

However, ESPN’s carriage fee continues to rise, and we’ve been told they’re getting the same fee or better from their presence in streaming bundles (SlingTV, PS Vue, YouTube TV and more). Many of those subscribers aren’t yet accounted for in cable coverage estimates (where ESPN actually gained last month, while Fs1 fell), so there are actually even more subscriber fees coming in to Disney regularly than are shown here


Also thought the following statements were interesting:

Is ESPN facing challenges today? Absolutely. But analysts’ estimates suggest the network is still profitable. The issue is that it’s not as ludicrously profitable as it used to be, and that’s posed problems for Disney’s stock price.

The layoffs were needed. They had spent money like the proverbial drunken sailor. The first quarter miss on Disney stock was just a great excuse to do what needed to be done. ESPN will be healthier in the long term if they have to do a little more serious accounting. All of the streaming is going to offset a large percentage of those cord cuts so when they figure out how to quantify that the numbers will get in line with the reality. The ACC and SEC are not only going to be fine, but we will be fine in style. Those associated with FOX have much less of an upside. In fact the BTN lost 448 millon (39.2%) of its total valuation between 2015 - 2016. Yet you don't here Bloomberg and CNBC ranting about that!

Just like many companies and individuals that bring in more money than they know what to do with, ESPN bought everyone and anything...much more than necessary. It's pretty unusual to just stockpile cash for a rainy day...everyone's spending money chasing the next big thing.

ESPN's rainy day came, so it's adjustment time. The biggest clue is that with all the cuts they made, as a casual ESPN consumer, I recognized about 4-5 names. I'm sure other people, depending on their interest, recognized others. To have THAT much on-air talent that is that niche...when you're basically competing with next to nobody for that talent....it's not shocking they had to adjust. Sad for those affected, but not shocking.

(05-09-2017 11:54 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 04:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 04:45 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 03:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  http://awfulannouncing.com/espn/espn-757...llion.html


I know this is going to put a crimp in the style of some of you who have deep schadenfreude for the Mouse. But a little dose of truth and reality is a danged good thing!

Good find JR

Thought the following was pretty telling and is in line with what you have been saying:

However, ESPN’s carriage fee continues to rise, and we’ve been told they’re getting the same fee or better from their presence in streaming bundles (SlingTV, PS Vue, YouTube TV and more). Many of those subscribers aren’t yet accounted for in cable coverage estimates (where ESPN actually gained last month, while Fs1 fell), so there are actually even more subscriber fees coming in to Disney regularly than are shown here


Also thought the following statements were interesting:

Is ESPN facing challenges today? Absolutely. But analysts’ estimates suggest the network is still profitable. The issue is that it’s not as ludicrously profitable as it used to be, and that’s posed problems for Disney’s stock price.

The layoffs were needed. They had spent money like the proverbial drunken sailor. The first quarter miss on Disney stock was just a great excuse to do what needed to be done. ESPN will be healthier in the long term if they have to do a little more serious accounting. All of the streaming is going to offset a large percentage of those cord cuts so when they figure out how to quantify that the numbers will get in line with the reality. The ACC and SEC are not only going to be fine, but we will be fine in style. Those associated with FOX have much less of an upside. In fact the BTN lost 448 millon (39.2%) of its total valuation between 2015 - 2016. Yet you don't here Bloomberg and CNBC ranting about that!

Just like many companies and individuals that bring in more money than they know what to do with, ESPN bought everyone and anything...much more than necessary. It's pretty unusual to just stockpile cash for a rainy day...everyone's spending money chasing the next big thing.

ESPN's rainy day came, so it's adjustment time. The biggest clue is that with all the cuts they made, as a casual ESPN consumer, I recognized about 4-5 names. I'm sure other people, depending on their interest, recognized others. To have THAT much on-air talent that is that niche...when you're basically competing with next to nobody for that talent....it's not shocking they had to adjust. Sad for those affected, but not shocking.

You are right, Lou. That on-air "talent" mostly consists of interchangeable parts. They are easily replaced by much cheaper alternatives with no perceptible loss of viewership. Those guys aren't the reason I tune in to ESPN (when I do).

I am not an ESPN doomsayer, but I don't believe they are vested in the ACC (by a LONG shot) like they are the SEC.

So the issue isn't, will ESPN survive. It is, are the they SEC provider with the ACC as the red head step child?

*what is the revenue gap?

*how many SEC talking heads vs ACC talking heads? Right now it is about 20 - 0.

*what is the coverage comparison? ESPN NFL draft was an SEC pep rallying? When do they start to push ACC?


The issues haven't change, folks just seem to get sidetracked by the non issues.

(05-09-2017 01:28 PM)nole Wrote:  I am not an ESPN doomsayer, but I don't believe they are vested in the ACC (by a LONG shot) like they are the SEC.

So the issue isn't, will ESPN survive. It is, are the they SEC provider with the ACC as the red head step child?

*what is the revenue gap?

*how many SEC talking heads vs ACC talking heads? Right now it is about 20 - 0.

*what is the coverage comparison? ESPN NFL draft was an SEC pep rallying? When do they start to push ACC?


The issues haven't change, folks just seem to get sidetracked by the non issues.

ESPN seemed to be a pretty good advocate for Louisville last season, even hyping Jackson all the way to the Heisman.

(05-09-2017 01:28 PM)nole Wrote:  I am not an ESPN doomsayer, but I don't believe they are vested in the ACC (by a LONG shot) like they are the SEC.

So the issue isn't, will ESPN survive. It is, are the they SEC provider with the ACC as the red head step child?

*what is the revenue gap?

*how many SEC talking heads vs ACC talking heads? Right now it is about 20 - 0.

*what is the coverage comparison? ESPN NFL draft was an SEC pep rallying? When do they start to push ACC?


The issues haven't change, folks just seem to get sidetracked by the non issues.

The ACC is a cold. calculated business decision. ESPN or Fox WILL make money. Does ESPN want the headache and money or do they want to let the ACC slip to Fox with the BTN? They will take the headache with the money. They have a few networks with no real value, setting up a new ACCN will not be nearly as difficult as presented and they have a excellent pool of live sports. With the SECN, ACC, and some B1G and B1g 12 games, the college scene is well covered.

(05-09-2017 01:28 PM)nole Wrote:  I am not an ESPN doomsayer, but I don't believe they are vested in the ACC (by a LONG shot) like they are the SEC.

So the issue isn't, will ESPN survive. It is, are the they SEC provider with the ACC as the red head step child?

*what is the revenue gap?

*how many SEC talking heads vs ACC talking heads? Right now it is about 20 - 0.

*what is the coverage comparison? ESPN NFL draft was an SEC pep rallying? When do they start to push ACC?


The issues haven't change, folks just seem to get sidetracked by the non issues.

To your point, I looked for one name in that long list of layoffs and it wasn't there. Tim Tebow. Then at the end of last week they slipped out a small press release that Tebow has been retained as a football analyst on the SECN for this Fall, after his Minor League Season is over.

(05-08-2017 03:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  http://awfulannouncing.com/espn/espn-757...llion.html


I know this is going to put a crimp in the style of some of you who have deep schadenfreude for the Mouse. But a little dose of truth and reality is a danged good thing!

Spot on!