Goodell makes offer to Time Warner

[coogrfan]

http://blogs.jsonline.com/businessof...me-warner.aspx

Quote:

Goodell makes offer to Time Warner By Don Walker Thursday, Dec 20 2007, 03:14 PM National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell on Thursday offered a new proposal to Time Warner Cable in an effort to break the logjam over the issue of carrying the NFL Network on expanded basic cable. In a letter to Glenn A. Britt, president and CEO of Time Warner Cable, Goodell said the league would be willing to let a third party determine the price and tier for NFL Network distribution on Time Warner systems. In addition, Goodell said he would be willing to let Time Warner carry the network immediately, assuming Britt agrees to the third-party arbitration. The offer, Goodell said, is good through Dec. 28. That date is important. On Dec. 29, the New England Patriots, seeking a perfect season, will meet the New York Gaints in the final regular-season game. That game has taken on importance because the Patriots appear headed for a perfect season. Goodell's move is a big gamble for the network and the league, which had been in a long-running dispute with Time Warner and other major carriers. Coincidentally, the state Senate Commerce Committee met in Madison today to hear testimony for and against a bill that would put the ongoing dispute between the NFL Network and the Big Ten Network and the major cable carriers to arbitration.

Very interesting. It's a gamble on the NFL's part, but it also puts TW in an awkward position. If they agree, there's no guarantee they win. If they refuse the offer, they can hardly continue to claim that they're looking out for their customers interests.

EDIT: TW says "no"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122002008.html

Quote:

(Glenn A. Britt, president and chief executive of Time Warner Cable) responded to Goodell later in the day, writing that Time Warner remained willing to carry the NFL Network on a sports tier, or make games carried on the NFL Network available to its customers on a per-game basis with the league setting the price and collecting the revenue generated. Britt also urged Goodell to move the Patriots-Giants game to a different network. "Over the years we've been able to successfully reach agreements with hundreds of programming networks without the use of arbitration," Britt wrote. "We continue to believe that the best way to achieve results is to privately seek a resolution and not attempt to negotiate through the press or elected officials."

Um-hmm. Anybody still think that it's the NFL that's being unreasonable?

[Cebby]

Quote: Originally Posted by coogrfan

If they refuse the offer, they can hardly continue to claim that they're looking out for their customers interests.

Sure they can. If I'm Time Warner, I might agree to this, but would hold off until like March or May when the channel is essentially worthless to 99.9% of people.

[coogrfan]

Quote: Originally Posted by The Soldier

Sure they can. If I'm Time Warner, I might agree to this, but would hold off until like March or May when the channel is essentially worthless to 99.9% of people.

The NFL's offer would have expired on 12/28, so that wouldn't have been possible.

It's all a moot point anyway, TW has refused (see the link I just added to the OP).

[Cebby]

Quote: Originally Posted by coogrfan

The NFL's offer expired 12/28, so that wouldn't have been possible. It's all a moot point anyway, TW has refused (see the link I just added to the OP).

They did it for a pretty obvious reason; the NFL Network wanted the third party deal conveniently right before possibly the biggest game ever. Then, immediately following that game, their channel loses all value for the next 8 months.

[coogrfan]

Quote: Originally Posted by The Soldier

They did it for a pretty obvious reason; the NFL Network wanted the third party deal conveniently right before possibly the biggest game ever. Then, immediately following that game, their channel loses all value for the next 8 months.

Dude, come on. The NFL's offer was more than fair. There's no guarantee an arbitrator would rule in the league's favor, and in the meantime TW would be able to carry the games.

TW's refusal is indefensible, and their obstinancy and greed lie exposed for the all the world to see.

[Cebby]

Quote: Originally Posted by coogrfan

Dude, come on. The NFL's offer was more than fair. There's no guarantee an arbitrator would rule in the league's favor, and in the meantime TW would be able to carry the games.

There pretty much is a guarantee the league would get a favorable ruling, as the time of this event coincides with the NFL Network broadcasting what would arguably be the biggest regular season game ever. However, this single event is by far the exception; the vast, vast, vast majority of time, the NFL Network has nothing to offer anyone.

Would you want to pay $5 a month for a channel of Lifetime original movies? That's essentially the market size for the NFL Network outside of two or three 3 hour periods a year.

[wwharton]

It's the NFL's network. You say 2 or 3 times a year but that was year one. This year they have Thurs and Sat games which means that number is closer to 10, including the Thanksgiving game. They also have a bowl game this year. Think about the Yankees network. Can you imagine if cable companies in NY decided they didn't want to pay for that? The NFL could decide to put all games on the NFL Network. That'd be crazy but that's an extreme example. What if they decided to put all playoff games there?

Seriously, the network could have value for only one day a year but it's about the demand. People clearly want to see the 2 or 3 or 10 games they show and the result will be cancelled cable subscriptions and more Directv subscribers if they dont bend.

The NFL can ask for whatever amount they want as long as someone (Directv, Dish Network) will pay it, it doesn't matter if the cable companies won't. The ball's in their court. I personally wouldn't pay $100 to go to a concert but that doesn't mean they should lower the prices right?

[Cebby]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

It's the NFL's network. You say 2 or 3 times a year but that was year one. This year they have Thurs and Sat games which means that number is closer to 10, including the Thanksgiving game. They also have a bowl game this year. Think about the Yankees network. Can you imagine if cable companies in NY decided they didn't want to pay for that? The NFL could decide to put all games on the NFL Network. That'd be crazy but that's an extreme example. What if they decided to put all playoff games there?

1. The only games with national attention were Dallas/Green Bay and NE/NY. Do you really think all that many people are torn up about missing the epic Pittsburgh/St Louis, Houston/Denver, and San Fransisco/Cincinnati games? I doubt anybody even knew they were going on.

2. It's not remotely comparable to New York not being able to watch the Yankees. The local areas get the local games. It'd be more like the New York area not getting the Oriels games.

3. Nobody cares about the Texas Bowl. I don't think missing the epic matchup of TCU/Houston will cause many people to miss sleep.

4. If the NFL Network decided to put the playoff games on their network, they'd likely lose their anti-trust exemption and be in more legal trouble than they could shake a stick at. Not to mention billions of dollar lawsuits from Fox and CBS.