Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Monday, February 13, 2006 |
Pickoff Moves
Angels Near Big Cable Deal With Fox
No, it didn't have anything to do with the name change, or the court case, but winning a World Series and two division titles: the Angels are near to signing a 10-year deal with Fox that would be worth up to $500 million and air 150 games a year. Last year, between Fox and Channel 9, the Angels raked in $24 million, a number that could double on the new contract. Team spokesman Tim Mead said that prospective plans to start a cable network "are not close to reality."With the new contract, no Angels games will be broadcast terrestrially; virtually all the team's games will air, however, with nationally broadcasts on Fox and ESPN airing the remainder.
Update: Commenter Raider Fan asked how much the Dodgers were getting for their current contract with KCAL/9 that starts this year. Variety says it's better than $10M/year over eight years. It doesn't say how many games the station is obligated to air, but I would guess about 50 given that the article upthread tags Fox's quota at 100. All told, that would put the Dodgers' TV revenues at around $42 million annually, not including ESPN and Fox national broadcasts.
Weaver Still In Angels' Sights
In that same article, the Angels continue their pursuit of Jeff Weaver, and are believed to have increased their offer to two years. The Angels hope for an answer by Wednesday, when pitchers and catchers report. Ah, what music that is.Arte To Ask For Attorneys' Fees
Again, in that article: Arte Moreno is expected to ask for attorneys' fees in the Angels naming case. The figure is expected to run at about $7 million.OT: Glub: Peter Benchley Swims With The Fishes
Jaws author Peter Benchley died at 65, of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, a progressive scarring of the lungs.Roster Notes
- The Reds have signed former Oakland first baseman Scott Hatteberg to a one-year, $800,000 contract.
- Sammy Sosa is considering retirement rather than taking a non-guaranteed contract with the Nationals.
Comments:
Jaws was a better movie than a book and the book wasn't half-bad.
Jaws was THE movie that changed everything. It was the introduction of the blockbuster and studios stopped asking directors what they could do for them. From then on, it was studios telling directors, "We know what we want. We want to know can you give it to us."
Jaws was THE movie that changed everything. It was the introduction of the blockbuster and studios stopped asking directors what they could do for them. From then on, it was studios telling directors, "We know what we want. We want to know can you give it to us."
Jaws was a better movie than a book and the book wasn't half-bad.
Jaws was THE movie that changed everything. It was the introduction of the blockbuster and studios stopped asking directors what they could do for them. From then on, it was studios telling directors, "We know what we want. We want to know can you give it to us."
Jaws was THE movie that changed everything. It was the introduction of the blockbuster and studios stopped asking directors what they could do for them. From then on, it was studios telling directors, "We know what we want. We want to know can you give it to us."
# posted by 
: 2/13/2006 08:03:00 AM
: 2/13/2006 08:03:00 AM
The post so nice, I had to say it twice. With different names, no less...
# posted by : 2/13/2006 08:04:00 AM
: 2/13/2006 08:04:00 AM
It would seem the name change has already paid off, right? From the L.A. Times:
"The new television deal would seem to affirm Moreno's assertions that changing the team name from the Anaheim Angels to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, a move that was upheld by an Orange County Superior Court jury last week, would give the team increased stature in the nation's second-largest media market and help increase revenues."
On the other hand, maybe not. From the same article:
"But Freer [of Foxsports] said there would be no correlation between a new television package and the Angels' court victory, which allows them to keep the name permanently.
"We've always looked at the Angels as a Southern California team and distributed them to the widest possible territory, including Las Vegas and Hawaii," Freer said.
"So from our standpoint, the name is not a factor in the value of television rights."
Funny, Arte's never once been able to explain in concrete terms how the name change would add to the team's bottom line. In fact, when pressed by reporters, he's admitted that he has no firm idea how the name change would actually profit the team, admitting that it's only his intuition that suggests to him it should be so . . . .
"The new television deal would seem to affirm Moreno's assertions that changing the team name from the Anaheim Angels to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, a move that was upheld by an Orange County Superior Court jury last week, would give the team increased stature in the nation's second-largest media market and help increase revenues."
On the other hand, maybe not. From the same article:
"But Freer [of Foxsports] said there would be no correlation between a new television package and the Angels' court victory, which allows them to keep the name permanently.
"We've always looked at the Angels as a Southern California team and distributed them to the widest possible territory, including Las Vegas and Hawaii," Freer said.
"So from our standpoint, the name is not a factor in the value of television rights."
Funny, Arte's never once been able to explain in concrete terms how the name change would add to the team's bottom line. In fact, when pressed by reporters, he's admitted that he has no firm idea how the name change would actually profit the team, admitting that it's only his intuition that suggests to him it should be so . . . .
# posted by : 2/13/2006 09:08:00 AM
: 2/13/2006 09:08:00 AM
His is a business of perceptions. Frankly I think they could call themselves the Carson Angels of San Antonio and nobody would care, so long as the team wins.
Arte's business intuition is probably pretty damn good. I'd go with it...
# posted by : 2/13/2006 10:28:00 AM
: 2/13/2006 10:28:00 AM
So, if Weaver signs does he knock Hector Carasco out of the rotation? Leaving LAA with
1. Colon
2. Lackey
3. Escobar
4. Weaver
5. E.Santana
???
vr, Xei
1. Colon
2. Lackey
3. Escobar
4. Weaver
5. E.Santana
???
vr, Xei
Xei -- yes, this is the assumed result. It's been fairly widely understood by everyone but Carrasco and his agent that the Angels pulled a bait-and-switch on him by enticing him with the prospect of a starting job in Anaheim.
... though I should add the starting rotation would look more like
1. Colon
2. Lackey
3. Escobar
4. Santana
5. One of Hector Carrasco, Jered Weaver, or Joe Saunders
1. Colon
2. Lackey
3. Escobar
4. Santana
5. One of Hector Carrasco, Jered Weaver, or Joe Saunders
Rob,
Apologies for the comment duplication. I got a little careless there...
Apologies for the comment duplication. I got a little careless there...
# posted by : 2/13/2006 04:13:00 PM
: 2/13/2006 04:13:00 PM
Does anyone know how much the Dodgers are being paid by K-CAL 9 for the over-the-air rights to Dodger games?
# posted by : 2/13/2006 06:30:00 PM
: 2/13/2006 06:30:00 PM
An educated guess that Arte will offer to waive his demand for Anaheim to cover his legal fees in exchange for them allowing him to drop "Anaheim" from the team name. It probably would have cost him a lot more than $7 million to get Anaheim to agree to that before the jury verdict.
# posted by : 2/13/2006 08:18:00 PM
: 2/13/2006 08:18:00 PM
Arte will try to cut a deal with the city to drop Anaheim from the name, but I don't think the city will agree. And anecdotal evidence suggests that most of the citizens of Anaheim would back the city's refusal to cut a deal. Heck, even Pringle's political opponents have stood behind him in his battle with the Angels.
# posted by : 2/13/2006 08:56:00 PM
: 2/13/2006 08:56:00 PM
Moreno's request for attorney's fees is not the most convincing.
Why not? The lease contains an attorneys' fee provision; therefore, as prevailing party, he is legally entitled to recover his (reasonable) attorneys' fees. It's just a question of how much he'll be awarded. Thus, any offer to waive fees is considerable.
Why not? The lease contains an attorneys' fee provision; therefore, as prevailing party, he is legally entitled to recover his (reasonable) attorneys' fees. It's just a question of how much he'll be awarded. Thus, any offer to waive fees is considerable.
# posted by : 2/13/2006 11:33:00 PM
: 2/13/2006 11:33:00 PM
Could it be that the lease doesn't contain an attorneys' fee provision? Just a thought . . . .
# posted by : 2/14/2006 05:31:00 PM
: 2/14/2006 05:31:00 PM
Well, if there's no fee clause, that's different. I had read that there was, and pretty much assumed that to be the case. I would expect to see a fees clause in a contract like that.
# posted by : 2/15/2006 12:03:00 AM
: 2/15/2006 12:03:00 AM
a tv network partnering the ducks and angels, then later an nba team to be determined would've netted the angels more than the $50M they'll make from this deal. the angels will feel screwed in year 5 of this contract if they sign it, hope they don't (or i hope they have an 'out'). the lakers will make $60M per on their next deal... btw, FSN takes in $120M a year in subscriber fees, and those will only increase, in the end it's fans that'll put the money in Arte's pocket.
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.