Started By
Message
2
Posted on 5/11/15 at 7:04 pm to EKG
quote:
hey're grateful ... even if they won't admit it.
I'll admit it.
A&M was a HUGE piece of the deal and I am thrilled with the results.
welcome...and, Thank You
Posted on 5/11/15 at 7:08 pm to Arksulli
Clay's math is fricking retarded.
$16.80 per subscriber? They don't pay that much. They don't even pay close to that much.
HBO costs less than that typically.
$16.80 per subscriber? They don't pay that much. They don't even pay close to that much.
HBO costs less than that typically.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 7:08 pm to roadGator
quote:
Give yourselves some cookies.
I prefer to drink my calories ... usually via scotch.
And thanks--I will.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 7:09 pm to EKG
What kind of scotch?
Posted on 5/11/15 at 7:12 pm to Prof
quote:
conference watched several others succeed and fail while waiting for our own tv contracts to expire
And that is where you fail- the contract wasn't expired. It ran almost another decade, it was re-upped in 2009.
Without us to force a look-in on the contract there is no SEC Network and the conference is locked in a terrible media deal. Based on the 2009 deal the SEC was the worst paid Power 5 conference until like 2025.
Without us, there is no SEC Network. Period.
You are welcome.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 7:14 pm to Killean
quote:
$16.80 per subscriber? They don't pay that much.
Per year, smart guy.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 7:16 pm to roadGator
Just about any (non-overly peaty) single malt.
Aberlour a'Bunadh is my favorite.
Aberlour a'Bunadh is my favorite.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 7:16 pm to bah7tea
I don't understand this thinking. Is the SEC Network only carried in SEC states?
Posted on 5/11/15 at 7:17 pm to tylerdurden24
quote:
fat UGA wallet... improving facilities"
You're adorable
Posted on 5/11/15 at 7:18 pm to Motengator
The SEC was really struggling without A&M and Missouri. Now we're winning football title after title.
But seriously, from a financial standpoint, Missouri and A&M are welcomed additions.
But seriously, from a financial standpoint, Missouri and A&M are welcomed additions.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 7:19 pm to Killean
quote:
Clay's math is fricking retarded.
$16.80 per subscriber? They don't pay that much. They don't even pay close to that much.
HBO costs less than that typically.
Annual number. Not a monthly number. So almost a buck fifty a month.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 7:21 pm to wmr
quote:
I don't understand this thinking. Is the SEC Network only carried in SEC states?
No, but non-SEC states pay a fraction of that amount per subscriber. The business model is based on footprint.
That is why little A&M can carry all of Texas.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 7:22 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
Without us, there is no SEC Network. Period.
Not only would we have renegotiated the Network would have existed with or without you. Hell, if your argument was that we needed an expanded footprint (which we didn't) we could've picked Baylor, TCU, etc. or gotten into North Carolina, Virginia, and the DC area among other regions.
Again, you helped make the launch more profitable and expanded the launch but don't act like you're Texas and this is the LHN. The world doesn't revolve around you.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 7:28 pm to Prof
quote:
Not only would we have renegotiated the Network would have existed with or without you.
If you mean you could have expanded with someone else, sure. Any expansion triggers a look in. But that was needed, no way ESPN redoes a great deal for them with a decade left on it for the frick of it.
But a TCU or a Baylor wouldn't have gotten full rates in Texas. You needed a major fan base to force the hands of cable providers in the state to carry it year one.
I do 100% agree it doesn't revolve around us. This is the SEC brand you built monetized through our population. It is what you call a good partnership and both needs the other.
We certainly contributed enough for me to talk shite about it to fellow Texans though. I hope you will at least see reason to grant us that much.
This post was edited on 5/11/15 at 7:29 pm
Posted on 5/11/15 at 7:29 pm to wmr
quote:
I don't understand this thinking. Is the SEC Network only carried in SEC states?
The SEC Network is carried nation wide, but there's a price difference between in-SEC footprint and out-of-SEC footprint. The prices are something like $1.40/month for in-SEC and $0.25/month for out-of-SEC.
By adding TAMU and Mizzou, ESPN and the SEC get to charge in-SEC footprint prices all over Texas and Missouri. Considering there are 33 million people (maybe like 11 million cable subscribers) in Texas and Missouri, the SEC is making a shite ton of money off of the SEC Network and the SEC's additions of TAMU and Mizzou.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 7:31 pm to Motengator
Ughhhhh
Posted on 5/11/15 at 7:56 pm to Motengator
Meh.
We could easily say that A&M and Mizzou would have had no place to deliver all those TVs without the strongest conference brand.
Thanks to the SEC for kicking arse before we got here.
We could easily say that A&M and Mizzou would have had no place to deliver all those TVs without the strongest conference brand.
Thanks to the SEC for kicking arse before we got here.
This post was edited on 5/11/15 at 7:58 pm
Posted on 5/11/15 at 8:09 pm to KaiserSoze99
Exactly. It was a perfect match.
Or as you would say we wiped our assholistic half hard penis on his sweaty temple bone and then asked the big cow where he wanted us to stick it next.
Or whatever, my Kaiser-ese might be a little off.
Or as you would say we wiped our assholistic half hard penis on his sweaty temple bone and then asked the big cow where he wanted us to stick it next.
Or whatever, my Kaiser-ese might be a little off.
Posted on 5/11/15 at 8:28 pm to Motengator
quote:
It was the eight million cable and satellite subscribers in Texas that wanted to see somebody other than aTm and the Horns that made the SEC Network financially viable...FIFY
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News