Started By
Message

re: SEC Network has no peer

Posted on 5/5/17 at 10:37 pm to
Posted by FishFearMe
United States
Member since Jul 2015
7196 posts
Posted on 5/5/17 at 10:37 pm to
Believe we could be making twice as much money if we hadn't "partnered" with ESPN.
Posted by scrooster
Resident Ethicist
Member since Jul 2012
37971 posts
Posted on 5/6/17 at 12:03 am to
quote:

Believe we could be making twice as much money if we hadn't "partnered" with ESPN.


That's both true and not true.

Initially we needed the partnership in order to learn the ropes.

By the time this current contract runs its course we will, if we are so inclined, have the money banked to launch our own independent network and we will have the knowledge and the resume, along with the financials, to go to the bank for any start-up costs and operating expenses.

$69.95 a year or $9.95 a month per subscriber is a lot more than we are being paid now ... but the mess with current conventional providers in addition to our footprint upgrading it's pipe to above 30 mps average download speed, require that we have patience, that we stay the course and that we keep our word and continue to grow as a network during the entire course of this current contract.

Right now we are ESPN'S cash cow and we need to continue to be.

But I agree we're worth twice as much as they are claiming in the article ... ESPN is actually holding us back.
Posted by cardboardboxer
Member since Apr 2012
34353 posts
Posted on 5/6/17 at 10:24 am to
quote:

Believe we could be making twice as much money if we hadn't "partnered" with ESPN.


False. We needed ESPN to cut the deals with tv providers.

The PAC 12 thought like you did and those schools get one seventh what SEC teams get from the SECN.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter