LabattBlue Posted January 5, 2012 Report Posted January 5, 2012 Kudos to Pegs, Ted and Co. for trying... http://sabres.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=609893&navid=DL|BUF|home
... Posted January 5, 2012 Report Posted January 5, 2012 If you go, try the 200 level food. Not bad for arena food. Which pleases me to say.
LTS Posted January 5, 2012 Report Posted January 5, 2012 That.. is.. brilliant. Free admission, free parking, and discounted food? Hell, if you did that for every away game I would drive from Rochester just to experience it.. AND I have DirecTV. Applause for management.
Two or less Posted January 5, 2012 Report Posted January 5, 2012 Kudos to Pegs, Ted and Co. for trying... http://sabres.nhl.co...vid=DL|BUF|home For sure props to them. According to a Rochester newscast, Sabres were trying to get MSG to waive internet rights. but MSG said no way. I guess Pegs and Black thought they could smooth talk MSG into allowing Sabres.com air games for free.
SportsFan88 Posted January 5, 2012 Report Posted January 5, 2012 Smooth talk a company into losing some dough? Nice attempt but that would never work. Hope ATDHE has the game, though I admit i've never checked to see if they have local blackouts because this problem has never existed before.
LTS Posted January 5, 2012 Report Posted January 5, 2012 Smooth talk a company into losing some dough? Nice attempt but that would never work. Hope ATDHE has the game, though I admit i've never checked to see if they have local blackouts because this problem has never existed before. MSG isn't losing anything by allowing it unless they did it themselves. Think about it.. the fans in the markets who have TWC who don't switch will no longer be counted for the purposes of setting advertising rates. MSG will not get ANY money from TWC right now in any market. That's a pretty big loss in terms of payments. The worst possible case for MSG is LESS viewers. Still, they hold to their guns. Now, MSG allows the video stream. Video streams count as viewers and you can count them for advertising. It's an improvement and it puts even more pressure on TWC because now people have yet ANOTHER way to view the games without having to pay TWC. If I could get Sabres over the Internet, live, in a decent quality stream, for $150 per year I would switch tomorrow from DirecTV. The only reason I even have it is for Sabres games live. I can use HuluPlus, Netflix, and Amazon for the rest of my content and spend far less than than I ever would for DirecTV or TWC in a year. MSG is not the loser... they are the winner. Until TWC implements the data usage caps in an effort to protect their dying cable business.
frissonic Posted January 5, 2012 Report Posted January 5, 2012 For sure props to them. According to a Rochester newscast, Sabres were trying to get MSG to waive internet rights. but MSG said no way. I guess Pegs and Black thought they could smooth talk MSG into allowing Sabres.com air games for free. if this isn't the catalyst to mr. pegula creating and funding a sabres-specific station, i don't know what will be. when MSG flat-out refuses to ackknowedge 1/3 of their hockey broadcasting potential, it's time to cut ties and take charge. i bet there's a sabres-based channel by the start of the 2012/2013 campaign.
shrader Posted January 5, 2012 Report Posted January 5, 2012 MSG isn't losing anything by allowing it unless they did it themselves. Think about it.. the fans in the markets who have TWC who don't switch will no longer be counted for the purposes of setting advertising rates. MSG will not get ANY money from TWC right now in any market. That's a pretty big loss in terms of payments. The worst possible case for MSG is LESS viewers. Still, they hold to their guns. Now, MSG allows the video stream. Video streams count as viewers and you can count them for advertising. It's an improvement and it puts even more pressure on TWC because now people have yet ANOTHER way to view the games without having to pay TWC. If I could get Sabres over the Internet, live, in a decent quality stream, for $150 per year I would switch tomorrow from DirecTV. The only reason I even have it is for Sabres games live. I can use HuluPlus, Netflix, and Amazon for the rest of my content and spend far less than than I ever would for DirecTV or TWC in a year. MSG is not the loser... they are the winner. Until TWC implements the data usage caps in an effort to protect their dying cable business. I would take it in the exact opposite direction. People wanting to watch games that MSG airs, whichever team it is, that is the only leverage MSG has right now. If there's an alternative for viewing, goodbye leverage and MSG quickly comes crawling back. People sign on for cable for many more reasons than just one sports station. There may be some who are there for the Sabres, but the vast majority are not. MSG is nothing more than a niche station.
LabattBlue Posted January 5, 2012 Author Report Posted January 5, 2012 if this isn't the catalyst to mr. pegula creating and funding a sabres-specific station, i don't know what will be. when MSG flat-out refuses to ackknowedge 1/3 of their hockey broadcasting potential, it's time to cut ties and take charge. i bet there's a sabres-based channel by the start of the 2012/2013 campaign. Ted Black insinuated on WGR this morning that starting a regional sports network that doesn't revolve around a MLB team would not be viable. I was flipping the station to WGR while this was being discussed, so if anyone else heard this, and I don't have it right, please correct me.
dEnnis the Menace Posted January 5, 2012 Report Posted January 5, 2012 Ted Black insinuated on WGR this morning that starting a regional sports network that doesn't revolve around a MLB team would not be viable. I was flipping the station to WGR while this was being discussed, so if anyone else heard this, and I don't have it right, please correct me. Next on Pegula's wish list: A MLB team for sale that he can move to Buffalo. With the new buyout, they can do renovations to the baseball park (don't know the name anymore, it's changed so many times in MY lifetime). ;)
ROC_exEMT Posted January 5, 2012 Report Posted January 5, 2012 Reading the article it says parking "in the arena parking ramp" is free. So if that fills up how do the lots around the arena work on non-game nights? Do you still have to pay to park in them or are they basically just empty and anyone can pull in and park for free? And I agree - Kudo's to the Sabres and Mr. Pegula for doing this ...
Sabel79 Posted January 5, 2012 Report Posted January 5, 2012 MSG isn't losing anything by allowing it unless they did it themselves. Think about it.. the fans in the markets who have TWC who don't switch will no longer be counted for the purposes of setting advertising rates. MSG will not get ANY money from TWC right now in any market. That's a pretty big loss in terms of payments. The worst possible case for MSG is LESS viewers. Still, they hold to their guns. Now, MSG allows the video stream. Video streams count as viewers and you can count them for advertising. It's an improvement and it puts even more pressure on TWC because now people have yet ANOTHER way to view the games without having to pay TWC. If I could get Sabres over the Internet, live, in a decent quality stream, for $150 per year I would switch tomorrow from DirecTV. The only reason I even have it is for Sabres games live. I can use HuluPlus, Netflix, and Amazon for the rest of my content and spend far less than than I ever would for DirecTV or TWC in a year. MSG is not the loser... they are the winner. Until TWC implements the data usage caps in an effort to protect their dying cable business. MSG is, however, still Satan's favorite media outlet. Except for all the other ones... This is what I do, though. Nexflix and Hulu+ for less than $20 per month, NHL Gamecenter, an a Roku player to put it on my TV in HD. The wife and I figured this out, saves us over $1000 per year. Of cousrse, I'm out of market, so I can (against my own better judgment) watch the Sabres live. It would suck to be back in WNY for that reason... I honesty can not figure out (and think we may hit the point where this happens) why teams don't sell some sort of virtual season ticket allowing you to pay them directly and get team content plus live game video? It would make a mint, for some teams, anyway...
LabattBlue Posted January 5, 2012 Author Report Posted January 5, 2012 Reading the article it says parking "in the arena parking ramp" is free. So if that fills up how do the lots around the arena work on non-game nights? Do you still have to pay to park in them or are they basically just empty and anyone can pull in and park for free? And I agree - Kudo's to the Sabres and Mr. Pegula for doing this ... I doubt they are going to fill the ramp up. If they do, I don't have the answer to your question. I am not sure if the lots to the south of the arena across from Morrissey's and the other bars, are controlled by the Sabres.
frissonic Posted January 5, 2012 Report Posted January 5, 2012 Ted Black insinuated on WGR this morning that starting a regional sports network that doesn't revolve around a MLB team would not be viable. I was flipping the station to WGR while this was being discussed, so if anyone else heard this, and I don't have it right, please correct me. it COULD be viable ... if enough is invested in it. i'm pretty sure celino and barnes, yancy's fancy, and veins veins veins et al would all be happy to advertise on a local channel just as easily as they do on MSG. yes, i'm aware that my ignorance in the broadcast market is glaringly obvious, but still ... a guy can dream, right?
LTS Posted January 5, 2012 Report Posted January 5, 2012 I would take it in the exact opposite direction. People wanting to watch games that MSG airs, whichever team it is, that is the only leverage MSG has right now. If there's an alternative for viewing, goodbye leverage and MSG quickly comes crawling back. People sign on for cable for many more reasons than just one sports station. There may be some who are there for the Sabres, but the vast majority are not. MSG is nothing more than a niche station. I think I understand where you are coming from. Your point is that if MSG opens up other alternatives then it loses it's bargaining power with TWC because in order to get the people who wouldn't switch TWC just because the Sabres are no longer on will still not count as revenue for them? The idea would be that if I had TWC, right now, and MSG had an Internet option (regardless of who carries it at this moment) to stream the games for let's say $50 a season, would enough people pay for it to make it worthwhile for MSG? It's a fair question. If people would pay to stream the game over the Internet then MSG would be less concerned with TWC as people would be paying for both. The question would be how many people would go that route. Let's say MSG starts a feed that is now available via Xbox360, Roku, TV Apps (Samsung, Vizio, others), Youtube, etc. Would that make the feed accessible enough on a TV to make TWC irrevelant in the conversation... MSG is, however, still Satan's favorite media outlet. Except for all the other ones... This is what I do, though. Nexflix and Hulu+ for less than $20 per month, NHL Gamecenter, an a Roku player to put it on my TV in HD. The wife and I figured this out, saves us over $1000 per year. Of cousrse, I'm out of market, so I can (against my own better judgment) watch the Sabres live. It would suck to be back in WNY for that reason... I honesty can not figure out (and think we may hit the point where this happens) why teams don't sell some sort of virtual season ticket allowing you to pay them directly and get team content plus live game video? It would make a mint, for some teams, anyway... You are in the ideal scenario for a fan right now.. you are NOT in the market. The only drawback for you is the difficulty in attending games at FNC. This is the basis of the argument I made to MSG, Sabres, and the NHL regarding GameCenter. The entire concept of blacking out GameCenter is predicated on the idea that I want to pay DirecTV or TWC or someone for the opportunity to watch the Sabres live. The rules state that if you are in the market your access to the live stream cannot happen and you should watch it on MSG. It's interesting because the MSG Internet stream is the same thing. It's available to people outside the market. So, I have DirecTV and I could get Sabres over the Internet. If both were available live I would choose DirecTV every day.. no problems. But what if I do NOT want to have DirecTV anymore because I essentially pay $100/month for the Sabres? Well, now my options are gone. So if I choose that the value is not there then MSG loses me as a viewer, period, end of story. The NHL loses any chance of making money from me on GameCenter and the Sabres now have a fan who becomes less interested in the games because I can't see them anymore. So, what they are in essence telling a cost conscious fan (as you indicated you save a ton of money) is that I should move OUT OF THE MARKET. The drawback is now that it becomes more difficult to remain a fan of the club. I don't get the radio shows, I don't easily see the merchandise on store shelves, and most importantly it's now far more difficult for me to get to a game. No one from any of the parties ever got back to me. I wrote the letter first when Golisano was in charge and last year I wrote it to Ted Black as one of the suggestions in his box as well as once again sending it to MSG, etc. No response. I haven't figured out what I could be missing in the business equation that makes showing MSG games live on GameCenter a bad thing for MSG, NHL, or the Sabres. It might be bad for TWC and DirecTV which could in turn lead to them dropping MSG from the lineup (oh wait...) but I will stand by my statement that DirecTV's future is short and TWC needs to change its business model because it won't be a cable provider much longer.
shrader Posted January 5, 2012 Report Posted January 5, 2012 I think I understand where you are coming from. Your point is that if MSG opens up other alternatives then it loses it's bargaining power with TWC because in order to get the people who wouldn't switch TWC just because the Sabres are no longer on will still not count as revenue for them? The idea would be that if I had TWC, right now, and MSG had an Internet option (regardless of who carries it at this moment) to stream the games for let's say $50 a season, would enough people pay for it to make it worthwhile for MSG? It's a fair question. If people would pay to stream the game over the Internet then MSG would be less concerned with TWC as people would be paying for both. The question would be how many people would go that route. Let's say MSG starts a feed that is now available via Xbox360, Roku, TV Apps (Samsung, Vizio, others), Youtube, etc. Would that make the feed accessible enough on a TV to make TWC irrevelant in the conversation... Ahhh, ok, I see where this is all coming from now. The original post about an internet broadcast had me thinking that it would be the Sabres who put it online, but you're saying MGH should make it available through them. That obviously changes things quite a bit.
Eleven Posted January 5, 2012 Report Posted January 5, 2012 Ted Black insinuated on WGR this morning that starting a regional sports network that doesn't revolve around a MLB team would not be viable. I was flipping the station to WGR while this was being discussed, so if anyone else heard this, and I don't have it right, please correct me. You have it right, as does Mr. Black. Most cities with baseball teams (I did say most; I don't want to hear about KC, thanks) have something else going on in the winter to hold down the rest of the calendar. But a city without a MLB team has absolutely nothing going on during the summer months. We've talked about it a few times on the board; a new "Empire" won't work, IMO, where all it has is hockey, some football talk (but no live games), and minor-level college sports, with four months of no live sports programming (in a GOOD year). And no, I don't think people will tune in to the Bisons at home.
Two or less Posted January 5, 2012 Report Posted January 5, 2012 No idea if it's even possible, but what is Buffalo's "baseball" territory? Could they get a team here for television? Someone other then the Mets and Yankees. Maybe the Toronto Blue Jays, who will be the parent team of the Bisons i believe after next season? I don't think Sabres would create their own channel. If anything, TWC will need to step up and put down a lot of cash and make TWCS a legit channel, by getting the Sabres, local western NY teams. but that's doubtful. As many have stated. The best realistic solution for the Sabres is to find an our with MSG, and partner up with Sportsnet New York. Comcast is big into sports right now, and are big believers in hockey. Sabres have great ratings, and SNY only airs the NY Mets as of right now.
SportsFan88 Posted January 5, 2012 Report Posted January 5, 2012 TWCS COULD be a possibility couldn't it? They show quite a few Mets games? But yes not having a sport in the summer makes it tough for this to work. Here is the problem with MSG. It's a NYC station that however you want to spin it did Upstaters a favor by putting in a feed for the Sabres. Because I highly doubt they are airing the Sabres games Downstate.
shrader Posted January 5, 2012 Report Posted January 5, 2012 No idea if it's even possible, but what is Buffalo's "baseball" territory? Could they get a team here for television? Someone other then the Mets and Yankees. Maybe the Toronto Blue Jays, who will be the parent team of the Bisons i believe after next season? I don't think Sabres would create their own channel. If anything, TWC will need to step up and put down a lot of cash and make TWCS a legit channel, by getting the Sabres, local western NY teams. but that's doubtful. As many have stated. The best realistic solution for the Sabres is to find an our with MSG, and partner up with Sportsnet New York. Comcast is big into sports right now, and are big believers in hockey. Sabres have great ratings, and SNY only airs the NY Mets as of right now. I would guess that the networks that already hold the broadcast rights for those teams wouldn't be all that happy about someone else having broadcast rights for their team. They'd probably be in for one hell of a payment. And also, you're looking at a very splintered market if you're going to a lesser followed team like that.
spndnchz Posted January 5, 2012 Report Posted January 5, 2012 I can say I'm liking my free NHL Network! :thumbsup:
LabattBlue Posted January 5, 2012 Author Report Posted January 5, 2012 I can say I'm liking my free NHL Network! :thumbsup: "NHL on the Fly" or whatever they call it, is really good when there are a lot of games that night!
SportsFan88 Posted January 5, 2012 Report Posted January 5, 2012 I can say I'm liking my free NHL Network! :thumbsup: Free? I already had it thanks to Digital Cable. They should have picked a channel I otherwise don't get. "NHL on the Fly" or whatever they call it, is really good when there are a lot of games that night! Right now they are calling it NHL Tonight, not sure if it's because of the WJC or Winter Classic or what but I agree. it used to be better when they used to do highlights with the audio instead of now where it seems like some games they decide to talk over the highlights instead of giving us the audio with.
Samson's Flow Posted January 5, 2012 Report Posted January 5, 2012 I can say I'm liking my free NHL Network! :thumbsup: Yeah get to watch some World juniors this afternoon and the NHL Tonight is nice to throw on when all there are on TWC is Glee reruns.
Eleven Posted January 5, 2012 Report Posted January 5, 2012 Free? I already had it thanks to Digital Cable. They should have picked a channel I otherwise don't get. You get NHLN if you buy a sports package on digital cable. I think it's like an extra $5. I like the soccer that comes with it, so I buy it, but many don't.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.