It's like you are brain dead. One must assume you are joking.
I'll address your last misguided statements right off the bat. I am not the one dodging here. YOU are making the claim that: ESPN BOUGHT THE RIGHTS TO AVAILABLE ACC INVENTORY AND THEY WILL PAY THE ACC AGAIN FOR THIS SAME INVENTORY FOR NOTHING IN EXCHANGE.
You are twisting as usual what I've said. I did not say if ESPN owns the rights the ACC won't get paid- I said ESPN is not going to pay to buy back the rights from Raycom and then turn around and give any of that money to the ACC. What ESPN is going to do is either have the ACC pay them directly to buy back those rights, or they will " finance, the ACC by giving them a Smaller percentage of ACC network profits until all expenses are paid off- exactly as the SEC deal or PAC deal is done.
Of course ESPN will own the rights. Of course subscription fees will account for some of the revenues to ESPN. but that's it- those revenues are ESPNs for rights they already control. Not the ACCs for NOTHING. ESPN already paid the ACC for the rights to a certain number of games from the ACC inventory- everything the ACC had at that time basically. They don't owe the ACC subscription fees for inventory they own outright. In order for the ACC to derive revenue from those subscription fees they must PAY ESPN to get back the inventory with Raycom and add some inventory - such as via playing a 9 game schedule. Then give that inventory to ESPN which will in turn give the ACC subscription fees from profits for this new inventory.
Another previous misstatement by you- that if the ACC moves to 9 conference games, this doesn't add to the inventory. YES IT DOES. 9 conference games adds 7 games to the inventory available to ESPN-- inventory that did not exist when ESPn signed a deal with the ACC. ITs completely new inventory that is not currently contracted because it doesn't exist- they play only 8 conference games.
To the SEC. I never said anything about the SEC getting more inventory than the ACC has via expansion. More lies and distortion. I said that in order to have enough inventory for their new network the SEC added up to 24 games per year by expanding and then bought back tier 3 rights, rolled those rights over to ESPN. Any rights ESpn acquired back themselves to add to the necessary inventory, the SEC pays back to ESPN via a lower payout for the SECn for a time until expenses are paid back to ESPN.
As ESPn already owned the ACCs entire rights and the conference isn't expanding, something has to be moved from somewhere else where it's already making money to put on a digital network and to put on the later ACCn. or new inventory must be found ( 9 game schedule).
So to wrap it up. ESPn will own all ACC rights and inventory which those rights are based on. ESPN will create an ACC channel. The rights from Raycom will be acquired back- and ESPN will be compensated by the ACC for the reacquisition of those rights ( via pre paying or via gradual payback from their profits from the ACCN). The network will be funded via subscription fees and from that and advertising ESPN will earn money. After expenses paid, the ACC will get a share- but not a full share-- until they've paid ESPN back unless they paid ESPN upfront for rights reacquisition.
This is not anything like what you have been saying before. This is you backtracking. You said before that the ACC had to own rights to get paid. Now you are saying that ESPN will own all the rights (which is what I've been saying all along), and ESPN will buy back the Raycom rights (what I've said all along). That's not what you were saying before this announcement.
Going to a 9 game schedule doesn't add more inventory. It reduces it. As of now, the ACC plays a total of 112 football games. With a 9 game schedule, that gets reduced to a total of 105 football games.
Here are plenty of quotes that prove you are backtracking on the issue of the rights.
ESPN would not simply be shifting their content from one channel to another. They own all ACC rights now. With an ACC network the ACC would have something like a 50% ownership like the Big Ten does probably. So yes, ESPN would be paying more to the ACC for the same rights they already own. If they didn't pay more for those rights but just put them on a different platform--what is the benefit to ESPN OR the ACC? There's no point in your mistaken "model". It doesn't work that way and neither side would benefit from that. The entire purpose for a network is to put inventory that isn't currently monetized on a new platform for both parties to make money. It isn't the same as putting the game on ESPN and shifting it to ESPN2 or ESPNU. ESPN already makes money on the ACC games they own, they aren't putting those on an ACC network and then paying extra money to the ACC for them--it would have to be the inventory from Raycom and FOX and they've said so.
If ESPN gets all the subscription fees now for the rights they own, why are they going to move those rights for free to another platform where they would have to pay the ACC MORE for rights ESPN already owns? They will not.
Here is what you are purporting---
I. ESPN bought ACC rights
II. ESPN puts ACC content on ESPN channels and derives revenues from those rights
III. ESPN removes some content from ESPN channels to put on new ACC network
IV. ESPN pays ACC again for rights they already paid for in step one
This is NOT going to happen ever. If ESPN makes additional money from such an ACC network, they'll keep all that money--they own ALL the rights and don't owe the ACC anything from further selling that content.
Your lack of understanding is the problem. AGAIN
I. ESPN bought ACC rights-meaning they own all rights--paid for
II. ESPN monetizes those rights by putting ACC content-all of that which they own on ESPN platforms
If they then create a new platform ESPN gets that money and has 0 incentive to give any of that revenue to the ACC.
Why? BECAUSE THEY ALREADY PAID THE ACC FOR IT ONCE--again they aren't paying the ACC twice for the same product.
Again--do you not comprehend that ESPN OWNS ALL ACC RIGHTS. They've bought them lock stock and barrel through 2027. Therefore ESPN can do whatever they choose to do with those rights. ESPN isn't going to create an ACC network with the product they already own. Because that would mean paying the ACC twice for the same product they already paid for AS WELL AS removing some of that inventory from their existing platforms in addition to other startup costs. ESPN isn't going to create an ACC network with that inventory so there's no reason to compensate the ACC for the use of a name for an ACC network. If the ACC doesn't provide the necessary inventory via buying back the material that Raycom and FOX now have rights to, then an ACC network will not happen.
You've completely twisted what you said before--obviously now you understand that ESPN won't pay the ACC twice for content they own and the ACC must get content back in order to start a network. What you don't understand STILL is that the ACC is going to have to purchase those rights, or at least a portion from ESPN in order to get a network going or the ACC won't get any money at all from ESPN from that content. ESPN already paid for it once and have or are getting money from Raycom (who gets money from FOX) for that inventory. In order for the ACC to get money from it they will have to OWN it and resell it.
You are attempting to twist words to make a bogus argument. Without the rights to content the ACC has nothing to sell for "subscription fees". What part of this do you not understand?
right now the ACC has this to put on an ACC network-----------------------------.
That means they must either expand (not really an option because it will reduce shares to member schools from tv contracts) or BUY BACK RIGHTS TO GAMES. If they buy back rights, they can then sell these back to ESPN for VOILA! Subscription fees from ESPN. As anyone can see--it will take quite awhile to buy back rights and sell them back and make money off of them. If ESPN buys them back then they owe nothing to the ACC and can do with them what they want--they are the rights owner.
So that means ESPN owns those rights still and sublicences those rights. If Raycom gets back the FOX games and ESPN attains those rights back from Raycom--WHO owns those rights still? ESPN. Not the ACC.
In order for the ACC to get money from those GAMES/CONTENT/RIGHTS--however or whatever you want to call them. The ACC will have to buy back those rights.
ESPN owns all of the ACCs content. All of it. Bought the rights--sublicensed some. If they get the sublicensed back, they aren't paying the ACC a dime for those rights. They can do whatever they want with those rights. If they want to put them on tv somewhere they can create a channel and put them on tv, or the internet or whereever. it doesn't need to be called "ACC" anything. It could be ESPN OCHO. but it doesn't matter because ESPN makes money through sublicensing that content and has no reason to buy it back. The ACC must have it to have an ACC network or buy back some of the rights they sold to ESPN in the first place.
What are the subscription fees for then? Out of the kindness of ESPNs heart donations to the ACC?
The games are CONTENT as I said. Something has to be on an ACC channel. If the conference and ESPN create an ACC channel, the ACC will give or sell the content they've bought back back to ESPN and then ESPN will give them money to put those on a channel. I don't care how you try to spin it or what specific wording is used to describe it--that is what will happen. It isn't going to be ESPN giving the ACC money for NOTHING as you seem to think. Stop spinning.
and that is about as clearly as it can be made to you. If you can't understand that then you may need some special counseling or something. That is the way it will work for the ACC or anyone. ESPN is NOT going to reacquire the rights and give the ACC money for product ESPN owns and they aren't going to create an ACC network and give the ACC money unless the ACC buys back rights and provides the inventory for such a channel.
The SEC is paid from the PROFITS ESPN gets from rights fees and advertising for the SEC network.
You don't need to worry about ESPN creating an ACC network--they have no intention of doing what you claim they can't do. The only shot the ACC has at getting a network is if the ACC--not ESPN--buys back the rights and as I've said numerous times now, transfers those rights back to ESPN in some manner.
There's no evidence to support the ACC has $45 million coming if they don't get a network. It makes no sense on its face. If that is the case why isn't the BIG 12 getting $45 million for not getting a network? Why didn't the Pac 12 get $45 million for having to pay for their own network? ESPN didn't write a contract that says to the ACC "we guarantee that you get a network or $45 million"--they bought all of the ACCs rights period. They owe nothing to the ACC except the monetary compensation for the rights.
ESPN owns the rights to the content they've bought from the ACC. They aren't paying twice for the same product and they aren't paying a third time for it to pay the ACC after they've bought it back from Raycom either. The SEC bought back tier 3 rights and added schools in order to have content for a channel. The ACC isn't expanding--and the rights they need have been sublicensed to FOX and Raycom. If ESPN buys them back the ACC isn't owed anything.
So, let me sum this up in a few points.
-You said the entire purpose of a network is to televise inventory that isn't already being monetized. Well, all the ACC's inventory is currently monetized. Even the Raycom games are monetized. So, ESPN is doing exactly what you said they wouldn't do. They are moving rights that the already monetized to the ACC network.
-Your basic premise has been this: "
If the conference and ESPN create an ACC channel, the ACC will give or sell the content they've bought back back to ESPN and then ESPN will give them money to put those on a channel." And this
: "If they buy back rights, they can then sell these back to ESPN for VOILA! Subscription fees from ESPN." Ok, so here is what you have been saying:
1. ESPN repurchases the rights from Raycom
2. ESPN sells those rights back to the ACC.
3. The ACC sells those rights back to ESPN.
Well, that makes no sense. It is redundant for ESPN to sell the rights to the ACC, and then have the ACC turn around and sell the rights to them. ESPN had the rights back as soon as they bought them from Raycom. So, the next two steps are redundant. The money ESPN gets from selling those rights to the ACC, they turn right around and give it back when they buy those rights from the ACC, according to your theory. Not only is that nonsense, it contradicts what you are saying now. Now, you are claiming that ESPN (not the ACC) will buy back the Raycom rights, and they will just take that expense off the top of the ACC's payout from the network. You are correct that this is how it is going to work, but that's not what you were saying before, and the quotes I've posted here prove it.
-You have been making a big issue about ESPN "paying twice" for rights. Well, here's something you haven't figured out. ESPN
already is paying twice for the rights. ESPN is
already paying the ACC for the Raycom games. ESPN bought those games from the ACC back in 2010, when the original contract was signed. So, the ACC has been (and will be) getting paid every year for those rights. ESPN resold those rights to Raycom, and the ACC didn't get that money, but the ACC is still getting paid by ESPN for the rights to those games via the TV contract.
Now, ESPN has repurchased the rights from Raycom. Let's say Raycom was paying ESPN $50 million a year for those rights (just to make up a number). Now, as you said, ESPN will take that expense off the top of what it pays the ACC from the network. However, that's just cancelling out the buyback cost from Raycom. That's still not accounting for what the ACC gets paid for those rights in the broadcast contract. Here's the key, after that expense is paid off, it will no longer be taken off the top, and the ACC will start getting their full share from the network. Ok, so for the Raycom games, the ACC will be getting paid from the network AND getting paid from the broadcast contract. According to you, that's being paid twice. However, as I said, that's not being paid twice, because the subscription fees are not the same as rights fees.
-Before you argue with this, you have to consider this fact. The ACC network is going to show more than just games that were on Raycom. It will also be showing games ESPN was already televising on its platforms. Now, ESPN is already paying the ACC for rights to those games. When they get shifted over to the network, according to you, ESPN is paying the ACC twice for those games. Under your theory, the only solution is either for the ACC to buy back those games also, or for ESPN to take a cut out of the network payouts, like with the Raycom games. Problem is, there is no time limit for that, so according to your theory, ESPN would never pay the ACC that percentage of the subscription feel. Well, that doesn't even happen with the SEC, so it's plainly not going to happen with the ACC either. It all comes back to the point I've been making all along. Subscription fees and rights fees are not the same thing. Paying the ACC subscription fees from the network is not paying twice for content.
