CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's "success"

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's "success"

Post by awesome guy »

HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote: Typical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do you enjoy playing the sidekick-with-a-speech-impairment role in every thread? It's really unbecoming.
What extra content is the NFL licensing, Cap’n? You’ve offered insults today, but hadn’t addressed that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
These NFL threads have been terrific!!

FWIW, the NFL is a legal monopoly. Of course, we all know its failing now that it's getting greater revenues. That's just how it works!
NFL is not a legal monopoly
They've had an antitrust exemption since the 1960s.
They're not a monopoly. That's the best your Google could produce. They're run as an antitrust org. Spin away.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's

Post by HokieFanDC »

awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote: What extra content is the NFL licensing, Cap’n? You’ve offered insults today, but hadn’t addressed that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
These NFL threads have been terrific!!

FWIW, the NFL is a legal monopoly. Of course, we all know its failing now that it's getting greater revenues. That's just how it works!
NFL is not a legal monopoly
They've had an antitrust exemption since the 1960s.
They're not a monopoly. That's the best your Google could produce. They're run as an antitrust org. Spin away.
I can give you lots more. Here's an article by a very trustworthy source.
This one's a tough call...who's right, awesomeguy or American Stinker?
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's "success"

Post by awesome guy »

HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote: What extra content is the NFL licensing, Cap’n? You’ve offered insults today, but hadn’t addressed that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
These NFL threads have been terrific!!

FWIW, the NFL is a legal monopoly. Of course, we all know its failing now that it's getting greater revenues. That's just how it works!
NFL is not a legal monopoly
They've had an antitrust exemption since the 1960s.
They're not a monopoly. That's the best your Google could produce. They're run as an antitrust org. Spin away.
I can give you lots more. Here's an article by a very trustworthy source.
This one's a tough call...who's right, awesomeguy or American Stinker?
No link rere. You're skipping over all the links saying you're an idiot.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's

Post by HokieFanDC »

awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: These NFL threads have been terrific!!

FWIW, the NFL is a legal monopoly. Of course, we all know its failing now that it's getting greater revenues. That's just how it works!
NFL is not a legal monopoly
They've had an antitrust exemption since the 1960s.
They're not a monopoly. That's the best your Google could produce. They're run as an antitrust org. Spin away.
I can give you lots more. Here's an article by a very trustworthy source.
This one's a tough call...who's right, awesomeguy or American Stinker?
No link rere. You're skipping over all the links saying you're an idiot.
Here you go. I've added a huffpo article to provide consensus between 2 of the least consensual sources.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... _fail.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wh ... 1162fc2f9c
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's "success"

Post by awesome guy »

HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:NFL is not a legal monopoly
They've had an antitrust exemption since the 1960s.
They're not a monopoly. That's the best your Google could produce. They're run as an antitrust org. Spin away.
I can give you lots more. Here's an article by a very trustworthy source.
This one's a tough call...who's right, awesomeguy or American Stinker?
No link rere. You're skipping over all the links saying you're an idiot.
Here you go. I've added a huffpo article to provide consensus between 2 of the least consensual sources.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... _fail.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wh ... 1162fc2f9c
And the plethora saying your FOS?
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's "success"

Post by ip_law-hokie »

awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: They've had an antitrust exemption since the 1960s.
They're not a monopoly. That's the best your Google could produce. They're run as an antitrust org. Spin away.
I can give you lots more. Here's an article by a very trustworthy source.
This one's a tough call...who's right, awesomeguy or American Stinker?
No link rere. You're skipping over all the links saying you're an idiot.
Here you go. I've added a huffpo article to provide consensus between 2 of the least consensual sources.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... _fail.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wh ... 1162fc2f9c
And the plethora saying your FOS?
I’m not an antitrust lawyer, but did crush the course in law school. I’m not an expert but can say that you guys are asking a very intricate legal question that would require a detailed analysis of caselaw interpreting the Sherman Act and other Federal laws. I would be hesitant to give an answer. It’s he sort of thing that would be debated in class.

You are also asking the question under a vacuum, when the analysis would generally require an understanding of who is suing who, and what action is being alleged to violate the Sherman Act.

But if what I’ve read on here is true and the NFL has an antitrust exemption like MLB, its an entirely academic question.

A good case to start with would be NCAA v. Oklahoma Board of Regents if you wanted to have a better pissing contest. You should also better frame the question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's

Post by HokieFanDC »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
I can give you lots more. Here's an article by a very trustworthy source.
This one's a tough call...who's right, awesomeguy or American Stinker?
No link rere. You're skipping over all the links saying you're an idiot.
Here you go. I've added a huffpo article to provide consensus between 2 of the least consensual sources.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... _fail.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wh ... 1162fc2f9c
And the plethora saying your FOS?
I’m not an antitrust lawyer, but did crush the course in law school. I’m not an expert but can say that you guys are asking a very intricate legal question that would require a detailed analysis of caselaw interpreting the Sherman Act and other Federal laws. I would be hesitant to give an answer. It’s he sort of thing that would be debated in class.

You are also asking the question under a vacuum, when the analysis would generally require an understanding of who is suing who, and what action is being alleged to violate the Sherman Act.

But if what I’ve read on here is true and the NFL has an antitrust exemption like MLB, its an entirely academic question.

A good case to start with would be NCAA v. Oklahoma Board of Regents if you wanted to have a better pissing contest. You should also better frame the question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Go to hell. The American Thinker says it's a legal monopoly, that's good enough for me!!

:mrgreen: :mrgreen:
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's

Post by USN_Hokie »

TheH2 wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
1. Go ahead and post the network contracts if you want to have a debate. Contracts get renegotiated all the time - if you think the networks are going to continue paying out the arse to broadcast a bunch of barely literate millionaires berate the country, think again.

2. WADR, you think like a poor person. If you provide good value to your company, they have better uses of your time than menial tasks.
If I think like a poor person, what do you think like? Next time you insult someone else's ability to think, make sure you're right. This is the perfect example of taking several different pieces of information, piecing it together, and coming to a logical conclusion. You continually show the inability to do that.

Please spare me the Krugman remark or The Economist remark or the live with my parents, or......
Image
You do think like a poor person. Back to counting beans now...

Oopsie....

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ight-games
If your thinking wasn't worse than a poor person you'd know that has 0 relevance.
USN_Hokie wrote:if you think the networks are going to continue paying out the arse to broadcast a bunch of barely literate millionaires berate the country, think again.
Nowhere did I or you claim it would be good value. I only claimed that they would. You claimed they wouldn't. It's sad that I don't even expect you to understand that you were wrong. That's exactly why you're a worthless poster and it is pointless to respond to you.
Go ahead and post the contract like I said. You're just talking out your arse until then, as always. You're not too good when your posts aren't plagiarizing economist articles you read in your boss's office while waiting for his hard drive to defrag.
Lol. I didn't see that coming,.... Hey dumbass just calculate the per game cost. Back out streaming cost for 2016. They paid more! Presumably you can subtract and divide? PEMDAS!
Regardless, even if it was in the ballpark you would have been. And since math is hard it comes down to to this. A network just paid "out the arse" for the NFL. You said they wouldn't.
LOL, apparently you guys didn't see it coming when I said it was more games. My point wasn't that the $ difference was accounted for by the extra game or the digital deal (which you or I have no idea of its value) - rather, that this is a complex contract which can't be judged on its value from a cocktail napkin analysis.

Again - post the contract smart-ass and give me an analysis. You don't think it's that simple do you?
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's "success"

Post by awesome guy »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:They're not a monopoly. That's the best your Google could produce. They're run as an antitrust org. Spin away.
I can give you lots more. Here's an article by a very trustworthy source.
This one's a tough call...who's right, awesomeguy or American Stinker?
No link rere. You're skipping over all the links saying you're an idiot.
Here you go. I've added a huffpo article to provide consensus between 2 of the least consensual sources.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... _fail.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wh ... 1162fc2f9c
And the plethora saying your FOS?
I’m not an antitrust lawyer, but did crush the course in law school. I’m not an expert but can say that you guys are asking a very intricate legal question that would require a detailed analysis of caselaw interpreting the Sherman Act and other Federal laws. I would be hesitant to give an answer. It’s he sort of thing that would be debated in class.

You are also asking the question under a vacuum, when the analysis would generally require an understanding of who is suing who, and what action is being alleged to violate the Sherman Act.

But if what I’ve read on here is true and the NFL has an antitrust exemption like MLB, its an entirely academic question.

A good case to start with would be NCAA v. Oklahoma Board of Regents if you wanted to have a better pissing contest. You should also better frame the question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Where did that come from? Surprisingly thoughtful post!
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's

Post by TheH2 »

USN_Hokie wrote: LOL, apparently you guys didn't see it coming when I said it was more games. My point wasn't that the $ difference was accounted for by the extra game or the digital deal (which you or I have no idea of its value) - rather, that this is a complex contract which can't be judged on its value from a cocktail napkin analysis.

Again - post the contract smart-ass and give me an analysis. You don't think it's that simple do you?
Did a network just pay "out the arse" to broadcast a bunch of ......."? Answer the question. Some dumbass poster (thought it was USN) made that exact statement. While being so sure networks wouldn't pay "out the arse" also said someone claiming otherwise thought like a poor person. Quit moving the goal posts. I don't care what the contract says. I don't care if they paid the same, or 1% less. The NFL revenue is continuing to rise. Networks are still paying "out the arse"? All of which you disagreed with.

Sadly, for some reason, I expect you to at least have enough intelligence to recognize that a network just paid "out the arse". If you can't recognize that, you think like dead person.
People who know, know.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's "success"

Post by ip_law-hokie »

TheH2 wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote: LOL, apparently you guys didn't see it coming when I said it was more games. My point wasn't that the $ difference was accounted for by the extra game or the digital deal (which you or I have no idea of its value) - rather, that this is a complex contract which can't be judged on its value from a cocktail napkin analysis.

Again - post the contract smart-ass and give me an analysis. You don't think it's that simple do you?
Did a network just pay "out the arse" to broadcast a bunch of ......."? Answer the question. Some dumbass poster (thought it was USN) made that exact statement. While being so sure networks wouldn't pay "out the arse" also said someone claiming otherwise thought like a poor person. Quit moving the goal posts. I don't care what the contract says. I don't care if they paid the same, or 1% less. The NFL revenue is continuing to rise. Networks are still paying "out the arse"? All of which you disagreed with.

Sadly, for some reason, I expect you to at least have enough intelligence to recognize that a network just paid "out the arse". If you can't recognize that, you think like dead person.
The personal insults along with the inability to admit when they’ve clearly been wrong about the thing for which they’ve previously insulted people, is a synergistic combination for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's

Post by TheH2 »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote: LOL, apparently you guys didn't see it coming when I said it was more games. My point wasn't that the $ difference was accounted for by the extra game or the digital deal (which you or I have no idea of its value) - rather, that this is a complex contract which can't be judged on its value from a cocktail napkin analysis.

Again - post the contract smart-ass and give me an analysis. You don't think it's that simple do you?
Did a network just pay "out the arse" to broadcast a bunch of ......."? Answer the question. Some dumbass poster (thought it was USN) made that exact statement. While being so sure networks wouldn't pay "out the arse" also said someone claiming otherwise thought like a poor person. Quit moving the goal posts. I don't care what the contract says. I don't care if they paid the same, or 1% less. The NFL revenue is continuing to rise. Networks are still paying "out the arse"? All of which you disagreed with.

Sadly, for some reason, I expect you to at least have enough intelligence to recognize that a network just paid "out the arse". If you can't recognize that, you think like dead person.
The personal insults along with the inability to admit when they’ve clearly been wrong about the thing for which they’ve previously insulted people, is a synergistic combination for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Exactly. There are plenty of examples enshrined in UWS of me being wrong. Everyone is wrong sometimes. It's the insults attacking someone who actually puts together a coherent argument. If I couldn't understand logical arguments I wouldn't insult people for it. I'm really not sure if he sees the irony in calling posters idiots, etc. for making arguments that are correct. That's the craziest part.
People who know, know.
Post Reply