They're not a monopoly. That's the best your Google could produce. They're run as an antitrust org. Spin away.HokieFanDC wrote:They've had an antitrust exemption since the 1960s.awesome guy wrote:NFL is not a legal monopolyHokieFanDC wrote:These NFL threads have been terrific!!ip_law-hokie wrote:What extra content is the NFL licensing, Cap’n? You’ve offered insults today, but hadn’t addressed that.USN_Hokie wrote:Do you enjoy playing the sidekick-with-a-speech-impairment role in every thread? It's really unbecoming.ip_law-hokie wrote: Typical.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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!
CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's "success"
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
- 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"
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
-
- Posts: 18547
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm
Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's
I can give you lots more. Here's an article by a very trustworthy source.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.HokieFanDC wrote:They've had an antitrust exemption since the 1960s.awesome guy wrote:NFL is not a legal monopolyHokieFanDC wrote:These NFL threads have been terrific!!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
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!
This one's a tough call...who's right, awesomeguy or American Stinker?
- 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"
No link rere. You're skipping over all the links saying you're an idiot.HokieFanDC wrote:I can give you lots more. Here's an article by a very trustworthy source.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.HokieFanDC wrote:They've had an antitrust exemption since the 1960s.awesome guy wrote:NFL is not a legal monopolyHokieFanDC wrote:These NFL threads have been terrific!!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
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!
This one's a tough call...who's right, awesomeguy or American Stinker?
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
-
- Posts: 18547
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm
Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's
Here you go. I've added a huffpo article to provide consensus between 2 of the least consensual sources.awesome guy wrote:No link rere. You're skipping over all the links saying you're an idiot.HokieFanDC wrote:I can give you lots more. Here's an article by a very trustworthy source.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.HokieFanDC wrote:They've had an antitrust exemption since the 1960s.awesome guy wrote:NFL is not a legal monopolyHokieFanDC 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!
This one's a tough call...who's right, awesomeguy or American Stinker?
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... _fail.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wh ... 1162fc2f9c
- 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"
And the plethora saying your FOS?HokieFanDC wrote:Here you go. I've added a huffpo article to provide consensus between 2 of the least consensual sources.awesome guy wrote:No link rere. You're skipping over all the links saying you're an idiot.HokieFanDC wrote:I can give you lots more. Here's an article by a very trustworthy source.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.HokieFanDC wrote:They've had an antitrust exemption since the 1960s.awesome guy wrote:NFL is not a legal monopoly
This one's a tough call...who's right, awesomeguy or American Stinker?
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... _fail.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wh ... 1162fc2f9c
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
- 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"
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.awesome guy wrote:And the plethora saying your FOS?HokieFanDC wrote:Here you go. I've added a huffpo article to provide consensus between 2 of the least consensual sources.awesome guy wrote:No link rere. You're skipping over all the links saying you're an idiot.HokieFanDC wrote:I can give you lots more. Here's an article by a very trustworthy source.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.HokieFanDC wrote: They've had an antitrust exemption since the 1960s.
This one's a tough call...who's right, awesomeguy or American Stinker?
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... _fail.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wh ... 1162fc2f9c
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.
-
- Posts: 18547
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm
Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's
Go to hell. The American Thinker says it's a legal monopoly, that's good enough for me!!ip_law-hokie wrote: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.awesome guy wrote:And the plethora saying your FOS?HokieFanDC wrote:Here you go. I've added a huffpo article to provide consensus between 2 of the least consensual sources.awesome guy wrote:No link rere. You're skipping over all the links saying you're an idiot.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?
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... _fail.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wh ... 1162fc2f9c
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
Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's
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.TheH2 wrote: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!USN_Hokie wrote: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.TheH2 wrote:If your thinking wasn't worse than a poor person you'd know that has 0 relevance.USN_Hokie wrote:You do think like a poor person. Back to counting beans now...TheH2 wrote: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.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.
Please spare me the Krugman remark or The Economist remark or the live with my parents, or......
Oopsie....
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ight-games
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.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.
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.
Again - post the contract smart-ass and give me an analysis. You don't think it's that simple do you?
- 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"
Where did that come from? Surprisingly thoughtful post!ip_law-hokie wrote: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.awesome guy wrote:And the plethora saying your FOS?HokieFanDC wrote:Here you go. I've added a huffpo article to provide consensus between 2 of the least consensual sources.awesome guy wrote:No link rere. You're skipping over all the links saying you're an idiot.HokieFanDC wrote:I can give you lots more. Here's an article by a very trustworthy source.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.
This one's a tough call...who's right, awesomeguy or American Stinker?
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... _fail.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wh ... 1162fc2f9c
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
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's
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.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?
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.
- 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"
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.TheH2 wrote: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.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?
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.
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.
Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's
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.ip_law-hokie wrote: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.TheH2 wrote: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.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?
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.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
People who know, know.