New M's deal with FSN

by Jed MC on Nov 8, 2007 8:08 AM PST

I saw this article today. It basically says the M's have signed a new deal with FSN for 12 years / $400+ million. I know it is good for the M's and is larger than their previous contract. However, I don't really know how this deal compares to other clubs, how it will impact payroll, etc? I'd appreciate some feedback/thoughts from people more knowledgeable than I am.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/baseball/338798_maritv08.html

Update [2007-11-8 12:57:16 by Jed MC]: I did a little research and the prior deal was 10 years / $288 million for 2001 through 2010. I guess the new deal will replace the remaining years of the prior deal and the extend it. Hopefully they can use some of the extra money on payroll and not just fill their Scrooge McDuck-like money tower.

Tweet Comment 33 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Good news

Last I remember, the details were going to be 10Y/300M

by Matthew on Nov 8, 2007 8:45 AM PST reply actions

The other good news out of it...

is at least FSN NW is stepping up to the plate for the games. They are going to televise at least 150 games (basically saying we are only not going to televise the FOX and ESPN national broadcast games). Supposedly, no games will be farmed out to the local stations either.

That compares with the deal with FSN SW for the Rangers. The Rangers have ever game showed on FSN SW/local Fox/local "my" station unless picked up by FOX or ESPN. Houston doesn't quite have that big of a deal, since FSN SW and FSN Houston split games depending on who's playing.

by ppl4life on Nov 8, 2007 9:46 AM PST up reply actions

Now...

if Comcast will only add FSN HD...

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

by Phil Hatzenbuehler on Nov 8, 2007 9:48 AM PST reply actions

I think they have it.

Somewhere in the 400's? I canceled my digital cable, though, so I'm not positive.

Jose Vidro (DH - Ms) was arrested today in an Idaho Bathroom for having a wide stance and sucking.

by CapSea on Nov 8, 2007 10:02 AM PST up reply actions

I just cancelled as well

but have watched some games on the HD channel. It's definitely there... I think.

If a man who cannot count finds a four-leaf clover, is he lucky?

by Brick on Nov 8, 2007 10:30 AM PST up reply actions

ch. 788 on game days

at least in Portland.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Nov 8, 2007 11:04 AM PST up reply actions

ch. 664

in seattle/tacoma on comcast. Mojo is the channel, and they carry alot of FOX sports HD coverage.

by marinerschas2 on Nov 8, 2007 11:24 AM PST up reply actions

Do the M's have the pull

to create their own network, a la YES or NESN? It's obviously not as big a market as New York or Boston, but would be smarter/more profitable for the M's to do it on their own?

by Teej on Nov 8, 2007 10:09 AM PST reply actions

I doubt it, but that's just my opinion.

I'm never blocking a fire exit.

by Thingray on Nov 8, 2007 10:55 AM PST up reply actions

I doubt it too

especially with the Sonics leaving town, thus ruling out a joint effort like YES with the Nets. There's not enough interest in Mariner history, and there's not enough Mariner history, to program a Mariner channel year-round.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Nov 8, 2007 11:25 AM PST up reply actions

This week in Marinerography:

John Cummings!!

by Matthew on Nov 8, 2007 11:31 AM PST up reply actions

W00t!

Finally! Something different than the Josias Manzanillo Infomercials!

"I restore a sense of childlike wonder to people's lives; you give them Zunes and Vista." -- Fake Steve Jobs to Borg employees

by PositivePaul on Nov 8, 2007 11:36 AM PST up reply actions

Damn,

I didn't know that YES also covers the Nets. That makes a lot more sense.

by Teej on Nov 8, 2007 11:31 AM PST up reply actions

NESN also covers the Bruins

there's almost no way a sports channel can survive on just one sport. They have to have year-round content, and not just reruns of old games and documentaries about Ken Griffey Jr.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Nov 8, 2007 11:33 AM PST up reply actions

Sonics Superchannel, anyone?

The daytime programming was essentially repeats of the last game and an aerobics show with the Seagals.

by G_ on Nov 8, 2007 11:36 AM PST up reply actions

people watch the Bruins?

by Matthew on Nov 8, 2007 11:48 AM PST up reply actions

They need a good laugh?

by ningwers on Nov 8, 2007 12:15 PM PST up reply actions

People watch hockey?

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Nov 8, 2007 12:38 PM PST up reply actions

Whats hockey?

faster version of soccer?

I fucking hate you Mariners

by kentroyals5 on Nov 8, 2007 1:33 PM PST up reply actions

Colder too.

I over value prospects

by Thingray on Nov 8, 2007 1:33 PM PST up reply actions

You're all just jealous... and stuff

Sorry after the game tonight, my heart's just not in it.

by ningwers on Nov 8, 2007 8:49 PM PST up reply actions

Paul Allen - Vulcan Enterprises

Paul Allen tried to jump start his own network with the Blazers and a NHL team, but that all fell through.

However, Comcast has it's own sports network now.

Go Fo Broke!

by eknpdx on Nov 8, 2007 11:43 AM PST up reply actions

Isn't FSN essentially the same idea

as YES and NESN?

I'm never blocking a fire exit.

by Thingray on Nov 8, 2007 11:46 AM PST up reply actions

FSN is owned by Fox

YES is owned by the Yankees, NESN is owned by the teams it televises.

But yeah, they're regional TV stations

Washington Highways

by Corco on Nov 8, 2007 12:00 PM PST up reply actions

That was my point.

I don't think the ownership really matters, other than for cashflow.

The Yankees make money from YES which helps to fund the team, just like our ownership makes money from other business ventures to help fund the team.

Any additonal revenue stream is nice, but it doesn't have to come from owning their own network.

I over value prospects

by Thingray on Nov 8, 2007 12:13 PM PST up reply actions

Team-owned networks help shield money

from revenue sharing.

by G_ on Nov 8, 2007 12:17 PM PST up reply actions

FSN is not owned by Fox

it was transferred to Liberty Media in an asset sale as part of Liberty's purchase of Direct TV. Liberty Media also owns the Atlanta Braves.

by MfaninAlaska on Nov 8, 2007 3:43 PM PST up reply actions

CAPTAIN PLANET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I over value prospects

by Thingray on Nov 8, 2007 3:44 PM PST up reply actions

Is that true?

Because if so, that just made my day.

Jose Vidro (DH - Ms) was arrested today in an Idaho Bathroom for having a wide stance and sucking.

by CapSea on Nov 8, 2007 4:38 PM PST up reply actions

Yes its 100% true

I used to work for the local FOX station, and I had a freind that worked for FSN and was laid off after the sale/transfer because of restructuring the organization.

now FSN still has some ties with Fox Broadcasting as Liberty is a large shareholder in Fox Broadcasting, but Fox as a parent company doesn't own FSN.

by MfaninAlaska on Nov 9, 2007 2:30 PM PST up reply actions