BTN with Rutgers & Maryland
- Thread starter THERAC
- Start date
Always wondered why nobody really spoke about the advertising revenue and only the cable aspect. When the Big Ten Network first started there were feed and grain commercials.
Great article.
Also make sure to read this one as well:
Go East, Young Man: Expansion Lifts All Boats at Big Ten Network
Addition of Rutgers, Maryland Helps Grow Affiliate, Ad Sales Revenue
http://adage.com/article/media/east-young-man-expansion-a-boon-big-ten-network/300748/
Also make sure to read this one as well:
Go East, Young Man: Expansion Lifts All Boats at Big Ten Network
Addition of Rutgers, Maryland Helps Grow Affiliate, Ad Sales Revenue
http://adage.com/article/media/east-young-man-expansion-a-boon-big-ten-network/300748/
Why can't the B1G give us some additional payout? We need dollars now not 7 years down the road. Wish we could front end load our B1G payouts somehow. This is the story the general public does not get. how our B1G brothers are 100% funded while we are 25%
Last edited:
Nice uniforms in the picture that goes with this article, too. I can read the numbers!
This article has a number that readily shows our value to the B1G: it claims that Cablevision alone is paying $17.8 million more per year to carry the BTN in the NY/NJ/southern CT area.
Delaney is a shrewd business man. He got the extra revenue for free for 5 years. Too bad we had zero leverage to get equal money right away. Delaney will be getting a nice bonus this year. Where is the countdown clock? What are we at 3.5 years left?
nj.com and app running this story on the front page of the sports page?
Here is the kicker we RU/UMD over doubled their TV revenue.
" According to SNL Kagan data, cable operators pay an estimated "in-market" rate of $1 per sub per month, more than double the $0.44 fees charged outside the conference's home markets. Cablevision alone serves 2.64 million video customers in New York, New Jersey and southwestern Connecticut; with the upgraded fee in place, BTN sees its annual payout from the operator rise to around $31.7 million from $13.9 million."
You would think we could get a bigger cut earlier then the original dates issued considering how much more money we are bring in in fees and quality advertisers.
One correction. There isn't a lot of advertising revenue. If you read the companion article, it says the ad fees are less than $4,000 a pop. That's why the subscription fees are so important, because there isn't all that much ad revenue.
Do the math that is (20 minutes/hour)= 40 30sec spots at 4K a shot
That is $160,000/hour. or 3.8Million a day Yes that is an extremely high number as off hours do not generate that type of revenue. so take 1/2 or 1/4 It is still about 1 million a day. It does add up but yes subscription $ is the best by going up to $1.00/month
That is $160,000/hour. or 3.8Million a day Yes that is an extremely high number as off hours do not generate that type of revenue. so take 1/2 or 1/4 It is still about 1 million a day. It does add up but yes subscription $ is the best by going up to $1.00/month
If RU went back to Delaney and painted a picture that they were serious about changing the perception of the athletic department and that they needed x-amount of money to make these changes I have to believe they would make necessary "access" to cash. This would not only help the RU brand but the BIG as a whole.
I have no idea why the B1G would set this sort of precedent. Illinois and Minnesota are in similar situations. Why would the B1G come and assist programs that show they are incompetent. They would just be rewarding failure.
Didn't Maryland get some sort of advance?
How about if we said we wanted more money now in advance to make some necessary "structural" changes to coaching and facilities to make us more competitive sooner rather than later. Jim, this is a win-win for Rutgers and the B1G. Rutgers winning brings more eyeballs to the BTN and more advertising dollars. That is the way you sell it. Now Julie, if you are reading this, get on it. If you are still not sure, send Knight Shift a private message, and I'll get on it.
Simple reason why you guys don't get the full benefit yet is because you are not vested in the venture. You are earning that right now. The other B1G schools put out a lot of money and took a huge risk starting the BTN. UMD was already in a p5 conference so they had a bit more leverage than Rutgers did to negotiate.
The BIG has already made the precedence with Maryland. I am not saying we should receive a full share rather an advance on future earnings. Considering expansion is what enabled the higher earnings in the first place. Simple negotiations. Illinois and Minnesota are not in the same situation. 1 they already receive a full share and 2 to their credit have respectable revenue generating sports outside of football. Both Illinois and Minnesota have basketball programs that are supported well and Minnesota has a top notch ice hockey program.
I think you missed the point of the articles. We have earned it based on the NYC market subscriptions for which BTN is already collecting fees today, not in the future. Now the payment schedule is what we agreed to and I'm OK with it. But don't come around saying we need to earn our keep. It's done, we've made our bones.
would you have rather seen more "easing" into the league?
I think its better to bite the bullet for 6 years and then have a full share, than get double what we get know but take it for 12 years instead of 6.
BTN will continue to grow and the shares will continue to rise. Especially if OSU can win another championship or 2 in the next 5 years. We'll have a serious $$$ edge over non SEC p5 schools.
This has been a terrible year in terms of our image, but hopefully we can put it behind us and stay solid over the next 5 years.
I think its better to bite the bullet for 6 years and then have a full share, than get double what we get know but take it for 12 years instead of 6.
BTN will continue to grow and the shares will continue to rise. Especially if OSU can win another championship or 2 in the next 5 years. We'll have a serious $$$ edge over non SEC p5 schools.
This has been a terrible year in terms of our image, but hopefully we can put it behind us and stay solid over the next 5 years.
I believe the 6 year contribution was calculated against the value of the 49% of the network we were buying into. Can you argue that our joining has resulted in more revenue than they predicted? Maybe but I don't think it matters because the value of the asset would go up as well. In the end, we will have equity in an asset whose value may go up further with additional future expansions plus increasing revenues as interest increases. Win win.
Similar threads
