Clippers to iHeartMedia

[Joey1986]

http://www.nba.com/clippers/news/la...ia-los-angeles-announce-long-term-partnership

 

[CaliRadioFan]

And NBA Basketball returns to AM 570.......except when the Dodgers are playing

 

[K.M. Richards]

So much for the speculation that the Dodgers would never share KLAC with any other team, huh ...

 

[ChannelFlipper]

So much for the speculation that the Dodgers would never share KLAC with any other team, huh ...

The speculation wasn't that they wouldn't share with another team; the speculation was that they wouldn't share with the Rams, a team that is quite capable of upstaging them on their own station. The Clippers present no such theat.

 

[K.M. Richards]

The speculation wasn't that they wouldn't share with another team; the speculation was that they wouldn't share with the Rams, a team that is quite capable of upstaging them on their own station. The Clippers present no such theat.

Well, if it had been stated that eloquently when the subject first came up over in the Rams thread, I would not have interpreted it so broadly. You did say:

I believe when the Dodgers re-upped with KLAC the last time around, they were given a minority ownership share of the station, although I am not sure if the exact percentage was ever disclosed. If that ownership share carries any weight whatsoever, the Dodgers will not allow any special Rams programming of any kind on their flagship station, regardless of whether or not it infringes on their games and related programming.

Still too big an "if" in that second sentence for me to equate it with a claim of "upstaging". I wonder, though, if the Dodgers had to be consulted before the Clippers deal was signed?

 

[ChannelFlipper]

Well, if it had been stated that eloquently when the subject first came up over in the Rams thread, I would not have interpreted it so broadly. You did say:

Now I will shoot a possible hole in the scenario. I believe when the Dodgers re-upped with KLAC the last time around, they were given a minority ownership share of the station, although I am not sure if the exact percentage was ever disclosed. If that ownership share carries any weight whatsoever, the Dodgers will not allow any special Rams programming of any kind on their flagship station, regardless of whether or not it infringes on their games and related programming.

Still too big an "if" in that second sentence for me to equate it with a claim of "upstaging". I wonder, though, if the Dodgers had to be consulted before the Clippers deal was signed?

Are you reading before posting? It was said exactly that eloquently. Let's restate once more:

If that ownership share carries any weight whatsoever, the Dodgers will not allow any special Rams programming of any kind on their flagship station, regardless of whether or not it infringes on their games and related programming.

 

[oldvnewschool]

http://www.nba.com/clippers/news/la...ia-los-angeles-announce-long-term-partnership

Well I guess this answers the question of whether or not the Rams could be on KLAC does it?

 

[K.M. Richards]

Are you reading before posting? It was said exactly that eloquently. Let's restate once more:

If that ownership share carries any weight whatsoever, the Dodgers will not allow any special Rams programming of any kind on their flagship station, regardless of whether or not it infringes on their games and related programming.

Are you reading what you're reposting here? Do you even know where on RD you are at the moment?

This is the Clippers thread. What you said about the Rams did not say "any team" (which would include the Clippers). Your own repost confirms that.

And given that particular ambiguity, your statement logically leads to my wondering if there is any language in the Dodgers/iHeart deal that requires the Elysian Park concerns to be consulted before any other live sports are carried. I don't know. I don't think you know. I doubt anyone other than the lawyers know.

But I do know that the Rams are not the Clippers, and I know that language mentioning the former does not automatically include the latter.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

Are you reading what you're reposting here? Do you even know where on RD you are at the moment?

This is the Clippers thread. What you said about the Rams did not say "any team" (which would include the Clippers). Your own repost confirms that.

And given that particular ambiguity, your statement logically leads to my wondering if there is any language in the Dodgers/iHeart deal that requires the Elysian Park concerns to be consulted before any other live sports are carried. I don't know. I don't think you know. I doubt anyone other than the lawyers know.

But I do know that the Rams are not the Clippers, and I know that language mentioning the former does not automatically include the latter.

I think you are tangling yourself up in knots trying to explain yourself. You can't just set up straw man arguments and then get upset when someone who actually does have their facts straight (and posting history to prove it) comes and knocks it down. In any case, I am done discussing your confusion of the posting history. If you would like to discuss the actual merits and ramifications of the deal, go ahead. For example, you can see my new post over on the Rams thread (the deal is far more interesting as to how it affects the Rams negotiations then anything related to the Clippers themselves).

 

[K.M. Richards]

I think you are tangling yourself up in knots trying to explain yourself. You can't just set up straw man arguments and then get upset when someone who actually does have their facts straight (and posting history to prove it) comes and knocks it down. In any case, I am done discussing your confusion of the posting history. If you would like to discuss the actual merits and ramifications of the deal, go ahead. For example, you can see my new post over on the Rams thread (the deal is far more interesting as to how it affects the Rams negotiations then anything related to the Clippers themselves).

I read your other post first, and you will see that I agree with you.

It's just that what you said, specifically referring to the Rams, was then part of your argument about the Clippers. I know it's semantics, but I set up no arguments -- straw man or otherwise -- that could be misinterpreted. I'll leave anyone who might care to go read it for themselves. I'm done discussing your confusion too.