• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Braves & Turner South

> Who do you guys think will wind up owning them? I just read
> an article at the AJC site saying News Corp could be
> interested. I thought they owned part of the Rockies now.
> It would make sense for News to buy a stake in the Braves if
> they could for the TV rights.
>
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/business/1205/17bizbraves.html
>
I know that News Corp once owned the Dodgers, but I don't think it has ever owned even a partial stake in the Rockies or any other MLB team.

That said, flaming liberal Ted Turner and flaming conservative Rupert Murdoch have long hated each other beyond belief. I could see Murdoch, either by himself or through News Corp, trying to buy the Braves and/or Turner South for no other reason than to spite Turner, but at the same time, I think that Turner, who is still a Time Warner board member, would do everything he could to keep both the Braves and TS away from Murdoch's (literal and figurative) hands.

Besides, I think that TS and/or especially the Braves wll more likely be bought by Ted Turner himself, Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank, or even Cox Enterprises.<P ID="signature">______________
This is AirwaveSurfer, reminding you that portions of this post have been prerecorded.</P>
 
Braves, Turner South, and future of TBS

> I know that News Corp once owned the Dodgers, but I don't
> think it has ever owned even a partial stake in the Rockies
> or any other MLB team.
>
> That said, flaming liberal Ted Turner and flaming
> conservative Rupert Murdoch have long hated each other
> beyond belief. I could see Murdoch, either by himself or
> through News Corp, trying to buy the Braves and/or Turner
> South for no other reason than to spite Turner, but at the
> same time, I think that Turner, who is still a Time Warner
> board member, would do everything he could to keep both the
> Braves and TS away from Murdoch's (literal and figurative)
> hands.

I heard Ted Turner is no longer on the board, that he washed his hands of Time Warner completely.

I honestly don't think the team will go to News Corp. However, they might buy Turner South with the intent of turning it into Fox Sports Net South 2. (There are 2 FSN West networks in the Pacific). They could use both networks to strike exclusive broadcast rights for all of the major sports teams here in Atlanta.

On a sidenote, 2006 will most likely be the last year Braves games are televised on TBS nationally. Starting in 2007, Braves games will be shown regionally on Turner South (whatever it is at the time) and FSN. Most games would most likely be shown locally on either WATL, WUPA, or WPXA (WPXA has the Hawks and Thrashers rights).

Last sidenote: I also strongly believe that TBS will not be a superstation for much longer. Given that WTBS 17 is Time Warner's only FCC licensed entity, TW will sell the local WTBS license, thus ending the superstation. Given the proliferation of cable and satellite, WTBS has outlived its purpose. As for potential future owners of Channel 17, I believe ABC could buy it, making the station an ABC O&O. (And making WSB-TV an indie.)
 
Re: Braves, Turner South, and future of TBS

As for potential future owners of Channel 17, I
> believe ABC could buy it, making the station an ABC O&O.
> (And making WSB-TV an indie.)
>

I'm sorry, I'm not normally rude in forums...but this is about the dumbest-a**ed comment I think I have ever seen.

ABC has a powerhouse affiliate in WSB and I doubt Disney/ABC would do anything to rock the boat in Atlanta (much less with Cox television, which has strong ABC affiliates in both Charlotte (WSOC-9) and Orlando (WFVT)). Going in to buy WTBS would be enormously cost-prohibitive because the station is nothing more than the local relay for TBS Superstation with very little original programming (unlike the Superstation feed of WGN which is, aside from news programming, programmed completely seperate from WGN's Chicago-market feed). You're talking facilities, equipment and not to mention hiring/building a news department (WGCL can't compete in Atlanta and they have had a news department since the late 80s).

If - *if* - ABC bought it, do you really think WSB would go indie? I don't. More likely they would try to wrestle the NBC affiliation from WXIA (first choice, since they were a NBC affiliate until 1981) or the CBS affiliation from WGCL (second choice, and CBS would cream their pants to be on the powerhouse signal of WSB).

More likely that Cox would try to buy the signal and run it as a duopoly like they have in Charlotte (WSOC/WAXN-64-Ind), Orlando (WFTV/WRDQ-27-Ind) and San Francisco (KTVU-2-Fox/KICU-36-Ind)
 
I am pretty sure Fox Cable owns a small percentage of the Rockies. They did it to keep the Rockies on FSN when the Altitude RSN was started in Denver.

> > Who do you guys think will wind up owning them? I just
> read
> > an article at the AJC site saying News Corp could be
> > interested. I thought they owned part of the Rockies now.
> > It would make sense for News to buy a stake in the Braves
> if
> > they could for the TV rights.
> >
ht> tp://www.ajc.com/news/content/business/1205/17bizbraves.html
>
> >
> I know that News Corp once owned the Dodgers, but I don't
> think it has ever owned even a partial stake in the Rockies
> or any other MLB team.
>
> That said, flaming liberal Ted Turner and flaming
> conservative Rupert Murdoch have long hated each other
> beyond belief. I could see Murdoch, either by himself or
> through News Corp, trying to buy the Braves and/or Turner
> South for no other reason than to spite Turner, but at the
> same time, I think that Turner, who is still a Time Warner
> board member, would do everything he could to keep both the
> Braves and TS away from Murdoch's (literal and figurative)
> hands.
>
> Besides, I think that TS and/or especially the Braves wll
> more likely be bought by Ted Turner himself, Atlanta Falcons
> owner Arthur Blank, or even Cox Enterprises.
>
 
Re: Braves, Turner South, and future of TBS

TBS recently made a new deal with MLB to televise a minimum of 45 games per season through 2012. They will still televise 70 games in 2006 and 2007, it will go to 45 in 2008.


> > I know that News Corp once owned the Dodgers, but I don't
> > think it has ever owned even a partial stake in the
> Rockies
> > or any other MLB team.
> >
> > That said, flaming liberal Ted Turner and flaming
> > conservative Rupert Murdoch have long hated each other
> > beyond belief. I could see Murdoch, either by himself or
> > through News Corp, trying to buy the Braves and/or Turner
> > South for no other reason than to spite Turner, but at the
>
> > same time, I think that Turner, who is still a Time Warner
>
> > board member, would do everything he could to keep both
> the
> > Braves and TS away from Murdoch's (literal and figurative)
>
> > hands.
>
> I heard Ted Turner is no longer on the board, that he washed
> his hands of Time Warner completely.
>
> I honestly don't think the team will go to News Corp.
> However, they might buy Turner South with the intent of
> turning it into Fox Sports Net South 2. (There are 2 FSN
> West networks in the Pacific). They could use both networks
> to strike exclusive broadcast rights for all of the major
> sports teams here in Atlanta.
>
> On a sidenote, 2006 will most likely be the last year Braves
> games are televised on TBS nationally. Starting in 2007,
> Braves games will be shown regionally on Turner South
> (whatever it is at the time) and FSN. Most games would most
> likely be shown locally on either WATL, WUPA, or WPXA (WPXA
> has the Hawks and Thrashers rights).
>
> Last sidenote: I also strongly believe that TBS will not be
> a superstation for much longer. Given that WTBS 17 is Time
> Warner's only FCC licensed entity, TW will sell the local
> WTBS license, thus ending the superstation. Given the
> proliferation of cable and satellite, WTBS has outlived its
> purpose. As for potential future owners of Channel 17, I
> believe ABC could buy it, making the station an ABC O&O.
> (And making WSB-TV an indie.)
>
 
Re: Braves, Turner South, and future of TBS

> Last sidenote: I also strongly believe that TBS will not be
> a superstation for much longer. Given that WTBS 17 is Time
> Warner's only FCC licensed entity, TW will sell the local
> WTBS license, thus ending the superstation.

I believe that the TBS national feed ceased to be a "superstation" a year or two back. This makes a difference in that it allows insertion of local advertising into the TBS feed by cable operators -- something that they can't do with a "superstation".

So TW could sell WTBS/17 anytime they chose to without affecting the national TBS service. In a way, I'm surprised that they haven't already done so or at least hinted that it is on the market.
 
Re: Braves, Turner South, and future of TBS

> As for potential future owners of Channel 17, I
> > believe ABC could buy it, making the station an ABC O&O.
> > (And making WSB-TV an indie.)
> >
>
> I'm sorry, I'm not normally rude in forums...but this is
> about the dumbest-a**ed comment I think I have ever seen.
>
> ABC has a powerhouse affiliate in WSB and I doubt Disney/ABC
> would do anything to rock the boat in Atlanta (much less
> with Cox television, which has strong ABC affiliates in both
> Charlotte (WSOC-9) and Orlando (WFVT)). Going in to buy
> WTBS would be enormously cost-prohibitive because the
> station is nothing more than the local relay for TBS
> Superstation with very little original programming (unlike
> the Superstation feed of WGN which is, aside from news
> programming, programmed completely seperate from WGN's
> Chicago-market feed). You're talking facilities, equipment
> and not to mention hiring/building a news department (WGCL
> can't compete in Atlanta and they have had a news department
> since the late 80s).
>
> If - *if* - ABC bought it, do you really think WSB would go
> indie? I don't. More likely they would try to wrestle the
> NBC affiliation from WXIA (first choice, since they were a
> NBC affiliate until 1981) or the CBS affiliation from WGCL
> (second choice, and CBS would cream their pants to be on the
> powerhouse signal of WSB).
>
> More likely that Cox would try to buy the signal and run it
> as a duopoly like they have in Charlotte (WSOC/WAXN-64-Ind),
> Orlando (WFTV/WRDQ-27-Ind) and San Francisco
> (KTVU-2-Fox/KICU-36-Ind)
>
The ABC affiliate in Orlando is WFTV, not WFVT.

The Cox duopoly idea is the most logical, but I'm sure CBS
would like to have 17 as its Atlanta affiliate and get off
WGCL. As for WSB, I don't see it leaving ABC for NBC, since
I've heard that WXIA has re-upped with the Peacock Network
through 2015, but CBS would love to be on Channel 2.

However, I think one of two things happens: a WSB-WTBS duopoly,
or WTBS becomes a CBS affiliate and WGCL an indie. NOTE: When
analog is shut off, WGCL will be on digital channel 19, and that
might be enough to maintain the CBS affiliation.
 
Re: Braves, Turner South, and future of TBS

> So TW could sell WTBS/17 anytime they chose to without
> affecting the national TBS service. In a way, I'm surprised
> that they haven't already done so or at least hinted that it
> is on the market.
>

If they did so, the national TBS would finally be availabke in the Atlanta market; currently, the national TBS is blacked out on satellite due to the local WTBS.

It'll especially get interesting in Canada, though, where cable and satellite companies there carry the Atlanta WTBS feed. The CRTC atuthorised TBS as a superstation, and if WTBS is discontinued, it may have adverse affeccts to its Canadian viewers.
 
Re: Braves, Turner South, and future of TBS

> The ABC affiliate in Orlando is WFTV, not WFVT.

Too quick of fingers, not quick enough of brain sometimes. Got it right the second time I posted, tho!

>
> The Cox duopoly idea is the most logical, but I'm sure CBS
> would like to have 17 as its Atlanta affiliate and get off
> WGCL. As for WSB, I don't see it leaving ABC for NBC, since
>
> I've heard that WXIA has re-upped with the Peacock Network
> through 2015, but CBS would love to be on Channel 2.

The post I was responding to suggested ABC coming in to buy WTBS-17 and moving ABC over to that signal. I doubt WSB would drop ABC as well, especially since they stayed with the network through the past 6 or 7 (relatively to incredibly weak) seasons. It dropped NBC, in 1980/1, for many of the same problems ABC was experiencing prior to the 2004 season.

>
> However, I think one of two things happens: a WSB-WTBS
> duopoly,
> or WTBS becomes a CBS affiliate and WGCL an indie. NOTE:
> When
> analog is shut off, WGCL will be on digital channel 19, and
> that
> might be enough to maintain the CBS affiliation.
>

I don't think CBS would purchase the signal for the same reason ABC wouldn't purchase it. To much money would have to be invested in upgrading it to an affiliate-quality station.

Besides, CBS/Viacom already owns WUPA-69-UPN. If CBS was desperate enough to get off WGCL, they would likely have already done so and run it similar to their O&O in Detroit, WJW-62. They haven't and, likely, won't as Meredith owns a number of CBS stations in other major markets (KPHO-5-Phoenix is their next largest behind Atlanta, but they also own stations in Hartford, CT and Kansas City) and wouldn't risk upsetting the applecart for the same reason ABC wouldn't upset theirs with Cox Broadcasting.

Now, I could see Cox purchasing Channel 17 as a duopoly and then offering it to CBS as an alternative to WGCL. WSB could easily run the same kind of set-up you see in Jacksonville with Gannett's duopoly WTLV-12/WJXX-25: One newscast broadcasting on both stations during the news periods.

As for WGCL on Channel 19 after DTV conversion, my understanding is they will still have to brand as "Channel 46" and remap their signal to that on set-top boxes. I guess the DTV-19 signal is considerably stronger than the analog-46, but will it really make any difference since they still have to brand as "Channel 46?"
 
Re: Braves, Turner South, and future of TBS

>> If they did so, the national TBS would finally be availabke
> in the Atlanta market; currently, the national TBS is
> blacked out on satellite due to the local WTBS.

There's really not that much difference between the two, though, is there? Aside from their overnight programming (I think WTBS-local still broadcasts CNN Headline News for an hour early the morning to meet public service requirements, but the national feed - for obvious reasons - doesn't) and some Saturday morning public affairs programming which the national feed doesn't carry.

A close comparison of the two schedules shows very few differences between the two.
 
Re: Braves, Turner South, and future of TBS

> > >
> >
> > The Cox duopoly idea is the most logical, but I'm sure CBS
>
> > would like to have 17 as its Atlanta affiliate and get off
>
> > WGCL. As for WSB, I don't see it leaving ABC for NBC,
> since
> >
> > I've heard that WXIA has re-upped with the Peacock Network
>
> > through 2015, but CBS would love to be on Channel 2.
>
> The post I was responding to suggested ABC coming in to buy
> WTBS-17 and moving ABC over to that signal. I doubt WSB
> would drop ABC as well, especially since they stayed with
> the network through the past 6 or 7 (relatively to
> incredibly weak) seasons. It dropped NBC, in 1980/1, for
> many of the same problems ABC was experiencing prior to the
> 2004 season.

Frankly, I've never understood why WSB has stayed with ABC
as long as it has. Back around 1986, when The Cosby Show,
The Golden Girls, Cheers, and many other shows had placed
NBC firmly on top, rumors got started that Channel 2 was
going back to NBC. Didn't happen.

When Channel 2 switched to ABC in 1980, it was the only
NBC affiliate in the top 25 markets to be number one in
primetime. The problem was that WSB was pre-empting a
lot of network shows and replacing them with movies and
syndicated shows, putting a strain on their bottom line.

For most of the time since then, except in 1993-94, 1999-
2000, and 2004-present, ABC has usually been in third place
(I think they were second around 1989-90).

But I don't believe Channel 2 has any intention of going
to CBS (or back to NBC).
>
> >
> > However, I think one of two things happens: a WSB-WTBS
> > duopoly,
> > or WTBS becomes a CBS affiliate and WGCL an indie. NOTE:
> > When
> > analog is shut off, WGCL will be on digital channel 19,
> and
> > that
> > might be enough to maintain the CBS affiliation.
> >
>
> I don't think CBS would purchase the signal for the same
> reason ABC wouldn't purchase it. To much money would have
> to be invested in upgrading it to an affiliate-quality
> station.
>
> Besides, CBS/Viacom already owns WUPA-69-UPN. If CBS was
> desperate enough to get off WGCL, they would likely have
> already done so and run it similar to their O&O in Detroit,
> WJW-62. They haven't and, likely, won't as Meredith owns a
> number of CBS stations in other major markets
> (KPHO-5-Phoenix is their next largest behind Atlanta, but
> they also own stations in Hartford, CT and Kansas City) and
> wouldn't risk upsetting the applecart for the same reason
> ABC wouldn't upset theirs with Cox Broadcasting.

Makes sense: Meredith owns CBS affiliates in Phoenix, Kansas
City, Syracuse, and Flint, in addition to Atlanta, and is said
to be very tight with the Eye network. And the CBS o&o in
Detroit is WWJ; WJW is the Fox o&o in Cleveland.
>
> Now, I could see Cox purchasing Channel 17 as a duopoly and
> then offering it to CBS as an alternative to WGCL. WSB
> could easily run the same kind of set-up you see in
> Jacksonville with Gannett's duopoly WTLV-12/WJXX-25: One
> newscast broadcasting on both stations during the news
> periods.

Could be. Otherwise, WTBS would have to set up its
own news department.
>
> As for WGCL on Channel 19 after DTV conversion, my
> understanding is they will still have to brand as "Channel
> 46" and remap their signal to that on set-top boxes. I
> guess the DTV-19 signal is considerably stronger than the
> analog-46, but will it really make any difference since they
> still have to brand as "Channel 46?"
>
I had thought some time ago that they might play up the
digital 19 angle in their promotions; since I'm not really
up to speed on DTV, it sounds like they'll still be CBS46,
or Clear46, or whatever they're calling themselves this week.

Looks like, barring a WSB/WTBS duopoly, nothing is going
to change, and it still may not. Time Warner could sell
WTBS to a company that would continue to run it as an indie,
perhaps with different call letters. WAGA, obviously, would
not be involved; neither would WXIA, which seems to be
perfectly content under the protective wings of the peacock.
Only possibility there: Gannett just bought the UPN affiliate
in Denver and plans to run it as a duopoly with NBC affiliate
KUSA/9. They COULD conceivably do the same thing in Atlanta,
an 11/17 duopoly (17 gets CBS and takes 11's newscasts). I
won't hold my breath.

On the whole, I think your reasoning is well-stated.
 
> Who do you guys think will wind up owning them? I just read
> an article at the AJC site saying News Corp could be
> interested. I thought they owned part of the Rockies now.
> It would make sense for News to buy a stake in the Braves if
> they could for the TV rights.
>
ht> tp://www.ajc.com/news/content/business/1205/17bizbraves.html
>

Since we all now know that Time Warner wants to dump Turner South and is adding the Braves to sweeten the pot, it would be surprising if the new owner of the Braves does not currently have some connection to broadcasting.

I like the News Corp(Murdoch buys them for spite aspect) but their last sports ownership experience was not good.

Personally, I think that whoever buys the Braves will not only have a tv broadcast portfolio but a cable portfolio too. I think Comcast makes the most sense because they have everything in place that could make this a smooth transition (cable systems, cable networks, sports holdings, etc.)

Also, I think Scripps and Discovery Networks might find the Turner South programming a good fit with their niche lineup of cable channels. The question then would be, "Are the Braves a good fit" in that scenario. The could be a re-seller of the Braves to a 3rd party with an agreement in place for televising a Braves schedule on Turner South.
 
WTBS...

I know I'm late, but...

What about if Meredith was to try to get a hold of WTBS to partner with WGCL, move CBS to channel 17 "CBS17" and get UPN from Viacom for channel 46 "UPN46." Then Viacom sells WUPA to the highest bidder (Univision for TeleFutura? NBC for Telemundo? Fox for an Indy?).

Viacom wins big time: they get Meredith to own both their network's affiliates, and they sell out of Atlanta which frees them to make a purchase elsewhere (they have been selling stand-alone UPN stations lately... WUPL Slidell/New Orleans, WNDY Marion/Indianapolis, WWHO Chillicothe/Columbus).

Sound crazy?

- Trip<P ID="signature">______________
Visit my website, www.rabbitears.info! It's eventually going to be your one resource for television info! Digital television, histories, and technical information for the entire USA from one source!</P>
 
Re: WTBS...

> Sound crazy?
>
> - Trip
>

Not at all. Will be interesting to see if TimeWarner decides to sell and who the bidders will be. May make for an interesting 2006
 
Re: WTBS...

> > Sound crazy?
> >
> > - Trip
> >
>
> Not at all. Will be interesting to see if TimeWarner
> decides to sell and who the bidders will be. May make for
> an interesting 2006
>
I don't think it's crazy either. In fact I rather like
the idea of Meredith buying WTBS, making it the CBS affiliate,
and WGCL becoming UPN. Viacom would probably be perfectly
happy to get both CBS and UPN on stronger channels.
 
Re: Braves, Turner South, and future of TBS

> When Channel 2 switched to ABC in 1980, it was the only
> NBC affiliate in the top 25 markets to be number one in
> primetime. The problem was that WSB was pre-empting a
> lot of network shows and replacing them with movies and
> syndicated shows, putting a strain on their bottom line.

Of course, back then, NBC was hurting for viewers, and its local affiliates were pre-empting weak NBC shows for local fare.

When you had drivel like "Supertrain" on the network, you had to find a way to dump it fast, if the show performs badly. And if NBC didn't dump the shows, its affiliates did.
 
Re: WTBS...

> Viacom wins big time: they get Meredith to own both their
> network's affiliates, and they sell out of Atlanta which
> frees them to make a purchase elsewhere...

Rather, its CBS that would win big time -- don't forget that Viacom and CBS are once again separate companies.
 
Re: Braves, Turner South, and future of TBS

> > When Channel 2 switched to ABC in 1980, it was the only
> > NBC affiliate in the top 25 markets to be number one in
> > primetime. The problem was that WSB was pre-empting a
> > lot of network shows and replacing them with movies and
> > syndicated shows, putting a strain on their bottom line.
>
> Of course, back then, NBC was hurting for viewers, and its
> local affiliates were pre-empting weak NBC shows for local
> fare.
>
> When you had drivel like "Supertrain" on the network, you
> had to find a way to dump it fast, if the show performs
> badly. And if NBC didn't dump the shows, its affiliates did.
>
Which, you'll note, is one of two reasons Channel 2 switched
to ABC (the other is that the market's demographics were getting
progressively younger, and Channel 2 needed to tap into a new
audience).

What's always puzzled me is that, when NBC did become number
one in the mid-'80s and beyond, Channel 2 showed absolutely
no interest in returning to the Peacock fold.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom