Well not quite, I understand the re-uped for FSN for 10 years to handle most of the home games, but I also understand that two weeks before the start of the reglar season, they are still without a over-the-air contract? They announced on the radio side early on this month, that none of their spring training games would be televised this season. Anyone know what's happening? Why the reluctance to carry the Angels?
-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Homeless Angels???
- Thread starter RadioFanBoy
- Start date
W
waybackmike
Guest
> Well not quite, I understand the re-uped for FSN for 10
> years to handle most of the home games, but I also
> understand that two weeks before the start of the reglar
> season, they are still without a over-the-air contract?
> They announced on the radio side early on this month, that
> none of their spring training games would be televised this
> season. Anyone know what's happening? Why the reluctance
> to carry the Angels?
>
I've asked myself that same question. The Angels DID get a sweet deal from FSN for 10 yrs., and it's pretty much what Arte Moreno wanted...to get a TV deal that's on par with the Dodgers. The only thing missing is the local station, and I believe KCOP will be handling those. KDOC might even get some thrown their way as well.
I still find it interesting that KCAL was dumb enough to dump the team that actually MAKES the headlines in LA these days, as compared to the "Other" team in blue.
> years to handle most of the home games, but I also
> understand that two weeks before the start of the reglar
> season, they are still without a over-the-air contract?
> They announced on the radio side early on this month, that
> none of their spring training games would be televised this
> season. Anyone know what's happening? Why the reluctance
> to carry the Angels?
>
I've asked myself that same question. The Angels DID get a sweet deal from FSN for 10 yrs., and it's pretty much what Arte Moreno wanted...to get a TV deal that's on par with the Dodgers. The only thing missing is the local station, and I believe KCOP will be handling those. KDOC might even get some thrown their way as well.
I still find it interesting that KCAL was dumb enough to dump the team that actually MAKES the headlines in LA these days, as compared to the "Other" team in blue.
S
ShawnHill
Guest
> I've asked myself that same question. The Angels DID get a
> sweet deal from FSN for 10 yrs., and it's pretty much what
> Arte Moreno wanted...to get a TV deal that's on par with the
> Dodgers. The only thing missing is the local station, and I
> believe KCOP will be handling those. KDOC might even get
> some thrown their way as well.
>
> I still find it interesting that KCAL was dumb enough to
> dump the team that actually MAKES the headlines in LA these
> days, as compared to the "Other" team in blue.
>
There was an article in the L.A. Times a few days ago saying that KDOC might be used as a back-up plan if the deal with Fox (FSN West and KCOP) isn't offically finalized. Under the current contract, FSN West will air 50 games this season, while the Angels may ask KDOC to do at least more than the 50 that FSN West will carry
http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseb...819.story?coll=la-headlines-sports-mlb-angels
> sweet deal from FSN for 10 yrs., and it's pretty much what
> Arte Moreno wanted...to get a TV deal that's on par with the
> Dodgers. The only thing missing is the local station, and I
> believe KCOP will be handling those. KDOC might even get
> some thrown their way as well.
>
> I still find it interesting that KCAL was dumb enough to
> dump the team that actually MAKES the headlines in LA these
> days, as compared to the "Other" team in blue.
>
There was an article in the L.A. Times a few days ago saying that KDOC might be used as a back-up plan if the deal with Fox (FSN West and KCOP) isn't offically finalized. Under the current contract, FSN West will air 50 games this season, while the Angels may ask KDOC to do at least more than the 50 that FSN West will carry
http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseb...819.story?coll=la-headlines-sports-mlb-angels
J
Joseph_Gallant
Guest
My girlfriend used to live in Southern California, and once mentioned to me that the Dodgers at the time (late 1980's) had far more fans than the Angels.
That situation is probably still true.
Why did KCAL drop the Angels when Dodgers' games became available?? The Dodgers draw more viewers.
That situation is probably still true.
Why did KCAL drop the Angels when Dodgers' games became available?? The Dodgers draw more viewers.
S
ShawnHill
Guest
> My girlfriend used to live in Southern California, and once
> mentioned to me that the Dodgers at the time (late 1980's)
> had far more fans than the Angels.
>
> That situation is probably still true.
>
> Why did KCAL drop the Angels when Dodgers' games became
> available?? The Dodgers draw more viewers.
>
Although the Angels have had the better team over the last 4-5 years, the Dodgers do have the legacy and prestige since they were here (Los Angeles) first. That's a big reason why KCAL offered more money to take the Dodgers over keeping the Angels. KCOP paid $8 million a year to air Dodgers games (with production from sister FSN West 2), while KCAL is offering a bit more for Dodgers games. The TV ratings for both teams since the Angels won the World Series in 2002 have been almost equal. Arte Moreno wants to have the same kind of broadcast deal that the Dodgers get from FSN, so that way he thinks he's on equal footing with the Dodgers, which partly explains the name change from Anaheim Angels to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Whether people want to believe it or not, the Angels are (and always has been) the American League representative franchise for Los Angeles, and they've been airing on the airwaves of Los Angeles-based radio and television stations since its 1961 beginning.
The city of Anaheim and the Angels have just completed a lawsuit a few weeks ago, in which the city sued the team over the name change. When the lease was drawn up about ten years ago between Disney (then-owners of the Angels) and the city of Anaheim to renovate Angel Stadium, Anaheim stipulated that the city's name was to be included in the team's name. However, in Moreno's reasoning (and technically, a valid one), the lease writing never said anything about where "Anaheim" was supposed to go in the team name, just long as "Anaheim" was somewhere in the team name.
Now, unless he can payout the remaining 15 years left on his lease with Angel Stadium, he can't really move the team to Los Angeles proper, or anywhere else, for that matter until then. There is some room in certain areas in Los Angeles where he can build a stadium, without really infringing on the Dodgers space.
Also, another thing to look at is home attendance, where in 2005, the Angels drew an average of 42,033 (4th in MLB), while the Dodgers drew an average of 44,489 (2nd in MLB). However, the Dodgers played one more home game (80 home games, 1 rainout) than the Angels (79 home games, 2 rainouts). Also, one another thing to look at is seating capacity....Dodger Stadium seats 56,000, while Angel Stadium seats 45,050. On average, the Angels filled up 93% of seats, while the Dodgers filled up 79% of theirs.
This information, by the way, came from ESPN.com
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance
Sorry for the long-winded response.
> mentioned to me that the Dodgers at the time (late 1980's)
> had far more fans than the Angels.
>
> That situation is probably still true.
>
> Why did KCAL drop the Angels when Dodgers' games became
> available?? The Dodgers draw more viewers.
>
Although the Angels have had the better team over the last 4-5 years, the Dodgers do have the legacy and prestige since they were here (Los Angeles) first. That's a big reason why KCAL offered more money to take the Dodgers over keeping the Angels. KCOP paid $8 million a year to air Dodgers games (with production from sister FSN West 2), while KCAL is offering a bit more for Dodgers games. The TV ratings for both teams since the Angels won the World Series in 2002 have been almost equal. Arte Moreno wants to have the same kind of broadcast deal that the Dodgers get from FSN, so that way he thinks he's on equal footing with the Dodgers, which partly explains the name change from Anaheim Angels to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Whether people want to believe it or not, the Angels are (and always has been) the American League representative franchise for Los Angeles, and they've been airing on the airwaves of Los Angeles-based radio and television stations since its 1961 beginning.
The city of Anaheim and the Angels have just completed a lawsuit a few weeks ago, in which the city sued the team over the name change. When the lease was drawn up about ten years ago between Disney (then-owners of the Angels) and the city of Anaheim to renovate Angel Stadium, Anaheim stipulated that the city's name was to be included in the team's name. However, in Moreno's reasoning (and technically, a valid one), the lease writing never said anything about where "Anaheim" was supposed to go in the team name, just long as "Anaheim" was somewhere in the team name.
Now, unless he can payout the remaining 15 years left on his lease with Angel Stadium, he can't really move the team to Los Angeles proper, or anywhere else, for that matter until then. There is some room in certain areas in Los Angeles where he can build a stadium, without really infringing on the Dodgers space.
Also, another thing to look at is home attendance, where in 2005, the Angels drew an average of 42,033 (4th in MLB), while the Dodgers drew an average of 44,489 (2nd in MLB). However, the Dodgers played one more home game (80 home games, 1 rainout) than the Angels (79 home games, 2 rainouts). Also, one another thing to look at is seating capacity....Dodger Stadium seats 56,000, while Angel Stadium seats 45,050. On average, the Angels filled up 93% of seats, while the Dodgers filled up 79% of theirs.
This information, by the way, came from ESPN.com
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance
Sorry for the long-winded response.
J
Joseph_Gallant
Guest
Shawn:
It's an interesting response. Not long-winded at all.
Thanks!
It's an interesting response. Not long-winded at all.
Thanks!
S
ShawnHill
Guest
Re: Homeless Angels???--Not Homeless
It's now offical, just finalized today....100 games on FSN West (with some on FSN Prime Ticket) and 50 games on sister station KCOP. So, in essence, KCAL and KCOP sorta traded teams, with the Dodgers going to 9, Angels going to 13.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-freewaynotes3apr03,1,4350867.story?coll=la-headlines-sports
10 years, $500 million from the Fox Broadcasting Company to televise Angels games. However, for this season, the rights fee will be $32 million, with the rights fee amount increasing yearly.
It's now offical, just finalized today....100 games on FSN West (with some on FSN Prime Ticket) and 50 games on sister station KCOP. So, in essence, KCAL and KCOP sorta traded teams, with the Dodgers going to 9, Angels going to 13.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-freewaynotes3apr03,1,4350867.story?coll=la-headlines-sports
10 years, $500 million from the Fox Broadcasting Company to televise Angels games. However, for this season, the rights fee will be $32 million, with the rights fee amount increasing yearly.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.