In an article in The Buffalo News on Friday July 17 written by Mike Harrington Sabres will have momentum on the ice, in the stands when season opens (it's behind a paywall) Harrington has a very deep discussion with Pete Guelli, the team's president of business operations. Referencing the WRG situation, Guelli says "WGR remains the incumbent and we've been talking to them a lot about the future. It doesn't necessarily have to mirror what we did on the Bills side (forming a large multi-station network). If we could work something out there, we'd love to. There's different ways you can take it, but I would say we're having active discussions with WGR. Nothing's been decided, yet, but we look forward to continuing those conversations."
-
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.
Buffalo Sabres likely staying at WGR
- Thread starter RadioGuy1864
- Start date
That's disappointing. I was hoping someone else would step up. GR has become one of the worst sports stations I've ever heard. They need competition.
That's disappointing. I was hoping someone else would step up. GR has become one of the worst sports stations I've ever heard. They need competition.
The problem is Buffalo doesn't have enough money for two live & local sports stations. The problem with hockey is the number of games. That's not a problem with the NFL. It fits just fine on a rock station. A lot of NFL teams are heard on rock stations around the country. That's harder to do with other sports.
All true. It's just a shame that GR isn't challenged. You're exactly right, $ is the issue. They're ripe to be taken on but probably not.
They are pretty much unlistenable during almost all day parts. Saturday local programming from 11-2p is amateurish with little or no show prep - they just babble about nonsense for 3 hours. Only thing I listen to is Sal Capaccio Bills updates and Paul Hamilton Sabres updates. And I get those on demand in the Audacy app. Morning show stinks and Bulldog in afternoon is awful too.
Amen
WGR will be available on SiriusXM as part of the new Audacy/Sirius deal. However WGR will not be available on the "traditional" XM receivers, only on the App and the new 360L receivers.
WGR will be available on SiriusXM as part of the new Audacy/Sirius deal. However WGR will not be available on the "traditional" XM receivers, only on the App and the new 360L receivers.
What an amazing sellout that Audacy will now be supplying satellite radio local content. How ridiculous for the radio industry. The one thing we have in our favor is to be local. Now,
, bankrupt Audacy does a deal with the devil to give them local content. What a joke of a company . Let’s lower the bar even more Audacy
The one thing we have in our favor is to be local. Now,
, bankrupt Audacy does a deal with the devil to give them local content. What a joke of a company . Let’s lower the bar even more Audacy
What's the difference between being on Sirius and streaming on the internet? Both are national platforms.
They're not changing their programming one bit. You will still hear local time, weather, and traffic as before.
To me this points out the value of local programming, and that there's an audience for it beyond the city of license.
Enjoyed listening to the radio play-by-play on WGR when the Sabres were in the playoffs. I could multi-task and still feel like I was “watching”, thanks to theater of the mind. Glad it will be staying put!
We are not talking about streaming, or the internet. We are talking about Sirius, a company that has tried to bring terrestrial radio down. The only thing missing from Sirius, that terrestrial can provide is local, and now we are helping Sirius achieve that.What's the difference between being on Sirius and streaming on the internet? Both are national platforms.
They're not changing their programming one bit. You will still hear local time, weather, and traffic as before.
To me this points out the value of local programming, and that there's an audience for it beyond the city of license.
This will be the first step in aiding Sirius with local programming with the help of terrestrial radio. The only reason terrestrial radio, like Audacy, would form an alliance with Sirius, is because they know they are in trouble.
These huge companies have been a DISASTER for the medium of terrestrial radio, like the Audacy, like I Heart. Bankruptcy after bankruptcy, ruining the product by cutting its way to profits.
It’s terrible, and it’s going to continue to devalue radio stations.
We are not talking about streaming, or the internet. We are talking about Sirius, a company that has tried to bring terrestrial radio down. The only thing missing from Sirius, that terrestrial can provide is local, and now we are helping Sirius achieve that.
I see it the complete opposite way. They called themselves "radio worth paying for." Now they just rebroadcast free radio. This is Sirius admitting that broadcast radio is better. Why would I pay $10 a month to hear stations I can get for free?
Yes they wanted to bring down broadcasting. I was at a conference where their CEO Jim Meyer said so. Then he got replaced and now they're paying Audacy for their programming. Jim Meyer lost. He's gone and the new people are doing what he would never do.
It’s terrible, and it’s going to continue to devalue radio stations.
If they offered to pay you money to rebroadcast your signal, and said you didn't have to change a thing, would you turn it down?
This is more revenue for Audacy to spend on original local programming. I don't see the downside at all.