• 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

Why 890/1400 May Flip To ESPN Radio This Tuesday

J

Joseph_Gallant

Guest
The long-awaited flip of WAMG-890/WLLH-1400 to ESPN Radio may occur this coming Tuesday (July 12th).

Why do I think it might occur on Tuesday??

ESPN Radio has exclusive national radio rights to Major League Baseball's All-Star Game, which will be played Tuesday night (both ESPN Radio and Fox television's broadcasts begin at 8 P.M. EDT; I believe first-pitch is at 8:45).

I would think that an ESPN Radio affiliate would have "first dibs" for the network's broadcasts of the All-Star game. I wonder if it means that 890/1400 could, through ESPN Radio affiliation, grab exclusive radio broadcast rights in the Boston area for the All-Star game and prevent Red Sox flagship WEEI-850 from picking-up the ESPN Radio coverage.

If indeed this is the case, my guess is that ESPN Radio will arrive on 890 and 1400 on Tuesday in-time for the All-Star game. It would be an ideal way to launch the stations' new ESPN Radio format, especially if 890 and 1400 are the only places in the Boston area to hear the game.
 
Yea.. im sure EEI is shakin' in their boots about this move. WAMG-890/WLLH-1400 can broadcast the All-Star game and EEI gets every Sox game.

EEI is the king of sports media. Nothing is gunna effect them.
 
Whinerline noted:

> EEI is the king of sports media. Nothing is gunna effect
> them.

True, but having exclusive radio coverage of the All-Star Game on 890/1400 (assuming they flip to ESPN Radio by Tuesday) might get them a few listeners that evening who might occassionally tune-in.

WEEI won't lose many listeners, but I suspect that 890/1400 might be 24/7 ESPN Radio, which means their operating costs would be much lower than WEEI's. Thus, 890/1400 would only need to attract a relatively small audience to make a profit, given their low operating costs (assuming they are 24/7 ESPN Radio).
 
I'm looking forward to having ESPN Radio... it'll be nice to have a different perspective on things and an alternative to the bad programming that WEEI has after the Sox games (Ted, Fox sports, etc)...
 
> I'm looking forward to having ESPN Radio... it'll be nice to
> have a different perspective on things and an alternative to
> the bad programming that WEEI has after the Sox games (Ted,
> Fox sports, etc)...
>
yes it will be good for Boston to have affiliates for all 3 nets: Fox Sports (WEEI--JT is good in small doses), Sporting News (WWZN), and ESPN with 890 and 1400...for now ESPN fans have had to search out stations like 900 in Nashua
and 790 out of RI. What I would hope is that come October I'll be able to hear some baseball playoffs. During the first round there are games at 4 pm
(and on one day, 1 pm) and WEEI wouldn't air them...so if, for example,
the White Sox are playing the Angels at 4pm, it would be on 890 and 1400 while WEEI would have the Sox (AL East champs, I hope!) vs. the wildcard Twins
(just an example)
 
Gallant is the biggest crackpot around here. I've seen him come up with some wild theories and ideas. This one is up there with the ebst of them.

I'm sure he's a nice guy, but some of these theories... seems like they come from his a** after a little too much ganja.
 
> ESPN Radio has exclusive national radio rights to Major
> League Baseball's All-Star Game, which will be played
> Tuesday night (both ESPN Radio and Fox television's
> broadcasts begin at 8 P.M. EDT; I believe first-pitch is at
> 8:45).
>
> I would think that an ESPN Radio affiliate would have "first
> dibs" for the network's broadcasts of the All-Star game.

Then again, on the other hand, maybe WEEI had locked up the 2005 All-Star game rights BEFORE Jessica (or whatever her name is--the honcho of 890/1400) came along. So maybe she decided to wait until AFTER the All-Star game to flip the stations. That way, she avoids having to repeately answer the question, "If you are ESPN in Boston and ESPN had exclusive rights to the All-Star game, how come the game was on WEEI?" Ever think of that possibility?
 
> Gallant is the biggest crackpot around here. I've seen him
> come up with some wild theories and ideas. This one is up
> there with the ebst of them.
>
> I'm sure he's a nice guy, but some of these theories...
> seems like they come from his a** after a little too much
> ganja.
>

On the money. He's a glorified messageboard crank who has way too much
free time. Look at the number of useless, nonsensical rants he cranks
out a day across dozens of boards and each one with at least 200 words
in it. Put aside that he has no facts or figures in front of him to back up
his idiotic opinions/theories, he doesn't even understand how the
media works. Maybe the people who run this board think he's amusing,
but for the readers it's gotta the most annoying thing.



<P ID="signature">______________
"I am walkin' here!!!"

Yes, I am a radio sales weasel but there would
be no programming if it wasn't for loooong commercial breaks. Remmeber that!</P>
 
However, it would seem that Mr. Gallant does abide by the rules which cannot be said for authors of these two posts and I suppose this one as well. Mr. Gallant is expressing his thoughts and opinions within the guidelines and in my opinon, within his Constitutional Rights. Continued slanderous remarks directed at him for expressing his thoughts and opinion here should be noted by the Moderators before Mr. Gallant seeks formal litigation in the matter. Just MOHO.

> > Gallant is the biggest crackpot around here. I've seen him
>
> > come up with some wild theories and ideas. This one is up
> > there with the ebst of them.
> >
> > I'm sure he's a nice guy, but some of these theories...
> > seems like they come from his a** after a little too much
> > ganja.
> >
>
> On the money. He's a glorified messageboard crank who has
> way too much
> free time. Look at the number of useless, nonsensical rants
> he cranks
> out a day across dozens of boards and each one with at least
> 200 words
> in it. Put aside that he has no facts or figures in front of
> him to back up
> his idiotic opinions/theories, he doesn't even understand
> how the
> media works. Maybe the people who run this board think he's
> amusing,
> but for the readers it's gotta the most annoying thing.
>
 
> However, it would seem that Mr. Gallant does abide by the
> rules which cannot be said for authors of these two posts
> and I suppose this one as well. Mr. Gallant is expressing
> his thoughts and opinions within the guidelines and in my
> opinon, within his Constitutional Rights. Continued
> slanderous remarks directed at him for expressing his
> thoughts and opinion here should be noted by the Moderators
> before Mr. Gallant seeks formal litigation in the matter.
> Just MOHO.

I couldn't agree more. I usually stay out of these kind of debates, but if you don't want to read what Joseph Gallant is saying, don't read his posts. He's never slanderous, and for some reason the moderators posts that are slanderous towards him?

Yes, while he rarely has any factual information in his posts, he provides food for thought, if you will, stuff that could happen. I was reading something off of the bostonradio.org archives where he predicted in 1998 that GM would launch FM Talk on 92.9. Scott Fybush responded that this would never happen on a GM station. Guess what happened in 1999 (albeit on 96.9)?

If a Joseph Gallant post is on the board along with a "Guess what Howie Carr or Jay Diamond or Jay Severin said today" post, guess which one I'm reading first.
 
> > However, it would seem that Mr. Gallant does abide by the
> > rules which cannot be said for authors of these two posts
> > and I suppose this one as well. Mr. Gallant is expressing
> > his thoughts and opinions within the guidelines and in my
> > opinon, within his Constitutional Rights. Continued
> > slanderous remarks directed at him for expressing his
> > thoughts and opinion here should be noted by the
> Moderators
> > before Mr. Gallant seeks formal litigation in the matter.
> > Just MOHO.
>
> I couldn't agree more. I usually stay out of these kind of
> debates, but if you don't want to read what Joseph Gallant
> is saying, don't read his posts. He's never slanderous, and
> for some reason the moderators posts that are slanderous
> towards him?
>
> Yes, while he rarely has any factual information in his
> posts, he provides food for thought, if you will, stuff that
> could happen. I was reading something off of the
> bostonradio.org archives where he predicted in 1998 that GM
> would launch FM Talk on 92.9. Scott Fybush responded that
> this would never happen on a GM station. Guess what happened
> in 1999 (albeit on 96.9)?
>
> If a Joseph Gallant post is on the board along with a "Guess
> what Howie Carr or Jay Diamond or Jay Severin said today"
> post, guess which one I'm reading first.
>

Yes, his posts are often full of inane speculations on format flips, who's going All-Christmas and how males born after 1980 don't listen to rock radio anymore, but he's more respectful than most anyone on these boards and obviously cares about radio. The above criticism was uncalled for, and could be considered libel.

Someone needs to set him straight on "its" vs. "it's" and his liberal use of hyphens though.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom