Andre Dawson overwhelmed

[Coldneck]

<!--quoteo(post=107948:date=Jul 26 2010, 12:33 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Jul 26 2010, 12:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The Cubs will always be on WGN. Of this I am certain. That's not to say that many games will be broadcast on the superstation going forward, but as long as the team is on WGN radio, at least a handful of games will be on the TV station as well. But I do agree that the end game for Ricketts is to form an exclusive Cubs station eventually. It makes a lot of financial sense.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just curious. What do you base your opinion on? I think WGN radio has little to do with the television broadcast. A similar comparison can be found in Atlanta. The Braves are no longer on TBS unless they are televised as the national game on Sundays.

And I too because a Cubs fan because of WGN. I just don't think it makes sense financially for the Cubs to keep games on the Superstation.

[Kid]

TBS became a different channel than WGN is. With the exception of the Braves, there had been nothing Atlanta-specific about TBS for at least a decade before they stopped showing Braves games. That's not the case with WGN. Also, WGN America has very little going for it that would make them want to not pay what the Cubs want.

It's got little to do with whether or not it makes sense financially for the Cubs. That question is answered based on how much WGN bids for the Cubs (though, I had read that it was expected that a long-term deal to keep the Cubs on WGN would be a part of the sale of the team, but obviously we have no clue whether or not that happened). If WGN bids enough, then it makes sense for the Cubs. Therefore the question really is whether or not it makes financial sense for WGN to pay to keep the Cubs, not the other way around (assuming that a deal wasn't a part of the sale).

[Rappster]

<!--quoteo(post=108128:date=Jul 27 2010, 07:57 AM:name=Kid)-->QUOTE (Kid @ Jul 27 2010, 07:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->TBS became a different channel than WGN is. With the exception of the Braves, there had been nothing Atlanta-specific about TBS for at least a decade before they stopped showing Braves games. That's not the case with WGN. Also, WGN America has very little going for it that would make them want to not pay what the Cubs want.

It's got little to do with whether or not it makes sense financially for the Cubs. That question is answered based on how much WGN bids for the Cubs (though, I had read that it was expected that a long-term deal to keep the Cubs on WGN would be a part of the sale of the team, but obviously we have no clue whether or not that happened). If WGN bids enough, then it makes sense for the Cubs. Therefore the question really is whether or not it makes financial sense for WGN to pay to keep the Cubs, not the other way around (assuming that a deal wasn't a part of the sale).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Also...since the beginnings of cable TV, WGN has gone hammer and tongs to insure their place on the spectrum, and was given the spot because of the Cubs.

Keeping the Cubs is part and parcel to their ability to be "WGN America".

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=108129:date=Jul 27 2010, 08:00 AM:name=Rappster)-->QUOTE (Rappster @ Jul 27 2010, 08:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=108128:date=Jul 27 2010, 07:57 AM:name=Kid)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid @ Jul 27 2010, 07:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->TBS became a different channel than WGN is. With the exception of the Braves, there had been nothing Atlanta-specific about TBS for at least a decade before they stopped showing Braves games. That's not the case with WGN. Also, WGN America has very little going for it that would make them want to not pay what the Cubs want.

It's got little to do with whether or not it makes sense financially for the Cubs. That question is answered based on how much WGN bids for the Cubs (though, I had read that it was expected that a long-term deal to keep the Cubs on WGN would be a part of the sale of the team, but obviously we have no clue whether or not that happened). If WGN bids enough, then it makes sense for the Cubs. Therefore the question really is whether or not it makes financial sense for WGN to pay to keep the Cubs, not the other way around (assuming that a deal wasn't a part of the sale).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Also...since the beginnings of cable TV, WGN has gone hammer and tongs to insure their place on the spectrum, and was given the spot because of the Cubs.

Keeping the Cubs is part and parcel to their ability to be "WGN America".
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes and yes.

TBS and WGN are not all that similar aside from the fact that both are superstations. And as I said, you can't separate WGN radio from the TV side of the business. And part of the sales process was definitely about TV rights. That is why the deal dragged on toward the end because Ricketts was unsure if he was getting screwed by the broadcast rights, so WGN will be around one way or another regardless of what people want or what makes the most business sense to the new owners.