MLS, FSW nearing agreement

[Zenit]

Originally posted by Chris M.
Before FSW, I used to get live soccer only once or twice a month with no energy and no stamina. But NNNNOOOOOOWWWW . . . I get to watch live soccer like every single day.

Early contender for POTY.

[monster]

Originally posted by HalaMadrid
I've said it before and I'll say it again --

Brian Shea: He Knows More Than You

Dude, you just want to get into my sig. :p

Really, I have heard dick this year. Cable company and iNDemand have all told me to check back in March. I haven't had the time to chat with MLS - I actually have a job I like now.

Follow what Ridge Mahoney writes - he follows it more than any reporter probably. If you live in an MLS city, find a way to get in touch with your local beat writer and pester him for info. We have to get to the day where we don't rely on MLS HQ for info, but get it from the media. That day is slowly coming, but we're not 100 percent there on business issues yet.

Pester your cable company. Programming people, CSRs, the GM. My GM is astoundingly honest and responsive.

And use common sense. Everyone gets in a lather about FSW doing its own stuff for MLS, but - as soeone who doesnt have FSW - I'd be really interested in finding out how many productions FSW does by itself. Hint - it doesn't do the USL matches.

[HalaMadrid]

And before anoyone gets into a lather about FSW not willing to do its own productions for matches and studio shows...consider how many programs it does it for, period, let alone MLS.

Almost everything FSW shows is something produced elsewhere with minimal investment on their part. even shows where the announcers are FSWs, they are dubbed over a feed from the originating country and are never sent anywhere.

You can probably count the number of programs FSW actually spends money to produce in their LA studios every week on your thumb.

[GoDC]

Originally posted by HalaMadrid
I've said it before and I'll say it again --

Brian Shea: He Knows More Than You

Are you sick man!!! That statement can only be true of about 10 people on this planet and none of them are in the Shea family.

[Preston North End]

Originally posted by monster
http://nas.americakicks.com/archive/msg08016.html

Unfortunately when I changed jobs in October, I lost a year's worth of MLS Confidential files that had the discussion on the cost. Can't find it online anywhere.

http://www.mlsnet.com/content/01/mls0102teleconference.html

From Jan. 2, 2002:

[i]Garber on the exclusivity aspect of the deal:
"The MLS agreement is exclusive with ABC. It is not exclusive with ESPN. We do have the opportunity to find a new home for 'MLS ExtraTime'. We are exploring that. We also have the opportunity for other games that we might want to air. We do have some open windows."

Part of the reason they want their own channel is to get all their games on TV. As someone told me, "They have no home once football starts."

I'm still saying 2005 in some way shape or form based on what I have gleaned from last year.

That's a possibility. But, again, this backs up what I've been saying - FSW will only be the landlord, not the tenant. There will be SUM/MLS all over this, not FSW. Just an opinion, but I feel an educated one.

I know who I heard on the SJ-CLB broadcast and it wasn't Burgess. A radio station in the Bay Area also had the game covered as well, with John Schader doing the PBP.

I remember the Soccer America e-mail pegging the production costs at around $15K.

Thanks for the link on the MLS/"Mouse Network" agreement. It wouldn't make sense for the new contract that was struck in 2002 to include an exclusive for only one year.

Why do you think SUM/MLS didn't come to an agreement with FSW (assuming it was FSW) last year? Do you think SUM/MLS wanted more of the revenue (duh) than FSW was willing to give up?

I've never said FSW would be "the man" with possible MLS broadcasts. But since MLS doesn't have a studio or a channel, FSW would have to handle the production from the "studio" point of view. I've been saying all along that SUM/MLS would be the organizer. I sure hope you haven't thought otherwise.

Why would SUM/MLS start a channel in 2005? The current agreement with the "Mouse Networks" runs through 2006. Sure it's only for 25-30 games per year and having all games televised would be beneficial - which could happen this year without a SUM channel. This is a weak point in an arguement against doing one in 2005, that's for sure.

However, why invest (limited as it is) in a channel when funding for the league only runs through 2006. There may not be a MLS in 2007.

This is why I look at 2007 as a start date. The SUM/MLS investors will commit to MLS for another X years and have the channel start up at the same time. Remember MLS money (meaning investors) are behind SUM.

I do realize that SUM is set up to get other broadcasting rights, so a channel in 2005 wouldn't be limited to just MLS games. This is the stongest arguement for a channel to start in 2005, or sooner.

The question is when will rights to Germany, England, Spain (see FSW problems with this), etc. be available for SUM/MLS to grab? What about other leagues such as Brazil or Argentina? Mexico? International tournaments, other than the World Cup, like the two UEFA cups, Copa Libertadores?

I'm sure the USL and WUSA could be had in 2005. What about youth soccer tournaments or college?

In any event imagine an American soccer-t.v. landscape in 2005, or later, with FSW (spanish and english), GolTV (spanish and english), and a SUM soccer channel? I'm sure one would be able to watch on t.v. close to 500 hours of soccer related programs.

[monster]

Originally posted by Preston North End
I know who I heard on the SJ-CLB broadcast and it wasn't Burgess. A radio station in the Bay Area also had the game covered as well, with John Schader doing the PBP.

Well, I'd love to see a report to prove this. You may remember one thing and another be the truth. Happens to people all the time with no malice intended.

Thanks for the link on the MLS/"Mouse Network" agreement. It wouldn't make sense for the new contract that was struck in 2002 to include an exclusive for only one year.
I never said it wasn't. In fact, Inever brought up the exculsivity until you did. Just proving that it was in the ocntract, that's all

Why do you think SUM/MLS didn't come to an agreement with FSW (assuming it was FSW) last year? Do you think SUM/MLS wanted more of the revenue (duh) than FSW was willing to give up?

And as you can tell, it really hurt MLS. regardless of who turned down who, Fox n't step to the plate. If they were so interested, they wouldhave cut a deal. They weren't, so they didn't.

I've never said FSW would be "the man" with possible MLS broadcasts. But since MLS doesn't have a studio or a channel, FSW would have to handle the production from the "studio" point of view. I've been saying all along that SUM/MLS would be the organizer. I sure hope you haven't thought otherwise.

FSW has the only place MLS can do a TV show? Are you really saying that? Winnercomm hosted ExtraTime. And I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying there are dozens of places in NY that MLS can rent to do their own production.

Why would SUM/MLS start a channel in 2005?

Because they want to? :D All I know is by cobbling together info from various people., I guess at 2005. It is nothing more than a hunch. You can parse television agreements (starting a channel has nothing to do with the ESPN2/ABC deal by the way) and investor commitments.

They have said publicly (and provately if you talk to the right people that the ball is rolling. And it's been rolling longer than you think.

It's not about games. It's about exposure. And control. Look at what MBA.com TV used to be - highlight shows, etc., and that's possibly what it will resemble, not a home for games. IT's a means to the end, which is controlling the exposure of the league.

However, why invest (limited as it is) in a channel when funding for the league only runs through 2006. There may not be a MLS in 2007.

But there will be an AEG.

This is why I look at 2007 as a start date. The SUM/MLS investors will commit to MLS for another X years and have the channel start up at the same time. Remember MLS money (meaning investors) are behind SUM.

And remember that AEG money - which also promotes concerts and other sportng events - is behind all of that. And if he got the bandwidth, he'd be smart enough to use it to benefit all his interests.

I do realize that SUM is set up to get other broadcasting rights, so a channel in 2005 wouldn't be limited to just MLS games. This is the stongest arguement for a channel to start in 2005, or sooner.

The question is when will rights to Germany, England, Spain (see FSW problems with this), etc. be available for SUM/MLS to grab? What about other leagues such as Brazil or Argentina? Mexico? International tournaments, other than the World Cup, like the two UEFA cups, Copa Libertadores?

I'm sure the USL and WUSA could be had in 2005. What about youth soccer tournaments or college?

In any event imagine an American soccer-t.v. landscape in 2005, or later, with FSW (spanish and english), GolTV (spanish and english), and a SUM soccer channel? I'm sure one would be able to watch on t.v. close to 500 hours of soccer related programs.

Actually, I think - again just a hunch - that showing other games won't be the primary reason for this channel. I think they want to get into that stuff more to control how theose teams operate when and if they visit the U.S. Showigthe games is part of that package.

It's about making people know MLS is out there through video marketing. It's way deeper than many people consider when the issue comes up.

[Preston North End]

Originally posted by monsterWell, I'd love to see a report to prove this. You may remember one thing and another be the truth. Happens to people all the time with no malice intended.

You did, from me and FlashMan (though he doesn't remember 100%). I'd like to see a report that Burgess did the televised PBP - your link says he was going to do it, not that he did.

Originally posted by monsterI never said it wasn't. In fact, Inever brought up the exculsivity until you did. Just proving that it was in the ocntract, that's all

I didn't say you did bring it up. I just didn't remember anything about it.

Originally posted by monsterAnd as you can tell, it really hurt MLS. regardless of who turned down who, Fox n't step to the plate. If they were so interested, they wouldhave cut a deal. They weren't, so they didn't.

I think FSW is interested, unless what has been reported by the NY newspaper is a unconfirmed rumor. Or is this deal really only about Extra-Time and no games at all?

The deal last year wasn't good enough for whatever parties were involved. Maybe SUM didn't setp up to the plate.

Why do you feel FSW doesn't want MLS? Isn't the rumor for Extra-Time to come back, but on FSW? Isn't the rumor also for 25 or so games to be on FSW? MLS programming works for FSW. Why wouldn't they want it?

Until GolTV, what other channel would take MLS productions? It sure aint the "Mouse Networks"! They only show MLS games to get the World Cup.

Originally posted by monsterFSW has the only place MLS can do a TV show? Are you really saying that? Winnercomm hosted ExtraTime. And I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying there are dozens of places in NY that MLS can rent to do their own production.

No FSW is not the only place MLS could produce a TV show. I don't FSW would produce Extra-Time or fully produce a MLS broadcast. Never said they would.

I know Winner did MLS production from 1996-2001. IIRC Extra-Time was produced in Kansas City.

What FSW offers is the channel. Maybe FSW wants to control more of the production (say from the studio aspect) than MLS is willing to give up. As you say elsewhere, control is key for SUM/MLS.

Originally posted by monsterBecause they want to? :D All I know is by cobbling together info from various people., I guess at 2005. It is nothing more than a hunch. You can parse television agreements (starting a channel has nothing to do with the ESPN2/ABC deal by the way) and investor commitments.

They have said publicly (and provately if you talk to the right people that the ball is rolling. And it's been rolling longer than you think).

It's not about games. It's about exposure. And control. Look at what MBA.com TV used to be - highlight shows, etc., and that's possibly what it will resemble, not a home for games. IT's a means to the end, which is controlling the exposure of the league.

All the talk has been about acquiring rights to other soccer properties, including the broadcast rights and putting the games on some channel. It doesn't have to be a SUM channel. I know this.

It also hasn't been only about the promotion rights to the game.

SUM wants to acquire these rights to other soccer properties, not just broadcast rights mind you, to help promote MLS. If a Man United v. Boca Juniors game doesn't end up on T.V. in the U.S. that wouldn't hurt SUM. It doesn't help them with the primary goal, however.

Garber has been quoted as saying SUM is looking at launching a soccer channel.

Why acquire other soccer properties, including broadcast rights, and start a channel if the channel will not show games.

Sure it doesn't have to be MLS games, but there will be games. More reason your educated guess of a 2005 launch is valid.

However, I feel MLS games will be the "primary tenant" and reason for the SUM channel. As you say it's about exposure for MLS. SUM wasn't created for AEG to promote a concert or a Man United tour, it was created to promote MLS.

Originally posted by monsterBut there will be an AEG

And remember that AEG money - which also promotes concerts and other sportng events - is behind all of that. And if he got the bandwidth, he'd be smart enough to use it to benefit all his interests.

Why would AEG put concerts and hockey on a soccer-specific channel?

However, AEG isn't looking for the other soccer property rights, SUM is. SUM is more than AEG. And yes, SUM could still be around in 2007, even without a MLS. But SUM is all about promoting MLS first are foremost.

Like I said in this post and an earlier post, other soccer content will be needed and not just highlight shows. But the primary focus will be MLS; which is what SUM is all about. SUM's sole purpose of existance is to promote MLS through MLS games and other soccer properties.

Originally posted by monsterActually, I think - again just a hunch - that showing other games won't be the primary reason for this channel. I think they want to get into that stuff more to control how theose teams operate when and if they visit the U.S. Showing the games is part of that package.

I would agree with this hunch to a certain extent.

SUM is all about event promotion. But the primary reason behind SUM is promoting MLS and the MLS product; which is games.

SUM wants these other games to promote MLS.

All the more reason for a soccer-specific channel that Garber was talking about. It (the other soccer properties) may not be the primary reason for the channel - I think MLS is - but it is a reason; which would be a good business deciscion.

I think showing a Man United v. Real Madrid or Jubilo Iwata v. Chivas game on the SUM soccer channel is more important than promoting the event(s) themselves. It's the same dynamics that helped MLS by SUM promoting MLS throught the World Cup broadcasts. It's why SUM wants these events, to help with that promotion.

I know it's not only about content, but about content that reaches a specific market. You know "Eurosnobs".

Originally posted by monsterIt's about making people know MLS is out there through video marketing. It's way deeper than many people consider when the issue comes up.

Yes, it is all about exposure. That's how things sell. You know, the "national footprint" and all? The NFL and NBA didn't become big until they received media - radio then television - exposure (stars helped with that too). The same thing can and will work for MLS, but MLS needs a vehicle: SUM.

What I'm waiting for are MLS ads to appear on movie screens at your local Regal Entertainment movie theatre. You know, the digital projection ads and commercials shown prior to the movie starting?

Actually, our debate has swung me to believe sooner (2005) would be better than later (2007) to start the channel. The sooner it is up and running the sooner SUM/MLS controls the marketing of the league. They won't have to depend on the "Mouse Networks" or someone like FSW to help with that.

I think SUM/MLS would ditch the Shootout package if they had a channel to broadcast games for "free" and didn't have to deal with DirecTV, Dish, or InDemand regarding the Shootout. Less headaches in my opinion.

[monster]

Originally posted by Preston North End
You did, from me and FlashMan (though he doesn't remember 100%). I'd like to see a report that Burgess did the televised PBP - your link says he was going to do it, not that he did.

Whatever. I'm just sorry for trying to inject facts into a discussion.

I think FSW is interested, unless what has been reported by the NY newspaper is a unconfirmed rumor. Or is this deal really only about Extra-Time and no games at all?

FSW is interested in broadcasting. No one has ever said anything about FSW interested in producing. That's the quantum leap people are making.

Why do you feel FSW doesn't want MLS? Isn't the rumor for Extra-Time to come back, but on FSW? Isn't the rumor also for 25 or so games to be on FSW? MLS programming works for FSW. Why wouldn't they want it?

Mainly because its been up for grabs in some way shape or form several times and they've never gone for it.

Until GolTV, what other channel would take MLS productions? It sure aint the "Mouse Networks"! They only show MLS games to get the World Cup.

By take on, do you mean show or produce. There's a world of difference. If you mean show, the WUSA deal proves you can always fnd someone to show your stuff depending on how much you are willing to spend and/or shoot yourself in the foot.

If you mean produce, you obviously are naive if you think networks are the only ones who can produce a broadcast. I'll give you credit for knowing that based on your comments below.

No FSW is not the only place MLS could produce a TV show. I don't FSW would produce Extra-Time or fully produce a MLS broadcast. Never said they would.

I know Winner did MLS production from 1996-2001. IIRC Extra-Time was produced in Kansas City.

What FSW offers is the channel. Maybe FSW wants to control more of the production (say from the studio aspect) than MLS is willing to give up. As you say elsewhere, control is key for SUM/MLS.

Given that Fox is rebuffing systems who want to show their channel for a series of outrageous demands (high per subscriber fees with demands to have the channel onanalog and not digital where the money can be recouped), maybe they do want too much control. But given their track record at actually going out and soliciting properties, I think that's not the case from the programming side. As someone said before, they get everything third-hand.

It was Oklahoma, by the way, not KC.

All the talk has been about acquiring rights to other soccer properties, including the broadcast rights and putting the games on some channel. It doesn't have to be a SUM channel. I know this.

It also hasn't been only about the promotion rights to the game.

SUM wants to acquire these rights to other soccer properties, not just broadcast rights mind you, to help promote MLS. If a Man United v. Boca Juniors game doesn't end up on T.V. in the U.S. that wouldn't hurt SUM. It doesn't help them with the primary goal, however.

Garber has been quoted as saying SUM is looking at launching a soccer channel.

Why acquire other soccer properties, including broadcast rights, and start a channel if the channel will not show games.

Sure it doesn't have to be MLS games, but there will be games. More reason your educated guess of a 2005 launch is valid.

However, I feel MLS games will be the "primary tenant" and reason for the SUM channel. As you say it's about exposure for MLS. SUM wasn't created for AEG to promote a concert or a Man United tour, it was created to promote MLS.

Why would AEG put concerts and hockey on a soccer-specific channel?

Big picture. MLSTV won't be a big draw for a lot of cable systems and dish providers. But when they find out it will rebroadcast the Britney Spears concert that AEG is promoting and showing live on PPV, but only if you run his channel that mainly shows soccer, people might listen.

FSW doesn't show sports 24/7. They show infomercials. Think of ancillary AEG entertainment as infomercials.

If you have ready anything about Anschutz, you'd learn that he does not play by conventional business rules and often uses one venture to help another succeed.

However, AEG isn't looking for the other soccer property rights, SUM is. SUM is more than AEG. And yes, SUM could still be around in 2007, even without a MLS. But SUM is all about promoting MLS first are foremost.

If you think SUM isn't primarily AEG, you're silly. Who owns most of the league? Who bought the WC rights before SUM was created?

AEG.

Like I said in this post and an earlier post, other soccer content will be needed and not just highlight shows. But the primary focus will be MLS; which is what SUM is all about. SUM's sole purpose of existance is to promote MLS through MLS games and other soccer properties.



I would agree with this hunch to a certain extent.

SUM is all about event promotion. But the primary reason behind SUM is promoting MLS and the MLS product; which is games.

SUM wants these other games to promote MLS.

All the more reason for a soccer-specific channel that Garber was talking about. It (the other soccer properties) may not be the primary reason for the channel - I think MLS is - but it is a reason; which would be a good business deciscion.

I think showing a Man United v. Real Madrid or Jubilo Iwata v. Chivas game on the SUM soccer channel is more important than promoting the event(s) themselves. It's the same dynamics that helped MLS by SUM promoting MLS throught the World Cup broadcasts. It's why SUM wants these events, to help with that promotion.

I know it's not only about content, but about content that reaches a specific market. You know "Eurosnobs".



Yes, it is all about exposure. That's how things sell. You know, the "national footprint" and all? The NFL and NBA didn't become big until they received media - radio then television - exposure (stars helped with that too). The same thing can and will work for MLS, but MLS needs a vehicle: SUM.

What I'm waiting for are MLS ads to appear on movie screens at your local Regal Entertainment movie theatre. You know, the digital projection ads and commercials shown prior to the movie starting?

Actually, our debate has swung me to believe sooner (2005) would be better than later (2007) to start the channel. The sooner it is up and running the sooner SUM/MLS controls the marketing of the league. They won't have to depend on the "Mouse Networks" or someone like FSW to help with that.

I think SUM/MLS would ditch the Shootout package if they had a channel to broadcast games for "free" and didn't have to deal with DirecTV, Dish, or InDemand regarding the Shootout. Less headaches in my opinion.

I got tired after that last one. Especially after refuting all my arguments you said that I was right about 2005 anyway. :rolleyes:

And if you think they'll ditch the Shootout after creating their own channel, I'm sorry, but that's stupid. NBA.com TV is a perfect example. You don't kiss off something people are willing to pay for.

I'm through. You've said little of substance and have showed me that you really haven't talked to anyone involved with this. I'll prefer to take it from the horse's mouth, so to speak, than from someone here.

[FlashMan]

I have the SJ v. Clbs game on tape. (It was the 2nd playoff game of their series, correct?) In fact, I rewatched it about a month and a half ago. This is one reason why the SJ announcer sticks out in my head, but I can't say I was really paying all that much attention.

If I get inspired, I'll get the tape out and check it out.

Resume your otherwise inspired conversation. :)

[monster]

Originally posted by FlashMan
I have the SJ v. Clbs game on tape. (It was the 2nd playoff game of their series, correct?) In fact, I rewatched it about a month and a half ago. This is one reason why the SJ announcer sticks out in my head, but I can't say I was really paying all that much attention.

If I get inspired, I'll get the tape out and check it out.

Resume your otherwise inspired conversation. :)

Man enough to admit when I'm wrong.

It was Shrader, but all the press about it mentions Burgess. There was a last-minute switch which even MLS didn't know about when until it happened.

I'm horrible at recognizing voices so I wouldn't know the difference.

[Preston North End]

Originally posted by monster
Whatever. I'm just sorry for trying to inject facts into a discussion.

No problem. However, until FlashMan decides to watch is vidoetape nothing is really proven; whether it's my memory - which isn't bad - or your pregame facts.

Originally posted by monster
FSW is interested in broadcasting. No one has ever said anything about FSW interested in producing. That's the quantum leap people are making.

Mainly because its been up for grabs in some way shape or form several times and they've never gone for it.

I've only said FSW would be interested producing some aspect of a SUM deal. Nothing more. How do you know FSW isn't interested in some production? Please enlighten me with all the facts you have.

Frankly, I don't think they need to produce any part of it. Just take the share of ad revenue and run.

That the "deal" has been up for grabs and FSW hasn't grabbed it has nothing to do whether they want it or not. It has more to do with they don't want for what SUM is offering it for.

Originally posted by monster
By take on, do you mean show or produce. There's a world of difference. If you mean show, the WUSA deal proves you can always fnd someone to show your stuff depending on how much you are willing to spend and/or shoot yourself in the foot.

If you mean produce, you obviously are naive if you think networks are the only ones who can produce a broadcast. I'll give you credit for knowing that based on your comments below.

I don't think MLS will want there games on PAX. Look at WUSA's numbers. Sure FSW probably would get the same numbers for a MLS game, but the opportunity is there for more of the untapped market to see a game on FSW, because that's what they watch. They don't watch PAX.

I know networks aren't the only people capable of producing a show. A lot of television programs aren't touched by the networks that carry them.

Originally posted by monster
Given that Fox is rebuffing systems who want to show their channel for a series of outrageous demands (high per subscriber fees with demands to have the channel onanalog and not digital where the money can be recouped), maybe they do want too much control. But given their track record at actually going out and soliciting properties, I think that's not the case from the programming side. As someone said before, they get everything third-hand.

No, I think they want to make money. Murdoch isn't a dummy - though he is probably really far from the FSW operations, but his hands are all over it.

Originally posted by monster
It was Oklahoma, by the way, not KC.

I knew it was somewhere outside the mainstream media centers.

Originally posted by monster
Big picture. MLSTV won't be a big draw for a lot of cable systems and dish providers. But when they find out it will rebroadcast the Britney Spears concert that AEG is promoting and showing live on PPV, but only if you run his channel that mainly shows soccer, people might listen.

FSW doesn't show sports 24/7. They show infomercials. Think of ancillary AEG entertainment as infomercials.

Sure MLSTV will be a draw. Just like GolTV is and FSW was back in the day.

MLSTV will end up on some digital or satellite tier package.

I also don't think Brittney will be a make or break aspect of the channel, but yes she could be shown. After the PPV as been played out to death. A lot of PPV concerts are reshown at full pop - at least on Dish Network.

I know FSW show infomercials, but I'm sure they don't want to for the rest of their lives.

Brittney will be just another infomercial, but without any revenue. All the revenue for AEG will be made off the general deal; which would include the option to show her (or another similar event) on a soccer channel.

The revenue for MLSTV will come from the broadcast soccer properties when SUM will sell ad time to Heineken.

Originally posted by monster
If you have ready anything about Anschutz, you'd learn that he does not play by conventional business rules and often uses one venture to help another succeed.

Actually he plays more by conventional rules than people think. Laying phone lines along side rail tracks is conventional business. He just thought of first.

The marketing genius he brings to the table isn't something new. It's just delivered in a new way.

Originally posted by monster
If you think SUM isn't primarily AEG, you're silly. Who owns most of the league? Who bought the WC rights before SUM was created?

Just like MLS is a majority of AEG, other people, like HSG, Dentsu, Rotherberg (?), are involved in SUM.

The World Cups rights were purchased by SUM, not AEG or MLS. SUM was up and running at the time. The name and logo weren't released at that time.

Originally posted by monster
I got tired after that last one. Especially after refuting all my arguments you said that I was right about 2005 anyway. :rolleyes:

Man enought to admit when someone else is correct!

Originally posted by monster
And if you think they'll ditch the Shootout after creating their own channel, I'm sorry, but that's stupid. NBA.com TV is a perfect example. You don't kiss off something people are willing to pay for.

However, the NBA League Pass brings in way more money than the MLS Shootout will.

Bringing in $500,000 to $1,000,000 from the Shootout isn't going to save MLS. Getting the games on T.V. where the market is - the people that don't care about the MLS enough to purchase the shootout - makes more sense.

BTW, I said would, not will.

Originally posted by monster
I'm through. You've said little of substance and have showed me that you really haven't talked to anyone involved with this. I'll prefer to take it from the horse's mouth, so to speak, than from someone here.

Thanks dad.

[riverplate]

Originally posted by Wolves_67
They did add FSWE so I wonder if the game will be on the Spanish version?

The U.S. Open Cup games broadcast on Fox Sports World were also on Fox Sports en Espanol, so you should be in luck.

[riverplate]

Originally posted by Sandon Mibut
Will these broadcasts be in just English on Fox Sports World or will they also be done in Spanish on FSW-Espanol? (Be nice for the league to have broadcasts in Spanish again.)

See previous post just above.

[nyrmetros]

I can't wait for MLS on FSW. But only as an addition to the ABC/ESPN/ESPN 2 package :)

[FlashMan]

yup, it was the San Jose guy...John Schraeder or something like that. they had little bay area commercials to go along with it.

watched the game for the 3rd time this winter. great game. the one game where donovan really shines at attacking mid, totally controlling the game for the first 35 minutes. but the quakes can't convert and end up falling on a somewhat fluky goal, 2-1.

glad you guys inspired me to get out and watch the game again!!! :)

[MLS3]

Bump...

Any new news on this...latest i heard is still on-going discussions, 30 week 30 min highlight show and 28 week 8pm ET saturday night MLS game plus Playoff matches and of course they already have the US Open Cup...

[nyrmetros]

yea :)

[MLS3]

bump, anyone?

[fdp]

I notice people using the word

"bump"

on the message boards.

What does it signify?

[AndyMead]

It's a cheesy way to move a thread back to the top of the page, often erroneously indicating that addtional "content" exists.