Los Angeles Lakers sign a deal with Time Warner Cable for regional sports broadcasting rights worth billions.

http://www.businessinsider.com/lakers-time-warner-cable-deal-is-more-bad-news-for-non-sports-fans-2011-2

This is old news for those of you in the LA area, but I didn't even know this happened.

In the 2012-2013 season, Time Warner Cable will be the new provider of Lakers games. They currently don't have an LA regional sports channel, but they intend to make TWO channels. One in English and one in Spanish. The channels will also make the Lakers an anchor, possibly making it somewhat like the New York Yankees' regional sports channel, YES since there will be a daily Lakers show, and more documentaries, etc. on Kobe's team. The Lakers in fact did consider making their own channel and selling it nationwide.

How much is this contract? We know that it is 20 years, and sources say that the deal is worth $3 billion in that time span, which means the Lakers get $150 million a year just for this deal. Given current NBA revenue sharing structures, they don't have to share any of this dinero.

All I have to say is wow, and I do think some of this money should be shared when the new CBA is out, not only for the Lakers, but all the teams.... No other team in the NBA will get that kind of money.

Time Warner Cable sucks ass tho..

That is just crazy!
Not to mention, totally unfair.
This just is another way to perpetuate the inequities within the NBA...

damn...always figurin out how to get a dollar...thats sweeet.

VISA, you know this deal is good for their team, but it's very bad for the other teams in the NBA that aren't sexy, like the Wizards.

The Lakers are doing the exact opposite of the Wizards in terms of their long term plans.

..I don't understand how this effects any team :/

Signing really big TV deals with no revenue sharing will give the Lakers an even bigger advantage to sign free agents and make lop sided trades from taking teams where they could re-sign them to more large deals without hitting operating expense and ticket expense money. If some of this money were shared among other NBA teams, like it is in baseball, with a hard cap, it helps the other teams in the league get more of a piece of the pie.

Do you think the Wizards could get Comcast SportsNet to dish 3 billion for 20 years on a Spanish and English channel?

wallshingtonwizard wrote:: Signing really big TV deals with no revenue sharing will give the Lakers an even bigger advantage to sign free agents and make lop sided trades from taking teams where they could re-sign them to more large deals without hitting operating expense and ticket expense money. If some of this money were shared among other NBA teams, like it is in baseball, with a hard cap, it helps the other teams in the league get more of a piece of the pie.

Do you think the Wizards could get Comcast SportsNet to dish 3 billion for 20 years on a Spanish and English channel?

So true!
Gah; that is why smaller market teams appear to have a difficult time recovering cause of large market teams getting richer and richer!

hmm...I don't think they should have to share there money..but from the basketball side that kind of sucks

VISA I know you're libertarian and all, but what do you think would be the best way to get all the teams to profitability? Should all the games be on national TV like they do with the NFL?

I guess I'm taking a socialist type of view given the hard cap suggestion, the player conduct firing clauses, etc., but that's my take.

The thing is; no one person 'owns' the NBA. It is made up of member teams, who are each individually owned. It's just not OK to say they need to share there profits. If owners like ted feel they can't survive with the big dogs, then this might not be the business. The national TV would never work, too many games and tooooo many teams. I think if we retract some teams like Sacremento, Minnesota, Indiana, Toronto, possibly houston and memphis. The talent will become more dense amognst the teams, which will make everyone more competitive. Reason I kept wizards off the retract list is because DC and VA is called home by A lot of people who aren't area natives. if all the teams are more competitive the seats will fill better. See how many tickets the wizards are selling for the upcoming heat vs wizards game?

301 #based wrote:: The thing is; no one person 'owns' the NBA. It is made up of member teams, who are each individually owned. It's just not OK to say they need to share there profits. If owners like ted feel they can't survive with the big dogs, then this might not be the business. The national TV would never work, too many games and tooooo many teams. I think if we retract some teams like Sacremento, Minnesota, Indiana, Toronto, possibly houston and memphis. The talent will become more dense amognst the teams, which will make everyone more competitive. Reason I kept wizards off the retract list is because DC and VA is called home by A lot of people who aren't area natives. if all the teams are more competitive the seats will fill better. See how many tickets the wizards are selling for the upcoming heat vs wizards game?

I agree National TV for every game isn't the answer for the NBA because there are just too many games. But perhaps mandating that a particular team must be on ESPN or TNT at least once a month could be more feasible.

I do agree that the DC area is a transient area (people from all over the country live in the area) because it's the capital of the USA and with the Feds and contractors here, this area is more affluent than most of the rest of the country. If you include Baltimore (though they think they're a completely different area which they really aren't), the metro area is the fourth largest in the NBA yet we can't compete, due to previous ownership's cheapness (over many years), and new ownership is trying to change the culture while remaining cheap given that Ted was fined for his comments comparing the Caps and Wizards.

I don't know how Ted would react if the NBA remained at a soft cap or an MLB type system. He and his partners have the resources to pay Lakers money, but then again, can we even be profitable? the Lakers can be profitable and are. The Wizards would essentially be like the Mavs where they spend to win, but possibly at the expense of making profits.

Do you think that if Dan Snyder owned the wizaards, the team would do better? As much as I hate to say it, I think that if he put a good GM in place and didn't butt in mgmt decisions, Snyder could be producing a lot of winning teams in the NBA because the system right now encourages a Snyder type owner right now in order to win.

Bitchin'.

» Time Warner Cable fails..
» Lakers sign Mickael Gelabale?
» Ricky Rubio reported to be a complete BITCH as usual and sign a SIX YEAR DEAL with Barcelona?
» Stephen Curry to LOS ANGELES LAKERS
» 2005-2006 Los Angeles Lakers -or- 2003-2004 Memphis Grizzlies: In a playoff series