CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's "success"

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
HokieJoe
Posts: 13122
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:12 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's

Post by HokieJoe »

TheH2 wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
What's stupid is thinking an asset is failing because the purchaser of an asset overpaid for it. Sadly that's too complicated for you to understand.
What's stupid is pretending the NFL isn't failing because they committed seppuku after ad buys were made for the regular season and pretending the same networks will pay more next season.

No one is pretending they will pay more. They paid for 9 years in 2014. That's why the revenue increase since 2014 matters. Maybe you should educate yourself, then form an opinion.
USN_Hokie wrote:It's cute watching you try to weasel yourself out of the retarded position you made for yourself while hurling insults at the same time. You're the message board equivalent of a monkey throwing poop.
Given "the same networks will pay more next season" it's pretty clear you have no clue what you're talking about. Please educate yourself. Don't consider it an insult to actually read about topics before having an opinion.
USN_Hokie wrote:But go ahead, regale us with your savant day trader prowess once you're done replacing the toner in the secretary's copier. :mrgreen:
We hire people that are capable of changing a toner. Are you not capable? Do you call someone when toner is low? Seriously, take your own advice and grow up. Your lame insults about my career should embarrass you.

Viewership is down. That trend will continue if the NFL does not abate their nutless approach.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's

Post by HokieFanDC »

USN_Hokie wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
What's stupid is thinking an asset is failing because the purchaser of an asset overpaid for it. Sadly that's too complicated for you to understand.
What's stupid is pretending the NFL isn't failing because they committed seppuku after ad buys were made for the regular season and pretending the same networks will pay more next season.

No one is pretending they will pay more. They paid for 9 years in 2014. That's why the revenue increase since 2014 matters. Maybe you should educate yourself, then form an opinion.
USN_Hokie wrote:It's cute watching you try to weasel yourself out of the retarded position you made for yourself while hurling insults at the same time. You're the message board equivalent of a monkey throwing poop.
Given "the same networks will pay more next season" it's pretty clear you have no clue what you're talking about. Please educate yourself. Don't consider it an insult to actually read about topics before having an opinion.
USN_Hokie wrote:But go ahead, regale us with your savant day trader prowess once you're done replacing the toner in the secretary's copier. :mrgreen:
We hire people that are capable of changing a toner. Are you not capable? Do you call someone when toner is low? Seriously, take your own advice and grow up. Your lame insults about my career should embarrass you.
1. Go ahead and post the network contracts if you want to have a debate. Contracts get renegotiated all the time - if you think the networks are going to continue paying out the arse to broadcast a bunch of barely literate millionaires berate the country, think again.

2. WADR, you think like a poor person. If you provide good value to your company, they have better uses of your time than menial tasks.
How many times do you think the NFL has renegotiated a TV contract before it's up for renewal? While contracts in general get renegotiated all the time, it hasn't happened with the NFL, and so far, there is no talk of that happening. The current discussion is what it will look like when the current contracts start expiring in 2021, and they start negotiating the new contracts.

The first one up for renewal is ESPN MNF, which will be a big measuring stick. Of course, that deal also includes the NFL Draft, a bunch of exclusive highlight rights that no one else gets, so it's got some addl bonuses that the other NFL partners don't.

I think it's unlikely things will be renegotiated, but you can keep on dreaming.
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's

Post by TheH2 »

USN_Hokie wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
What's stupid is thinking an asset is failing because the purchaser of an asset overpaid for it. Sadly that's too complicated for you to understand.
What's stupid is pretending the NFL isn't failing because they committed seppuku after ad buys were made for the regular season and pretending the same networks will pay more next season.

No one is pretending they will pay more. They paid for 9 years in 2014. That's why the revenue increase since 2014 matters. Maybe you should educate yourself, then form an opinion.
USN_Hokie wrote:It's cute watching you try to weasel yourself out of the retarded position you made for yourself while hurling insults at the same time. You're the message board equivalent of a monkey throwing poop.
Given "the same networks will pay more next season" it's pretty clear you have no clue what you're talking about. Please educate yourself. Don't consider it an insult to actually read about topics before having an opinion.
USN_Hokie wrote:But go ahead, regale us with your savant day trader prowess once you're done replacing the toner in the secretary's copier. :mrgreen:
We hire people that are capable of changing a toner. Are you not capable? Do you call someone when toner is low? Seriously, take your own advice and grow up. Your lame insults about my career should embarrass you.
1. Go ahead and post the network contracts if you want to have a debate. Contracts get renegotiated all the time - if you think the networks are going to continue paying out the arse to broadcast a bunch of barely literate millionaires berate the country, think again.
Why didn't they renegotiate last year after lower ratings. Regardless, revenues are rising and TV contract is fixed.
USN_Hokie wrote:2. WADR, you think like a poor person. If you provide good value to your company, they have better uses of your time than menial tasks.
If I ever decide to start a company I'll be sure to pay one guy 40k a year to change toner and order new computers for a handful of people.

Without preface, I don't care what you think. You've shown your inability to think logically over and over again. You don't defend your illogical statements but rather go on the offensive. Either arguing against a point no one made, or attacking someone else's point with another refutable argument. It's tired, but also easy to continue to engage because, well, you're quite simple. You can keep insulting my career, my income, or my intelligence. All of which you know nothing about. It says a lot more about you than it does about me. Thanks for serving our country (or continuing to serve?). I'm sure you're a great person.
People who know, know.
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's

Post by TheH2 »

awesome guy wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:Psychologists call that projection. Sad how you can't see that you described yourself.
I'm not the one thinking networks establish new contracts every year. I'm not the one that thinks only one person took a knee last year. Etc, etc, etc.
You're the one thinking they're winning and the ratings decline won't affect future contracts. It's hilarious given your bombastic nature.
Winning in what context? The most popular sport, yes. The most eyeballs on a TV, yes. The best way to reach 18-49 year old's on TV, yes. TV ratings vs. last year, no. Just because something isn't failing doesn't mean it has no problems. I've said it many times, but there are two big problems with this board:
1. Everything doesn't have to be an extreme.
2. Failure to use a "denominator" or the right "denominator".
People who know, know.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's "success"

Post by awesome guy »

TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:Psychologists call that projection. Sad how you can't see that you described yourself.
I'm not the one thinking networks establish new contracts every year. I'm not the one that thinks only one person took a knee last year. Etc, etc, etc.
You're the one thinking they're winning and the ratings decline won't affect future contracts. It's hilarious given your bombastic nature.
Winning in what context? The most popular sport, yes. The most eyeballs on a TV, yes. The best way to reach 18-49 year old's on TV, yes. TV ratings vs. last year, no. Just because something isn't failing doesn't mean it has no problems. I've said it many times, but there are two big problems with this board:
1. Everything doesn't have to be an extreme.
2. Failure to use a "denominator" or the right "denominator".
Failing isn't an extreme description. You were simply looking to snipe and ended up looking like a fool.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's "success"

Post by ip_law-hokie »

awesome guy wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:Psychologists call that projection. Sad how you can't see that you described yourself.
I'm not the one thinking networks establish new contracts every year. I'm not the one that thinks only one person took a knee last year. Etc, etc, etc.
You're the one thinking they're winning and the ratings decline won't affect future contracts. It's hilarious given your bombastic nature.
Winning in what context? The most popular sport, yes. The most eyeballs on a TV, yes. The best way to reach 18-49 year old's on TV, yes. TV ratings vs. last year, no. Just because something isn't failing doesn't mean it has no problems. I've said it many times, but there are two big problems with this board:
1. Everything doesn't have to be an extreme.
2. Failure to use a "denominator" or the right "denominator".
Failing isn't an extreme description. You were simply looking to snipe and ended up looking like a fool.
No. Failing is extreme.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's "success"

Post by awesome guy »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:Psychologists call that projection. Sad how you can't see that you described yourself.
I'm not the one thinking networks establish new contracts every year. I'm not the one that thinks only one person took a knee last year. Etc, etc, etc.
You're the one thinking they're winning and the ratings decline won't affect future contracts. It's hilarious given your bombastic nature.
Winning in what context? The most popular sport, yes. The most eyeballs on a TV, yes. The best way to reach 18-49 year old's on TV, yes. TV ratings vs. last year, no. Just because something isn't failing doesn't mean it has no problems. I've said it many times, but there are two big problems with this board:
1. Everything doesn't have to be an extreme.
2. Failure to use a "denominator" or the right "denominator".
Failing isn't an extreme description. You were simply looking to snipe and ended up looking like a fool.
No. Failing is extreme.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nope
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's "success"

Post by ip_law-hokie »

awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
TheH2 wrote: I'm not the one thinking networks establish new contracts every year. I'm not the one that thinks only one person took a knee last year. Etc, etc, etc.
You're the one thinking they're winning and the ratings decline won't affect future contracts. It's hilarious given your bombastic nature.
Winning in what context? The most popular sport, yes. The most eyeballs on a TV, yes. The best way to reach 18-49 year old's on TV, yes. TV ratings vs. last year, no. Just because something isn't failing doesn't mean it has no problems. I've said it many times, but there are two big problems with this board:
1. Everything doesn't have to be an extreme.
2. Failure to use a "denominator" or the right "denominator".
Failing isn't an extreme description. You were simply looking to snipe and ended up looking like a fool.
No. Failing is extreme.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nope
.

OK. You win.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's "success"

Post by awesome guy »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:You're the one thinking they're winning and the ratings decline won't affect future contracts. It's hilarious given your bombastic nature.
Winning in what context? The most popular sport, yes. The most eyeballs on a TV, yes. The best way to reach 18-49 year old's on TV, yes. TV ratings vs. last year, no. Just because something isn't failing doesn't mean it has no problems. I've said it many times, but there are two big problems with this board:
1. Everything doesn't have to be an extreme.
2. Failure to use a "denominator" or the right "denominator".
Failing isn't an extreme description. You were simply looking to snipe and ended up looking like a fool.
No. Failing is extreme.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nope
.

OK. You win.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Of course. Only a nut would not see 7-10% declines as failing.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's

Post by TheH2 »

USN_Hokie wrote:
1. Go ahead and post the network contracts if you want to have a debate. Contracts get renegotiated all the time - if you think the networks are going to continue paying out the arse to broadcast a bunch of barely literate millionaires berate the country, think again.

2. WADR, you think like a poor person. If you provide good value to your company, they have better uses of your time than menial tasks.
If I think like a poor person, what do you think like? Next time you insult someone else's ability to think, make sure you're right. This is the perfect example of taking several different pieces of information, piecing it together, and coming to a logical conclusion. You continually show the inability to do that.

Please spare me the Krugman remark or The Economist remark or the live with my parents, or......
Image
People who know, know.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's

Post by USN_Hokie »

TheH2 wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
1. Go ahead and post the network contracts if you want to have a debate. Contracts get renegotiated all the time - if you think the networks are going to continue paying out the arse to broadcast a bunch of barely literate millionaires berate the country, think again.

2. WADR, you think like a poor person. If you provide good value to your company, they have better uses of your time than menial tasks.
If I think like a poor person, what do you think like? Next time you insult someone else's ability to think, make sure you're right. This is the perfect example of taking several different pieces of information, piecing it together, and coming to a logical conclusion. You continually show the inability to do that.

Please spare me the Krugman remark or The Economist remark or the live with my parents, or......
Image
You do think like a poor person. Back to counting beans now...

Oopsie....

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ight-games
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's "success"

Post by ip_law-hokie »

USN_Hokie wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
1. Go ahead and post the network contracts if you want to have a debate. Contracts get renegotiated all the time - if you think the networks are going to continue paying out the arse to broadcast a bunch of barely literate millionaires berate the country, think again.

2. WADR, you think like a poor person. If you provide good value to your company, they have better uses of your time than menial tasks.
If I think like a poor person, what do you think like? Next time you insult someone else's ability to think, make sure you're right. This is the perfect example of taking several different pieces of information, piecing it together, and coming to a logical conclusion. You continually show the inability to do that.

Please spare me the Krugman remark or The Economist remark or the live with my parents, or......
Image
You do think like a poor person. Back to counting beans now...

Oopsie....

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ight-games
You were wrong Cap’n.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's

Post by TheH2 »

USN_Hokie wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
1. Go ahead and post the network contracts if you want to have a debate. Contracts get renegotiated all the time - if you think the networks are going to continue paying out the arse to broadcast a bunch of barely literate millionaires berate the country, think again.

2. WADR, you think like a poor person. If you provide good value to your company, they have better uses of your time than menial tasks.
If I think like a poor person, what do you think like? Next time you insult someone else's ability to think, make sure you're right. This is the perfect example of taking several different pieces of information, piecing it together, and coming to a logical conclusion. You continually show the inability to do that.

Please spare me the Krugman remark or The Economist remark or the live with my parents, or......
Image
You do think like a poor person. Back to counting beans now...

Oopsie....

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ight-games
If your thinking wasn't worse than a poor person you'd know that has 0 relevance.
USN_Hokie wrote:if you think the networks are going to continue paying out the arse to broadcast a bunch of barely literate millionaires berate the country, think again.
Nowhere did I or you claim it would be good value. I only claimed that they would. You claimed they wouldn't. It's sad that I don't even expect you to understand that you were wrong. That's exactly why you're a worthless poster and it is pointless to respond to you.
People who know, know.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's "success"

Post by ip_law-hokie »

TheH2 wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
1. Go ahead and post the network contracts if you want to have a debate. Contracts get renegotiated all the time - if you think the networks are going to continue paying out the arse to broadcast a bunch of barely literate millionaires berate the country, think again.

2. WADR, you think like a poor person. If you provide good value to your company, they have better uses of your time than menial tasks.
If I think like a poor person, what do you think like? Next time you insult someone else's ability to think, make sure you're right. This is the perfect example of taking several different pieces of information, piecing it together, and coming to a logical conclusion. You continually show the inability to do that.

Please spare me the Krugman remark or The Economist remark or the live with my parents, or......
Image
You do think like a poor person. Back to counting beans now...

Oopsie....

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ight-games
If your thinking wasn't worse than a poor person you'd know that has 0 relevance.
USN_Hokie wrote:if you think the networks are going to continue paying out the arse to broadcast a bunch of barely literate millionaires berate the country, think again.
Nowhere did I or you claim it would be good value. I only claimed that they would. You claimed they wouldn't. It's sad that I don't even expect you to understand that you were wrong. That's exactly why you're a worthless poster and it is pointless to respond to you.
This is all correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's

Post by USN_Hokie »

TheH2 wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
1. Go ahead and post the network contracts if you want to have a debate. Contracts get renegotiated all the time - if you think the networks are going to continue paying out the arse to broadcast a bunch of barely literate millionaires berate the country, think again.

2. WADR, you think like a poor person. If you provide good value to your company, they have better uses of your time than menial tasks.
If I think like a poor person, what do you think like? Next time you insult someone else's ability to think, make sure you're right. This is the perfect example of taking several different pieces of information, piecing it together, and coming to a logical conclusion. You continually show the inability to do that.

Please spare me the Krugman remark or The Economist remark or the live with my parents, or......
Image
You do think like a poor person. Back to counting beans now...

Oopsie....

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ight-games
If your thinking wasn't worse than a poor person you'd know that has 0 relevance.
USN_Hokie wrote:if you think the networks are going to continue paying out the arse to broadcast a bunch of barely literate millionaires berate the country, think again.
Nowhere did I or you claim it would be good value. I only claimed that they would. You claimed they wouldn't. It's sad that I don't even expect you to understand that you were wrong. That's exactly why you're a worthless poster and it is pointless to respond to you.
Go ahead and post the contract like I said. You're just talking out your arse until then, as always. You're not too good when your posts aren't plagiarizing economist articles you read in your boss's office while waiting for his hard drive to defrag.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's "success"

Post by ip_law-hokie »

USN_Hokie wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
1. Go ahead and post the network contracts if you want to have a debate. Contracts get renegotiated all the time - if you think the networks are going to continue paying out the arse to broadcast a bunch of barely literate millionaires berate the country, think again.

2. WADR, you think like a poor person. If you provide good value to your company, they have better uses of your time than menial tasks.
If I think like a poor person, what do you think like? Next time you insult someone else's ability to think, make sure you're right. This is the perfect example of taking several different pieces of information, piecing it together, and coming to a logical conclusion. You continually show the inability to do that.

Please spare me the Krugman remark or The Economist remark or the live with my parents, or......
Image
You do think like a poor person. Back to counting beans now...

Oopsie....

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ight-games
If your thinking wasn't worse than a poor person you'd know that has 0 relevance.
USN_Hokie wrote:if you think the networks are going to continue paying out the arse to broadcast a bunch of barely literate millionaires berate the country, think again.
Nowhere did I or you claim it would be good value. I only claimed that they would. You claimed they wouldn't. It's sad that I don't even expect you to understand that you were wrong. That's exactly why you're a worthless poster and it is pointless to respond to you.
Go ahead and post the contract like I said. You're just talking out your arse until then, as always. You're not too good when your posts aren't plagiarizing economist articles you read in your boss's office while waiting for his hard drive to defrag.
Typical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's

Post by USN_Hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote: Typical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do you enjoy playing the sidekick-with-a-speech-impairment role in every thread? It's really unbecoming.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's "success"

Post by ip_law-hokie »

USN_Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote: Typical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do you enjoy playing the sidekick-with-a-speech-impairment role in every thread? It's really unbecoming.
What extra content is the NFL licensing, Cap’n? You’ve offered insults today, but hadn’t addressed that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's

Post by HokieFanDC »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote: Typical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do you enjoy playing the sidekick-with-a-speech-impairment role in every thread? It's really unbecoming.
What extra content is the NFL licensing, Cap’n? You’ve offered insults today, but hadn’t addressed that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
These NFL threads have been terrific!!

FWIW, the NFL is a legal monopoly. Of course, we all know its failing now that it's getting greater revenues. That's just how it works!
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's

Post by USN_Hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote: Typical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do you enjoy playing the sidekick-with-a-speech-impairment role in every thread? It's really unbecoming.
What extra content is the NFL licensing, Cap’n? You’ve offered insults today, but hadn’t addressed that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wrong thread Robin. Streaming plus 11 games vice 10 plus new sponsor plus other benefits we don't know about.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's "success"

Post by awesome guy »

HokieFanDC wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote: Typical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do you enjoy playing the sidekick-with-a-speech-impairment role in every thread? It's really unbecoming.
What extra content is the NFL licensing, Cap’n? You’ve offered insults today, but hadn’t addressed that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
These NFL threads have been terrific!!

FWIW, the NFL is a legal monopoly. Of course, we all know its failing now that it's getting greater revenues. That's just how it works!
NFL is not a legal monopoly
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's "success"

Post by ip_law-hokie »

USN_Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote: Typical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do you enjoy playing the sidekick-with-a-speech-impairment role in every thread? It's really unbecoming.
What extra content is the NFL licensing, Cap’n? You’ve offered insults today, but hadn’t addressed that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wrong thread Robin. Streaming plus 11 games vice 10 plus new sponsor plus other benefits we don't know about.
So how does is break down per game?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's

Post by TheH2 »

USN_Hokie wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
1. Go ahead and post the network contracts if you want to have a debate. Contracts get renegotiated all the time - if you think the networks are going to continue paying out the arse to broadcast a bunch of barely literate millionaires berate the country, think again.

2. WADR, you think like a poor person. If you provide good value to your company, they have better uses of your time than menial tasks.
If I think like a poor person, what do you think like? Next time you insult someone else's ability to think, make sure you're right. This is the perfect example of taking several different pieces of information, piecing it together, and coming to a logical conclusion. You continually show the inability to do that.

Please spare me the Krugman remark or The Economist remark or the live with my parents, or......
Image
You do think like a poor person. Back to counting beans now...

Oopsie....

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ight-games
If your thinking wasn't worse than a poor person you'd know that has 0 relevance.
USN_Hokie wrote:if you think the networks are going to continue paying out the arse to broadcast a bunch of barely literate millionaires berate the country, think again.
Nowhere did I or you claim it would be good value. I only claimed that they would. You claimed they wouldn't. It's sad that I don't even expect you to understand that you were wrong. That's exactly why you're a worthless poster and it is pointless to respond to you.
Go ahead and post the contract like I said. You're just talking out your arse until then, as always. You're not too good when your posts aren't plagiarizing economist articles you read in your boss's office while waiting for his hard drive to defrag.
Lol. I didn't see that coming,.... Hey dumbass just calculate the per game cost. Back out streaming cost for 2016. They paid more! Presumably you can subtract and divide? PEMDAS!
Regardless, even if it was in the ballpark you would have been. And since math is hard it comes down to to this. A network just paid "out the arse" for the NFL. You said they wouldn't.
People who know, know.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's "success"

Post by ip_law-hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote: Typical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do you enjoy playing the sidekick-with-a-speech-impairment role in every thread? It's really unbecoming.
What extra content is the NFL licensing, Cap’n? You’ve offered insults today, but hadn’t addressed that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
These NFL threads have been terrific!!

FWIW, the NFL is a legal monopoly. Of course, we all know its failing now that it's getting greater revenues. That's just how it works!
It takes a man to admit that they were wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: CBS earning estimates lowered based on NFL's

Post by HokieFanDC »

awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote: Typical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do you enjoy playing the sidekick-with-a-speech-impairment role in every thread? It's really unbecoming.
What extra content is the NFL licensing, Cap’n? You’ve offered insults today, but hadn’t addressed that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
These NFL threads have been terrific!!

FWIW, the NFL is a legal monopoly. Of course, we all know its failing now that it's getting greater revenues. That's just how it works!
NFL is not a legal monopoly
They've had an antitrust exemption since the 1960s.
Post Reply