- Now that Wire to Wire is getting the ax from ESPN, wanna know what else is so important that they can't squeeze it in?
How about the Arena Football League? One day after announcing that the racing show would be cancelled, not only did ESPN trumpet a deal to carry AFL games, but they've actually taken a 10% stake in the league. "This isn't dating; this is getting married," [AFL commissioner David Baker] said on a conference call. "They are officially an AFL owner." [LA Times] And although a network exec "scoffed" at the idea that there could be a conflict of interest regarding news coverage choices on Sports Center, the spouse always gets priority, doesn't he/she?
Their sister network ABC will carry the AFL championship game on July 29.....one day after they carry the first Breeders Cup Challenge program from Saratoga. Good opportunity for them to use horse racing to promote their latest property; let's hope they don't have Tom Durkin call the races from New Orleans, where the game will be held.
A quote from an ESPN exec on the AFL website reads:
“We are committed to the Arena Football League and its exciting brand of football. We will help grow the league across all of our multimedia platforms. As the league grows, so will our business, and we see a bright future for us both.”Hmmm, sound familiar? I bet they say that to everyone...
- I wanted to go back to a comment that Green Mtn Punter left a little while ago regarding the NY franchise bidding:
If the NY legislature in it's infinite wisdom does not reform these laws, or more likely "reforms" them just enough to look good to uninformed voters but in the end only to cause further problems, then what? All bids are withdrawn as a result of the contingencies not being satisfied and back to Square One?Indeed, the RFP's called for the bidders to submit different bids for different legislative scenarios: massive changes in the law, moderate, or none. And one of the many things we do not know since the bids have STILL not been made public, is what, if anything, in each bidder's proposal, is contingent on what. In a Q&A in the Saratogian, Saratoga mayor Valerie Keehn makes the first reference to that issue that I've seen, though she doesn't really clear up much:
Q: Were the Bidders bound by the specifics of their bids?: (Note: The context of this question included my asking Mayor Keehn about the possibility of the winning bidder not getting racing reform legislation that could hinder future operations.)From the sound of that, it seems to me as if the idea of separate proposals for separate scenarios has been separated from the process; and that whoever wins the franchise will be basically on their own to deal with Albany and try to get the best deal they can. And if they can't? Well then, 'guarantee means guarantee.'
A: 'There are components of their bids that I think they are bound to if they win the franchise. We talked a lot about legislation to fix some outdated laws and other problems. We considered that sweeping changes might not happen, so when we looked at the RFP's and made the selection, that was in the backs our minds.
'Certainly the legislature is going to craft a franchise law with the winning bidder. Not knowing what the law would be, we took their financial guarantees as just that. Guarantee means guarantee.'
- Mike over at Curb Your Enthusiasm tells of two-year old Minefield, the latest object of desire in Godolphin's obscene spending spree.