by Frank Maduri

Lake Mead Water Level At Record Low Point

Over the weekend, the news feeds brought a renewed concern for the drought in the American Southwest with reports of Lake Mead recording the lowest water level ever in history. This new evidence is the most visible sign of the effect that the horrific drought has maintained over the western U.S. in recent years. The change in snowfall totals in the Rockies and the associated water which comes from when that melts and enters the river system which feeds the Colorado River is a domino effect which has initiated renewed concerns throughout the region.

Lake Mead is the main source for water for Las Vegas and its 2 million residents as well as the several million guests who vacation to the desert resort destination annually. The water authority for the region has a plan in place where it will divert more water from the Colorado River through the Hoover Dam and into Lake Mead to offset the impact of these torrid drought conditions.

This diversion of water, while a short term solution, is really the only viable solution available at this point. In my prior work on this topic, I learned a great deal about the water supply system, and like anything else, when there is limited supply and increasing demand then adjustments have to be made. I also learned that Las Vegas has excellent water conservation, reusability, and sustainability campaigns in place so they cannot operate with any more efficiency than they currently do within the latest technology available.

This drought and the accompanying water supply disruptions in California, Arizona, and other western states is nothing new. The effects of climate change and decreasing rates of precipitation have plagued that region for the past few years. The regional water authorities have had to become creative with their supply and demand dilemmas. The restrictions on water usage for residents in California and the coinciding acquiescence to allow beverage companies to bottle water for profit was the subject of a previous article I wrote on this issue.

The precipitous drop in the water level at Lake Mead and in other western reservoirs calls into question the future implications for the residents of that region as well as sustaining the tourism aspect of Las Vegas, which is the main catalyst for the economy in Nevada.

Some of you may know that the water in the Colorado River is divided among several states in the region based on a federal law passed several decades ago. The news media in the west is anticipating a potential interstate dispute over water supply to be the end result of the Lake Mead water supply decline. In the current agreement I was surprised to learn that Nevada gets the smallest portion of the Colorado River reserves, but the larger issue is the ramifications of a longer term disruption in water supply.

In my own personal journey covering this critically important topic I wrote and included a poem called “Drought Conditions” in a prior commentary op-ed piece. The poem was very well received in a stand-alone link as well. Those sentiments still sadly hold true to this day. The drought in the west involving water is indicative of a much larger drought in our society at large. We have moved away from our core values as a country and that has caused a downward spiral across the board.

The solutions to this drought in Nevada and California are not clear, whether we will witness an interstate debate with Congress involved over water rights remains to be seen. However, if we returned to our root national values and put the common good of our fellow citizens at the forefront of our decisions, if we shared our resources and our solutions instead of hoarding them, our country as well as our society would be a much better place.

by Frank Maduri

Tainted: Academies of Science GMO Report

The report issued today from the Academies of Science which essentially stated that GMOs in our food supply are safe for humans to consume came under fire by several consumer advocacy groups. The media coverage of the report can easily be found, and in fact, USA Today did fair and balanced overviews of both sides of this argument.

The focus of this commentary on my own blog here is to not delve into the specifics of the report from this organization, but rather to focus on the facts and implications that still remain in the “great GMO debate” in America. Most of you know as readers of my prior work on the topic of GMOs that I am very strongly anti-GMO. That stance has been honed by researching tons of scientific studies and empirical data from trusted sources and reading accounts of the effects of herbicides such as Roundup and their impact on the soil and crops in our country over a period of roughly 20 years.

Despite what this report released today states, GMOs are not safe for humans to consume, products such as herbicides and pesticides have caused all sorts of illnesses in children and adults. The use of genetically engineered seeds and other products in our agricultural production processes has a direct correlation to increased incidences of gastrointestinal, autoimmune, cancers, and other diseases.

Several other consumer advocacy groups and others involved in the food industry agree with my view on this report and on this situation. The reason: the Academies of Science report is tainted, it is skewed because the scientists and other members of the organization are linked with the large biotech companies and the agricultural production giants such as Monsanto. This effectively caused one group, Food & Water Watch (which is a respected consumer advocacy group) to call the results “watered down”.

This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that the biotech and big agricultural giants like Dow Chemical and Monsanto got involved to directly or indirectly influence a report or a legislative measure when it comes to GMOs. I have written numerous articles over the past few years on this same subject with political donations being linked to high powered politicians who then change the course of a particular bill so that it is favorable to the big business interests involved.

This should come as no surprise to anyone in the audience because the genetic engineering of food has always at the core been inherently about pure greed. The ability to grow more product or make the food last longer so that stores had less perishable or expired inventory has been the catalyst behind a “make it GMO or bust” mentality.

The evidence of that is clear in the U.S. according to reports published in USA Today, Yahoo! News, and other trusted sources the following numbers for 2015 are staggering with regard to the prevalent nature of genetically engineered produce in our food supply. I have listed below the percentage of each crop that is genetically engineered:
Sugar beets = 99%
Soybeans = 94%
Cotton = 94%
Feed corn = 92%

I have written previously about the pervasive and persistent nature of the GMO problem in the U.S. based on these numbers above. It has created conditions where now the staple products are genetically modified and the soil has been degraded to a point where it is not capable of growing non-GMO produce. The other issue which is just as troubling is that the seed used in so many crops are genetically modified and two main companies – Dow and Monsanto control a huge market share in the seed business for our food supply.

The amount of feed corn that is genetically modified is also a tremendous problem because it has a direct impact on so many areas of agriculture which impacts the food that is provided to many of our sources of animal protein. In turn that creates a scenario where it is very difficult to avoid GMO containing products in your given daily food intake.

In any case, despite your view on the situation, God created all that we have been given here on Earth, every living thing, the soil, the seeds, the water, and the Sun. Then mankind came along and decided that they knew better than God and they decided to alter what God created in the name of enhanced profit margins. There are many other people and groups out there that also agree with this component of my argument against GMOs.

The incidences of increased levels of autoimmune diseases such as celiac, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, certain types of cancers, and other gastrointestinal diseases all jumped up in the past 20 years since man decided that they would alter the crops and the seeds and the soil with chemical ingredients and herbicides.

I cannot emphasize enough that the ties to the Academies of Science and the biotech and agricultural products suppliers casts a huge cloud of suspicion over the validity of the report issued today. It certainly was a far cry from an independent analysis on this issue.

National Geographic put together a really informative and well done piece on the effect of Roundup brand herbicide on the crops and the soil in the American farming system. The results, and the amount that we do not know about such a widely used chemical are alarming.

The final subtopic I will touch on with regard to this issue is the labeling of GMO product which is a debate that I have covered vigorously over the past few years as well. The consumer groups today stated that the majority of Americans still believe strongly that they have the right to know if the food they are consuming is GMO containing. That fight over labeling standards and a national protocol for labeling food products is not going away with this announcement today.

The basic premise being that even if a group states that GMOs are safe, the majority of people, whether they believe those ingredients are bad or unhealthy or not, still maintain that they should know whether the product they are going to purchase contains genetically engineered components.

The fact that so many of the staple food crops that I referenced earlier in this piece are genetically engineered creates a potentially very negative situation for certain large food producing companies such as Nestle and ConAgra just to name two. The consumer will most definitely think twice about buying a can of soup with genetically modified soy in the ingredients.

The federal government has to get involved with a standard protocol because each individual state cannot have their own separate ways of declaring GMOs on labeling for grocery products, it will become a complete nightmare for interstate commerce.

In the end, the report today did nothing to quell the debate over GMOs in the food we eat, instead it stoked the fire. This debate will continue because there is a mountain of evidence to refute what this report claimed today. The trend toward healthy and fresh/ organic eating habits in the American consumer will not change because of this report today. The distrust of the government, the disdain for lobbyists, and the general skepticism towards large corporations will continue in America, and in fact was emboldened by this report today. I urge you to educate yourself on this topic because it can have a dramatic impact on your health and that of the rest of your family. This report cannot change that fact.

by Frank Maduri

“Renewal” – Selection of Poetry by Frank J. Maduri

The arrival of spring and April being National Poetry Month became the impetus for this selection of poetry and lyrics that I chose to share with you on my blog. However, April is a busy month for me and I got sidetracked while trying to finish this collection. So I present it to you today.

I think of spring and I think of renewal and that brought about the idea for the poem at the center of this short selection. I hope you enjoy this collection of my poetry and that it is inspiring to you as we enter spring and as each of us seeks renewal.

The selection starts with a poem called “Spinning Wheel” which reminds me that life can become very difficult and we can all get lost and mired in the muck. We need the hope that comes from renewal, from a second chance, from a new day. The selection continues with poems about hope and solace during the frenetic pace of daily life. I hope you all enjoy this work and these words for I am proud to share them with you.

“Spinning Wheel”

My mind is torrid, on a frenetic pace
My body feels like it’s mounted on a wheel.
I have to summon up the courage to face –
It all, but oh, how awful I feel.
Spinning, feeling like I’ve lost the center –
Of gravity and it can all just tumble down;
I have to relax and let calm enter.
These feelings I have to drown.
Though it stems from places out of my control;
The source is hard to quantify.
It’s buried deep inside my heart and soul;
I can’t wait ‘til this feeling passes me by.
I feel it in my head down to my toes;
I don’t know whether to sit or stand.
It slows down and then suddenly it grows;
Spinning frantically wish I could use my hand –
And swat it away like a pesky fly.
It’s gone on for hours, been here for days;
I can’t concentrate although I try.
I have to come up with some new ways –
To cope with this cumbersome distraction
Before it consumes what’s left of me.
Have to devise a whole different reaction;
So from this spinning wheel I’ll be set free.

“Grace Abides”

I look back now and can see
All the ways Your grace saved me
I retrace my steps to find
That Your grace is gentle and kind
Through all of my worry and fear
Your grace abides to hold me near
I’ve been lost and in despair
And Your grace has always been there
To lift me out of the darkness
To show me there’s more with less
You took everything away
I couldn’t live for one day –
Without Your grace in my heart
I never want to be apart
In the silence I hear Your Voice
Through free will I’m given a choice
I choose You, Lord, choose Your side
So that, through me, Your grace can abide
A light for those living in isolation
A hope for those burdened by sin
Let me be Your hands and feet
So, through me, Your grace can complete
And change others so they come to know –
And Your grace abides in their hearts to grow.

“Evening Swim”

A day’s worth of work is done
Today’s battles are both lost and won
As the evening draws the sunlight dim
I head to the gym for a good swim
The water is lukewarm, neither hot or cold
The smell of chemicals, so very bold
I begin my laps slowly at first –
And then gradually my stroke adds burst
Until my arms and legs are in unison
And I lose count of the laps again
The evening sun rays fade in the background
As the time moves along and gray clouds surround –
To drown out the light like a dying candle.
As I keep swimming, my lungs full –
With air, precious air, God has given;
So that I can accomplish His mission.
I think of all the people I met that day;
And how our lives crossed in a special way.
I promise God that I’ll do the same –
Tomorrow, if I’m that lucky to make that claim.
I swim faster and push hard off the wall
Blessed to have this life, to respond to His call.
I’ll exit the pool feeling rejuvenated and free
Ready for wherever God will next send me.

“Renewal”

Spring showers feed the ground
So the beauty of nature can abound
The wind blows gently in the trees
The hopeful noise from birds, crickets, bees –
Joined by longer days of warm sunlight
Gazing up at the stars on a mild, clear night
The renewal of Earth, renewal of the soul
Seems to rectify the loss of control –
Which can be daunting during winter’s wrath
Spring brings with it a clear path
So we can see things in ways brand new
The renewal of hope, the renewal of promise
Days filled with progress, days filled with bliss
The butterflies glide gracefully in a field
Feeling all of your tension begin to yield
The trees and flowers bloom and grow
Summer will arrive before we know
The renewal of joy, renewal of long days
The renewal of life in so many ways
The renewal of promises coming true
The renewal of both me and you

I have shared some of my song lyrics in the past here on “Frank’s Forum” and the lyrics and verse from this particular piece I wrote, which is copyright protected by the U.S. Copyright Office, really resonated with me as I was putting together ideas for this selection of poetry. I share it with you in the hope that it inspires you:

“Celebrate Your Sacrifice”

We celebrate Your sacrifice Lord God Almighty
You came to save us all from sin and evil
You cured the sick, walked on the Sea of Galilee
For our salvation Your Precious Blood did spill

Lord You are the spotless Lamb
Lord You are the sinless victim
Lord You are the Father’s perfect plan
Let all nations bow and give You praise

You lift us up when we have fallen
You guide us to the path that’s true
Your compassion forgives us again and again
Your Death and Rising made all things new

We celebrate Your sacrifice, Our God and King
We praise Your Holy Name across the land
Oh Lord Jesus You created every living thing
Your love for us is too great to understand

Jesus You called us all to love one another
Jesus You taught us to serve the poor and ill
Jesus You are meek and humble of heart
Jesus You gave us each a mission to fulfill

We celebrate Your sacrifice, Our God and King
We praise Your Holy Name across the land
Oh Lord Jesus You created every living thing
Your love for us is too great to understand

You spread Your Good News through twelve men
They preached it to the world and died for it
You said You will return one day again
Until then You gave us The Holy Spirit

Be our compass and guide when we’re weak
Lord help us to remain strong in the rising tide
It is Your love and forgiveness we seek
Lord, in You, all our hopes we will confide

We celebrate Your sacrifice, Our God and King
We praise Your Holy Name across the land
Oh Lord Jesus You created every living thing
Your love for us is too great to understand

You called all Christians to protect the world
You called all Christians to protect all people
Give us the courage Lord to heed the call
Give us the strength Lord to overcome our fear

Give us a sign of hope Oh Lord
Like when You were Transfigured on the Mountain
Let us not all perish by the sword
Help us to overcome the snares of sin

We celebrate Your sacrifice, Our God and King
We praise Your Holy Name across the land
Oh Lord Jesus You created every living thing
Your love for us is too great to understand

U.S. Copyright Protected – Frank J. Maduri – All rights reserved no duplication without consent.

“Solace”

The frenetic pace, sirens, the lights
Chimes from cell phones, pungent smells, the sights
My senses are pushed to total overload
My emotions are moving quickly to panic mode
I get plowed into by some guy on an iPhone
I have to listen to others whine and groan
The crowds of people packing the street
Made the anxiety I felt totally complete
I needed to escape this chaotic nest
So my wife took me to Central Park West
The sunlight reflected gently on the pond
I felt each of my senses quickly respond
With a calming peace, a wash of tranquility –
Came over and surrounded all that I could see
From the birds in the air, the ducks in the water
The chaos I felt earlier was now a total blur
The air was still and the sky a clear blue
I could finish this day feeling totally new
The laughter of children filled the afternoon air
Then it was silent, as if nobody else was there –
Except my thoughts and my lovely wife
A feeling of solace I’ll remember all of my life

“Bread of Life”

You made for us the ultimate sacrifice
Nothing I’ll do could ever suffice
Nailed to a Cross tortured and denigrated
You rose on the third day, we celebrated
What some thought was Your ultimate defeat
You reign forever on Heaven’s Mercy Seat
Your Death gives us life again anew
Lord Jesus, how can we ever repay You
Bread of Life, You restore our soul
Bread of Life, sin and death have no control –
Over us, because of Your profound love
I know You watch us from Heaven above
Your Precious Blood washes the Earth clean
You understand when we are angry, sad, or mean
You left us Your Mother, as Mother to us all
You forgive us when we stumble and fall
You know our every flaw, every goal, every list
You are there with us always in the Eucharist
Bread of Life, our hope and our strength
Bread of Life, Your love has no bounds or length –
It is infinite, majestic, awesome, and kind
Lord Jesus, Your love really blows my mind
In my darkest hours please hear my prayer:
Bread of Life, please shelter me
Bread of Life, please set me free

(Frank J. Maduri is a freelance writer and journalist with numerous publishing credits across a variety of websites and news organizations. His news articles have been published and distributed in over 40 countries and territories around the world. His creative work has received critical acclaim from award winning poets and writers. Frank believes in using the gift of writing to raise awareness, lift people with hope, shine a light on social injustice, and impact spirituality to bring people closer to God.)

2016 – Copyright – All rights reserved – Frank J. Maduri – All poems and song lyrics are the intellectual property of the author. No copying, altering, or redistribution of this content without express written consent of the author.

by Frank Maduri

Cable Unboxed – President Obama & Consumer Choice

President Obama has asked the FCC to allow the consumer to be able to have more choices in their cable television providers in order to lower prices and increase competition. The average American, according to Reuters, can spend over $1,000 over four years just to rent their cable box. While the price of cell phones, tablets, televisions, and laptop computers have decreased in price; the cost of cable television box rentals has increased.

This increase can be attributed mainly to the fact that there is little to no competition in that marketplace. The manner in which cable television regulations were initiated, the companies have exclusivity in many areas of the country. The ability to provide choices to the consumer is limited due to many other factors such as some telco providers, Verizon Fios for example, needs fiber optic cable lines installed in a neighborhood in order to provide access to their service. If the neighborhood does not have the lines, the families have less choices for cable television.

In certain housing types, the choices are limited because of other regulations. A good example is a condo or townhouse community which has certain rules from their association regarding the installation of satellite dishes (whether they can be installed on the front of a building) and the exposure of the building could limit the installation of Direct TV or Dish Network from being a viable option.

The cable industry needs further competition in order to flatten the costs that they are increasingly passing along to the consumer. America is about choice and the freedom to make choices to select the best possible product or service for your family. Cable television should be no exception to that scenario.

In fair balance, the cable providers are against this change to the regulations saying that it will lead to increased costs and will eventually be a negative to the consumer. They also claim that people are streaming and watching programming through different avenues and services and that this regulatory change will only further that ability of the customer to remove the cable service altogether.

It is an interesting argument and one that will take shape as the FCC weighs the next move in this situation. I only know that many people I know have seen their cable bills increase and they would like to see some remedy or ability to choose their service. I hope that this regulatory change provides that relief.

by Frank Maduri

Left Untreated: Flint Michigan Water Crisis – Follow Up

In a follow up to an earlier story on this terrible tragedy in Flint, Michigan where the water supply has been unsafe and slowly making the residents there very sick; some new information emerged today. It was originally reported in the Detroit Free Press and AP who have both done some insightful reporting on this shocking story.

The mystery behind why the water from the Flint River was allowed to flow freely without being properly treated stems from two issues: a mistake by a state level official and an equipment upgrade to the city water treatment facility that Flint could not afford. Those two issues combined to cause a horrible disaster where for 14 months contaminated water entered every house, school, business, and park in Flint.

First, the mistake by the state level official, Mike Prysby, from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality was asked by the plant supervisor of the Flint water treatment facility about the addition of phosphate to the water, which is an anti-corrosive to prevent the leaching of lead into the water supply. The response from Prysby, according to AP, was that phosphorous did not have to be added for an entire year, which was a completely incorrect answer with horrendous consequences.

Second, there are other media reports out of Michigan that explain that the Flint water treatment plant needed upgraded equipment in order to properly add the amount of phosphate and other anti-corrosive additives in the correct amounts to deal with that large a water supply. The reason why the plant upgrades were not done was because Flint was broke and was already operating with a city manager that was making budget cuts on a widespread level.

The city eventually formally submitted a grant for the money, about $8 million, for water plant facility upgrades, but this was several months after the change in the supply was made to the local water supply instead of from the Detroit water supply chain. The damage was essentially already done.

Damage Control

The current situation there calls for a complete removal and replacement of all the pipes in the City of Flint, which they have petitioned to Congress for that funding. This entire tragedy, the backdrop to it being a combination of human error, negligence, and potentially being dishonest with the public about how widespread the financial issues facing Flint were begs the question: How can we fix this terrible situation? How can we prevent it from happening again, if it has not already occurred? What changes need to be made to the model of how the typical American city is managed?

I do not know the answers to these questions, but maybe someone in the audience does have some feedback or ideas in this regard. I am still researching and trying to determine how this damage can be reversed, how it can be controlled, but I know that some of it cannot be reversed. The damage to children and other more susceptible residential populations with regard to lead poisoning has already been done.

No Guidelines

The news on Flint also comes amid reports of potentially similar water contamination problems in many other American cities, towns, and communities. The EPA came under fire last week regarding the lack of commitment to any type of new guidelines regarding the levels of lead in the water supply. The agency made some indications about a year ago that it was readying a protocol for lead in municipal water systems. The EPA has come under intense scrutiny for the fact that in the wake of the events in Flint, they are still not coming forward with any type of guidance regarding this horrendous public health problem.

The agency has stated that they are still investigating and evaluating certain methods to determine the correct lead contamination protocols and testing procedures. The EPA has taken the position that they do not want to rush to judgement on the issue.

Conversely, there is a growing public sentiment that believe that the EPA needs to release some guidelines for the handling of lead in the water supply because it poses such a significant public safety risk. The situation, unfortunately, is very political and it should not be.

The news revealed this week that the tragedy with lead poisoning in the water supply in Flint could have been averted will only stand to make the residents there and in other parts of America increasingly angry and distressed. It will do nothing but add salt to the wounds of the parents with sick children in that Michigan city.

My original article posed the question: how could this happen? This story reveals the answer. It is proof of the consequences of actions when things are left untreated, in this case literally. Many questions still remain including: what happens next? How can it be fixed? I do not have those answers sadly, and I am deeply upset that I even have to ask them in the first place.

by Frank Maduri

San Diego Chargers Downtown Stadium Proposal News

In a follow up to earlier news stories on this topic, the San Diego Chargers of the NFL have advanced their proposed stadium plan for the downtown waterfront site in details that were leaked to the media on Tuesday. Several local news sources in San Diego have reported on this development, and the full proposal is expected to be formally released at some point this week.

The new stadium for the team is being sent through a process called citizens initiative which in the State of California is similar to a referendum voting mechanism. In this process if a certain amount of votes is gained on the proposed issue at hand then the measure will gain approval. The Chargers and the City of San Diego municipal officials are utilizing this mechanism because if the stadium proposal passes via citizens’ initiative, then the exhaustive environmental review of the land being used for these developments will be bypassed.

In California, the environmental review process could add extensive time to the completion of the project. In the event that the initiative is approved by the majority of the general public then the stadium development will take a huge step forward. It should be noted that the Chargers new stadium, under the details of this plan, would be attached to a new convention center for the city. Therefore, the vote will be for approval for both projects.

In an ironic twist, this initiative is the same procedural mechanism that the Chargers used to accelerate their stadium proposal in the LA suburb of Carson in order to “fast track” the land there in the race to LA with the Rams. Carson approved the measure, but the Chargers/Raiders joint proposal was voted down by the full league ownership panel in February.

I will outline the terms of the proposal, the “high points” and then to differentiate the other reporting on this topic, I will focus in on the potential issues with the proposal and the perspective of the parties involved in how this situation got to this point. A comparison will be made to the new stadium deal for the Chargers and what the agreement would look like if the team used the option to move to Los Angeles as a tenant in the Rams new stadium there.

Leaked Proposal

The proposal calls for the following in terms of the financing for the new stadium and convention center:

1. The San Diego Chargers will contribute $650 million to the development of the stadium (important note: the NFL contributes $100 million to any new stadium project and the Chargers will get an additional $100 million from the league as part of an incentive stay in San Diego that was granted to them when the NFL voted against their proposed move to Los Angeles)
2. The government will contribute $350 million to the development of the new stadium and will set up a Joint Public trust essentially to establish municipal ownership of the stadium. Translation: the city will own the stadium. The municipal government will also raise the $800 million for the new convention center.
3. The San Diego Chargers will get all stadium revenues for the 10 – 13 game days that they operate within the facility (includes preseason and playoffs).
4. The City will get all revenues from the rest of the events held at the stadium throughout the remainder of the year.
5. The Chargers will be responsible for all construction cost overruns that may occur.
6. The City of San Diego will finance their portion of the project through bonds and the increase of the hotel tourism tax which will increase from 12.5% to 16.5% this will be for the stadium and the convention center.
7. The increase in hotel tax will “sunset” after a period of 33 years. Then it will decrease to 13.5%
8. The stadium will have 65,000 seats and expected completion date is 2022

Some of that division of asset allocation is pretty standard in the stadium development deals. The construction overruns are usually covered by the team involved in these projects. In the current state of affairs in California where residents feel squeezed by high property taxes and increasing costs of living against flat wage increases, makes the public appetite for a tax increase to build a stadium a complete nonstarter. Therefore, the hotel tourism tax increase was the obvious pathway for both sides in this situation, the team and the politicians, to ensure the best chance for approval of the initiative.

Definite Issues

There are some definite issues with the proposal though which may be more readily discussed in the next few months. The most critical of all is the fact that the neither the Chargers nor the city own the land that the proposed stadium is supposed to occupy. In recent years similar arena or stadium proposals have faced that critical issue as well. In Seattle there is a struggle over land to build a new arena to attract an NBA or NHL team. In Sacramento, the Kings faced some of that push back in their quest for a new downtown facility. The most public dispute was in Brooklyn back when the Nets proposed the Barclays Center in the Atlantic Yards area and the local residents fought back. The government used imminent domain to push people off their property to build the arena.

The assumption could be drawn here that if the proposal has advanced to this stage that one or both parties involved has some kind of “inside track” on gaining the land for this potential use, but that is not always the case. In my view, a huge part of positioning a proposal for development is to make sure you have control of the land in the first place. However, the politics of the situation dictates that if they get this “ball rolling”, then the public will back them to gain control of the land, and that is the card that might be played in this case.

The second issue here is that the Chargers may not have the public approval sentiment necessary to get the citizens’ initiative passed successfully. The public perception of the team took a major negative blow when the team and their owners, the Spanos family, decided to pull up stakes and set their sights on moving to Los Angeles. Some residents feel that the team which has been based in San Diego since 1961 abandoned them for a better potential scenario in LA. The Spanos family now has to return to San Diego and gain a two-thirds majority in this ballot initiative to move forward with the stadium plan. That may not occur, which would set the stage for the team to either explore the longer route to the downtown stadium or exercise their option and move to Los Angeles in 2017.

In the event that the ballot initiative is successful, in fact, in the opinion of others regardless of whether it does or not – the politicians were always more in favor of the Mission Valley stadium proposal because the city owns that land. However, the attached convention center project with the stadium downtown being one component of a larger project which could benefit far more residents, could be the reason that this measure may gain approval.

Charged Up

The Chargers are viewing this situation in two ways: they have always favored the downtown site over the Mission Valley option, and they view the convention center being attached to new stadium as a way to compete with LA and other cities for Super Bowls and other large scale events.

That is a good segue to another point that was neglected from the leaked proposal yesterday: it does not state whether the stadium will have a roof or some kind of retractable cover to it. That type of feature adds a great deal of cost to a stadium development project, but it also enhances the functionality of the facility to be able to host political conventions, NCAA basketball Final Four, and other big revenue generating events.

The proposed new Rams stadium in Inglewood, CA will have a roof to be in consideration for just those sorts of events. The San Diego proposal should consider that design feature for the same rationale, however it could add around $200 million in estimated new costs to the project.

The Chargers, as was mentioned earlier, lost their bid to build a stadium in the LA suburbs, but they still have the opportunity to join the Rams in LA if they cannot get a long term stadium deal brokered in San Diego. The Chargers would be a tenant in the Inglewood stadium which means they would not have an equal share in all the revenues in that arrangement. They would essentially lease the building from the Rams and operate it on game days in that scenario.

Greed Wins

This is the main reason why I have maintained the belief that the Chargers are going to remain in San Diego and get the downtown stadium deal completed. In this agreement with San Diego, the NFL is subsidizing $200 million of the $650 million that the Chargers are contributing to the project. That means that the Spanos family will spend $450 million to get a $1 billion dollar new stadium that they will not have to share with any other team. The Chargers will reap all the football related revenue as well as the profits from any naming rights agreement to the stadium.

The Chargers will also remain in a market where they have established relationships with corporate sponsors and an established fan base of season ticket holders and they would not have to compete with another team for those audiences which they would have to in the event they moved to Los Angeles.

It comes down to greed. The reason why the Chargers will stay in San Diego if this deal gets approved is because they will not have to share revenues with anyone, and the city wants to keep the Chargers and have the new stadium and convention area to lure the Super Bowl and other big events back to San Diego. It is the same reason why the NFL approved the Rams ambitious new Inglewood colossal stadium and real estate venture: greed.

I am not a proponent of cities or counties paying for stadiums or arenas, I think the teams and the leagues involved should finance a portion of it and have private financing for the remainder. The Rams project, for what it is worth, will be fully privately financed. The City of San Diego wants to own the stadium though and has decided that is the right way for them to move forward. There is inherent risk in owning structures of that size and magnitude. That risk must be mitigated by the potential revenue return on the investment. In this case, the studies must have proven that out for San Diego to move ahead with this type of arrangement.

In the end, the November ballot measure will be the next big hurdle for this project to clear. Then, the land ownership piece will come into play. The stage could be set for the Chargers to remain in San Diego in a world class new stadium. The NFL will inevitably be the ultimate winner in that scenario, which I have reported about in the past, and it remains a valid point. Then, the league would just have to figure out what to do with the other team that whiffed on going to Los Angeles: the Raiders, but that is a whole other saga for another time. In the end analysis between the money and power of all of this politics is greed, the fans are used as pawns, in the end the pursuit of greed always wins.

by Frank Maduri

Senate Rejects Anti-GMO Food Labeling Bill

In a landmark victory for the American consumer, the United States Senate voted on Wednesday to reject S-2609, a measure aimed at making the labeling of GMOs “voluntary” for food producers. This bill was also known by some consumer groups as the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act, and it represented a rare pushback by the Senate against big corporate interests such as Monsanto, who were trying to advance this measure into passage as the law.

This bill, S-2609, if passed, would have nullified the food labeling law approved in Vermont that requires the disclosure of genetically modified ingredients in all food products sold in that state (effective in July – see my previous article). The Senate cited the recent poll data that demonstrated that 9 of 10 Americans want GMOs to be labeled on food products. This bill (2609) was introduced by Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, and his response to the defeat of the measure was, and I am paraphrasing, that he presented a solution and that the opposition should present a solution to address this problem.

In fact, that is where this issue is headed in political terms, since the vote was so close and the votes are not there for cloture to be achieved, the debate is headed for a compromise version of the bill. In my view, after covering this issue for years now and having worked in the food industry, that compromise version is going to center on balancing the multiple components involved. The compromise bill will focus on the determination of a fair policy for the food producers, the farmers, and the consumer.

Opposition View

The contention by Senator Roberts regarding the absence of an opposition solution is also not a completely accurate statement. In March, Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon proposed a separate bill which would make the labeling of GMO ingredients mandatory, but it gave food producers several options on how to disclose that information. I wrote a piece a few months back about the Campbell Soup Company decision to disclose the genetically engineered ingredients in all their products. The Merkley bill proposal was similar in that the food company had the option to put an asterisk by the ingredients that are modified and then put the following statement on the bottom of the label: “produced with genetic engineering”.

The debate can (and will) continue about a universal food labeling policy because it is needed to streamline costs. I have covered this topic previously in that as much as I agree with the law passed in Vermont and the ambition displayed there, we cannot have a system of interstate commerce where each state has their own individual food labeling laws. That will increase costs for the food producing companies and most likely those costs will be passed along to the consumer.

In general, I believe in the state level being able to mandate their own individual legislation, but in this scenario, a federal standard for food labeling of GMOs is needed. The big corporate interests such as Monsanto do not want to see that happen because it will be bad for their business, pure and simple. The bill, S-2609, was in some degree a misnomer, because it would make the labeling voluntary, which begs the question: what food companies would volunteer the presence of genetically engineered ingredients in their products? The answer is few to none.

The simple fact remains that an overwhelming majority of American consumers feel that they have the right to know what is in their food. That sentiment gave rise to the “right to know if it’s GMO” slogan used at several public rallies and on social media platforms. The political system is going to have to determine how it will mediate this situation to determine a solution that works for all parties involved.

Tip of the Iceberg

However, I believe, and others have echoed this sentiment in the media whether from the political side or from the strict viewpoint of regulatory controls over the industry; that this issue is just the tip of the iceberg. I believe that the food labeling policy as it relates to genetically engineered ingredients or components is just one piece of a larger set of issues with regard to our food supply.

It is true that a good amount of momentum in this anti-GMO movement has come Gen – Xers and Millennials that are concerned about the health issues that have plagued our country in recent years: increases in the incidences of cancer, autoimmune diseases, autism, and diabetes just to name a few. There are some media reports of consumer groups made up of parents who are petitioning pediatricians throughout the U.S. to send a formal report to Congress regarding the negative effects of GMOs in food and the linkages to certain childhood illnesses.

The trend toward healthier eating and utilization of organic as well as locally raised or locally grown food products is one that I have covered extensively in the past. It is certainly a contributing factor in the decision of the Senate with regard to the “DARK” Act this week. These are the types of issues I am referring to with regard to an entire food industry related set of legislation to make some needed reforms to help better inform the consumer when making food purchasing choices.

The country of origin being disclosed on products is another whole area in regards to food labeling that could be addressed. The issues regarding where our food is actually coming from has been a challenge for Congressional legislation for some time now. It makes sense that if the public is passionate about what ingredients are in a particular product, they would also care strongly about where the product came from.

The issue of organic food scale up is another topic that could use some form of policy solution. The crops and seed for certain staple food products have been genetically engineered by big corporations like Monsanto and Dow Chemical for years. I am currently researching an article on the effects of Monsanto’s Roundup product on soil and agricultural use which has been linked by the World Health Organization to be a carcinogen. The ability, or lack thereof, to scale up the amount of food needed to supply even part of the population with organic food is a huge problem.

Then, the whole issue of access to healthy and fresh food could be addressed by the government. I wrote an entire series of articles on food deserts in America back some time ago, and there are many problems still today with the inability for access to healthy food particularly in inner cities and in very rural areas. The USDA and other government agencies have discussed certain incentive programs to potentially remedy the situation, but they have no real impetus to take action without a Congressional mandate.

Finally, the whole topic of irrigation issues and water supply concerns with fracking and other wastewaters getting into our water table as well as the access for farming communities to water for their crops is another aspect of this subject area that could be explored through the legislative process.

No Longer In the “DARK”

In returning to the topic at hand, the defeat of this Senate bill and the solution presented as an alternative by Senator Merkley, which seems to not have the support to move forward anywhere either, a solution is needed. The compromise bill will be just that, a meeting in the middle. It will make the disclosure of genetically engineered ingredients mandatory for food producers but it will be done without the options in the Merkley bill, and probably entail something more visible on the product packaging than an asterisks.

The result of this vote demonstrated that when people are united in a cause, and this is one of the biggest issues facing the food industry, then the people are heard. We, the consumers, have a right to know what is in the food we eat and we have a right to make informed decisions based on what that information provided to us yields. We have the “right to know if it’s GMO” and the Senate heard that loud and clear, and more importantly they listened. What is left in the weeks to come is for a law that is universal, that makes sense, and that provides the consumer with the information disclosed in a clear manner. I hope the Senate will listen and will provide the public with that legislation, the results from this week give me some degree of confidence that they will do so.

The presence of genetically engineered ingredients in our food is a reality. The issue at hand is how we are going to better inform ourselves as consumers to the presence of these ingredients. This disclosure will raise awareness levels further to the widespread utilization of GMOs in our food supply. The discourse should then shift into a measurable action plan to scale up alternatives that are GMO-free. The stage is set for some landmark changes to potentially take place.

In the event that you are reading this and did not have an active position on this important issue, I encourage you to inform yourselves to do so. The presence of GMOs in food has consequences to us and to our children and to future generations. We have the obligation to make sure our policies provide alternatives and education so that all consumers have access to accurate information in the future.

by Frank Maduri

Left Out of L.A. – The Future of the Raiders & Chargers

The recent decision by the NFL ownership to allow the relocation of the Rams to Los Angeles has left two franchises, the Oakland Raiders and the San Diego Chargers, with uncertainty regarding their future in either of those markets. It is rather unusual for a multi-billion dollar entity such as the NFL to have such instability with their franchises, let alone with two of them in the same geographic region.

The Raiders and Chargers also bid to move to Los Angeles in a joint project for a new stadium proposed in Carson, California; this measure was defeated by a resounding vote of the full ownership panel of the NFL. However, as part of the Rams winning bid to gain the foothold into LA, the Chargers have a full calendar year to determine if they will join the Rams in their stadium in Inglewood.

The Chargers have an agreement where they will play the upcoming 2016 season in San Diego and could move to LA in 2017 because they struck a tenant agreement with the Rams. However, many NFL insiders think that it is unlikely that the Chargers would want to move to LA under that deal because they will not be entitled to the full revenues available in the terms of that tenant arrangement.

The Chargers are focusing their efforts on securing a long term stadium solution in San Diego which is anything but a sure bet. The people in San Diego are rather upset (understandably so) at the Chargers ownership for their willingness to move the team to Los Angeles. Both the Chargers and the city politicians are harnessing their energy on passing a citizen’s initiative which is a mechanism in California which allows for the public to vote in a combined measure over the new stadium and the land involved in that project. If the measure successfully passes the public vote, the lengthy environmental review process is voided.

It should be noted that this procedure was the same technique used by Dean Spanos and the Chargers management in gaining a faster approval process for the land in Carson for the proposed stadium there in the “race to LA”. It circumvents the rather cumbersome and time consuming environmental review which could delay the land for a stadium site for development for years.

The stadium quest between the Chargers and the San Diego politicians has revolved around a couple of central issues over the past fifteen years. The first issue is the location of the stadium and the second issue is the funding for the project. When you consider that those are the two main issues to moving a stadium construction forward that is why the two sides have remained in limbo for a decade and a half.

The condensed version of each issue can be summed up in this way. First, the location of the stadium has revolved mainly around two areas of San Diego (I do not believe that the team was ever going to move to the suburbs – that was strictly a tool for leverage by the Spanos family) and both sides have disagreed over that stadium location. The two areas proposed in this situation are: Mission Valley and downtown San Diego.

The essence of the situation regarding the site proposals is that the politicians favored the Chargers build a stadium on the same site in Mission Valley where the current stadium is located. The Spanos family favored the downtown site and wanted similar concessions to those given by the politicians to the Padres ownership when they built the downtown baseball stadium now known as Petco Park.

The second issue is the funding for the site and for many years the Spanos family was trying to gain public dollars for the stadium project by requesting that the politicians attach the new stadium proposal to the measure to renovate the convention center downtown. The politicians refused to combine the two proposals and felt that essentially the family had billions of dollars and should foot the bill for the stadium. The politicians also wanted the stadium in Mission Valley so that stalemate continued for years.

The current situation is still pretty messy. The Chargers formally announced their proposal for a downtown stadium adjoining the convention center site last week. The politicians responded with their rationale behind why they believe the Mission Valley site is a better fit for all sides. The main issue is that the land that the Chargers would need to fulfill the downtown project is not owned by either party in this scenario. The costs, the risks, and the potential for public approval are all significantly greater with the downtown proposal because of the purchase of the land and the associated legal costs. The financing for that endeavor becomes tricky because the public has to vote by a two-thirds majority to approve any ballot initiative that includes a tax increase. The public support may not be there for this project which will set back the entire time frame of getting the stadium built.

Meanwhile, the Mission Valley site is where both the city and the county proposed a $1.1 billion stadium project on land that is city owned. The viewpoint of the city officials is that this project site will provide a smoother and more cost effective option to development of a new stadium. The Chargers, according to ESPN and other news outlets, have been working with JMI which is the same real estate developer that helped the Padres develop Petco Park.

According to JMI they estimate that the cost of the expansion of the convention center and the new football stadium downtown to be at around $1.4 billion. In a move to push back against the city and county officials, JMI claims that the cost to develop both sites, the convention center and the Mission Valley stadium would cost the city close to $1.8 billion dollars for two separate, stand-alone buildings.

The Chargers are pushing for the downtown site for two reasons: better access points for fans and the inclusion of the convention center and the other areas surrounding it in the downtown Gas Lamp district would provide for a great setting for the Super Bowl and other large scale events. The Chargers know that to keep the franchise in San Diego they need to be able to compete with Los Angeles for those big events, and a new stadium in Mission Valley will not achieve that objective. The public vote in November is the next big hurdle in this scenario.

Out of Oakland?

The Oakland Raiders have also been left without a long term solution for a place to call home for their franchise. They did just agree to a new stadium lease that allows them to keep playing in Oakland Coliseum until another arrangement can be made.

The team owner, Mark Davis, has explored relocation to San Antonio and has just met with officials in Las Vegas recently as well. The main issue with remaining in Oakland is that the city and county have basically zero money to allocate for the stadium project and the public appetite towards public finance of a stadium in any form, whether it comes from an increase in a hotel tax or via another mechanism, is not very likely at this point.

Davis has scaled back his proposals to Oakland with the last proposal seeking land for a smaller venue that was more intimate for fans. The Oakland politicians are concerned about the viability of any project because they also feel pressure from Major League Baseball to figure out a new stadium solution for the A’s.

The developers in Oakland had once pitched the Coliseum City project which would have encompassed 800 acres and included new stadiums for both teams. That proposal, which you can read plenty about if you wish because many news outlets in the Bay Area covered it extensively, died out and is no longer an option.

In all my research and in covering both the NFL’s “race to LA” and the Raiders and Chargers over the years, I just do not see a way for the Raiders to stay in Oakland. I also thought they had a slim chance of going to LA because of the grudge that the NFL owners have for the Davis family built over years of hostilities.

Conversely, I have had a gut feeling over the years that the Chargers could wind up staying in San Diego. The community there is very supportive of the team and they have built a history there spanning decades. It is a great city for the Super Bowl because of the climate and location, but it needs an upgraded stadium to host that event in the future. I think that the Chargers could end up making it work there with the downtown site.

In the event that the Chargers and the San Diego officials cannot make it work, then I think the Raiders have a chance of going there next year if the Chargers leave for Los Angeles (they have a one year option to do so). The Raiders could end up going to San Diego and leveraging the city and county into a new stadium once the Chargers have moved on.

The San Antonio option for the Raiders is interesting because Mark Davis owns land halfway between San Antonio and Austin where he could build a stadium and take advantage of a rapidly growing area in football crazy Texas. However, the political NFL reality is that it is unlikely that Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones or Houston Texans owner Bob McNair would vote to approve such a move. They are both powerful owners with friendships with other owners, so Davis probably faces a steep hurdle to gaining approval for that endeavor.

The Las Vegas option is interesting and could gain some traction. The Raiders had discussions there regarding a new project that potentially would build a domed stadium on land on the Vegas Strip for a facility that would be shared by the UNLV football team and an NFL team and cost close around $1 billion. The big casino and hotel resort owners are backing the project because they see the potential for that investment to be paid off by having new visitors who would otherwise not come to Las Vegas. This new untapped customer base could be worth a significant return in hotel rooms and additional tourist dollars for having a stadium capable of hosting large scale events.

Mark Davis came away impressed and called Las Vegas “a global city” so that is speaking directly to the league office which has sought different ways to grow the NFL internationally in recent years (i.e. games played in London, Canada, and Mexico). That is a subtle play by Davis to try to leverage that sentiment from the owners for a potential relocation bid.

In my view, I would be surprised if the Chargers left San Diego at this point, unless the whole thing falls apart with the public financing for the downtown site, because even if the team could play in a bigger market in L.A. they would be sharing that market with the Rams. Furthermore, the Rams will have had a full year in the L.A. market and have gained all the top sponsorships. The Chargers would be a tenant in L.A. and stand to make less on the ancillary revenue streams due to that type of arrangement; where by staying in San Diego they are the only team in the market and they would have their own stadium with full access to more revenue streams.

The situation bears watching as it is very fluid in the case of both franchises involved. The end game will be that both Oakland and San Diego work with the teams to keep them in those markets, or two new cities will be on the NFL map in the future.

by Frank Maduri

Follow Up: Clean Power Plan, Supreme Court Ruling Explained

In a follow up to earlier stories on this topic, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision last week to suspend the enforcement of the Clean Power Plan pending the resolution of all current legal challenges to the legislation. This decision is an obvious setback for President Obama and The White House who have invested a significant amount of resources and time in moving the Clean Power Plan forward through the legislative process.

 

The Administration was banking on this new legislation to grant the EPA expanded power to impose new regulations on existing coal plants in order to curtail the carbon emissions from these older energy producing sources. The Republicans in general, and conservative groups in particular have railed against this new legal authority for the EPA essentially framing it as economically detrimental for the middle class.

 

In my earlier pieces on this same subject, the focus was on the actual software and hardware that the Clean Power Plan would make mandatory for newly constructed coal plants to obtain in order to be compliant with the new federal government standards. These new technological and mechanical components would add significant cost to the energy companies in their project parameters for construction of new plants.

 

My earlier work focused on the fact that the energy companies (and their lobbyists) would push back hard against this proposed legislation, and that the impact would most likely be felt by the consumer because a portion of the costs to build the plants would be passed along to the average American in higher energy bills.

Retrofitting

 

The challenge presented by this new law was to retrofit existing power plants with new technology to help them to run more efficiently and release less carbon into the atmosphere. In this situation, no matter which side of this issue you favor, the fact remains that the emissions from power plants are the single largest contributor to carbon released into the atmosphere. The higher the carbon or carbon dioxide amount emitted into the atmosphere then the links to climate change can be drawn.

 

It is also not unexpected that this regulation would meet with challenges in the court system so The White House is looking at this decision by the Supreme Court as more procedural in nature until the other cases against the Clean Power Plan get resolved in the court system.

 

The environmental groups and the environmental lobby is understandably frustrated with the ruling by the highest court in the land on this issue, but the public relations releases for those groups show support and confidence that this plan will eventually move forward.

 

However, some of these groups were also quick to point out the impact of carbon emissions on the rising temperatures and the impact on various species of wildlife.

 

Paris Accord

 

The ruling on the Clean Power Plan will not have any impact on the plans for the measures being taken to comply with the historic Paris climate change agreement. The issues are seen as being separate and distinct.

 

It should also be noted that the ruling from the highest court in the nation does not translate to an immediate or future action that is prohibitive to the plan to implement cleaner technologies in America’s power plants. It does allow for the other legal challenges to move forward with regard to the Clean Power Plan which were largely anticipated by the Obama Administration already.

 

It is also important to understand that while some conservatives on Capitol Hill and the energy lobbyists and special interest groups are positioning this plan as a very negative one based mostly on economic factors (i.e. rising energy costs); the amount of litigation that they have filed in the court system is going to cost the American taxpayers a great deal of money too. However, you will notice how that topic is conveniently left out of the equation.

 

The Paris climate change pact that was agreed to recently will challenge the developed countries of this world to do more to reduce our carbon footprint, our consumption, and to enact measurable steps toward the protection of natural resources. I would like to think that those goals would be important to most people especially those with children who would want to have our planet protected for the generations to follow.

 

The legal process on the Clean Power Plan will play out and some elements of the Paris agreement will most certainly be challenged as well. In the end, we as citizens have to decide what side of this issue we are on. The Earth, and all of the natural resources we have been given by God to protect and be good stewards of hangs in the balance. I know I would prefer a world with clean air and clean water and less wasteful consumption patterns. I hope this article helps you to determine where you stand on this critical issue.

 

 

 

 

 

by Frank Maduri

“Must See TV” – NBC Gains Rights to Thursday Night Football

In reading the news earlier this week that the NFL had reached agreement on a new television contract for the Thursday Night package of games and that the rights to those games would be split between CBS and NBC; I could not help but think that NBC finally could reclaim their lost title of “Must See TV” for that night of the week.

 

I remember growing up that NBC owned the ratings on Thursday night, which continued into my high school and college years as well when the network cranked out new episodes of shows like “Friends” . Then later still it was “The Office” and a decent comedy lineup that anchored Thursday nights on “The Peacock” network.

 

However, that all changed for the network TV landscape with the advent of streaming devices and services such as Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Direct that made live television viewing a concept of the past. The busy nature of people’s lives coupled with the fact that nobody works from 9 to 5 anymore, fueled that change towards the way we watch television.

 

The lone exception, as I have written about previously, is live sports programming. The ratings for sporting events of essentially any kind are “ratings gold” for the network which holds the broadcasting rights. The NFL takes this trend and puts it into essentially a “five times multiplier” with nearly all the top 10 most watched “programs” on TV in 2015 being NFL football games.

 

The ratings bonanza surrounding NFL games makes the addition of the Thursday Night Football package by NBC even more influential to advertising revenue and sponsorships that the network can attract. The network can also utilize “drop ins” to promote their own programs and events that are upcoming to a huge and diversified audience. NBC already receives a tremendous ratings boost through their agreement to broadcast Sunday Night Football which frequently is either the top watched program of a given week or in the top three spots. That ratings jump has boosted their overall viewership levels in the past and the promotional aspects of that broadcast have definitely had an impact on the ratings of their other programs.

 

Steep Price

 

NBC and CBS paid a steep price for the rights to broadcast five Thursday Night NFL games each over the next two seasons ($450 million combined between the two networks per year) which demonstrates the amazing draw that NFL live games have on advertising revenue for the networks.

 

In the case of NBC, they have been struggling to rebrand Thursday nights to compete with CBS and the other networks. They needed this share of the NFL package much more than CBS did, as CBS is the most watched network in terms of total viewership. Then, on the other hand, the fact that CBS has over the past two years pre-empted their regular Thursday night programming (in the Fall sweeps period no less) for NFL football demonstrates the enormous draw of the NFL. The shows in the regular CBS Thursday night lineup generate rating numbers that other networks can only dream about, yet CBS is committed to expanding their relationship with the NFL on that weeknight for two more years.

 

I must admit that following the ratings and the world of both media and sports business related topics, I did not initially understand why CBS would have paid the broadcasting rights fees that they shelled out for the Thursday night games initially two years ago. However, over time, I understood what the NFL and CBS were looking to do and subsequently accomplished with that initial contract. The league realized that the Thursday night games could be an attractive package to sell separately while keeping those games on NFL Network. They also identified a need to provide better promotion to both the games and the broadcast itself to make them look and feel like a “stand alone property”.

 

The addition of CBS Sports to that mix accomplished all of those objectives. The Thursday night games received an enhanced production value from CBS as well as their top announcing team of Jim Nantz and Phil Simms (who will continue to work those games in the new contract) CBS created theme music for the Thursday night telecast and cross-promoted the package very well to appeal to a wider audience.

 

Now, the Thursday night package will take another step in the evolution with the addition of NBC to the fold, and the NFL will gain viewers from cross-promotion efforts on NBC programming. In addition, NBC will most assuredly use their Sunday Night Football platform to promote the upcoming Thursday Night game so that will be a very effective marketing tool.

 

Streaming Sold Separately

 

The NFL also announced that with this new Thursday night television package they would be selling the rights to stream the games over the internet separately. The streaming capability was an aspect that both CBS and NBC were hoping would be included in their contract so that they could gain additional revenue from advertising on that platform.

 

The NFL will now begin negotiations for the streaming rights to the Thursday night games with the obvious players being mentioned in reports: Yahoo!, You Tube, Facebook, and Amazon. The NFL partnered with Yahoo! during the 2015 regular season to stream one of the games played in London between two subpar teams, the Buffalo Bills and the Jacksonville Jaguars, and the experiment was a huge success. It remains to be seen if the recent issues surrounding Yahoo! and their announced plans to cut jobs and shut down certain areas of their business will impact these negotiations. It also bears watching if Verizon will make an attempt to purchase the internet search giant outright (Verizon and the NFL have an exclusive agreement to show live local games on Verizon supported devices).

 

The recent Thursday night NFL broadcasting deal made two things clear: live sports programming is the gold standard which is keeping both network and cable television relevant, and that NBC finally has something deemed as “Must See TV” at least for five weeks out of the year.