PDA

View Full Version : NFLN Fight: Detailed Update



MJZiggy
08-21-2007, 11:33 AM
From the Wall Street Journal:

GRIDIRON CLASH
NFL Network Gets Blocked
As Cable Takes Tough Stance
League's Bornstein
Feuds With Comcast;
Too Much Football?
By PETER GRANT and ADAM THOMPSON
August 20, 2007; Page A1

As football season approaches, the cable industry is gang-tackling a fledgling network created by the powerful National Football League.

Time Warner Cable Inc. and Cablevision Systems Corp. are refusing to carry the NFL Network, launched in 2003, on the league's terms. Charter Communications Inc., whose controlling shareholder owns the Seattle Seahawks, stopped carrying the network in late 2005 because of a contract dispute. Comcast Corp., the country's largest cable operator, yanked the NFL Network out of millions of homes after a bitter battle. The NFL tried to stop Comcast by suing, but lost. The case is now on appeal.

At the heart of the debate: how much pro football is enough for America's already robustly served TV fans. The NFL, which has long been able to command top dollar by packaging its games myriad ways, says viewers are still insatiable. But after years of budgetary woes caused by the skyrocketing cost of football, cable executives say they -- and viewers -- have had enough. Die-hard football fans can now watch as many as 16 regular-season games a week via broadcast, cable and satellite operators.

Complaints about the cost of cable, driven in large part by the cost of sports, have been escalating. "Not all our customers are passionate sports fans," says Steve Burke, Comcast's chief operating officer. "And many of them are not interested in paying more" for football programming. In New York City, roughly 20% of an average customer's standard cable bill goes to sports channels, regardless of whether the customer watches them.

Cable executives say the NFL finally got tripped up by its arrogance. "They believe no matter what they do, you have to have it," says Fred Dressler, who was Time Warner Cable's lead negotiator on programming before he retired late last year. The network says it is currently available to 44 million homes, although Comcast says the figure is millions less than that; at least one team owner expected the number to be closer to 70 million.
[Steve Bornstein]

It doesn't break the hearts of cable executives that the man quarterbacking the struggling NFL effort is Steve Bornstein, whom they largely hold responsible for the high cost of football. Prior to the NFL, Mr. Bornstein headed Walt Disney Co.'s ESPN unit and honed its strategy of paying the league large sums to broadcast football games -- and then charging cable companies massive fees to carry ESPN.

Mr. Bornstein insists demand for additional football programming is strong and the NFL Network is performing as expected. "To me the glass is half full," he says. Indeed, viewership of over-the-air television broadcasts of NFL games climbed every year between 2003 and 2006 and this year's Super Bowl, which aired on CBS, ranked as the third-most-watched program in U.S. TV history.

Feeling it has fans on its side, the NFL retaliated with "an email blast" and a Web site (www.iwantnflnetwork.com) accusing the cable companies of "unsportsmanlike conduct." "Some cable companies are penalizing you -- forcing you to pay more to watch football or blocking the games completely," it continues, asking visitors to switch to satellite, complain to their cable operator or contact government officials.

Cable's rebellion represents a rare setback for the NFL. Considered the gold standard of sports programming, the league now earns $3.7 billion in fees annually by selling games to the likes of ESPN, NBC and CBS. That's more than the National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League, Major League Baseball and Nascar combined. Skyrocketing fees have allowed team owners to pay football stars enormous salaries, like the $98 million the Indianapolis Colts are reportedly paying quarterback Peyton Manning over seven years.

The NFL's recent problems are emboldening cable operators in their dealings with the proliferation of other sports networks. For example, most large operators are arguing against including the Big Ten Network in their most popular digital packages. A new channel being launched this month, the Big Ten Network is a venture of Fox Cable Networks and the Big Ten Conference, a collegiate-sports association.

In the middle of this maelstrom is 55-year-old Mr. Bornstein, a tall, swaggering executive with a reputation for hardnosed tactics at the bargaining table. In a New York Post interview, Mr. Bornstein once described operators who don't offer the NFL network as "brain dead." Now he jokes about how that quote got him in trouble.

While he can be charming, Mr. Bornstein does little to discourage his tough-guy image, former employees and business executives say. Hanging in his office is a quote from a conversation he once had with heavyweight fighter Mike Tyson. "Steve," the quote reads, "everyone has a plan until they get hit."

A former sports cameraman for a Milwaukee TV station, Mr. Bornstein joined ESPN in 1980. Back then, all major live sporting events in the U.S. were on broadcast networks ABC, CBS and NBC and supported solely by advertising. ESPN was relegated to obscure sports like table tennis and Australian-rules football.

But over the next two decades, Mr. Bornstein honed his pay-more, charge-more strategy. Former colleagues say Mr. Bornstein, who can become religious about an idea when he's convinced of its merit, constantly reminded his underlings never to underestimate viewers' desire for sports programming. There's almost no such thing as market saturation when companies have great products, he would argue. "Has that stopped Starbucks from being on every corner of America?" he would ask.

In 1987, ESPN stunned the sports world by buying the rights to eight NFL games per season in a three-year, $153 million deal that helped forge "Sunday Night Football," a regularly scheduled game televised nationwide. The cost of the deal, plus a healthy margin, was passed on to the cable companies. Eleven years later, Mr. Bornstein outdid himself by agreeing to pay the NFL $4.8 billion in an eight-year deal. That one deal eventually helped ESPN jack up its rates to cable companies 20% annually for several years.

The strategy was hugely profitable for ESPN -- and a major headache for cable and satellite operators. Today, cable companies pay ESPN more than $3 a month for every household that gets the signal, compared to 30 to 50 cents for popular cable networks like CNN and MTV.

The NFL, meanwhile, struck oil with its programming packages. First there was Monday Night Football and Sunday Night Football, which expanded the offerings beyond the typical two Sunday daytime games already available. In the 1990s the NFL hit pay dirt again by selling "Sunday Ticket," a package that allows viewers who pay a fee to watch up to 14 games every Sunday, to satellite TV operator DirecTV Group Inc.

Mr. Bornstein's success at ESPN propelled him higher at Disney. He became president of the company's ABC unit in 1999. His Southern California home, once owned by Fred Astaire, boasts a wine cellar and a pool house with a cigar bar and mini-theater, where he entertains friends. Among other things, he participates in a charity wine event that has included sports figures like former Olympic figure skater Peggy Fleming and Duke University basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski.

Mr. Bornstein doesn't seek the spotlight, although one former associate says that he was keenly aware of where his name fell when trade publications ranked the most powerful people in entertainment.

Mr. Bornstein left Disney in 2002 for undisclosed reasons. At the time ABC was slumping, but most of the problems were not of his making. Shortly afterward, he was drafted by the NFL, which had been mulling the idea of creating its own network. After watching ESPN ride the popularity of their games to huge profits, NFL owners thought they could sell programming to cable and satellite operators directly.

Although the network initially didn't have any regular-season games, it still got off to a good start. With Mr. Bornstein acting as a consultant, the NFL convinced DirecTV to broadcast the NFL Network to all 11 million of its subscribers in exchange for continued exclusive rights to Sunday Ticket.

Cable operators have long coveted Sunday Ticket as well, but the NFL has preferred to limit it to DirecTV, fearing wider distribution would upset broadcast-television customers who pay so much to air their Sunday games.

Mr. Bornstein was named president and CEO of the NFL Network in early 2003. But he ran into problems with cable companies, which have long been annoyed with the NFL over Sunday Ticket and for driving up the cost of ESPN. Executives at some cable companies griped that the NFL Network's price of 15 to 20 cents a subscriber was too much for a network then focused on second-tier programming like preseason games, highlights and historic footage.

From day one, Time Warner and Cablevision played it tough, scoffing at Mr. Bornstein's warnings that they would lose subscribers to satellite TV if they didn't carry the NFL Network.

Then there was Comcast, the country's largest cable operator with more than 24 million subscribers. In 2004, Mr. Bornstein let Mr. Burke know that the NFL was considering creating a new package of nationally televised games. If Comcast carried the network, it might be able to purchase the games for its struggling Outdoor Life Network. As Mr. Bornstein explained it, Comcast first needed to be a member of the "NFL club," according to people familiar with the talks.

Comcast executives were intrigued -- getting the games would be a huge coup. But they were wary. What if Comcast agreed to run the NFL Network, building viewer interest, but didn't get the additional new games for its own use? "You're asking us to build the runways for you to land the planes to invade us," Mr. Burke told Mr. Bornstein, people familiar with the talks said.

The two sides came up with a solution. In September 2004, Comcast announced it would carry NFL Network on one of its most-popular digital packages that had close to eight million subscribers. But there was also a secret agreement. Comcast had the right to greatly reduce the number of households the NFL Network would reach if it didn't get the new package of football games.

Comcast offered the NFL $415 million a year for the right to carry eight Thursday and Saturday night games a season on Outdoor Life, later renamed Versus. Comcast also offered the NFL an equity stake in the channel, which already reached 55 million households.

But a rival bidder emerged: the NFL Network itself. In early 2006, the then-NFL commissioner, Paul Tagliabue, called Comcast Chief Executive Brian Roberts and told him the NFL Network had won the games. The NFL declines to say how much its in-house network paid. A few months later, the NFL Network informed Comcast that because it is airing regular games it planned to increase the cost of carrying the network to about 70 cents per subscriber -- far more than CNN or MTV -- from about 15 cents. That would have increased the cost of carrying the network to Comcast by over $50 million a year.

Comcast had already been steaming over the dual role Mr. Bornstein played both as a rival bidder and an adviser to the NFL. Mr. Bornstein denies any conflict because he wasn't involved in the actual decision making.
[chart]

In any case, Comcast agreed to pay more for the NFL Network, but began taking steps to kick the network off of its popular package. Instead it planned to stick the NFL Network on a "sports tier," a separate programming package only available to those who pay an additional fee of about $5 a month. That would ultimately reduce the NFL Network's subscribers to 750,000 from eight million -- and vastly lower Comcast's expense. Comcast felt the secret deal gave it the right to do this, but the NFL Network filed suit in New York state court.

Comcast executives felt betrayed by the lawsuit, which was filed under seal. Mr. Roberts phoned Roger Goodell, the new NFL commissioner, to complain, according to people who were briefed on the call. "What are you doing? You know we have a right to do this," Mr. Roberts said. "Is this any way to treat a partner?" Mr. Goodell replied that he felt the NFL was exercising its rights, people said.

The NFL argued in court that Comcast gave up its right to move the network to a sports tier when it agreed to pay more for the NFL Network with the eight-game package. But in May, New York State Supreme Court Justice Bernard Fried sided with Comcast. "I do not find any ambiguity in the various agreements," he stated in his ruling. The NFL is appealing.

Since the ruling, Comcast says it has moved the NFL Network to a sports tier in all of its systems. "While there's a tremendous passion for NFL programming, most of that's being satisfied," says Marc Ganis, a sports consultant. "The cable companies have found this weakness and are using it to push back against the NFL."

That said, some cable companies are playing both sides of the issue. Many of the operators, Comcast included, have invested in their own sports networks that apply the same strategy used by ESPN and the NFL.

The NFL Network regularly got top Nielsen ratings in its time slot among cable networks when it aired regular-season games last year. But viewership of those games still falls far short of Monday Night Football, the other nationally televised game on a cable network. Also, the NFL Network usually doesn't crack the top-40 cable-network shows of the week during the offseason.

NFL Network officials continue to insist that a sports tier is out of the question. Mr. Bornstein says the NFL Network has helped cable, satellite and telephone companies gain customers while some "holdout" cable companies have lost them. This shows, he says, that Time Warner and Comcast's rivals "made the right choice by partnering with us -- America's most popular sport."

MadtownPacker
08-21-2007, 12:19 PM
Sorry but these guys are stupid. The NFL is their Daddy right now. I have DTV JUST because they have Sunday ticket. Otherwise I would have dishnetwork which offers the same stations except the Ticket but is cheaper. I don't care, it's worth it by far. It's not just the Pack games it's every game except those on MNF, SNF, NFLN but you get those stations also. You can't beat it in any way. The NFL is the big boss and if you want it you gotta pay the cost. Thats the way it is.

As a consumer I am OK with it.

The Leaper
08-21-2007, 01:01 PM
I have to disagree Madtown...at least in terms of the population as a whole. Certainly, for hard core NFL fans, everything will be desired at just about any price...and as you point out, the primary majority of those football fans already have satellite TV because of that (I am also one of them). While football is as a whole very popular...the diehard fans make up a small percentage of the overall viewing public.

That is precisely the point cable companies are looking at. Why would cable want to pay a heavy premium for a channel that really won't represent any growth for them? Are you going to quit DirecTV and move back to cable if they pick up the NFL Network? Of course not. If the majority of "hardcore" fans are already happy with their satellite packages that include the NFL Network, what real incentive do cable companies have to purchase the NFL Network?

If cable companies have to charge extra to ALL of their customers to pick up this one channel that interests only a small number of people, they stand to lose regular customers because of the higher rates. In essence, paying for the NFL Network is a much bigger loser for cable than the status quo.

The cable companies aren't going to crumble here...it will be the NFL that finally caves in this battle.

Badgerinmaine
08-21-2007, 01:14 PM
I think The Leaper's right. A lot of why cable has gone up so much is how much more ESPN and some of the local sports channels are getting than they were even a few years ago. When I buy a house I'll have to look into satellite, but we're paying just short of $60 for cable without any of the deluxe channels like HBO. The people that are so desperate to have the extra channels are out there, but a lot of 'em will pay the extra money to get NFL Network, the Big Ten's network, Versus or whatever other sports channels they can take at a higher tier.

MadScientist
08-21-2007, 01:36 PM
The cable companies know that the NFL can only take the losses on the NFLN for so long before being forced to sell the games to someone else. The numbers in the article suggest that having the NFLN do the games instead of someone else costs each team upwards of $10M per year. Call it a failure, move on and make real money.

The amount that the NFLN is asking for 8 games a year is too much, especially since there is likely only one game I'd make the effort to watch. Hopefully the NFLN will go belly up soon and we can all get the games again.

Partial
08-21-2007, 01:46 PM
That is pretty ridiculous that they want to charge that much more just because they're the NFL. My guess is the NFL network would get less total viewers in a year than CNN.

HarveyWallbangers
08-21-2007, 01:48 PM
As long as it stays on DirectTv, I'm happy.
:D

Partial
08-21-2007, 01:51 PM
The NFL Network rules, and it's not because of the fact they show pretty much every preseason game at some point during the week, or replay several regular season games at some point during the week. They have the best coverage of training camps, the best news coverage, the best analysis, the best biographies, the best behind the scenes coverage, etc.. They are light years ahead of ESPN or FOX Sports. People that rip the channel probably haven't watched much of it.

I have a hard time feeling sorry for cable companies. They should give the viewers more choice on programming without trying to stick it to them every chance they get. They've been sticking it to consumers for decades. A lot of people would rather have the NFL Channel over 5 Home Shopping or Home Garden channels. Most people probably watch fewer than 10% of the channels that they get on cable. They still have to pay for those other channels.

But Satalite is the same way. You get a set of channels and pay for them whether you watch them or not.

Ala carte TV would be the way to go. Everyone pays a 10 dollar fee to the cable company per month, get local channels for free, and pays cost to add on the additional channels. Everyone makes money, then.

HarveyWallbangers
08-21-2007, 01:56 PM
Ala carte TV would be the way to go. Everyone pays a 10 dollar fee to the cable company per month, get local channels for free, and pays cost to add on the additional channels. Everyone makes money, then.

Exactly.

Partial
08-21-2007, 02:03 PM
Ala carte TV would be the way to go. Everyone pays a 10 dollar fee to the cable company per month, get local channels for free, and pays cost to add on the additional channels. Everyone makes money, then.

Exactly.

However, I did not consider this originally.

What if ESPN is only 3 dollars per cable subscriber because they know it is in every cable set-up, thus getting them 300 million in revenue a month.

Say only 1/8th of the people subscribe to ESPN using the ala-carte method. It'd go up 8 times in price to keep the revenue the same (24 dollars a month which is outrageous of course) or ESPN would lose revenue.

Cable is probably provided in the way that it is because costs would probably be pretty close for less with an ala-carte method.

The Leaper
08-21-2007, 02:29 PM
However, I did not consider this originally.

What if ESPN is only 3 dollars per cable subscriber because they know it is in every cable set-up, thus getting them 300 million in revenue a month.

Say only 1/8th of the people subscribe to ESPN using the ala-carte method. It'd go up 8 times in price to keep the revenue the same (24 dollars a month which is outrageous of course) or ESPN would lose revenue.

Cable is probably provided in the way that it is because costs would probably be pretty close for less with an ala-carte method.

Generally, I think your assessment is correct.

However, what I would ASSUME would happen is that ESPN would continue to be a part of a basic package, but would include more news and information and less games. (Think Sportcenter, NFL Live, Baseball Tonight, PTI, etc) This would wind up bringing in less revenue, but still a pretty good chunk of change that can consistently be counted on.

The GAMES would then become the ala-carte method. College Football, College Basketball, MNF, MLB...it all would carry a separate cost that a subscriber would pay to receive it. Companies could generally guess how many people would purchase it based on the ratings it carries currently.

Badgerinmaine
08-21-2007, 02:43 PM
[

However, I did not consider this originally.

What if ESPN is only 3 dollars per cable subscriber because they know it is in every cable set-up, thus getting them 300 million in revenue a month.

Say only 1/8th of the people subscribe to ESPN using the ala-carte method. It'd go up 8 times in price to keep the revenue the same (24 dollars a month which is outrageous of course) or ESPN would lose revenue.

.

Exactly. But as I understand how the cable industry is regulated, it's also a function of how federal law is set up (I think it's at the federal level anyway). There have been a number of groups that have been working toward changing the law to make it easier to offer a la carte cable programming. One set, I know, has been conservative Christian groups, who object to having to pay for a whole lot of programming they find objectionable. I can see why someone who hates sports would think that the four channels we get here for basic cable (ESPN, ESPN2, Fox Sports New England and NESN) are four too many. That's certainly how I feel about the three shopping channels we get :mrgreen:

Bad as it is, though, I'd rather take what we have now than a pay-per-view world like Leaper is talking about. Not only would it be a hassle, but I am sure I'd watch a lot less sports. If there's a game on between two teams I don't care much about, I might watch for ten or 15 minutes and move on to something else. I'm not going to do that if I have to pay a PPV charge for the whole game, and that's not good for advertisers.

GBRulz
08-21-2007, 03:02 PM
The question I've had all along is why was there never an issue with Dish and DirectTV carrying the NFL network? They did not raise rates, they did not put up a fuss. Why is cable making such a big deal about it?

Are satellite providers not responsible for the same costs to carry NFLN as cable? I don't see how that would be legally possible.

CaptainKickass
08-21-2007, 03:42 PM
In the long run - cable will loose out to sattelite. Just like cell phones are replacing land lines.

Wireless is the way of the future, and the NFL knows they have it locked up with their exclusive direct tv deal.

FritzDontBlitz
08-21-2007, 04:12 PM
dishnetwork does not carry nfl sunday ticket, the agreement is only with directtv right?

look, guys, i been trying to hit at this for a while but i know i got some facts mixed up in the past. the truth is, the nfl is treating its fanbase like a bunch of crack addicts. i have a smaller cable provider known as wide open west, and they carry nfln as part of their digital basic package. this is the second year for nfln (not in wow advertising but the network's own promotions) to claim that we will be able to see thursday and saturday games in the second half of the season, but let me tell you what happened last year. they advertised the availability of the thursday/saturday games from the start of training camp (just like this year), but when i went to turn on the games i got "football america" instead. what the fuck is football america? its a bunch of steve sabol-filmed puff piece bullshit placed in the time slot the game should be filling. why? because they only offer the thursday/saturday games to cable subscribers in the local markets of the participants. since the chicago bears never played in any of those games offered last year i was stuck watching recycled espn classic crap about geezers in some motheaten semipro league in the new york metropolitan era. they NEVER did a disclaimer to explain this, and i have yet to see a disclaimer this season either. they are scamming the hell out of cable subscribers to dupe them into adding nfln to their packages, plain and simple.

but wait, it gets worse. have you heard about "streaming nfl games" being offered over the internet? well, look out for nfl scam part 2. the streaming internet package is offered at some ridiculous price but ONLY to people who already have sunday ticket on direct tv. there was an article about this on salon.com that explains it in detail:

http://www.salon.com/sports/col/kaufman/2007/08/20/monday/

i can post the article in its entirety if the link doesnt work.

anyways, i love football 24/7 like everyone else here, but i think what really needs to happen is the nfl needs to fire this bornstein loser and put somebody else in charge of negotiating these deals. the league has a big enough problem with its image, the cable feud is definitely not making them look good.

Partial
08-21-2007, 05:10 PM
In the long run - cable will loose out to sattelite. Just like cell phones are replacing land lines.

Wireless is the way of the future, and the NFL knows they have it locked up with their exclusive direct tv deal.

Not true. Bandwidth limitations will exist. Fibre will ultimately replace them both in time.

Jimx29
08-21-2007, 05:15 PM
As of tomorrow afternoon, i'm kicking charter the hell out of my house. I'm getting local (but growing) Chibardun services at my place, and they carry NFLN. I'll be getting 80 channels, 3MB internet (downgrade from 5MB), and unlimited long distance world wide for $99. That's $25 cheaper than i'm paying for charters TV/Internet and vonage phone service

CaptainKickass
08-21-2007, 05:51 PM
In the long run - cable will loose out to sattelite. Just like cell phones are replacing land lines.

Wireless is the way of the future, and the NFL knows they have it locked up with their exclusive direct tv deal.

Not true. Bandwidth limitations will exist. Fibre will ultimately replace them both in time.

That's funny Partial. You trying to get me going?

There's already wireless broadband that exceeds the old 1x EVDO speeds (which are very comparable to cable /T1 internet speeds) and travels over the same airwaves that carry TV, radio, cell, and yes sattelite traffic. Air and/or atmosphere is infinite, fiber is not. Plus - the next gen sattelites will have far surpassed the limitations of current fiber.

Why do you thing Direct TV is so happy and willing to overpay to extend their exclusive NFL contract? It's called ensuring the monopoly.

The Leaper
08-21-2007, 06:23 PM
The question I've had all along is why was there never an issue with Dish and DirectTV carrying the NFL network? They did not raise rates, they did not put up a fuss. Why is cable making such a big deal about it?

DirecTV paid big money to get the rights to the Sunday Ticket package, and I believe the NFL Network was included as part of that package for DirecTV. The NFL felt it was in their best interest to place their network on the same outlet as the Sunday Ticket package, and DirecTV knew it was likely to gain the lion share of hardcore NFL fans.

MadtownPacker
08-21-2007, 07:17 PM
the truth is, the nfl is treating its fanbase like a bunch of crack addicts.That exactly how it is and all these guys on this thread saying it is wrong could put down crackpipe if they wanted to but do they even consider it? Nope, instead they complain about it like they got some bad rocks while at the same time putting the lighter to it and taking a big hit. Damn it's good!!

You get what you pay for and Im happy to pay for it was the point Im trying to make. IF your cable company is trying to burn you then you should kick them to the curve and go with a different provider.

Bretsky
08-21-2007, 07:59 PM
I despise Charter. Their support stinks. Their prices are not any better. But I also see all of the satellite outages every rain and snow storm.

I was joking with a buddy at work about spending two straight hours calling in and complaining about them not offering the NFL Network using different names and voices.

I WANT THE CHOICE; I don't care how it gets done.

retailguy
08-21-2007, 07:59 PM
the truth is, the nfl is treating its fanbase like a bunch of crack addicts.That exactly how it is and all these guys on this thread saying it is wrong could put down crackpipe if they wanted to but do they even consider it? Nope, instead they complain about it like they got some bad rocks while at the same time putting the lighter to it and taking a big hit. Damn it's good!!

You get what you pay for and Im happy to pay for it was the point Im trying to make. IF your cable company is trying to burn you then you should kick them to the curve and go with a different provider.


the curve? Is that some mexican jargon that I don't know? I know about kicked to the curb, but the curve? Gosh, I'm old...

retailguy
08-21-2007, 08:01 PM
I despise Charter. Their support stinks. Their prices are not any better. But I also see all of the satellite outages every rain and snow storm.

I was joking with a buddy at work about spending two straight hours calling in and complaining about them not offering the NFL Network using different names and voices.

I WANT THE CHOICE; I don't care how it gets done.

I WANT THE CHOICE, I WANT THE FRAUD. Not much difference, is there?

Another underachiever.... I ripped the cable out of the wall in 1995 and never looked back...

cut the cord. Cut the damn cord. Build a little hut around the dish, kind of like a doghouse. You can keep the rain off of it....you CANNOT fix charter.

MJZiggy
08-21-2007, 08:02 PM
Maybe he lives on the corner...

MadtownPacker
08-21-2007, 08:42 PM
the curve? Is that some mexican jargon that I don't know? I know about kicked to the curb, but the curve? Gosh, I'm old...
Getting kicked to the curb is getting kicked to the sidewalk. Getting kicked to the curve is all the way down the street where it curves so there is a huge difference. I apologize if you feel like a dumbass now.
:tup: