short ornery norwegian
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2011
- Messages
- 21,614
- Reaction score
- 15,506
- Points
- 113
They keep pointing out that Arizona and Colorado went to streaming, but Bally's Arizona ceased operations and I believe the Rockies RSN (AT&T something) did as well. They didn't exactly "choose" to take less $$ and go to streaming.
The one part I still don't understand is why the Twins didn't give Bally's the streaming rights if it was only a 1-year deal. All the Comcast/Xfinity customers could just give Bally's the $10 credit their getting on their bill. Frankly, Comcast probably would have caved exactly for that reason. It seems like MLB told them to hold onto the streaming rights because they thought some mid-season solution with Amazon was going to happen, but that's clearly not going to occur.
on the streaming, I can only guess. But - MLB has made it very clear that they want to come up with a multi-team streaming package modeled after the MLS deal with Apple. In order to make that happen, Manfred has said they need to have the rights to as many teams as possible - preferably at least half the teams in MLB or more.
I can only guess that MLB is telling the Twins "don't give Diamond your streaming rights" because they want those rights free and unemcumbered for the MLB package. during the bankruptcy proceedings, MLB lawyers have been very skeptical about Diamond's long-range chances to succeed. so reading between the lines, MLB may very well want Diamond to go under. that would make more teams' streaming rights available. Diamond currently has streaming rights to 5 teams (out of the 12 teams that Diamond has TV rights to broadcast).