Bally's Bankruptcy

[Gophers_4life]

It's the schedule and shear number of games. MLS plays 34 regular season games over eight months, so basically once a week. Same with NFL, one game a week. MLB, NBA, NHL play a lot more games in the same amount of time or less. Way different model for figuring out broadcasting.

There are no limits (number of channels) on streaming, so that’s not an issue. You can stream 20 live games a night if needed.

The bulk of games would go on streaming. Fans in the two markets would of course stream those games … but so too could any fans anywhere who have that streaming service.

ESPN+ for example, perhaps with an up charge for monthly access to “NBA+” or something like that.


Major games would go on cable/broadcast channels, as they do now.

 

[Gophers_4life]

Disagree. Let's say each MLB team averages $75 million for their TV rights. That's $2.25 billion per year for the entire league. Apple TV is not paying $2.25 billion for exclusive rights to stream MLB the way they just acquired the MLS rights. It's a pond versus the ocean.

If those rights are worth that much to the sum of the regional networks, then they’re worth that much to a single major national partner.

Total all games viewership could easily go up, with most games available to a national audience via ESPN+ with an up charge for “MLB+”.

 

[PMWinSTP]

There are no limits (number of channels) on streaming, so that’s not an issue. You can stream 20 live games a night if needed.

The bulk of games would go on streaming. Fans in the two markets would of course stream those games … but so too could any fans anywhere who have that streaming service.

ESPN+ for example, perhaps with an up charge for monthly access to “NBA+” or something like that.


Major games would go on cable/broadcast channels, as they do now.

For MLB, that's over 2400 games. Extremely hard have a league-wide single national provider. Even splitting it up among several would be a challenge, and woudn't make a lot of sense...they would just be like having super regional sports networks. Having and upcharge to watch streaming on a "+" would probably reduce potential viewership which means fewer eyeballs, which means lower ad $$.

 

[Taji34]

Good. I understand having regional channels, even though it sucks when a game (never happens to football, but whatever) is on them because I live in Seattle right now, but I have YoutubeTV and even when visiting MN I couldn't watch games without going somewhere because Sinclair got too greedy and couldn't come to agreement with many of the streaming services.

I view this as Cable TV trying to make a comeback in the streaming age. Every channel is making their own app, and to stream on-demand you have to pay them. When streaming first started, cutting the cord was a way to save money, now I'm not so sure anymore! While I don't plan on getting cable any time soon, even streaming TV services as lacking channels (not just regional ones sometimes) that make even recording and watching later a hard task!

 

[howeda7]

If those rights are worth that much to the sum of the regional networks, then they’re worth that much to a single major national partner.

No they're not. That would approach what the networks pay for the NFL currently.

There's a much lower cap on the # of people who will pay for an MLB streaming package. I personally know several who get Bally's on their cable/satellite package who would never fork over $50-60 separately to Apple TV etc. just to watch the Twins.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

There was an article in the Pioneer Press stating that the Twins expect their games to be available this year. Dave St Peter was quoted and there also was a strange comment that the games would not be on the Bally streaming app. Overall the bankruptcy would be good to force the issue and develop a better solution. I suspect each sport will make their own deal.

Since this is a Gopher site I think that the Gophers need to work out a solution probably working with BTN to show games of interest such as all the hockey and volleyball games.

MLB considers streaming rights to be separate from Cable TV rights. So all of the RSN's that have MLB games on cable have to negotiate new agreements with their local MLB team in order to show games on a streaming platform.

at one point last year, it was reported that - of the 19 Sinclair RSN's that carry MLB games - only 5 had negotiated deals for streaming rights.

The Twins - at this point - have not reached a deal with the Bally's app for streaming rights. Unless a deal is reached, the Twins will not be on the Bally's app.

this is one of the reasons why some people think that - if the Sinclair RSN's go under - MLB will cut out the middle-man and take everything in-house. MLB recently hired a new person as Executive Vice President for Local Media. I don't think that is a coincidence.

 

[Gophers_4life]

No they're not. That would approach what the networks pay for the NFL currently.

There's a much lower cap on the # of people who will pay for an MLB streaming package. I personally know several who get Bally's on their cable/satellite package who would never fork over $50-60 separately to Apple TV etc. just to watch the Twins.

Well when you make up an extra $50-60 out of thin air, sure, you can reinforce your opinion with made up stuff.

Let's just simplify it. It's really quite easy.

Old system:
- teams (franchises) X, Y, Z sell their rights to RSN's A, B, C for $30, 40, and 50 million respectively
- those RSN's are willing to pay those amounts because they know they can turn around and sell their productions (covering those teams) to local cable networks for a bigger amount that their costs, thus turning a profit
- each of those RSN's are then picked up by cable networks that are local to that region
- if your cable network has that channel, then you can tune in and watch those games

Proposal new system:
- teams (franchises) X, Y, Z sell their rights to ESPN for $30, 40, and 50 million respectively
- ESPN is willing to pay those amounts because they know they can turn around and sell their productions (covering those teams) to YouTubeTV for a bigger amount that their costs, thus turning a profit
- YouTubeTV carries ESPN
- each YouTubeTV customer automatically gets access to their "local" games produced by ESPN, included with their subscription
- if you pay $10 extra per month for the "MLB+" upgrade, you get access to every channel of "local" games in your YTTV interface AND you can also access them via ESPN+ if you prefer



Simple and correct. Now let's see what reasons you come up with about why it can't work.

If teams know they can sell their rights for that much, then they're worth that much. Doesn't matter who buys them, the product is worth what it's worth.

 

[Dave H]

Not simple and how can you know it is correct? It is based off a premise you literally made up.

 

[Hotrod1987]

I won’t miss them. As they are not part f any of my streaming packages, I haven’t seem a Twins, Wild, or Wolves game on TV in a few years, only when I can attend in person, and there are fewer of those.

 

[PMWinSTP]

Not simple and how can you know it is correct? It is based off a premise you literally made up.

Well, it's MPLSGopher with a new moniker, so...par for course.

 

[howeda7]

Well when you make up an extra $50-60 out of thin air, sure, you can reinforce your opinion with made up stuff.

Let's just simplify it. It's really quite easy.

Old system:
- teams (franchises) X, Y, Z sell their rights to RSN's A, B, C for $30, 40, and 50 million respectively
- those RSN's are willing to pay those amounts because they know they can turn around and sell their productions (covering those teams) to local cable networks for a bigger amount that their costs, thus turning a profit
- each of those RSN's are then picked up by cable networks that are local to that region
- if your cable network has that channel, then you can tune in and watch those games

Proposal new system:
- teams (franchises) X, Y, Z sell their rights to ESPN for $30, 40, and 50 million respectively
- ESPN is willing to pay those amounts because they know they can turn around and sell their productions (covering those teams) to YouTubeTV for a bigger amount that their costs, thus turning a profit
- YouTubeTV carries ESPN
- each YouTubeTV customer automatically gets access to their "local" games produced by ESPN, included with their subscription
- if you pay $10 extra per month for the "MLB+" upgrade, you get access to every channel of "local" games in your YTTV interface AND you can also access them via ESPN+ if you prefer



Simple and correct. Now let's see what reasons you come up with about why it can't work.

If teams know they can sell their rights for that much, then they're worth that much. Doesn't matter who buys them, the product is worth what it's worth.

That's not simplifying much. You're basically describing the RSN model we have now, just with streaming instead of cable. I think that is dead. If YouTube/Hulu won't pay Bally's why are they now going to pay ESPN?

The alternative is ESPN/Apple bidding on the entire league's games and them only being available via ESPN+/Apple TV or MLB and/or the teams streaming them directly. I think the latter is where this is headed. If I were the Twins, I would do that, but find a local TV partner to televise at least weekly games over the air as well. You need to keep portion of the fan base that will not pay for a streaming service engaged/coming to games.

 

[Gophers_4life]

That's not simplifying much. You're basically describing the RSN model we have now, just with streaming instead of cable. I think that is dead. If YouTube/Hulu won't pay Bally's why are they now going to pay ESPN?

The alternative is ESPN/Apple bidding on the entire league's games and them only being available via ESPN+/Apple TV or MLB and/or the teams streaming them directly. I think the latter is where this is headed. If I were the Twins, I would do that, but find a local TV partner to televise at least weekly games over the air as well. You need to keep portion of the fan base that will not pay for a streaming service engaged/coming to games.

YouTubeTV did pay to carry Fox Sports North. I had that channel when I first started using YTTV.

Something happened between the changeover to BSN.

While in the previous days, I can see where “Maple Grove Cable System” would have no desire and limited capacity to carry Fox Sports Wisconsin and all the other Fox Sports networks, YTTV has defacto unlimited capacity for channels.

If even staying with regional networks. Having one national network/streaming option is far better.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

I was reading today about MLS moving all of its regular-season games to Apple TV+. (there will still be a few games on 'national' TV on FS1, etc)

If you are an Apple TV+ customer, the MLS 'season pass' is $13/month or $79 for the season. If you are not an Apple TV+ customer, it's $15/month or $99 for the season.

I like the Loons and watched quite a few of their games, but I'm not going to fork out $100 to watch their entire season.