Bally's Sports North Subscriptions -- $23/month ???

Would you pay $23 a month just for access to Bally Sports North?

  • Yep, for sure.

    Votes: 8 20.0%
  • Not a chance.

    Votes: 32 80.0%

  • Total voters
    40

Full Speed Ahead

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Messages
297
Reaction score
339
Points
63
Sinclair is reportedly telling investors it will charge users $23 a month for access to their sports channels. Are you all-in and-ready-to-sign-up, or not-a-chance-that-I'll-take-that-dance? IMO, they're pricing it way too high. Here's the article with more info.
 

UpAndUnder43

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
8,418
Reaction score
4,348
Points
113
Sinclair is reportedly telling investors it will charge users $23 a month for access to their sports channels. Are you all-in and-ready-to-sign-up, or not-a-chance-that-I'll-take-that-dance? IMO, they're pricing it way too high. Here's the article with more info.
I get these channels with my TV service but $23 seems pretty high. However—if you like the Wild, Wolves and Twins you can watch ~300 games for under $300/yr. plus there is other programming on there. Still high but lots of games to watch.
 


short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
3,379
Points
113
FWIW, with the Disney+ bundle, I get Disney+, ESPN+ and Hulu(version with ads) for $15 a month.

$23 a month for one channel is too bleeping high. I might pay $15 a month for BSN if that was the only way to get it.

I live in a city that still has traditional cable TV, but they are planning to phase out the system and replace it with a streaming service. The service they are proposing would have BSN - along with lots of other channels, and they're talking about maybe $60 a month for the whole package.
 

laazrakit

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
368
Reaction score
342
Points
63
I might be more inclined to sign up if I get access to all of their regional sports networks for that 23 bucks a month... but not just for BSN.
 



MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
27,753
Reaction score
6,868
Points
113
This is what it is. Pretty much all the major professional sports leagues decided that they wanted to get in bed with these regional networks, and so they have.

Probably has to do with there being so many more games, for these sports, as opposed to football. The Loons not as much, but definitely Wolves, Wild, and of course Twins.

Whereas the NFL is a giant talk/hype machine that builds up all week long, and finally the game is a one-off event for the whole week, and pretty much everyone tunes in and is a captive audience.

Only the most diehards are going to watch every single game of an MLB team.


Bundlers (now branded as "live TV") -- cable/satellite for the old guard, and the new guys being internet streaming -- have finally thrown up their hands and said "it just isn't worth it ... we can't make every customer in our network pay $5, $7,... $10 each for this content that they mostly don't watch or want".


Direct to customer is going to be the only way, and to do that with such few (relatively) viewers ... this is what it costs.


Lot cheaper than going to every home game, isn't it? Plus you get to watch the away games. That'll be their argument. If you want to watch, you're gonna have to pay.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
27,753
Reaction score
6,868
Points
113
Plus with the deal with Bally's, they're hoping that people will want to bet on the games while they watch, as well.

Which can be a lot of fun. Just don't go overboard!
 

Plato

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
975
Reaction score
611
Points
93
YTTV is still a good deal compared to cable from Spectrum.
I could care less about the NBA, NHL and baseball so I did not care when they dropped the channels covering those sports.
YTTV allows three devices to be used so we have two at home and I am able to use one in our lake cabin in the UP and drop DirecTV for a considerable savings.
We have a number of movie streaming channels that work in both places so as long as I have adequate internet service I am satisfied with our entertainment set up.
 




Iceland12

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
21,258
Reaction score
308
Points
83
(Sinclair)The publicly traded media company — which owns exclusive rights to broadcast games for dozens of Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association and National Hockey League teams — is working with investment bank LionTree to raise more than $250 million for the venture, according to two sources with knowledge of the plans..

Tensions between cable operators and broadcasters have gotten so heated in recent years that satellite TV operator Dish in July 2019 stopped paying for rights to Sinclair’s games altogether — correctly betting that its customers wouldn’t drop their Dish subscriptions any faster than before..

Of course, Sinclair will need to negotiate with the NBA, MLB and NHL to secure the rights to stream the games, sources said. Those talks are not finalized, and sources say Sinclair is raising money now to show the leagues it has the funds to back its ambitious venture..

The question now is whether the leagues will OK the plan, and that could depend on how it will affect teams.

Greg Bouris, the Sports Management Program Director at Adelphi University and former communications director for the MLB Players Association, believes teams may take at least a short term loss if Sinclair proves to be successful since this will mean even less revenue from cable providers.

“I think the economics will go backwards and this could be very disruptive. If I was a team owner, I’d be a little nervous.”..


 
Last edited:


short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
3,379
Points
113
read the whole NY Post article.

I think it missed one point. Yes, $23 a month for your regional sports network is less than people pay for cable. but that is for one channel.

That cable provider or satellite provider also brings you lots of other channels in addition to sports.

it's as if they are suggesting that sports fans don't watch anything other than sports.

this gets back to the old argument about an "a la carte" system where viewers could choose the channels they want and only pay for those channels. Unfortunately, given how the channel providers operate, in a true a la carte system, the operators would just jack up the price for the channels people want, in order to subsidize the cost of their operation.

the way things are going, if you have to have one streaming service for sports, another for movies, and another for your favorite TV channels, you will wind up paying more for streaming than you're paying now for cable. Not to mention the fact that you will need to have a really good high-speed internet service to handle all that streaming.

pay me now, or pay me later.
 



GoGophersUMN

Active member
Joined
Dec 16, 2016
Messages
994
Reaction score
203
Points
43
Most TV providers charge 50 cents to a dollar per channel. I get there should be a premium if you pick and choose but $23 for one channel is way too high, especially considering there's rarely anything worth watching on from about midnight to 6pm.

They might think consumers are choosing between their subscription and nothing but in reality most are choosing between their offering and pirating the games. At $23 I'd imagine a lot of people who would be willing to pay a more reasonable price decide that's too much and just find games somewhere online instead.
 

#2Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
7,147
Reaction score
1,534
Points
113
I see that MSNBC is dropping the Wild for this coming winter. Also curious about Gopher Sports. They are not always on Big 10 Network. Have to have some other channel. Seems to be a different issue each year as to what you can get or can't get.
 


amk8930

Active member
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
444
Reaction score
94
Points
28
I see that MSNBC is dropping the Wild for this coming winter. Also curious about Gopher Sports. They are not always on Big 10 Network. Have to have some other channel. Seems to be a different issue each year as to what you can get or can't get.

I didn’t know that the Wild games were on a political cable channel.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
27,753
Reaction score
6,868
Points
113
Most TV providers charge 50 cents to a dollar per channel. I get there should be a premium if you pick and choose but $23 for one channel is way too high, especially considering there's rarely anything worth watching on from about midnight to 6pm.

They might think consumers are choosing between their subscription and nothing but in reality most are choosing between their offering and pirating the games. At $23 I'd imagine a lot of people who would be willing to pay a more reasonable price decide that's too much and just find games somewhere online instead.
There is some website that tracks this and I think the top ones (ESPN, I would guess) are well above $1/subscriber.

EDIT: quick Google search confirms -- https://variety.com/vip/pay-tv-true-cost-free-1234810682/
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
28,169
Reaction score
4,148
Points
113
No thanks. I live out of MN so get the Twins through mlb.tv. Sucks to miss the Wild but don’t care much for the Wolves.
 

Iceland12

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
21,258
Reaction score
308
Points
83
I see that MSNBC is dropping the Wild for this coming winter. Also curious about Gopher Sports. They are not always on Big 10 Network. Have to have some other channel. Seems to be a different issue each year as to what you can get or can't get.

Comcast which owns NBCUniversal is shutting down the whole NBC Sports Network. NBC Sports is presently the main carrier of the NHL.

The NHL is heading to ESPN next season.
 

Gold Vision

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
5,469
Reaction score
413
Points
83
I’m splitting AT&T TV with my Dad (two households) at the moment solely for access to Bally’s Sports North. We were happy with YTTV for a couple years before that, but couldn’t miss the Twins and Wild.

$46 (93/2) per month for a ton of channels I don’t watch is annoying, but it’s still better than the price of Comcast or Directv with no contracts.
 

Iceland12

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
21,258
Reaction score
308
Points
83
Comcast which owns NBCUniversal is shutting down the whole NBC Sports Network. NBC Sports is presently the main carrier of the NHL.

The NHL is heading to ESPN next season.

The package calls for 25 regular-season games to be nationally televised games on ESPN or ABC. In addition, ESPN+ and Hulu’s 51 million combined subscribers will be able to stream 75 more games. ABC/ESPN will also air half of the Stanley Cup Playoffs, while ABC gets exclusive rights to the Stanley Cup Finals for four of the seven years of the contract. Disney properties will air opening night games, the NHL All-Star Game and Skills Challenge and other special league events, too. ESPN+ will replace NHL.tv as the streaming home for out-of-market games.

 


WorkingMyTailOff

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
5,591
Reaction score
289
Points
83
If the Twins were killing it this year I would miss it more but I don’t want to send a nickel to Sinclair Broadcasting.
I wonder if Jim Pohlad would consider creating his own network and potentially bring on the Wolves and Wild?
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Messages
17,616
Reaction score
4,348
Points
113
If the Twins were killing it this year I would miss it more but I don’t want to send a nickel to Sinclair Broadcasting.
I wonder if Jim Pohlad would consider creating his own network and potentially bring on the Wolves and Wild?
I always wished they would do that.

Seems like a natural fit.

Granted no small feat but would be nice.
 

Iceland12

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
21,258
Reaction score
308
Points
83
If the Twins were killing it this year I would miss it more but I don’t want to send a nickel to Sinclair Broadcasting.
I wonder if Jim Pohlad would consider creating his own network and potentially bring on the Wolves and Wild?

Pohlads tried it with their radio rights. They even bought a couple of radio stations for that purpose. They failed miserably. There are a few teams that have done it. Problem is when the teams turn bad. Then they are on the hook for the teams losses at the gate and on the broadcasts.

Wolves and Wild? They honestly bring few viewers when they're running bad. Their radio & online numbers are pretty non-existent even in good years.

Now with everything splintered getting on the various TV& online providers is difficult too. There have been rumblings that the leagues want to do more of that themselves. The NFL,NBA, NHL and MLB all have their own channels already. NFL Network aside doubt they're making any money.

The problem is league owners in all sports tend to be very risk averse once the get into a position where they can get guaranteed money.

That said the beginning of the Midwest Sports Channel was a collaboration of the Twins and the North Stars. Check out the history at the Ballys Sports North Wikipedia Page. There are a WHOLE lot of footnotes if you're interested in going deeper.

 
Last edited:

hungan1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
11,299
Reaction score
1,699
Points
113
It will be palatable if the Twins and the Wolves are doing great, but at $23 a month you have to ask yourself do you want to pay $276 a year to see crappy teams? The Wild is keeping the sanity of local sports fan.

What options do sports fans have? Fans are cutting dish or cable to avoid the high cost of entertainment which is over $200 per month if you have a phone, internet, and cable package. Cable is bundling about 80 percent of garbage programming that you pay for whether you watch them or not. Whoopie, who cares about what Kim Kardashian is doing?

These fats cats that control digital sports content are finding and plugging up all the loopholes that fans seek as an alternative to cable or dish. They'll eventually get you to lighten up your wallet. At least it is for something that you want to watch.

Some fans may get fed up especially after the Covid Pandemic who found out that family time is best spent elsewhere like camping or travelling with your family. If these greedy companies and corporations don't watch out, they will start losing sports fans permanently.

The choice is clear. Pay up or shut down. If you want to watch digital sports content, pony up. If wouldn't matter whether you are a Comcast cable, Satellite dish, or streaming service subscriber.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Messages
17,616
Reaction score
4,348
Points
113
It will be palatable if the Twins and the Wolves are doing great, but at $23 a month you have to ask yourself do you want to pay $276 a year to see crappy teams? The Wild is keeping the sanity of local sports fan.

What options do sports fans have? Fans are cutting dish or cable to avoid the high cost of entertainment which is over $200 per month if you have a phone, internet, and cable package. Cable is bundling about 80 percent of garbage programming that you pay for whether you watch them or not. Whoopie, who cares about what Kim Kardashian is doing?

These fats cats that control digital sports content are finding and plugging up all the loopholes that fans seek as an alternative to cable or dish. They'll eventually get you to lighten up your wallet. At least it is for something that you want to watch.

Some fans may get fed up especially after the Covid Pandemic who found out that family time is best spent elsewhere like camping or travelling with your family. If these greedy companies and corporations don't watch out, they will start losing sports fans permanently.

The choice is clear. Pay up or shut down. If you want to watch digital sports content, pony up. If wouldn't matter whether you are a Comcast cable, Satellite dish, or streaming service subscriber.
Well those are the legal options...
 






Top Bottom