Sinclair(Bally's Sport) nearing a deal for NBA streaming rights for direct to consumer offering

Donate To GopherHole


But will whatever "defacto FSN" becomes, be carried on the major streaming providers?
 

Gophers_4life said:
But will whatever "defacto FSN" becomes, be carried on the major streaming providers?
Click to expand...
Reading the article, an understatement that this is a real mess. I can't tell if losing this cash cow for roughly half MLB, NHL & NBA teams will be a boom or boondoggle.

As for fans, there is always the possibility it will be replaced by something worse in terms of availability and/or more expensive.
 

Ope3 said:
Reading the article, an understatement that this is a real mess. I can't tell if losing this cash cow for roughly half MLB, NHL & NBA teams will be a boom or boondoggle.

As for fans, there is always the possibility it will be replaced by something worse in terms of availability and/or more expensive.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm wondering too. Who would take over?
 


This is going to hurt the franchises in the end. These sports channels dont produce enough revenue to pay the teams what they used to. Cord cutters didnt miss sports, drastically reducing the amount of people paying for it via Comcast/Direct TV (since they cut the cord). Now cable companies dont want to pay as much and they just dont drive enough in advertising. Meaning a BSN can only pay so much to the teams, or go belly up.
 

JimmyJamesMD said:
This is going to hurt the franchises in the end. These sports channels dont produce enough revenue to pay the teams what they used to. Cord cutters didnt miss sports, drastically reducing the amount of people paying for it via Comcast/Direct TV (since they cut the cord). Now cable companies dont want to pay as much and they just dont drive enough in advertising. Meaning a BSN can only pay so much to the teams, or go belly up.
Click to expand...
Well, MLB salaries have been nearly flat for a decade or more, and revenue increased substantially during the time.

The fat cat owners can afford a hair cut.
 

Here's some more info and background on the whole deal.


Now, insiders say Diamond might fetch $3 billion including its debt, which is currently trading at a heavily-discounted $2 billion. Sinclair is expected to propose giving over Diamond’s equity to creditors who would then sell most of the operation to MLB, the NBA and the NHL while Diamond retains a minority stake in the business, the sources said.

“They will offer it to all three leagues,” one source close to the talks said. “There is a reasonable likelihood this will all happen. That’s where this is heading.”

If a deal isn’t reached in what is being described as a “grand solution,” there is a growing possibility creditors — mostly hedge funds that have scooped up Diamond’s distressed debt — could force Diamond and its Bally RSNs into bankruptcy in the next three to six months, sources said.

Diamond has been telling the leagues in recent days if it goes bankrupt it will be able to keep broadcasting games, but will not need to pay teams their rights fees as it will have protection from creditors, sources close to the talks said.

One league official told The Post the leagues are working on a contingency plan. MLB, for one, is prepared to broadcast games in local markets, charging cable companies the usual fees and passing the proceeds to team owners until Diamond emerges from bankruptcy.

MLB, meanwhile, has been considering the launch of its own streaming service that would carry local games as early as next year, The Post reported exclusively in October. Elsewhere, Amazon has the capability now to broadcast local games and air them on a regional basis, sources said. So does Apple, ESPN plus and even NBC’s Peacock.
 




Gophers_4life said:
But will whatever "defacto FSN" becomes, be carried on the major streaming providers?
Click to expand...
I expect it will basically end up as MLB.TV for everyone, which is probably best. The Twins will pay Bremer/Morneau and for the production team which they do already. You will either pay XX per month for one team or XXX per month for all games.
 

howeda7 said:
I expect it will basically end up as MLB.TV for everyone, which is probably best. The Twins will pay Bremer/Morneau and for the production team which they do already. You will either pay XX per month for one team or XXX per month for all games.
Click to expand...
Disagree that an "over the top", separate streaming service that you have to access separately from YouTubeTV/Hulu Live/etc. is "best".

It should be a cable channel, like it always was as FSN, accessible to every provider of such live TV channels (regardless the delivery method - cable, sat, or streaming).
 

Gophers_4life said:
Disagree that an "over the top", separate streaming service that you have to access separately from YouTubeTV/Hulu Live/etc. is "best".

It should be a cable channel, like it always was as FSN, accessible to every provider of such live TV channels (regardless the delivery method - cable, sat, or streaming).
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying - but you can't force a provider to make their content available to everyone. Those agreements have to be negotiated. There are reasons why YTTV, Hulu Live and Dish dropped FSN/Bally's. you can blame FSN/Bally's for hard-ball negotiation tactics, but it still takes two to make a deal.

If the Sinclair RSN's avoid bankruptcy, I don't see that changing. They want to steer customers to their new streaming app.

On the other hand, if they go bankrupt, and are taken over by MLB, NBA & NHL, then there could be new negotiations to get the games back on the streaming services. But - if MLB wants to put out its own streaming service, then they're not going to want games on YTTV, either.

in the end, between all the streaming services and standalone apps, we are all going to wind up paying more for streaming than we were paying for cable TV.
 

Gophers_4life said:
Disagree that an "over the top", separate streaming service that you have to access separately from YouTubeTV/Hulu Live/etc. is "best".

It should be a cable channel, like it always was as FSN, accessible to every provider of such live TV channels (regardless the delivery method - cable, sat, or streaming).
Click to expand...
I don't really disagree. But Bally's was trying to go that way anyway. They were on hardly any providers and playing hardball with the presumption that they would get fans to pay for access via their new app.

At least if MLB controls it, it will be a standalone and probably under $10/month. If they are smart they will still find a way to get it on cable/satellite as the average MLB fan is over 50 and probably still mostly consumes regular cable/satellite versus streaming for regular TV access.
 



short ornery norwegian said:
in the end, between all the streaming services and standalone apps, we are all going to wind up paying more for streaming than we were paying for cable TV.
Click to expand...
For years, people wanted Congress to mandate "a la carte" cable channels. We basically have that now. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
 

howeda7 said:
For years, people wanted Congress to mandate "a la carte" cable channels. We basically have that now. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
Click to expand...

"People" got into that lobbying late. Dish lobbied for it for years. DirectTV even got into that lobbying. Local governments and the content providers fought it ever step of the way.

Then the "online crowd" started screaming that streaming would make everything available and cheap. If they meant that the Networks would start taking the expensive programing and taking it off the networks and putting it one their streaming services so they could charge people for it then they were right.

The discussion has been going on for awhile now.
 

howeda7 said:
I don't really disagree. But Bally's was trying to go that way anyway. They were on hardly any providers and playing hardball with the presumption that they would get fans to pay for access via their new app.

At least if MLB controls it, it will be a standalone and probably under $10/month. If they are smart they will still find a way to get it on cable/satellite as the average MLB fan is over 50 and probably still mostly consumes regular cable/satellite versus streaming for regular TV access.
Click to expand...
MLB(TV?) has a bunch of channels on my YouTubeTV, now. Not just the main cable channel, but a bunch of "standby" channels that show games sometimes. Or game of the week. Not sure what it all is.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
I get what you are saying - but you can't force a provider to make their content available to everyone. Those agreements have to be negotiated. There are reasons why YTTV, Hulu Live and Dish dropped FSN/Bally's. you can blame FSN/Bally's for hard-ball negotiation tactics, but it still takes two to make a deal.

If the Sinclair RSN's avoid bankruptcy, I don't see that changing. They want to steer customers to their new streaming app.

On the other hand, if they go bankrupt, and are taken over by MLB, NBA & NHL, then there could be new negotiations to get the games back on the streaming services. But - if MLB wants to put out its own streaming service, then they're not going to want games on YTTV, either.

in the end, between all the streaming services and standalone apps, we are all going to wind up paying more for streaming than we were paying for cable TV.
Click to expand...
All I know is that my YouTubeTV used to have FSN. It was there and I could watch Twins, Wild, Twolves, and Loons. Now it's Bally's and it's not there.

I hope whatever survives out of it is still a cable channel and gets picked up on my YTTV again. Lord knows they have all kinds of sport channels that I never tune in every.
 

Gophers_4life said:
All I know is that my YouTubeTV used to have FSN. It was there and I could watch Twins, Wild, Twolves, and Loons. Now it's Bally's and it's not there.

I hope whatever survives out of it is still a cable channel and gets picked up on my YTTV again. Lord knows they have all kinds of sport channels that I never tune in every.
Click to expand...
We switched from YTTV to Direct TV Stream just to get Bally's. it was more expensive and I really liked the YTTV interface and DVR better. If they go back to YTTV, I'm switching back as well. I'd prefer it wasn't another app that I have to download on my TV. it's nice to just have the programming all in one spot.
 

JayBobDobbins said:
We switched from YTTV to Direct TV Stream just to get Bally's. it was more expensive and I really liked the YTTV interface and DVR better. If they go back to YTTV, I'm switching back as well. I'd prefer it wasn't another app that I have to download on my TV. it's nice to just have the programming all in one spot.
Click to expand...

I suppose anything's possible, but I would be very surprised if Bally's - or whatever it becomes - winds up on YTTV or Hulu Live.

My gut tells me that people who want to watch the Twins will either be getting the Bally's streaming app, or they'll be watching a streaming service that is run by MLB. like it or not, traditional cable TV is seen as a dying industry. it will hang on for a while, but the trend is going away from cable and toward streaming.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
I suppose anything's possible, but I would be very surprised if Bally's - or whatever it becomes - winds up on YTTV or Hulu Live.

My gut tells me that people who want to watch the Twins will either be getting the Bally's streaming app, or they'll be watching a streaming service that is run by MLB. like it or not, traditional cable TV is seen as a dying industry. it will hang on for a while, but the trend is going away from cable and toward streaming.
Click to expand...
There is essentially no difference between Hulu/Youtube and DirecTV/Comcast. It would still be beneficial to both sides to have the games available to a wider audience. The Twins make more getting $2 for every Hulu/YTTV subscriber than $10 from each one that pays for their app. And Hulu/YTTV are more likely to keep their subscribers if they have the local sports teams.

Also, the Twins lose the interest of a lot of casual fans when the games aren't on regular TV services. Those fans will not pay for a separate service as they may only watch 1-2 games/week. But they also attend a few games/year. Now they might not. So I still think you could see the RSN's on regular streaming/TV after this all sorts out.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
I suppose anything's possible, but I would be very surprised if Bally's - or whatever it becomes - winds up on YTTV or Hulu Live.

My gut tells me that people who want to watch the Twins will either be getting the Bally's streaming app, or they'll be watching a streaming service that is run by MLB. like it or not, traditional cable TV is seen as a dying industry. it will hang on for a while, but the trend is going away from cable and toward streaming.
Click to expand...
If you live in the Twins market these games are blacked out on MLB.TV. MLB has the most insane blackout rules in all of professional sports. When I lived in Iowa, I was 40 miles from the Missouri border and was still blacked out of the Twins.
 

GophersInIowa said:
If you live in the Twins market these games are blacked out on MLB.TV. MLB has the most insane blackout rules in all of professional sports. When I lived in Iowa, I was 40 miles from the Missouri border and was still blacked out of the Twins.
Click to expand...
At one point, I read that there were places in Iowa where the Twins, Royals, Cardinals, White Sox, Cubs and Brewers were all blacked out. Completely insane. I get that you have to protect the home market, but you're just shutting fans out for no reason in many cases.
 

GophersInIowa said:
If you live in the Twins market these games are blacked out on MLB.TV. MLB has the most insane blackout rules in all of professional sports. When I lived in Iowa, I was 40 miles from the Missouri border and was still blacked out of the Twins.
Click to expand...

but, I am suggesting that - IF Bally's folds and MLB takes over, then there would be a plan where Twins fans would get the local games. Basically a similar service, only originating through MLB instead of Bally's.

at this point, it's anyone's guess what's going to happen. But a lot of insiders seem to think that there is a good chance of Diamond (the company that owns the RSN's) going bankrupt. and if that happens, MLB could wind up taking over the operation.
 

howeda7 said:
At one point, I read that there were places in Iowa where the Twins, Royals, Cardinals, White Sox, Cubs and Brewers were all blacked out. Completely insane. I get that you have to protect the home market, but you're just shutting fans out for no reason in many cases.
Click to expand...
Yep, I was in one of those areas. I think it’s still the case.

The idea behind it is someone in that TV market could pick up games of those teams but they never did of course, at least not the Twins and Brewers. At the very least make games available on MLB.TV if no one picks the game up locally.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
but, I am suggesting that - IF Bally's folds and MLB takes over, then there would be a plan where Twins fans would get the local games. Basically a similar service, only originating through MLB instead of Bally's.

at this point, it's anyone's guess what's going to happen. But a lot of insiders seem to think that there is a good chance of Diamond (the company that owns the RSN's) going bankrupt. and if that happens, MLB could wind up taking over the operation.
Click to expand...
It seems highly likely Sinclaire/Diamond will have to sell/go bankrupt. Each league doing it's own streaming service seems the most likely outcome. There's really no reason for the middleman.
 

They all already have streaming services. AND they all already have cable (for lack of a better word) channels.

Again, I disagree that it can't go back to the way it has always worked -- even if it is just a single sports channel.

"MLB North" channel. No reason it can't be carried by everyone, like FSN used to be.

If you live in MN, Iowa, Dakotas, then the Twins get to claim you, and you can only watch their games on the "MLB North" channel. You can't stream them as part of a national streaming/over-the-top serivce.

Nothing wrong with that -- so long as "MLB North" is carried by all major carriers!
 

The first week of Thursday Night Football on Amazon Prime drew 13 million viewers on Amazon and 15 million overall. This is actually slightly higher than the average last year on Fox / NFL Network /Amazon. I'm afraid the shift of sports to streaming is here to stay. We'll have to get used to it.

One thing the Twins absolutely should do is go back to having a package of games on local broadcast TV, like they used to for Sunday games.
 


howeda7 said:
The first week of Thursday Night Football on Amazon Prime drew 13 million viewers on Amazon and 15 million overall. This is actually slightly higher than the average last year on Fox / NFL Network /Amazon. I'm afraid the shift of sports to streaming is here to stay. We'll have to get used to it.

One thing the Twins absolutely should do is go back to having a package of games on local broadcast TV, like they used to for Sunday games.
Click to expand...
Football is a different animal. There are so fewer games and they are much more "major events'. That's what Amazon wants. Another thing to force people to sign up for a Prime membership.

MLB/NBA/NHL have so many more games. Again, hence why FSN and the others were like that in the first place. It wasn't randomly concocted for no reason.
 

Just some interesting overall stuff, didn't think this deserved its own thread. This is from The Athletic on the Disney (ESPN) dispute with Dish (satellite and Sling TV).


Dish Network and its streaming service, Sling TV, pulled all Walt Disney channels early this morning, which include the ESPN array of outlets, the latest carriage dispute to affect sports fans.

Dish and Sling have more than 10 million combined subscribers who will not have access now to college football games and “Monday Night Football” on ESPN, among other programming, at the very least over the next few days. What makes this particular dustup between a content provider and distributor noteworthy is it may be the first time the trend of moving material off of cable and onto a streaming service, like ESPN + and Disney +, has been cited as one of the reasons.

“A recent quote from their CEO (Bob Chapek) sums it all up,” Brian Neylon, Group President of Dish, said in a recorded message on the satellite service’s website. “Their linear networks such as ESPN, ABC and Freeform are ‘huge cash generators for Disney’ — but Disney+, their streaming service, is not. Look, we know many people subscribe to and enjoy Disney+. We just don’t think it’s fair that Disney is asking us and you to pay significantly higher rates in order to help subsidize their unprofitable streaming service.”

Disney reported over $1 billion in losses from streaming services ESPN+, Disney+ and Hulu in its most recent quarter.

On its website, Dish maintained that Disney’s proposals would add nearly $1 billion extra in costs, and force customers who buy packages on Dish without sports to buy into sports.

“We don’t think this is fair and that is why we are fighting hard for a fair rate to ensure you get the best possible value from Dish,” the website statement said.

Disney Media and Entertainment said in a statement, “After months of negotiating in good faith, Dish has declined to reach a fair, market-based agreement with us for continued distribution of our networks…The rates and terms we are seeking reflect the marketplace and have been the foundation for numerous successful deals with pay TV providers of all types and sizes across the country.”
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom