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




Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
4,300
Reaction score
2,341
Points
113
But will whatever "defacto FSN" becomes, be carried on the major streaming providers?
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.
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
32,572
Reaction score
10,777
Points
113
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.
That's what I'm wondering too. Who would take over?
 


JimmyJamesMD

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
11,149
Reaction score
3,049
Points
113
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.
 

TruthSeeker

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
6,571
Reaction score
3,005
Points
113
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.
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.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
14,562
Reaction score
6,884
Points
113
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.
 




howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
67,201
Reaction score
22,428
Points
113
But will whatever "defacto FSN" becomes, be carried on the major streaming providers?
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.
 

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
9,297
Reaction score
1,305
Points
113
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.
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).
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
14,562
Reaction score
6,884
Points
113
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).

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.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
67,201
Reaction score
22,428
Points
113
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).
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.
 



howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
67,201
Reaction score
22,428
Points
113
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.
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.
 

Iceland12

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
22,111
Reaction score
729
Points
113
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.

"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.
 

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
9,297
Reaction score
1,305
Points
113
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.
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.
 

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
9,297
Reaction score
1,305
Points
113
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.
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.
 

JayBobDobbins

Active member
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Messages
109
Reaction score
71
Points
28
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.
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.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
14,562
Reaction score
6,884
Points
113
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.

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.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
67,201
Reaction score
22,428
Points
113
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.
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.
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
32,572
Reaction score
10,777
Points
113
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.
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.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
67,201
Reaction score
22,428
Points
113
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.
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.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
14,562
Reaction score
6,884
Points
113
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.

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.
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
32,572
Reaction score
10,777
Points
113
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.
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.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
67,201
Reaction score
22,428
Points
113
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.
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.
 

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
9,297
Reaction score
1,305
Points
113
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!
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
67,201
Reaction score
22,428
Points
113
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.
 


Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
9,297
Reaction score
1,305
Points
113
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.
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.
 




Top Bottom