Bally Sports RSNs Are Reportedly Preparing For Bankruptcy

[ncted]

BTW, explain to me again how paying for sports content on "cable" is bad, but sports on Amazon, Peacock, Paramount, Max, and Apple is good.

It isn't because it just continues the unsustainable business of overpaying people to play games.

 

[SamCdbs]

It is not just paying for content I do not want, it is paying for all those channels that consists of nothing but reruns.

No reruns on streaming? Wow. So Paramount is making new episodes of JAG and I Love Lucy? Who knew?

Or paying for 3 Channels when there is barely enough content for one, I always use the FX Channels as the biggest example.

Of course, you are not "paying for three channels" Suites of channels are one-price. You get 3 or 4 or more feeds, so you have multiple things to watch.

Never said it was, I prefer for sports to stand on their own.

Yes, you did, but anyway, it didn't turn out that way.

Going streaming ONLY (not using streaming as a supplement to linear TV, like most people do) has to do with one thing. Avoiding the "sports tax". Well, welcome home. Unless you like, for example, fifth rate soccer, don't tell me you don't pay for things you don't watch on Apple. Etc.

Lets look at sports going forward. First, a lot less of it. The RSN is today where ESPN and FS# will be in a couple of years.

But every service, save the only profitable one, chock full of sports.

But how it is going to go for the next 5 years as Cable/Satellite TV is dying, sports leagues are going from Channels to Streaming to get the money they want.

Big Ten could not get what they wanted from ESPN, move to a hybrid of Channels and Streaming, NFL got the raise it wanted with Sunday Ticket and Google, also exclusive games with Amazon, Peacock, ESPN+ ( along with ESPN, CBS, NBC games also on their Streaming services).

So you pay three, or four or five bills, just to get the same sports the bundle gave the consumer.

Don't like sports, or a particular one? Too bad, you get to pay the sports tax. Just like the bundle. Except now you get to pay it five or six times.

Like sports? Well Wednesday's game is on Peacock, Thursday? Paramount? Friday? Amazon. Saturday? Linear ESPN. Etc.

You need every service to follow even the major sports. Pay, pay, pay, pay, pay.

If only there were a way of protecting the consumer. Like the bundle.

Oh, and what about the baseball game. Umm, not on. The RSN went broke, so it isn't being televised locally. Which means it doesn't exist for the handful of OOM fans on mlb.tv. But the Braves and Yankees are on. Enjoy.

Then the NBA, wants double it’s rights fees, will not get that from ESPN and Warner, reportedly talking to Apple.

So three bills. Have Apple? Good, you get to pay for a sport that gets regular season ratings below 1.0 95% of the time its on. That means less than 1% will watch it when it is "free".

Tell me again about how you don't pay for things you don't like.

Negotiations for College Football Playoffs are coming up in 2 years, can ESPN afford it since by then, about 18-20 million more will have left Paid Live TV, so that many less per sub fees.

The CFP got 22.3M viewers. So if you are one of the vast majority of people that don't care about it. You get to pay the sports tax. Just like the bundle. Except, less content, six bills, and less choice.

 

[Bruce]

No reruns on streaming? Wow. So Paramount is making new episodes of JAG and I Love Lucy? Who knew?

Along with tons of new stuff, there are many channels on Paid Live TV that never have new content.

Of course, you are not "paying for three channels" Suites of channels are one-price. You get 3 or 4 or more feeds, so you have multiple things to watch.

Actually you do pay per channel, ESPN charge is $9 , ESPN is $2, I do know you have to get them together, but each one does have a charge.

Going streaming ONLY (not using streaming as a supplement to linear TV, like most people do) has to do with one thing. Avoiding the "sports tax". Well, welcome home. Unless you like, for example, fifth rate soccer, don't tell me you don't pay for things you don't watch on Apple. Etc.

Since I used gift cards for Apple TV, do not care, if I paid real cash I doubt I would have the service.

Lets look at sports going forward. First, a lot less of it. The RSN is today where ESPN and FS# will be in a couple of years.

Fox Sports will be first, then ESPN.

I also expect Big Ten Channel ( and other College Channels) to close up,

But every service, save the only profitable one, chock full of sports.

Shows not enough watch it, which I have always posted.

So you pay three, or four or five bills, just to get the same sports the bundle gave the consumer.

Those four or five bills are still a lot cheaper then the one from the bundle, also with a lot more content and better quality.

Don't like sports, or a particular one? Too bad, you get to pay the sports tax. Just like the bundle. Except now you get to pay it five or six times.

Still cheaper then the bundle.

Like sports? Well Wednesday's game is on Peacock, Thursday? Paramount? Friday? Amazon. Saturday? Linear ESPN. Etc.

‘Never use google before to find things on?

You need every service to follow even the major sports. Pay, pay, pay, pay, pay.

Still cheaper then the bundle.

If only there were a way of protecting the consumer. Like the bundle.

The only one the bundle protected were the Broadcasters and Providers, the death of the RSNs is the biggest example.

Oh, and what about the baseball game. Umm, not on. The RSN went broke, so it isn't being televised locally. Which means it doesn't exist for the handful of OOM fans on mlb.tv. But the Braves and Yankees are on. Enjoy.

They already handled San Diego, games will be shown locally, is this prediction like your Sunday Ticket Predictions, all wrong?

Tell me again about how you don't pay for things you don't like.

Never said I did not, just do not like to, but at least A la carte gives me options to drop things, unlike the bundle.

The CFP got 22.3M viewers. So if you are one of the vast majority of people that don't care about it. You get to pay the sports tax. Just like the bundle. Except, less content, six bills, and less choice.

I have said multiple times I watch Football, but it is unfair for those who do not.

 

[meStevo]

Going streaming ONLY (not using streaming as a supplement to linear TV, like most people do) has to do with one thing. Avoiding the "sports tax".

You spelled 'egregious and growing service (HD, DVR, additional TV) fees' wrong.

The RSN went broke, so it isn't being televised locally. Which means it doesn't exist for the handful of OOM fans on mlb.tv.

It's incredible how consistently you are wrong, especially when things have already proven to be the opposite and you just continue to make false statements because apparently saying otherwise is fatal to what you want to be true. You've done this a number of times on this topic, from literally replying to people who are looking forward to being able to get Sunday Ticket 'everyone who wants it has it' to claiming streaming isn't a growing market and that everyone who wants that has it too . Of course there's the 'Sunday Ticket won't be offered standalone that you kept claiming even after it was announced.

Your investments against streaming must be major ones, but reality is going another direction.

 

[SamCdbs]

I have not been "wrong" yet, except that the NFL found a sucker from left field, which will lose its a** on the deal. I seem to remember some guy who the market for ST was MORE PEOPLE THAN WATCH THE 'FREE' GAMES.

But the point is, of course, the idiocy that streaming allows people to not pay for what they don't watch is, well, idiocy. As is the idea that 99% of is not reruns.

And sports, of which I follow closely, will going forward, require linear TV, and EVERY SINGLE streaming service except Netflix. WAY more money than when the consumer was protected by the bundle. And way LESS sports as much is going away.

Other genres to follow.

But, hey, for a tiny period of time, you saved a few pennies. You showed em.

 

[meStevo]

I have not been "wrong" yet, except...

...except for the 50+ times in a single thread you predicted the NFL wouldn't be offered a la carte. Yeah, lets handwave that away, sure!

If 'a few pennies' to you is thousands of dollars, then good for you. I'm a fan of not wasting my money on things I don't want, unlike yourself. I don't construct false arguments to reassure my choices, I pay for what I want and cancel what I don't.

Keep overpaying to justify your investments while praying that a bubble is going to burst though, good luck with that.

 

[Bruce]

I have not been "wrong" yet, except that the NFL found a sucker from left field, which will lose its a** on the deal. I seem to remember some guy who the market for ST was MORE PEOPLE THAN WATCH THE 'FREE' GAMES.

Except for what meStevo brought up, how about when I posted that MNF would be on ESPN+, you kept going on and on that it would not be, then even after the first game aired, you kept posting I was incorrect, then you pivoted by saying only the Manning Cast would be on plus, you were somewhat correct, that was one of the three streams shown.

Last season, 12 games was shown to be on the schedule, but they had 4 more games on plus that were not on the schedule, for a total of 16.( also had the europe game).

I assume the same this season, 12 games announced, 1 game from London, then the games not announced.

 

[Bruce]

But the point is, of course, the idiocy that streaming allows people to not pay for what they don't watch is, well, idiocy. As is the idea that 99% of is not reruns.

No one has ever said that, everything will be reruns once you have seen it, but there is tons of new content on streaming services also, but there are plenty of cable channels where 100% of content is reruns.

And sports, of which I follow closely, will going forward, require linear TV, and EVERY SINGLE streaming service except Netflix. WAY more money than when the consumer was protected by the bundle. And way LESS sports as much is going away.

None of us know what will happen in the future except prices will go up, but at least streaming will have new content, both exclusive and the same programming on Paid Live TV Services.

But at the same time, Traditional Providers will also go up, with less and less programming.

But, hey, for a tiny period of time, you saved a few pennies. You showed em.

I have been meaning to ask you these, but I doubt you will answer, you keep posting the bubble will burst with regards to streaming, so then-

Why do you believe that streaming services ( and I do not mean Live TV) will stop gaining subscribers?

Why do you believe the exodus from Traditional Providers will stop anytime soon?

Then why do you believe that Traditional Providers will start gaining subscribers again?

You have said DirecTV will go on for decades, why do you think that especially since they have announced they will not be building any new Satellites and no signs of any new boxes, which is amazing since they are getting pretty old?

 

[SamCdbs]

No one has ever said that, everything will be reruns once you have seen it, but there is tons of new content on streaming services also, but there are plenty of cable channels where 100% of content is reruns.

OK, thanks for that. And? There are channels (super cheap ones) that are all reruns. That is how linear TV works. You buy the good stuff and get this rerun wad for more or less nothing. Same as streaming, 99% reruns.

None of us know what will happen in the future except prices will go up, but at least streaming will have new content, both exclusive and the same programming on Paid Live TV Services.

Then why are they cutting content production down, way down?

But at the same time, Traditional Providers will also go up, with less and less programming.

Just the good stuff. But Indiana-Minnesota is the same a Penn State-Ohio State, if you run your hands through the money you save when you watch.

I have been meaning to ask you these, but I doubt you will answer, you keep posting the bubble will burst with regards to streaming, so then-

Why do you believe that streaming services ( and I do not mean Live TV) will stop gaining subscribers?

What person is sitting around saying "you know, I hope streaming comes to my town" or "next year, we are going to get some streaming" ?

This is not a roll out. Everyone who wants it, has it. The only way to gain subscribers is to move content from real TV.

Why do you believe the exodus from Traditional Providers will stop anytime soon?

You define "traditional providers". Paying for YTTV is paying a "traditional provider". You are paying for linear TV. The fact that someone switches from cable to YTTV is a NON story, unless you work for the cable company. So when YOU stop subscribing to a "traditional provider", give me a call.

Then why do you believe that Traditional Providers will start gaining subscribers again?

As the streaming bubble pops, people will look for the content they want.

You have said DirecTV will go on for decades, why do you think that especially since they have announced they will not be building any new Satellites and no signs of any new boxes, which is amazing since they are getting pretty old?

Actually the previous owner said that. Because the internet will NEVER be available in the quality needed, to rural areas and poor areas, and because that market constitutes millions of people, (and was the original target of DBS, no one thought it would be so good that it would blow away cable in the suburbs) DirecTV, and DISH, will continue to make money off those people for, well, ever.

Unlike streaming, all of which, save one, lose money.

 

[mikew]

Who is your TV Provider and what was the RSN Charge?

If it is DirecTV, right now it is only $5 more then their fee.

But as I said above, MLB has 2 sales every year, Memorial Day and Father’s Day .

So typically, I would order it Memorial Day ( as I did in 2021 and 22) but did not this year, I am just bored by it, Football and Hockey keeps my interest, Baseball does a better job on me then Melatonin.

DirecTV Stream - and I pay no RSN fee.

 

[mikew]

Hey Bruce and Sam...how 'bout taking your discussion private? The quoted comments are very difficult to follow...

 

[Bruce]

Then why are they cutting content production down, way down?

What percentage do you consider way down?

The most I have seen is 40% from one streamer (MAX), the rest have been 10-20% range.

What person is sitting around saying "you know, I hope streaming comes to my town" or "next year, we are going to get some streaming" ?

Then how do you explain growth for the majority of streaming services every quarter, Paramount+ went from 44 million to 60 million in just one year.

This is not a roll out. Everyone who wants it, has it. The only way to gain subscribers is to move content from real TV.

You are correct, they are moving content from Broadcast/Cable Channels because subscribers churn is so high, last quarter, another 2.3 Million left,

You define "traditional providers". Paying for YTTV is paying a "traditional provider". You are paying for linear TV. The fact that someone switches from cable to YTTV is a NON story, unless you work for the cable company.

Yet hardly anyone is switching, 2.3 Million left total, would of been 2.6 million except 300,000 went to YTTV.

So where, by your logic, did they go, how about the other 30 Million that have left in the last 8 years.

As the streaming bubble pops, people will look for the content they want.

‘Again, I knew you could not answer.

Actually the previous owner said that. Because the internet will NEVER be available in the quality needed, to rural areas and poor areas, and because that market constitutes millions of people, (and was the original target of DBS, no one thought it would be so good that it would blow away cable in the suburbs) DirecTV, and DISH, will continue to make money off those people for, well, ever.

Not that many rural customers for Satellite TV , I google’d Rural Population and the majority of answers was 20 million households, so there are only 16 million Satellite Subscribers.

So if we say, 60% metro/40% Rural , that means only 6.4 million ( out of 20 million) rural households get Satellite service.

That means the majority do not care for Sat. TV, use a Antenna or are Streaming.

As I said before, I live in what is considered a rural area, 2 acres of property, Well, Septic and I have broadband, but this area did not get it until 2018, while I had it back in Michigan (Metro Detroit) since the late 90s.

I also looked up the most rural far away area I could think of , Mackinac Island ( tourist area)and it’s neighboring island, Bois Blanc Island ( just houses, not tourist friendly) and they both have broadband, Bois Blanc surprised me, they have TDS Telecom, 300 down/300 up speed.

Unlike streaming, all of which, save one, lose money.

And Cable Companies are starting to lose money on video, the small and medium ones are getting out of it and/or offering YTTV as a substitute.

Profits are dropping also, Dish Network, for one example, in Q1/2022, net was $400 Million, Q1 2023 net was $200 million.

 

[meStevo]

Hey Bruce and Sam...how 'bout taking your discussion private? The quoted comments are very difficult to follow...

The way they're quoted actually makes it easy to follow IMO, I just don't know why Sam has to refute every point in every thread and insult and belittle anyone who's making decisions detrimental to his investments while also being wrong about so many things he says as if they are facts. That's all that drives subsequent replies for the most part. It's not a discussion, just him saying largely unfounded things about why your facts or opinion are wrong over and over and over.

 

[mikew]

Cleaned up the thread nicely with "ignore".

On the topic...MLB claimed that there would be no blackouts with their broadcast. I have MLB.tv and live in Vegas. I am blacked out from the broadcast. Hoping they would just allow the game to be shown in market, but apparently not.

 

[meStevo]

Yeah here in Vegas we have the following blackouts on MLB.tv:

• Los Angeles Angels
• Arizona Diamondbacks
• Los Angeles Dodgers
• Oakland Athletics
• San Diego Padres
• San Francisco Giants

MLB.TV | Blackouts | Which teams am I blacked out from? | MLB.com

The Official Site of Major League Baseball

www.mlb.com

Hopefully as RSNs die we can maybe see the reduction and/or end of blackouts. Once the A's move here I wonder if there's a reason for the rest to be blacked out? We'd have an in-market team, I presume all of the others are sharing or overlapping our market or something due to some RSN agreement? We had this problem w/ UNLV or the Golden Knights for a while too didn't we, where it was either blacked out or only available on an RSN that was only on certain providers or in certain areas?

As far as them lifting blackouts, everything I've seen so far refers to the local blackout being lifted in San Diego only.


View: https://twitter.com/sdutSanders/status/1663691288263413761

 

[rvvaquero]

Yeah here in Vegas we have the following blackouts on MLB.tv:

• Los Angeles Angels
• Arizona Diamondbacks
• Los Angeles Dodgers
• Oakland Athletics
• San Diego Padres
• San Francisco Giants

That's crazy. It's like "honey, since they won't show the Giants here on TV, let's hop in the car and drive 550 miles to see them in person". Who does that? What is the point of that blackout?

 

[meStevo]

That's crazy. It's like "honey, since they won't show the Giants here on TV, let's hop in the car and drive 550 miles to see them in person". Who does that? What is the point of that blackout?

Typically it's because those market rights are available / have been sold to a provider in that area.

Not always the case, creating dumb outliers.

 

[ncted]

Hey Bruce and Sam...how 'bout taking your discussion private? The quoted comments are very difficult to follow...

This forum often reminds me of The Argument Clinic from Monty Python.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

 

[Bruce]

From yesterday’s hearing-

The Diamond chief also said the company’s Bally Sports Plus app targeting cord cutters had just 202,000 subscribers. But he added that he expected the number to rise to 10 million in five years.

So if I remember correctly , they (Bally) only have streaming rights for 5 MLB teams, so basically an average of 40,000 per market.

Shows what I believe to be true, only a extreme minority care about the RSNs, yet for years, Cable/Satellite has made everyone pay for them and now Cord Cutters/Nevers have rejected them also.

Only, roughly, 40-45 million have access to the RSNs, that means with a Household population in the United States of 130 million, 85-90 million do not have a service that gets the RSN.

This is the beauty of A la carte, stick a fork in the RSN model, it is on it’s deathbed.

The Regional Sports Network Crisis: The MLB-Diamond Sports Hearing: What Happened? And What Now? - The TV Answer Man!

By Phillip Swann The TV Answer Man –@tvanswerman TV Answer Man, do you know what happened in the hearing with Major League Baseball and Manfred and the Diamond Sports company? Was there a verdict? — Bill, Scottsdale, Arizona. Bill, a bankruptcy court judge yesterday held a hearing on Diamond...

tvanswerman.com

 

[glrush]

A day that will rock baseball -- and the rest of sports? What's next in the RSN battle

A hearing in Houston could alter the landscape of MLB broadcasting. Here are a few of the many moving parts.

www.espn.com