Bally Sports RSNs Are Reportedly Preparing For Bankruptcy

[osu1991]

Its T-Mobile....Live in a tourist town that get close to 4 million people and our population is about 9,000. So if its busy, the internet slugs along. Why Thursday nights are bad? Everyone streaming Dancing with the Stars?

That’s Tuesdays.
Thursday would be NFL on Prime or Prime releases new episodes of some shows on Thursday evenings USA time.

 

[AZ.]

That’s Tuesdays.
Thursday would be NFL on Prime or Prime releases new episodes of some shows on Thursday evenings USA time.

I dont follow POP anything? Thursdays suck...and here it is everything is blurry and freezing....Guess you dont understand sarcasm?....Streaming SUCKS here! You never know

 

[osu1991]

I dont follow POP anything? Thursdays suck...and here it is everything is blurry and freezing....Guess you dont understand sarcasm?....Streaming SUCKS here! You never know

I understand sarcasm. Sorry I left a smiley out while trying to make a joke and be helpful. Unfortunately you can’t do that anymore without azzhats getting their panties all twisted. Go enjoy whatever it is you like on whatever non streaming service it is you can receive. I’m enjoying streaming a pristine Thursday Night Football game.

 

[Mochuf]

Disney+ and ESPN+ mare both expected to turn profitable in 2024

As much as I use/like streaming, I just don't see D+ being profitable by the end of 2024. They've dug themselves too deep a hole for that. I would have taken the money they used for D+ and buy out Comcast's share of Hulu and then added D+ as a premium tier in Hulu. Spending and losing billions of dollars for D+ was foolish, IMHO.

 

[Bruce]

As much as I use/like streaming, I just don't see D+ being profitable by the end of 2024. They've dug themselves too deep a hole for that. I would have taken the money they used for D+ and buy out Comcast's share of Hulu and then added D+ as a premium tier in Hulu. Spending and losing billions of dollars for D+ was foolish, IMHO.

Hulu is not global , just United States ( a little in Japan and PR) because most of the content on the service is licensed out to other services in other countries, so adding Disney as a tier would not work.

Again what caused DirecTV to become profitable in 6 years, raising prices and adding subs, same for Netflix, that is Disney’s plan, along with cutting costs.

People will be starved for new content in 2024 since there will really be hardly any on Broadcast/Cable Channels because of the strikes ( unless you want to watch stuff like Golden Bachelor).

Disney already has 3 Marvel Series and 3 Star Wars series set of 2024 ( all filmed and in post production), plus a lot of new Disney type content in inventory, so that should help in getting new subscribers and keeping the ones they have at the new higher prices.

 

[DirecTVFanSince2016]

https://cases.ra.kroll.com/DSG

 

[Mochuf]

Hulu is not global , just United States ( a little in Japan and PR) because most of the content on the service is licensed out to other services in other countries, so adding Disney as a tier would not work.

Hulu isn't a global service due to Disney not wanting to make it more valuable and then paying Comcast more money. If they entirely owned it, nothing would have stopped them in making it global.

 

[Bruce]

Hulu isn't a global service due to Disney not wanting to make it more valuable and then paying Comcast more money. If they entirely owned it, nothing would have stopped them in making it global.

Disney does not own all the content on Hulu, for example the Handmaid’s Tale is owned by MGM, in Canada, it is licensed to CTV, in the UK to Channel 4, Hong Kong to HBO Asia, etc.

And they have tried to make it more valuable, promoting it as a Live TV Service and the reduced bundle price.

These are the same reasons why it has been slow to expand Paramount+ to other countries, licensing of content to other services.

What you think you know about Hulu by reading the web, you are incorrect, Comcast was thinking about buying Hulu and merge them together with Peacock ( which is a dumpster fire), but Comcast could not make the money part work in today’s world, especially with carrying $100 Billion in debt right now.

If Comcast had been able to work it out, they would be the ones trying to lower the value, as any good business should.

 

[SamCdbs]

- Of course, the infrastructure costs of DBS, or cable, or, well just about everything else, are huge, and the equipment must be rolled out. This is why it took time for the mega-successful technologies to make some money. Streaming, of course, has no real cost besides content and the customer, not the provider, buys his own equipment (and plays for the delivery via a separate ISP bill). Apples to industrial fasteners. Streaming content simply costs more to make than there are people willing to pay for it. Really simple concept for those without an agenda. It doesn't work. Never will.

- Good businesses don't try to "lower value". Good businesses try to make products that people want. Unlike streaming.

 

[Bruce]

- Of course, the infrastructure costs of DBS, or cable, or, well just about everything else, are huge, and the equipment must be rolled out. This is why it took time for the mega-successful technologies to make some money. Streaming, of course, has no real cost besides content and the customer, not the provider, buys his own equipment (and plays for the delivery via a separate ISP bill). Apples to industrial fasteners. Streaming content simply costs more to make than there are people willing to pay for it. Really simple concept for those without an agenda. It doesn't work. Never will.

- Good businesses don't try to "lower value". Good businesses try to make products that people want. Unlike streaming.

I have proven you incorrect on this so many times, Disney, for example, bought BamTech, which is what they use as their streaming platform, costs was about $4 Billion, that is their infrastructure.

 

[ncted]

- Of course, the infrastructure costs of DBS, or cable, or, well just about everything else, are huge, and the equipment must be rolled out. This is why it took time for the mega-successful technologies to make some money. Streaming, of course, has no real cost besides content and the customer, not the provider, buys his own equipment (and plays for the delivery via a separate ISP bill). Apples to industrial fasteners. Streaming content simply costs more to make than there are people willing to pay for it. Really simple concept for those without an agenda. It doesn't work. Never will.

- Good businesses don't try to "lower value". Good businesses try to make products that people want. Unlike streaming.

Content costs what it costs, whether it is distributed over cable, DBS, or Internet Protocol. That many streaming shows cost as much as they do has nothing to do with how it is delivered. This is why Discovery+ can be profitable -- content costs are low. Disney+, Max, Peacock, Hulu, Netflix, Paramount+, etc. all decided they wanted to be HBO of old, and they wanted it yesterday, so that means building an audience through lots of prestige content which means losing money early on.

If what you said about streaming having no real cost to the business were true, streaming services would be extremely profitable. That many of them are not has way more to do with their choices to buy really expensive content to attract an audience than anything else. But, the reality is the infrastructure to run a streaming service is still pretty high when compared to cable/satellite. Server infrastructure (cloud and/or whole datacenters), CDN costs, software development of apps for all the different platforms and device types are just some of the significant costs associated with streaming.

 

[savarese04]

Interesting (but not surprising) to see viewership up here. Wonder how that will translate into increased ad dollars versus RSN revenue

Since Leaving Bally Sports RSN, NHL Golden Knights TV Ratings Have More Than Doubled on Free Broadcast TV | Cord Cutters News

 

[Don in CT]

The Padres had to take out a $50 million loan to make payroll.

 

[SamCdbs]

The Padres had to take out a $50 million loan to make payroll.

Yep. As predicted.

Manfred says MLB has cash to cover teams that lose their RSN deals "for two years". He has never been clear if 23 counts as year one for SD and ARI, or not. In any event, tick tock, what happens then?

The blunt fact is that less people wish to buy their local MLB team than it costs to produce it. Same problem all streaming has. Marchand and Ourand were talking about this on this weeks show. They are of the opinion that $10 is about what people, which is to say the 4-8% of people that want the content, "want" to pay for the local RSN alc. Well, it loses money at $25. They really need to charge maybe $50, and I think that is conservative, to come close to yielding the money the wonderful RSN bundle model produced.

The blunt fact is watching your local MLB team (NBA, NHL) every night in the quiet comfort of your home is going away, as are the out-of-market packages that are gleaned from it, simply because it cost more to make than there are people who wish to purchase it. Like most all streaming. So the genre dies.

Enjoy Hogan's Heroes. Or pick between the Braves, Red Sox, Yankees, or Dodgers, because those are the only games that will every be on TV.

 

[DirecTVFanSince2016]

year one for SD and ARI

Just a reminder, most broadcasters use "AZ" to abbreviate the D-backs, not ARI. Fox did use ARI on their scorebug for Game 1 of the WS but they used AZ for the rest

 

[comfortably_numb]

Yep. As predicted.

Manfred says MLB has cash to cover teams that lose their RSN deals "for two years". He has never been clear if 23 counts as year one for SD and ARI, or not. In any event, tick tock, what happens then?

The blunt fact is that less people wish to buy their local MLB team than it costs to produce it. Same problem all streaming has. Marchand and Ourand were talking about this on this weeks show. They are of the opinion that $10 is about what people, which is to say the 4-8% of people that want the content, "want" to pay for the local RSN alc. Well, it loses money at $25. They really need to charge maybe $50, and I think that is conservative, to come close to yielding the money the wonderful RSN bundle model produced.

The blunt fact is watching your local MLB team (NBA, NHL) every night in the quiet comfort of your home is going away, as are the out-of-market packages that are gleaned from it, simply because it cost more to make than there are people who wish to purchase it. Like most all streaming. So the genre dies.

Enjoy Hogan's Heroes. Or pick between the Braves, Red Sox, Yankees, or Dodgers, because those are the only games that will every be on TV.

So be it.

 

[Bruce]

The blunt fact is that less people wish to buy their local MLB team than it costs to produce it.

You keep writing that like it is a bad thing.

The vast majority do not watch the RSNs, you just do not like it because you will have to pay a higher price for it because the bundle is going away.

This is how the free market works, unfortunately it has taken longer to affect the over priced worthless bundle.

The people have spoken, today more people do not have Cable/Satellite then do, in 2016/2017, had 80% of Households, today about 43%, if you factor in Live TV via Streaming, by this time next year, there will be more people without Paid Live TV then with.

Do not believe me, we are already at 4.8 million left paid live tv this year, over 900,000 this 3rd quarter and only Comcast, Fios, Charter and Altice have reported, a lot to go yet, then we still have the 4th Quarter to report.

5.9 million left in 2022, 4.9 million in 2021, so with the numbers yet to come, looking at 7-8 Million this year, 7-9 Million next year.

Hail our streaming Overlords.

 

[Yespage]

Yep. As predicted.

Manfred says MLB has cash to cover teams that lose their RSN deals "for two years". He has never been clear if 23 counts as year one for SD and ARI, or not. In any event, tick tock, what happens then?

The blunt fact is that less people wish to buy their local MLB team than it costs to produce it. Same problem all streaming has. Marchand and Ourand were talking about this on this weeks show. They are of the opinion that $10 is about what people, which is to say the 4-8% of people that want the content, "want" to pay for the local RSN alc. Well, it loses money at $25. They really need to charge maybe $50, and I think that is conservative, to come close to yielding the money the wonderful RSN bundle model produced.

The blunt fact is watching your local MLB team (NBA, NHL) every night in the quiet comfort of your home is going away, as are the out-of-market packages that are gleaned from it, simply because it cost more to make than there are people who wish to purchase it. Like most all streaming. So the genre dies.

The genre can't die. There is too much value to be lost by the owners. The solution is consolidated the production at the league level, like the NFL really does. We don't have RSNs for NFL games, so it isn't exactly out of the question. The MLB will probably need to just nationalize their national out of market service, and sell that. Split the advertising and sub fees across the league. It'll cost the owners a pittance a year relative to the value they'd lose in exposure loss.

 

[savarese04]

Much is being made of the Padres' loan situation, but everything I've read is that this is not uncommon for teams to do this due to the uneven nature of revenue streams. It seems the RSN situation had nothing to do with it. The only team to really have cash flow issues in the last 20 years apparently was the Rangers (A-Rod contract induced)

So, even if the Padres still had an RSN arrangement raking in cash, if the problem is more systemic than the usual uneven cash flow thing, there's something else going on here. They had a 3M+ attendance this year and something like 60 sellouts and only a 20% drop in normal RSN money. By all accounts, they should have more cash from non-field operations than any year past.

 

[Radioguy41]

The blunt fact is watching your local MLB team (NBA, NHL) every night in the quiet comfort of your home is going away, as are the out-of-market packages that are gleaned from it, simply because it cost more to make than there are people who wish to purchase it. Like most all streaming. So the genre dies.

Well hardly. Do you really think MLB is just going to stop telecasting it's games simply because the old business model is broken or are you just trolling? Something will replace it and as has been shown with some of the sports teams that have already moved to another technology viewership can and will go up once regular folks have reasonable access to it. MLB's problem was it's myopic decision to assign to non-broadcasters the TV rights to it's team's games. Comcast Philadelphia is a prime example. The Phillies signed a 25 year agreement giving Comcast the TV rights. Only problem, and it's a really big one, is Comcast is not a broadcaster, it's a cable company which means if you don't have, or have access to, Comcast cable (or one of it's affiliates) you can't watch the games. So with the sweep of a pen MLB cut it's potential market from everybody that could put up an antenna to only those people with access to cable. In some areas that cut amounted to as much as 40-50%. As an example, where I live I only have cable access roughly 2 years now (I only use it for Internet).

What will happen is MLB is going to take a huge hit in the pocketbook. The big money TV deals are a thing of the past and the reduction in those revenues is going to force MLB to reconsider whether it makes business sense to continue to prop up baseball in negative markets. My personal opinion is you will see contraction in the next few years. Some teams that can't support themselves will go away. Best guess - Miami, possibly Tampa, maybe San Diego but I think at least 2 teams will shut down simply because the money won't be there.