Bally Sports RSNs Are Reportedly Preparing For Bankruptcy

[Yespage]

Help as in force the third parties come to the table. Sinclair is in no position to negotiate and has no leverage. They royally screwed this up.

 

[Bruce]

Help as in force the third parties come to the table. Sinclair is in no position to negotiate and has no leverage. They royally screwed this up.

Diamond‘s main problem is DirecTV/Comcast/Charter all smell blood.

Without just one of the three, no way they can survive, if they take less in per sub fees, no way they can survive , Charter is already about to offer a less expensive TV package without the RSN, since it has been proven that the vast majority do not care about the Channels, Diamond is looking at millions of subs no longer getting the channel because of Charter basically making it optional, so no more per sub fees.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/b...-spectrum-tv-offering-rsn-changes-1235532044/

 

[SamCdbs]

I'm confused. DirecTV, Comcast's cable division, and Charter are all going to be out of business in couple of years anyway, right?

The fact is that Sinclair sealed its fate when it allowed DISH to carry Sinclair local stations w/o carrying the RSNs. After that blunder, it was unrecoverable. The thing is, IMHO, the RSNs are just further along the path that certainly the national sports stations because

it has been proven that the vast majority do not care about the Channels,

can be said about every single channel that exists. The vast majority don't watch ESPN, or FS1, or, well any one thing.

 

[Bruce]

I'm confused. DirecTV, Comcast's cable division, and Charter are all going to be out of business in couple of years anyway, right?

No one has said that, the only thing I have posted is DirecTV will be unprofitable in a few years, based on the link below, I believe myself correct-

https://tvanswerman.com/2023/08/16/...lion-subscribers-in-8-years/?expand_article=1

The fact is that Sinclair sealed its fate when it allowed DISH to carry Sinclair local stations w/o carrying the RSNs. After that blunder, it was unrecoverable. The thing is, IMHO, the RSNs are just further along the path that certainly the national sports stations because the vast majority do not care about the Channels

Actually most seem to care more about the National Channel like ESPN, but of course it depends on what is on.

But considering ESPN+ has over 26 Million subscribers vs Ballys at 300,000 total for all of their markets combined, does show there is a market for a national sports streaming service.

can be said about every single channel that exists.

And that is why profits are shrinking for the vast majority of them.

As I posted before, we are in a transition time for the next 2 years, within that time some streaming services will go profitable , some will not.

Just like Traditional TV Channel/Providers, some will go unprofitable, some will not for now.

But by the end of 2024, we should have a good idea how things will end up for the future.

 

[Yespage]

Diamond‘s main problem is DirecTV/Comcast/Charter all smell blood.

Without just one of the three, no way they can survive, if they take less in per sub fees, no way they can survive , Charter is already about to offer a less expensive TV package without the RSN, since it has been proven that the vast majority do not care about the Channels, Diamond is looking at millions of subs no longer getting the channel because of Charter basically making it optional, so no more per sub fees.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/b...-spectrum-tv-offering-rsn-changes-1235532044/

As things stood, even if things stayed the same, and subs didn't drop, Sinclair was doomed. They overleveraged way too far to buy these with the idea of gambling to make money. Without that, the status quo they are out of business (or Diamond is). They owe way too much and debt costs are only going to increase. Add to the fact that they have no leverage and no honor (I ponder if this would have been easier if these companies could actually trust Sinclair) creating deals for the future seems quite problematic. And it couldn't have happened to a more appropriate company.

 

[Yespage]

I'm confused. DirecTV, Comcast's cable division, and Charter are all going to be out of business in couple of years anyway, right?

The fact is that Sinclair sealed its fate when it allowed DISH to carry Sinclair local stations w/o carrying the RSNs. After that blunder, it was unrecoverable. The thing is, IMHO, the RSNs are just further along the path that certainly the national sports stations because

Which is funny. I was in Canada, watching a small bit of CFL recently and TSN (an ESPN of Canada) was advertising sub'ing to their channel a la carte. TSN still existed. RSNs used to be a la carte.

A la carte can happen again. It'd be pricey, but they were $10 or something back in the day, which was pricey then!

 

[Bilbo1]

But considering ESPN+ has over 26 Million subscribers vs Ballys at 300,000 total for all of their markets combined, does show there is a market for a national sports streaming service.

I’m wondering how many are Disney bundle vs. stand alone ESPN+ subscribers. The cost of adding an additional service is small.

Linear ESPN has Sportcenter on in heavy rotation. The only live sports right now is the Little League World Series. Not sure there is a real need for linear channels to cover sports anymore. Sports fans are probably further down the road of knowing where to watch a game on a streaming service than most other programming.

Biggest issue I see from people with the streaming format of sports is spoilers. Lots of people will watch multiple games, one live and others later on demand. They don’t want to see scores of concurrent games while they watch a different game.

Anyhow, the demise of the RSNs is pretty much a nonstory. They offer one game a day, and that can be just as easily streamed.

The real story is the evolution of how people access content from a pure linear model to pure on-demand model. It’s taken over 40 years since the advent of a consumer programmable VCR to today, but this last phase seems to be happening pretty quickly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Juan]

Which is funny. I was in Canada, watching a small bit of CFL recently and TSN (an ESPN of Canada) was advertising sub'ing to their channel a la carte. TSN still existed. RSNs used to be a la carte.

A la carte can happen again. It'd be pricey, but they were $10 or something back in the day, which was pricey then!

Nah..sports contracts would have to be reduced big time....Canada has 1 baseball team, 1 NBA team ,NHL and CFL

much cheaper with a much smaller potential audience

Not exactly apples to apples comparison

 

[navychop]

The fact is that Sinclair sealed its fate when it allowed DISH to carry Sinclair local stations w/o carrying the RSNs

I daresay Dish would have dropped the locals since they’d already determined that most Dish customers did not care for RSNs

 

[Bruce]

I’m wondering how many are Disney bundle vs. stand alone ESPN+ subscribers. The cost of adding an additional service is small.

About 8-9 million out of 25.3 million, so roughly 16 million pay the extra $5 like myself, I have it so I can watch the Red Wings here in Florida.

Linear ESPN has Sportcenter on in heavy rotation. The only live sports right now is the Little League World Series. Not sure there is a real need for linear channels to cover sports anymore. Sports fans are probably further down the road of knowing where to watch a game on a streaming service than most other programming.

ESPN has the Little League, plus has the Seattle Mariners vs. Kansas City Royals right now.

Biggest issue I see from people with the streaming format of sports is spoilers. Lots of people will watch multiple games, one live and others later on demand. They don’t want to see scores of concurrent games while they watch a different game.

Minor issue.

Anyhow, the demise of the RSNs is pretty much a nonstory. They offer one game a day, and that can be just as easily streamed.

Except no one wants to watch it streaming either based on Bally’s icky numbers.

Local Sports on RSNs have never received a great rating, amazed they were able to pull such a large per sub fee.

The real story is the evolution of how people access content from a pure linear model to pure on-demand model. It’s taken over 40 years since the advent of a consumer programmable VCR to today, but this last phase seems to be happening pretty quickly.

So we can blame/thanks Comcast for the streaming model, they are the ones who made on demand such a big thing.

Thanks Comcast.

 

[meStevo]

I'm confused. DirecTV, Comcast's cable division, and Charter are all going to be out of business in couple of years anyway, right?

Citation needed.

We saw how this ended last time, seems you're still doing it.

What's so hard about actually discussing the things posted instead of inventing arguments try and validate trolling?

 

[meStevo]

Nah..sports contracts would have to be reduced big time....Canada has 1 baseball team, 1 NBA team ,NHL and CFL

much cheaper with a much smaller potential audience

Not exactly apples to apples comparison

Markets will determine that. Signing a deal you can't recoup is on the provider though, see also DirecTV and Sunday Ticket, you can run out the clock and let it go elsewhere or you can fold like Ballys is. Taking on this content and then trying to strong arm a discount down the line because you can't get the ROI that was expected when it was signed isn't necessarily the NBA/NHL/CFLs problem, outside of the transition to finding the next provider at whatever the market will bear and a short term impact to fans/viewership.

Sure there are reasons for both sides to work to find a solution, but Ballys is almost certainly in a no-win situation at this point. I don't see a long term solution for them that the leagues are going to be happy with.

 

[Bilbo1]

Except no one wants to watch it streaming either based on Bally’s icky numbers.

Local Sports on RSNs have never received a great rating, amazed they were able to pull such a large per sub fee.

People don’t want to pay $30 per month to stream their RSN while they can pay $70 to $100 a month for a complete cable package. RSNs are well watched in market. On aggregate, any given night, the total number of people watching their RSN beats most everything on TV. Baseball has 30 teams, each getting between 50k and 500k+ a game.

I’m leaning towards the Apple/MLS model for leagues that aren’t the NFL.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bruce]

People don’t want to pay $30 per month to stream their RSN while they can pay $70 to $100 a month for a complete cable package. RSNs are well watched in market. On aggregate, any given night, the total number of people watching their RSN beats most everything on TV. Baseball has 30 teams, each getting between 50k and 500k+ a game.

I have posted links so many times here that shows they do not get good ratings, for example the NY Yankees were averaging 219,000 households per game on Yes, out of about 8 Million Households in the NY City Metro Area

The rating was a 2.9, on at the same time is Jeopardy with a 5.1

edit, found the links

Yankees games on Yes Network led all of baseball in viewership thanks to airing on an average of 219,000 households

Aaron Judge home run chase buoyed YES Network amid ongoing RSN collapse: Sports on TV

The Aaron Judge home run saga was good news for YES, which might be in a rare position to succeed in the flailing RSN landscape.

theathletic.com

"Jeopardy!" Sinking Ratings Draw a Competitor in NY and LA: New 7pm NBC Local News Starts Monday - Showbiz411

I’ve been telling you for months that “Jeopardy!” was sinking in the ratings and was in trouble. I guess someone listened. Starting Monday, WNBC Channel in New York and KNBC in Los Angeles will launch a 7pm local half hour newscast to compete with the quiz show. No one’s tried this since 2007...

www.showbiz411.com

 

[dishdude]

The party is over, the days of forcing all paid TV subscribers to take overpriced sports channels is over.

 

[Bilbo1]

I have posted links so many times here that shows they do not get good ratings, for example the NY Yankees were averaging 219,000 households per game on Yes, out of about 8 Million Households in the NY City Metro Area

The rating was a 2.9, on at the same time is Jeopardy with a 5.1

edit, found the links

Yankees games on Yes Network led all of baseball in viewership thanks to airing on an average of 219,000 households

Aaron Judge home run chase buoyed YES Network amid ongoing RSN collapse: Sports on TV

The Aaron Judge home run saga was good news for YES, which might be in a rare position to succeed in the flailing RSN landscape.

theathletic.com

"Jeopardy!" Sinking Ratings Draw a Competitor in NY and LA: New 7pm NBC Local News Starts Monday - Showbiz411

I’ve been telling you for months that “Jeopardy!” was sinking in the ratings and was in trouble. I guess someone listened. Starting Monday, WNBC Channel in New York and KNBC in Los Angeles will launch a 7pm local half hour newscast to compete with the quiz show. No one’s tried this since 2007...

www.showbiz411.com

This uses numbers from last year…

On the average regular season day, 2.3 million fans watch baseball games locally via their RSN. On days where all 30 MLB clubs are playing, the average RSN audience increases to 2.6 million fans.

https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-rsns-most-viewed-local-programming

Pretty much Fox News numbers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bruce]

This uses numbers from last year…
On the average regular season day, 2.3 million fans watch baseball games locally via their RSN. On days where all 30 MLB clubs are playing, the average RSN audience increases to 2.6 million fans.

Notice that is a total, not per team.

So, if all 30 Teams are playing, that is 15 games, so 2.6 million divide by 15 is only 173,000 watching via the RSN per game.

That is awful.

Right now, there are 50 Million Live TV subscribers that still get the RSNs ( another 18 Million do not).

So they expect that all 50 Million pay a RSN fee ( per sub fee) for a channel that only 5.2% are watching, 94.8% to be exact are not watching.

So, once again, the vast, vast majority do not watch the local sports on the RSN.

Pretty much Fox News numbers.

Fox News does not charge as high of a per sub fee as the RSNs do.

You are not required to pay a extra fee on top of your TV packages price with Fox News.

Not the same.

 

[Bilbo1]

Not the same.

So, RSNs are going away. No big deal.

As for viewership, the same could be said for every cable network.

And, as for cost, that’s why cable is going away. People don’t want to pay for ‘57 channels and nothing on’ anymore. Streaming gives the appearance that ‘you are only paying for what you want.’ Like a La carte.

The only reason streaming costs less that cable is that the content owners can distribute direct to consumer removing one or two intermediaries in the distribution chain and their high margins.

What’s happening now is that every streamer is looking for ways to add sports. There are two reasons for this. 1, per hour, sports are cheap compared to scripted programming and 2, people are interested in sports. Which streamer doesn’t have or want to add sports?

https://www.techradar.com/streaming...ing-but-youll-have-to-pay-more-if-you-want-it

But, this is happening across the spectrum of content types and streamers. The streamers are trying to become something for everyone. Basically, each has its own bundle.

You aren’t going to be able to avoid subsidizing sports or any other content type. That is for the same reason cable systems used the 57 channels model. Well, 57 channel tier, 129 channel tier and 257 channel tier model. And, the baseline streaming tier will have some core sports programming included. You’ll pay more if you want more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bruce]

So, RSNs are going away. No big deal.

Agreed .

As for viewership, the same could be said for every cable network.

That is not what you were posting, you were saying it still gets the highest ratings and I showed you it does not even come close.

The RSNs, because of their ratings, do not deserve the high per sub fee they get, especially when 94% of Households do not watch them, but are forced to pay for them if they have certain Live TV Providers.

And, as for cost, that’s why cable is going away. People don’t want to pay for ‘57 channels and nothing on’ anymore. Streaming gives the appearance that ‘you are only paying for what you want.’ Like a La carte.

Agreed again, the vast majority of content on Cable Channels are reruns, most channels are nothing but reruns.

The only reason streaming costs less that cable is that the content owners can distribute direct to consumer removing one or two intermediaries in the distribution chain and their high margins.

And as some services turn profitable next year and the year after, it should work out for them, but not for all.

I expect AMC+ to close up and just produce content, NBC should buy Hulu and merge Peacock with it, but NBC/Universal is carrying $100 Billion in debt, with how everything is right now, not a good time for a merger/buying, unless you have tons of cash and write your own terms.

What’s happening now is that every streamer is looking for ways to add sports. There are two reasons for this. 1, per hour, sports are cheap compared to scripted programming and 2, people are interested in sports. Which streamer doesn’t have or want to add sports?

Sports are not cheap, MLB alone gets over $3 Billion Dollars from the National Contracts ( Fox, Apple, TBS, ESPN) and the RSNs.

NBA gets about the same, but wants double with the next Contract.

NHL gets less then a billion, much of that from ESPN ($400 Million) and Turner ($225 Million)

Then the NFL, about $12 Billion

And for all, that is just the United States, so roughly, $19 Billion.

And does not include what TV pays for College Sports.

Netflix Worldwide Content budget is $14 Billion this year.

But, this is happening across the spectrum of content types and streamers. The streamers are trying to become something for everyone. Basically, each has its own bundle.

And they should not, I believe it is a total mistake.

You aren’t going to be able to avoid subsidizing sports or any other content type. That is for the same reason cable systems used the 57 channels model. Well, 57 channel tier, 129 channel tier and 257 channel tier model. And, the baseline streaming tier will have some core sports programming included. You’ll pay more if you want more.

But I can stop subsidizing things I do not want, I just will not subscribe, I will pick the services I wish to support, cannot do that with the cable package.

I do not sub to AMC
or Discovery
or to Ballys
or Starz, MGM+, Brit Box, etc, etc.

 

[Bilbo1]

Sports are not cheap, MLB alone gets over $3 Billion Dollars from the National Contracts ( Fox, Apple, TBS, ESPN) and the RSNs.

NBA gets about the same, but wants double with the next Contract.

NHL gets less then a billion, much of that from ESPN ($400 Million) and Turner ($225 Million)

Then the NFL, about $12 Billion

And for all, that is just the United States, so roughly, $19 Billion.

And does not include what TV pays for College Sports.

Netflix Worldwide Content budget is $14 Billion this year.

Break those costs down per hour and compare it to the number of viewers it gets...

Baseball, it’s about $400k an hour given 30 teams playing 160 games. Basic cable programming costs for Fox News level viewership.

The NFL is pretty big at $14 million per hour, but they bring in viewership that Game of Thrones aspired to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk