Bally Sports RSNs Are Reportedly Preparing For Bankruptcy

[Tampa8]

your logic is flawed because you are assuming player salary automatically correlates with better team performance, which it clearly does not. Milwaukee and Cincinnati both outperformed the Yankees, Mets and Red Sox this year.

The real problem with baseball is revenue sharing which encourages small market teams with cheap owners (KC, Oakland) to race to the salary floor because they will get free money from the big clubs and still turn a massive profit.

YOU get it. Some flawed thinking in the preceding threads. Some indeed take liberties in taking the revenue sharing and not spending on improving the team. WORSE some trade away very good players who would be due a bigger salary that they could sometimes pay, but there is no real attempt to keep them. That results in no real team identity and continued low attendance.

All that said, there is less a real correlation to how much is spent and who gets into the playoffs or gets far into them than sometimes is portrayed. It does not necessarily mean that in baseball.

"most of the small-market teams that haven't had success in recent years can point to themselves. It's player development (or lack thereof) and ownership."

Why MLB market size isn't an excuse for cheap teams – just look at the 'small market' Padres and Manny Machado

A segment of baseball fandom remains that believes MLB success is driven by market size. Don't believe it

www.cbssports.com

 

[comfortably_numb]

small market teams with cheap owners

I'll allow that salary doesn't always equal performance, but it sure hasn't stopped bigger teams from nabbing good players from smaller teams who could no longer "afford" them. Case in point, St. Louis should have been able to retain Albert Pujols after they won the World Series in 2011. They couldn't, because the Angels were able to offer him so much more money. Nobody has ever accused Cardinals' ownership of being cheap. They tried REALLY hard to keep him, but there was no way they could compete with the offer from LA.

I've heard all of the excuses before. "Your team's owner is cheap. Your farm system sucks. Your team can't develop players." Yadda yadda. The playing field isn't level (no pun intended).

 

[SamCdbs]

But what makes a market "small" or "large". The number of RSN subscribers. Live gate? Please. You could draw 30 - 40K in any of 200 towns. Radio? Please. Nope. The RSNs. And since the RSNs are going away, and since streaming games in market won't work, every market is going to be about the same. Your team has the same shot as the Yankees or Red Sox.

You just won't be able to see them play.

 

[Bruce]

You just won't be able to see them play.

Why?

 

[SamCdbs]

Why?

Because the number of people who want any one thing, be it baseball or a Hallmark movie or whatever, is less than it costs to produce that one thing (unless you are talking NFL). So it won't be produced. In-market, and since OOM (mlb.tv etc.) is just taking things whose production costs were fully covered in market and selling them on the cheap elsewhere, out of market.

The games simply will not be televised. Anywhere. Just a handful of games, nationally, per week.

The days of being able to watch your team, every night, be you in your "correct" region or not, are coming to an end. Killed by streaming.

But, you saved almost $14 back in 23. Enjoy Hogan's Heroes.

 

[comfortably_numb]

The games simply will not be televised. Anywhere. Just a handful of games, nationally, per week.

Doubt it.

 

[Bruce]

Because the number of people who want any one thing, be it baseball or a Hallmark movie or whatever, is less than it costs to produce that one thing (unless you are talking NFL). So it won't be produced. In-market, and since OOM (mlb.tv etc.) is just taking things whose production costs were fully covered in market and selling them on the cheap elsewhere, out of market.

The games simply will not be televised. Anywhere. Just a handful of games, nationally, per week.

The days of being able to watch your team, every night, be you in your "correct" region or not, are coming to an end. Killed by streaming.

Again, they handled it in San Diego just fine, which you are ignoring in your ***** session about things changing and you do not like it.

But, you saved almost $14 back in 23.

Saving money is not why I am cord cutting, it is that Paid Live TV has no value for me (except Sept-January, but by 2025, that will change).

Why should I subscribe to Paid Live TV at an extremely high price now, paying for a RSN I would never watch, plus tons of other rerun channels I would never watch.

When I get the majority of new content from Paid Live TV, plus all the exclusive content in much better picture/sound quality, on streaming services?

For example, should I have watched the new season of Justified on DirecTV in 720P or on Hulu in 4K?

The price savings is the bonus, but even I know that once Paid Live TV is gone, prices might get out of control again

Enjoy Hogan's Heroes.

Again Channel 77 on DirecTV tonight, watch away, you are paying for that, I can watch it for free on Freevee.

 

[SamCdbs]

Doubt it.

Then please do the math. Referencing the ratings. I will spot you that 100% of those that watch today would buy it a la carte, if they could afford it. What would they have to charge to break even?

I'll wait.

 

[SamCdbs]

Again, they handled it in San Diego just fine, which you are ignoring in your ***** session about things changing and you do not like it.

W R O N G.

MLB took up broadcasting AT A LOSS of the SD and ARI game. AT A LOSS. Manfred has stated as such. And stated that the other owners would make up the money, FOR TWO SEASONS (not clear if 23 or 24 is year one).

Than?

Again, do the math. You have gleefully stated how much you "hate" things you don't like, such as local baseball. Well, OK. Its 4 to 6% of people that watch it.

Do the math.

Saving money is not why I am cord cutting, it is that Paid Live TV has no value for me (except Sept-January, but by 2025, that will change).

Being entertained is why I watch TV. And why I post on this TV enthusiast's websites. I don't want to save money, and I don't care how much money you "saved" by doing without TV, food, water, or whatever.

Life is too short.

Why should I subscribe to Paid Live TV at an extremely high price now, paying for a RSN I would never watch, plus tons of other rerun channels I would never watch.

Exactly. You are finally starting to get it.

Outside the consumer protecting bundle, "you" (AKA any random customer) don't have to pay for things you don't want.

Only one problem. NOTHING is popular enough to get made in the first place, because NOTHING (except for the NFL) is popular enough to cover its production costs.

Thus less programming. Eventually none.

Again Channel 77 on DirecTV tonight, watch away, you are paying for that, I can watch it for free on Freevee.

Cute. You know what I mean, of course. With the anti-consumer streaming killing the bundle, there will be no content except for reruns. Rerun after reruns. No new shows, no sports, just reruns.

But, you showed em. You saved almost $15 back in 23. That is worth a vast wasteland of reruns that is what streaming will begat.

 

[comfortably_numb]

None of this back and forth is worth the indigestion, whatever happens is gonna happen, we're all armchair Nostradmus's here

 

[Bruce]

None of this is back and forth is worth the indigestion, whatever happens is gonna happen, we're all armchair Nostradmus's here

Not me, based on who I work for, if I did not have a solid NDA, I would reveal a lot more instead of little hints about the future.

Look back thru my past posts here, even before I went back to work, I had a friend ( she is the reason I have the job) feeding me info, some of the things I disclosed here, months before they were announced, ESPN going streaming, MNF on ESPN+, Doctor Who leaving BBC America, going to Disney+, Disney dropping out of the Sunday Ticket negotiation, six months ago, I said a big cable company was going streaming only for the future, Spectrum just announced that a few days ago, etc, etc.

By the way, I like knowing the secrets, but I hate working for them, cannot wait for my contract to be up next year, just want to be retired again.

 

[comfortably_numb]

k

Not me, based on who I work for, if I did not have a solid NDA, I would reveal a lot more instead of little hints about the future.

None of us knows what's going to happen to baseball coverage in the future..

 

[Bruce]

k


None of us knows what's going to happen to baseball coverage in the future..

That I do not know, just the math and the RSNs ( and all of cable/Sat) are going to lose another 8-10 million paying per sub fees from now until the end of 2024, the majority of the RSNs cannot survive that, by the end of 2025, another 8-10 million will be gone, so that will be their end.

 

[Bruce]

W R O N G.

MLB took up broadcasting AT A LOSS of the SD and ARI game. AT A LOSS. Manfred has stated as such. And stated that the other owners would make up the money, FOR TWO SEASONS (not clear if 23 or 24 is year one).

Baseball in what they take in, has been artificially high for a long time, they will have to figure in out in the new streaming world, not my job.

Again, do the math. You have gleefully stated how much you "hate" things you don't like, such as local baseball. Well, OK. Its 4 to 6% of people that watch it.

Which means 94-96% do not, not my job to pay for the RSN that covers teams I would never watch, do you pay for someone’s else's french fries if you see them only getting a burger.

Do the math.

So many times.

Being entertained is why I watch TV. And why I post on this TV enthusiast's websites. I don't want to save money, and I don't care how much money you "saved" by doing without TV, food, water, or whatever.

I could of thought that I do watch Television Programing on a TV, and/or a projector.

Life is too short.

I know that more then a lot here since my wife passed last year.

Exactly. You are finally starting to get it.

Outside the consumer protecting bundle, "you" (AKA any random customer) don't have to pay for things you don't want.

But I want to make that choice, which is how the free market works, I know I pay for content I would never watch on other services, but that is my choice, for example, found that I was not watching AMC+, so I drop it, no longer pay for.

With the bundle, I am forced to, not up to me to keep it going if they do not put content on I wish to watch.

Only one problem. NOTHING is popular enough to get made in the first place, because NOTHING (except for the NFL) is popular enough to cover its production costs.

Actually, during the season, more of a slight loss vs break even because of the high per rights fees, National Night Games, Playoffs and, of course, the Super Bowl is where the real money is.

For example, Fox made almost $600 Million on the last super bowl.

Fox Nears $600 Million in Super Bowl Sunday Ad Revenue

And how the company avoided the soft TV ad market.

www.adweek.com

Cute. You know what I mean, of course. With the anti-consumer streaming killing the bundle, there will be no content except for reruns. Rerun after reruns. No new shows, no sports, just reruns.

Tell that to Netflix, I could only have them for a year and still could not catch up on all the new content they have.

But, you showed em. You saved almost $15 back in 23. That is worth a vast wasteland of reruns that is what streaming will begat.

It is just not about saving money, it is how I wish to spend my money, I prefer the better quality of streaming, 1080P/4K, DD+/Atmos sound, not just for streaming exclusives, but the same stuff on Broadcast/Cable Channels, for example, I watch FBI on CBS, on Paramount+ , it looks almost 4K on P+, why should I pay of a service that does not give me the better picture.

Even last night, put the Michigan Game on Peacock, so much better then even OTA.

 

[Phil T]

AT&T Sportsnet Rocky Mountain dropped the AT&T name October 1st but was still on the air as SportsNet Rocky Mountain. Programming seemed to be a lot of poker and outdoors programming.

I assumed maybe the Colorado Rockies would purchase it and produce their own games.

On Friday that channel was replaced by this slate on 683.

Still no word on what happens next season.

 

[SamCdbs]

You do understand what the phrase "not named NFL" means, right? The big money is in the local broadcasts of local games in all sports not named NFL.

You wish to have it both ways. Railing about how unpopular MLB (NBA, NHL) really are and how "evil" it is that you actually have to pay for it (strange, you see no evil in paying for the millions of hours of reruns chocked into every streamer, but anyway) .

You correctly understand that the RSNs are going away. What you don't get, is that this means the programming on them goes away as well. The days of being able to simply enjoy your team, every night, are going away. Killed by streaming.

Of course substitute "your team every night" with almost anything else and you would still be right. Just reruns, cheaply acquired foreign programming, and other garbage.

Enjoy. And keep telling yourself it wasn't your job to save pop culture. And how much money you saved back in 23.

--

And, again, I don't care how you "spend your money". No one does. Why do you keep posting, on a TV enthusiasts website where EVERYONE else is discussing shows and trends and tips and info, how you didn't see the show and how you "spend your money". We don't care. You are a guy posting about McDonald's on a fine dining website.

 

[comfortably_numb]

 

[ncted]

The days of being able to simply enjoy your team, every night, are going away. Killed by streaming.

I get what you are saying here, and I sympathize with sports fans who will be affected by this, but streaming is a red herring -- a symptom rather than a cause. A whole lot of people who aren't sports fans simply could not afford the 1-2 times a year cable price increases any more. It wasn't reruns of old shows, running the cheapest ads, that were driving the price increases -- it was primarily sports, but also the proliferation of virtually unwatched cable channels. Ultimately, the needs of the many (those who can't afford cable price increases) outweighed the needs of the few (sports fans). At that point, the model that subsidizes sports broadcasts on the backs of the non-sports fans is no longer viable, as is the one that kept all the unwatched cable channels alive. The fault is not with either group of people, but in most the businesses involved for not recognizing this was coming, not realizing it even while it was happening, and not doing enough about it once they did realize it. Now the market has to adjust. Until such time as the sports bubble truly bursts, like the housing market in 2007-2009, things will continue to be out of whack. Apple, Amazon, YouTube, etc. getting involved is just delaying the inevitable in my opinion. Sports just costs too much in its current state.

 

[AZ.]

I feel like most of you put to much emphasis on what sports cost. You pay for kids programming, reality TV, etc. It all adds up, why do you think each of the 6 providers of content have their own services?

 

[lordodogg]

why do you think each of the 6 providers of content have their own services?

So viewers can just watch stuff from the networks they like and nothing else. I mostly watch NBC and Fox, so I would just get Peacock and Tubi. It's that simple, isn't it?