Bally Sports RSNs Are Reportedly Preparing For Bankruptcy

[Don in CT]

It's not just the RSN's that are hurting. Every channel that relies on cable fees for income are in trouble. As long as subscriber numbers fall the money just isn't there.

 

[Yespage]

Charter, Sinclair reach distribution deal for Bally Sports RSNs​

Sinclair paid $9.6 billion for 21 RSNs in a deal that closed August 2019. However, since then, the RSN business has taken hits, including being dropped from YouTube TV and Hulu + Live TV in 2020 – two distribution agreements which together Sinclair had said represented approximately 10% of the local sports gross distribution revenue for the month of September that year.

https://www.fiercevideo.com/video/charter-sinclair-reach-distribution-deal-bally-sports-rsns-broadcast-stations

Poor poor Bally they paid to much, its the players and unions fault!

Where as in "paid" we mean they borrowed a lot of money.

 

[Bruce]

Where as in "paid" we mean they borrowed a lot of money.

They actually borrowed it at great rates ( way before they went up), still cannot pay it back, they are in deep ****.

 

[Bruce]

It's not just the RSN's that are hurting. Every channel that relies on cable fees for income are in trouble. As long as subscriber numbers fall the money just isn't there.

When Sinclair completed the sale in 2019, there were 90 Million Live TV subscribers , today, roughly 68 Million.

But of those today, Dish (7 Million), Sling (2 million), Hulu Live (4 Million) and YTTV (6 Million) do not carry them ( they did in 2019), so only roughly, 49 Million pay per sub fees to the RSNs, that number is actually less, dependent on the areas they are available, for example, they are only in 14 states, so that also cuts it down.

 

[Bilbo1]

It's not just the RSN's that are hurting. Every channel that relies on cable fees for income are in trouble. As long as subscriber numbers fall the money just isn't there.

The sports teams are going to do just fine. Sports leagues are cats… they’ll land on their feet, lick their wounds, and somehow get even more money. That’s the way it’s always been.

Most of the cable guide is filled with channels that are nothing more than outlets for NBCU, Paramount, Disney, et al deep content library. Very few channels are actually independent of one of these content conglomerates. The content can easily be subsumed into the content owner’s streaming service.

The bigger point is that the cable bundle no longer adds value. It doesn’t have a use case. Cable companies used to aggregate/compile/curate channels for customers who were reliant on cable to get channels to get content. Nowadays, these channels could all disappear and no one would notice. The cable cos are profitable just providing infrastructure.

The only things holding the edifice together are existing carriage agreements and customer inertia. Both are slow to change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bruce]

The sports teams are going to do just fine. Sports leagues are cats… they’ll land on their feet, lick their wounds, and somehow get even more money. That’s the way it’s always been.

Why they have started to move towards streaming, for example, Big Ten could not get the money they wanted from ESPN, so received a mix deal from Streaming and Traditional.

Sunday Ticket we know what happened.

The next big deal is the NBA, strong rumors it will end up on Apple who has about $50 Billion in cash right now.

Most of the cable guide is filled with channels that are nothing more than outlets for NBCU, Paramount, Disney, et al deep content library. Very few channels are actually independent of one of these content conglomerates. The content can easily be subsumed into the content owner’s streaming service.

And that is why they all of started their own services, but some will make it, some will not and merge with another.

The bigger point is that the cable bundle no longer adds value. It doesn’t have a use case. Cable companies used to aggregate/compile/curate channels for customers who were reliant on cable to get channels to get content. Nowadays, these channels could all disappear and no one would notice. The cable cos are profitable just providing infrastructure.

All the stock analysts have said if Comcast, for example, got rid of video, stock price would gain 100 points.

The only things holding the edifice together are existing carriage agreements and customer inertia. Both are slow to change.

Why I give them 10 years at the most, Comcast and Charter will go closer to the full 10, DirecTV has maybe 5 years left at the most based on current loses ( about 2 million leave every year)

 

[comfortably_numb]

DirecTV has maybe 5 years left

How many years does Dish have left??

 

[Bruce]

How many years does Dish have left??

Well if the rate of losses do not increase, a lot longer then DirecTV.

Dish averages about, roughly, a million losses a year, so 7 years ( they have 7 million subs), but losses have proven to go up every year.

Their bigger problem is the last Satellite for Dish Network was launched in 2011 with no news if they want to build a new one.

Since the time frame for a new satellite to be built is about 3-4 years ( contract, design, build, launch), they should of already started.

DirecTV has newer Satellites, but more losses, their average loss is 1.8-2 Million a year, but it is predicted they will lose 3-4 Million this year because of the loss of Sunday Ticket.

 

[comfortably_numb]

Their bigger problem is the last Satellite for Dish Network was launched in 2011 with no news if they want to build a new one

But, they have the ability to use other company's satellites too...

 

[Bruce]

But, they have the ability to use other company's satellites too...

True, but are any recently or being built that use DBS Spectrum, then we have the spot beam satellites, questions I cannot answer so I focus on the math mostly.

And these are reasons why Dish is trying different things, they know that the time for Sat TV is coming to a end.

But still doing better then DirecTV, whose only hope for a future is a sell or a merger, they have no other plans in expanding their business.

It definitely is not DirecTV Stream, it only has about 1 million subscribers, while YTTV is right around 6 million in comparison.

 

[comfortably_numb]

Maybe my memory is getting foggy, but I thought Dish utilitized FTA KU satellites like 72 and 61.5?

 

[Mr Tony]

Maybe my memory is getting foggy, but I thought Dish utilitized FTA KU satellites like 72 and 61.5?

Dish owns the satellites at 61.5, 110 & 119
They rent 72.5 (Nimiq 5), 118.7 (Anik F3) and 129 (Ciel 2) from Canadian companies

 

[Bilbo1]

The next big deal is the NBA, strong rumors it will end up on Apple who has about $50 Billion in cash right now.

I’d look to Apple to want just streaming rights and not care about linear rights, like they did with MLS.

However, unless the NBA did what MLS did with local rights, the RSN issue could make it difficult to consolidate everything.

And that is why they all of started their own services, but some will make it, some will not and merge with another.

It seems each of the current big players are built on current major production houses. 5 to 7 may be the right number for content production/streaming houses.

Why I give them 10 years at the most, Comcast and Charter will go closer to the full 10, DirecTV has maybe 5 years left at the most based on current loses ( about 2 million leave every year)

10 years for what? Comcast and Charter own the infrastructure, basically everything from being Tier 1 networks to the point of entry at a subscribers house.

They may tire of negotiating carriage agreements and outsource that to YouTube TV, or DirecTV Stream some day. Who knows, and there is of course the question of how many customers are needed to make it worth keeping in house vs. simply being a reseller.

Anyhow, as others have said, Dish and DirecTV have infrastructure issues with their satellites. That’s why they are developing streaming alternatives (DirecTV Stream and Sling).

I guess there is also a question of whether third-party MVPDs are a viable business model as streaming services add linear (live) channels. I’m guessing the answer will be ‘NO!’ But timeline is hard to predict.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NashGuy]

I guess there is also a question of whether third-party MVPDs are a viable business model as streaming services add linear (live) channels. I’m guessing the answer will be ‘NO!’ But timeline is hard to predict.

Yeah, what I can envision happening is that the cable bundle breaks apart and is subsumed within direct-to-consumer streaming apps. For instance, imagine a few years from now that NBCUniversal and Warner Bros. Discovery have merged. They have a single app (let's call this hypothetical service "Universal+") that encompasses what are now HBO Max, Peacock, and Discovery+. And this app would include not only lots of on-demand content but their live linear cable channels.

Meanwhile, Hulu gets absorbed into Disney+, which likewise offers all of that company's linear cable channels too (except for ESPN, which exists as its own separate app/service that includes all of ESPN's live content). Maybe Disney grows a bit more by buying out the other half of the A+E Networks (A&E, History, Lifetime, etc.) that they don't already own.

Other cable channels may have died by then, or converted into free ad-supported streaming channels. Some smaller players might strike an exclusive streaming distribution arrangement with one of the big guys, e.g. Hallmark nets with Universal+, AMC nets with Disney+, etc. Among the others still surviving (e.g. the Paramount and Fox nets), they might be sold as mini-bundles as add-on channels from the major digital distributors, letting you add them to the native UIs from Amazon, Apple, Roku, Google, Samsung, LG, Vizio and Xumo (the Comcast/Charter streaming platform) and get billed by those companies' app stores.

While this would mean having different sets of channels in different apps, each streaming platform would have a "Live" section of their home screen UI that could aggregate both subscription and free streaming channels from your various installed apps, letting you see everything all in one place. (And each platform would probably also have its own suite of free ad-supported channels, e.g. the Roku Channel, Amazon's Freevee, Xumo Play, etc.) Rather than having cloud DVR for the linear channels, everything would just be immediately available in the included on-demand library (which is where most folks would go browsing for content to watch anyhow, rather than the live linear channels).

So, in a sense, "cable TV" would still exist. You could still get all the familiar brand-name channels by subscribing to multiple services. (And the streaming platforms would make it easy to do so by suggesting discounted bundles.) But you'd also have the option of just buying separate "chunks" of the current cable bundle, e.g. just the Disney-owned channels by getting Disney+.

So, like you, I also do not think third-party MVPDs are a long-term sustainable business. The name of the game is owning a streaming platform, with its own app store, that resides on lots of devices. The companies I listed above -- Amazon, Apple, Roku, Google, Samsung, LG, Vizio and Xumo -- are the companies who are replacing MVPDs. What is now YouTube TV would eventually just melt into the Google TV home screen and the regular YouTube app. The same thing will happen with Comcast's and Charter's cable TV services getting subsumed by their Xumo streaming platform.

 

[comfortably_numb]

Hulu gets absorbed into Disney+

Isn't it already part of Disney Plus? I get Hulu with my bundle.

 

[NashGuy]

Isn't it already part of Disney Plus? I get Hulu with my bundle.

They're still two separate apps and you can buy one without the other. But lots of folks (myself included) believe that after Disney buys the other 1/3 of Hulu that Comcast still owns, they'll fold Hulu into the Disney+ app. You won't be able to get Hulu other than as part of Disney+. (Just as today Paramount announced that you soon won't be able to get Showtime other than as part of Paramount+.)

 

[Bruce]

Yeah, what I can envision happening is that the cable bundle breaks apart and is subsumed within direct-to-consumer streaming apps. For instance, imagine a few years from now that NBCUniversal and Warner Bros. Discovery have merged. They have a single app (let's call this hypothetical service "Universal+") that encompasses what are now HBO Max, Peacock, and Discovery+. And this app would include not only lots of on-demand content but their live linear cable channels.

I keep wondering if Warner will make till next year, the insider invester stuff I get says Warner/Discovery next quarterly report is going to be brutal, they are almost out of cash, payments due, HBOMAX is not getting new subscribers, no hits for the movie division , Black Adam lost about $200 million, less per sub fees for their cable channels, 50 billion in debt, just more and more bad news.

Meanwhile, Hulu gets absorbed into Disney+, which likewise offers all of that company's linear cable channels too (except for ESPN, which exists as its own separate app/service that includes all of ESPN's live content). Maybe Disney grows a bit more by buying out the other half of the A+E Networks (A&E, History, Lifetime, etc.) that they don't already own.

I just do not think ESPN can work as a standalone app ( no live tv), not enough subscribers and if they make it too much $$$, even the most devoted sports fan will have to think if it is worth it.

If they do go standalone, less content to make it more economically viable.

While this would mean having different sets of channels in different apps, each streaming platform would have a "Live" section of their home screen UI that could aggregate both subscription and free streaming channels from your various installed apps, letting you see everything all in one place. (And each platform would probably also have its own suite of free ad-supported channels, e.g. the Roku Channel, Amazon's Freevee, Xumo Play, etc.) Rather than having cloud DVR for the linear channels, everything would just be immediately available in the included on-demand library (which is where most folks would go browsing for content to watch anyhow, rather than the live linear channels).

So, in a sense, "cable TV" would still exist. You could still get all the familiar brand-name channels by subscribing to multiple services. (And the streaming platforms would make it easy to do so by suggesting discounted bundles.) But you'd also have the option of just buying separate "chunks" of the current cable bundle, e.g. just the Disney-owned channels by getting Disney+.

Having Live TV Channels within their own standalone app is a good way to still make commercial revenue even if subscribers pay for the commercial free version.

 

[comfortably_numb]

HBOMAX is not getting new subscribers

I subbed a couple months ago to catch up on Westworld, then they PULLED the show! Canceled immediately.

 

[Bilbo1]

Yeah, what I can envision happening is that the cable bundle breaks apart and is subsumed within direct-to-consumer streaming apps. For instance, imagine a few years from now that NBCUniversal and Warner Bros. Discovery have merged. They have a single app (let's call this hypothetical service "Universal+") that encompasses what are now HBO Max, Peacock, and Discovery+. And this app would include not only lots of on-demand content but their live linear cable channels.

Reading this, I wonder how much of the mergers the government will allow. The government will clearly want to make sure there is competition.

You could still get all the familiar brand-name channels by subscribing to multiple services.

I think it may look like what Sirius XM does… stand up the Billy Joel channel twice a year for six weeks, then move onto something else. I’m also not sure the streamers need the current brand name channels. Those brands may have been meaningful at one time, but now? I mean MTV used to be music videos and Bravo fine arts. That’s not the case anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SamCdbs]

I love it.

Lets see. The super profitable linear TV industry, including DBS, cable, and the networks, are all going out of business within the decade. Meanwhile, HBO Max, like all other streamers, is bleeding money, but ignore that, its the FUTURE!!!!! And evil DirecTV is going to lose "3-4 million" subscribers, or more people than subscribed to ST in the first place. And if one just holds one's breath and stomps ones feet enough, they will sell ESPN at a loss to him.

Right.