Bally Sports RSNs Are Reportedly Preparing For Bankruptcy

[Don in CT]

Dont go there!

At least not without a space suit.

 

[Don in CT]

Ok let’s turn the bus around. Rights fees are too expensive because companies vastly overpay and expect us to pick up the cost. ESPN realized we don’t want to do that but they keep over spending.

 

[navychop]

Maybe they expect a government bailout.

 

[lordodogg]

do you think they would get one?

 

[Bruce]

do you think they would get one?

No, government is only giving out money for broadband expansion, not for TV Channels.

 

[Rolling Joe]

Because you come off sounding like the Satelliteguys Morality & Ethics Police. I shared a password. Big deal. I'm not John Gotti. Get over it!

LOL. This is like the good old days, when I got yelled at by the M & E Police for subscribing to the Canadian Bell TV service. They reminded me of Dana Carvey's Church Lady moralizing on SNL. I was unapoligetic then and now for that 'sin'.

 

[comfortably_numb]

This is like the good old days, when I got yelled at by the M & E Police for subscribing to the Canadian Bell TV service.

Yes! Many years ago I was attacked on another (former) DBS forum for asking about "moving" to get out-of-market locals. They made me feel like I was going to hell for *gasps* viewing local TV stations from St. Louis. OMG!!!

 

[navychop]

Warm?

 

[SamCdbs]

Anyway, the best hour on the subject I have heard:


View: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-marchand-and-ourand-sports-media-podcast/id1587364692

Points:

- DirecTV has no interest in the "dual distribution model" idiocy Disney is spewing out.
- DirecTV believes that the costs of sports programming (and other programming) is being borne by linear subscribers and non-linear customers are not paying their fair share. DirecTV WILL address this in the next go round with the networks.
- DirecTV believes that the costs of "premium set aside' (a game that is only on ESPN+ or whatever and not on the regular networks, such as the upcoming NFL playoff game) are also being borne by linear revenues and DirecTV WILL address this in the next go round.
- DirecTV has no interest in carrying the "diginet" channels that carry local sports teams.
- DirecTV is ready to see the leagues convert to a league produced feed and wishes to carry baseball, et al, in that manner.
- DirecTV sees the "Choice" level as the bottom package with sports in the future.

IMHO, you can substitute "every company" for "DirecTV". Big Media has been using loopholes in poorly written contracts to cheat consumers. Those days will be ending soon.

 

[Jimbo]

Duh, hence the question mark, sarcasm is so lost when posting, Amazon Prime has PPV as does DirecTV, so why he would expect just paying for Prime would give him access to everything when DirecTV does not do that,

his words-On D* I pick up my remote and its just THERE.
Already paid for.

No it is not.

Yes it is .... Im talking my programming, not Extra stuff like PPV.

Because you apparently don't remember what PPV is, it says it right IN the NAME
PAY PER VIEW .

 

[dishdude]

Well technically this isn't satellite theft. And, I used *my parents* credentials. Technically I share a residence with them parts of the year. So, again, technically, I stole nothing. Bruce just wants to make mountains out of molehills and personally attack users.

If the moderators wish to report me to the Streaming Police, go ahead. I've done worse!

I always wondered what this emoji was for.

 

[Bruce]

Anyway, the best hour on the subject I have heard:


View: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-marchand-and-ourand-sports-media-podcast/id1587364692

Points:

- DirecTV has no interest in the "dual distribution model" idiocy Disney is spewing out.

No one cares, DirecTV is now number three of the top 3 Paid Live TV Providers, they are also rapidly shrinking and are about 2.5-3 years away from being unprofitable.

Dish is number 4 and YTTV is number 5, at the rate YTTV is growing and DirecTV is shrinking, by mid 2025, YTTV will be number 3.

DirecTV can pound on their chest all they want, but any power in this marketplace, they just do not have anymore.

- DirecTV believes that the costs of sports programming (and other programming) is being borne by linear subscribers and non-linear customers are not paying their fair share. DirecTV WILL address this in the next go round with the networks.

What are they going to do, come to my house and make me pay.

What I took from that part of the conversation was they will no longer pay the high fees anymore, since in his words, the vast majority do not watch them.

If the RSNs cannot get the high per sub fees, that will push them out of business ever so quicker, that is a good thing.

- DirecTV believes that the costs of "premium set aside' (a game that is only on ESPN+ or whatever and not on the regular networks, such as the upcoming NFL playoff game) are also being borne by linear revenues and DirecTV WILL address this in the next go round.

Again, they want to pay less, he said it about broadcast channels also, they charge too much and it is not fair the content is everywhere.

He also said they might have to think about dropping locals because of the high per sub fee, the problem of that is those channels get the majority of viewers, if locals were gone, DirecTV would not last a year without them.

- DirecTV has no interest in carrying the "diginet" channels that carry local sports teams.

Said no room on the satellites, then he said they would have to build new satellites to support those channels, then he said they are not building any new satellites.

But if, for example, Bally Arizona goes away, would they then have room to add the diginet channel that had the teams?

1 for 1.

- DirecTV is ready to see the leagues convert to a league produced feed and wishes to carry baseball, et al, in that manner.

I would like that also, but we have to wait for the team owned RSNs ( like YES)to collapse, which is about two years away at the most.

- DirecTV sees the "Choice" level as the bottom package with sports in the future.

Already is, unless they plan on pulling all sports from the entertainment package, like ESPN for example.

IMHO, you can substitute "every company" for "DirecTV". Big Media has been using loopholes in poorly written contracts to cheat consumers. Those days will be ending soon.

I feel more cheated with a company like DirecTV, Charter, Comcast, etc, being forced to pay for channels I would never watch.

Again, DirecTV has no power anymore, they used to be a close #2 behind Comcast, now they have fallen behind Charter ( who has about 2 million more subscribers then DirecTV)and shrinking fast .

Media Executives knows DirecTV is not building new satellites ( and that guy said so), profits are getting less , not attracting new subscribers and the ones they have are leaving at the number of about 1.6-2 million ever year.

We do not even know when some of these deals are up, if it is not for a couple of years, might be a moot point.

By the way, this is what Scott posted here about DirecTV recently-

No one wants to subscribe to the DIRECTV satellite service, I am hearing from a bunch of DIRECTV dealers that they can't give it away. To make matters worse DIRECTV is threatening dealers that if they don't make sales they will be terminated from selling DIRECTV as of this coming December 31st.... losing all their residuals they have earned for prior sales.

Potential changes in AT&T's ownership of DirecTV

Apparently they think that anyone off the street knows how to do all the work required to set up addl dishes and coax and recvrs ... The money you are saving easily pays for that. Hire a third party installer for a few hundred bucks and he comes by with a dish and wire and installs however you...

www.satelliteguys.us

 

[lordodogg]

I have no words…

 

[SamCdbs]

No one cares, DirecTV is now number three of the top 3 Paid Live TV Providers, they are also rapidly shrinking and are about 2.5-3 years away from being unprofitable.

Yes, yes, yes. Its all a part of the master plan. Someday, for reasons you cannot give, everyone is going to join your minority. And save, save, save. Streaming will, somehow, be profitable, and cable/DBS not, because of reasons.

What are they going to do, come to my house and make me pay.

Well, yes. Those without an agenda understand that Big Media has flown through a loophole, selling programming twice. Hurting the consumer, who has to pay twice (unless he is some cheapoid who does without and saves, saves, saves). DirecTV (et al) and, IMHO, the local stations will soon close that loophole. Big Media will not have the game on whatever plus. Just on the network. Or whatever plus will be included in your DirecTV, etc. subscription.

Of course the COULD just have the games, etc., on streaming. Except streaming doesn't make any money.

If the RSNs cannot get the high per sub fees, that will push them out of business ever so quicker, that is a good thing.

Enjoy Hogan's Heroes. No RSNs=no games on TV. Any kind of TV.

But if, for example, Bally Arizona goes away, would they then have room to add the diginet channel that had the teams?

1 for 1.

Umm, no. There is one channel in Phoenix, one in Yuma, one in Tucson, etc. And the Mountain West is small compared to the complexity in the east and midwest. By my count, the Pirates claim all, or part, of 16 different DMAs.

I would like that also, but we have to wait for the team owned RSNs ( like YES)to collapse, which is about two years away at the most.

Again no RSNs=no games.

I feel more cheated with a company like DirecTV, Charter, Comcast, etc, being forced to pay for channels I would never watch.

It is so odd that you watch every single thing on every streamer.

Or you actually see some difference in paying for a channel you "never" watch and a show on a streamer you literally will never watch?

Sad, really.

Again, DirecTV has no power anymore, they used to be a close #2 behind Comcast, now they have fallen behind Charter ( who has about 2 million more subscribers then DirecTV)and shrinking fast

DirecTV, while not as big as before, is still huge, filled with power, and will be around for many decades to come.
It has had its faults, but in this era, it is standing up for the consumer, against Big Media. Good for them.

 

[osu1991]

Someone is really digging deep for crap to respond with.

 

[Bruce]

Yes, yes, yes. It’s all a part of the master plan. Someday, for reasons you cannot give, everyone is going to join your minority. And save, save, save. Streaming will, somehow, be profitable, and cable/DBS not, because of reasons.

Yes, it is called math, try it.

Just today, Comcast just announced another 3rd quarter loss of 490,000.

The 3rd quarter is usually a lot better for Live TV Providers because of Football in September, not anymore.

Well, yes.

Now we are going into fantasy land, no one is going to force me to pay for a channel (RSN) just so the vast minority can watch sports.

Those without an agenda understand that Big Media has flown through a loophole, selling programming twice.

And that genie is out of the bottle, not going back in.

Hurting the consumer, who has to pay twice (unless he is some cheapoid who does without and saves, saves, saves).

If someone wants to pay more for less content, that is their choice , if they want to add a streaming service, that is their choice.

I do it for value, vastly more content and the better quality.

And I still do not understand what you have against saving money, we did it for 30 years, save and invest, allowed me to retire at 52 ( yes I am back to work, but not because of money, trying to get out of my funk) and never have to worry about money.

And since I grew up extremely poor, I still look where I can save.

DirecTV (et al) and, IMHO, the local stations will soon close that loophole. Big Media will not have the game on whatever plus. Just on the network. Or whatever plus will be included in your DirecTV, etc. subscription.

No they won’t, even if they have a fit, networks will just get some lobbyists, pay off Congress, then we have national feeds in all the local markets.

Do not think so, the networks are already allowed to make the carriage deals for streaming for all of them.

Halfway there.

Of course the COULD just have the games, etc., on streaming. Except streaming doesn't make any money.

Transition times, after 2025, everything will be different, we will know who has made it and who not.

Show me one trend that looks good for Cable/Satellite for the future.

Enjoy Hogan's Heroes.

Again, you are charged for it, free on Pluto and the likes.

No RSNs=no games on TV. Any kind of TV.

San Diego and Arizona proves you incorrect.

Umm, no. There is one channel in Phoenix, one in Yuma, one in Tucson, etc. And the Mountain West is small compared to the complexity in the east and midwest. By my count, the Pirates claim all, or part, of 16 different DMAs.

Well then, DirecTV should build new satellites then, streaming could handle that.

Again no RSNs=no games.

Answered.

It is so odd that you watch every single thing on every streamer.

No, of course not, do you watch everything on every channel on DirecTV.

But every service I have, there is something I watch.

For example, was thinking about getting rid of MAX, now they have added CNN, that will make it easier to drop Live TV in January after the College Football Playoffs.

Dropped AMC+ because of no content I was watching.

Or you actually see some difference in paying for a channel you "never" watch and a show on a streamer you literally will never watch?

Yes, Paid Live TV is filled with channels I never watch at all, Pop, Reelz, Freeform, all the Disney Channels, RSNs, ESPN except in January since they could not afford the Big Ten, Nick, TV Land, etc, etc.

Now for example-
Paramount+ watch it a lot, but not everything
Disney+ Marvel/Star Wars yes, the Disney stuff no.
ESPN+ NHL, MNF

Sad, really.

Again, vastly more content in 1080P/4K, DD+/Atmos sound.

DirecTV, while not as big as before, is still huge, filled with power,

No, shrinking rapidly, to where AT&T is looking to get rid of next summer before it is no longer profitable.

Already announced.

and will be around for many decades to come.

Really, since it takes 3-5 years to get a new satellite up, do they have one on order I do not know about.

By the way, now under 12 Million total, which includes Sat/Streaming/Uverse.

Just 7 years ago, DirecTV and Uverse ( before AT&T bought DirecTV) had over 27 Million subs

By the way, noticed you ignored Scott’s comment-

No one wants to subscribe to the DIRECTV satellite service, I am hearing from a bunch of DIRECTV dealers that they can't give it away. To make matters worse DIRECTV is threatening dealers that if they don't make sales they will be terminated from selling DIRECTV as of this coming December 31st.... losing all their residuals they have earned for prior sales.

It has had its faults, but in this era, it is standing up for the consumer, against Big Media. Good for them.

It is the most expensive Live Paid TV Provider, how is that standing up for the consumer?

If it wants to stand up for them, get rid of all those channels the majority never watch, lower the price , instead of two price increases in a year.

 

[meStevo]

Someone is really digging deep for crap to respond with.

It's all he's got.

Show me one trend that looks good for Cable/Satellite for the future.

Ding, ding, ding. I've asked this before. It was dodged.

Lets hear it SamCdbs. Should be a good laugh, justify your enjoyment (and preference) paying exorbitant fees on top of programming costs to companies with no clear future and are trying to figure out what their new normal will be while waiting to hit bottom.

All you seem to have is a lack of profitability in a time of transition and willful ignorance and misplaced comments about 'saving money' for those who have made a choice different from yours and who aren't making that point in the replies you make to them. Seems to just be an effort to troll in thread after thread that you have no interest in participating in constructively as you project irrational arguments because people made a choices you don't like.

 

[Bruce]

Ding, ding, ding. I've asked this before. It was dodged.

Lets hear it SamCdbs. Should be a good laugh, justify your enjoyment (and preference) paying exorbitant fees on top of programming costs to companies with no clear future and are trying to figure out what their new normal will be while waiting to hit bottom.

All you seem to have is a lack of profitability in a time of transition and willful ignorance and misplaced comments about 'saving money' for those who have made a choice different from yours and who aren't making that point in the replies you make to them. Seems to just be an effort to troll in thread after thread that you have no interest in participating in constructively as you project irrational arguments because people made a choices you don't like.

He ignores all counter points.

But the biggest one is the whole profitable thing.

Disney+ and ESPN+ are both expected to turn profitable in 2024, if it works out, it will take Disney+ 5 years/ESPN+ 4 years, but it took DirecTV 6 years, Netflix also, Dish/Amazon 9 years.

The other part of that he ignores, how did DirecTV become profitable, price increases and more subscribers.

How then will streamers become more profitable, hmmm, I wonder.

But at the same time, does not mean all streaming will be successful, Peacock/AMC are both dumpster fires, jury out on MAX.

Netflix, Disney are no brainers.

Paramount+ is the little engine that could, always gains, just read they are now expanding to Canada, Mexico and Australia, finally regained rights to programming in those countries that was licensed out

 

[lordodogg]

Bruce, it seems like you're trying to get everyone here in this thread to switch from cable or satellite to streaming, is that what you're doing?

 

[comfortably_numb]

jury out on MAX.

I think MAX is trying to be too many things.. I don't really understand their sports offering