MLB forms economic group as regional TV in peril

Toggle sidebar
Mr Tony said:
$25 a month or $240 for the year
sign up before 4/30 for $20 month or $200 year

View attachment 161361
Click to expand...
$25 a month for the Rangers, Knicks, Yankees... that can work. $25 a month for the Yankees and the Nets? They fractured the access to sports in cities, even in Northeast Ohio. No one would pay $25 a month each for two sports channels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZ.
Bruce said:
Diamond made the payment, the teams on the next to be paid list are the Diamondbacks ( already missed), Reds and the Guardians.

www.sportsbusinessjournal.com

Diamond Sports makes rights payment to Padres

Diamond Sports made its rights fee payment to the Padres this afternoon, according to multiple sources, which means that Diamond’s Bally Sports San Diego will produce and distribute Padres games all season.
www.sportsbusinessjournal.com www.sportsbusinessjournal.com
Click to expand...
I'm confused, are they bankrupt or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navychop
Yespage said:
. No one would pay $25 a month each for two sports channels.
Click to expand...
Exactly. But that is what (actually, I think they are lowballing, it really should be about $40) they HAVE to charge to yield the money that the bundle model produced. And no one (figurative, actually, not very many) will pay that. And thus the content goes away.

The RSN (and remember that the out-of-market packages are just remixes of RSN material) is just the first of the many types of content that are simply going away. Outside of the bundle, not much not named NFL, really can earn enough to justify being produced. Content creation is coming to an end. Enjoy the reruns.
 
SamCdbs said:
Content creation is coming to an end. Enjoy the reruns.
Click to expand...
There will always be new content created, Netflix is profitable and they produce lots of new content.

More and more streaming services will become profitable over the next 2 years and they will always produce new stuff, how much I do not know but neither do you.
 
Exactly how is it that makes them profitable? People waiting for this internet to come to their town?

Everybody who wants streaming, has streaming. It is not a profitmaking business, for the most part.
 
SamCdbs said:
Exactly. But that is what (actually, I think they are lowballing, it really should be about $40) they HAVE to charge to yield the money that the bundle model produced. And no one (figurative, actually, not very many) will pay that. And thus the content goes away.

The RSN (and remember that the out-of-market packages are just remixes of RSN material) is just the first of the many types of content that are simply going away. Outside of the bundle, not much not named NFL, really can earn enough to justify being produced. Content creation is coming to an end. Enjoy the reruns.
Click to expand...
Most yankee fans have cable or satellite tv..they got very confused when amazon carried a couple games
 
Juan said:
Most yankee fans have cable or satellite tv..they got very confused when amazon carried a couple games
Click to expand...
I live in Arizona, I can pay for MLB TV but I wont get pre and post game shows. I think that is the niche for out of town fans of all sports. MLB, NHL, NBA.
 
SamCdbs said:
Exactly. But that is what (actually, I think they are lowballing, it really should be about $40) they HAVE to charge to yield the money that the bundle model produced. And no one (figurative, actually, not very many) will pay that. And thus the content goes away.

The RSN (and remember that the out-of-market packages are just remixes of RSN material) is just the first of the many types of content that are simply going away. Outside of the bundle, not much not named NFL, really can earn enough to justify being produced. Content creation is coming to an end. Enjoy the reruns.
Click to expand...
Yes, thanks, the rerun note again. Look, these sports channels existed a la carte in the 80s and 90s. I also said no one would pay $50 for two sports channels, but they probably would $25 if that got them most of the local sports.

With that said, programming has been dropping for a while now. This includes the OTAs... because producing written dramas cost more money than game shows. So while a la carte is putting pressure on channels, so is the generalized cost of television show production. The quality of TV programming has altered downward since MTV created The Real World. And sadly, a reason for that was it was popular with people. Add that to the issue that good programming costs more to produce, less good cooking shows more Guy Fieri and another stupid top chef contest, goodbye Universe, hello "It's aliens", goodbye good Game of Thrones, hello whatever the heck the last two seasons were Game of Thrones. I'm not going to mention BSG as that'll just bring up too much pain.

Sports is getting more expensive, but the networks are more to blame for that. Things consolidated, and we becoming less local. Money was saved short-term, wasn't invested for long-term and now we've got this.

But the idea sports channels can't survive a la carte, when they were originally a la carte is silly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZ.
Yespage said:
No one would pay $25 a month each for two sports channels.
Click to expand...

Yespage said:
But the idea sports channels can't survive a la carte, when they were originally a la carte is silly.
Click to expand...
Pick a side.

That price (actually more) is what they HAVE to charge. The "I'll just hold my breath until they sell it to me for $2" voodoo economics, vis this or, in a year or two, the national sports channels, is not happening. They HAVE to charge about $40/month to pay the players. And, short of breaking the union, which they have failed to do for 40 years, there is no other solution.
 
SamCdbs said:
Pick a side.

That price (actually more) is what they HAVE to charge. The "I'll just hold my breath until they sell it to me for $2" voodoo economics, vis this or, in a year or two, the national sports channels, is not happening. They HAVE to charge about $40/month to pay the players. And, short of breaking the union, which they have failed to do for 40 years, there is no other solution.
Click to expand...
I said no one would pay $25 each for two sports channels. IE, having to pay $25 for Sox and Celtics, and another $25 for the Revs and Bruins. But $25 for all four can be doable for the person who isn't paying for cable/sat.
 
I would pay $25 month to get all the Astros games, on top of my DISH subscription. That would be $150 per season, which is about what it would cost me to go see one game at the stadium (with peanuts and popcorn and parking with one guest). I don't think it's available though so the point is moot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZ.
Yespage said:
But $25 for all four can be doable for the person who isn't paying for cable/sat.
Click to expand...
That doesn't yield the money needed. I'd sure like it if there were a restaurant with Prime beef for $12. That would be doable for me.

Just not for the restaurant.
 
I’m not sure I’d feel too comfortable eating a Prime Rib that only cost $12….

Or Prime Beef is something else?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 122) Show all

Share this page

Share this page
Top