Diamond Sports Group (owner of Bally RSNs) files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, MLB to produce Padres games after missed payment

[eaterfan]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-25/sports-broadcaster-diamond-faces-8-6-billion-debt-reckoning

This is potentially very big news for the Angels and could affect payroll for awhile going forward. They may have to negotiate a lower contract and/or may have to find a different broadcast partner. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm not an expert on this, but it seems like it may be a big story going forward. 

[jsnpritchett]

"In a bankruptcy, Diamond would have the option of ending contracts with teams, potentially cutting off crucial industry revenue while also allowing teams to reclaim their media rights. The company could also halt payments to the teams while keeping the contracts in place. If a deal is not reached, both MLB and creditors are preparing for baseball teams not to be paid, according to two people. 

Another person familiar with the matter downplayed the prospect that Diamond would discontinue rights payments in a bankruptcy, adding that the company is open to bringing in teams and leagues as equity partners in any restructured entity.

MLB and the NBA declined to comment. The NHL did not respond to a request for comment."

[Erstad Grit]

Wowzers. I was just looking at what streaming options have angels this next year.  Guess we won't know?

[OhtaniSan]

Would love there to be a distinct Angels baseball channel kinda like the Dodgers have 

[halonatic13]

Curious if Arte saw this and saw $$$ signs knowing he can start his own network.

[jsnpritchett]

1 minute ago, OhtaniSan said:

Would love there to be a distinct Angels baseball channel kinda like the Dodgers have 

You do realize that Sportsnet LA was a complete disaster at first, right?  And I can't imagine an Angels-only channel (at least in a traditional cable/satellite world) would be anywhere near as in-demand as a Dodgers-centric one.

[jsnpritchett]

3 minutes ago, halonatic13 said:

Curious if Arte saw this and saw $$$ signs knowing he can start his own network.

Others have mentioned this previously.  Regional sports networks or networks that focus only on one team are nowhere near the money-makers they used to be. 

Edited January 25, 2023 by jsnpritchett

[jsnpritchett]

2 hours ago, Erstad Grit said:

Wowzers. I was just looking at what streaming options have angels this next year.  Guess we won't know?

For 2023, you mean?  I think it's pretty much Spectrum and DirecTV stream.

EDIT:...and Fubo TV!

Edited January 26, 2023 by jsnpritchett

[eaterfan]

6 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

You do realize that Sportsnet LA was a complete disaster at first, right?  And I can't imagine an Angels-only channel (at least in a traditional cable/satellite world) would be anywhere near as in-demand as a Dodgers-centric one.

I think an equity share of Bally's would probably be better for them. 

The Pac 12 Network tried to start without a traditional partner like Fox Sports/ESPN/CBS and wasn't able to get wide enough distribution because they didn't have leverage. Also, it's really hard to start a network and it was just discovered they were overpaid by Comcast by $50 million and didn't notify them. This could lead to a few headaches. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

10 minutes ago, halonatic13 said:

Curious if Arte saw this and saw $$$ signs knowing he can start his own network.

You have to wonder if that's playing a part.

And at the same time, you have to wonder if we'll get another press release from Arte this week saying "Business now finished. Back for sale. Will include all cardboard boxes in storage from past stadium giveaways, including Mexican wrestling mask night, and star wars rally monkey doll. And Trout Hawaii shirt night"

[Taylor]

19 minutes ago, halonatic13 said:

Curious if Arte saw this and saw $$$ signs knowing he can start his own network.

If that's the case, Arte is even more delusional than we thought.

[TempeAngel]

16 minutes ago, halonatic13 said:

Curious if Arte saw this and saw $$$ signs knowing he can start his own network.

This makes a lot of sense.

The YES Network is all about the Yankees and the Nets with other companies having a piece of the pie.

Arte could partner up with Ballmer and the Clippers and replicate that.

[jsnpritchett]

1 minute ago, TempeAngel said:

This makes a lot of sense.

The YES Network is all about the Yankees and the Nets with other companies having a piece of the pie.

Arte could partner up with Ballmer and the Clippers and replicate that.

There is a world of difference between an offering anchored by the Yankees and one that would combine the Angels and Clippers.  Again, it took Sportsnet LA literally years to get carriage on most distribution platforms--and even now, DirecTV (which is hemorrhaging subscribers) overpays for it and likely regrets the deal.

I cannot imagine in this day and age that there would be an appetite from Spectrum, DirecTV, Hulu, YouTube TV, etc to carry an Angels-led network at payment levels that would make the Angels happy.  Theoretically, if Bally Sports Network goes belly-up and the Angels get back their broadcast/streaming rights (note that the streaming rights still haven't been settled either way), the Angels could start a direct-to-consumer streaming-only system.  The financial upside of something like that is much smaller than the good ol' days of regional sports networks, though.

[TempeAngel]

9 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

There is a world of difference between an offering anchored by the Yankees and one that would combine the Angels and Clippers.  Again, it took Sportsnet LA literally years to get carriage on most distribution platforms--and even now, DirecTV (which is hemorrhaging subscribers) overpays for it and likely regrets the deal.

I cannot imagine in this day and age that there would be an appetite from Spectrum, DirecTV, Hulu, YouTube TV, etc to carry an Angels-led network at payment levels that would make the Angels happy.  Theoretically, if Bally Sports Network goes belly-up and the Angels get back their broadcast/streaming rights (note that the streaming rights still haven't been settled either way), the Angels could start a direct-to-consumer streaming-only system.  The financial upside of something like that is much smaller than the good ol' days of regional sports networks, though.

I'm not saying it will happen or it would be as big as the YES Network but I think it could work. And I don't think it would be "an Angels-led network". The Ballmer Clippers are moving next year into what will be the premier arena in the NBA. They are across the street from SoPhi Stadium, the Premier stadium in the NFL. The Clippers arena will make Staples/Crypto look dated and then Arte could build a new stadium in the Big A parking lot that will make Dodger Stadium look dated.

I think a Ballmer's Clippers/Angels Network is viable.

[jsnpritchett]

33 minutes ago, TempeAngel said:

I'm not saying it will happen or it would be as big as the YES Network but I think it could work. And I don't think it would be "an Angels-led network". The Ballmer Clippers are moving next year into what will be the premier arena in the NBA. They are across the street from SoPhi Stadium, the Premier stadium in the NFL. The Clippers arena will make Staples/Crypto look dated and then Arte could build a new stadium in the Big A parking lot that will make Dodger Stadium look dated.

I think a Ballmer's Clippers/Angels Network is viable.

I'm not sure what the stadiums have to do with anything related to a network or streaming service.  If the stadiums/arenas are as great as you say, wouldn't that entice more people to want to go to the games, rather than watch them at home?  Ha.

Also, as of last season, the Clippers had the 3rd-lowest local TV ratings of any NBA team (just below the Nets on YES, btw...) for which ratings were available.

I think you're vastly overestimating the appeal of an Angels-Clippers network in today's world.

Edited January 25, 2023 by jsnpritchett

[TempeAngel]

1 minute ago, jsnpritchett said:

I'm not sure what the stadiums have to do with anything related to a network or streaming service.  If the stadiums/arenas are as great as you say, wouldn't that entice more people to want to go to the games, rather than watch them at home?  Ha.

Also, as of last season, the Clippers had the 3rd-lowest local TV ratings of any NBA team (just beyond the Nets on YES, btw...) for which ratings were available.

I think you're vastly overestimating the appeal of an Angels-Clippers network in today's world.

I get it.  I think you are probably right. Still, where there is confusion there is profit and I see a big opportunity for the Moreno family.

So where do you think this ends up?

If Ballys is gone, what happens? What does the Moreno family do?

[jsnpritchett]

On 1/25/2023 at 3:03 PM, TempeAngel said:

I get it.  I think you are probably right. Still, where there is confusion there is profit and I see a big opportunity for the Moreno family.

So where do you think this ends up?

If Ballys is gone, what happens? What does the Moreno family do?

I'm sorry, but I just don't agree that this is a big opportunity for them.  Again, there is literally no way they would be able to successfully launch a network similar to what BSW is now.  It just will not happen in this day and age.  DirecTV has about half of the subscribers it had a few years ago.  Traditional cable networks are losing subscribers, as well.  If the Angels and Clippers tried to launch SoCalSportsNet (or whatever they'd call it) to replace BSW, they'd probably get pennies on the dollar compared to what BSW used to get in terms of carriage fees.  If Bally Sports goes under, as I said in my last post, it's possible that the Angels could try to launch a direct-to-consumer offering, assuming the rights situation could be cleared up.  But the economic scale of something like that, again, likely wouldn't be anywhere near what a traditional linear network used to pull in.

So, honestly, I don't know what will end up happening if BSW goes under and some sort of equity deal isn't worked out before that occurs--but in the long run, it'll probably mean the Angels will ultimately end up making significantly less from broadcast/streaming rights than they're currently making.

EDIT:  Also, why do you think Bally Sports is on the brink of bankruptcy?  Because they're paying way too much for the rights to broadcast/stream these sports teams in today's market...

Edited February 2, 2023 by jsnpritchett

[WicketMaiden]

39 minutes ago, TempeAngel said:

I get it.  I think you are probably right. Still, where there is confusion there is profit and I see a big opportunity for the Moreno family.

So where do you think this ends up?

If Ballys is gone, what happens? What does the Moreno family do?

1. Sign Ohtani to an extension.

2. Hire someone with a track record of maximising TV and social media rights revenue. 

3. Let them do their job.

 

[Docwaukee]

1 hour ago, halonatic13 said:

Curious if Arte saw this and saw $$$ signs knowing he can start his own network.

I think this is one of several things that because it's unsettled may devalue the franchise

in two years, it's likely that there will be a lot more clarity on this, and any sort of new stadium deal to name just a few big dollar items where my guess is that a potential buyer is going to  not give as much credit as Arte and co. think they should.  It could be a 9 figures delta which, even if you're getting three billion dollars, most people don't want to leave on the table.   

[Angel Oracle]

44 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

I'm not sure what the stadiums have to do with anything related to a network or streaming service.  If the stadiums/arenas are as great as you say, wouldn't that entice more people to want to go to the games, rather than watch them at home?  Ha.

Also, as of last season, the Clippers had the 3rd-lowest local TV ratings of any NBA team (just below the Nets on YES, btw...) for which ratings were available.

I think you're vastly overestimating the appeal of an Angels-Clippers network in today's world.

Ballmer, come on down and buy into the Halos!    $2 billion for you is chump change.   

[TroutBaseball]

As I remember, Arte already has an equity stake in BSW.

 

If MLB expects teams not to get paid, this would be a major factor in selling the team.

[TempeAngel]

26 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

EDIT:  Also, why do you think Bally Sports is on the brink of bankruptcy?  Because they're paying way too much for the rights to broadcast/stream these sports teams in today's market...

My only inference to this would be the thread we are all posting on.

If you know different then please enlighten us..

[jsnpritchett]

8 minutes ago, TempeAngel said:

My only inference to this would be the thread we are all posting on.

If you know different then please enlighten us..

I just stated why they're on the verge of bankruptcy: they're paying way too much for the rights to broadcast/stream these sports teams in today's market.  They're not getting as much advertising revenue or as much revenue from carriage fees as they used to when they made a lot of these long-term rights deals, so they end up deep in the hole year after year now.  Anyone who attempts to replicate or reinvent a regional sports network (or the streaming equivalent) will face similar challenges, as well as new ones.  To make up for the revenue that's lost from the old-style carriage fees for regional sports networks, any streaming-only option will have to charge consumers a ridiculous monthly fee.

Similar-ish realizations/conversations are going on across the entertainment sector these days, because people are now realizing they've basically shot themselves in the foot by pushing everything to streaming (TV and movies), lessening the overall revenue for a movie, TV series, etc. compared to when it went through the various release windows of the past. 

Basically, everything is in flux when it comes to all forms of entertainment content--and no one really knows what things will look like next year, let alone 10 years down the road.

Edited January 25, 2023 by jsnpritchett

[jsnpritchett]

11 minutes ago, TroutBaseball said:

As I remember, Arte already has an equity stake in BSW.

 

If MLB expects teams not to get paid, this would be a major factor in selling the team.

Correct.  25%.

[TempeAngel]

1 hour ago, jsnpritchett said:

I'm not sure what the stadiums have to do with anything related to a network or streaming service.  If the stadiums/arenas are as great as you say, wouldn't that entice more people to want to go to the games, rather than watch them at home?  

 

Sure, don't all teams want "entice" their base by having a nice stadium for 40,000 fans but are truly concerned it may hurt their 15 M person market TV/Streaming audience?

Silly. 1950's MLB Silliness.