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

[gotbeer]

8 hours ago, jsnpritchett said:

I'm still very curious how MLB itself would pull this off, since it would mean providing broadcasts for essentially half of all games.

Makes me wonder if Diamond is hoping the MLB walks away.  I mean, just out of three teams.  I  think from past things I've read, Ducks $25 million, Clippers $60 million, Angels $150 million.  That's a lot of savings for Diamond.  Almost a 2/3 cut.  They could probably fill the summer with Soccer for a lot less than they are paying the Angels, and probably get more viewers.  

[gotbeer]

4 hours ago, jsnpritchett said:

But, again, who would that be?  What currently available networks could take on their broadcasts? 

If you look at the current trends.  Again, if money weren't a factor, and it obviously still is.  I because of that, I think the NHL would have a better chance than the MLB, just because of cost.  But you look at the NFL.  Thursday night football.  big money put out by Amazon.  I think Google put out big money to be the distributor of NFL games.  (I'm just going on memory on this one, and could be totally off)  Could a streaming service make a huge play and try and get the broadcasts?  Again, I think NHL has a better chance than the MLB, just because of Ducks $25 million vs Angels $150 million.  But still.  Enough creativity, and the MLB might be able to pull it off.  

[Stradling]

But does it need to be $150 million?  I think I read teams keep 48% of local tv revenue with the rest being part of revenue sharing. The league could alter that percentage for teams being impacted by this. 

[bruin5]

10 hours ago, gotbeer said:

Makes me wonder if Diamond is hoping the MLB walks away.  I mean, just out of three teams.  I  think from past things I've read, Ducks $25 million, Clippers $60 million, Angels $150 million.  That's a lot of savings for Diamond.  Almost a 2/3 cut.  They could probably fill the summer with Soccer for a lot less than they are paying the Angels, and probably get more viewers.  

They could do that, but then they have changed the terms of their contract with the providers, so I’m sure they would be dropped by the few remaining operators (at least in LA) that carry them.

 

[Jay]

22 hours ago, TempeAngel said:

Not really.

They are part of an add on sports package on Spectrum. It includes 9 other sports channels for $6 per month. You only pay the $6 if you want the sports channels. I watch them all so it's a no brainer.

I don't budget like this but It's more valuable to me than a $6 Starbucks per month. 

It's all good. Chill and enjoy.

This didn't sound right to me so I checked.

The $6 sports package on Spectrum doesn't include Bally Sports West, it includes a bunch of other worthless sports channels. Bally Sports West is part of their standard channel lineup (TV Select) which costs $84.99 per month. And that's $20 more per month than what you would pay for YouTube TV.

 

[mmc]

Before we get back to more deadline considerations, wanted to address a continuing story. On Wednesday, Diamond Sports Group announced it would skip a $140-million payment, thereby entering a 30-day grace period that most likely leads to a bankruptcy filing. It’s not the most front-facing sports story, but it is a monumental business development.

Many of our great U.S.-based fans watch regional NHL games on Bally’s, which is owned by Diamond. This collapse is being felt across hockey, MLB and the NBA with more than 40 teams and almost $1.8 billion in rights fees at risk. The NHL had a Board of Governors meeting hours after the announcement. Best I can gather, there is still no absolute clarity where this is going. The good news is teams are expecting to be paid for the time being, the bad news is, apparently, some teams have been warned it will not be the full amount.

The worst-case scenario is that a bankruptcy allows Bally’s (or whoever ends up controlling it) to walk away from everything, but the more likely outcome seems to be that it will pick and choose what it wants to keep and what it may drop or try to restructure. So, if you’re a valuable regional property, you feel as good as you can. If not, you’re sweating unless these leagues come up with a good backup plan.

And, we also worry about a potential effect on the cap. MLB commissioner Rob Manfred, speaking in Phoenix, said, “Obviously, our first choice would be that Diamond pay the clubs what they're contractually obligated to pay them, but because I guess I'm a contingency planner by nature, we are prepared no matter what happens to make sure that games are available to fans in their local markets.” He added that MLB could sell games to other providers, but admitted it would be very difficult to equal rights fees that would be lost.

[gotbeer]

When it rains, it pours.  Didn't know about this one.

AT&T SportsNet RSNs Maybe Having Money Troubles & Could Be In Real Trouble

Quote

This week it was learned that regional sports network AT&T SportsNets failed to make full payment to multiple MLB teams according to a report from Sportico. Now many are wondering if AT&T SportsNet now owned by Warner Bors. Discovery is in a similar position to Bally Sports.

AT&T SportsNets did reportedly make payments to the Colorado Rockies, Houston Astros, and Pittsburgh Pirates but they were “not commensurate with the contract rates.”

 

[jsnpritchett]

On 2/14/2023 at 3:44 PM, jsnpritchett said:

Who is that going to be?  Whoever it is won't be giving them $150M a year.  It can't really be an already-existing RSN that carries baseball, since the team schedules would overlap.

Also, for what it's worth, other RSNs not owned by Diamond Sports Group are having issues.  The Astros, Rockies, and Pirates RSNs made their first rights payment of the year, but for less than the contracted amount. 

https://www.sportico.com/business/media/2023/wbd-att-rsns-light-on-mlb-rights-payments-1234709889/

 

 

2 hours ago, gotbeer said:

When it rains, it pours.  Didn't know about this one.

AT&T SportsNet RSNs Maybe Having Money Troubles & Could Be In Real Trouble

 

I posted about this earlier. 

[Amazing Larry]

Me thinks player salaries will come down if the broadcasting rights contracts aren’t there to support them. 

[Angels 1961]

20 minutes ago, Lhalo said:

Me thinks player salaries will come down if the broadcasting rights contracts aren’t there to support them. 

Then ticket prices will go down plus free parking. 

[Revad]

33 minutes ago, Angels 1961 said:

Then ticket prices will go down plus free parking. 

Beer too, don’t forget.

[Don]

Maybe someone has explained this in the thread already, but what's the cause of the bankruptcies (beyond the obvious)? When it came to Bally's/Diamond I suppose I sort of assumed it was just mismanagement on a level akin to just moving money around incorrectly. But with the above linked article on the AT&T RSNs I'm wondering if there is maybe an issue with the RSNs and MLB/NBA/NHL rights in general. Like did these RSNs just overestimate the revenue they'd make broadcasting games? Were they waiting for some sort of additional revenue stream related to the broadcasts to mature, but it never came through? Is it an issue of advertisers punting on traditional TV ads in favor of more efficient/effective/modern ad platforms, thus killing the RSN ad income?

[gotbeer]

2 minutes ago, Don said:

Maybe someone has explained this in the thread already, but what's the cause of the bankruptcies (beyond the obvious)? When it came to Bally's/Diamond I suppose I sort of assumed it was just mismanagement on a level akin to just moving money around incorrectly. But with the above linked article on the AT&T RSNs I'm wondering if there is maybe an issue with the RSNs and MLB/NBA/NHL rights in general. Like did these RSNs just overestimate the revenue they'd make broadcasting games? Were they waiting for some sort of additional revenue stream related to the broadcasts to mature, but it never came through? Is it an issue of advertisers punting on traditional TV ads in favor of more efficient/effective/modern ad platforms, thus killing the RSN ad income?

It's a perfect storm of a bunch of things.  The big one is cable is not needing the RSN's like they used to.  The RSN business plan used to be, you had 5 million households in SoCal, all paying $5 a month to a RSN because RSN's were part of the basic package of every cable provider, meaning you had $25 million a month in revenue.  Everyone paid, even if you didn't watch sports.  Now, not every cable provider even carries RSN's anymore, and even if they do, RSN's are on a seperate package that most people don't want to pay the extra money for.  So that 5 million dropped down to a few hundred thousand.  Meanwhile all those lucrative contracts that were signed based on the old RSN business plan went up in smoke, and we are where we are.   

[Don]

18 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

It's a perfect storm of a bunch of things.  The big one is cable is not needing the RSN's like they used to.  The RSN business plan used to be, you had 5 million households in SoCal, all paying $5 a month to a RSN because RSN's were part of the basic package of every cable provider, meaning you had $25 million a month in revenue.  Everyone paid, even if you didn't watch sports.  Now, not every cable provider even carries RSN's anymore, and even if they do, RSN's are on a seperate package that most people don't want to pay the extra money for.  So that 5 million dropped down to a few hundred thousand.  Meanwhile all those lucrative contracts that were signed based on the old RSN business plan went up in smoke, and we are where we are.   

Interesting that that's a part of it. Because other streaming providers have had the RSNs at one point or another, but most have failed to keep them. I'd assume that was because the RSNs wanted a larger chunk of cash from the streaming platforms than what they were getting from them at the time. And now it seems like any amount would have been better than nothing. 

[TempeAngel]

So, I'm not an expert on this topic but there seem to be some on here who have posted with great knowledge of RSN's and sports media.

The question:

Is there a pathway/outcome to this where Moreno, Ballmer and maybe Samueli partner up to create the west coast version of the YES Network?

I see Sinclair has an ownership postion in YES so they could retain some ownership of this spinoff for the Angels and Clippers.

How would it work?

[gotbeer]

3 minutes ago, TempeAngel said:

So, I'm not an expert on this topic but there seem to be some on here who have posted with great knowledge of RSN's and sports media.

The question:

Is there a pathway/outcome to this where Moreno, Ballmer and maybe Samueli partner up to create the west coast version of the YES Network?

I see Sinclair has an ownership postion in YES so they could retain some ownership of this spinoff for the Angels and Clippers.

How would it work?

JMO.  But no chance.  Yankees are a whole different monster in terms of viewership than all three of the So Cal teams combined.  But for So Cal, you just have to look at the struggles of Sportnet with the Dodgers and Lakers, LA's two premier teams, and how it didn't pursuade viewers from flocking to get the service.  The time of local sports, especially in So Cal, driving a subsciption base is long over.  

[TempeAngel]

45 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

JMO.  But no chance.  Yankees are a whole different monster in terms of viewership than all three of the So Cal teams combined.  But for So Cal, you just have to look at the struggles of Sportnet with the Dodgers and Lakers, LA's two premier teams, and how it didn't pursuade viewers from flocking to get the service.  The time of local sports, especially in So Cal, driving a subsciption base is long over.  

Yeah, that was my initial concern but the YES Network is pretty much NY only and no Knicks.

I have Spectrum and they do an amazing job with backstage Lakers etc. Their content is awesome.

The Angels could do a much better job and so could the Clippers. I don't know the business side but it feels like an opportunity from the marketing side.

[jsnpritchett]

2 hours ago, TempeAngel said:

So, I'm not an expert on this topic but there seem to be some on here who have posted with great knowledge of RSN's and sports media.

The question:

Is there a pathway/outcome to this where Moreno, Ballmer and maybe Samueli partner up to create the west coast version of the YES Network?

I see Sinclair has an ownership postion in YES so they could retain some ownership of this spinoff for the Angels and Clippers.

How would it work?

I'll say the same thing I've said elsewhere in this thread: in a world in which carriers are already balking at carrying BSW, why would they pay up for essentially a new version of the same thing, unless it was for a drastically lower fee?

[TempeAngel]

4 hours ago, jsnpritchett said:

I'll say the same thing I've said elsewhere in this thread: in a world in which carriers are already balking at carrying BSW, why would they pay up for essentially a new version of the same thing, unless it was for a drastically lower fee?

Great point.

I wouldn't have cable if it were not for live sports. I think you will continue to see more live sports streaming and it will be the eventual death of cable. 

So does the future mean you will be able to pick up regional coverage through Amazon?

[jsnpritchett]

44 minutes ago, TempeAngel said:

Great point.

I wouldn't have cable if it were not for live sports. I think you will continue to see more live sports streaming and it will be the eventual death of cable. 

So does the future mean you will be able to pick up regional coverage through Amazon?

I honestly don't know what the short- to mid-term solution for accessing the games on TV will be if Bally Sports and other RSNs go belly up.  I know MLB claims to be able to handle the broadcasts if that happens, but unless they do regional coverage on MLB Network, I don't see how they could distribute the games through existing channels (and I don't even know if MLBN has the capability of splitting up 10+ signals to various regions).

For the future of streaming, it'll eventually probably be something like a central hub through the MLB.tv app where you can buy a mega-package like NFL Sunday Ticket that gets you access to all games (including your home team), single-team yearly subscriptions, or even one-off single-game purchases. Something like that. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

12 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

I honestly don't know what the short- to mid-term solution for accessing the games on TV will be if Bally Sports and other RSNs go belly up.  I know MLB claims to be able to handle the broadcasts if that happens, but unless they do regional coverage on MLB Network, I don't see how they could distribute the games through existing channels (and I don't even know if MLBN has the capability of splitting up 10+ signals to various regions).

For the future of streaming, it'll eventually probably be something like a central hub through the MLB.tv app where you can buy a mega-package like NFL Sunday Ticket that gets you access to all games (including your home team), single-team yearly subscriptions, or even one-off single-game purchases. Something like that. 

What Manfred said is MLB would produce the games and sell them to the providers and ALSO sell them directly to viewers via the app. They would obviously not charge the providers as much as the RSNs were, but they also wouldn’t be selling them exclusivity. 
 

So I imagine the cable/satellite systems would just have some new channel called MLB Network Angels or something that would show the games. 
 

MLB and the teams would definitely lose money on this in the short term but I think they see it as the pathway toward a better delivery system. 

[jsnpritchett]

10 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

What Manfred said is MLB would produce the games and sell them to the providers and ALSO sell them directly to viewers via the app. They would obviously not charge the providers as much as the RSNs were, but they also wouldn’t be selling them exclusivity. 
 

So I imagine the cable/satellite systems would just have some new channel called MLB Network Angels or something that would show the games. 
 

MLB and the teams would definitely lose money on this in the short term but I think they see it as the pathway toward a better delivery system. 

I suppose that's theoretically possible, but logistically, that's an insane amount of elements to put together so quickly if things go south with the RSNs. 

[gotbeer]

1 hour ago, TempeAngel said:

Great point.

I wouldn't have cable if it were not for live sports. I think you will continue to see more live sports streaming and it will be the eventual death of cable. 

So does the future mean you will be able to pick up regional coverage through Amazon?

I've wondered if Amazons move to do Thursday night football, and Googles broadcast rights to NFL sunday ticket is a sign the streaming services are looking to get into live sports.  Not sure how they would make it work.  But that's one avenue that might be available if a Streaming service looks to add value to their service, in the ever increasing streaming wars.  

[jsnpritchett]

5 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

I've wondered if Amazons move to do Thursday night football, and Googles broadcast rights to NFL sunday ticket is a sign the streaming services are looking to get into live sports.  Not sure how they would make it work.  But that's one avenue that might be available if a Streaming service looks to add value to their service, in the ever increasing streaming wars.  

Keep in mind, though, that Sunday Ticket is just redistributing Fox- and CBS-produced broadcasts--so it's much easier from a logistical standpoint. And the Amazon games are only once a week, so again, not that complicated.

Producing and distributing 10+ games essentially every day for 6 months is a massive undertaking. 

 

[Jeff Fletcher]

42 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

I suppose that's theoretically possible, but logistically, that's an insane amount of elements to put together so quickly if things go south with the RSNs. 

Manfred didn’t sound like he really thought all that was going to happen soon. It sounds like he thinks the RSNs are going to keep paying for now, despite the bankruptcy.