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

[jsnpritchett]

Just now, TempeAngel said:

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 TV/Streaming audience?

Silly. 1950's MLB Silliness.

I literally don't even know what you're trying to say here.  My point was that a nice stadium has nothing to do with the ability to draw viewers at home, so I don't why you mentioned it as something that would seemingly help a Clippers/Angels network/streaming offering.

[jsnpritchett]

6 minutes ago, TempeAngel said:

 

Yes?  That's what I said, though you left out the "Ha" part, which was a signal that I thought the whole idea of bringing the quality of a stadium into a discussion about the value of a team's broadcast/streaming rights was pointless.

[angelsnationtalk]

Would love for the Angels to star their own network. 

Bally Sports has been an absolute disaster. Surprised they haven't blocked my account on twitter yet.

[TempeAngel]

22 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

Yes?  That's what I said, though you left out the "Ha" part, which was a signal that I thought the whole idea of bringing the quality of a stadium into a discussion about the value of a team's broadcast/streaming rights was pointless.

It relates to the development of a fan base.

The Clippers will take share from the Lakers with their new arena. The cool ticket in LA will become the Rams and the Clippers, both in the South Bay, not the Lakers and the Dodgers in LA. The Angels could do the same in the OC and tie it into a media deal.

When you take market share from your opponent it equates to $'s in overall revenue.

[jsnpritchett]

1 minute ago, TempeAngel said:

It relates to the development of a fan base.

The Clippers will take share from the Lakers with their new arena. The cool ticket in LA will become the Rams and the Clippers, both in the South Bay, not the Lakers and the Dodgers in LA. The Angels could do the same in the OC and tie it into a media deal.

When you take market share from your opponent it equates to $'s in overall revenue.

Keep on dreamin' if you think that's what will happen to the Lakers and Dodgers! 

[gotbeer]

Probably zero chance that Moreno starts a RSN.  Disney could not do it.  Fox got out of it.  Bally's can't make it work.  The climate today is really against RSN's since they rely on entire subscription bases to fund the few that watch them.  Interestingly, YES network is only 26% owned by the Yankees.  The next largest share is owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group 20% which owns Ballys Sports.  Of course the other thing is, this is the Yankees.  The Angels are not the Yankees.

From what I've read, MLB, NBA, and NHL are trying to make a move to either buy into Bally's Sports, or buy the rights from Bally's Sports to try and save their teams rights fees.  Really that's probably the only hopes that teams like the Angels have of saving most of what they are going to get in tv rights.

[Docwaukee]

A new stadium increases fan interest which increases tv revenue.  

[jsnpritchett]

Just now, Docwaukee said:

A new stadium increases fan interest which increases tv revenue.  

I do not think there is a direct correlation between a new stadium and increased TV revenue.

[AngelsLakersFan]

Arte already owes a significant chunk of BSW, and the reason for this impending bankruptcy is the collapse of the cable tv market. Unfortunately for the Angels, and most MLB teams really, is that there will not be a replacement for this revenue. This is the golden goose and it is dying.

Long term this probably pushes the Angels back into mid market status, because they aren't realizing the benefit of being in a large market beyond the television contract. Attendance is good but it pales in comparison to tv, and ultimately any streaming service the Angels join will require them to stand on their own, or to share the pot with the rest of MLB. The real money comes from the fact that every single cable subscriber with BSW is paying the Angels a couple bucks a month. Streamers wont pay those rates at these subscriber levels, and if the Angels push their own service they will likely lose 99% or more of their customer base. 

[AngelStew43]

3 hours 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.

This.  Exactly this. 

[jsnpritchett]

3 minutes ago, AngelStew43 said:

This.  Exactly this. 

Read the rest of this thread.  Again, anyone who believes the economics of an Angels/Clippers-centric network/streaming offering would even be in the same universe revenue-wise as the YES network is crazy.

[Erstad Grit]

3 hours ago, gotbeer said:

Probably zero chance that Moreno starts a RSN.  Disney could not do it.  Fox got out of it.  Bally's can't make it work.  The climate today is really against RSN's since they rely on entire subscription bases to fund the few that watch them.  Interestingly, YES network is only 26% owned by the Yankees.  The next largest share is owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group 20% which owns Ballys Sports.  Of course the other thing is, this is the Yankees.  The Angels are not the Yankees.

From what I've read, MLB, NBA, and NHL are trying to make a move to either buy into Bally's Sports, or buy the rights from Bally's Sports to try and save their teams rights fees.  Really that's probably the only hopes that teams like the Angels have of saving most of what they are going to get in tv rights.

Doesn't Disney own ESPN?

I would pay for an Angel's annual subscription for games for a few hundred if that was an option. Seems like people prefer al a carte streaming over large cable subscriptions.  

[jsnpritchett]

2 minutes ago, TempeAngel said:

Some guys just enjoy being assholes on here...

They know who they are...

...and some people just spout off a bunch of pie-in-the-sky nonsense that isn't in any way based in reality.  They know who they are...

Again: please read up on the economics involved in regional sports networks and why Bally Sports/Diamond is struggling.  Between their debt, carriage issues, and advertising challenges, it's a whole new world.  If distributors don't want to carry Bally Sports regional networks now, why would they want to carry an Angels/Clippers network, unless it was for a fraction of the cost they're paying to carry Bally Sports?  Please at least be logical in your thinking.

[jsnpritchett]

2 minutes ago, Erstad Grit said:

Doesn't Disney own ESPN? 

ESPN is not a regional sports network.  They're obviously a national (and even international) network.  There's a huge difference.

 

[UndertheHalo]

Wasn’t there something in the last week or 2 that mlb was looking at letting teams sell streaming services to their local markets? Or did I hallucinate that? 

[UndertheHalo]

In any case.  It’s pretty obvious that a network for the Angels in the traditional sense just isn’t a realistic thing to imagine will happen. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

4 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Wasn’t there something in the last week or 2 that mlb was looking at letting teams sell streaming services to their local markets? Or did I hallucinate that? 

It was something your duck hallucinated

[jsnpritchett]

3 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Wasn’t there something in the last week or 2 that mlb was looking at letting teams sell streaming services to their local markets? Or did I hallucinate that? 

There's been talk of this going back at least a couple years.  Apparently, there is still some uncertainty regarding who controls the streaming rights for which teams.  Bally Sports has the streaming rights for some teams and they're included in the Bally Sports+ direct-to-consumer offering.  Other teams, like the Angels, have less clear rights situations, for whatever reason. 

Various options (e.g., letting individual teams launch their own direct-to-consumer streaming options only in their home markets, MLB collectively aggregating streaming rights and selling you access only to your local team [essentially doing away with current blackout rules], etc.) have been discussed, but because the rights are so fractured and various deals have different expiration dates, it'll likely either be a while before it's all resolved or someone on the MLB/individual team side is gonna have to pony up a lot of money to take back their streaming rights.

[gotbeer]

42 minutes ago, Erstad Grit said:

Doesn't Disney own ESPN?

I would pay for an Angel's annual subscription for games for a few hundred if that was an option. Seems like people prefer al a carte streaming over large cable subscriptions.  

Yes.  Disney does own ESPN, and did when they were talking about starting a RSN.  They couldn't make it work.  And as Pritch said, ESPN is not regional but national.  

[gotbeer]

55 minutes ago, Erstad Grit said:

I would pay for an Angel's annual subscription for games for a few hundred if that was an option. 

And as for a subscription.  There is the Bally's app where you can get Bally's locally online for I think $20 a month.  I know deepdrive watches Ducks games from it, instead of paying for a cable plan.  It's the only way legally around the blackouts.  

*edit  Come to think of it.  MLB hasn't signed off on it yet.  NHL did though, so you can watch the Ducks on the online app.

Edited January 26, 2023 by gotbeer

[jsnpritchett]

8 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

And as for a subscription.  There is the Bally's app where you can get Bally's locally online for I think $20 a month.  I know deepdrive watches Ducks games from it, instead of paying for a cable plan.  It's the only way legally around the blackouts.  

*edit  Come to think of it.  MLB hasn't signed off on it yet.  NHL did though, so you can watch the Ducks on the online app.

That's what I was alluding to in my last email: Bally Sports only has the streaming rights to a handful of MLB teams right now. 

[HaloBronco]

Hey guys, here is a story that kinda ties into the conversation.

 MLB hired Billy Chambers, one of the country’s most experienced RSN executives, to figure out what to do with its regional media rights, as the market for RSNs continues to crumble. The former Fox Sports Net exec takes the newly created position of EVP/Local Media. Chambers starts Feb. 1 and will report to MLB Chief Revenue Officer Noah Garden. Chambers was CFO overseeing the 21 Fox Sports-branded RSNs. He stayed with Sinclair after the big RSN sale, taking on the additional title of COO. Chambers’s task at MLB is straightforward: the league will look to him to put it in the position to take more control over its local rights.

 Here is the link to the article (By Joe Lucia on 01/12/2023)

 https://awfulannouncing.com/mlb/mlb-hires-experienced-rsn-executive-billy-chambers-as-evp-of-local-media.html

[HaloBronco]

 

I would love to be able to watch the Halos on MLB.TV live without the stupid local blackout restrictions.

Yes, I would willingly pay extra for that as opposed to having cable and all the crappy channels I don't watch. 

[Ordos]

Question for a legal mind here:

If Arte were to have gone through with a sale showing X revenue from the Bally's contract, likely knowing this was coming (from his stake), could that have left him in exposure of misrepresentation?

hope that makes sense, too tired to think through it 

[jsnpritchett]

1 minute ago, Ordos said:

Question for a legal mind here:

If Arte were to have gone through with a sale showing X revenue from the Bally's contract, likely knowing this was coming (from his stake), could that have left him in exposure of misrepresentation?

hope that makes sense, too tired to think through it 

I imagine it would have been disclosed.  A potential bankruptcy has been written and talked about for months now, so it's not like this was a major secret.