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

[greginpsca]

15 hours 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.

Moreno bought into Fox Sports West. That entity was bought out by Sinclair. So, not sure he still owns any part of Ballys.

[jsnpritchett]

33 minutes ago, greginpsca said:

Moreno bought into Fox Sports West. That entity was bought out by Sinclair. So, not sure he still owns any part of Ballys.

I believe he still has a 25% stake in it. I could be wrong, but I don't think that stake was part of the Sinclair/Diamond takeover. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

11 hours ago, HaloBronco said:

 

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. 

MLB would love for you to be able to do that too, but they are stuck because their broadcast partners, who already pay them a ton of money for the rights to show games, would freak out. 
 

I imagine the only solution is that as these TV contracts expire and/or the networks go bankrupt, new deals will be negotiated for much less money with the caveat that they are no longer exclusive. Then MLB will replace that revenue by charging you directly for streaming. 

[jsnpritchett]

21 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

MLB would love for you to be able to do that too, but they are stuck because their broadcast partners, who already pay them a ton of money for the rights to show games, would freak out. 
 

I imagine the only solution is that as these TV contracts expire and/or the networks go bankrupt, new deals will be negotiated for much less money with the caveat that they are no longer exclusive. Then MLB will replace that revenue by charging you directly for streaming. 

Exactly.

EDIT:  ...well, maybe not "exactly."  Ha.  I think they will charge directly for streaming, but that revenue won't fully replace what will be lost from the RSN rights fees.

Edited January 26, 2023 by jsnpritchett

[Blarg]

16 hours ago, jsnpritchett said:

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. 

This is spot on. 

[jsnpritchett]

17 minutes ago, Blarg said:

This is spot on. 

Thanks!  Yeah, I deal with windowing conversations, streaming vs theatrical, etc. pretty much every day in my consulting work. It's much more challenging than it used to be even 5 years ago. 

[T.G.]

19 minutes ago, Blarg said:

This is spot on. 

This is like Twitter when one writer tweets that he is confirming what someone else tweeted.

[Blarg]

56 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

Thanks!  Yeah, I deal with windowing conversations, streaming vs theatrical, etc. pretty much every day in my consulting work. It's much more challenging than it used to be even 5 years ago. 

The EP's are freaking out because The Bachelor isn't getting the ratings it used to but it is still holding the #1 slot for it's demographic. Overall ratings and eyeballs on broadcast TV are way down and so the networks are trying to think how to bring them back. One plus is they have backed way off on what S&P wants for dress codes, women's bathing suits in particular. That means fewer paints or black boxes for something you see at every beach or lake in the US. 

[Hubs]

I remember Mason and Ireland talking about buying dodgers games (basically streaming them) and the exec from Spectrum sports was like, uh, the revenue will not be replaced by streaming.

He said if you got 100,000 fans to pay $20 a month that's 2M a month x 7 months say = $14M... but 8M households in SoCal paying $5 through cable is $40M a month x 12. = $480M.

 

 

[James]

2 minutes ago, Hubs said:

I remember Mason and Ireland talking about buying dodgers games (basically streaming them) and the exec from Spectrum sports was like, uh, the revenue will not be replaced by streaming.

He said if you got 100,000 fans to pay $20 a month that's 2M a month x 7 months say = $14M... but 8M households in SoCal paying $5 through cable is $40M a month x 12. = $480M.

 

 

So why would owners continue to give out huge contracts if this revenue stream is in doubt in such a way? How do they think they are going to make up for that loss? Or is it simply that they are making hand over fist at the end of the day even with the possible loss of this revenue? 

[Hubs]

1 minute ago, James said:

So why would owners continue to give out huge contracts if this revenue stream is in doubt in such a way? How do they think they are going to make up for that loss? Or is it simply that they are making hand over fist at the end of the day even with the possible loss of this revenue? 

Owners giving out huge contracts? You mean to players? Hahaha... Baseball is a billion dollar business. This has nothing to do with player salaries. Arte bought the Angels fro $183.5M in 2003, and they're probably worth $3.5B In year 20. They show minimal operating profits for taxes, but trust me valuations do not go this high if they aren't actually all making money. The increase in net worth is 19x on his investment. (probably 14/15 if they aren't quite worth what I show).

Bally's (Sinclair) overvalued the purchase from Fox/Disney and they got in trouble. The LA Market is not one of the markets thats struggling but think Milwaukee or Kansas City.. Bally Sports West and the Angels will be fine.

 

[TempeAngel]

I think live sports is the one thing propping up cable. It's the only reason I have Spectrum.

[gotbeer]

13 minutes ago, James said:

So why would owners continue to give out huge contracts if this revenue stream is in doubt in such a way? How do they think they are going to make up for that loss? Or is it simply that they are making hand over fist at the end of the day even with the possible loss of this revenue? 

Look at the have's vs the have nots in local TV contracts.  The haves are the one's that are giving out the most huge contracts.  

This is from 2020.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/lets-update-the-estimated-local-tv-revenue-for-mlb-teams/

Of the bottom, Padres have been spending recently.  Mets owner got drunk.  But for the most part, the bottom doesn't spend like the top revenue teams do.

[Jay]

I was looking at the streaming options from DirecTV. There are 4 packages I think and the lowest package is $75/month without any RSNs. The next highest package up includes 3 RSNs and it is $100/month. This is in my area of course.

The RSNs would include Mariners, Jazz, Golden Knights, and Avalanche games only.

So no.

[gotbeer]

9 minutes ago, Jay said:

I was looking at the streaming options from DirecTV. There are 4 packages I think and the lowest package is $75/month without any RSNs. The next highest package up includes 3 RSNs and it is $100/month. This is in my area of course.

The RSNs would include Mariners, Jazz, Golden Knights, and Avalanche games only.

So no.

For you, MLB.tv is the way to go if you want to watch Angels game.  You can watch all the games for $140 a year I think.  It's really the way to go if you are an out of market Angels fan.  

For in area Angels fans, blackouts suck donkey dick.  So the only option is an expensive plan, or a vpn and pirates.

Also to add.  If you have Tmobile, they give you a year of MLB.tv for the last few years as a benefit.  Usually just before the season starts.

Edited January 26, 2023 by gotbeer

[HaloBronco]

3 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

MLB would love for you to be able to do that too, but they are stuck because their broadcast partners, who already pay them a ton of money for the rights to show games, would freak out. 
 

I imagine the only solution is that as these TV contracts expire and/or the networks go bankrupt, new deals will be negotiated for much less money with the caveat that they are no longer exclusive. Then MLB will replace that revenue by charging you directly for streaming. 

Understood, thanks Jeff. 

[TempeAngel]

17 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

Look at the have's vs the have nots in local TV contracts.  The haves are the one's that are giving out the most huge contracts.  

This is from 2020.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/lets-update-the-estimated-local-tv-revenue-for-mlb-teams/

Of the bottom, Padres have been spending recently.  Mets owner got drunk.  But for the most part, the bottom doesn't spend like the top revenue teams do.

Revenue Sharing. The NFL has this figured out. MLB will probably never adjust.

It's why MLB is a regional sport and the NFL is a National/International powerhouse.

[Taylor]

18 hours ago, Docwaukee said:

A new stadium increases fan interest which increases tv revenue.  

Is there any data to back this up? I'm not even convinced new stadiums increase long-term fan interest. Maybe in the first season at the new stadium, but after that I I imagine attendance evens out based on how the team is performing.

[Taylor]

2 hours ago, jsnpritchett said:

Thanks!  Yeah, I deal with windowing conversations, streaming vs theatrical, etc. pretty much every day in my consulting work. It's much more challenging than it used to be even 5 years ago. 

A bona fide "in the industry" post that is relevant to the discussion at hand.

[James]

43 minutes ago, Hubs said:

Owners giving out huge contracts? You mean to players? Hahaha... Baseball is a billion dollar business. This has nothing to do with player salaries. Arte bought the Angels fro $183.5M in 2003, and they're probably worth $3.5B In year 20. They show minimal operating profits for taxes, but trust me valuations do not go this high if they aren't actually all making money. The increase in net worth is 19x on his investment. (probably 14/15 if they aren't quite worth what I show).

Bally's (Sinclair) overvalued the purchase from Fox/Disney and they got in trouble. The LA Market is not one of the markets thats struggling but think Milwaukee or Kansas City.. Bally Sports West and the Angels will be fine.

 

So losing revenue on your business has no bearing on contracts? Not sure I fully agree with that thought but you sure write you are fact. 

[eaterfan]

45 minutes ago, Hubs said:

Owners giving out huge contracts? You mean to players? Hahaha... Baseball is a billion dollar business. This has nothing to do with player salaries. Arte bought the Angels fro $183.5M in 2003, and they're probably worth $3.5B In year 20. They show minimal operating profits for taxes, but trust me valuations do not go this high if they aren't actually all making money. The increase in net worth is 19x on his investment. (probably 14/15 if they aren't quite worth what I show).

Bally's (Sinclair) overvalued the purchase from Fox/Disney and they got in trouble. The LA Market is not one of the markets thats struggling but think Milwaukee or Kansas City.. Bally Sports West and the Angels will be fine.

 

Also, teams threaten to leave and get hundreds of millions to build new stadiums from the tax payers. It's a great way to make some money. Or buy the land around the stadium for below market and develop it and make money that way. And national TV contracts even for baseball are exploding. The owners are not hurting.

[James]

55 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

Look at the have's vs the have nots in local TV contracts.  The haves are the one's that are giving out the most huge contracts.  

This is from 2020.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/lets-update-the-estimated-local-tv-revenue-for-mlb-teams/

Of the bottom, Padres have been spending recently.  Mets owner got drunk.  But for the most part, the bottom doesn't spend like the top revenue teams do.

I would like to believe anyone that comes on any team site understands this. While they have a plethora of revenue streams, it seems if this one does take the type of hit some see, the wallet may close quicker at times for many owners. Of course, that won't likely affect the superstars and their contracts but more of the middle of the road guys, if any at all. The players union will address as needed; we can count on that. 

[Blarg]

3 hours ago, Taylor said:

Is there any data to back this up? I'm not even convinced new stadiums increase long-term fan interest. Maybe in the first season at the new stadium, but after that I I imagine attendance evens out based on how the team is performing.

Marlins have the newest stadium in the NL. 

[Taylor]

23 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Marlins have the newest stadium in the NL. 

@Docwaukee @TempeAngelHow is their TV revenue?

[Blarg]

That's the opening day crowd. It's considerably less during the regular season games.