jsnpritchett

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.

Sure thing! I won the "Best Sports Story" award in my county my senior year of high school, given out by that newspaper I linked to. Ha ha.

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.

Turns out he grew up in my neck of the woods. Here's a lengthy article about him from my hometown paper: https://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/sports/duluth-grad-alan-carter-fights-through-adversity-to-shine-with-lee-university-baseball-team/article_b2f6454e-a99e-11ec-a8c8-b36211f7b4aa.html

https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=carter000ala 25-year-old guy who was born in Singapore. Not sure what his story is, but looks like he didn't start college until he was 20 and then transferred once, while getting in 5 years of college ball. K'ed 13.6/9 over his college career.

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

...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.

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.

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

John's brother, Julio's cousin, and Wander's uncle.

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

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.

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.

Correct. 25%.

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.

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...

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.

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.

For 2023, you mean? I think it's pretty much Spectrum and DirecTV stream. EDIT:...and Fubo TV!

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.

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.

"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."

16,000+ posts on a message board about the Angels. That's an interesting way to look at putting "very little time" into something.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9902805/Trevor-Bauer-accuser-admits-previous-flings-two-members-rival-San-Diego-Padres.html

Just found out Arte is involved in another lawsuit--though this one has nothing to do with the Angels and he seems to at least have a reasonable case, based on what's in this article. https://therealdeal.com/2022/10/14/zeckendorfs-la-angels-owner-play-hardball-at-520-park-avenue/