# Bally Sports Network



## Andrew Sullivan

Who is going to broadcast the new Bally Sports Network now that its replacing Fox Sports Network for Sinclair?


----------



## compnurd

Andrew Sullivan said:


> Who is going to broadcast the new Bally Sports Network now that its replacing Fox Sports Network for Sinclair?


Unless they sign new contracts nothing will change


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

How in the hell can Sinclair stay in business with Bally generating no income from COX Cable, DirecTV, Dish Network, YouTube TV, Sling, HULU, ETC. and why in the world would the Diamonbacks stay with Bally if nobody not wanting to Pay ATT $85 +Tax a month can watch their games?


----------



## compnurd

Andrew Sullivan said:


> How in the hell can Sinclair stay in business with Bally generating no income from COX Cable, DirecTV, Dish Network, YouTube TV, Sling, HULU, ETC. and why in the world would the Diamonbacks stay with Bally if nobody not wanting to Pay ATT $85 +Tax a month can watch their games?


Lol


----------



## James Long

AT&T|DIRECTV has a contract to carry the Sinclair former FSN channels regardless of the name. The name change doesn't change the distribution of the channels.

The teams will stay with the channels as long as Sinclair can pay their rights fees. It may be more difficult for Sinclair to make that rights payment after losing many different systems over the past couple of years, but they don't seem to be having problems yet.


----------



## cmasia

Compnurd, I laughed out loud when I read the OP's 2 posts.
Then I really LOL'ed when I saw your LOL!  
Cheers!

To the OP:
Absolutely nothing is changing in the agreements between MLB, NBA, and NHL teams with Fox Sports, now Bally Sports.
Sinclair bought the RSN's from FOX, then decided to sell the naming rights. Nothing more, nothing less.

In fact, one team, the Brewers, reupped with FOX AFTER the sale to Sinclair and BEFORE the rebranding.

Brewers and FOX Sports Wisconsin announce multi-year agreement

Sinclair's ability to stay in business is their problem, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

And except for Dish and the streamers you mentioned, you should be able to find D'Backs games.

How to Stream FOX Sports Arizona Live Without Cable (2021 Guide)

https://www.foxsports.com/arizona/story/fox-sports-arizona-channel-finder-110315

Google is your friend, Andrew.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

cmasia said:


> Compnurd, I laughed out loud when I read the OP's 2 posts.
> Then I really LOL'ed when I saw your LOL!
> Cheers!
> 
> To the OP:
> Absolutely nothing is changing in the agreements between MLB, NBA, and NHL teams with Fox Sports, now Bally Sports.
> Sinclair bought the RSN's from FOX, then decided to sell the naming rights. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> In fact, one team, the Brewers, reupped with FOX AFTER the sale to Sinclair and BEFORE the rebranding.
> 
> Brewers and FOX Sports Wisconsin announce multi-year agreement
> 
> Sinclair's ability to stay in business is their problem, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
> 
> And except for Dish and the streamers you mentioned, you should be able to find D'Backs games.
> 
> How to Stream FOX Sports Arizona Live Without Cable (2021 Guide)
> 
> https://www.foxsports.com/arizona/story/fox-sports-arizona-channel-finder-110315
> 
> Google is your friend, Andrew.


Google is and always is the first place I check for just about anything. How to stream FSNArizona gives you one choice, ATT. No other options.
I am aware how Sinclair works but consider that almost every streaming service I mentioned was carrying one of the FSN's but every single one has refused to renew their contracts. You said I should be able to find Dbacks games beyond ATT and the streamers I mentioned. Maybe you could elaborate because I can't find any and the ATT package that includes BALLY is $85 mo.


----------



## HGuardian

Andrew Sullivan said:


> Maybe you could elaborate because I can't find any and the ATT package that includes BALLY is $85 mo.


If the people going streaming exclusively were ok paying $85/month for in-market sports they'd have neve cancelled cable or satellite to begin with. There's such a disconnect on this forum because it's filled with people paying well over $100/month for streaming (which makes sense, because it's DIRECTV, which has always been a premium product), but in reality the only reason live tv streaming products exist and are as popular as they are now is because the PRICE of cable and satellite was too high for 90% of cord-cutters, not because they didn't like the picture quality of cable/sat or the usability of the apps is far superior.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

HGuardian said:


> If the people going streaming exclusively were ok paying $85/month for in-market sports they'd have neve cancelled cable or satellite to begin with. There's such a disconnect on this forum because it's filled with people paying well over $100/month for streaming (which makes sense, because it's DIRECTV, which has always been a premium product), but in reality the only reason live tv streaming products exist and are as popular as they are now is because the PRICE of cable and satellite was too high for 90% of cord-cutters, not because they didn't like the picture quality of cable/sat or the usability of the apps is far superior.


Everything you day is 100% accurate and most of these streaming services at one time carried the FSN local sports affiliates. It all came to a screeching halt when Sinclair came on the scene. My question is, how can these teams survive with limited attendence because of Covid along with losing their TV fan base?


----------



## evotz

Sinclair should have busted their ass and gotten an OTT streaming platform built before Opening Day.

As others have said there's still going to be Covid restrictions, so less fans in the stands. And there's a whole slew of fans that can't get their in-market teams because a lot of TV providers balked at carrying the stations (and I don't really blame them).

How hard can it be to develop a streaming app that sees what zip code your IP address is in and what "in-market" teams are in that zip code, then you get those teams games. ... I'm sure it's not a snap your fingers easy... but they've had a solid year to come up with something.


----------



## cmasia

Evotz, while yours is a great idea, the agreements RSN's have with cable and sat operators prevent them from selling directly to the consumer.

There is no way an RSN would get carriage agreements anywhere if consumers could bypass cable or sat to buy the channel directly.

Remember, RSN's "in-market" are on the lowest tier of most, if not all cable / sat packages, meaning every sub pays for the channel, whether they watch it or not.
That keeps the cost per sub way down.

If the cable / sat revenue went away, you'd be paying at least $15 to $25 per month for an RSN, as they'd likely lose 75% of their customers - the people who never watch sports, combined with sports fans who wouldn't pay that much.

In an earnings call, a Sinclair spokesperson said the loss of streaming agreements cut revenue by 10%.
That's significant, but does make it easier for Sinclair to hold the line on fees.
I wonder if the OP got a rebate when his streamer dropped the channel.

Another thing....It is interesting to remember Sinclair bought these channels from Disney - not FOX.

Disney Gets Gov't Approval After Agreeing to Sell Fox RSNs

So, I'm a bit surprised continued carriage on Hulu was not baked into the deal.


----------



## evotz

Make no mistake about it, these Sports/TV partnerships VASTLY overestimated their total viewership. All of these regional sports operators paid millions of dollars to sports teams thinking that everybody and their dead uncle would watch these games. That's not the case. Consumers have shown that if given the option, they'll drop these sports packages to reduce price. I know several people that are this way. That's why I don't have a problem with Hulu, Youtube, Dish, etc all dropping these regional sports packages. People don't want to be forced to pay $120/mo for content they're not going to watch.

That's why OTT makes the most sense. Sell direct to the customer that wants the content. Now... it's entirely possible that the OTT package would price itself out of the hands of most consumers - that remains to be seen because there isn't such a product available. Again, they overestimated their viewership, so it very well may be that an OTT package would cost consumers $200/mo just so these RSNs can break even with their contracts. But where ever they price it... is 20 cents on the dollar better than 0 cents?

The industry as a whole needs to use this as a learning experience. Number of subscribers does not equal viewership. Just because I'm subscribing to the Food Network, doesn't mean I ever watch the Food Network.

As far as an OTT offering, Sinclair did give some references to an OTT offering:

*
Sinclair Gives Update on Direct-To-Consumer Plans and Carriage Dispute with Hulu & YouTube TV - The Streamable*

and at

Sinclair CEO Speaks Out On Dish, Hulu, Betting - The TV Answer Man!

RSNs are going to have to wise up and understand that the vast majority of people don't care about sports. Does that mean that sports teams get less money from these agreements? Yes, it does. It also means that RSNs will have to stop requiring that these RSNs be in the base packages of TV packages and instead would need to be a (probably hefty) addon.

MLB wants to know what's killing viewership... read this thread.


----------



## HGuardian

evotz said:


> RSNs are going to have to wise up and understand that the vast majority of people don't care about sports. Does that mean that sports teams get less money from these agreements? Yes, it does. It also means that RSNs will have to stop requiring that these RSNs be in the base packages of TV packages and instead would need to be a (probably hefty) addon.
> 
> MLB wants to know what's killing viewership... read this thread.


100% spot on. 10 years ago did anyone think they'd be able to get ESPN anywhere in a package for less than $50 a month? Now it's in a sling package (with Turner, Viacom, Discovery channels) for $35. I'm sure ESPN is doing fine (in a sense they can still afford NFL, NHL, MLB, NBA, College Football/Basketball rights, couldn't care less about their actual profits). And now they are available to more people at a lower price point. RSN's need to learn from ESPN.


----------



## James Long

HGuardian said:


> 100% spot on. 10 years ago did anyone think they'd be able to get ESPN anywhere in a package for less than $50 a month?


Perhaps in the lowest level package with few other channels. The bigger surprise would be a base level package WITHOUT ESPN. They normally use their leverage to insist that if ESPN is available to any sub it is available in all packages. And often use their leverage to say if companies want to carry other ABC/Disney owned channels they must also carry ESPN. ESPN in a low cost package makes me look to see how few other channels are included for that price.

ESPN is trying to be in 80 million plus homes at $7+ per home per month. The RSN's don't reach that market. Outside of where an RSN has blackout protected carriage of their local sports teams RSNs can't demand or expect a full price subscription ($2-3 ?). ESPN has done a lot of cost cutting over the past few years as their viewership dropped from the 100 million level to the 80 million level. Do RSNs have that much room to cut costs?


----------



## HGuardian

James Long said:


> Do RSNs have that much room to cut costs?


They don't really have a choice, especially with the Sinclair networks only hitching themselves to expensive (and continued declining subscriber numbers) cable and AT&T. It also can't help their ad revenue numbers as well.


----------



## cmasia

Wow.... where to start.

First, any discussion trying to compare ESPN with RSN's is like comparing apples and razor blades. So, please don't conflate the 2. They cannot be compared.

Second, if you think RSN's are going away anytime soon, check the end date of these agreements in baseball.

Let's Update the Estimated Local TV Revenue for MLB Teams

Only a few expire before 2025, and a couple go into the '40's.

The Marlins, Rockies, Brewers, and Pirates have all signed new multi-year RSN agreements.

Third, 14 MLB clubs have ownership stakes in their RSN's. They will not do anything to dismantle their agreements with cable / sat companies.

Fourth, baseball is a very "local" sport compared to the NFL. And the ratings reflect how well MLB performs locally.
Here's one example. The Cardinals / FOX Sports Midwest are number 1 in their market when they play.

Prime-time TV ratings in St. Louis on nights the Cardinals played this season

So, stop saying no one is watching.

Here's one more - Atlanta

https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta...ta-braves-tv-ratings-reach-highest-level.html

Are all markets that good? No, but it's clear the RSN's see the value of a long term relationship with local teams.

And the NHL is even more "local" than baseball.

So, for people screaming about how much RSN's have overpaid, they continue to sign these deals.
Just ask the Pirates, Brewers, Rockies, Marlins, and even the NHL's Kraken.

https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/seattle-kraken-local-tv-rights-root-sports-att-mariners

Fifth, I've said this elsewhere and it's still the only way I can see a bridge between Cable/sat and OTT.
Allow people to buy MLB.tv or NHL.TV and pay an additional $50 (an arbitrary figure) to eliminate local blackouts.
100% of that "local" fee would be funneled directly to the affected RSN.
If I paid an extra $50 for MLB and an additional $50 for NHL, the RSN would get more money from me than if I had cable!


----------



## harsh

HGuardian said:


> They don't really have a choice, especially with the Sinclair networks only hitching themselves to expensive (and continued declining subscriber numbers) cable and AT&T.


I imagine that some operators are taking a wait and see approach to what the fully-transitioned Bally's offers and how hard they press various forms of gambling.

I'd guess that Sinclair needs that to happen soon as they've got a lot of irons in the fire and the various OTA endeavors (repacking, NEXTGEN TV deployment and station acquisition) weren't cheap.


----------



## James Long

Perhaps Bally is giving Sinclair enough money for branding (and the gambling tie ins) that Sinclair can adjust their prices to something more acceptable for other carriers. (At the risk of charging AT&T|DIRECTV and other carriers less money.)


----------



## TheRatPatrol

cmasia said:


> Allow people to buy MLB.tv or NHL.TV and pay an additional $50 (an arbitrary figure) to eliminate local blackouts.
> 100% of that "local" fee would be funneled directly to the affected RSN.
> If I paid an extra $50 for MLB and an additional $50 for NHL, the RSN would get more money from me than if I had cable!


$50-$100 extra a month or for the season?


----------



## HGuardian

cmasia said:


> Wow.... where to start.
> 
> First, any discussion trying to compare ESPN with RSN's is like comparing apples and razor blades. So, please don't conflate the 2. They cannot be compared.
> 
> Second, if you think RSN's are going away anytime soon, check the end date of these agreements in baseball.


Nobody is against RSN's (though their buddy-buddy partnerships with the teams have made broadcasts increasingly more like reading Pravda than actual analysis of the local team with every passing year), they just want to watch their games. The insistence by Sinclair that they can only view them only on expensive platforms encourages either piracy or disengagement. Many times the consumers have been far ahead of the corporation, particularly in television.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

Bottom line is that the local teams lose. Maybe not all of them lose money but consider the smaller market teams like Oakland, Phoenix, Cinncinatt, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Tampa, Kansas City etc. They count on fan participation which is little difficult if they are restricted to maybe 30% capacity in their ball parks. And what about the RSN channel advertisers? They have to be thrilled that their audience is restricted to one single provider and its ATT. Advertising dollars will surely shrink.


----------



## cmasia

Hi, TRP.
Per season...
RSN's charge MVPD's anywhere from $3 to $6 per month.
Getting $50 would mostly offset that, and they'd even be better off if OTT subs paid the same extra $50 for NHL and NBA games.

This probably won't happen, but as long as RSN's are locked into long term deals with MVPD's, I can't think of another option to to satisfy cord-cutters.

To HGuardian: You are right about almost everything you say, but being theoretical does nothing to advance discussion of the reality of the situation.

RSN's made their bed with MVPD's and apparently think destroying those relationships is too risky to pursue over the next few years.

Unless you have any suggestions on how to satisfy both customer bases ( cable/sat subs and OTT'ers) , the conversation here will continue to go round and round.

Here's another potential:
For everyone who has an RSN subscription through an MVPD, allow them 3 separate logins for an extra fee, on their "in-market" streaming apps.
It keeps the main sub tethered to the RSN, while allowing cord-cutters to enjoy the action.
How much would that be worth per month?


----------



## James Long

HGuardian said:


> Nobody is against RSN's (though their buddy-buddy partnerships with the teams have made broadcasts increasingly more like reading Pravda than actual analysis of the local team with every passing year), they just want to watch their games. The insistence by Sinclair that they can only view them only on expensive platforms encourages either piracy or disengagement. Many times the consumers have been far ahead of the corporation, particularly in television.


I'd say most people want team positive play by play. If they wanted to hear people badmouth their team they would listen to the opposing team coverage (if available). While sunshine and roses while the team is in a slump could get tiring. the broadcasters are trying to get people to watch the games. Going full bore into "we hate the team we announce for" would not improve ratings. After the game there is plenty of time to rake the local team over the coals.

The RSNs don't pay huge sums of money to teams for the rights to the games to give away viewership. Those tier based contracts with MVPDs and vMVPDs are the most lucrative way of selling their content. A couple of dollars from all of the MVPD's subscribers adds up to more income than selling coverage only to "real fans".

In other words, if you want the games without subscribing to "expensive platforms" be prepared to pay a lot more to be able to view those games.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

cmasia said:


> Here's another potential:
> For everyone who has an RSN subscription through an MVPD, allow them 3 separate logins for an extra fee, on their "in-market" streaming apps.
> It keeps the main sub tethered to the RSN, while allowing cord-cutters to enjoy the action.
> How much would that be worth per month?


Yes, this is what I was going to suggest. If I have a cable internet only subscription why couldn't I subscribe to my local RSN to be able to watch my local teams without having to get a full cable TV subscription?

We can stream TV shows, movies, local news etc. but not our local sports teams.

Yeah I know it's all about money, but something needs to change in the future for local sports.


----------



## James Long

TheRatPatrol said:


> We can stream TV shows, movies, local news etc. but not our local sports teams.


The business models are different. I'd like to see what the marketplace would look like if RSNs did go a la carte and sell their feeds direct to customers (without a full MVPD subscription). But I generally don't watch the RSNs so if they all become $20-$50 each every month and out of my price range it doesn't affect me.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

One big aspect we are ignoring here. Advertising, commercials. When Ford or Farmers Insurance or Budwiser or any of a dozen local companies spend millions of dollars on these commercials they would probably like potential customers to actually see them. If I am a company wanting to boost business in the Arizona market how much am I going to invest when 90% of my target audience has zero chance of seeing my commercial?


----------



## James Long

The pandemic did not help ... but Sinclair managed to have $2.474 billion in distribution revenue in 2020. Their advertising revenue was $196 million. Including other media revenue advertising revenue reflected about 9% of revenues in 2019 dropping to 7% in 2020. Less games in 2020 led to lower advertising revenue, losing DISH in mid 2019 led to an estimated $236 million loss in distribution revenue for Sinclair.

Sinclair did save money by not producing the games that they did not carry, and they have/will be receiving rebates from the professional sports leagues for games not played (or not made available to their RSNs). Rebates will be passed along to distributors for games not provided. Overall it was a high loss year for Sinclair ... but most of that loss is due to the pandemic. Not the subscriber loss. They have proven the value of an Regional SPORTS Network (RSN) without sports. Years with sports will be better.

With over 90% of their revenue coming from long term commitments with MVPDs I would not expect that business model to end soon. Advertisers are only a part of their revenues.


----------



## inkahauts

Saw an article today that pointed out if you subscribe to the most common streamers you’d pay $2 less than if you bought a cable package with all those channels and a few more. (ESPN Disney Netflix Hulu discovery etc but not HBO )

The catch right now is most people don’t subscribe to all the streamers at once, but it’s doing just what many of us thought it would. Going up in price fast and catching up cable pricing. 

The question to me is what happens when Sinclair and all the regions jump into the streaming waters as well. I’m guessing it won’t have much of an impact overall to subscribers on any service because the balance of cost may have already been reached that everyone is coming and going from all services at nearly a flat rate.


----------



## HGuardian

Anyone who isn't into sports at all is crazy to have cable or satellite. HBO Max ($15), Disney+ ($8), Netflix ($14, HD package), Discovery+($7 ad free), Hulu ($12 ad free), Paramount+($10 ad free), Peacock ($10 ad free), + locals for free with indoor antenna. $76 a month for pretty much everything you'd ever want to watch, whether it's HBO, Netflix, any of the new popular shows on TLC or Discovery or HGTV or Travel, tons of ad free content on Hulu, plus everything in the CBS and NBC world new and ad free, and don't forget Prime which a ton of people already have for the free shipping, it's a steal for premium on-demand content. Not to mention you can simply get that under $50 by easily dropping and adding these packages if you aren't using them. I'd cancel DIRECTV today if sports stopped existing.


----------



## b4pjoe

HGuardian said:


> Anyone who isn't into sports at all is crazy to have cable or satellite. HBO Max ($15), Disney+ ($8), Netflix ($14, HD package), Discovery+($7 ad free), Hulu ($12 ad free), Paramount+($10 ad free), Peacock ($10 ad free), *+ locals for free with indoor antenna*. $76 a month for pretty much everything you'd ever want to watch, whether it's HBO, Netflix, any of the new popular shows on TLC or Discovery or HGTV or Travel, tons of ad free content on Hulu, plus everything in the CBS and NBC world new and ad free, and don't forget Prime which a ton of people already have for the free shipping, it's a steal for premium on-demand content. Not to mention you can simply get that under $50 by easily dropping and adding these packages if you aren't using them. I'd cancel DIRECTV today if sports stopped existing.


First locals isn't an option for many. I can't get locals with either an indoor or outdoor antenna. Also not all NBC shows are on Peacock. For example you can't watch Good Girls there at all. Streaming rights belong to Netflix which doesn't air the current season as it is airing. And some shows (The Blacklist) that are on Peacock do not air the current episode until a week after it airs on cabel/sat network channel.


----------



## harsh

HGuardian said:


> Anyone who isn't into sports at all is crazy to have cable or satellite.


You may be marginalizing quite a number of viewers that favor content that isn't readily available in small (or even larger) streaming packages. Foreign language speakers in particular (other than perhaps Spanish) aren't well-served by US streaming services. Other than Fubo, I'm not convinced that sports that aren't US football, hoops or baseball get a lot of streaming coverage.

Streaming is cherry picking with their offerings and it isn't just avoiding sports.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

I think we are grossly under estimating the power of sports on TV. Most vocal opinions on sites like this revolve around those that are being forced to pay for sports channels (ESPN etc) that don't like to watch sports. There is a reason why ESPN has become so big. There is a reason why sports bars are so prevalent. There is a reason why the NFL is the most watched of any TV show. You dont have to like sports to recognize that it is the life blood of TV.


----------



## James Long

Not all sports are created the same. The better games tend to end up on the bigger networks. RSNs like Bally Sports end up carrying the games no one else wants to carry. Games that do not get picked up by broadcast and national networks. Sports so "popular" that they would not be televised if the local RSN didn't have plenty of space to fill.

There is a place for RSNs in the marketplace. But they are certainly NOT a required part of every MVPD.


----------



## HGuardian

If owners were looking long term fans it seems they would almost return to the hybrid free tv/RSN model. Put all the games on the RSN (except for national exclusive games) and then simulcast 25% of those for free on a CW affiliate as well as available for free on YouTube (in-market only, I know the leagues wouldn't allow local feeds for free nationally). I think a partial reason MLB interest in general has declined for decades is the lack of free in-market games.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

James Long said:


> Not all sports are created the same. The better games tend to end up on the bigger networks. RSNs like Bally Sports end up carrying the games no one else wants to carry. Games that do not get picked up by broadcast and national networks. Sports so "popular" that they would not be televised if the local RSN didn't have plenty of space to fill.
> 
> There is a place for RSNs in the marketplace. But they are certainly NOT a required part of every MVPD.


ESPN which like ABC is owned by Disney. ESPN just last week signed a exclusive contract to televise Monday Night Football which used to be on ABC. There is still Thursday Night Football and the MLB Nertork and NBA Network and NHL Network, which all black out home games in the home network. All of these blackouts are because of the RSN contracts. Now, between the blackouts and the lack of RSN availability, the majority of the home team fans are eliminated. If you consider the necessity of trying to grow a young fanbase and cultivate the existing fan base, this is a disaster. Regardless of the reasons, financial and otherwise, the bottom line is a dwindling local fan base.


----------



## James Long

HGuardian said:


> If owners were looking long term fans it seems they would almost return to the hybrid free tv/RSN model.


Perhaps you are missing the point that the teams are not looking for fans as much as they are looking for money. Their favorite fans are dead presidents. (Ok, they like Franklin and Hamilton too. Franklin ten times more than Hamilton.) Sports teams produce content that is sold for billions of dollars in multi-year contracts.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

James Long said:


> Perhaps you are missing the point that the teams are not looking for fans as much as they are looking for money. Their favorite fans are dead presidents. (Ok, they like Franklin and Hamilton too. Franklin ten times more than Hamilton.) Sports teams produce content that is sold for billions of dollars in multi-year contracts.


I don't think I am missing your point. It's a very valid point. I just don't think it's the most important point. Those dead fans are the ones that pay to get into your ball park, buy your extremely profitable concessions, especially beer, not to mention clothing etc.These fans provide your life blood because they buy the products that companies pay you millions of dollars to advertise during the broadcast of your product. This fan base is not or cannot become stagnant. It must be replenished by a constant youth market. A huge market that relies on TV broadcast. It's like the eco system of a coral reef.


----------



## HGuardian

Andrew Sullivan said:


> I don't think I am missing your point. It's a very valid point. I just don't think it's the most important point. Those dead fans are the ones that pay to get into your ball park, buy your extremely profitable concessions, especially beer, not to mention clothing etc.These fans provide your life blood because they buy the products that companies pay you millions of dollars to advertise during the broadcast of your product. This fan base is not or cannot become stagnant. It must be replenished by a constant youth market. A huge market that relies on TV broadcast. It's like the eco system of a coral reef.


Yup. If the NHL could've sacrificed 10% of the total profits of the last TV deal and instead had playoff games on ABC and ESPN2 instead of Golf Channel and CNBC it would've been better for the league long term. I think they've realized that now with their ESPN deal.


----------



## cmasia

Sorry, HGuardian.
Your revisionist history does not fly..... at all.

In '04, Comcast/NBC signed a deal with the NHL..... for ZERO dollars.
It was an agreement based on a split of advertising money.
After the lockout, ESPN quit and Comcast made an agreement for $70,000,000 per year.
ESPN was not interested.

And in 2011, a 10 year deal at $200,000,000 was forged with Comcast/NBC.
At the time, it was considered a massive win for the NHL.
ESPN was not interested.

And the deal ESPN just signed?
$400,000,000 per year for 57% of the total national package.

Try to use facts when you try to spin your really bad hindsight.


----------



## harsh

Andrew Sullivan said:


> These fans provide your life blood because they buy the products that companies pay you millions of dollars to advertise during the broadcast of your product.


As James noted in post #27, Sinclair lives off of carriage money. The ad money is relatively insignificant ($2.474 billion .vs. $196 million).


----------



## HGuardian

cmasia said:


> Sorry, HGuardian.
> Your revisionist history does not fly..... at all.
> 
> In '04, Comcast/NBC signed a deal with the NHL..... for ZERO dollars.
> It was an agreement based on a split of advertising money.
> After the lockout, ESPN quit and Comcast made an agreement for $70,000,000 per year.
> ESPN was not interested.
> 
> And in 2011, a 10 year deal at $200,000,000 was forged with Comcast/NBC.
> At the time, it was considered a massive win for the NHL.
> ESPN was not interested.
> 
> And the deal ESPN just signed?
> $400,000,000 per year for 57% of the total national package.
> 
> Try to use facts when you try to spin your really bad hindsight.


I guess the word "If" getting ignored meant nothing to warrant this long winded response.


----------



## James Long

It seems that the deal they made 10 years ago turned out fairly well for the NHL.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

All I know is that the Diamonbacks game televised this afternoon on FSNAZ was also on the MLB Network but blacked out here because of the local RSN contract with Sinclair. The Suns game today was not available to anyone not subscribing to ATT. The upcoming Diamondback season, the remaining Suns season, the remaining Coyotes season, will be available to only ATT subscribers for just $84.99 plus tax. No matter how you look at it, the advertisers cannot be happy at all. Local car dealers, located roofers, local window installers etc etc etc. These companies all have sales reps that call on these local teams.


----------



## James Long

Perhaps you should ask an advertiser.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

James Long said:


> Perhaps you should ask an advertiser.


No need. I've spoken to hundreds of them over the years.


----------



## James Long

They (collectively) seem to be throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at Sinclair ... with the biggest issue last year was less games to sponsor. Abbreviated seasons and games cancelled or shifted to national networks do not help. But their checkbooks say they are happy enough to pay for what they can get.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

Very true but unfortunately it's the small market teams that by mis season are drawing less than 15,000 to a weekday game. Teams like the Dodgers and giants and Yankees and red Sox and Cubs have no problem. The teams like the Padres, Orioles, Diamondbacks, Royals, Reds, Pirates, Marlins die on the vine. They still get the TV revenue from Sinclair but their fan base dwindles and that's a bad long term consequence.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> They (collectively) seem to be throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at Sinclair ...


The number you presented in post #27 was less than $200 million. The number doesn't really qualify as "hundreds of millions of dollars" since it is less than two and not yet into plural territory.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> The number you presented in post #27 was less than $200 million. The number doesn't really qualify as "hundreds of millions of dollars" since it is less than two and not yet into plural territory.


Ok ... now you are just arguing for the sake of argument. In 2020, a year with less games to sponsor, they were close enough to $200 million. In previous years they (collectively) easily topped hundreds of millions of dollars.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

You are all kind of missing the point even though I admit that it is a almost unprovable point. Losing your uncommitted and virgin youth fan base is very bad. Pissing off your current loyal fan (fanatic) base is very bad. Showing us that profits and money is more important than to you than we are. We don't like that.


----------



## 1948GG

Andrew Sullivan said:


> You are all kind of missing the point even though I admit that it is a almost unprovable point. Losing your uncommitted and virgin youth fan base is very bad. Pissing off your current loyal fan (fanatic) base is very bad. Showing us that profits and money is more important than to you than we are. We don't like that.


Uh, bingo. My experience over 30+ years, living literally coast to coast (with some foreign interludes) means that I like to follow several teams from many cities, and was an enthusiastic DirecTV subscriber (since 1994, customer number very low 5 digits, used to comment to folks I would be buried with my dish) with Sunday Ticket and ExInn.

But $300+/month and multiple retirements (with a return to where I grew up) later, and I'm down to Mlb, which luckily packages their content straight to streaming (for many years), but have a delay on the local team which is no problem as they haven't been in the playoffs but once 20 years ago. I do miss some pro football, but of course get all the local team. $300+. I take less than half that and get an almost bloated array of streaming subscriptions, including my internet fee. And Mlb has increased 10%/year for the past three years, not to mention the (to me) massive screwup in last years world series where one team got to play all the games in their 'home' stadium where they had played most if not all their 'regular' season games. Don't get me started. This year may be the last on that.

The NFL had the option to kick DirecTV a bit to the curb and sell game streaming direct to consumers next season but nope. Okay.

Guess I'm lucky that I lost interest in basketball in the 80's, never got hooked on hockey, so that's that. I'm in the same camp as Sullivan, I don't see where these leagues think their next generation of fans are going to come from.


----------



## HGuardian

Andrew Sullivan said:


> You are all kind of missing the point even though I admit that it is a almost unprovable point. Losing your uncommitted and virgin youth fan base is very bad. Pissing off your current loyal fan (fanatic) base is very bad. Showing us that profits and money is more important than to you than we are. We don't like that.


It's almost like the equivalent of saying lockouts and strikes are good for sports leagues because a decade later they just got a profitable TV deal. MLB continues to be a prime example of this problem.

"The average Major League Baseball fan is 53 years old; only 29 percent of MLB fans are between the ages of 18 and 34" per MarketWatch in 2019. This is not sustainable for obvious reasons, and MLB and baseball in general is not getting more popular for people under age 18.

Attendance continues to dwindle, playoff and world series ratings continue to shrink, and most Major League teams have 98% of their games airing on an RSN that's only available to people willing to spend $80 or more a month to obtain. Most owners don't want to make any short term sacrifice for the long term health of the league, which is fine I guess, but it's also why they make these deals that shut off a large portion of their current fanbase, ignore potential future young hardcore fans/profits, and this gets reflected every time the numbers I mentioned above continue to decline.

And before anyone mentions how owners are better at business than us dumb fans, just take a look at how many owners are simply the lucky DNA sample born to someone who accomplished and built something.


----------



## James Long

Andrew Sullivan said:


> You are all kind of missing the point even though I admit that it is a almost unprovable point. Losing your uncommitted and virgin youth fan base is very bad. Pissing off your current loyal fan (fanatic) base is very bad. Showing us that profits and money is more important than to you than we are. We don't like that.


Not sure how old you are, but welcome to the real world. Like it or not, money is THE motivator. I won't say "greed is good" ... but if you can show a way where the teams make more money than they do with the current distribution schemes and have the credentials to back up your claims perhaps it is time to move from making statements on the Internet to getting the teams to change their contracts.


----------



## HGuardian

James Long said:


> Not sure how old you are, but welcome to the real world. Like it or not, money is THE motivator. I won't say "greed is good" ... but if you can show a way where the teams make more money than they do with the current distribution schemes and have the credentials to back up your claims perhaps it is time to move from making statements on the Internet to getting the teams to change their contracts.


Is your point that Major League Baseball has made the correct and most profitable decisions in every single way the past 40 years? And despite all these 100% best business decisions being made MLB popularity continues to decline in every relevant measure (media coverage, attendance, ratings, general sports narrative/interest, increasing average age demo) due to no result of league decisions?

Anyone who thinks that Major League Baseball, just because it's profitable, is in the best place it's been and will only grow hasn't followed the basics of MLB business the past decade.

If some eccentric billionaire gifted the owners $50 billion to play 3 seasons of games with no fans allowed, no television/radio broadcasts, no social media, and no media coverage access at all, just for their own weird entertainment, the owners would get more money but that's not good for the league. That's an extreme version of the actual point some are making: limiting fan access and raising the price point of entry is chasing short term profits at the sacrifice of long term sustainability. The numbers continue to reflect that's what MLB has been doing for decades.


----------



## James Long

Absurd hypotheticals do nothing to further the discussion. You might as well propose that all viewers be given free access to every game regardless of platform and without a subscription fee of any kind. Throw in ad free to complete the absurdity?
I suppose teams could stop paying their players obscene amounts of money. Then they could charge the RSN and other distributors less and be on more systems (including low price streamers). Oops ... I slipped into the absurd again.

I'm not going to rubber stamp every decision made as good and I hope you are not claiming every decision was bad. It sounds like you have issues with the leagues that are greater than the scope of this thread.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

James Long said:


> Not sure how old you are, but welcome to the real world. Like it or not, money is THE motivator. I won't say "greed is good" ... but if you can show a way where the teams make more money than they do with the current distribution schemes and have the credentials to back up your claims perhaps it is time to move from making statements on the Internet to getting the teams to change their contracts.


Well James, I am 73 years old and quite familiar with the real world thank you. Regardless of what my member statue shows, I have been a member here for almost as long as you have. As far as showing credentials to back up my financial claims, as a every day fanatic, my emotions rule my thought process and I try to inject some common sense (my credentials) based on watching many teams ( Brooklyn Dodgers, New York Giants, Milwaukee Braves, St. Louis Cardinals football team, Chiccago Cardinals football team, Baltimore Colts, Cincinnati Royals, Montreal Expos, Houston Oilers, Oakland RIders, LA Raiders, Fort Wayne Pistons, all abandon their fan base for the almighty dollar. I vividly remember all of these teams and the effect their departure left in the community. I understand their right to do whatever they want with their property. Maybe you don't like me coming here to complain about something I can't change. As you suggest, perhaps it is time for me to move on from making statements on the internet and do something to get teams to change their contracts. Unfortunately I do not have the means to do that nor the connections. But I can perhaps do a little something to make the average fan aware of what's going on and why they won't be seeing any televised games. You see, all I can really do is try and start the squeeky wheel. With a Valley area population of over 4.5 million and with Phoenix itself being the 5th largest city in the country and being home to 4 professional sports team, maybe enough squeeks will make a difference. Nothing ventured nothing gained.


----------



## b4pjoe

The game on the field probably has more effect on declining popularity than TV contracts. The game has become boring due to every pitcher not on the Chicago Cubs throwing 100+ mph and practically every AB resulting in either a K or a home run. Rarely is there a stolen base or a hit and run anymore and don't get me started on the defensive shifts.


----------



## HGuardian

James Long said:


> I'm not going to rubber stamp every decision made as good and I hope you are not claiming every decision was bad. It sounds like you have issues with the leagues that are greater than the scope of this thread.


Personally, I couldn't care less if MLB continues to dwindle to eventual relevancy less than MLS since I hold no stock in the league. Is MLS in a worse spot financially and long term because they made the decision to put all their out of market games in the basic ESPN+ universe instead demanding $99/year as the only way to watch those games? If the MLB sold the MLB.TV rights to ESPN ($$$ to MLB), something I'm sure ESPN would be interested in (more subscribers, more money), and included all those games in the standard ESPN+ package, the games would reach significantly more eyeballs (long term more fans, more money for MLB), I'm sure initially at the sacrifice of short term profits.

If ticket prices continue to drop and it's easier to get tickets that's great for me. It's great for hardcore fans MLB cut the price of Extra Innings this year, yet if they raised it to $300 there would be defenders of Major League Baseball spouting off about how great it is for baseball and they are just following money (even if in reality their profits on the package declined 90%, numbers we never actually see). Why people who already paying these leagues hundreds of dollars a year rush to defend every decision they make at every turn I'll never fully understand.

Defending Sears, K-Mart, Toys R Us, Etc. in their initial downfalls as being profitable and knowing better than us idiots when it was clear they had major internal business problems, is the same mindset as defending the business of Major League Baseball.


----------



## HGuardian

b4pjoe said:


> The game on the field probably has more effect on declining popularity than TV contracts. The game has become boring due to every pitcher not on the Chicago Cubs throwing 100+ mph and practically every AB resulting in either a K or a home run. Rarely is there a stolen base or a hit and run anymore and don't get me started on the defensive shifts.


Maybe we can get some of MLB PR people defending how great the steroid era was for baseball long term because it increased TV ratings and contracts?


----------



## James Long

Andrew Sullivan said:


> Well James, I am 73 years old and quite familiar with the real world thank you.


Then, unfortunately, you have seen the decline of many things over the years and probably understand nothing lasts forever.
BTW: The best way to get the younger generation involved is via sentiment. Give your kids and grandkids a good memory of going to a sporting event with you. That is more likely to get them interested than trying to get the sport to offer cheaper access.



Andrew Sullivan said:


> As far as showing credentials to back up my financial claims, as a every day fanatic, my emotions rule my thought process ...


How is that working for you? It is your windmill, you can tilt all you want but I would not expect real change unless there is real financial benefit in making the change.


----------



## James Long

HGuardian said:


> Defending Sears, K-Mart, Toys R Us, Etc. in their initial downfalls as being profitable and knowing better than us idiots when it was clear they had major internal business problems, is the same mindset as defending the business of Major League Baseball.


My goal is not to defend either side ... just to state the way it is - like it or not.

Thank you for listing more problems beyond the scope of this thread. I have watched other companies fail that people would have said would last forever. Some following the same patterns as the ones you list.

As for the sports leagues it may be difficult to undo the choices made during the boom years when there was less competition for viewers. Money is involved. It is hard to take it out of the equation.


----------



## HGuardian

Andrew Sullivan said:


> Well James, I am 73 years old and quite familiar with the real world thank you.


In 10 years MLB could contract 2 teams, cut payrolls 50%, World Series ratings could decline an additional 40%, attendance could drop 25%, and an RSN deal with MGMFanduel4K for $500 million could be made and I'd read on here that MLB is actually doing fine, and this is a great deal for the league.


----------



## HGuardian

James Long said:


> As for the sports leagues it may be difficult to undo the choices made during the boom years when there was less competition for viewers. Money is involved. It is hard to take it out of the equation.


I think that's at the crux of what several people have posted, and no one is even remotely implying money isn't a factor. It's the continued ignorance of MLB to grow the young fanbase because they are chasing larger short term profits (not like they'd be losing money to invest something to grow the game and expand it's reach). I feel like most people don't talk to any sports fans under 40. The major league baseball fan is a dying breed, literally. Just look at the demographics. Bally/Fox not being available to a ton of people who literally want to pay for it is a part of this issue.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

Keep in mind that even though I highlighted MLB don't forget NBA and NHL. NFL is a catagory unto itself. Between the NBA, NHL, MLB you have almost 100 teams competing for your sports dollar. That dollar can only be stretched so far but at least games via TV broadcast allows for a different direction to stretch that dollar. I just read that TV sales over the last few years have migrated towards bigger and higher quality screens. One big reason (certainly not the only) for that is supposedly because of sports. If that's the case then when you drop $1500-3000 on that 65"-85"TV you better feed it.


----------



## HGuardian

Andrew Sullivan said:


> Keep in mind that even though I highlighted MLB don't forget NBA and NHL. NFL is a catagory unto itself. Between the NBA, NHL, MLB you have almost 100 teams competing for your sports dollar. That dollar can only be stretched so far but at least games via TV broadcast allows for a different direction to stretch that dollar. I just read that TV sales over the last few years have migrated towards bigger and higher quality screens. One big reason (certainly not the only) for that is supposedly because of sports. If that's the case then when you drop $1500-3000 on that 65"-85"TV you better feed it.


Soccer is growing, so that's another live sport. I believe the MLS has made some very intelligent decisions the past few years getting their game to more and more people. Not to mention all the Premier League, Serie A, etc broadcasts that are now available in the US and continue to grow. Not to be "that guy" but e-"sports" and Twitch is huge too.

Streaming is booming, and the home experience to watching sports continues to only get better. Any league not actively working to get their games on more screens and additional platforms is shooting itself in the foot.

As much as many of us enjoy the DIRECTV platform, or even cable, those ways to watch sports reach less and less people every day. Leagues should not be hitching themselves to them exclusively.


----------



## James Long

HGuardian said:


> As much as many of us enjoy the DIRECTV platform, or even cable, those ways to watch sports reach less and less people every day. Leagues should not be hitching themselves to them exclusively.


With one notable exception (NFL ST) no league has an exclusive with DIRECTV. Even that exception is extremely limited. I'm not sure how or if the NFL can replace that guaranteed $1.5 billion per year in today's marketplace ... but that is a subject of another thread.

RSNs who buy games who are free to make deals with any or all MVPDs. Or not. RSNs are not forced to cut a deal with every MVPD or vMVPD. But they are not limited to AT&T|DIRECTV. The lack of RSN distribution deals for Sinclair is not the league's doing.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

Nobody said it was absolutly Sinclairs fault. The question we poor peons have is why that not one single entity other than ATT could come to an arrangement with Sinclar. .logic would hint that perhaps the asking price was too high. Obviously not according to Sinclair. One observation over the past two or three years revolve around on screen messages on DISH Network, DirecTV, and COX, to name a few, stating that certain Sinclair owned stations will be blacked out in certain areas because of contract problems. On a couple of those occasions said channels did go black for a period of time.


----------



## James Long

Andrew Sullivan said:


> logic would hint that perhaps the asking price was too high. Obviously not according to Sinclair.


That is the summary of every contract dispute in one line. 



Andrew Sullivan said:


> One observation over the past two or three years revolve around on screen messages on DISH Network, DirecTV, and COX, to name a few, stating that certain Sinclair owned stations will be blacked out in certain areas because of contract problems. On a couple of those occasions said channels did go black for a period of time.


No contract, no carry. Carrying a channel without a valid contract is a very bad idea. Short term extensions agreed to by both parties help keep channels on the air ... nasty on air messages and social media blitzes help keep channels off the air. If you walked into a restaurant and the guy at the door said "you're fat, your wife is ugly and I'm going to charge you $40 for a $10 steak" would you eat there? That is the deal being offered by the channels no longer carried.

When one provider refused to agree to a deal one might blame the provider. But now there are several who have decided that Sinclair is asking too much for their RSNs the pattern is clearer. I don't believe AT&T|DIRECTV would have the Sinclair RSNs if it wasn't for needing the broadcast affiliates Sinclair also owns. It is a bad situation. It is also "normal" for the industry.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

Strange restaurant analogy but OK. I know the name is AT&/DirecTV but the Sinclairs out here are not on DirecTV. Normal is a term that we should not accept in some cases. A new term has been coined in the last year, "the new normal". Maybe that new normal can be spread. Like the phrase from an old movie "I'm tired and I won't take it anymore". Wishful thinking. A lot of normals have changed lately.


----------



## James Long

Fox Sports Arizona will continue to air on DIRECTV after the name change to Bally Sports Arizona. Same channel, same cost.
This was stated in post #5 of this thread and is posted on the FOX Sports Arizona website.

https://www.foxsports.com/arizona/story/bally-sports-arizona-faq-031721

And if you still don't believe it, wait a couple of days.

(Here is the almost compete list of FOX Sports Arizona soon to be Bally Sports Arizona carriage.)


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

If you Google "where can I watch Bally Sports in Arizona" it says ATT with a package that is $84.99. DirecTV was not mentioned plus you must sign a two year contract with Directv.

It looks like as of a few days ago Bally will be available on DirecTV and Cox Cable. I am in Sun City West


----------



## James Long

The list linked is as of November 19 2020 ... but who is counting.

I have heard people say "Google is your friend". Perhaps not your friend.


----------



## inkahauts

James Long said:


> That is the summary of every contract dispute in one line.
> 
> No contract, no carry. Carrying a channel without a valid contract is a very bad idea. Short term extensions agreed to by both parties help keep channels on the air ... nasty on air messages and social media blitzes help keep channels off the air. If you walked into a restaurant and the guy at the door said "you're fat, your wife is ugly and I'm going to charge you $40 for a $10 steak" would you eat there? That is the deal being offered by the channels no longer carried.
> 
> When one provider refused to agree to a deal one might blame the provider. But now there are several who have decided that Sinclair is asking too much for their RSNs the pattern is clearer. I don't believe AT&T|DIRECTV would have the Sinclair RSNs if it wasn't for needing the broadcast affiliates Sinclair also owns. It is a bad situation. It is also "normal" for the industry.


Did DIRECTV reup with the RSN after Sinclair bought them? I didn't think the contracts had been up for renewal at DIRECTV since Sinclair got them.


----------



## inkahauts

Andrew Sullivan said:


> If you Google "where can I watch Bally Sports in Arizona" it says ATT with a package that is $84.99. DirecTV was not mentioned plus you must sign a two year contract with Directv.
> 
> It looks like as of a few days ago Bally will be available on DirecTV and Cox Cable. I am in Sun City West


If you get FOX RSN today you'll get the Bally's RSN tomorrow. They are the exact same channels just rebranded. Same people same crews same everything, except the name of the station. They just hadn't necessarily update all web sites to reflect the new name yet. So google may be behind in getting caught up in that.


----------



## James Long

inkahauts said:


> Did DIRECTV reup with the RSN after Sinclair bought them? I didn't think the contracts had been up for renewal at DIRECTV since Sinclair got them.


Renewal announced October 17, 2019. The Sinclair deal closed in August 2019.


----------



## techguy88

James Long said:


> Renewal announced October 17, 2019. The Sinclair deal closed in August 2019.


It's also the same contract that covers AT&T/DirecTV's rights for Marquee Sports Network


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

Well, the squeaky wheel (me I guess) certainly got noticed here in the Phoenix area. I forwarded several articles (Milwaukee Journal) as well as personal emails from me regarding this conversation. A huge article in this mornings Arizona Republic referencing those articles and my emails, ( they included several conversations with Sinclair people) and went out of their way to not only mention who is carrying BALLY SPORTS, but also the cost of their required packages but also mentioning who is no longer streaming BALLY SPORTS. Not just in this market but all over the country.


----------



## harsh

Andrew Sullivan said:


> A huge article in this mornings Arizona Republic referencing those articles and my emails, ( they included several conversations with Sinclair people) and went out of their way to not only mention who is carrying BALLY SPORTS, but also the cost of their required packages but also mentioning who is no longer streaming BALLY SPORTS.


Sinclair Broadcast Group regional sports network feud hurts fans


----------



## harsh

It is interesting how much the ballyhoo here sounds like the Pac-12 Networks laments.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

harsh said:


> It is interesting how much the ballyhoo here sounds like the Pac-12 Networks laments.


You are so so correct about the PAC-12 debacle. A perfect example of the customer getting the shaft. I've been complaining about that fiasco for years. The PAC-12 Network is available on Sling though. But no BALLY.


----------



## inkahauts

Andrew Sullivan said:


> Well, the squeaky wheel (me I guess) certainly got noticed here in the Phoenix area. I forwarded several articles (Milwaukee Journal) as well as personal emails from me regarding this conversation. A huge article in this mornings Arizona Republic referencing those articles and my emails, ( they included several conversations with Sinclair people) and went out of their way to not only mention who is carrying BALLY SPORTS, but also the cost of their required packages but also mentioning who is no longer streaming BALLY SPORTS. Not just in this market but all over the country.


Carriage has nothing to do with the name change.

Not one person who could get the stations yesterday can't still get them today.

Streaming right now is where people are going to get out from watching sports because they believe the only reason their cable bills where high is sports. They are wrong and will be finding that out slowly but surely as Hollywood is adding more separate streamers. Like discovery plus. Sports will be the last to offer that kind of package. And by the time they do it won't be way more expensive than a lot of these smaller packages we have now&#8230;.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

Sure they can, if they want to pay $90 a month. The Suns are on right now. Of course they will only let 3,000 people in.


----------



## inkahauts

Andrew Sullivan said:


> Sure they can, if they want to pay $90 a month. The Suns are on right now. Of course they will only let 3,000 people in.


Maybe in your area but you can get them for less than that here in Los Angeles. And we have more RSNs than anyone I think.

You just have to have the right package from the right provider (spectrum offered good prices if you bundle with internet here) or get a good deal from DIRECTV.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

inkahauts said:


> Maybe in your area but you can get them for less than that here in Los Angeles. And we have more RSNs than anyone I think.
> 
> You just have to have the right package from the right provider (spectrum offered good prices if you bundle with internet here) or get a good deal from DIRECTV.


The package from DirecTV that includes Bally is $90mo + tax plus DVR lease of $10-15 mo plus you need to sign a two year contract. COX Cable here is $84.99 mo + tax. You can't get it on Dosh Network, or Sling, or YouTube, or HULU, or Fubo. Where are you getting it in LA of not from Comcast, DirecTV, or ATT?


----------



## B. Shoe

Initial thoughts over watching the newly branded channel, while getting ready for the Cardinals' season opener:

Holy Skittles, Batman. There is a LOT of red in this graphics package/studio set decor. If you're one of those "turn up the brightness, saturation and contrast to 10" guys, you're likely recalibrating your set just a little bit tonight.


----------



## B. Shoe

Some added info, from a (former) FOX Sports Midwest region viewer, now that the Bally-branded streaming app is now in play.

Still receiving St. Louis Cardinals, Indiana Pacers and Memphis Grizzlies games, as normal. The streaming app has offered Kansas City Royals games in the default live program list each of the past two nights, but I'm unable to access them. No loss/gain on my end, just an observation if anyone else is receiving feeds that they didn't before.


----------



## NashGuy

New story out in today's NY Post claims that Sinclair is talking about a $23/mo price tag for the direct-to-consumer standalone streaming version of their Bally Sports RSNs expected to launch in early 2022.

Sinclair raising $250M for new sports streaming service: sources

I had predicted a price tag in the $15-20 range, so this sounds a little high to me. Not sure it'll get a ton of takers. Still though, it'll be another option for consumers.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> New story out in today's NY Post claims that Sinclair is talking about a $23/mo price tag for the direct-to-consumer standalone streaming version of their Bally Sports RSNs expected to launch in early 2022.
> 
> Sinclair raising $250M for new sports streaming service: sources
> 
> I had predicted a price tag in the $15-20 range, so this sounds a little high to me. Not sure it'll get a ton of takers. Still though, it'll be another option for consumers.


It's about what I expected and shows that they are overvalued by the provider and also shows why so many live streamers dropped them.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> It's about what I expected and shows that they are overvalued by the provider and also shows why so many live streamers dropped them.


We have a pretty good idea of how much MVPDs get charged to carry these RSNs because many of them break it out as a separate fee on customers' bills. It's typically in the range of $8-10. So they're going to charge standalone customers about 2.5 times as much. Although everyone knew the standalone cost would have to be higher.


----------



## b4pjoe

So someone pays 23 per month for all of the Bally Sports Channels or $23 per month just for the Bally Sports channels in your geographic area? Blackouts of games?


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> We have a pretty good idea of how much MVPDs get charged to carry these RSNs because many of them break it out as a separate fee on customers' bills. It's typically in the range of $8-10. So they're going to charge standalone customers about 2.5 times as much. Although everyone knew the standalone cost would have to be higher.


What gets billed is not specifically what the RSNs get paid. That $8-10 plus the price of a programming package usually delivers just the local RSNs. The sports pack is an additional cost on the MVPDs that offer one.


----------



## evotz

Some other questions I have, which is just probably too soon to have answers for

1) Will I get all of my "in-market" Sinclair RSNs? For baseball (all I'm really interested in) I live in Cardinals and Reds territory. Will I be able to stream both of those teams' games with the $23/mo fee?

2) I wonder if a cheaper price point could be had if you pay for a year? I suspect that there are a lot of sports fans like me - they only follow baseball or basketball and thus have no need for the RSNs during the offseason. So maybe it's worth it to offer a yearly package for $200/year ($16.67/mo) as a way to get more out of customers. Of course... the other thought is that this $23/mo is actually a yearly discount (you actually pay $276/year - which equals $23/mo) so to actually pay month to month might be $30/mo.

If #1 is true and if the price is reasonable ($23/mo per month for 6 months is borderline reasonable), then I might be willing to go for it. Currently I don't get the Cardinals and Reds games. I went with SlingTV, paying $31/mo. So adding $23/mo to that, still puts me a far cry from the $120/mo I was spending on DirecTV (which I didn't even get the Cardinals games at that price point, I had to buy the $13/mo sports pack for that). So while it is expensive, if it fits your TV viewing preferences then it can still be cheaper.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> What gets billed is not specifically what the RSNs get paid. That $8-10 plus the price of a programming package usually delivers just the local RSNs. The sports pack is an additional cost on the MVPDs that offer one.


How do you know what the RSNs are getting paid by MVPDs? I've never seen anything that indicates that it's an amount different from the itemized "regional sports fee". That's what MVPDs are telling their customers is the carriage cost of that channel(s).

As for "sports pack" content from out-of-market RSNs, I don't know of any MVPD who does that other than DTV (and if I understand correctly, it's only the talk/news content from those channels, not any of the actual live sports). I've seen no indication that Bally intends to include that out-of-market content in their DTC streaming service either, although perhaps they will to help justify the cost.


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> So someone pays 23 per month for all of the Bally Sports Channels or $23 per month just for the Bally Sports channels in your geographic area? Blackouts of games?


Pretty sure the service will only include whatever live sports they determine is "in-market" for your location. Sinclair doesn't have the rights to air/stream out-of-market sports. Those rights are reserved by the leagues themselves and sold via packages like MLB.tv and NHL.tv. (Although NHL.tv will soon cease to exist, with out-of-market games streaming through ESPN+ starting next season.)


----------



## NashGuy

evotz said:


> Some other questions I have, which is just probably too soon to have answers for
> 
> 1) Will I get all of my "in-market" Sinclair RSNs? For baseball (all I'm really interested in) I live in Cardinals and Reds territory. Will I be able to stream both of those teams' games with the $23/mo fee?
> 
> 2) I wonder if a cheaper price point could be had if you pay for a year? I suspect that there are a lot of sports fans like me - they only follow baseball or basketball and thus have no need for the RSNs during the offseason. So maybe it's worth it to offer a yearly package for $200/year ($16.67/mo) as a way to get more out of customers. Of course... the other thought is that this $23/mo is actually a yearly discount (you actually pay $276/year - which equals $23/mo) so to actually pay month to month might be $30/mo.
> 
> If #1 is true and if the price is reasonable ($23/mo per month for 6 months is borderline reasonable), then I might be willing to go for it. Currently I don't get the Cardinals and Reds games. I went with SlingTV, paying $31/mo. So adding $23/mo to that, still puts me a far cry from the $120/mo I was spending on DirecTV (which I didn't even get the Cardinals games at that price point, I had to buy the $13/mo sports pack for that). So while it is expensive, if it fits your TV viewing preferences then it can still be cheaper.


Good questions that no one knows the answers to. Way too early for those kinds of specifics.

As to your first Q, though, does MLB.tv disallow you from seeing both the Cards and the Reds? If so, then maybe you could get both from Bally. Next thing I'd look at is whether the local cable company in your area (which is where? somewhere in KY?) carries both channels. Or which channels your zip code is zoned for from DTV and AT&T TV. Sounds like you live in one of those in-between areas, so who knows what Bally might give you via their DTC app.


----------



## b4pjoe

That is waaaaaaaaay too expensive just to get the hated St. Louis Cardinals games which I could care less about. 

For $23 per month I would expect something like the DirecTV Sports Pack.


----------



## evotz

Yea, figured it was too soon to have answers to those questions, but just wanted to point out that I thought they were good questions.

No cable line run across my yard. So it's either streaming or one of the satellites.

I had DirecTV for a while, but got tired of paying the $120/mo for what little I was watching. DirecTV only gave me the Reds games, unless I paid the $13/mo Sports Pack then I'd get the Cardinals (live in extreme Western Kentucky).

Luckily, I'm a Cubs fan. So an MLB.tv subscription was to be had either way - just sucks that I can't get the Cubs games when they play the Cardinals or Reds (well... within their TOS, *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*).

Even when Sinclair was on YouTubeTV or Hulu Live TV (or Fubo? Did they come to an agreement with Sinclair?) it wasn't really clear if I'd get both the Cardinals and Reds or just one of the teams. That's the sucky part of MLB's blackout rules.

I decided to drop DirecTV because I wasn't watching anything on it anyway - maybe some games on ESPN, but that was about it. I get ESPN with my SlingTV package. Otherwise I'm watching baseball or something on Hulu (not Live TV Hulu). So I was going to buy mlb.tv anyway - so to consider that is a wash. But if I can pay $23/mo to get the few games that the Cubs play the Reds or Cardinals, that's not completely unreasonable.

But MLB considers me in Reds and Cardinals territory so I can't stream those games through mlb.tv. And it's just not worth it for me to pay the $133/mo it'd take to get the Reds and Cardinals games with DirecTV - especially since I'm not really their fans, I just want to watch the games when they play the Cubs. If the Bally app only gives me one team for $23/mo then that's probably going to be a hard sell for me also.

(A lot of this could be rectified if MLB would remove the claim that the Reds have on this part of Kentucky, because there are no Reds fans down here. Lots of Cardinals fans though. This should be Cardinals only market, with Reds games then available on mlb.tv ... but MLB didn't ask for my opinion)


----------



## evotz

b4pjoe said:


> That is waaaaaaaaay too expensive just to get the hated St. Louis Cardinals games which I could care less about.
> 
> For $23 per month I would expect something like the DirecTV Sports Pack.


What is MLB.tv a year? I forgot what I paid? $125? Essentially it's for 6 months.

If all I'm watching is baseball from April through September (which is mostly true).

With DirecTV getting the Reds + Cardinals + mlb.tv I'm paying = $133/mo x 6 + $125 = $923

If the Bally Sports OTT is $23/mo month-to-month and it gives me both the Cardinals and Reds = $263

So a lot of savings there to get comparable content.

Additionally with DirecTV I have to pay $120/mo for the other 6 months just for the privilege of having the ability to pay $133/mo for the Cardinals+Reds content.

Again, not for everybody. I would certainly wish for the $23/mo price point to be less. But when you add things together it's not completely unreasonable.


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> How do you know what the RSNs are getting paid by MVPDs? I've never seen anything that indicates that it's an amount different from the itemized "regional sports fee". That's what MVPDs are telling their customers is the carriage cost of that channel(s).


Do you realize that using that logic is stating the providers that don't charge a fee or are charging a lower fee are not paying the RSNs as much as those with a higher fee?
The only deal that I recall was announced as a "pass through" was DISH's offer to carry Altitude a la carte with only the customers who wanted the content paying for the channel and Altitude able to set the price they thought their viewers would pay. Altitude declined carriage under those terms (RSNs thrive on having paying subscribers who never watch their channels).

A $6 per subscriber charge from the RSN has been bantered about in some articles and discussions. Out of market areas (professional games blacked out) would be less.

Out of market blackouts affect professional sports. Some people might want access to an out of market RSN for the pre-game and post game shows that get blacked out on the national packages as well as news shows and college and regional sports. Not worth paying full in market pricing but worth something.


----------



## b4pjoe

evotz said:


> What is MLB.tv a year? I forgot what I paid? $125? Essentially it's for 6 months.
> 
> If all I'm watching is baseball from April through September (which is mostly true).
> 
> With DirecTV getting the Reds + Cardinals + mlb.tv I'm paying = $133/mo x 6 + $125 = $923
> 
> If the Bally Sports OTT is $23/mo month-to-month and it gives me both the Cardinals and Reds = $263
> 
> So a lot of savings there to get comparable content.
> 
> Additionally with DirecTV I have to pay $120/mo for the other 6 months just for the privilege of having the ability to pay $133/mo for the Cardinals+Reds content.
> 
> Again, not for everybody. I would certainly wish for the $23/mo price point to be less. But when you add things together it's not completely unreasonable.


MLB-TV regular price is $129.99 per year. If you are a veteran it is around $75 per year with the veteran discount. I still have DirecTV and get MLBEI which also includes MLB-TV. I was in the Cardinals/Cubs/White Sox area for years until the beginning of the 2020 season and at that time they kicked me out of the Chicago area so now the only team I am is is STL and I'm in the dreaded zone this weekend of the Cubs and Cardinals playing each other so I am blacked out of the Cubs broadcast everywhere. Today (Cubs won already) and tomorrow my only option is the Cardinals broadcast and Sunday they are on ESPN with the worst broadcast in the history of sports.



> If the Bally Sports OTT is $23/mo month-to-month and it gives me both the Cardinals and Reds = $263


That would be for 38 games since the Cubs play each team 19 times so 263/38 = almost $7 per game. Cheaper than going to the ball park. LOL


----------



## evotz

b4pjoe said:


> Today (Cubs won already)


CURSES!!!!

Friday day games at Wrigley when they play the Cardinals or Reds are perfect. I work during the day so can't see the afternoon game live anyway. So I avoid sports sites on Fridays when they play, then watch the game delayed Friday evening. Which is allowed under mlb.tv blackout rules.

Who would have ever have thought that visiting a satellite forum would disclose this information before I got a chance to watch it![/QUOTE]


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> Do you realize that using that logic is stating the providers that don't charge a fee or are charging a lower fee are not paying the RSNs as much as those with a higher fee?
> The only deal that I recall was announced as a "pass through" was DISH's offer to carry Altitude a la carte with only the customers who wanted the content paying for the channel and Altitude able to set the price they thought their viewers would pay. Altitude declined carriage under those terms (RSNs thrive on having paying subscribers who never watch their channels).
> 
> A $6 per subscriber charge from the RSN has been bantered about in some articles and discussions. Out of market areas (professional games blacked out) would be less.
> 
> Out of market blackouts affect professional sports. Some people might want access to an out of market RSN for the pre-game and post game shows that get blacked out on the national packages as well as news shows and college and regional sports. Not worth paying full in market pricing but worth something.


Not quite sure what you mean. Many MVPDs itemize a separate RSN add-on fee which they charge to all of their subs who have a package that includes RSNs. Not every MVPD does this (e.g. AT&T TV isn't doing it for new contract-free subs) but many of the largest do, including Comcast, Charter and DirecTV. Verizon FiOS TV used to, not sure if they break it out any more. The RSN fee varies a bit from one MVPD to another and even from one area to another on the same MVPD. But recent figures I've seen across major providers are typically in the $8 to $11 per month range. DTV says theirs is "up to $9.99/mo".

Breaking the RSN fee out from the rest of the cable TV bill has nothing to do with offering the RSN on a la carte basis. None of those MVPDs do that. On Comcast, if you have the Extra or higher package, you get your RSN(s) and cannot avoid paying the separate RSN fee (just like you can't avoid paying the separate broadcast TV fee for your locals). On DirecTV, if you have the Choice or higher package, it's the same deal.

The way the MVPDs explain their regional sports fee is that, well, it's going to pay for the RSN that's part of your package. Now, I suppose it's possible that the MVPD is actually paying a little more or less than that figure for whichever RSNs they're giving you but it shouldn't be substantially different. Here's the language Comcast uses to explain the fee:

_The Regional Sports Network Fee is an itemized charge that you'll see on your bill. This charge is not a government-mandated fee and will increase from time to time. It's based on our costs of providing the regional sports networks that we carry on our cable systems in each area. These costs include the fees that regional sports networks charge us to carry them on our cable systems, which are among our largest increasing costs. The Regional Sports Network Fee is not included in our promotional pricing or pricing under your minimum-term agreement and can increase during your promotion or minimum-term. You'll receive advance notice before an increase takes effect._​


----------



## b4pjoe

evotz said:


> CURSES!!!!
> 
> Friday day games at Wrigley when they play the Cardinals or Reds are perfect. I work during the day so can't see the afternoon game live anyway. So I avoid sports sites on Fridays when they play, then watch the game delayed Friday evening. Which is allowed under mlb.tv blackout rules.
> 
> Who would have ever have thought that visiting a satellite forum would disclose this information before I got a chance to watch it!


Oh shoot sorry. Still worth it to watch it though.


----------



## evotz

Don't worry about. I'm just messing with you. Although I do try to avoid the score when I'm watching it later, on occasion I have accidentally stumbled upon the score before watching it.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

b4pjoe said:


> MLB-TV regular price is $129.99 per year. If you are a veteran it is around $75 per year with the veteran discount.


And free if you have T-Mobile.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Why Sinclair's $250 Million Sports Streaming Swing Could Deliver a Walk-off Defeat of Pay TV | Next TV


----------



## harsh

There's a particular statement in the article that gives me pause about how subscribers get to see all of their home team's games. I was thinking that they must be subject to blackouts.


----------



## wmb

harsh said:


> There's a particular statement in the article that gives me pause about how subscribers get to see all of their home team's games. I was thinking that they must be subject to blackouts.


This service would stream the local RSN. They typically have the in-market rights to the home team. My caveat is to verify that Balley's has the streaming rights. I'd be surprised if they didn't.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Sinclair bids for NBC Sports Networks: sources


----------



## TheRatPatrol

*Sinclair and Charter Back on the Clock with Extension for 'Biggest Sports Deal of 2022' Set to Expire*



https://www.nexttv.com/news/sinclair-and-charter-back-on-the-clock-with-extension-for-biggest-sports-deal-of-2022-set-to-expire


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

The customer is really caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to watching your local sports team. Since Balley has a contractual strangle hold on televising rights the fans only option is to sign up with one of the services that carry Balley and then upgrade to a higher priced package that actually includes Balley. Some day in the distant future fans will wonder how something like this was accepted.


----------



## Phil T

Evoca is a option in some areas. The smart, simple way to watch TV!

They carry our regional sports networks, Altitude (Nuggets, Avalanche) and AT&T Sportsnet Rocky Mountain (Colorado Rockies) for $30.00 a month. It is a hybrid of OTA and IPTV. They also carry The Weather Channel, NFL Network and 39 other channels plus guide data for anything you can get OTA via antenna. OTA is also ATSC 3.0 and 1.0.

Cheapest way to get our RSN's without paying an arm and leg for Comcast or DirecTV.


----------



## NashGuy

Phil T said:


> Evoca is a option in some areas. The smart, simple way to watch TV!
> 
> They carry our regional sports networks, Altitude (Nuggets, Avalanche) and AT&T Sportsnet Rocky Mountain (Colorado Rockies) for $30.00 a month. It is a hybrid of OTA and IPTV. They also carry The Weather Channel, NFL Network and 39 other channels plus guide data for anything you can get OTA via antenna. OTA is also ATSC 3.0 and 1.0.
> 
> Cheapest way to get our RSN's without paying an arm and leg for Comcast or DirecTV.


Evoca is an interesting little experiment on the part of those two Colorado RSNs. If you combined them, you'd basically have one "full" year-round RSN covering your local MLB, NBA and NHL teams. I have to think that the bulk of that $30/mo you're paying for the Evoca service goes to those two RSNs. They're not paying anything to the broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, etc.) since you're just getting those via free OTA with an antenna. The carriage costs for everything else they have -- The Weather Channel, INSP, Game Show Network -- are very, very low, i.e. quarters and dimes. NFL Network might cost them a couple bucks per month to carry.

My guess is that at least $20 out of the $30 you pay goes to the RSNs, Altitude and AT&T SportsNet. Altitude in particular was motivated to try out this distribution experiment given that they're not carried on most of Colorado's pay TV services -- they're not on Comcast, DISH satellite, or most streaming cable TV services. You basically need DirecTV satellite or DirecTV Stream, starting at $90/mo, to get Altitude there in CO. (IDK, parts of the state are probably served by other cable co's like Charter Spectrum, which may carry Altitude in those areas.)

AT&T has supposedly been looking to sell off their few RSNs (as has Comcast). What would make sense is for an investor group to purchase SportsNet Rocky Mountain and Altitude to combine the two and then offer it as a standalone direct-to-consumer streaming service (probably priced around $20/mo) while also still distributing it as a traditional cable/satellite channel. That, of course, is what Bally Sports is going to do with many, maybe all, of their RSNs later this year.


----------



## James Long

There are a few channels of note in those "39 channels" they claim but it seems to be a service intended to deliver those RSNs. There is a lot of OTA (no agreement/payment required) and cheap IPTV streams on the lineup.


----------



## Phil T

Another plus for Evoca. I called tech support a couple of times and immediately got through to USA based support. I actually spoke to someone in Colorado! 

If they can keep the costs low and add a DVR, Netflix and a few other apps it would be a killer service!

The picture quality on all channels, OTA and IPTV, is great on my XBR-65X750D Sony.


----------



## NashGuy

Phil T said:


> Another plus for Evoca. I called tech support a couple of times and immediately got through to USA based support. I actually spoke to someone in Colorado!
> 
> If they can keep the costs low and add a DVR, Netflix and a few other apps it would be a killer service!
> 
> The picture quality on all channels, OTA and IPTV, is great on my XBR-65X750D Sony.


I wonder why Evoca didn't choose to license Google's Android TV Operator Tier as the underlying operating system for their Scout receiver (the way DirecTV Stream did for their box)? That way, it could have offered all kinds of apps from the Google Play app store. My guess is that it would have somehow cost them something (either up-front fees or giving Google a cut of advertising or add-on subscription revenue) so instead they just used plain ol' Linux or whatever.

The chances that Netflix or any other major service will develop an app for Evoca are, I have to think, virtually zero. Unless Evoca explodes in popularity in several markets around the country and racks up a few million subscribers. But I don't see that happening either. As I say, Evoca is mainly a way to get RSNs as an almost-standalone product (with the side perk of having them integrated into the same channel grid guide as your local OTA channels). But the way forward for RSNs in general won't be as part of niche services like Evoca but rather as standalone streaming apps, while also being available as optional add-ons to traditional cable TV packages, i.e. the same situation that has existed for a few years now with premium services like HBO, Showtime and Starz.

But adding a DVR shouldn't be _that_ difficult for Evoca to do. Well, it depends on the specs of the Scout receiver. If it has a USB port on it, it seems like it wouldn't be too hard for them to update the software on the box so that you can connect a USB hard drive or flash drive for DVR recordings. No reason it couldn't record for OTA TV as well as Evoca's streaming channels (assuming their carriage contracts for those channels permit it).


----------



## James Long

Perhaps Sinclair should join Evoca or clone it?


----------



## Phil T

The Scout box has a USB-C port but it is used for the power supply. 
The remote has FF-RR-pause and play buttons, but they are non functional. 
A neighbor of mine, who called them, was told the Scout box is capable of DVR and they are working on it.
I know from talking to them they are a few weeks away from introducing a new receiver.

I have been using them for three weeks. I also have a OTA Tivo Bolt hooked up the the same TV.

The picture quality on the Scout is better then the Tivo.

So far it is just what I needed to get away from Comcast.


----------



## NashGuy

Phil T said:


> The Scout box has a USB-C port but it is used for the power supply.
> The remote has FF-RR-pause and play buttons, but they are non functional.
> A neighbor of mine, who called them, was told the Scout box is capable of DVR and they are working on it.
> I know from talking to them they are a few weeks away from introducing a new receiver.


My guess is that Evoca DVR service will debut when they roll out the next-gen receiver soon. Hopefully they let you swap out your Scout for it for free, or come up with a way to extend DVR service to the Scout. There are USB-C hubs that could be plugged into the Scout which both an external hard drive and the Scout power cord could be plugged into. (Folks do the same sort of thing with the Chromecast with Google TV which also only has a single USB-C port for power.) So it's not physically impossible for the Scout to accommodate external DVR storage.


----------

