Bally Sports Networks Preparing for bankruptcy

[dxpavelka]

Rest assured this will all work out in the end.  Rest assured that a way will be found the we, the fans, will pay for it all to work out.

[USAFChief]

3 hours ago, Beast said:

The league is a poorly run disaster.  They literally.couldn’t be a doing a worse job.  How can you not go bankrupt?

Just so we're clear, "the league" isn't going bankrupt.  

[Bigfork Twins Guy]

I thought that the Bally model was to incorporate sports betting into the app/telecast to improve revenues.  That must have fallen by the wayside as I've not seen any of that yet, although I get access through the Direct TV Streaming service and do not use the app.

[Bigfork Twins Guy]

With a view on the future, if Bally were to go bankrupt and Twins games were not available at all, is there a way to get them via the MLB package?  I heard that there was but you could see every MLB game EXCEPT the home team's games.  That does me no good as I am too far away to go to home games and wouldn't do season tickets anyway.  Is there a way to purchase a VPN service that allows viewing of home team games on the MLB network subscription?

[mnfireman]

The MLB television package just uses the RSN feed, no Bally Sports Network, no Twins...

[Tibs]

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the topic. Just curious how a proposed streaming network directly provided by MLB would have to cover all the revenue solely through subscriptions. Would they not still sell ad revenue? Something has to play between innings

[NotAboutWinning]

20 minutes ago, mnfireman said:

The MLB television package just uses the RSN feed, no Bally Sports Network, no Twins...

The broadcast team (camera operators, producers, announcers) migrated from Fox Sports to Bally. I expect they will go to MLB or the next broadcasting company... whomever decides to pick it up.

As to MLB.tv, the local games are available, but not in real time. Usually, a few hours after the game finishes. Or, VPN seems to work on a PC, not so much on the app... YMMV

[Mike Sixel]

14 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

That’s not even the current cost of MLB.tv. Let alone having full access to every game in MLB/MiLB. 

Which is why they don't have enough subs. They need to try to actually sell it, if it is replacing RSN

[Vanimal46]

2 minutes ago, Tibs said:

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the topic. Just curious how a proposed streaming network directly provided by MLB would have to cover all the revenue solely through subscriptions. Would they not still sell ad revenue? Something has to play between innings

Absolutely. Corporations are moving their ad money to streaming services instead of cable. 

[Vanimal46]

1 minute ago, Mike Sixel said:

Which is why they don't have enough subs. They need to try to actually sell it, if it is replacing RSN

They don’t have enough subs because you can’t watch your home team and the archaic local blackouts. They’re catering to a small segment of fans right now. Out of market fans… 

[Mike Sixel]

15 hours ago, NotAboutWinning said:

In order to replace the team contract revenue (which funds most MLB payrolls), that would require north of 25 million subscribers. Most recent information I can find indicates MLB.tv has 3.5 million. And that doesn't cover operating costs for broadcasts. The subscription price would need to be much higher. The Diamond/Sinclair model only worked because they were able to extort a subscription for virtually every cable subscriber in the country.

Not ask broadcast goes away. And there will be ads between innings. But fair. They can't charge 250 or whatever. They won't get enough viewers for six months of tv at that rate.

[Mike Sixel]

1 minute ago, Vanimal46 said:

They don’t have enough subs because you can’t watch your home team and the archaic local blackouts. They’re catering to a small segment of fans right now. Out of market fans… 

People aren't going to pay insane money to watch MLB. They just aren't. 

[Vanimal46]

6 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

People aren't going to pay insane money to watch MLB. They just aren't. 

MLB keeps the total subscribers close to the vest, but this source estimates they had 3.5 million subscribers in 2020. That’s just for the small segment of out of market fans. That number would skyrocket if they remove local blackouts. $140 for 6 months of baseball games is the equivalent of a Netflix subscription. It’s not insane money these days.  

[mnfireman]

22 minutes ago, NotAboutWinning said:

The broadcast team (camera operators, producers, announcers) migrated from Fox Sports to Bally. I expect they will go to MLB or the next broadcasting company... whomever decides to pick it up.

Yeah, I figured that.

I think they'll review the local teams and keep/replace as they deem necessary. Bremer has done national games with FS1 and maybe Fox.

[wabene]

I was not a fan of a gambling organization taking over the broadcasts. Whatever happens I hope the addition of gambling to sports broadcasting goes away. Personally I like watching sports not fantasy sports or gambling focused coverage. It's bad enough with all the big pharma ads. Let's see obnoxiously named prescription drugs, bad lite beer and gambling. A healthy mix!!! 

[lecroy24fan]

2 hours ago, wabene said:

I was not a fan of a gambling organization taking over the broadcasts.

Bally did not take over the broadcasts. They are paying for the naming rights to the RSN's. Sinclair owns the RSN's and that is where the issue lies.

[Cris E]

Bally The RSNs bought the ad revenue when they bought the rights, so if MLB takes them back they can recoup that revenue as well. But honestly the cost to sell car and mattress ads in 25 markets for 80 dates isn't going to result in billions of dollars of profit. The national ads are easy but the locals are cheap and numerous.

I read somewhere else that this doesn't need to replace all the broadcast revenue, just the 50% the teams keep plus whatever their share of the national revenue sharing was. But it's still a huge amount when you consider how many cable subscribers today are paying for sports against their will and will be free to not buy an MLB product at any cost.

 

[nicksaviking]

4 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

MLB keeps the total subscribers close to the vest, but this source estimates they had 3.5 million subscribers in 2020. That’s just for the small segment of out of market fans. That number would skyrocket if they remove local blackouts. $140 for 6 months of baseball games is the equivalent of a Netflix subscription. It’s not insane money these days.  

Zero people over 60 are going to frame it that way though. To people of my parents generation, baseball is included in the package they already pay, if they're going to have to pay additional for a streaming service on top of whatever else they currently are paying, they won't. Especially not for a streaming service that will be 100% unwatchable for all but 3 hours a day during 6 months of the year.

And retired moms and pops sitting around watching the games have to be one of the sports biggest demographics. MLB was greedy with their broadcasting rights the last couple of decades and now they're going to have to reckon with it. Likely with a financial haircut of some sort.

[nicksaviking]

They need to sell the entire league to the major streaming services. Maybe like the NFL, Amazon buys the AL, Apple buys the NL. The big markets with their current self-sustaining broadcasting gets paid out from the deals first, the earnings will be lopsided for the first years, then after how many years it takes to pay back that equity to the big markets, then the whole league goes complete broadcast revenue sharing. 

[Craig Arko]

Musk will probably buy the whole shebang and we can watch games live streamed from Mars, subject to the 5-20 minute communications delay, of course.

[Mike Sixel]

1 hour ago, nicksaviking said:

Zero people over 60 are going to frame it that way though. To people of my parents generation, baseball is included in the package they already pay, if they're going to have to pay additional for a streaming service on top of whatever else they currently are paying, they won't. Especially not for a streaming service that will be 100% unwatchable for all but 3 hours a day during 6 months of the year.

And retired moms and pops sitting around watching the games have to be one of the sports biggest demographics. MLB was greedy with their broadcasting rights the last couple of decades and now they're going to have to reckon with it. Likely with a financial haircut of some sort.

I'm almost that age. I think you need to raise that number to 70..... But then, I've cut the cord and pay for what I want, mostly. 

[Mike Sixel]

5 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

MLB keeps the total subscribers close to the vest, but this source estimates they had 3.5 million subscribers in 2020. That’s just for the small segment of out of market fans. That number would skyrocket if they remove local blackouts. $140 for 6 months of baseball games is the equivalent of a Netflix subscription. It’s not insane money these days.  

That's reasonable, but I bet they get a lot more subs for a little less. I'd also make it annual, and give people replays on demand off season, asking with a studio show twice a week or so. But then, I think giving customers what they want is a good idea ....

[Parfigliano]

12 hours ago, Beast said:

The big problem that seems to be missed by the analysis here:  Nobody wants to watch baseball anymore.

Maybe if Manfred wasn’t the most hatable man on the planet, quit doing stupid crap like tweaking the baseball every year and lying about it, running cover for cheaters, cramming identity politics down everyone’s throat when they’re trying to escape it by watching sports, and was good at his job, they wouldn’t be in this predicament.

Things like installing nets down the baseline are the big news items of the sport. I can hardly contain my excitement.

You want more people to watch?  Do something to create some parity.  Nobody cares about baseball because there’s a handful of big market teams and everyone else is a developmental program for them.  3/4 of the markets have been completely alienated.  Places like Oakland, Kansas City, Baltimore, etc. - even Minneapolis, could be great baseball towns.  You could contract them all out of the league right now and nobody would notice.

They’re the only sport on the planet that does such a high volume of day games during week.  It doesn’t take a genius to realize that if you want people to pay to watch, play a damn game when someone between 22-65 years old can watch it.

Change the idiotic system that incentives teams to keep potential star players stashed away at some bandbox in the middle of a cornfield in Iowa to save some money and maximize their service time.

Quit making all of these stupid half-added rules and address real problems.  Is there anything worse to watch in sports than a play at the plate after the rule changes?  Umps don’t know how to call it and are getting it wrong.  Base runners are pulling up early, catchers are scared to touch anyone, etc.  It used to be one of the most exciting moments/plays in sports.

The league is a poorly run disaster.  They literally.couldn’t be a doing a worse job.  How can you not go bankrupt?

All. Of. This.

[DJL44]

22 hours ago, NotAboutWinning said:

In order to replace the team contract revenue (which funds most MLB payrolls), that would require north of 25 million subscribers. Most recent information I can find indicates MLB.tv has 3.5 million. And that doesn't cover operating costs for broadcasts. The subscription price would need to be much higher. The Diamond/Sinclair model only worked because they were able to extort a subscription for virtually every cable subscriber in the country.

They need to replace the revenue with subscriptions AND ads. Ad sales for sports are very lucrative.

[Vanimal46]

3 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

That's reasonable, but I bet they get a lot more subs for a little less. I'd also make it annual, and give people replays on demand off season, asking with a studio show twice a week or so. But then, I think giving customers what they want is a good idea ....

Sure. Giving customers more for less always works for the consumer. You were proposing a 43% off solution from MLB.tv’s current price point. How is that going to make up St Louis’ $100 million TV contract that will be lost when the bankruptcy becomes reality? 

I see MLB.tv offering several payment terms if they purchase all of the RSN TV broadcasts. You want all MLB games and MiLB games with no restrictions? $250-300 annually. One team and their MiLB? $200 annually. One MLB team? $140. They could also offer monthly payment options for fans of teams that may not be competitive by July 31. 

[Vanimal46]

5 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

Zero people over 60 are going to frame it that way though. To people of my parents generation, baseball is included in the package they already pay, if they're going to have to pay additional for a streaming service on top of whatever else they currently are paying, they won't. Especially not for a streaming service that will be 100% unwatchable for all but 3 hours a day during 6 months of the year.

And retired moms and pops sitting around watching the games have to be one of the sports biggest demographics. MLB was greedy with their broadcasting rights the last couple of decades and now they're going to have to reckon with it. Likely with a financial haircut of some sort.

Glad to know my dad is hip, now, with it and wow as a 62 year old and cut the cord on cable. He is not a drooling old fool and perfectly capable of using more than 1 remote and 1 app on a TV. 

[nicksaviking]

13 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

Glad to know my dad is hip, now, with it and wow as a 62 year old and cut the cord on cable. He is not a drooling old fool and perfectly capable of using more than 1 remote and 1 app on a TV. 

I was admittedly being hyperbolic, but they can’t ask people to pay $140 for a baseball only channel in addition to what people are already paying for Netflix/Apple/Amazon/Hulu.

[NotAboutWinning]

26 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

I was admittedly being hyperbolic, but they can’t ask people to pay $140 for a baseball only channel in addition to what people are already paying for Netflix/Apple/Amazon/Hulu.

Perhaps they could market it as 'take a Netflix break this summer, come watch some baseball' 😁

[Vanimal46]

49 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

I was admittedly being hyperbolic, but they can’t ask people to pay $140 for a baseball only channel in addition to what people are already paying for Netflix/Apple/Amazon/Hulu.

They do that today and they have over 3.5 million out of market fans subscribed. 

[DJL44]

On 1/28/2023 at 9:41 AM, Bigfork Twins Guy said:

With a view on the future, if Bally were to go bankrupt and Twins games were not available at all, is there a way to get them via the MLB package?  I heard that there was but you could see every MLB game EXCEPT the home team's games.  That does me no good as I am too far away to go to home games and wouldn't do season tickets anyway.  Is there a way to purchase a VPN service that allows viewing of home team games on the MLB network subscription?

If Bally goes bankrupt someone will buy the rights. Bally wasn't losing money off the contract, they just can't make their debt payments from the billions they borrowed to buy the contracts from Fox.