Collapse of Regional Sports Networks (Diamond Sports Group files bankruptcy, Warner-Discovery looking to leave business, Xfinity drops Bally)

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,281
3,510
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
Fox also had more leverage then Sinclair . Fox had/ has very profitable properties that brought in lots of national ad revenue and they used that to there advantage . Sinclair doesn’t have that .

It's also kind of insane to me that the RSNs were sold to a third party and not retained...

The big stick you're talking about is Fox News, which was not a part of the Disney sale, and is part of the "new" Fox Corp with Fox Sports (FS1/FS2). They could have keep Fox Sports intact with national/regional and used their Fox News pull to get carriage.

Bally's isn't on anything but DirecTV in Texas over a carriage fee disagreement. You mean to tell me that Fox News couldn't have successfully bundled the Fox Sports Regional networks in with carriage agreements for Fox News... IN TEXAS?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveG and oknazevad

joelef

Registered User
Nov 22, 2011
1,906
719
It's also kind of insane to me that the RSNs were sold to a third party and not retained...

The big stick you're talking about is Fox News, which was not a part of the Disney sale, and is part of the "new" Fox Corp with Fox Sports (FS1/FS2). They could have keep Fox Sports intact with national/regional and used their Fox News pull to get carriage.

Bally's isn't on anything but DirecTV in Texas over a carriage fee disagreement. You mean to tell me that Fox News couldn't have successfully bundled the Fox Sports Regional networks in with carriage agreements for Fox News... IN TEXAS?
The government said no
 

jkrdevil

UnRegistered User
Apr 24, 2006
42,886
12,820
Miami
Fox wanted out on the RSN business. Their RSN’s were all a legacy from purchases in the 90’s and early 00’s, when they tried to build a national network at the various RSNs they owned. That strategy didn’t work for several reasons. Once the decides to focus on FS1 as a national platform for Sports that was it for the RSN’s

They also lost a lot of big market RSNs/rights over the years. What Sinclair bought was a shell of what the Fox RSNs used to be.
 
Last edited:

joelef

Registered User
Nov 22, 2011
1,906
719
Fox wanted out on the RSN business. Their RSN’s were all a legacy from purchases in the 90’s and early 00’s, when they tried to build a national network at the various RSNs they owned. That strategy didn’t work for several reasons. Once the decides to focus on FS1 as a national platform for Sports that was it for the RSN’s

They also lost a lot of big market RSNs/rights over the years. What Bally bought was a shell of what the Fox RSNs used to be.
Bally didn’t buy it Sinclair did
 

joelef

Registered User
Nov 22, 2011
1,906
719
Fox wanted out on the RSN business. Their RSN’s were all a legacy from purchases in the 90’s and early 00’s, when they tried to build a national network at the various RSNs they owned. That strategy didn’t work for several reasons. Once the decides to focus on FS1 as a national platform for Sports that was it for the RSN’s

They also lost a lot of big market RSNs/rights over the years. What Bally bought was a shell of what the Fox RSNs used to be.
Basically Sinclair spend billions they didn’t have for a already dying platform
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tryamw

Big Z Man 1990

Registered User
Jun 4, 2011
2,597
375
Don't say anything at all
Paramount Global should acquire the networks, resell the ones in LA to NBCUniversal in favor of seeking an acquisition of a controlling stake in the whole company by Charter, and integrate all the regional news and sports networks from Bally and Spectrum (outside the farmer's LA RSNs) into the CBS Entertainment Group and rebrand them under the CBS name.
 

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
107,224
20,088
Sin City


Friedman comments
Commissioner Gary Bettman has his annual media address on Saturday. I’d expect him to say something along the lines of, “We’re going to figure it out,” or “I’m not worried” when it comes to the Bally’s/Diamond Sports potential bankruptcy, but teams across the NHL, NBA and MLB warily eye this storyline.

Bloomberg reported last week that Sinclair, which owns the company and holds $55B in sports media rights, is prepared to skip a $140M interest payment next month. The big question is: where does this take us? In the NHL, Bally’s broadcasts Anaheim, Arizona, Carolina, Columbus, Dallas, Detroit, Florida, Los Angeles, Minnesota, Nashville, St. Louis and Tampa Bay. There are a lot of unanswered questions, first among them being: Will Sinclair try to cut back payments or cut contracts outright under bankruptcy? If so, what could that mean for payments to teams and, as an extension of that, the salary cap?

A couple of sources indicate that there isn’t a clear answer to these questions, but the affected teams are prepared for the possibility of some financial pain. We all knew that cord cutting would push teams closer to their own streaming plans. We’re moving closer to that, but the worry has always been if streaming your own content will ever make “rights-fee” money. MLB in particular did big business off the regional television model because it’s the big summer sport. Fills up hours and hours of programming when there’s not a lot of competition. One exec called this “the biggest sports story no one is paying attention to.”
 

patnyrnyg

Registered User
Sep 16, 2004
10,981
966
SNY is in decent shape. They have a ton of debt, but that debt isn't from rights fees and operations costs; it's from its' owners being Bernie Madoff clients; The owners of SNY took out loans against SNY profits to survive the next decade after their money disappeared in Madoff's Ponzi Scheme.

But SNY is absolutely going to survive the RSN rights fees bubble bursting because they don't have the bubble obligations of the others. SNY pays the Mets a VERY TINY rights fee, because just like the RSNs you mentioned -- NESN and MSG -- SNY was also started by the owners of the teams on the network, and it's done so that revenue from TV isn't subject to MLB revenue sharing like the rights fees are.


However, the clock IS ticking on them because they sold the Mets, and once their Mets deal expires, the Mets new owner will just form his own TV network or enter into whatever form of media distribution takes over for cable TV.
How long is the deal between the Mets and SNY.
 

joelef

Registered User
Nov 22, 2011
1,906
719
Paramount Global should acquire the networks, resell the ones in LA to NBCUniversal in favor of seeking an acquisition of a controlling stake in the whole company by Charter, and integrate all the regional news and sports networks from Bally and Spectrum (outside the farmer's LA RSNs) into the CBS Entertainment Group and rebrand them under the CBS name
On a side note the sport that probably going to be hurt by streaming media changes is going to be boxing
 

oknazevad

Registered User
Dec 12, 2018
477
340
The government said no
The government said no to selling them to Disney (they should have said no to the whole deal, but I digress). There's no legal reason the new Fox Corp couldn't have retained them alongside the broadcast network and national sports cable stations that they retained. They chose not to for the reasons mentioned above.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tryamw and DaveG

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,281
3,510
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
The government said no

The government said no to Disney (aka ESPN) acquiring ANY parts of Fox Sports (FS1/FS2 and FS Regional Networks) because they'd have a monopoly on sports networks.

Disney and Fox both knew going in that Fox broadcast TV affiliation COULD NOT be part of the deal either; and Fox had no intention of selling Fox News to Disney. (Basically what Disney bought was the 21st Century Fox TV and Movie Studios).

But it begs the question, if Fox was keeping Fox News, Fox Sports 1 & 2, why sell the RSNs to Sinclair?


Bally didn’t buy it Sinclair did

Correct. They sold the name rights to Bally's as a way to offset costs because...

Basically Sinclair spend billions they didn’t have for a already dying platform

YEP! Although, it's not like "producing and distributing live sporting events" is a dying enterprise. It's just that the RIGHTS to do so were divided up in the the "old reality," and the RSNs are the losing party in how it went down.

And that's why all ESPN's latest contracts essentially re-write "distribution rights without regard for cable vs streaming" and why the sports leagues are TRYING to do the same thing.
 

joelef

Registered User
Nov 22, 2011
1,906
719
The government said no to Disney (aka ESPN) acquiring ANY parts of Fox Sports (FS1/FS2 and FS Regional Networks) because they'd have a monopoly on sports networks.

Disney and Fox both knew going in that Fox broadcast TV affiliation COULD NOT be part of the deal either; and Fox had no intention of selling Fox News to Disney. (Basically what Disney bought was the 21st Century Fox TV and Movie Studios).

But it begs the question, if Fox was keeping Fox News, Fox Sports 1 & 2, why sell the RSNs to Sinclair?




Correct. They sold the name rights to Bally's as a way to offset costs because...



YEP! Although, it's not like "producing and distributing live sporting events" is a dying enterprise. It's just that the RIGHTS to do so were divided up in the the "old reality," and the RSNs are the losing party in how it went down.

And that's why all ESPN's latest contracts essentially re-write "distribution rights without regard for cable vs streaming" and why the sports leagues are TRYING to do the same thing.
Because fox wanted out the rsn business. Fs1 and fs2 was the death kneel for fox rsn
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,281
3,510
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
How long is the deal between the Mets and SNY.

The deal is up after the 2030 season. That's why Steve Cohen didn't buy SNY along with the Mets... SNY's only REAL value is that they have the Mets.

They get a lot of revenue from being the Mets home that Cohen doesn't get (Without SNY, the Mets rights fees are undervalued by about $75 million per season; $675 million over nine years left on the contract).

BUT, SNY has debt and expenses, the profits are declining because it's an RSN with cord-cutting and the industry in transition.

So long term, it's a better option to sit tight and just build a brand new company that produces and distributes Mets game in the most profitable way possible in 2030.

He suffers the "opportunity cost" on $675 million, but he's not saddled with a worthless asset if RSNs die and the future heads in another direction; AND of course, this is a dude who has a statue in his house just acting as home decoration/art investment that cost him $141 million. When you're worth $17 billion dollars, $675 opportunity cost ain't no thang.

(God it's a good time to be a Mets fan)
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,281
3,510
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
Because fox wanted out the rsn business. Fs1 and fs2 was the death kneel for fox rsn

Yeah, but it's really their own fault (and NBC and CBS) for allowing ESPN to become what they are. ESPN debuted in 1979 built an empire over the next 30 years WITHOUT ANYONE CHALLENGING THEM!

CBS Sports - 2009, NBC Sports - 2012, Fox Sports - 2013.

Those networks suck compared to ESPN, and that's why NBCSN shut down. CBSSN isn't even in HD half the time. Fox has been better than both at competing, but it's CLEAR there's a space for making money broadcasting sports.

It's really sad that the executives at Outdoor Life were more forward thinking than NBC, CBS and FOX!

Turner is doing a much better job competing with ESPN and they're not doing it with "a sports network."

Paramount Global should acquire the networks, resell the ones in LA to NBCUniversal in favor of seeking an acquisition of a controlling stake in the whole company by Charter, and integrate all the regional news and sports networks from Bally and Spectrum (outside the farmer's LA RSNs) into the CBS Entertainment Group and rebrand them under the CBS name.

CBS has shown no real interest or ability to make a good sports network. They were content with NFL, SEC Football, March Madness and the Masters. And they lost 2.5 of those four! CBSSN sucks.

They've shown interest in low-cost live sports to help Paramount (primarily soccer), but that's it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tryamw and DaveG

sawchuk1971

Registered User
Jun 16, 2011
1,494
509
Paramount Global should acquire the networks, resell the ones in LA to NBCUniversal in favor of seeking an acquisition of a controlling stake in the whole company by Charter, and integrate all the regional news and sports networks from Bally and Spectrum (outside the farmer's LA RSNs) into the CBS Entertainment Group and rebrand them under the CBS name.
is this speculation on your part? or do you have resources to back up your claim?
 

rojac

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 5, 2007
13,061
2,947
Waterloo, ON
is this speculation on your part? or do you have resources to back up your claim?

I’m 99% sure this is pure speculation. Ths particular poster has a history of posting elaborate business plans that only bear a passing resemblance to reality.
 

PCSPounder

Stadium Groupie
Apr 12, 2012
2,886
575
The Outskirts of Nutria Nanny
I’m 99% sure this is pure speculation. Ths particular poster has a history of posting elaborate business plans that only bear a passing resemblance to reality.
You should have seen the post I started writing, even though I know this fact about the poster in question. My ability to pile fact on fact in such a response unfortunately leads to the tl;dr effect and I can only truly joke in short bursts.

But if you’re paying attention to situations with the Pac-12 and MLS, it becomes easy to notice that, if anything, networks are looking at where to cut. It’s the nascent network (Apple) throwing modest money at MLS. Meanwhile,Amazon appears to be shorting the Pac. Like you’re inferring, easy to dream, hard to sign for the $$.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,281
3,510
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
The big take away is that the marketplace is in transition as companies figure out how people are going to consume video going forward.

MLB's set up an emergency economic committee on RSNs, because they need to figure something out really quick. MLB going direct to consumer in all-markets via MLBtv is a great plan. But their contracts are staggered from 2024 to 2040, so even if they suddenly just GET their TV rights to the 14 teams on Bally's, they still have 16 to go (And some teams own their networks and are fine).


The irony to me is that this thread is great support for what I'm saying in the WNBA thread, since Paramount+ signed the women's soccer league and ESPN has no problem showcasing the WNBA because it's cheaper than the Big East and gets about the same ratings for $30 million less.
 

rsteen

Registered User
Oct 1, 2022
358
240
Seems like MLB has more exposure to Bally than the NHL? 14 out of 30 MLB and 12 out of 32 NHL, mostly smaller markets.

I would guess what MLB does will influence what the NHL does, given that the NHL used BAM for streaming in the past.
 
  • Like
Reactions: G Backup and SirJW

rojac

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 5, 2007
13,061
2,947
Waterloo, ON
Seems like MLB has more exposure to Bally than the NHL? 14 out of 30 MLB and 12 out of 32 NHL, mostly smaller markets.

I would guess what MLB does will influence what the NHL does, given that the NHL used BAM for streaming in the past.
And the NBA has even more exposure with 15 out of 30 teams on Bally.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,281
3,510
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
You should have seen the post I started writing, even though I know this fact about the poster in question. My ability to pile fact on fact in such a response unfortunately leads to the tl;dr effect and I can only truly joke in short bursts.

I will say this, though. Most of us who like talking about realignment and schedule matrices and the like, it's because we are sports fans AND while the world is chaos our brains crave order and reason. That's why everyone wants divisions in nice tidy boxes. (You should see college conference realignment talk, people who post about it are ALWAYS trying to make perfectly symmetrical grids of power conference teams!).

So someone seeing the Big Four sports, hockey having four divisions; there's four time zones and four TV networks... It's really not surprising they're hoping for a symmetrical situation. That's kind of to be expected.




Also, apparently, MLB is totally prepared to step in and distribute games themselves via regional cable AND streaming if Bally's can't.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Tryamw and DaveG

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad