Jump to content
×
×
  • Create New...

Sinclair Broadcast Group - General Discussion


Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, TheRyan said:

People may hate me for saying this, but I'm now at the point of saying Sinclair should just shut down the RSNs (or perhaps consolidate to a few stronger ones) and move on.    Obviously the fallout during COVID is not Sinclair's fault in the least, and unfortunately the lack of abundant sports programming right now is not helping matters.   They should leverage their station portfolio by expanding their original content for the stations.

 

They need to cut their losses and put the teams on their apps (especially STIRR), and even consider putting some games back on their stations.  This would be great synergy in markets where they not only have secondary stations that would benefit from airing live sports, but the rights to those teams from Fox Sports RSNs.

 

Sooner or later they're going to have to address the "Fox Sports" issue...might as well kill it off sooner than later when the rights to the name expire.

 

And why the hell do they still have the Tennis Channel?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The second transmitter is probably irrelevant, especially since WICD is pretty much a total satellite of WICS now with no original content other than ids and maybe some ads.   The "Code Red"

Let's all understand something about TV...   When you go on the air and trash your employer, it's policies or practices ...EXPECT a bad outcome.   You may not agree, but they sign

I'm with Eat on this one. Companies have gotten away with some fines for much, much worse than "lying to the FCC."  PG&E has blown up neighborhoods and burned down cities in California (killing pe

Posted Images

11 hours ago, AaronQ said:

So on October 1st, YouTube TV will drop the FOX RSNs. 

The virtual MVPD business is dying. Sony pulled the plug on Playstation Vue. The remaining services are in a war of attrition, hiking rates and slashing content even as subscribers flee. Not offering the very content that subscribers have demonstrated a willingness to pay for is suicidal.

Edited by newsbot
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, if it weren't for the rights being so blippin' expensive, I'd have suggested that the leagues would just give up on the RSNs and put the games on indie stations (including affiliates of MyNetworkTV, which is hardly a network at all by this point anyway) like the old days. As it stands currently, though, I think streaming services like YouTube, Amazon, or even ESPN+ are probably the most likely candidates to get those kinds of rights.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Adam MadMan said:

You know, if it weren't for the rights being so blippin' expensive, I'd have suggested that the leagues would just give up on the RSNs and put the games on indie stations (including affiliates of MyNetworkTV, which is hardly a network at all by this point anyway) like the old days. As it stands currently, though, I think streaming services like YouTube, Amazon, or even ESPN+ are probably the most likely candidates to get those kinds of rights.

It's time for them to eliminate the middleman and just let themselves or their league sell us the games.  Some have partially done that through ownership stakes in their channels like SportsTime Ohio, YES, and Marquee.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Adam MadMan said:

You know, if it weren't for the rights being so blippin' expensive, I'd have suggested that the leagues would just give up on the RSNs and put the games on indie stations (including affiliates of MyNetworkTV, which is hardly a network at all by this point anyway) like the old days. As it stands currently, though, I think streaming services like YouTube, Amazon, or even ESPN+ are probably the most likely candidates to get those kinds of rights.

 

 

I agree. With antennas becoming more popular, why not move all the games over the air for free like they did in the old days, and have the teams themselves produce the games?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tyrannical bastard said:

It's time for them to eliminate the middleman and just let themselves or their league sell us the games.  Some have partially done that through ownership stakes in their channels like SportsTime Ohio, YES, and Marquee.

I have to wonder what teams such as the Kansas City Royals was thinking when they reupped their contract with Fox Sports Kansas City?

 

I have serious doubts the Royals were even aware of what I think was a mistake reupping with FSKC.

 

Granted being a small market team it would be difficult for the Royals to start an RSN (at least by themselves) but they could've at least talked to Spectrum about launching an RSN of its own  (with the Royals having some control over its network) or have a significant stake in Fox Sports Kansas City when they signed the deal with Sinclair.

 

But from all indications they did nothing other than signing the deal to stay on FSKC for the foreseeable future and it's proving to be a big mistake for the Royals.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How was it a "big mistake" for the Royals to re-sign with FSKC? The team still gets paid its rights fees, even when providers drop the network. It's Sinclair and the rest of the ownership group taking all the risk regarding carriage.

 

As for the Royals having their own RSN, been there done that. It lasted four years before going dark and signing with FSKC.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Newsjunkie24 said:

I agree. With antennas becoming more popular, why not move all the games over the air for free like they did in the old days, and have the teams themselves produce the games?

Unfortunately, the cost of airing sports is so expensive, that subscriber and retransmission fees are such an enormous factor as the cost of sports has shot through the roof.

 

I was devastated when WUAB lost the Indians in 2001.  But it was one of the last stations to do their own telecasts (with an increasing slate of Fox Sports games), and what else was to be expected when the Dolan Family bought the team from Dick Jacobs? Larry Dolan helped start STO in 2006, and they owned Cablevision.  They ended up selling their Cleveland-area clusters to Adelphia, whose territory became part of TWC in their bankruptcy collapse.

 

Sports just needs to break away and let those who want to pay for it get it.  The system is broken and is long overdue for a reality check that COVID-19 has certainly helped with.

Edited by tyrannical bastard
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ScottJ said:

How was it a "big mistake" for the Royals to re-sign with FSKC? The team still gets paid its rights fees, even when providers drop the network. It's Sinclair and the rest of the ownership group taking all the risk regarding carriage.

 

As for the Royals having their own RSN, been there done that. It lasted four years before going dark and signing with FSKC.

True but had the Royals been thinking this through and foresaw the fact that YouTube TV and other local cable companies (not all of them) would drop FSKC that would've signaled the Royals to sign elsewhere if they wanted to get as close to full coverage as they can especially with MLB being so relunctant to ending local in-market blackouts for their own services such as MLB TV.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, oknewsguy said:

True but had the Royals been thinking this through and foresaw the fact that YouTube TV and other local cable companies (not all of them) would drop FSKC that would've signaled the Royals to sign elsewhere if they wanted to get as close to full coverage as they can especially with MLB being so relunctant to ending local in-market blackouts for their own services such as MLB TV.

It is easier said than done. The teams don't want the hassle of negotiating directly with video providers, hence why the RSN/Parent company handles that .

 

Also, the team can request that the RSN make as many deals possible with all parties involved, but ultimately that responsibility lies with the RSN. If the team is so adamant to have its games widely available, and the video providers are not on-board 100% with the fees being charged, then one side will have to give in. Will the team/RSN accept a lower payment in exchange for distribution, or will the video provider decline to pay for the channel? There's not gray area-- they either air the games or they don't.

 

Also, a majority of the sports teams have an equity stake in the RSN's. No matter how bad things get, don't expect them to magically disappear and have all content migrate strictly to online platforms.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, A3N said:

It is easier said than done. The teams don't want the hassle of negotiating directly with video providers, hence why the RSN/Parent company handles that .

At least had the Royals invested in say a 20 to 30 percent stake in Fox Sports Kansas City things would've been okay at least on the Royals side (at least Sinclair would've still owned a pretty significant chunk in FSKC too)

 

Teams such as the Dodgers has proven that being their own middle man doesn't help get deals done, all we have to do is look at how long it took SNLA to finally be on AT&T.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 10/16/2020 at 7:31 PM, Samantha said:

(Why is WIAV authorized for 48 kW ERP?)

 

According to the engineering exhibit in the FCC application, WIAV-CD requested (and ultimately received) a waiver to broadcast at 48 kW in order to reduce interference from WETA, which broadcasts on channel 31, right next to WIAV-CD which is on channel 30.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2020 at 6:52 PM, dman748 said:

(h/t @Nelson R.

 

Also this and this is something we may need Speculatron-9000 for based on the language that was used in the article https://www.nexttv.com/blogs/sinclair-rsns-timing-is-everything

 

I think it's tough because at some point, one stops giving a crap about the how/why. Sinclair has basically made it so no streaming service can carry them, so I can't really blame Hulu for that. In my case, I lost Marquee and FS Indiana, meaning no Cubs and no Pacers. I thought Marquee was kind of stupid to begin with and it was okay this season (grading on a curve for a new RSN), but over the last few days, I've wondered what my decision will be when games start back up if they aren't carried anywhere other than cable/satellite (not going back to AT&T TV Now).

 

I wonder how things like this can erode a fanbase, too. While the Cubs aren't going to lose a lot, the move away from WGN (the national feed, too) has made it feel less nationwide. Marquee not being carried on the same places as NBC Sports Chicago and getting used to some new personalities also feels weird. Now that you've pulled it completely, I may be more inclined to check out the White Sox (who I can still get) or even out-of-market teams on MLB.TV. The NBA is similar in that the Pacers are usually fairly good, but I feel like I watched way more of the teams that went further in the playoffs and can appreciate exciting players in other markets.

Edited by ecs0013
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 10/2/2020 at 7:39 AM, patlovestv said:

Sinclair is staffing up for its national "headline service"-style morning show, designed to air on CW and MyNet stations beginning in 2021. It'll be led by former D.C. anchor Jan Jeffcoat and former Seattle anchor Caye Thompson.

Now we have a name and time period information for this. It'll be called THE NATIONAL DESK:

 

Quote

Airing weekday mornings 6-9 a.m. ET and MT (5-8 CT, 6-8 PT), The National Desk will be available to viewers across Sinclair’s CW and MyNetworkTV affiliates, as well as on all Sinclair station websites and STIRR, Sinclair’s free, over-the-top streaming platform. The National Desk will also be available on several Sinclair Fox affiliates.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dman748 said:

Sinclair is now looking into possibily selling naming rights of the RSNs to (possibly among other entities) sports betting entities

https://awfulannouncing.com/sinclair/sinclair-could-reportedly-sell-naming-rights-to-the-fox-sports-rsns-to-a-sports-betting-company.htm

 

That was fast.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, tyrannical bastard said:

Well crud, I was looking forward to "Alexander Shunnarah Sports South" and "Back & Knee Brace Hotline Sports Midwest!!”

I would have thought since he owns 60% of Fox Sports Wisconsin's ad inventory, David Gruber's "One Call...That's All! Sportsnet" was a virtual lock. 😂

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloomberg has more details on that

Quote

The Bally brand would appear on local-news sports updates, as well as national broadcasts of sporting events -- from golf to pro football -- on the local stations

The deal isn’t exclusive with Bally’s -- Sinclair can still sell ads and create partnerships with other betting operators. The branding relationship will be in place for 10 years and can be extended for five more.

All told Bally's (which is ironically enough Soo Kim has control of the company) is paying $85 million for the naming rights

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't lurk in here because I try to think about Sinclair as little as possible, but I stumbled upon this job posting for a news producer for a national morning newscast. It's based in Arlington, VA (presumably WJLA) and was posted this week. I didn't see any other postings that you would associate with an upstart national project, such as an EP, anchors, reporters, and whatever else, and there aren't any postings on the SBG careers site either. Anyone have any idea what's up with this?

 

Quote

We are looking for a dynamic Newscast Producer for a Washington, D.C.- based national morning newscast. Our goal is to offer audiences on multiple platforms something different. The kind of coverage they care about, the kind that impacts their lives – but that they cannot find anywhere else.

This position requires strong skills in journalism, leadership, and creativity. The candidate will oversee the day-to-day production of morning newscasts. This position will also work closely with the Executive Producer, Director, and Assignment Desk on the newscast and its content. In this position, you will contribute content to newscasts and digital platforms.

 

https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/2243725166

Edited by C Block
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using TVNewsTalk you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.