Jump to content
×
×
  • Create New...

Sinclair Apparent Winner of Fox Sports Networks


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 255
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Chris Ripley has, time and time again, demonstrated this company's delusions of grandeur and utter lack of any knowledge of its place in the media landscape, or the landscape itself, and this strikes

It needs to happen.  Yesterday.   Back in the day, Warner Cable in Akron used to charge extra for Sportschannel  Ohio to watch their Indians and Cavs games.   Let the fans pay for

"The F stands for 'you all ask too many f-ing questions'." -Sinclair, probably

Posted Images

On 3/3/2020 at 2:48 PM, A3N said:

So it seems like they're very slowly de-emphasizing the FOX Sports brand on air. Some of the graphics (Top/Bottom inning recap/L3's) are not showing FOX [team logo] on them.

 

Also heard a promo for college basketball but the voiceover did not say FOX Sports San Diego at the end, even though the Fox Sports logo appeared on screen.

I've noticed that the FOX (insert team name) has started to be scrubbed off slowly during the Oklahoma City Thunder game tonight on Fox Sports Oklahoma, I fully expect to see refrences to Fox Sports get removed more and more.

 

If I were a betting man I imagine that Sinclair will drop the Fox Sports name in time for the NBA/NHL Playoffs and if not then they likely will by the MLB All-Star Break

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Georgie56 said:

That article was from last week. See the links in my post above the one you quoted. YTTV dropped YES and Fox Sports West/Prime Ticket (maybe others too) overnight last night. From tweets I've seen, YTTV is dropping some of the Sinclair-owned RSNs but has not released a full list of which ones are being dropped.

Edited by ScottJ
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, ScottJ said:

That article was from last week. See the links in my post above the one you quoted. YTTV dropped YES and Fox Sports West/Prime Ticket (maybe others too) overnight last night. From tweets I've seen, YTTV is dropping some of the Sinclair-owned RSNs but has not released a full list of which ones are being dropped.

Could Sinclair's RSN be pay per view only?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CubsFan79 said:

Could Sinclair's RSN be pay per view only?

Every single contract with every single entity under their purview would be breached, and it would be a death sentence. The filler shows they run outside their main sports would absolutely eviscerate them in court if they switched to that model, and the entire traditional pay-per-view industry is dead. Outside of dish services that still have to maintain it and grumpy diehards that require it through a cable box, PPV movies are no longer a thing, nearly every ring sports event now has an IPTV option (which they love because only the most tech-savvy could record the event for forever viewing), and most systems only have three PPV channels overall, at most.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mrschimpf said:

Every single contract with every single entity under their purview would be breached, and it would be a death sentence. The filler shows they run outside their main sports would absolutely eviscerate them in court if they switched to that model, and the entire traditional pay-per-view industry is dead. Outside of dish services that still have to maintain it and grumpy diehards that require it through a cable box, PPV movies are no longer a thing, nearly every ring sports event now has an IPTV option (which they love because only the most tech-savvy could record the event for forever viewing), and most systems only have three PPV channels overall, at most.

okay

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CubsFan79 said:

Could Sinclair's RSN be pay per view only?

The RSNs going to PPV only is a bad idea. That would people like me out of reach from watching live sporting events (and it doesn't help that leagues like MLB have these blackout policies that would prevent us baseball fans from watching games on channels like MLB Network)

 

If anything I cant see Sinclair making the RSNs a direct-to-consumer option (which sounds more feasible than making the RSNs PPV-only)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn’t appear even after the deal that the RSNs reach the same coverage area as before. FSNs seem almost entirely unavailable in the state of Kentucky. Checked several KY zip codes (Louisville, Lexington, Bowling Green and Paducah etc. DMAs) and no FSNs appear to be available. Check a Cincinnati zip code (appears to work anywhere inside the Cincinnati DMA) and lo and behold FSOhio pops back up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ehatt493 said:

Doesn’t appear even after the deal that the RSNs reach the same coverage area as before. FSNs seem almost entirely unavailable in the state of Kentucky. Checked several KY zip codes (Louisville, Lexington, Bowling Green and Paducah etc. DMAs) and no FSNs appear to be available. Check a Cincinnati zip code (appears to work anywhere inside the Cincinnati DMA) and lo and behold FSOhio pops back up.

PBS seems to be the same way, more zip-code based rather than DMA.

I had access to Fox Sports South and Southeast, and now both are gone.  

What kind of rhyme and reason is dictating what RSN's are going away?  Are the teams involved along with the Sinclair/Byron Allen arrangement?

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, tyrannical bastard said:

PBS seems to be the same way, more zip-code based rather than DMA.

I had access to Fox Sports South and Southeast, and now both are gone.  

What kind of rhyme and reason is dictating what RSN's are going away?  Are the teams involved along with the Sinclair/Byron Allen arrangement?

I feel like Rupert walking away from the RSN business had some to do with this. I think though it's on Sinclair's stubborness, Chris Ripley's arrogance and most of all Sinclair wanting to overcharge for these RSNs (prime example Sinclair is asking distributors $6.50 for Marquee. No that's not a typo that's what Sinclair is asking these distributors in the Chicagoland region to carry Marquee) and at the end of the day I can't blame Comcast for wanting to say no to that and I don't think that lowering the costs of carrying these RSNs is going to help things either for Sinclair because remember, companies like Sinclair are in the business of making money not lose money.

 

Now that I think about it Sinclair is lucky this year is an election year because unless they get their act together they're in deep and I mean DEEP trouble for 2021 and beyond and there could very well be consequences for more than just the RSNs.

 

P.S. I'm surprised no one has even asked this question but how much is Sinclair asking these distributors to pay for these FSNs compared to when Fox owned the RSNs?

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

Sinclair just doesn't have the leverage with MVPDs that Fox did. They don't have a Fox News or even an FX to use as a cudgel. WUCW is not KMSP-WFTC, for instance, and I don't know what kind of cachet the Tennis Channel has.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, oknewsguy said:

I feel like Rupert walking away from the RSN business had some to do with this. I think though it's on Sinclair's stubborness, Chris Ripley's arrogance and most of all Sinclair wanting to overcharge for these RSNs (prime example Sinclair is asking distributors $6.50 for Marquee. No that's not a typo that's what Sinclair is asking these distributors in the Chicagoland region to carry Marquee) and at the end of the day I can't blame Comcast for wanting to say no to that and I don't think that lowering the costs of carrying these RSNs is going to help things either for Sinclair because remember, companies like Sinclair are in the business of making money not lose money.

 

Now that I think about it Sinclair is lucky this year is an election year because unless they get their act together they're in deep and I mean DEEP trouble for 2021 and beyond and there could very well be consequences for more than just the RSNs.

 

P.S. I'm surprised no one has even asked this question but how much is Sinclair asking these distributors to pay for these FSNs compared to when Fox owned the RSNs?

 

Let's also remember that Sinclair doesn't own the RSNs outright.  It's basically a consortium with Entertainment Studios, with Entertainment Studios holding something called an "equity stake".  To a point Sinclair is probably obligated to charge a minimum to offset the massive debt they have incurred with buying the RSNs.  How much those minimums are to offset any loss is not something I'm an expert at, but there most surely is a minimum amount.

 

Also, I'm not familiar with the legal verbiage of the papers that were signed when Sinclair/Entertainment Studios closed on the purchase, but I would imagine that any major decision would require both Sinclair and Entertainment Studios to agree (whether that's the amount charged or branding decisions).  Sinclair is probably not able to make as robust of decisions since there is a second party involved.  Just a guess there.

 

That's not to say Sinclair is in any kind of financial trouble, but as a business they do have to ask a certain amount to avoid a net loss while also accomplishing their goals with the RSNs.

Edited by TheRyan
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sinclair is massively in debt. Something like $14 billion? Their financial statements are a bit opaque and confusing.

 

Evidently they don't know how to do a leveraged buyout properly, since they didn't seem to put any of that debt onto Diamond. Not sure that would have been responsible per se, but it would have sheltered Sinclair proper from a lot of the seemingly-inevitable fallout.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, channel2 said:

Sinclair is massively in debt. Something like $14 billion? Their financial statements are a bit opaque and confusing.

 

Evidently they don't know how to do a leveraged buyout properly, since they didn't seem to put any of that debt onto Diamond. Not sure that would have been responsible per se, but it would have sheltered Sinclair proper from a lot of the seemingly-inevitable fallout.

If Sinclair was smart to have done this they would've been able to protect more than just the RSNs they would've protected other non-sports assets (such as local TV stations as well)

 

But of course, we're dealing with an incompetant CEO in Chris Ripley who seems to have no idea what the heck he's doing here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if things keep going in this trajectory, I would personally recommend Sinclair does something to offload its debt (whether that's selling some of their ownership stake or something else). 

 

But my gut feeling is that all will work out fine for Sinclair once the dust settles on the rebranding strategy and what happens to the programming at-large on the RSNs.  Restoring certainty on the exact form of the RSNs will have going forward will go a long way to restoring confidence.

Edited by TheRyan
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TheRyan said:

Well if things keep going in this trajectory, I would personally recommend Sinclair does something to offload its debt (whether that's selling some of their ownership stake or something else). 

 

But my gut feeling is that all will work out fine for Sinclair once the dust settles on the rebranding strategy and what happens to the programming at-large on the RSNs.

As I've been saying for the last month on other platforms outside of here, Sinclair can survive this storm if they want to and have a plan in place for a rebrand on the RSNs and things like that if they can cut out their incompetancy that they currently have (which they can do IF they choose to do so)

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

Sooner or later, this bubble is going to burst.  The escalating cost of sports on TV coupled with the people dropping traditional pay tv in droves is coming to a tipping point.  At some point it will hit the leagues themselves when the TV coverage falls when people either can't access the programming or they don't want to pay for it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tyrannical bastard said:

Sooner or later, this bubble is going to burst.  The escalating cost of sports on TV coupled with the people dropping traditional pay tv in droves is coming to a tipping point.  At some point it will hit the leagues themselves when the TV coverage falls when people either can't access the programming or they don't want to pay for it.

The day the RSN business model collapses is going to have people like myself laughing at Sinclair not for their politics but because of the things I've said more than once and what @channel2 said last night on here about the lack of TV stations Sinclair can bundle the RSNs with (e.g. Sinclair doesn't have any TV stations in places like LA, Chicago, Atlanta and Miami that Sinclair can bundle the RSNs with) sure Sinclair can bundle Fox Sports Oklahoma with KOKH/KOCB but you're not going to bundle Fox Sports Wisconsin with WVTV.

 

There are lots of factors that are playing a role in the demise of the RSNs I just think Cord Cutting is not the only issue here.

  • Like 1
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.