Jump to content

The Bally Sports Thread


Georgie56
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well, to bring this thread up to speed, Bally has since breached one of their loan covenants and missed a payment to the Arizona Diamondbacks.

They have a grace period of until March 17th to pay the Diamondbacks.  Bankruptcy could be coming by then, finally.

https://nypost.com/2023/03/12/mlb-to-stream-games-for-free-amid-looming-diamond-sports-bankruptcy-sources/

 

A side effect of what could be coming?  MLB could be offering free streaming to customers of the affected teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, GodfreyGR said:

It's Official. Bally's Is Bankrupt.

To be clear, Bally's Corporation is not bankrupt. Diamond Sports is bankrupt. They were just a licensee of the Bally brand name.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Bally wanted to revoke that license at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, LoadStar said:

To be clear, Bally's Corporation is not bankrupt. Diamond Sports is bankrupt. They were just a licensee of the Bally brand name.

With respect, based off of the recent posts of the RSN, that was implied. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened to the local sports business?  Why would Sinclair buy the networks from Disney if they were going to be bankrupt?  On the national level,  MLB, NHL,  and the NBA are making so much money from their TV deals.  Why on the local level the networks are not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, JTT said:

What happened to the local sports business?  Why would Sinclair buy the networks from Disney if they were going to be bankrupt?  On the national level,  MLB, NHL,  and the NBA are making so much money from their TV deals.  Why on the local level the networks are not?

Because the cord-cutting and reliance on a dwindling pool of willing subscribers to pay a "regional sports fee" on top of an already inflated bill is the final straw. 

National networks can pass this off with their broad reach, and their hands in the viewer's pocketbooks are much less apparent than the RSN's have ever been.

 

Bottom line, sports has gotten too expensive.  Viewers are tired of paying for it through high pay TV bills.  Providers don't want to drive up the cost of their service too much by agreeing what the RSN's want to charge (which is the high price the leagues pass on to the RSNs).  And seeing what it really costs, no one wants to pay $25 a month to watch their team on an RSN app.  

 

Covid and cord-cutting exacerbated this trend.  Sinclair took the bait and paid dearly for it, especially when they lost most of the providers that carried it. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, tyrannical bastard said:

Because the cord-cutting and reliance on a dwindling pool of willing subscribers to pay a "regional sports fee" on top of an already inflated bill is the final straw. 

National networks can pass this off with their broad reach, and their hands in the viewer's pocketbooks are much less apparent than the RSN's have ever been.

 

Bottom line, sports has gotten too expensive.  Viewers are tired of paying for it through high pay TV bills.  Providers don't want to drive up the cost of their service too much by agreeing what the RSN's want to charge (which is the high price the leagues pass on to the RSNs).  And seeing what it really costs, no one wants to pay $25 a month to watch their team on an RSN app.  

 

Covid and cord-cutting exacerbated this trend.  Sinclair took the bait and paid dearly for it, especially when they lost most of the providers that carried it. 

I’m sure most of the providers they lost were the vMVPDs, to where DirecTV Stream was the only one that carried each of the 19 Bally Sports networks until FuboTV re-added them in January.

 

The irony is, it wasn’t always this way. Many of the RSNs that exist today once were distributed as premium channels that customers had to add onto their cable package (a la HBO and Showtime). The question is how much cost savings would customers have now, if RSNs didn’t transition to basic cable packages, and would RSNs still being made available a la carte offset the cost of carrying other channels that command higher subscriber fees (ESPN, TNT, Disney Channel, etc.)?

 

The 1992 Cable Act’s retrans provisions only created more stress on RSNs in the past decade or so, by helping to drive pay TV prices to be able to carry other channels to progressively higher rates that led to the dramatic increase in cord-cutting… and that’s on top of service and equipment fees that add to the cost of subscribing to conventional pay TV providers. (National sports networks also contribute to the high cost, because of both retrans compensation and sports rights fees, if ESPN’s $5+/subscriber fee is any indication.)

Edited by T.L. Hughes
  • Like 1
Link to comment
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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

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.