• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Bally RSN owner Sinclair looking at bankruptcy

Diamond went bankrupt on the debt from the purchase of the RSNs. Not because they are losing money on the games. The RSNs on their own are profitable.

That's not what they said in their bankruptcy filing. They claim to be losing money with four teams:

The teams in the red include the Cincinnati Reds, Cleveland Guardians, San Diego Padres and Arizona Diamondbacks, according to one of the sources. Presently, Diamond stands to lose $20 million annually on San Diego alone, the source added.

If they lose $20 million on the Padres, that's not a good sign. Other RSN operators are getting out of the business, as has been said in this thread.
 
That's not what they said in their bankruptcy filing. They claim to be losing money with four teams:



If they lose $20 million on the Padres, that's not a good sign. Other RSN operators are getting out of the business, as has been said in this thread.
Are the RSNs losing money or can they not turn a profit from their debt load. Is this more about overpaying Disney.
 
I feel for Bally/Diamond Sports. They’re trying. They know RSNs are worthless. But, I also think they’re fearful of going too deep into streaming because they know the masses aren’t going to spend $20-30 a month to stream these games. I don’t know if there is a long-term solution. Over time, individual franchises themselves need to swallow their pride and launch their own streaming services. Many college programs in the SEC are doing it. There’s no media company out there that’s going to bid millions upon millions in rights for the Padres, Diamondbacks or New Orleans Pelicans, or whatever. Amazon and Apple clearly don‘t want anything to do with this, or they would have rights by now.
 
I feel for Bally/Diamond Sports. They’re trying. They know RSNs are worthless. But, I also think they’re fearful of going too deep into streaming because they know the masses aren’t going to spend $20-30 a month to stream these games. I don’t know if there is a long-term solution. Over time, individual franchises themselves need to swallow their pride and launch their own streaming services. Many college programs in the SEC are doing it. There’s no media company out there that’s going to bid millions upon millions in rights for the Padres, Diamondbacks or New Orleans Pelicans, or whatever. Amazon and Apple clearly don‘t want anything to do with this, or they would have rights by now.
What makes you think Apple can just take it over? MLB doesn’t work that way.
 
Road teams don’t usually do spring training games.
Just checked MLB.TV, and the Padres broadcast did air on both BSKC and BSSD. However, SNLA aired today's Dodgers/D'backs game from Scottsdale, along with BSAZ. Both ran their own broadcasts.

Spring Training is just about over, anyway. Some teams will finish up in Florida and Arizona on Tuesday, while others will return to their own ballparks for a couple of pre-season games for the home fans.
 
Teams could do for TV what some do for radio: Produce the games themselves, sell commercial sponsorships, and buy airtime on local TV stations.

Once the costs of airtime, production of the games, and marketing expenses are paid for, the team keeps the rest of the revenue.

The San Diego Padres probably won't clear $20 million a year by producing games, sell commercial time, and buy airtime on a local TV station, but it might be a seven figure sum if they can do it right.
 
Teams could do for TV what some do for radio: Produce the games themselves, sell commercial sponsorships, and buy airtime on local TV stations

Sure they COULD do it, but it's so much easier and more lucrative to take the big fat paycheck from someone else and let them take all the risk. The way things are now, the teams get guaranteed money, and lately the guaranteed money is more than selling the spots yourself. MLB Network has it both ways, because they have access to the local video, but also produce a game a week on their own.
 
Sure they COULD do it, but it's so much easier and more lucrative to take the big fat paycheck from someone else and let them take all the risk. The way things are now, the teams get guaranteed money, and lately the guaranteed money is more than selling the spots yourself. MLB Network has it both ways, because they have access to the local video, but also produce a game a week on their own.
The Yankees are the highest valued franchise at 7 billion in part because of the YES Network.
 
The Yankees are the highest valued franchise at 7 billion in part because of the YES Network.

Although the team only owns 26% of the network. And the team has sold limited streaming rights for various games during the season to Amazon (also a partner in YES).
 
Teams could do for TV what some do for radio: Produce the games themselves, sell commercial sponsorships, and buy airtime on local TV stations.

Once the costs of airtime, production of the games, and marketing expenses are paid for, the team keeps the rest of the revenue.

The San Diego Padres probably won't clear $20 million a year by producing games, sell commercial time, and buy airtime on a local TV station, but it might be a seven figure sum if they can do it right.
I don’t think any team would willing do that
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom