MLB contracts are up next week. It’s interesting that both Gray and Scripps are interested in picking up the games and running them on local stations.
https://cordcuttersnews.com/bally-sport ... -go/?amp=1
Personally I’d think Gray is the better partner — considering all the cuts that Scripps is going through.
Acceptable registrations in the queue through April 26 at 9:00p ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
MLB and Diamond made some sort of agreement today that will likely keep the Tigers on Ballys this year. The details will probably come out Jan 10th in the next scheduled court date. Diamond will likely lose The Cleveland Gaurdians and Texas Rangers from those RSMs but keep the other 9 MLB teams it has a contract with.
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
From The Athletic: https://theathletic.com/5141222/2023/12 ... sts/?amp=1
MLB, Bally RSNs reach tentative ‘framework’ for 2024 broadcasts
By Evan Drellich
The bankrupt Diamond Sports Group, which holds the 2024 broadcast rights to 11 Major League Baseball teams through its Bally-branded regional sports networks, appears to be nearing a settlement with baseball’s commissioner’s office that could create relative certainty as to which MLB teams Diamond will broadcast next year.
“We are in a position to believe that we have a framework to move forward,” said James Bromley, a lawyer for MLB, during a federal bankruptcy hearing in Houston. “We have a lot of conditions and issues that we still need to work through.”
The next hearing is set for Jan. 10. Such a deal, if consummated, would likely also add clarity to those 11 teams’ television revenues, at least for the 2024 season. The Diamond drama looms in the background of free agency, if not over it, particularly now as the market moves beyond Shohei Ohtani, who was never going to lack for suitors.
The teams that remain under contract with Diamond for 2024 are the Los Angeles Angels, Milwaukee Brewers, Atlanta Braves, St. Louis Cardinals, Cleveland Guardians, Miami Marlins, Texas Rangers, Tampa Bay Rays, Cincinnati Reds, Kansas City Royals and Detroit Tigers.
Lawyers for Diamond and MLB did not specify in court what the framework they’re building would look like, or whether it would include all 11 remaining teams. MLB and Diamond declined to comment after the hearing.
Both Cleveland and Texas are known as teams that Diamond has considered dropping unless a revised financial arrangement could be reached. Those two teams had lawyers in court Friday.
“The Guardians are supportive of what’s being proposed today,” said Oliver Zeltner, who represents the team. “We haven’t been involved in the mediation, but what we’ve heard today is encouraging.”
A lawyer for Diamond, Andrew Goldman, added a new wrinkle, however, when he mentioned that there are “three teams who are currently not contemplated to be in the fold.” Previously there were only two such known teams — the Guardians and Rangers. The identity of that third team was not immediately clear.
A lawyer for the Rangers, Charles Koster, added there are “three teams that debtors will be seeking to change the financial arrangement with.”
The third team might be a club previously carried by Diamond that is not currently, which would include the Arizona Diamondbacks, San Diego Padres or Minnesota Twins.
Koster also said that the parties were making an effort “to get to a broad and global deal with all of the MLB teams and MLB itself.”
“That said, obviously, as we all know, there is not a deal until there’s a deal, and there’s also not necessarily a common set of issues among all of the clubs,” Koster said.
Some player agents this offseason have privately pointed out that potentially affected teams appear to have tightened their wallets on account of the uncertainty surrounding Diamond and the Bally stations, and some team executives have made at least indirect comments reinforcing as much. That stance, in turn, has irked agents who believe the teams are overhyping concern for TV revenue.
Diamond was supposed to square off with MLB on Friday. The league had asked the court for Diamond to decide which teams it would or would not carry for 2024. But the parties made enough progress in a long mediation meeting Thursday that the sides asked for the hearing to be pushed to January to further settlement talks.
The adjournment could help the parties “see if we can have peace break out in the valley,” said Goldman, the Diamond lawyer.
“It’s a particularly complicated set of bullet points that we’re going to try to reduce,” he said.
The larger question might be what will happen after 2024. By that time, Diamond is likely to have a Chapter 11 reorganization plan in place, one that could well return any baseball TV rights Diamond still holds for 2025 and beyond to the respective teams. So even if Diamond can broadcast the remaining 11 teams for 2024, its current partner teams are likely to be looking for different partners for 2025 — whether that’s MLB distributing games itself or another third party.
Entering 2023, Diamond carried 14 MLB teams. Diamond stopped making rights fee payments to the Padres and Diamondbacks during the 2023 season, and MLB took over those broadcasts. Diamond’s deal with the Twins expired after last season.
Other teams face near-term TV uncertainty as well. The Colorado Rockies are not known to have a TV home for 2024 yet after Warner Bros. Discovery got out of the RSN business.
MLB, Bally RSNs reach tentative ‘framework’ for 2024 broadcasts
By Evan Drellich
The bankrupt Diamond Sports Group, which holds the 2024 broadcast rights to 11 Major League Baseball teams through its Bally-branded regional sports networks, appears to be nearing a settlement with baseball’s commissioner’s office that could create relative certainty as to which MLB teams Diamond will broadcast next year.
“We are in a position to believe that we have a framework to move forward,” said James Bromley, a lawyer for MLB, during a federal bankruptcy hearing in Houston. “We have a lot of conditions and issues that we still need to work through.”
The next hearing is set for Jan. 10. Such a deal, if consummated, would likely also add clarity to those 11 teams’ television revenues, at least for the 2024 season. The Diamond drama looms in the background of free agency, if not over it, particularly now as the market moves beyond Shohei Ohtani, who was never going to lack for suitors.
The teams that remain under contract with Diamond for 2024 are the Los Angeles Angels, Milwaukee Brewers, Atlanta Braves, St. Louis Cardinals, Cleveland Guardians, Miami Marlins, Texas Rangers, Tampa Bay Rays, Cincinnati Reds, Kansas City Royals and Detroit Tigers.
Lawyers for Diamond and MLB did not specify in court what the framework they’re building would look like, or whether it would include all 11 remaining teams. MLB and Diamond declined to comment after the hearing.
Both Cleveland and Texas are known as teams that Diamond has considered dropping unless a revised financial arrangement could be reached. Those two teams had lawyers in court Friday.
“The Guardians are supportive of what’s being proposed today,” said Oliver Zeltner, who represents the team. “We haven’t been involved in the mediation, but what we’ve heard today is encouraging.”
A lawyer for Diamond, Andrew Goldman, added a new wrinkle, however, when he mentioned that there are “three teams who are currently not contemplated to be in the fold.” Previously there were only two such known teams — the Guardians and Rangers. The identity of that third team was not immediately clear.
A lawyer for the Rangers, Charles Koster, added there are “three teams that debtors will be seeking to change the financial arrangement with.”
The third team might be a club previously carried by Diamond that is not currently, which would include the Arizona Diamondbacks, San Diego Padres or Minnesota Twins.
Koster also said that the parties were making an effort “to get to a broad and global deal with all of the MLB teams and MLB itself.”
“That said, obviously, as we all know, there is not a deal until there’s a deal, and there’s also not necessarily a common set of issues among all of the clubs,” Koster said.
Some player agents this offseason have privately pointed out that potentially affected teams appear to have tightened their wallets on account of the uncertainty surrounding Diamond and the Bally stations, and some team executives have made at least indirect comments reinforcing as much. That stance, in turn, has irked agents who believe the teams are overhyping concern for TV revenue.
Diamond was supposed to square off with MLB on Friday. The league had asked the court for Diamond to decide which teams it would or would not carry for 2024. But the parties made enough progress in a long mediation meeting Thursday that the sides asked for the hearing to be pushed to January to further settlement talks.
The adjournment could help the parties “see if we can have peace break out in the valley,” said Goldman, the Diamond lawyer.
“It’s a particularly complicated set of bullet points that we’re going to try to reduce,” he said.
The larger question might be what will happen after 2024. By that time, Diamond is likely to have a Chapter 11 reorganization plan in place, one that could well return any baseball TV rights Diamond still holds for 2025 and beyond to the respective teams. So even if Diamond can broadcast the remaining 11 teams for 2024, its current partner teams are likely to be looking for different partners for 2025 — whether that’s MLB distributing games itself or another third party.
Entering 2023, Diamond carried 14 MLB teams. Diamond stopped making rights fee payments to the Padres and Diamondbacks during the 2023 season, and MLB took over those broadcasts. Diamond’s deal with the Twins expired after last season.
Other teams face near-term TV uncertainty as well. The Colorado Rockies are not known to have a TV home for 2024 yet after Warner Bros. Discovery got out of the RSN business.
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
That’s a shame. I was hoping MLB would rip off the band aid and find a new broadcast partner.
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
Would be nice potentially having the Tigers back on broadcast TV.
Woe to you, oh earth and sea
For the Devil sends the beast with wrath
Because he knows the time is short
Let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the beast
For it is a human number
Its number is six hundred and sixty-six
For the Devil sends the beast with wrath
Because he knows the time is short
Let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the beast
For it is a human number
Its number is six hundred and sixty-six
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
I think MLB and the teams decided it was too late to negotiate new deals and build the infrastructure to broadcast a full season in a little over 3 months, thus decided to give Diamond one more year to figure it out. Cleveland and Dallas must have gotten a jump start in getting a new broadcast network together.
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
Streaming rights for MLB in 2024 will be of interest.
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
This caught my attention. Could Amazon come out the winner?
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2023/1 ... mond-rsns/
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2023/1 ... mond-rsns/
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
Amazon as a white knight for Diamond would keep MLB and the teams patient enough to give RSMs another year. It also would be a setback for the unionization of the broadcast technicians that put those shows on the air, Amazon's hostility towards unions is well known.
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
Amazon definitely has the money to back up Bally Sports, but they’ll once again be putting games behind a paywall — limiting the potential audience. Really no different than the failed business model that Bally Sports is right now.
I thought the MLB, NBA and NHL wanted complete control of direct to consumer streaming rights. Why give that up with a partnership with Amazon?
I thought the MLB, NBA and NHL wanted complete control of direct to consumer streaming rights. Why give that up with a partnership with Amazon?
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
Games have been behind a paywall for years dummy. PASS and FSD were not free.sinklair wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 11:38 pmAmazon definitely has the money to back up Bally Sports, but they’ll once again be putting games behind a paywall — limiting the potential audience. Really no different than the failed business model that Bally Sports is right now.
I thought the MLB, NBA and NHL wanted complete control of direct to consumer streaming rights. Why give that up with a partnership with Amazon?
Voting for Trump is dumber than playing Russian Roulette with fully loaded chambers.
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
So you're saying Amazon is great?Editorcj wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 12:09 pmAmazon as a white knight for Diamond would keep MLB and the teams patient enough to give RSMs another year. It also would be a setback for the unionization of the broadcast technicians that put those shows on the air, Amazon's hostility towards unions is well known.
Voting for Trump is dumber than playing Russian Roulette with fully loaded chambers.
-
MWmetalhead
- Site Admin
- Posts: 12055
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:23 am
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
I disagree.Really no different than the failed business model that Bally Sports is right now.
Bally's failed due to the three headed monster of excessive debt load, ridiculous management services payments to Sinclair, and overpaying for some teams' rights.
Morgan Wallen is a piece of garbage.
-
Graham Wellington
- Posts: 664
- Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 4:48 pm
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
+1Matt wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 4:21 pmGames have been behind a paywall for years dummy. PASS and FSD were not free.sinklair wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 11:38 pmAmazon definitely has the money to back up Bally Sports, but they’ll once again be putting games behind a paywall — limiting the potential audience. Really no different than the failed business model that Bally Sports is right now.
I thought the MLB, NBA and NHL wanted complete control of direct to consumer streaming rights. Why give that up with a partnership with Amazon?
I'm constantly amazed at the amount of people who equate their $150/month cable TV package with free TV.
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
Matt and Graham: who the hell said cable wasn’t a pay wall? Certainly not me, “dummies.”
Reread my comments in full before you insert foots.
I said Amazon would be no different than Bally Sports — forcing viewers to pay to watch games… As opposed to the leagues negotiating rights with local, free over the air, TV stations which would increase potential viewers at a time when teams are seeing an overall decline in viewing audiences.
The only league bucking that trend is the NFL. Why? Because they have broadcast rights on FOX, CBS, NBC to carry weekly games on local stations. And they supplement their coverage with NFL Network, ESPN, Amazon, etc.
I think it’s a demonstrably better approach than what Sinclair/Bally Sports — which is to force anyone who wants to watch games to have to pay for cable or a poorly performing streaming app… thus excluding much of your potential fan base who just doesn’t want to pay additional fees.
MW: I don’t disagree with your assessment about why Sinclair/Bally’s was doomed to failure. I just hope the leagues learn from their past mistakes. They went after the short-term money instead of looking at the big picture of how to grow their audience. Sinclair was a bad partner both financially and strategically. Amazon may be a better alternative but I doubt it fundamentally opens the leagues up to growing their audiences beyond the super fans who are already willing to pay anything to watch weekly games.
Reread my comments in full before you insert foots.
I said Amazon would be no different than Bally Sports — forcing viewers to pay to watch games… As opposed to the leagues negotiating rights with local, free over the air, TV stations which would increase potential viewers at a time when teams are seeing an overall decline in viewing audiences.
The only league bucking that trend is the NFL. Why? Because they have broadcast rights on FOX, CBS, NBC to carry weekly games on local stations. And they supplement their coverage with NFL Network, ESPN, Amazon, etc.
I think it’s a demonstrably better approach than what Sinclair/Bally Sports — which is to force anyone who wants to watch games to have to pay for cable or a poorly performing streaming app… thus excluding much of your potential fan base who just doesn’t want to pay additional fees.
MW: I don’t disagree with your assessment about why Sinclair/Bally’s was doomed to failure. I just hope the leagues learn from their past mistakes. They went after the short-term money instead of looking at the big picture of how to grow their audience. Sinclair was a bad partner both financially and strategically. Amazon may be a better alternative but I doubt it fundamentally opens the leagues up to growing their audiences beyond the super fans who are already willing to pay anything to watch weekly games.