Fox Sports RSNs

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by slice1900, Jun 30, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,127
    1,321
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    If Fox ends up accepting Disney's offer, the FCC has required Disney to sell off the Fox RSNs. AT&T has been suggested as one potential interested party. AT&T would become a big player in RSNs if they took over those 22 RSNs (maybe only 21 since apparently the Yankees have a clause that allows them to buy out YES) to add to their current small collection of the former Root Sports networks.
     
    dtv757 likes this.
  2. KNPKH2ster

    KNPKH2ster Mentor

    50
    5
    Apr 3, 2010
    I don't know why, but I feel FOX should keep some of the RSNs in order to bolster the FOX Sports channels.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  3. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,127
    1,321
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Fox wanted them included in the sale. All they wanted to keep was Fox network and its O&O stations, FS1, FS2, FNC, FBN, and BTN.
     
  4. TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    8,004
    458
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    As long as Comcast doesn’t get them.

    I wonder if they’re a package deal? I hope the local cable company’s don’t go after them, such as my local Cox going after FSN-AZ or FSN-SD, or Comcast or Spectrum Charter going after their local ones.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2018
  5. Jul 1, 2018 #5 of 89
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,127
    1,321
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    There would be economies of scale in running all of them versus some of them, so I doubt they'd be split up. I can't imagine it would pass muster with the FTC for Comcast to get them, since they already control many RSNs.
     
  6. Jul 1, 2018 #6 of 89
    JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    5,015
    71
    Jul 21, 2008
    but don't the teams own parts of them? and some may some more locally controlled stuff?
     
  7. Jul 1, 2018 #7 of 89
    KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    5,391
    1,059
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    Fox owns 100% of their RSNs except for YES where the Yankees own a 20% stake, San Diego where the Padres own a %20 stake, and the Cincinnati subfeed of Ohio where the Reds have a 50% stake.
     
    slice1900 likes this.
  8. Jul 2, 2018 #8 of 89
    schmave1

    schmave1 Active Member

    221
    32
    May 20, 2016
    Reynoldsburg...
    Getting to watch many RSNs with the Sports Pack, IMO the NBC Sports RSNs are far ahead of the FSNs. Better studio programming, better non-game programming and more local commitment overall. The FSNs are then well ahead of the AT&T SportsNets, which by and large do very little outside game coverage and a magazine show.
    I'd be fine if Spectrum went after the Fox Sports Ohio channels, although obviously not as happy if they then played hardball with the satellite providers.
     
  9. Jul 2, 2018 #9 of 89
    SamC

    SamC Hall Of Fame

    2,275
    99
    Jan 20, 2003
    At one time, long ago, there was some value in what I will call the "off hours" on RSNs. Which is when the NBA, NHL, and MLB teams were not playing. There was some underlying almost national college content, and many produced local HS and smaller college games. Some did local sports talk or sports news.

    Today, 99% of what is on off-hours on RSNs is filler and infomercials.

    The question is if one entity actually has the $$ to buy them all, or does Disney sell them off region by region, probably to which ever cable bandit is most prominent in each region.

    As the actual talent covering each team will not change, all we really are talking about is what logo is on the microphone. As long as we do not end up with a sitution like the Phillies and Dodgers, who cares?
     
  10. Rob37

    Rob37 Active Member

    677
    76
    Jul 10, 2013
    Hell I am seriously thinking about cancelling the Sports Pack after this 2018 Baseball Season Ends because many of the RSN’s that I am paying for get blacked out anyway. The only reason I have them anyway is for baseball and MLB Extra Innings.
     
  11. schmave1

    schmave1 Active Member

    221
    32
    May 20, 2016
    Reynoldsburg...
    That's where I am, Rob. I keep the Sports Pack pretty much just for NBC Sports Chicago but I do enjoy some of the local talk shows and news segments on the various channels.
     
  12. chino

    chino Member

    50
    13
    Jul 11, 2017
    I noticed yesterday I got blacked out from the Blue Jays television feed and the Dodgers television feed for the first time from MLB extra innings
     
  13. TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    8,004
    458
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    https://nypost.com/2018/11/11/yankees-looking-to-buy-back-yes-from-21st-century-fox/

    It’ll be interesting to see what happens with this, if they end up owning it, will other teams follow and buy their local Fox RSN’s so they could possibly offer a subscription package directly to fans via a streaming app?

    I wonder if the big guys, AT&T, Cox, Comcast, Spectrum, will try to go after the Fox RSN’s in their areas?
     
  14. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,127
    1,321
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Most RSNs are multi team so the buyout wouldn't be quite so simple. It sounds like the most likely outcome for the Fox FSNs is Fox buying them all back. The 90 days the FCC gave to sell them off isn't enough time for Disney to seek out and come to an agreement with multiple individual buyers, they have to sell them as a package.
     
  15. JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    5,015
    71
    Jul 21, 2008
    The cubs want to start there own (maybe the blackhawks can join then)
    leveling jerry reinsdorf with the bulls / sox maybe they can go back to sports vision
     
  16. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,127
    1,321
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    It isn't clear what the best option is. Some will say you want to own your own rights, so you can sell streaming rights to whoever you want or operate your own streaming channel. The problem is you will have no leverage when it comes time to negotiate for TV rights, which for the foreseeable future will be where most of the money is made because it is paid for by many people who don't watch the channel.

    I don't think it would make sense for the Cubs to start their own channel that they own. They'd rather partner with someone like Fox, AT&T, Comcast or whoever so they can insure good carriage on cable/satellite systems, do sort of like the Big Ten did with BTN. They'd just sell TV rights only, and keep streaming rights for themselves.
     
  17. zippyfrog

    zippyfrog Mentor

    223
    12
    Jul 14, 2010
    I agree 100% - see the Dodgers situation... Part of me thinks the Cubs and NBC/Comcast are going to come to a deal where NBC Sports Chicago+ gets rebranded as the Cubs Network and whomever has NBC Sports Net Chicago will get the Cubs Network when it launches.
     
  18. JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    5,015
    71
    Jul 21, 2008
    but with the over lap with the teams that Chicago+ is needed for non cubs stuff and some times they need Chicago+2
     
  19. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,127
    1,321
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    The Dodgers themselves are actually fine with their situation, they are getting paid $8 billion over 25 years regardless of how poor the carriage of that channel is. But due to that fiasco, no one is going to be willing to make a similar deal where the team is guaranteed a bunch of money and the channel owner risks losing billions if they can't get the carriage they thought they could. The Longhorn Network is another example of this, just on a smaller scale. Texas gets paid no matter what, while ESPN is losing $10 million a year on it.

    If the team is the channel owner like the Yankees apparently want to be, then they take the risk about getting carriage. Even if they can get good carriage today and still have a lot of non-viewers paying them money, what about five years from now? A lot could change. Every team, even a marquee name with more a national than regional following, like the Yankees or Cubs, will be getting a lot less money once only those who actually want to watch are the only ones paying. Streaming isn't going to cure that issue. The Dodgers got in at JUST the right time, no one else will get a fat long term guaranteed deal like that.

    That's why I think a shared ownership model is the best solution to help with the transition. Maybe someday full ownership of your rights will be best solution, but such a day is at least a decade away if not longer.
     
  20. TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    8,004
    458
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    Don’t the Bruins and Red Sox have full ownership of NESN?

    One thing I’d like to see happen is the ability to stream your local teams without having to have a cable or satellite subscription. But I know it’s all the money and the guaranteed revenue from the RSN’s, cable and satellite subscriptions.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

spam firewall