While not surprising, it is unfortunate that Sinclair's eyes are much bigger than its stomach.
or just let the teams sell there own games to any one and then have an for just an BIT more get all the games from all the teams.I am beginning to think Fox is the best run company in the business. Sells the RSNs just at the right time, and sells it library to Disney for a streaming venture. Sinclair is on the verge of bankruptcy, and the streaming bubble is about to pop, with Disney pouring one and a half billion down that rathole in just one quarter.
The RSNs are in real trouble. As with other sports channels “everybody” paid, and paid a lot, for the local RSN, whether they wanted it or not. Now there are two problems. If you don’t want it, you can get good packages of linear TV without it. And the ultra low priced out of market packages let people follow any team they want, except for their own.
They simply, HAVE to include the local teams in the season packages, and price them accordingly. There is no other solution.
RSNs exist for a reason: economies of scale. If every team had to produce their own content, it could get expensive real fast. What happens with all of the production facilities in the off-season?or just let the teams sell there own games to any one and then have an for just an BIT more get all the games from all the teams.
well the thing is lets say they make the out of market package in to an ALL games one at the league level? and say I think do to the anit trust thing they must offer an lower cost 1 team choice as well.Who is going to bundle these games "for just a bit more" and how will they divide the revenue?
If the league takes over for RSN’s…as asked before who is going to produce those games? You think the league or individual teams would want it to be something they would have to do? Right now the MLB-TV service just uses the RSN produced games.well the thing is lets say they make the out of market package in to an ALL games one at the league level? and say I think do to the anit trust thing they must offer an lower cost 1 team choice as well.
some teams may be like we want to be able to sell and market our own 1 team choice to any one. And in some cases some teams may want more vs other teams that can do with less.
That doesn't address the issue of the seasonality of most popular sports.well the thing is lets say they make the out of market package in to an ALL games one at the league level?
If the RSN delivered multiple sports using a pool of rigs used year round, they could more easily justify spares.So how do the multi-team RSN handle overlaps between their sports?
Struggling regional sports network operator Diamond Sports Group is set to name a CEO Monday, making it more independent from Sinclair Broadcast Group, which has been running the chain of Bally Sports Networks.
maybe $15 on it's own with say $10-$13 when you buy the full year. And say $8-$13 on cable as an add on channel.And as I predicted months ago nobody is going to pay $20 for Bally Sports Plus when people already gripe about what was $6.99 now $9.99 for ESPN+ that offers far more. DSG needed to price BSP to where it's both affordable for people and could drive enough subscribers to still be profitable for them. $20 just wasn't it. I said $5 maybe a max of $10 tops a month. That easily could have brought fare more subscribers which in turn more profit (more revenue from ads, more subscribers, etc). But hey I'm just a random nobody on a tiny message forum commenting on this. What do I know, right?
That's sometimes what you get when you try to corner the market on something. Sometimes the result is a failure on a much grander scale.What a mess......