(11-22-2018 09:40 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(11-22-2018 09:14 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I'd love to see Stadium buy the RSNs. They seem most committed to local sports.

Isn't Stadium and Sinclair in partnership? If so, makes sense on the Sinclair bid.

Sinclair switched their American Sports Network content over to Stadium as part of the merger. That being said, I'm not sure that Sinclair would provide the production value on their content that a Fox or Amazon would.

(11-22-2018 09:59 AM)whittx Wrote:  

(11-22-2018 09:40 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(11-22-2018 09:14 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I'd love to see Stadium buy the RSNs. They seem most committed to local sports.

Isn't Stadium and Sinclair in partnership? If so, makes sense on the Sinclair bid.

Sinclair switched their American Sports Network content over to Stadium as part my the merger. That being said, I'm not sure that Sinclair would provide the production value on their content that a Fox or Amazon would.

Wouldn't they essentially be BUYING production value? They wouldn't just get the contracts, they'd get everything associated with the RSNs...

(11-22-2018 01:22 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-22-2018 09:59 AM)whittx Wrote:  

(11-22-2018 09:40 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(11-22-2018 09:14 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I'd love to see Stadium buy the RSNs. They seem most committed to local sports.

Isn't Stadium and Sinclair in partnership? If so, makes sense on the Sinclair bid.

Sinclair switched their American Sports Network content over to Stadium as part my the merger. That being said, I'm not sure that Sinclair would provide the production value on their content that a Fox or Amazon would.

Wouldn't they essentially be BUYING production value? They wouldn't just get the contracts, they'd get everything associated with the RSNs...

Except for the fact that Sinclair does stuff on the dirt cheap, you might have a point.

(11-21-2018 08:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  So if Amazon wins are they going to make the RSN content available though prime? Hopefully for no additional cost?

My thinking is they could make them an addon for prime subscribers in their respective markets. Of course they will have contracts with cable/satellite companies in place that will have to be addressed. But if they were contractually able to do so, I could see Amazon offering say Braves games as a prime addon to prime members in the Atlanta territory.

While Sinclair has some sort of equity stake in Stadium they don't seem particularly interested in it. There are quite a few markets where Sinclair stations aren't Stadium affiliates.

I suspect that Sinclair's primary interest is greater leverage coupled with cash flow. Don't give Sinclair what they want for a re-transmission fee in Little Rock, then you lose Fox SW with the ABC affiliate.

(11-24-2018 02:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  While Sinclair has some sort of equity stake in Stadium they don't seem particularly interested in it. There are quite a few markets where Sinclair stations aren't Stadium affiliates.

I suspect that Sinclair's primary interest is greater leverage coupled with cash flow. Don't give Sinclair what they want for a re-transmission fee in Little Rock, then you lose Fox SW with the ABC affiliate.

Amazon's corporate tactics are just as bad. This would just be a new arena to throw their weight around.

https://twitter.com/CGasparino/status/10...77505?s=19

Amazon is not taking over the world (yet)

Further update on the RSNs.

https://nypost.com/2018/12/10/disney-pla...s-to-sell/

Quote:Disney’s auction of Fox’s chain of local sports TV networks has proven to be such a complicated process that the Mouse House has decided to offer up the networks piecemeal, The Post has learned.

Quote:Nevertheless, concerns about continued cord-cutting among cable-TV subscribers have forced the bankers, JPMorgan Chase and Allen & Co., to get creative as they scramble to fetch a solid overall price, insiders say.

As such, they’re now conducting management meetings with multiple suitors, including those interested in just a single RSN, sources said.

“The RSN business is not a growth business, but a declining business,” an RSN expert told The Post. “There are a lot of subscriber defections [along with the rest of cable] and the RSNs do not own the digital rights.”

Quote:The Yankees, who have the right of first refusal to reacquire Fox’s stake, are talking with Amazon and others to help fund a deal. Amazon is not interested in buying the rest of the RSNs, sources said.

...so Amazon is only interested in the Yankees. Interesting.

(12-11-2018 04:02 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Further update on the RSNs.

https://nypost.com/2018/12/10/disney-pla...s-to-sell/

Quote:Disney’s auction of Fox’s chain of local sports TV networks has proven to be such a complicated process that the Mouse House has decided to offer up the networks piecemeal, The Post has learned.

Quote:Nevertheless, concerns about continued cord-cutting among cable-TV subscribers have forced the bankers, JPMorgan Chase and Allen & Co., to get creative as they scramble to fetch a solid overall price, insiders say.

As such, they’re now conducting management meetings with multiple suitors, including those interested in just a single RSN, sources said.

“The RSN business is not a growth business, but a declining business,” an RSN expert told The Post. “There are a lot of subscriber defections [along with the rest of cable] and the RSNs do not own the digital rights.”

I don’t think it’s that the RSN Business is in decline...I think it more what I said. These things are so limited in their footprint and so dependent on a single franchise rights—that there is really not much of an economy of scale derived from owning a bunch of them. They represent a bucket of single free standing networks that can’t share the most valuable content with the other RSN’s one might own. Probably easier to sell individually. Also, selling them individually makes it more affordable—expanding the pool of potential bidders.

Disney agreed to sell the RSNs but not to give them away. What happens if Disney doesn't get what they deem to be a reasonable offer?

Fox had to sell the RSNs as part of its bid for Skye. That deal is over so could Disney sell them back to Fox?

The value of the RSNs is the rights contracts. Do those rights include streaming? Going OTT isn't always a given.

Is Amazon really ready to get into the broadcast business?

ISPs are getting left behind in the streaming business. We're not talking about mom-n-pop selling homemade jelly. We're talking about Amazon, Netflix, etc. slamming ISPs with massive amounts of streaming. Sooner or later those fees are going to go up.

(12-11-2018 10:29 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  Disney agreed to sell the RSNs but not to give them away. What happens if Disney doesn't get what they deem to be a reasonable offer?

Fox had to sell the RSNs as part of its bid for Skye. That deal is over so could Disney sell them back to Fox?

The value of the RSNs is the rights contracts. Do those rights include streaming? Going OTT isn't always a given.

Is Amazon really ready to get into the broadcast business?

ISPs are getting left behind in the streaming business. We're not talking about mom-n-pop selling homemade jelly. We're talking about Amazon, Netflix, etc. slamming ISPs with massive amounts of streaming. Sooner or later those fees are going to go up.

They include local streaming in the sense that if you are paying for the RSN, you can go on Fox Sports Go or your cable provider's streaming service and watch the game on your computer.

(11-22-2018 03:29 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-21-2018 11:51 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The team sells the right to distribute within a specific geographic region and the league holds the right to re-transmit those games outside the region.

ESPN will sell to the highest bidder because they have a fiduciary duty to shareholders but they are not going to want to sell to Amazon or any tech company if they can avoid it.

There are really only three players in the streaming sports arena. ESPN with ESPN3, ESPN+, MLB.tv, and NHL GameCenter. Then you have the NBA and its streaming out-of-market package and then you have Stadium.

Right now the two other entrants are an out-of-market league package for a league where the most popular teams get a buttload of national broadcasts and an outfit that has not made any large rights fee investments.

Google owns a couple local rights packages for MLS and I don't have any idea how they are doing them. I don't know if they are a standalone subscription, available free on YouTube based on geography or just bundled with YouTubeTV or even if it is offered to local cable and satellite.

Amazon often does unexpected things. They might offer your local FSN content as a part of prime or as an add-on or just something completely unexpected.

The only one that could get a secondary boost out the RSN's to me is STADIUM. They already have live content. They already have a studio set up to do a live nationwide sports center type show. They already have an OTA syndicated network--so these RSN's would just give them access to a well known platform already on multiple cable systems in 22 large metro areas. It would be a huge step up for STADIUM to have a cable outlet in 22 major cities as opposed to having just an OTA subchannel presence in many of those same metro areas.

The RSN's could do stories and feed them to the main network and the network could use them, in conjuction with the sports news of the day, to create a pretty solid national Sports Center type show. Mix in their live college sports STADIUM content and suddenly those STADIUM college games that barely have any viewers, start getting more eyballs by have easier access to viewers in 22 major metro areas. The RSN's should be woth more to STADIUM than anyone else....if they have the money.

Sinclair bidding for the RSN's made me wonder what it could mean for STADIUM as well. The RSN's could just re-brand as STADIUM, making it more of a true national cable channel. The studio programming and nationally televised college sports games could air on all the STADIUM RSN's, the STADIUM OTT app, and OTA. While regional programming could be reserved for each specific RSN.

Another thing to consider is their OTT streaming app. They could offer all out of market games on the $4.99 Stadium Plus. Right now, Stadium Plus only has MWC, Patriot League, and West Coast Conference games. But if they get the 22 RSN's, a Detroit sports fan living in North Carolina could pay for Stadium Plus to follow his Detroit teams.

(12-11-2018 11:39 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  

(11-22-2018 03:29 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-21-2018 11:51 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The team sells the right to distribute within a specific geographic region and the league holds the right to re-transmit those games outside the region.

ESPN will sell to the highest bidder because they have a fiduciary duty to shareholders but they are not going to want to sell to Amazon or any tech company if they can avoid it.

There are really only three players in the streaming sports arena. ESPN with ESPN3, ESPN+, MLB.tv, and NHL GameCenter. Then you have the NBA and its streaming out-of-market package and then you have Stadium.

Right now the two other entrants are an out-of-market league package for a league where the most popular teams get a buttload of national broadcasts and an outfit that has not made any large rights fee investments.

Google owns a couple local rights packages for MLS and I don't have any idea how they are doing them. I don't know if they are a standalone subscription, available free on YouTube based on geography or just bundled with YouTubeTV or even if it is offered to local cable and satellite.

Amazon often does unexpected things. They might offer your local FSN content as a part of prime or as an add-on or just something completely unexpected.

The only one that could get a secondary boost out the RSN's to me is STADIUM. They already have live content. They already have a studio set up to do a live nationwide sports center type show. They already have an OTA syndicated network--so these RSN's would just give them access to a well known platform already on multiple cable systems in 22 large metro areas. It would be a huge step up for STADIUM to have a cable outlet in 22 major cities as opposed to having just an OTA subchannel presence in many of those same metro areas.

The RSN's could do stories and feed them to the main network and the network could use them, in conjuction with the sports news of the day, to create a pretty solid national Sports Center type show. Mix in their live college sports STADIUM content and suddenly those STADIUM college games that barely have any viewers, start getting more eyballs by have easier access to viewers in 22 major metro areas. The RSN's should be woth more to STADIUM than anyone else....if they have the money.

Sinclair bidding for the RSN's made me wonder what it could mean for STADIUM as well. The RSN's could just re-brand as STADIUM, making it more of a true national cable channel. The studio programming and nationally televised college sports games could air on all the STADIUM RSN's, the STADIUM OTT app, and OTA. While regional programming could be reserved for each specific RSN.

Another thing to consider is their OTT streaming app. They could offer all out of market games on the $4.99 Stadium Plus. Right now, Stadium Plus only has MWC, Patriot League, and West Coast Conference games. But if they get the 22 RSN's, a Detroit sports fan living in North Carolina could pay for Stadium Plus to follow his Detroit teams.

RSNs are for in market only. Stadium couldn't sell Stadium Detroit to anyone outside of the Detroit territory without blackouts. And blackouts make an RSN worthless

(12-11-2018 01:04 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 11:39 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  

(11-22-2018 03:29 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-21-2018 11:51 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The team sells the right to distribute within a specific geographic region and the league holds the right to re-transmit those games outside the region.

ESPN will sell to the highest bidder because they have a fiduciary duty to shareholders but they are not going to want to sell to Amazon or any tech company if they can avoid it.

There are really only three players in the streaming sports arena. ESPN with ESPN3, ESPN+, MLB.tv, and NHL GameCenter. Then you have the NBA and its streaming out-of-market package and then you have Stadium.

Right now the two other entrants are an out-of-market league package for a league where the most popular teams get a buttload of national broadcasts and an outfit that has not made any large rights fee investments.

Google owns a couple local rights packages for MLS and I don't have any idea how they are doing them. I don't know if they are a standalone subscription, available free on YouTube based on geography or just bundled with YouTubeTV or even if it is offered to local cable and satellite.

Amazon often does unexpected things. They might offer your local FSN content as a part of prime or as an add-on or just something completely unexpected.

The only one that could get a secondary boost out the RSN's to me is STADIUM. They already have live content. They already have a studio set up to do a live nationwide sports center type show. They already have an OTA syndicated network--so these RSN's would just give them access to a well known platform already on multiple cable systems in 22 large metro areas. It would be a huge step up for STADIUM to have a cable outlet in 22 major cities as opposed to having just an OTA subchannel presence in many of those same metro areas.

The RSN's could do stories and feed them to the main network and the network could use them, in conjuction with the sports news of the day, to create a pretty solid national Sports Center type show. Mix in their live college sports STADIUM content and suddenly those STADIUM college games that barely have any viewers, start getting more eyballs by have easier access to viewers in 22 major metro areas. The RSN's should be woth more to STADIUM than anyone else....if they have the money.

Sinclair bidding for the RSN's made me wonder what it could mean for STADIUM as well. The RSN's could just re-brand as STADIUM, making it more of a true national cable channel. The studio programming and nationally televised college sports games could air on all the STADIUM RSN's, the STADIUM OTT app, and OTA. While regional programming could be reserved for each specific RSN.

Another thing to consider is their OTT streaming app. They could offer all out of market games on the $4.99 Stadium Plus. Right now, Stadium Plus only has MWC, Patriot League, and West Coast Conference games. But if they get the 22 RSN's, a Detroit sports fan living in North Carolina could pay for Stadium Plus to follow his Detroit teams.

RSNs are for in market only. Stadium couldn't sell Stadium Detroit to anyone outside of the Detroit territory without blackouts. And blackouts make an RSN worthless

Is that a federal law or something? Or just a practice that FOX set that could be changed with new ownership?

It just feels like there's more money to be made from out of market fans wanting to follow their teams.

(11-21-2018 08:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  So if Amazon wins are they going to make the RSN content available though prime? Hopefully for no additional cost?

It will be free. But AMZN will keep raising Prime price.

(12-11-2018 01:16 PM)MUsince96 Wrote:  Is that a federal law or something? Or just a practice that FOX set that could be changed with new ownership?

It just feels like there's more money to be made from out of market fans wanting to follow their teams.

League rules. MLB makes the money from NC fans who want access to all the Tigers games, all the FL fans who want Yankees games, et,, through MLB.TV. They then redistrubte it per thier own internal formula. Teams cannot sell their games directly outside their home market.

(12-11-2018 01:29 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 01:16 PM)MUsince96 Wrote:  Is that a federal law or something? Or just a practice that FOX set that could be changed with new ownership?

It just feels like there's more money to be made from out of market fans wanting to follow their teams.

League rules. MLB makes the money from NC fans who want access to all the Tigers games, all the FL fans who want Yankees games, et,, through MLB.TV. They then redistrubte it per thier own internal formula. Teams cannot sell their games directly outside their home market.

Gotcha. Well there goes my theory on that then.

As a fan of a team whose games air on Stadium I've been rooting for them to grow.

Manfred is quoted as saying MLB is interested.

Sounds like a perfect opportunity to fix the arcane blackout rules by buying the networks and releasing the content to the streaming product

(12-11-2018 02:23 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  Manfred is quoted as saying MLB is interested.

Sounds like a perfect opportunity to fix the arcane blackout rules by buying the networks and releasing the content to the streaming product

Very true. If the league owned all those rights at the same time, it would make redrawing the maps much easier

Assuming they did get all the Fox RSNs the following territories would be excluded from revision without special accommodation
Toronto,
NYY/NYM
Philadelphia,
Pittsburgh,
Boston,
Baltimore/Washington
CHI White Sox/Cubs
Houston,
Seattle,
LA Dodgers,
San Francisco
Colorado

Half the league couldn't be messed and the major problems in NC, IA, and NV could not be fixed