https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/sin...s-networks

But people close to the league tell FOX Business that MLB may now be having second-thoughts about a bid on all the RSNs, and with that, Sinclair, at least as of now, appears to be in the lead position to purchase all of the networks, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter.

“At least, as of now, no one is really looking aggressively at buying all the RSNs except Sinclair,” one person with knowledge of the bidding process said. “Unless that changes, there’s no way they’re getting $20 billion.”

(12-13-2018 08:08 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/sin...s-networks

But people close to the league tell FOX Business that MLB may now be having second-thoughts about a bid on all the RSNs, and with that, Sinclair, at least as of now, appears to be in the lead position to purchase all of the networks, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter.

“At least, as of now, no one is really looking aggressively at buying all the RSNs except Sinclair,” one person with knowledge of the bidding process said. “Unless that changes, there’s no way they’re getting $20 billion.”

I don't think a lot of people are going to be thrilled if Sinclair gets it.

Do not buy the idea that Sinclair wants this as something to bolster Stadium. They were basically ready to walk away from ASN and took a stake in Stadium simply to stem the money.

I believe Sinclair's interest is two-fold.

1. Consolidation of ad sales staff. In a number of markets they would be able to add the local RSN to the inventory the local TV station sales staff. Bet a dollar to a doughnut that when they go to a Ford dealership in San Antonio offering ads on the local NBC station and Spurs related telecasts on Fox SW that most of the ad revenue is allocated to the local affiliate because you don't want the Spurs looking at the books and seeing strong ad sales when it's time to talk rights.
2. Retransmission leverage. Cable and satellite and now online distributors don't want to pay a premium for the CW or Fox in Wisconsin? Fine. You lose the Bucks and Brewers as well because Sinclair isn't interested in you having those rights without Fox and CW.

Sinclair is probably the least likely to innovate in delivering content to consumers.

(12-13-2018 09:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 08:08 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/sin...s-networks

But people close to the league tell FOX Business that MLB may now be having second-thoughts about a bid on all the RSNs, and with that, Sinclair, at least as of now, appears to be in the lead position to purchase all of the networks, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter.

“At least, as of now, no one is really looking aggressively at buying all the RSNs except Sinclair,” one person with knowledge of the bidding process said. “Unless that changes, there’s no way they’re getting $20 billion.”

I don't think a lot of people are going to be thrilled if Sinclair gets it.

Do not buy the idea that Sinclair wants this as something to bolster Stadium. They were basically ready to walk away from ASN and took a stake in Stadium simply to stem the money.

I believe Sinclair's interest is two-fold.

1. Consolidation of ad sales staff. In a number of markets they would be able to add the local RSN to the inventory the local TV station sales staff. Bet a dollar to a doughnut that when they go to a Ford dealership in San Antonio offering ads on the local NBC station and Spurs related telecasts on Fox SW that most of the ad revenue is allocated to the local affiliate because you don't want the Spurs looking at the books and seeing strong ad sales when it's time to talk rights.
2. Retransmission leverage. Cable and satellite and now online distributors don't want to pay a premium for the CW or Fox in Wisconsin? Fine. You lose the Bucks and Brewers as well because Sinclair isn't interested in you having those rights without Fox and CW.

Sinclair is probably the least likely to innovate in delivering content to consumers.

Yep. They may throw some Stadium content and Ring Of Honor on there as filler, but getting the RSNs would allow them to be linked to local affiliates which would be a boon come retransmission negotiation time.

Stadium is designed to be a cheap digital sub network for Sinclair.

(12-11-2018 02:43 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(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

Actually, it would be the opposite: MLB owning the RSNs would cause an even MORE hardline stance regarding blackouts. MLB itself already draws the blackout map based on the teams claiming territory and could change that map now on its own - it has nothing to do with who owns the RSNs.

This goes back to the broader reasons why a la carte is so much less lucrative compared to basic cable, which is why networks and sports leagues will continue to fight a la carte until basic fees are pryed from their cold, dead hands. MLB doesn’t care that much about the out-of-market people in North Carolina that want to watch Cubs and Cardinals games - they’ll take some ancillary MLB.tv revenue for relatively cheap. What they *do* care about is the person living “in-market” in Iowa, which is claimed by the Cubs, Cardinals, White Sox, Twins, Royals and Brewers as a home market subject to local blackouts. MLB does NOT want a few thousand people in Iowa paying a $100 per year for MLB.tv. Instead, they want/need all 1 million or so Iowa cable/satellite households to pay several dollars per month each to NBC Sports Chicago, Fox Sports Midwest and Fox Sports North (regardless of whether they ever turn on those channels) to support the tens of millions of dollars of rights fees that those networks are paying to those “local” teams.

MLB *WANTS* those blackouts. That can’t be emphasized enough. They want as many households in America paying in-market subscriber fees to at least one RSN even if they aren’t directly in an MLB market (and places like Iowa that are claimed by multiple teams with multiple networks are unfortunately caught in the crossfire of that stance).

(12-13-2018 11:21 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 09:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 08:08 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/sin...s-networks

But people close to the league tell FOX Business that MLB may now be having second-thoughts about a bid on all the RSNs, and with that, Sinclair, at least as of now, appears to be in the lead position to purchase all of the networks, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter.

“At least, as of now, no one is really looking aggressively at buying all the RSNs except Sinclair,” one person with knowledge of the bidding process said. “Unless that changes, there’s no way they’re getting $20 billion.”

I don't think a lot of people are going to be thrilled if Sinclair gets it.

Do not buy the idea that Sinclair wants this as something to bolster Stadium. They were basically ready to walk away from ASN and took a stake in Stadium simply to stem the money.

I believe Sinclair's interest is two-fold.

1. Consolidation of ad sales staff. In a number of markets they would be able to add the local RSN to the inventory the local TV station sales staff. Bet a dollar to a doughnut that when they go to a Ford dealership in San Antonio offering ads on the local NBC station and Spurs related telecasts on Fox SW that most of the ad revenue is allocated to the local affiliate because you don't want the Spurs looking at the books and seeing strong ad sales when it's time to talk rights.
2. Retransmission leverage. Cable and satellite and now online distributors don't want to pay a premium for the CW or Fox in Wisconsin? Fine. You lose the Bucks and Brewers as well because Sinclair isn't interested in you having those rights without Fox and CW.

Sinclair is probably the least likely to innovate in delivering content to consumers.

Yep. They may throw some Stadium content and Ring Of Honor on there as filler, but getting the RSNs would allow them to be linked to local affiliates which would be a boon come retransmission negotiation time.

Stadium is designed to be a cheap digital sub network for Sinclair.

There are a number of markets where Stadium isn't even on a Sinclair station but rather on a station owned by a Sinclair competitor.

(12-13-2018 08:08 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/sin...s-networks

But people close to the league tell FOX Business that MLB may now be having second-thoughts about a bid on all the RSNs, and with that, Sinclair, at least as of now, appears to be in the lead position to purchase all of the networks, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter.

“At least, as of now, no one is really looking aggressively at buying all the RSNs except Sinclair,” one person with knowledge of the bidding process said. “Unless that changes, there’s no way they’re getting $20 billion.”

If it's true that everyone bidding on the entire set of RSNs is lowballing Disney and won't pay more than a dirt-cheap price, Disney could probably go back to the government and get some accommodation on the requirement to sell all the RSNs. Either they'd get more time to sell them off (maybe another year) or the feds would let Disney sell only some of the RSNs rather than all of them. The government told Disney they have to sell the RSNs; they didn't tell Disney that they have to put them out on the curb with a "Free Stuff" sign taped to them.

(12-13-2018 11:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 02:43 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(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

Actually, it would be the opposite: MLB owning the RSNs would cause an even MORE hardline stance regarding blackouts. MLB itself already draws the blackout map based on the teams claiming territory and could change that map now on its own - it has nothing to do with who owns the RSNs.

This goes back to the broader reasons why a la carte is so much less lucrative compared to basic cable, which is why networks and sports leagues will continue to fight a la carte until basic fees are pryed from their cold, dead hands. MLB doesn’t care that much about the out-of-market people in North Carolina that want to watch Cubs and Cardinals games - they’ll take some ancillary MLB.tv revenue for relatively cheap. What they *do* care about is the person living “in-market” in Iowa, which is claimed by the Cubs, Cardinals, White Sox, Twins, Royals and Brewers as a home market subject to local blackouts. MLB does NOT want a few thousand people in Iowa paying a $100 per year for MLB.tv. Instead, they want/need all 1 million or so Iowa cable/satellite households to pay several dollars per month each to NBC Sports Chicago, Fox Sports Midwest and Fox Sports North (regardless of whether they ever turn on those channels) to support the tens of millions of dollars of rights fees that those networks are paying to those “local” teams.

MLB *WANTS* those blackouts. That can’t be emphasized enough. They want as many households in America paying in-market subscriber fees to at least one RSN even if they aren’t directly in an MLB market (and places like Iowa that are claimed by multiple teams with multiple networks are unfortunately caught in the crossfire of that stance).

I'm not sure if that's correct. MLB loves blackouts, but even they have realized their map of who exactly gets what territory is a mess I need of cleaning up. Unfortunately that is not likely to happen. I believe the teams own the rights to the territories established a long time ago, which is why they cannot be changed without the teams consent.

This is why MASN was created. In order to put a team in DC, MLB had to pacify the Orioles owner as a DC team was encroaching on his territory. To make good, they basically gave him the Nationals TV rights and allowed him to create MASN.

If MLB could unilaterally change them without the consent of the teams, they would have made all of NC Braves territory a long time ago. There are court documents that exist stating Time Warner Cable wanted to add the RSN that carried the Braves games for Central and Eastern systems but were prevented from doing so due to MLB territorial rules. The Braves and MLB wouldn't have an issue with the Braves having access to the half of NC they do not currently have, but the Orioles and Nationals sure would, so it does not happen.

If the MLB controlled the TV rights to half the teams, that would be one less party at the table in fixing the MLB map mess; however as I showed above, the RSN purchase would still only give them half the rights and exclude the main ones causing the mess

Here is a good article with quotes from commish
https://sports.yahoo.com/news/q-a--mlb-c...18272.html

How does baseball benefit from preventing people in Las Vegas and Iowa from watching up to 40 percent of games on an average weeknight with blackouts?

It doesn’t. It just plain doesn’t.

(12-13-2018 12:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 11:21 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 09:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 08:08 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/sin...s-networks

But people close to the league tell FOX Business that MLB may now be having second-thoughts about a bid on all the RSNs, and with that, Sinclair, at least as of now, appears to be in the lead position to purchase all of the networks, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter.

“At least, as of now, no one is really looking aggressively at buying all the RSNs except Sinclair,” one person with knowledge of the bidding process said. “Unless that changes, there’s no way they’re getting $20 billion.”

I don't think a lot of people are going to be thrilled if Sinclair gets it.

Do not buy the idea that Sinclair wants this as something to bolster Stadium. They were basically ready to walk away from ASN and took a stake in Stadium simply to stem the money.

I believe Sinclair's interest is two-fold.

1. Consolidation of ad sales staff. In a number of markets they would be able to add the local RSN to the inventory the local TV station sales staff. Bet a dollar to a doughnut that when they go to a Ford dealership in San Antonio offering ads on the local NBC station and Spurs related telecasts on Fox SW that most of the ad revenue is allocated to the local affiliate because you don't want the Spurs looking at the books and seeing strong ad sales when it's time to talk rights.
2. Retransmission leverage. Cable and satellite and now online distributors don't want to pay a premium for the CW or Fox in Wisconsin? Fine. You lose the Bucks and Brewers as well because Sinclair isn't interested in you having those rights without Fox and CW.

Sinclair is probably the least likely to innovate in delivering content to consumers.

Yep. They may throw some Stadium content and Ring Of Honor on there as filler, but getting the RSNs would allow them to be linked to local affiliates which would be a boon come retransmission negotiation time.

Stadium is designed to be a cheap digital sub network for Sinclair.

There are a number of markets where Stadium isn't even on a Sinclair station but rather on a station owned by a Sinclair competitor.

Are they collecting a fee from allowing that station the Stadium affiliation?