Bally Sports Possibly Declaring Bankruptcy - Latest (Amazon's Pending Streaming Impact)

[endaround]

Just now, jerichoholicninja said:

What I don't understand in all of this is doesn't Bally's or whoever employ all the people and own all the resources and equipment to broadcast the games? Does MLB just take possession of these things so the games stay on? And if so does MLB actually have people who know how to do this stuff? Considering this stuff came down like two weeks before the regular season started and is still going on mid-season it seems amazing to me that there has been no interruptions to the broadcasts.

Sounds like a lot of the technical crew are contractors and not employees with on air talent sometimes being employed by the teams themselves. The actual equipment maybe leased.

[Jopal78]

As alluded to earlier in this post, and confirmed by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, the Brewers already had made a deal with Diamond/Bally’s for their direct to consumer streaming rights (as have KC, DET, TB and MIA).
 

As a consequence, I would anticipate Diamond/Bally’s to continue to pay the Brewers pursuant to contract so not to run the risk of losing those streaming rights, which apparently is what the entire bankruptcy is about in the first place .

[dlk9s]

https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/39327963/amazon-invest-diamond-sports-part-bankruptcy-deal

[MoreTrife]

29 minutes ago, dlk9s said:

https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/39327963/amazon-invest-diamond-sports-part-bankruptcy-deal

Nice! Hopefully Amazon shows every game and I don't have to poach my brother-in-laws log-in anymore 😄

[Samurai Bucky]

45 minutes ago, MoreTrife said:

Nice! Hopefully Amazon shows every game and I don't have to poach my brother-in-laws log-in anymore 😄

How much would you be willing to pay on top of the existing Prime Video subscription cost to get RSNs?  I'm curious if the other programming would just go away and they would only focus on the sports events.

[folly412]

Pricing and availability at a later date.  Interested to see if they'll be available if you're out of market.  Bally doesn't provide currently (only local teams), so have to use MLB.TV.  And if Amazon changes anything from the in-market Bally or out-of-market single team MLB.TV rates, which are both $19.99/mo.

[MoreTrife]

44 minutes ago, Samurai Bucky said:

How much would you be willing to pay on top of the existing Prime Video subscription cost to get RSNs?  I'm curious if the other programming would just go away and they would only focus on the sports events.

ugh, I didn't even think about it being a premium add-on. I'd probably add it for $12 or less....maybe $15

[MrTPlush]

57 minutes ago, folly412 said:

Pricing and availability at a later date.  Interested to see if they'll be available if you're out of market.  Bally doesn't provide currently (only local teams), so have to use MLB.TV.  And if Amazon changes anything from the in-market Bally or out-of-market single team MLB.TV rates, which are both $19.99/mo.

Article I read, no, this will only apply to in-market viewers. 

[wallus]

Anything under $20 is reasonable imo.

[Samurai Bucky]

35 minutes ago, wallus said:

Anything under $20 is reasonable imo.

I think the standalone subscription is 19.99 a month now, isn't it.  We get it with Fubo.  If Bally Sports goes away, we will probably get rid of Fubo and go back to YoutubeTV.

[patrickgpe]

https://www.newsbreak.com/news/3301376313866-it-looks-like-five-teams-will-have-their-games-exclusively-aired-on-amazon-in-2024-season?_f=app_share&s=a13&share_destination_id=MjAxOTIxODkwLTE3MDU1OTk5MzU5Nzk%3D&pd=0DfF6grZ&hl=en_US&send_time=1705599935&actBtn=null&trans_data={"platform"%3A1%2C"cv"%3A"24.2.0"%2C"languages"%3A"en"}

 

Can't say this is 100% true though. I really don't care if I just drop a tier down on direct tv stream and purchase prime. Its probably at worst a wash. What I wonder is how easy it will be for bars to show the games if they are just on prime?

[stoutdude04]

We already have Prime at my house, but if its an extra add on I will do it anyway.  I am most looking forward to chopping spectrum out.  Thatll save me over 100$ a month.  I will gladly throw another 15 or 20 to watch the Brewers/Bucks/Wild.

[SeaBass]

36 minutes ago, patrickgpe said:

Can't say this is 100% true though. I really don't care if I just drop a tier down on direct tv stream and purchase prime. Its probably at worst a wash. What I wonder is how easy it will be for bars to show the games if they are just on prime?

It's likely pretty easy, can't be much more complicated than having multiple TVs hooked up to satellite or cable before streaming services existed. At worst they could buy a bunch of Roku streamers but with HDMI splitters and daisy chains probably not even that.

Interesting that Amazon is only investing $100 million? That's pretty cheap and for Amazon it's like investing 5 bucks.

[patrickgpe]

30 minutes ago, SeaBass said:

It's likely pretty easy, can't be much more complicated than having multiple TVs hooked up to satellite or cable before streaming services existed. At worst they could buy a bunch of Roku streamers but with HDMI splitters and daisy chains probably not even that.

Interesting that Amazon is only investing $100 million? That's pretty cheap and for Amazon it's like investing 5 bucks.

I do not think businesses can just show prime for 20 / dollars a TV.  I know business cable accounts are significantly more than residential ones. Obviously I'm sure that will be addressed once details released. I'm sure thats a consideration if this is how the deal looks. 

[SeaBass]

9 minutes ago, patrickgpe said:

I do not think businesses can just show prime for 20 / dollars a TV.  I know business cable accounts are significantly more than residential ones. Obviously I'm sure that will be addressed once details released. I'm sure thats a consideration if this is how the deal looks. 

Whatever and however it works I'm sure the licensing already exists. Amazon has had live NFL football for how long now? At worst there's a framework already in place that may need tweaking for baseball since there are more baseball games than football.

[LouisEly]

3 hours ago, patrickgpe said:

Can't say this is 100% true though. I really don't care if I just drop a tier down on direct tv stream and purchase prime. Its probably at worst a wash. What I wonder is how easy it will be for bars to show the games if they are just on prime?

I'm sure that most of the TVs in bars are new enough that they at least have USB ports that they can plug in an Amazon Fire Stick (and make sure that their WiFi is fast enough to handle streaming to multiple TVs).  If not, new 55" LED TVs w/WiFi and Amazon apps are under $300 now. 

 

2 hours ago, stoutdude04 said:

We already have Prime at my house, but if its an extra add on I will do it anyway.  I am most looking forward to chopping spectrum out.  Thatll save me over 100$ a month.  I will gladly throw another 15 or 20 to watch the Brewers/Bucks/Wild.

Here's the thing - I don't have Prime.  Don't need it, I live in a densely populated area and there are Amazon trucks on my street every day.  One time I ordered four things and they all came on the same day on three different trucks - one late AM, one late-afternoon, one early evening.  I get some things within two days anyway, most within 3-4.  I can plan ahead.

But if you have to have Prime first... that's an extra $140/year on top of any premium they may charge.  No way. 

And if you have to have Prime... how is the casual Brewers fan going to react to having to pay $140/year plus a premium per month to watch the Brewers?  We saw how they reacted to a fraction of a % of sales tax...

[JefferyLeonard]

As you can see, nothing will change if you are a cable/Dtv subscriber. You will watch the games as you normally would(if you're in the market of course).

[patrickgpe]

Ideally this would be like how peacock treated customers when they got the wwe network. Everything available to everyone for no additional cost. They were happy to get the additional subscribers. Now mlb is a more popular service, and Amazon already has a ton of prime members, so I doubt it would work out that way. 

[SeaBass]

15 hours ago, LouisEly said:

But if you have to have Prime first... that's an extra $140/year on top of any premium they may charge.  No way. 

Yeah, I'm guessing that's a non-starter for people that don't already have Prime. They'd get a small percentage to hop on but convincing most people to get Prime and pay a premium on top of it is going to be a hard sell. I'd think Amazon knows this though.

Bally Sports Plus already exists (I'm a subscriber) and you don't need Prime for that obviously. My guess is that stays around and individuals that already have Prime or have been on the fence might have an option to subscribe through Amazon instead of Bally Sports.

I'd be curious if Amazon might provide some type of upgraded broadcast or customer experience. Bally Sports has certainly had a bumpy road with reliability. Most people are pretty fed up with them. I know that I get kicked out of the app and have to go through the log in process on a too often basis.

[MrTPlush]

I doubt we all will get to do laps and celebrate because we already have Prime and it is no extra cost. I am sure there will be an extra cost, but I could see it being cheaper than what a dedicated Bally subscription was. Amazon will make a boatload on people that have to get Prime just to unlock the ability to get Brewers baseball. They also make a boatload on the fact you now have Prime and will make a bunch of unneeded purchases now. That is value Bally itself couldn't provide and depended on subscription price entirely. The value baseball has and why Amazon has any interest in baseball is the fact the season is so long. It stretches 6-7 months, football is only 4 months. Add in the basketball RSNs and you darn near cover the entire year. You may only buy Prime the one game (aka month) your team plays on Thursday for football. Infinitely more viewers, obviously, but much less commitment to Prime in the grand scheme. 

The concern is accessibility. Peacock, financially, was a raging success for the wild card game. The problem, millions of viewers did indeed refuse to buy a month sub to watch. So, while the NFL and Peacock got their cash...millions less watched. Is that a big deal for the NFL/Chiefs? No...probably not, however, I don't know the same would ring true for the Brewers when millions less watch over the course of an entire season. 

I just don't think there is any reason why Amazon would buy the viewership rights and not force you to buy Prime. That model isn't working for Bally, why would it work for Amazon?

 

[LouisEly]

32 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

They also make a boatload on the fact you now have Prime and will make a bunch of unneeded purchases now.

Amazon also knows what you buy, so they know what ads to send you between innings.   Hypertargeted advertising that they can sell.

[Guest]

Prime for just video streaming is less than $140 per year, it's less than $9 a month. I don't think I'd pay anything extra to stream the Brewers but I'd take advantage if it's included.

[jerichoholicninja]

I am in no way an expert on this so please tell me if any of this is wrong...

As it stands now, the vast majority of cable/satellite subscribers don't watch or care about sports and they are subsidizing the massive media contracts that have been given out for years. To move to any sort of system where only the people who want to watch sports are paying for the service is going to massively reduce the revenue generated from subscribers. Which means prices are going to go up for subscribers and the teams and leagues are going to be making a whole lot less money than previously which will certainly cause the prices of tickets, merchandise, concessions, etc. to also go up.

Like I said, I'm no expert but this makes sense to me and I don't think it's good for MLB short or long term. It's already an expensive sport for youth to participate in and now it's going to become more expensive just to be a fan of. I feel over the past decade or so all forms of entertainment/hobbies/interests has become niche and therefore expensive, there are very few things that have widespread appeal anymore. The NFL I suppose but I feel most of their growth has been by those who are only interested in it for gambling and really couldn't care less about the players, teams, or game results outside of what it means to their bets.

[TURBO]

Personally, and I say this for selfish reasons, I am against any form of watching the Brewers that is going to cost me anymore money.

I currently get all their games as part of my TDS cable package.  I used to get Brewers games with Spectrum, but their pricing went through the roof, and they didn't mind that I left for TDS which was half the price, literally.  (I find it hilarious that they call me once a month, and send endless flyers in the mail to get me back.) I pay nothing extra to watch the brewers as I would have TDS anyway.  I enjoy that it is included in my viewing experience.

It's bad enough that some of their games are now available for streaming only, and my guess is they start with a couple games, which turns into a few games, which turns into 1/4 of the season, you see where I'm going with this...  This is just horrible for our senior fans.  My Dad tunes into every game, and not being able to watch the streamed games drives him nuts as it is, but it's only going to get worse.

I do not want to have to add a streaming service to watch the Brewers, PERIOD!  It's just another fee, and another hassle.  

Above all, I am against any new service that I have to pay more money for.  I'm tired of being nickel and dimed to death.  People here saying they don't mind paying extra fees for this and that, that is fine for some, but not for others.  I'm just plain tired of paying more money for anything that I already have.

[Vgmastr]

24 minutes ago, TURBO said:

Personally, and I say this for selfish reasons, I am against any form of watching the Brewers that is going to cost me anymore money.

I currently get all their games as part of my TDS cable package.  I used to get Brewers games with Spectrum, but their pricing went through the roof, and they didn't mind that I left for TDS which was half the price, literally.  (I find it hilarious that they call me once a month, and send endless flyers in the mail to get me back.) I pay nothing extra to watch the brewers as I would have TDS anyway.  I enjoy that it is included in my viewing experience.

It's bad enough that some of their games are now available for streaming only, and my guess is they start with a couple games, which turns into a few games, which turns into 1/4 of the season, you see where I'm going with this...  This is just horrible for our senior fans.  My Dad tunes into every game, and not being able to watch the streamed games drives him nuts as it is, but it's only going to get worse.

I do not want to have to add a streaming service to watch the Brewers, PERIOD!  It's just another fee, and another hassle.  

Above all, I am against any new service that I have to pay more money for.  I'm tired of being nickel and dimed to death.  People here saying they don't mind paying extra fees for this and that, that is fine for some, but not for others.  I'm just plain tired of paying more money for anything that I already have.

So you'd rather pay $100/month to watch the Brewers on cable instead of $15-20/month on streaming?