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

[TURBO]

7 minutes ago, Vgmastr said:

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

My TDS cable bill is $114 per month, which includes internet and landline (Yes, we still have a landline...lol)

Like I said, I'm going to have cable regardless, so any added on streaming costs just makes me pay more money.  Pretty easy concept really.

It isn't just the $15-$20 to stream Brewers games, it would be on top of my TDS package.  I choose not to have netflix, amazon, hulu, paramount plus, and all of the other countless streaming services.  Add all those together, and I'm betting people are paying as much as my cable bill to get those services.

[young guns]

If the Brewers and bucks game are added to the base prime package I would probably get that.  If it's a separate thing I would have to see what the smcost would be.  If it's the worst, separate and on top of needing prime, then that would probably end up being a hard no from me.

[nate82]

You will definitely need a Prime account plus the subscription to the games.  That is how it works for all of the other premium channels on Prime.

Future wise I wouldn’t expect baseball at least locally to be on cable at least not in your cable package.  The way cable companies are starting to operate it will be a separate subscription at best.  The way MLB is moving they are looking at the streaming providers as that is what younger people tend to use.  MLB doesn’t care about the dying generations who only watch on cable.  You are not their future and they won’t be catering to you going forward.  This is the grim reality and truth.  

[LouisEly]

7 hours ago, Vgmastr said:

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

 

8 hours ago, TURBO said:

I pay nothing extra to watch the brewers as I would have TDS anyway.  I enjoy that it is included in my viewing experience.

 

[KeithStone53151]

20 hours ago, nate82 said:

You will definitely need a Prime account plus the subscription to the games.  That is how it works for all of the other premium channels on Prime.

Future wise I wouldn’t expect baseball at least locally to be on cable at least not in your cable package.  The way cable companies are starting to operate it will be a separate subscription at best.  The way MLB is moving they are looking at the streaming providers as that is what younger people tend to use.  MLB doesn’t care about the dying generations who only watch on cable.  You are not their future and they won’t be catering to you going forward.  This is the grim reality and truth.  

They really should be though. The business plan of MLB to divide up between so many streaming services is very short sighted. It works for NFL because there are so many less games, and much more rooting interest for fantasy football and/or betting purposes. Baseball doesn't have the same dynamic. For baseball, I don't have a ton of interest in watching a Rangers vs Astros game. I want to watch my team, that's it. Making it more difficult to watch my team play(and more expensive) is a bad business model that is going to turn off customers even moreso than they already are.

And in general, ignoring really your primary market(50s/60s) to try and win the people in their 20s/30s that just generally don't have as much interest in baseball is just plain stupid. It's like flirting with the bartender(who you're never going to get) while your wife gets upset right next to you.

[nate82]

11 minutes ago, KeithStone53151 said:

And in general, ignoring really your primary market(50s/60s) to try and win the people in their 20s/30s that just generally don't have as much interest in baseball is just plain stupid.

Well they need that demographic.  If MLB doesn’t capture that demographic then there really is no need to even go after the 50/60 demographic.  The sport will be dead or very close to it if they can’t get the 20/30 demographic.

I believe once cable goes away it will be far easier to follow local teams.  

[MrTPlush]

Do we actually know they won't show the stuff on cable? It would be a pretty big leap to go entirely onto Amazon. Demographics or not.

They could easily keep it on cable and have the option of a subscription-based model through Amazon Prime. Then the dinosaurs get what they want and the younger generations get what they want. At that point the cost of Amazon Prime in itself is kind of meaningless as the demographic that doesn't have cable overwhelmingly has Amazon Prime already. 

[patrickgpe]

29 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

Do we actually know they won't show the stuff on cable? It would be a pretty big leap to go entirely onto Amazon. Demographics or not.

They could easily keep it on cable and have the option of a subscription-based model through Amazon Prime. Then the dinosaurs get what they want and the younger generations get what they want. At that point the cost of Amazon Prime in itself is kind of meaningless as the demographic that doesn't have cable overwhelmingly has Amazon Prime already. 

we don't. It was on blog that I never heard of that said that. DSG and Amazon hasn't said anything. I agree with your thinking, this might be a transition season with the team being on both. The amazon app would replace the balls app, thats it. 

[nate82]

40 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

Do we actually know they won't show the stuff on cable? It would be a pretty big leap to go entirely onto Amazon. Demographics or not.

They could easily keep it on cable and have the option of a subscription-based model through Amazon Prime. Then the dinosaurs get what they want and the younger generations get what they want. At that point the cost of Amazon Prime in itself is kind of meaningless as the demographic that doesn't have cable overwhelmingly has Amazon Prime already. 

There is still a TV and digital agreement between the teams and BSG.  So I don’t believe that will change anytime soon.  Maybe a local channel will pickup the team like the Suns here in Phoenix.  All of the Suns games are locally televised on basic and over the air.

The death of BSG is a god send for being able to easily access the teams.  Hopefully a local channel picks up the Brewers.

[owbc]

On 1/20/2024 at 12:12 PM, jerichoholicninja said:

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.

The way I see it is that MLB's profits or lack thereof are not of concern to the fans. We as fans simply have to look at the price and value of the various products being offered and choose what to consume.

If MLB as a whole loses 10% or 20% or 30% of its revenue and value because of the RSN collapse, it means nothing to the fans. They are always going to try and maximize revenue no matter what. At the end of the day, they are going to resolve their differences and play 162 every year. And all 162 are going to be available on some sort of platform. They can try to squeeze more money out of loyal fans, but fans will continue to have the option of pirating the games or simply not consuming the product. And they can't go too far, or like you say, they risk become a niche entertainment offering. The product itself is as good as ever and there are plenty of seats at the ballpark. 

It seems to me like some MLB owners are still in denial about the RSN collapse. The amount of money that the Dodgers are spending depends on their RSN continuing to exist. Others are finding that with one push of the button, Comcast can move them to a premium tier and a huge fraction of the subscriber revenue evaporates overnight. Again, too bad. 

I've said this before, but perhaps the one aspect where I do care about MLB's revenue is regarding the Brewers' revenue with respect to the rest of MLB. And the Brewers got royally f***ed in the RSN era, so things can only get better for them from here. I predict that the Dodgers' RSN will fail and they will be forced into a massive salary dump by the end of the decade. 

[KeithStone53151]

12 hours ago, nate82 said:

Well they need that demographic.  If MLB doesn’t capture that demographic then there really is no need to even go after the 50/60 demographic.  The sport will be dead or very close to it if they can’t get the 20/30 demographic.

I believe once cable goes away it will be far easier to follow local teams.  

How? 162 games are gonna be divided among 8 streaming services. What part of that is easier than flipping to FSN every day?

[BrewerFan]

On 1/21/2024 at 10:44 AM, 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.

Yeah....well, you just explains being a consumer. Not everyone is willing to pay for it.

The "hassle" really shouldn't be a reason. You should have a smart TV if you've bought one recently and if not, you can make it a smart TV for 30 bucks. 

I added it all up and I was paying over 400 bucks for TV. No NFL package, just Max, Paramount, Prime(which I counted as like 20 bucks because I'd have it either way), Hulu/ESPN/Disney, Peacock, Starz, MGM, Netflix, Apple+...plus the Direct TV extreme package(because it was ~120 when I got it).

Now I have a more basic Direct TV(should get YT TV) and I get Apple for a few months, then cancel, same with all the rest. When I know I'll have time, I cancel.

BUT, the Brewers, Bucks or Packers? I'd spend to watch any of them. Hell, I still pay for season tickets and then sell them to family. I prefer watching the games at home.

[BrewerFan]

11 hours ago, owbc said:

I've said this before, but perhaps the one aspect where I do care about MLB's revenue is regarding the Brewers' revenue with respect to the rest of MLB. And the Brewers got royally f***ed in the RSN era, so things can only get better for them from here. I predict that the Dodgers' RSN will fail and they will be forced into a massive salary dump by the end of the decade. 

I'd be careful what you wish for. MLB would almost certainly bail out a franchise like the Dodgers. They generate so much money.

[nate82]

7 hours ago, KeithStone53151 said:

How? 162 games are gonna be divided among 8 streaming services. What part of that is easier than flipping to FSN every day?

Because the way cable tv is going it is going to be like streaming.  If you haven’t received a new box yet well you are in for an experience.

Cable will no longer come in through the coax cable soon.  My grandparents just experienced this with their new cable box.  It is all on WiFi no cables.  The new COX boxes are basically streaming boxes.  It is only a matter of time before you will have to install an app on them to watch the specialized channels like FSN, ESPN, etc.  Heck you can already watch Netflix, Amazon Prime and other streaming services on it.  So you won’t be able to just flip to FSN everyday you will have to go to the app or watch on one of the streaming services.

It is coming and the cable companies don’t care if you don’t like it.  You could always just go over the air and they know you won’t do that at least 90% of their customer base won’t because they are addicted to the tv programming.

Plus if the FSN’s go to Amazon 95% of the games will be on Amazon minus the few that are on Apple, Facebook and YouTube.  But those would be on there regardless so you wouldn’t be able to watch them by flipping to FSN anyways.  With streaming you could just flip to YouTube or Facebook very easily though.  

[MrTPlush]

18 hours ago, owbc said:

I've said this before, but perhaps the one aspect where I do care about MLB's revenue is regarding the Brewers' revenue with respect to the rest of MLB. And the Brewers got royally f***ed in the RSN era, so things can only get better for them from here. I predict that the Dodgers' RSN will fail and they will be forced into a massive salary dump by the end of the decade. 

Be careful what you wish for. The only thing that will keep the Brewers afloat is revenue sharing. The Dodger's RSN failing isn't good for the Brewers...it is just a domino effect downward. 

I can't imagine Amazon doesn't fight to keep the games on cable. An all-subscription approach would be a disaster. I am not sure I would call the RSN era a fail to the Brewers. They got hosed because their contract always lagged behind the big contracts...but it also was back when every cable/direct TV customer was helping you pay to watch them.

The glaring issue with the subscription is the fact subscriptions are on a monthly basis. Therefor a fan can just watch April and September if they want. They can also watch in April/May, realize the team is trash, and cancel their subscription. It also allows people like me, to cancel after the season is over and not pay to watch NBA basketball I don't care about. If hard economic times come, you are canceling subscriptions. This is going to lead to a lot of uncertainty year to year how much Amazon can profit off things. Especially when you consider we are a small market and consistently competing is likely a blip, not a trend for us (at least in a macro picture). Thus, their payment to the Brewers is likely going to be quite conservative. 

An optimist would say, "Well maybe that will motivate teams like the Brewers to stay competitive so people keep their subscription!" I mean, maybe...but I am betting a team will be more profitable rebuilding than spending $30mil for Amazon to pay them $10mil more a year. 

[nate82]

For Amazon it is not the subscription that matters it is that you are using their platform and your data that you are giving to them that is valuable.  It is basically free marketing for them and that data is worth more than a million subscriptions.  Even if you only subscribe for a couple months your data that you are providing is more valuable.

I believe MLB wants to own all of the teams digital rights.  Right now I think there are only like 5 teams that don’t own their digital broadcasting rights.  If MLB owns them all and the regional sports TV fails it wouldn’t be as bad since MLB will own the majority of the digital broadcasting rights.  This would allow MLB to equalize the revenue to all teams that MLB owns the digital broadcasting rights to.  Unfortunately the Brewers don’t own their digital broadcasting rights as Bally has the contract rights for that.  I think Amazon buying or investing in the few teams rights will give them a leg up on negotiating for all of MLB digital broadcasting rights in the future.  I wouldn’t be surprised if in 5-10 years the only baseball games on cable will be on ESPN, Fox or FS1. 

[Pugger]

On 1/19/2024 at 9:39 AM, MrTPlush said:

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?

 

We were one of those who didn't get Peacock for that one playoff game.  We probably would have if it was for the Packers.  We did get Prime but dropped it after the regular season was done.  Ordering just Prime alone is a pain.  For several years we got almost every Brewers game down here in FL via MFL Extra Innings for about $120 with Xfinity even before Bally.  We figured it was worth it when you consider what it would cost to go to a game live.  I sure hope we can do it again with Amazon.  We purchased the NBA package for $80 for the Bucks.

[Pugger]

On 1/21/2024 at 11:44 AM, 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.

Those of us outside of Wisconsin have been paying extra to get Brewers games for a while now.

[TURBO]

23 minutes ago, Pugger said:

Those of us outside of Wisconsin have been paying extra to get Brewers games for a while now.

Well, to be honest, that makes sense, but those of us in WI shouldn't have to do so.

[owbc]

1 hour ago, Pugger said:

Those of us outside of Wisconsin have been paying extra to get Brewers games for a while now.

Not all of us...there are several ways to get a free MLB.tv subscription. Although the value is starting to decrease as games get plucked to other streaming services. I guess my problem is that I also watch the local team so I'm still stuck with the same problem as Brewers fans in Wisconsin. The Brewers games are the easy one. 

My understanding is that Manfred has made ending blackouts a priority -- as MLB fans in certain spots like Iowa are obviously in a bad situation. They can't do it overnight but it will happen sooner rather than later. 

I don't worry about it too much -- nothing can possibly be worse than having to pay for a full cable package (or FuboTV in my case) to get the local RSN. I think it also helps that I'm a millennial, so nobody in my demographic has cable anymore and most of us are already subscribed to the streaming services. So a $20-30/month add on would be great, then I can ditch Fubo and save $50/month. And they also know that many in my generation or younger will just resort to pirating if they make it too difficult.

[monty57]

1 hour ago, Pugger said:

Those of us outside of Wisconsin have been paying extra to get Brewers games for a while now.

I'm outside of Wisconsin, but not far enough to be out of the "Blackout zone," so I just can't watch Brewer games. I hope whatever happens with Prime will get rid of the blackout restrictions so I can once again watch the Brewers.

[KeithStone53151]

On 1/23/2024 at 7:40 AM, nate82 said:

Plus if the FSN’s go to Amazon 95% of the games will be on Amazon minus the few that are on Apple, Facebook and YouTube.  But those would be on there regardless so you wouldn’t be able to watch them by flipping to FSN anyways.  With streaming you could just flip to YouTube or Facebook very easily though.  

This is the part that will make it not be easier. It's much easier to follow your team when you know what channel they'll be on. I don't get the impression MLB is going to stop trying to maximize revenue. Do you think Apple/FB/YT/Amazon are the only ones that want to broadcast games? You already missed ESPN/Fox/TBS/Peacock. We are just a few years away from needing probably 8-10 subscriptions if you want to watch all the Brewer games. You already need at least 4(Amazon/Apple/Peacock/ESPN). Imagine in 3-5 years having to pay $5-10/month times 6-8 services...just to watch all the Brewer games? That's not even factoring in one of them being Amazon prime which is what like $200/year? That's a lot of cost and hassle just to watch the Brewers. The diehards will do it, but you aren't going to get casual fans to enjoy your product by making it more difficult to follow your favorite team.

[KeithStone53151]

On 1/23/2024 at 8:31 AM, MrTPlush said:

Be careful what you wish for. The only thing that will keep the Brewers afloat is revenue sharing. The Dodger's RSN failing isn't good for the Brewers...it is just a domino effect downward. 

You're thinking about this incorrectly. If the Dodgers, for example, suffer a $100M reduction in revenue due to the RSN's...the impact to the Dodgers payroll will be significantly greater than the impact to the Brewers payroll. The Brewers revenue will drop 1/29th of 48% of $100M. The Brewers lose $1.6M in revenue while the Dodgers lose $52M. The % of spending power the Dodgers lose is much greater than the % of spending power the Brewers lose in this scenario. 

[owbc]

39 minutes ago, KeithStone53151 said:

You're thinking about this incorrectly. If the Dodgers, for example, suffer a $100M reduction in revenue due to the RSN's...the impact to the Dodgers payroll will be significantly greater than the impact to the Brewers payroll. The Brewers revenue will drop 1/29th of 48% of $100M. The Brewers lose $1.6M in revenue while the Dodgers lose $52M. The % of spending power the Dodgers lose is much greater than the % of spending power the Brewers lose in this scenario. 

Exactly.

1. The RSN era has f***ed the Brewers.

2. Revenue sharing does not make up for that. 

3. What matters to the fans going forward is the delta in revenue between us and other teams -- which is what makes me optimistic about how things are evolving. 

[SeaBass]

36 minutes ago, KeithStone53151 said:

This is the part that will make it not be easier. It's much easier to follow your team when you know what channel they'll be on. I don't get the impression MLB is going to stop trying to maximize revenue. Do you think Apple/FB/YT/Amazon are the only ones that want to broadcast games? You already missed ESPN/Fox/TBS/Peacock. We are just a few years away from needing probably 8-10 subscriptions if you want to watch all the Brewer games. You already need at least 4(Amazon/Apple/Peacock/ESPN). Imagine in 3-5 years having to pay $5-10/month times 6-8 services...just to watch all the Brewer games? That's not even factoring in one of them being Amazon prime which is what like $200/year? That's a lot of cost and hassle just to watch the Brewers. The diehards will do it, but you aren't going to get casual fans to enjoy your product by making it more difficult to follow your favorite team.

Casual fans are not going to be concerned with being able to watch every single game. That's why they're casual. If you want every game you're probably a die hard.

Personally, I don't think it's a big deal if people miss a few games here and there. Pick the service that will get you the most games for the price you're willing to pay and deal with the ones you don't get some other way. It's not difficult or expensive to follow the goings on in a baseball game while not watching live. You can get updates on any number of websites or mobile apps that have box scores and post scoring plays, all for the price of free. Highlights are posted to Twitter while the game is still being played. You can watch 9 to 10 minute game recaps on YouTube free of charge once the game ends. Listen to the radio. If you don't get a good over the air radio signal MLB.com has a radio subscription service for a very reasonable price (MLB At Bat / $30 annually.) that will let you listen to any live MLB game with no blackouts and any broadcast of that game (Home or Road) for the whole year.

FYI MLB At Bat is included with a MLB TV subscription for those out of market fans that get that free with your mobile phone service but can't watch the games because of blackouts. You can still access the live radio broadcasts.