• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Sinclair/Ballys/ESPN/TNT ... broadcasting access, tips and notes

Why wouldn’t the teams just keep their rights and sell a subscription to their season? Produce and publish it themselves. That would give them more control over the TV revenue and they could sell their own advertising.

So you’d have a CanesHockey app you watch the Canes on.

Or the league put it together with something like Center Ice. So you can get:
Center Ice - out of Market
Center Ice - Hometeam
Center Ice - Everything

I’m paying $100/month for DTV pretty much only to watch the Canes. Instead of the Canes getting a small fraction of that I’d probably pay 50/month for just the Canes games and find cheaper option for whatever else I want to watch.

I’m sure there’s a reason. I’m sure someone here knows the reason. I’m hopeful they’ll share the reason. I’m hopeful this wasn’t a stupid question.
If teams felt they could make more money self broadcasting, then they would. And if the league thought they could make more money opening up Center Ice or whatever they'd call in that manner ... guess what? They'd already do it. Problem is, they'd also be carrying all of the risk and all of the costs associated with marketing and producing and delivering a half a bajillion broadcasts when they can't even get their refs to call a simple stinking rule book. You want to see a REAL cluster? Let Gary Bettman basically run a TV network. That'd go great. I'm not really trying to be sarcastic so much as to point out the monumental task that a lot of people seem to think is super easy ... and the monumentally screwed up human beings we assume could manage this task.
 
For the MLB teams that got left in the dark with Bally's dumping the market, MLB gave those subscribers their games on MLB.tv. Maybe that's the NHL plan as well? But a new TV rights deal will eventually have to happen in those markets.
 
For the MLB teams that got left in the dark with Bally's dumping the market, MLB gave those subscribers their games on MLB.tv. Maybe that's the NHL plan as well? But a new TV rights deal will eventually have to happen in those markets.
I think that's correct. MLB got some sort of one year agreement from all the teams hammered out during winter meetings where they basically had the right to integrate local broadcasts into MLB.com's inventory on an emergency basis. The NHL could well have a safety net plan in place, but nobody's reported on it. NHL writers being who they are, maybe it hasn't occurred to anyone to ask yet ... being as they're all too consumed with debating how specifically awesome Connor Bedard will be along with their other summertime classics like how important it would be for the league if their favorite team could win the cup.
 
BTW ... got the call that I've been dreading last night. Dad and Mom want help setting up a streaming account. Pray for me.
Reminds me of that commercial where the old folks are sticking things to the walls in their home instead of posting on Facebook and the old girl says "I don't think this is how any of this works"...
 
My worry with that near/partial/maybe full collapse of the regional sports network model is where the Hurricanes are going to get their money? I know there is national TV rights payouts, but doesn't our local team also heavily rely on companies like Bally's?
 
My worry with that near/partial/maybe full collapse of the regional sports network model is where the Hurricanes are going to get their money? I know there is national TV rights payouts, but doesn't our local team also heavily rely on companies like Bally's?
Outside of the very biggest markets, the local TV revenue NHL teams receive from the RSNs is relatively insignificant. It's why the NHL is far more dependent on ticket revenues than are MLB, NFL, and NBA teams.
 
Outside of the very biggest markets, the local TV revenue NHL teams receive from the RSNs is relatively insignificant. It's why the NHL is far more dependent on ticket revenues than are MLB, NFL, and NBA teams.
OK, that makes me feel a bit better about the situation. Thanks d00d
 
Outside of the very biggest markets, the local TV revenue NHL teams receive from the RSNs is relatively insignificant. It's why the NHL is far more dependent on ticket revenues than are MLB, NFL, and NBA teams.
Yeah, I remember back when they were downsizing the radio broadcasting operation, they were talking about getting roughly 4-5 times the revenue from the TV side compared to radio, and were barely making enough to pay the expenses on the radio side. Considering that TV production costs are a lot more than radio, it can't be a huge profit center. I know the viewership numbers aren't great even in the big markets with some regional draw ... and Carolina won't have a ton of that. No way RSN profits are a big part of Carolina's cash flow ... which is one reason that Dundon has specifically cited for keeping the operations side streamlined compared to other clubs.
 
I'm lucky that my Dad is tech savvy and figured out a work around to get what broadcasts he's after. Meanwhile, I did not inherit the tech gene. I'm pretty much watching out of town feeds and their homer announcing crew. I absolutely refuse to listen to those butt nuggets in Boston. My French sucks, but it is kind of fun to watch them play Montreal on RDS. If no TV is available, I listen to Mike & Tripp...can't do that with the delay on tv, it's just too aggravating. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Jim
 
HULU live is going from $62 to $90. Streamers are as bad as cable was. I'm dropping them this month. I'll just be keeping ESPN+ for now for hockey
 
If you’re waiting for Charter and Disney to reach an agreement, don’t hold your breath. Luke DeCock tweeted an article where Charter CEO Chris Winfrey spoke about it at a Goldman Sachs conference.

Chris Winfrey said:
As more video customers who value sports content migrate to alternative sources, our incentive to do a deal is reduced

He also said this, which is potentially more ominous. Could Charter walk away from video entirely and just become a broadband company?

Chris Winfrey said:
The idea that you could solve for DTC profitability by letting linear burn to the ground” is “not sustainable,” Winfrey added. “We have always thought of video as being an asset to our broadband connectivity business, but it’s on the verge of flipping and becoming a liability.

 
HULU live is going from $62 to $90. Streamers are as bad as cable was. I'm dropping them this month. I'll just be keeping ESPN+ for now for hockey
The way things have gone over the last 2 years, if it's a live TV streamer that includes any kind of sports channels, you're paying between $90-125 a month. Since the cost is driven by the same market factors, that makes sense. Sports are expensive ...
 
The way things have gone over the last 2 years, if it's a live TV streamer that includes any kind of sports channels, you're paying between $90-125 a month. Since the cost is driven by the same market factors, that makes sense. Sports are expensive ...
It doesn't - it's just Hulu live (I already had an annual ESPN subscription).
All these companies are doing is the opposite of what Apple did to music. Apple actually listened to people who said "we only pirate because the prices are ridiculously expensive" and came in for a buck and everyone I know started paying for music. These companies are turning record profits and just getting greedier.
 
It doesn't - it's just Hulu live (I already had an annual ESPN subscription).
...
Hulu Live includes sports. Big Ten, CBS Sports, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNEWS, ESPNU, ESPN College Extra, FS1, FS2, Golf Channel, NFL Network, SEC Network
 
Back
Top