9:50am: Josh Kosman of The New York Post reports that Amazon is giving Diamond roughly $100MM for the streaming rights of the Tigers, Royals, Marlins, Brewers and Rays. That money and the Sinclair settlement money could be presented to a Houston bankruptcy judge as early as today.
8:45am: Diamond Sports Group announced that is has a restructuring support agreement in place that will allow it to emerge from bankruptcy and continue operating, as relayed by Brendan Coffey of Sportico. It apparently has approval from most of the company’s debt holders and also features an investment from Amazon. It also has a $495MM deal from Sinclair Broadcasting Group to settle outstanding litigation.
“We are thrilled to have reached a comprehensive restructuring agreement that provides a detailed framework for a reorganization plan and substantial new financing that will enable Diamond to operate and thrive beyond 2024,” Diamond CEO David Preschlack stated. “We are grateful for the support from Amazon and a group of our largest creditors who clearly believe in the value-creating potential of this business. Diamond’s near-term focus will be on implementing the RSA and emerging from bankruptcy as a going concern for the benefit of our investors, our employees, our team, league and distribution partners, and the millions of fans who will continue to enjoy our broadcasts.”
As noted by Coffey, Diamond is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which means that any deals will have to be approved by the court. But Diamond also says they have a deal in place with some debt holders to raise $450MM of “junior secured superpriority debtor-in-possession financing.” If the company can wriggle out of bankruptcy or get the court’s approval, this has the potential to be a significant development for them and for baseball.
Cord cutting in recent decades has led to significant challenges for the regional sports network (RSN) model, wherein RSNs pay millions of dollars to clubs for their broadcasting rights. The ongoing bankruptcy of Diamond Sports Group, which owns Bally Sports, has impacted the roster moves of several clubs. The company dropped its contracts with the Padres and Diamondbacks last year, with Major League Baseball stepping up to take over local broadcasts. Their contract with the Twins expired after 2023.
The Padres and Twins have each been operating with lower payrolls this year compared to last year, with the loss of RSN revenue a clear factor. There are 11* other teams that still have deals with Diamond but the uncertainty around how things would proceed has seemingly impacted some of them as well. For example, the Rangers are one of those 11 clubs and they have been acting with less aggression this winter, despite having just won the World Series. It has been speculated by some observers that their desire to re-sign Jordan Montgomery, or to make other theoretical moves, might hinge on the development of this bankruptcy and their broadcast situation.
Part of the proposal will see Amazon make a minority investment and offer direct-to-consumer services on their Prime Video platform. That will apparently include games from MLB, NBA and NHL, including pre-game and post-game content. The full details of those offerings aren’t fully clear at the moment. It was reported back in December that Amazon was discussing a streaming deal with Diamond but the latter company only had streaming rights for five clubs: the Tigers, Royals, Marlins, Brewers and Rays. Reporting from last week suggested that MLB shot down the discussions between the two companies, perhaps with the intent of negotiating a deal with Amazon directly.
In addition to the impact on clubs and their finances, it’s also possible this will have an impact on fans. The RSN model involved widespread blackouts, as those RSNs wanted to ensure customers were watching on cable on not on a streaming service like MLB.TV. These blackout areas have often been frustrating for fans due to some absurd overlap, such as the fact that the people of Iowa couldn’t stream games featuring the Cubs, White Sox, Cardinals, Twins, Royals or Brewers.
Things have been gradually shifting towards a direct-to-consumer model, with MLB having expressed a desire to embrace that path forward. When the league took over the Padres’ broadcasts in May of last year, they announced that people in the San Diego area could stream games blackout-free for $19.99 per month or $74.99 for the remainder of the season.
As for Sinclair, they bought Diamond in 2019 but the companies began operating independently after Diamond accused Sinclair of siphoning funds from the subsidiary.
Many of the details are still to come and there are still hurdles to clear but today’s news is a notable development for many facets of the baseball world.
* Those clubs are the Angels, Braves, Brewers, Cardinals, Guardians, Marlins, Rangers, Rays, Reds, Royals, and Tigers.
Fire up that Prime membership!!!!!
Jeff Bezos is on a mission to become a trillionaire!
Jeff Bezos is on a mission to become a trillionaire!
=========================
Good for him. My spouse usually takes care of all the streaming stuff, so long as I have the MLB package on my desktop, but she was doing something and suddenly, a Raiders game popped up.
I didn’t even know I had access, and it was one of the post-McDaniels games, so it was actually watchable.
“The ongoing bankruptcy of Diamond Sports Group, which owns Bally Sports, has impacted the roster moves of several clubs.”
AND EXACTLY WHAT HAS RON MANFRED DONE TO CORRECT THIS SITUATION IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF BASEBALL?
The Indians (not Guardians) hate you Rob!
Let’s call the Beekeeper.
@OIC2021: What do you suggest Manfred do?
And maybe you hate him, but don’t presume to speak for an entire organization.
And why are you SHOUTING?
Let’s be honest, the Indians weren’t spending the money either way. Heck, they’re not even putting the $$M they’re saving from Francona’s retirement back into the team!
OIC, Manfred doesn’t work in the best interests of baseball, he works in the best interests of baseball team owners.
They ain’t the only ones
AND EXACTLY WHAT HAS RON MANFRED DONE TO CORRECT THIS SITUATION IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF BASEBALL?
===========================
I’m not sure that Manfred has the power to change the bankruptcy laws.
You beat me to it.
@gbs42
It’s almost as if the commissioner is handpicked by the owners themselves to represent their interests. Oh wait…
So Rob should have made Cleveland take a lesser deal which would force them to have a smaller payroll all so the TV broadcast company wouldn’t go broke?
Like when the owner of the Indians said all those who embraced the name were racists for not wanting to change to Guardians???
He does have the power to restrict other teams moves until broadcasting issues are settled for all teams!
No, but the Beekeeper should be called for Manfred too
No fair applying facts. Shouting at the moon is more fun.
OIC – be like that girlie in the ice princess flic and “let it go”. Noone cares about your,Cleveland name situation, your obsession is borderline creepy
Those owners are his boss. So his goal is to make there franchises more profitable. So if he alienates some fans, they figure so be it.
Slight correction: it’s the Commissioner’s job to make the franchises more valuable; profitibility is up to each team’s ops departments.
Morons continue to exist in the world…including Manfred
The winner in this deal is Diamond, which wins a settlement with its parent company, Sinclair Broadcasting, that provides a cash infusion of $495 million and severs their business connection along with allowing them to stave off bankruptcy, if approved by the court. It settles the matter temporarily for some sports teams while others such as the Guardians remain in limbo.
@OIC2021: Word to the wise – be careful with calling anyone a moron so as not to be accused of being the pot calling the kettle black.
profit? They don’t make a profit until they are sold.
Bezos retired from Amazon
@VegasSDfan
He did not retire from Amazon. He stepped down as CEO and is now the executive chairman.
He stepped back from the board due to PR. Don’t let that work on you.
Maybe not if you’re a Padres or D-backs fan
I feel like my Prime membership is going to go up. Again.
Joe,
We’re getting ads on Prime Video. It’s an insatiable need for money…
Doesn’t Amazon still lose money on most of their offerings and just make a boat load of money off of AWS?
Yes
The corporate greed is revolting
The corporate greed is revolting
===========================
I’m curious what you think the corporate greed thing is here?
Price hike -> layoffs -> exec bonuses -> repeat
@Joe It already has with ads presented in Prime video content. They’ll make more money by showing users ads than them paying a small fee to eliminate ads.
@Joe says: It’s your choice to subscribe or not. It’s not a public utility.
YBC and acoss, yeah I’d forgotten about the ads.
Blue Baron I’m not getting rid of my prime sub but I’m not excited about the cost of my sub going up either.
nor is it a competitive free market.
Amazon is only viable because they can endure a decade worth of losses while building subscribers.
The Direct-To-Consumer model doesn’t pay anywhere close to what the Cable model does.
St. Louis Cardinals are getting $73 million in current media rights deal. If the annual subscription price is $100, it will take 73,000 annual subscribers to make that amount solely from streamers. Monthly subscribers cancel, and are not preferred.
The cable model pays EVERY month. Whatever Diamond Sports Group is getting per subscriber, they get it every month from the cable company even in January when games ain’t played.
@Very Barry Amazon makes hand over fist with AWS. Video streaming and retail are only side hustles for them.
Not really!! Have to move the analysis forward to current day.. This is old 1980s style valuation…
Barry –
At $100 a pop it’s not 73,000 subscribers to reach $73million, it’s 730,000!!!!
You are correct sir! This is why the destruction of the cable model for revenue cannot be replaced.
Assuming the streaming service is ad supported, subscription fees are only one piece of the revenue.
The streaming service can raise the cost to advertisers by attracting more subscribers. Which provides an incentive to hold subscription fees down. The fee should be high enough that consumers want to use the service they’re paying for, but low enough to attract plenty of subscribers to make their ads more valuable.
@Very Barry: But the cable model is on its way to becoming obsolete as technology eliminates the need for an intermediary to provide service.
Within 5-10 years, companies like Spectrum could go the way of Blockbuster Video.
Cable model is finished!! The OVERPAYMENT for media rights now has them all scrambling to figure out how to keep the revenue the same. It’s impossible! The cable model is an absolute cash cow. You get paid for every subscriber on the cable system regardless of whether they watch the games or not. If you subscribe to the “tier” that ESPN, or Bally Sports is on you get paid EVERY month for that subscriber. Even for the mom who subscribed to that tier for cartoons for her kids. ESPN gets more than $8.25 per subscriber EVERY month. They then slap ads on top of it.
Streaming only has those that actually intend to use the product paying. Unless they pay annually, they will absolutely cancel their monthly subscriptions when season ends, or team starts losing. The money ends. And the money ain’t nowhere close to being the same.
I disagree on spectrum, yes there tv services will go by the wayside but they still have there internet and cell service, and unless your lucky to live in an area that has fiber unfortunately your not going to beat the speeds of spectrum or anyone else who provides cable internet.
As a Cards fan, I’d gladly pay $100 annually. I would love to ditch cable!
Betting its $124.99 for one team for the season with no blackouts.
I would probably buy that. No blackouts are key.
Go to go on this end!!!!
Amazon will only have the rights to 5 teams, the Tigers, Royals, Marlins, Brewers and Rays. Even then only locally and only for 2024.
That isn’t how it works last time I checked. You still had to pay for the programming even if you were a Prime Member. Just easier to watch a pirate’d stream if need be. That was the easier way to roll than signing up for a free preview of Apple or Amazon when they poached Braves games from my DirecTV Extra Innings package which I feel is fairly priced.
@Smacky: Actually, there’s a fair amount of programming included with Prime.
So now Bally Sports North says Amazon to provide access to Diamond Services via Prime Video. Customers will be able to purchase (DTC) Direct to Consumer access to stream programing. So if I get this correct you still have to pay $19.99 a month on top of the Prime fee but it will be easier to access. More details will be released at a later date
Or you just keep your cable like the story notes. Or buy MLB TV
Keep the blackouts. Here is hoping the blackouts will go away with the Amazon prime offering. But I doubt it.
flurry of activity incoming ???
Cable subscriptions being cancelled nationwide.
Cable subscriptions may be cancelled but direct to consumers will be growing. Look at Saturday with Peacock and the growth the future is now. The real story is how many people share a password? Hope for many will be 100 per password. Probably not. Many people just don’t know that the NFL would bust bars that would show out of town games that did not pay for them. Just remember the folks in Davos this week and their goal is YOU will own nothing and pay rent for EVERYTHING
pay rent for EVERYTHING
===========================
What a novel idea to have people pay for goods and services.
It would help keep companies out of bankruptcy.
Old people still have cable. Young people watch baseball on hacked streaming services. They aren’t going to pay to watch baseball. Some will, the majority will not.
Your right young people don’t have to pay for things when you can steal things for free. I love how CVS and Walgreens are now closing stores because people have taken merchandise without paying and people now scream that it’s not right. That stores are closing. If nobody will pay we will go back to the 70s when you only had a few games to watch not every game available and players did not make much money. The laws of economics are solid and filled with reality. I am not sure if it’s good for all but life will change.
hc
” I love how CVS and Walgreens are now closing stores because people have taken merchandise without paying and people now scream that it’s not right.”
Imagine thinking that making a profit was more important than people getting their medications
Imagine thinking that making a profit was more important than people getting their medications
===========================
1-I don’t think these gangs of kids are ransacking Saks 5th Avenue in search of medications.
2-And even that doesn’t matter. Even assuming that the morals of stealing didn’t exist, everything works better when people pay for the stuff they want.
Maybe ticket prices can go back to the prices they were in the 70s to lol
JB
“1-I don’t think these gangs of kids are ransacking Saks 5th Avenue in search of medications”
I know it’s difficult for some people to construct a cohérent rational argument but the discussion was about CVS and Walgreen’s and a commenter liking that those places were closing
That has absolutely nothing to do with Saks 5th Ave
“2-And even that doesn’t matter. Even assuming that the morals of stealing didn’t exist, everything works better when people pay for the stuff they want”
Medications are not usually something people want but, rather, something they need.
That won’t happen any more than rent or gas or food prices would be rolled back 50 years.
Surgery
“Maybe ticket prices can go back to the prices they were in the 70s to lol”
Do you also wish that the hot dogs your company sells (or whatever) go back to 1970’s prices so your salary can shrink commiserately?
Why do people who seem to like baseball seem to hate baseball players so much?
Oh yeah. Brainwashed by capitalism.
CVS and Walgreens can’t stay open unless they make a profit. They aren’t a charity business making sure people get medications. Do you work for free?
As opposed to just simply brainwashed, like yourself.
Wayne, try to keep up
“CVS and Walgreens can’t stay open unless they make a profit. They aren’t a charity business making sure people get medications. Do you work for free?”
In already addressed this
That capitalism can’t provide necessary goods and services unless it’s profitable isn’t a point in its favor.
Except prescription medications are not what are being stolen. It’s junk food, cosmetics and oddball electric devices that are being stolen
RSox?
“Except prescription medications are not what are being stolen. It’s junk food, cosmetics and oddball electric devices that are being stolen”
Even worse
Why is a pharmacy that provides life saving medications selling phone chargers and socks?
Because of capitalist greed.
Pharmacies should not have to be profitable.
And if they didn’t have that stuff, they wouldn’t need to shut down – making it harder for people to get their medications.
The Walgreens Store by me closed and reopened as a Rx only. They just fill prescriptions, a shelf or two of pain killers and band aids, but no general merchandise. Can’t shoplift what they don’t have.
Walgreens and CVS aren’t the only pharmacies.
Greed by both owners and players have made it unaffordable for many.
Stymee
“Greed by both owners and players have made it unaffordable for many.”
Ohh…bless your heart, how naive.
To think there are people who believe that the owners wouldn’t try to maximize profits if they didn’t have to pay the players so much.
That if the players would just be happy making hundreds of thousands instead of millions the owners wouldn’t pocket those millions and would instead leave that money to the fans.
It’s almost cute your naivety
Stymee
“Walgreens and CVS aren’t the only pharmacies.”
Does anyone think that?
Or was your comment absolutely useless?
No one said it makes it impossible to get medications
But it UNDENIABLY makes it harder. Fewer pharmacies makes it harder. People have to go farther to get their medications and they have to,wait in longer lines.
To your point its the same problem as being able to buy patio furniture and expensive grills at the grocery store, home theatre systems at the hardware store, or expensive statues/action figures at Gamestop. The price of other goods/items are driven up by the lack of sales of these items and then they go higher when these types of items are stolen. I guess “staying in their lane” is not a successful business model
Rsox
“guess “staying in their lane” is not a successful business model”
Distributing goods that people need to survive should not be a business. Is the point.
@filihok: In your opinion.
If it’s not provided by businesses, who should do it instead?
I for one would love if we went back to the 70s Oscar Gamble fro
BB
“If it’s not provided by businesses, who should do it instead?”
Let me restate a bit. It should not be a service fueled by profit
Again, it’s a very inefficient system that says that something is only worh doing if it can turn a profit.
@ filihok: Should or shouldn’t is one thing.
What do you propose instead? You want the government to get involved?
Talk about an inefficient system.
It’s amazing that people still believe the government should run healthcare. Look at the ACA for instance. It’s a huge boondoggle that people do not pay attention to anymore but they certainly pay for it every week.
BB
“What do you propose instead? You want the government to get involved?”
Yes
Note: government involved does not necessarily mean government run
Storm
“It’s amazing that people still believe the government should run healthcare. Look at the ACA for instance. It’s a huge boondoggle”
That’s largely because one party tried to sabotage it.
If you see what my INSURANCE company pays them for my epilepsy drugs per month if there not making money they need to restructure there business model there’s no need for them to close there making PLENTY of money!!!!
I’ll absolutely pay to watch baseball. I’ll never pay for cable again, I know where that money goes. Paying for baseball without blackouts? Sign me up
I’ll absolutely pay to watch baseball.
==========================
Is it me, or is this some type of foreign concept? If I want something, I will pay for it. The same way people pay me for my services.
And what type of person wants a guilty conscience because they are stealing BB broadcasts?
Lol no one has a guilty conscience from pirating digital media
Streaming sucks. Can’t even log in to Bally’s half the time. And before you proudly spew any more insulting age discrimination, my 20 year olds can’t either without watching a hacked feed.
Illegally hacking? Sign of the unethical times for sure.
Bally’s might suck, but the games I watched on Apple were fantastic
So you are trying to say that young people are all thieves?
Websoulsurfer; Whoa, whoa. I wouldn’t go that far.
I am a mentor to many young and great human beings.
But hacking is illegal and I can’t argue too
much with my kids doing it too.
Hacking seems so accepted nowadays and i find that alone unethical.
So you are saying your kids are all thieves too?
Never said that. You are. All I said is hacking is unethical. I don’t see “thieves” in my posts
If you hack that means you are STEALING whatever you are hacking into. So you are saying they are thieves, and you are ok with that.
M.c. Homer
I disagree on hacking is wrong, the act itself is no more evil than a gun it’s how people use the tools that make it wrong. I’ve “hacked” many of my devices just so I’m free of the manufactures walled garden because well I paid good money for my devices and once I pay you for the device it’s mine and I’ll do what I want with them.
You can do what you want but hacking into something to get it for free is still stealing. No matter what you say to yourself yo make you feel better.
Buying a shot gun and shaving it off is illegal. Just because you bought the gun doesn’t mean you have the rights to do whatever you want with it. We live in a society of laws…
Some laws work and some do not.
At least the ACA makes health insurance available to people who want it but might not otherwise get it, and the APTC can make affordable.
I’m very happy with the plan I bought on the exchange.
I never used it plus it was way to expensive. Its a redistribution of money is all it has done. Still 26 million without insurance. Which the ACA was suppose to fix. Oh well
Storm
“Its a redistribution of money”
You say that as if it is a bad thing
Now some teams that were in a holding pattern can make moves
I wonder how that affects the Texas Rangers
I hope that, this off season has been so slow and burin
Now let’s see if MLB nixes the deal.
There’s no reason MLB would do that.
They might If they think the price point is wrong and it fouls the nest for a better MLB-sponsored offering in the future. Priced badly (ie too high) it will establish a culture where stealing games is expected. Priced too low and MLB won’t be able to re-create the revenue of the cable model and fans will balk at paying the higher rate.
That’s the job of the market to decide, not MLB.
Simple solution to all the piracy, and that is make a product worth paying for at a reasonable price. I used to pirate music all the time (bands I loved I’d still buy there albums) but when apple came out with Apple Music and I started using it I stopped pirating because 99% of the music out there was on there service and made it easy to get that it was more effort to pirate. When I had cable for the old man the service and quality was crap with the hd package and boxes games looked like crap but if I pirated the game I got actual hd qualit.
No, it’s MLB’s product and they have a role in designing how to sell it. “The market” judges the product and price, and if the desperate bankrupt spinoff from Sinclair gins up some terrible packaging it could make things harder for MLB in the future. Amazon has the cash to sneak in and skew things, so Manfred and MLB should be working harder to lay out their vision for the future so that all the parties embroiled in the bankrupcy mess can plan an orderly exit.
@crise
My point was if you want to keep piracy down to a minimum is that mlb and/or who they partner with (Amazon, google, Hulu, ect…) need to make a service worth getting, yes I agree that the market will judge the product but they need to provide one to be judged. Also I wonder if the nhl and mlb could work something out together for a replacement for the rsn I’m sure a lot of nhl teams are in a similar boat and have a similar structure of regional teams
Somewhere, upon hearing this news, Boras is high-fiving Bellinger and Snell.
Boras still isn’t getting Snell a $300 million dollar deal…
So what if he does? What’s it to you?
Just waiting for Amazon to say that only the membership holder can watch the games.
U really need them to say that ?
I don’t need them to say anything but the way streaming services are going these days it wouldn’t shock me
It’s possible they could create an additional pay-tier within the Prime membership, like other streamers are creating a Premium (Ad-Free) tier with premium streaming options (4K, multi-angles, etc.) unavailable on lesser tiers. They’d want you to pay for that $100M acquisition fee.
Just pay it. I don’t track the nickels and dimes, but it feels like we get a lot of benefits from the membership. Once Bezos owns everything, he will raise the prices, but I have no issue right now.
Once Bezos owns everything, he will raise the prices.
===================================
Name one thing you pay for whose price doesn’t rise over time. Rent? Food? Gas? Power? Heating fuel?
BB
”
Name one thing you pay for whose price doesn’t rise over time. Rent? Food? Gas? Power? Heating fuel?”
Digital storage
I was kidding. I was referring to companies trying to corner the market on goods and services.
@ Blue Baron, Computers. The price of computing power has dropped exponentially during my life time. Heck, a brand new iBook has a bigger and better screen than the Mac 512 i bought in 1985, more storage capacity (no hard drive in the Mac 512), and exponentially more computing capacity. It also costs $400 less than the Mac 512 did.
Food. Despite people moaning and groaning about inflation in the supermarket, the cost of food to the average consumer has declined as part of their disposable income. In the 1970s, it was about 30% of one’s budget, today it is below 15%. Interestingly, wages have not kept up with inflation, but food still dropped as percentage of one’s budget. Note that the quality of the food has also declined during the same era as methods of production have focused on increasing output not on quality.
I remember when I started building my own computers, by the time I ordered a new CPU & Motherboard with RAM, it was already outdated by the time I got it & had it up & running. I finally threw out all my old parts about 2 years ago. I did keep all my old OS’s though. I still have my Dos 6.22, Windows 3.11, Windows 4.0, Windows 95, Windows 98, (I skipped ME), Windows 2000 (this was my favorite OS. I kept using it until I was forced to upgrade to XP format using Server 2003 for my College Courses. I also had to upgrade my Motherboard, I hated to change from my Asus A7V. ), Windows XP, Skipped all the way to Windows 8, Windows 10 & now whatever Microsoft calls it now. At one time I had 12 computers setup in my house on 3 subnets, using Server 2000. I tore it all down except for 2 computers, 1 server connected to a phone line networked to another computer connected to a satellite Dish connected to the internet. After setting up my network at College, I called my server, connected to the other computer, accessed some files &; surfed the internet. Wish I could remember half that stuff now. I had some fun but also many, many swearing sessions too. Most people now a days don’t even know where the internet came from or how Bill Gates created DOS Ha, Ha, Ha!
Dogs building computers. Yikes. And I thought Dogs,playing cards was the big innovation. Mankind will be dogs best friend and their pets at that rate.
Did you get the latest Anerica Online CD in the mail yet? Think it’s version 37.1 this month
@filihok: An exception that proves the rule.
@Skeptical: As I said to filihok, these are exceptions that prove the rule.
BB
“An exception that proves the rule.”
The most meaningless of saying.
Exceptions don’t prove rules, the disprove them
BB
“As I said to filihok, these are exceptions that prove the rule.”
You said something that was wrong.
@filihok: The exception that proves the rule means that there being an exception proves that the rule exists.
If you don’t understand something or what it means, look it up and learn.
Google is your friend.
You don’t want to necessarily do that. Once they are pretty much the ONLY game in town …… Watch how fast the price skyrockets!
It will be the Uber/Lyft model start them out with cheap rides, then once you control the market, and have enough politicians paid …… Skyrocket the price and start giving excuses why, while still skyrocketing the price.
Ironically, that’s how the cable companies operate, too. See: Spectrum.
@Very Barry: Uber and Lyft don’t control the market here in NYC. Car services and green and yellow taxis are also readily available.
For Uber and Lyft, the selling points are convenience and promptness.
There will be a MLB package on Amazon to watch these teams
Thanks Mr Bezos
That’s obvious lol you think they will broadcast them for free?
Will teams get their full contracts or take a hit? Sounds like the latter.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure the RSNs (at a minimum) won’t provide as much revenue to the clubs as they expected this time last year.
Finally! Monty to the Rangers!
New York post stated in today’s article that diamond may still drop the rangers before doing out of bankruptcy. So this doesn’t resolve anything for them yet or any other team until the come out of bankruptcy
*Jordan Montgomery enjoys this news*
Death to cable television !
this x1000
Cables been dead for a while, it just hasn’t fallen over yet…
“It will use its Prime Video platform to offer direct-to-consumer access to MLB, NBA and NHL games, including pre-game and post-game content of its various RSNs on a local basis.”
So that leaves a lot of weasel room. It’s not entirely clear if games will be covered by a Prime subscription or require a separate fee, or if the fee is per game or per team. Lost of room for Amazon to make a little money here.
It will only be for the 5 teams that DSG still owns the streaming rights for.
@crise: “Lots of room for Amazon to make a little money here.”
As they should. They’re in business to make a profit. If they can’t, why be in business?
BB
“As they should. They’re in business to make a profit. If they can’t, why be in business?”
And here we see the biggest reason why capitalism is a failure
No matter how beneficial something is, if it can’t make money, it’s not worth doing
Silly view, imo. I can produce almost nothing myself. If not for capitalism, I think all I’d have to eat would be my tomatoes.
And I am pretty sure I wouldn’t be pounding away on this keyboard, which would fine, since we’d have no internet.
JB
“I can produce almost nothing myself. If not for capitalism, I think all I’d have to eat would be my tomatoes.
And I am pretty sure I wouldn’t be pounding away on this keyboard, which would fine, since we’d have no internet
WTF are you taking about?
Capitalism has poisoned your mind
They haven’t done that for other sports streaming
The problem is diamond only owns the streaming rights for 5 teams. So I would t read too much into this yet. I’m sure Amazon interest is from the streaming side. MLB doesn’t seem interested in diamond owning any streaming rights.
They only own those rights through the end of the 2024 season. They already agreed to relinquish all MLB broadcast rights at that point.
Yeah that’s why this is a 1 year deal that affects 5 teams.
Simm, does it blow you away that DSG would get paid $20 million each for the local streaming rights to the Tigers, Royals, Marlins, Brewers and Rays?
4 of those 5 are among the smallest markets in baseball and DSG will get paid $20 million per team for JUST the streaming rights and just locally.
Web, my understanding is Amazon paid 100m for those 5 teams rights along with a bunch of nhl and nba teams right. It’s likely the Amount the streaming rights for those 5 mlb teams weren’t all that much. Specially since diamond is still going to broadcast games in their cable network. Heck they may still have blackout restrictions.
@filihok: As far as services provided in the private sector.
Streaming of entertainment is not a public utility like power or home heating, and it’s not the public sector’s responsibility.
Without capitalism, you would be reliant on government to provide all services, and if it is unable to provide something you want, too bad. Do without it.
BB
“Some blah blah blah semi-true statements that have little to nothing to do with what I’m talking about”
I love how people’s minds are so brainwashed by capitalism that they spend all day complaining about this company and that company but as soon as “socialism” comes up they robotically begin to chant about Adam Smith and free markets
@filihok: Not brainwashed, just practical and pragmatic.
You want to see brainwashed? Look in the mirror.
BB
“Blah blah”
Nah. Brainwashed.
Let’s take a look at your previous statement and find the problems with it
“if [the government] is unable to provide something you want, too bad. Do without it.”
The obvious counter is “if the free market is unable to provide something you want, too bad. Do without it”
I mean, yes,sure, if some product or service cannot be provided, then, yes, by definition, you have to do without it. But, this isn’t specific to socialism, so you’ve made no point.
I suppose that you’ll counter with some tripe about how under capitalism some hero will rise up and make your Scooby-Doo and Apple sauce flavored condoms (or whatever).
But 2 points
1) you said “unable” to be provided. Again, if it’s unable to be provided that means no capitalist nor government beurocrat can provide it. They are, by your words, unable.
2) perhaps you mean no one is currently providing it. And you believe that the capitalist hero will come along and sell your condoms (or whatever) to you. That’s just not true. They will only do so if they believe that they can do so,for a profit. This, by definition, restricts, artificially, the number of goods or services available.
However under a socialist system, where profit is not the motivating factor, those goods or services could be produced.
So, if you can follow basic logic and reasoning, you can see that you are completely wrong,
@filihok: As usual, you are condescendingly equating your opinion with fact.
You misread what I said, which was that in your misguided belief in socialism, if government cannot provide something, people must do without it.
That doesn’t mean that the private sector cannot provide it.
Where socialism fails is in eliminating the private sector and the profit motive for providing goods and services not provided by the almighty government.
You should consider moving to a nice totalitarian place like Cuba. You would like it there better than in the evil, capitalist USA.
BB
“As usual, you are condescendingly equating your opinion with fact.”
As usual people are accusing others of that which they are guilty. YOU are spouting some nonsense as fact.
Let’s try and look at it again.
“You misread what I said, which was that in your misguided belief in socialism, if government cannot provide something must do without it.
That doesn’t mean that the private sector cannot provide it.”
Again, I can just turn this around:
“In your misguided belief in capitalism, if an endeavor isn’t profitable we must do without it
That doesn’t mean it can’t be provided as a service.”
I have supported my statement with the exact amount of evidence (none) that you did.
So why should one believe you and disbelieve me? This isn’t a rhetorical question – please address it directly.
“Where socialism fails is in eliminating the private sector and the profit motive for providing goods and services ”
This is exactly where socialism succeeds. Again, in a point you fail to address directly, capitalism fails to provide goods and services unless they are profitable. THIS, by definition, makes people more likely to go without that good or service. The only goods and services that are produced are the ones that can make a buck. How does that NOT lead to fewer goods and services being made available? Again, please respond to this question directly.
I know you believe that the only way to innovate is for people who are motivated solely by personal gain to find a way to extract money from people’s pockets into their own, by why do,you believe that? Again, please answer directly.
“You should consider moving to a nice totalitarian place like Cuba. You would like it there better than in the evil, capitalist USA.”
Ahh, this immature nonsense. I’ll again turn it around:
You should consider moving to some place without.a functioning government like the Democratic Repub,ic of Congo. Report back to us how you like it.
But the real question is, what’s the ‘minority investment’ Amazon is making? Are they buying a piece of Diamond, or did Bezos just decide he wants his own luxury box for MLB games? Details, people, details!
I’m having a hard time deciphering if this will help or hurt the process of removing blackouts. I’d like to think help since it’s a streaming service but who knows. I think this will Jumpstart the teams that have been holding off on FA though.
It helps because you can use a VPN to circumvent regional restrictions and watch anything from anywhere… Not that I’ve done that
taking notes
VPN doesnt work on mlb.tv anymore, why would we think Amazon is less capable of policing that?
My VPN worked for me all last year.
@zwhite13: It will only jumpstart the teams whose owners are willing to spend the money.
If you read the release it clearly includes the word LOCAL, which to me says blackouts aren’t going anywhere until the entire model is revamped, likely under the auspices of MLB.
RSNs have value in the right markets. Amazon has tons of money, can afford to invest in sports programming content in this way without making a national splash. It’s smart. My biggest problem with cable is with my provider (I will not name names) who finds, on a monthly basis, to reduce the number of channels I get while simultaneously raising fees. Can’t help but think somehow this deal, which should have nothing to do with my market, will be yet another excuse. I think they are even charging for the black-screen message “your service does not include this channel…”
My satellite provider and your cable provider have much in common.
Streaming? Finally? I see this as an absolute win.
Hope they do a better job than those Apple Friday night games.
Okay, Brewers, you can spend some money now…
Brewers spend money??? That’s cute. So you’re a new Brewer fan.
This affects 11 MLB teams total and only 5 that could be broadcast via streaming on Amazon.
How will this suddenly make those media deals profitable? I think it just muddies the water and delays what MLB needs to be done.
The only reason I havent cut the cord yet is because only 2 streaming services offer NESN and the savings are minimal at best. I yearn for the days of no blackouts.
According to the New York Post there is a chance diamond dumps the rangers and guardians before they emerge from bankruptcy.
Because they can drop more teams still it’s unlikely we see a lot of movement until diamond emerges from bankruptcy.
Also Amazon only will have streaming right to 5 teams. Plus there is a chance they charge an additional amount for stream these games via Amazon, though nothing announced yet on that.
My guess the 5 teams that Amazon will stream can safely say they will have there deal continue with diamond. Who really knows about the other 6 since they won’t have a deal to stream via Amazon with their diamond deal.
Clearly the mlb wanted this deal not to happen and be able to get all the rights back. My guess is they will work with Amazon on streaming rights for the other 25 clubs and deny those rights to diamond.
DSG already agreed to relinquish broadcast rights to MLB games after the 2024 season. This agreement is just for 2024 and as you said it has not been shown that it includes the Rangers or Guardians. The streaming portion of the agreement would only be for a maximum of 5 MLB teams.
MLB has wanted the streaming rights back for some time. After the success of the Padres and Diamondbacks in selling single-team MLB.TV packages not subject to local blackouts last season after DSG defaulted on payments to those two clubs. According to filings by MLB in the DSG case, both of those teams exceeded 300,000 subscriptions by the end of the 2023 season.
300k at 20 bucks a wack only generates 6m. I haven’t read anything about if that’s 300k unique customers or counting renewals. If they are unique what was the avg spent on the season. Some paid for the full season, some month to month and may have cancelled before paying for all the moths that were left which I don’t remember but feel like was 3-4.
Also while a team like the padres sold rights to the cable companies in the area there is not reporting on for how much.
So if the padres ran back the same process as last year we really have no idea how much they would make.
Simm, would have to be unique customers since there were no single-team packages without a blackout prior to the DSG bankruptcy.
It was $74.99 for the remainder of the season and it started on June 2nd or 3rd. You saved about a buck a month if you took that option.
The exact language was “…the Padres and Diamondbacks exceeded 300,000 active subscribers at season’s end” for those 1 team packages in the local area. It did not say how many each team sold total, just how many they had active at the end of the season.
Thank you! So more than 300k active subscribers at the end of the season. I am betting that Simm is right that some of the people that subscribed early on dropped their monthly subscriptions when the team was out of the running.
That also gibes with the reports that the Padres made more than $20 million in revenue from those MLB.tv packages from June through September.
All this new information is great AND I need to lay off the energy drinks.
I don’t think that many people would drop the package because their team struggles. Some frontrunners will, but I watch the RS because I like watching the RS.
I doubt most Padre fans simply turned off the TV on 7/31.
If they still had 300k at the end of the season I am sure that not many canceled, but I still think he is right that some did. Like you, I like the Padres so I watch their games whether they are winning 90 or losing 90.
20m seems probably about right. 6m a month for 4 months is 24m.
If they continued that pace next year with two more moths that’s 36m. Of course we don’t know if the mob is taking a cut to produce or are they covering that via adds.
Padres would have received about 60m from diamond. There is a chance they could actually be money ahead if keep selling packages o f with however money they are getting selling the rights to each tv provider in the area.
This is why it would seem unlikely the padres did a streaming deal with Amazon. Amazon isn’t going to pay 30+ just to stream while the tv providers can as well.
So any deal with Amazon with have to be for all the rights.
Padres would have received $52 million from DSG in both 2023 and 2024 according to the bankruptcy proceedings.
$6 million per month, $36 million per season. PLUS both of those teams have broadcast agreements with the cable and satellite carriers.
Slackey accountant: “Jeff, I need $500M for some streaming rights”
Bezos: “The petty cash box is on the bottom shelf”
Slackey accountant: “Jeff, I need $500M for some streaming rights”
Bezos: Hold on, while he puts his hands in his pants pockets.
So where will Twins game be broadcast this year? Can we finally start our off-season yet? Probably not:(
This will not affect the Twins in any way. Their deal with DSG expired at the end of 2023.
You will be able to buy a MLB.TV package just for the Twins for 19.99 per month and see 100% of their games. If they were proactive like the Padres and Diamondbacks, they will still be available on the same cable and satellite providers that carried the Ballys channel.
This has not been announced or decided in any way. What you’re suggesting is a pure guess.
As for being “proactive like the Padres and Diamondbacks”, Bally Sports North still exists here and will for the foreseeable future, with the Timberwolves and Wild still broadcast on the station.
He is right. The TWINS no longer have a contract with Bally’s and that means they TWINS own the streaming rights too.
If they are smart, they will sell single-team MLB.tv packages that are not blacked out locally. They will also get individual contracts with the local cable and satellite providers like the Padres and Diamondbacks did and be available everywhere they were before. In fact, if they are smart, they have been negotiating just that thing for the past year or more.
But hey, not all the billionaire MLB owner are smart.
DSG already agreed to relinquish ALL broadcast rights to MLB games for the 14 teams they were in contact with after the 2024 season.
The Padres, Twins, and Diamondbacks are already off DSG. So all of this is only for a maximum of 11 teams and just for 2024.
Judge Lopez has not ruled in the case yet.
cases.ra.kroll.com/DSG/ That is a great resource for the DSG bankruptcy case if you relish digging through court cases.
Hopefully the Angels and others can now make some moves.
Amazon owns everything… You will be paying for your normal Prime membership…. They 19.99 per moth to watch your home team…Ballys will be gone..And Prime will be in..Amazon adds all over your stadium… and price hikes every other year…The teams will get there 50 million per year deal now….
Going to be very interesting to see what this looks like. Until I see otherwise and what it costs, I’m not gonna hold my breath about this doing anything to eliminate mlb.tv blackouts. It is much more likely to be just yet another app/membership you need to access a certain team’s games, because if they are on prime they may very well be blacked out on mlb.tv just like the Apple games. I doubt it is included in a regular prime membership. Much more likely to be a prime add-on subscription or a pay per view. Still, probably cheaper than $100/mo for fubo. I hope the league has a long term plan here but its probably a short term cash grab to kick the can by all involved.
The release clearly used the word Local, so you are likely correct about the blackouts.
Damn this doesn’t help the Angels at all
Yes it does. Angels fans will now be able to buy an Angels only MLB.tv subscription with NO blackouts for $19.99 per month.
Of course no ATL, that would be too easy. Get yo VPN ready!
Only potential help for five teams. Not real great news for most.
Yet Robby the robot lets this fiasco continue.
Cincinnati Reds’ fans screwed again.
Now that MLB.tv blocks all VPNS – looks like we’ll have to wait until 2025 to watch the Reds again w/out a cable subscription.
No one punishes their fans like the MLB.
MLB.tv does NOT block all VPNs.
Reds fans should be HAPPY today!! If the judge approves this deal, you will be able to purchase a single-team MLB.tv package with NO blackouts!.
Apparently someone didn’t read the article.
Hate to say this but with this deal along with the KC/Miami game that was on Peacock and the ratings for that being very high, this is what TV viewing is coming to. Cable is soon to become what DHS to DVD to Streaming has done to the home movie viewing. It would not surprise me that the Super Bowl viewing will eventually come to a pay per view on a streaming service in another 20 years. Face it sports fans streaming is becoming the in thing for good. Networks paying the MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL are not going down in cost, the cable companies cannot keep on charging their customers the rates they have to to televise anymore. Customers are not going to pay those prices along with the internet.
I am an out of market Tigers fan. Does this mean I can ditch my MLBTV subscription and simply watch my Tigers through my Prime account?
I watch a fair amount of Mets and Red Sox games via MLB, but honestly, if not for getting Tigers games, I wouldn’t have that subscription.
No. Amazon is purchasing the rights to stream those games locally.
What does this mean for in-market streaming of the Angels, Braves, Cardinals, Guardians, Rangers, or Reds?
Unless the teams are dropped by Diamond, I would imagine you’d stream them the same way as before – through the Bally Sports app or website with a cable/satellite provider login.
I guess I should clarify, I meant in-market “streaming only” options.
As far as I know, Bally Sports doesn’t have the streaming rights to any of those teams. So the only way to watch those teams in-market is to have traditional cable/satellite with a provider that carries their respective RSN. You can then “stream” those games, but you have to pay for traditional cable/satellite in order to do that.
I’m interested in a way to stream just those teams in-market (for me it’s the Cardinals and the Reds) without having to have traditional cable/satellite.
It means you will now be able to by an in-market MLB.tv package for your team for $19.99 per month that will not have any blackouts.
I team like the rangers won’t be able to do that. For them unless the rangers keep and modify the their current deal or get dropped. Next year they will be able to watch the same as this year.
According to the news today, they will. In the bankruptcy DSG only retained the in-market streaming rights to 5 teams
Nothing says worth investing in like recent bankruptcy
Ezp
“Nothing says worth investing in like recent bankruptcy”
Tell us you’re not an investor without telling us
So hopefully this means that I can watch the braves games on my wife’s Amazon Prime account!
Only the Tigers, Royals, Marlins, Brewers and Rays will be on Amazon and only locally.
I just want my hometown team available to watch without blackouts. Too much to ask apparently. MLB needs to figure this Stuff out…
The Twins deal with DSG expired at the end of 2023. That should mean you will be able to buy a MLB.tv package for just the Twins for 19.99 that is not blacked out locally.
Interesting developments.
Sinclair is paying DSG $495 million to settle the lawsuit against them for siphoning money out of DSG and DSG will become a free standing company, not a subsidiary.
DSG already forfeited the rights to all MLB broadcasts after 2024, so Amazon is paying $100 million for the streaming rights to 5 teams for just one year. Basically $20 million each for a single season of the small market teams.
If you wondered how valuable MLB broadcasts are, wonder no more. When Amazon is paying that much money for just the streaming rights to the Tigers, Royals, Marlins, Brewers and Rays, a group that includes 4 of the smallest market teams in baseball, then MLB broadcast rights are worth more than we knew.
The 6 other MLB teams that will still be broadcast by DSG on their Bally’s branded stations will now be able to sell MLB.tv packages for their team only that are not blacked out locally. Rejoice Angels, Braves, Cardinals, Guardians, Rangers, and Reds fans!! Blackouts are dead for you. Pay $19.99 per month you can watch every single game that is not available on national broadcasts.
As part of this filing, we found out that the Padres did MUCH better than had been previously reported in selling those singe-team MLB.tv packages. They had over 300k subscriptions by the end of the season. On a full season basis that is $36 million in revenue and more than 2/3 of what DSG was going to pay them in 2024 in total. They are still on all the same cable and satellite providers and getting paid for that too.
There have been reports that the Rangers and Guardians might not be part of this restructuring.
The Mariners bought the remaining 29% of Root Sports NW. That goes to show that the MLB broadcasts are the most valuable part of the RSN model. This year-old article points to that fact. mlb.com/news/mlb-rsns-most-viewed-local-programmin…
The Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Pirates, Orioles, Nationals, Cubs, and Blue Jays own at a minimum a majority of the RSN they are broadcast on.
The White Sox, A’s, Philllies and Giants are on NBC owned RSN’s that are continuing to operate.
Does anyone know what the other teams are that WBD owned the RSN’s for?
Is it just the Rockies and Twins that are in limbo?
Twins I believe have no deal, theirs expired. I think the Rockies also have no deal and their network folded.
Also this doesn’t change the ability for any team with a tv deal to get the mlbtv deal for 19.99 a month with know blackouts. That’s only for the clubs that have no tv deal like the padres and twins.
Teams like the rangers will still be under the same guidelines as last year. For they still have the same tv deal next year.
Go take a look at the bankruptcy filings. I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure it means that DSG maintains the streaming rights to only the 5 teams.
@websoulsurfer: And for the fans who constantly whine about player compensation and why the stars get such big contracts, there’s the answer.
When team revenue goes up, so should player salaries.
Darn. I was really hoping the rangers games were going to being streamed on Amazon as well.
Overall this is a positive development. For now at least, those with cable will still get their team through cable. For those of us who are cord cutters, it will ensure that we can direct subscribe. I did last year for the Tigers, BSD+ worked well for me and was a bit pricy at $20/mo. Wonder how this will go for this season and beyond however. Obviously the Diamond RSN’s do more than baseball. Will that continue to exist as a separate entity or will we all be forced to Prime for that? And will it be discounted on Prime if we are already a Prime member? Hopefully that will also end some of the black out issues. Not a huge issue for me as a Tigers fan in Michigan, but there are parts of the country where this is a major issue.
$20/mo for a team specific sub seems pretty reasonable to me. To get M’s games outside of cable the only way was to get a premium fubo package at $100/mo. Many people here claim you can get around local blackouts on mlbtv with VPNs but I haven’t had any luck with that recently. I would gladly pay $20/mo
>Amazon is giving Diamond roughly $100MM for the streaming rights
Uh…does Diamond own the streaming rights?
Yes, for those 5 teams only.
Tigers, Royals, Marlins, Brewers and Rays.
Think about that. Amazon is paying $100 million for the LOCAL streaming rights for those 5 teams. 4 of which are small market teams.
Amazon has no problem with short term losses if they see long term gains.
Its a one-year deal, so by definition short term.
After that all the broadcast and streaming rights that DSG held revert to MLB and the individual teams.
Amazon is trying to get a foot in the door with MLB, NHL, and NBA.
Cable is to blame. I want to be able to watch my local team without paying $220 to Xfinity for a full cable service. My next best option is ~$100/mo after fees with Hulu Live TV. I would happily pay $40 direct to the network for JUST my live baseball.
@youngliam: Cable is not to blame. Its customers are to blame for paying for it at those levels.
Nobody is owed anything.
Can anyone clarify this for me? If I have cable, will I still be able to watch the Marlins or the Heat on TV? Or does this mean the games are exclusively on Amazon’s streaming whatever?
So will everyone that has Prime regardless of location be able to watch these teams? If so I will be firing my membership back up in late MArch!
No, sounds like just the 5 mlb teams in their local area only. Also you will likely behave to pay Amazon an additional cost to watch those games using them.
Ok. That is insane. the Tigers, Royals, Marlins, Brewers and Rays local-only streaming rights are worth $20 million each for one year?
What would the Dodgers or Yankees local streaming rights be worth?
I don’t think those teams rights are worth 20m each. The entire deal was worth 100m, it included the rights to nhl and nba teams as well as the 5 min teams.
“Amazon is giving Diamond roughly $100MM for the streaming rights of the Tigers, Royals, Marlins, Brewers and Rays.”
It’s just for the 5 MLB teams.
@Pads Fans: A lot more, but they’re not for sale.