Some registered account users are experiencing password recognition issues. The issue appears to have been triggered by a PHP update last night. If this is occurring, please try logging in and using the "forgot password?" utility. Bear in mind auto-generated password reset emails may appear in your spam folder. If this does not work, please click the "Contact Us" option near the lower right hand corner of the index page to contact me via email.
Thank you for your patience!
- M.W.
Thank you for your patience!
- M.W.
Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
Testimony between Major League Baseball and Sinclair — where MLB Commissioner says SBG chairman David Smith threatened to shakedown MLB in order to get streaming rights. When you think SBG can’t get a worse reputation…
“ Vitriol between MLB, Diamond Sports exposed in marat= hon bankruptcy hearing
By Daniel Kaplan
May 31, 2023
“No easy task today,” U.S. judge Christo= pher Lopez quipped nine and a half hours into Wednesday’s highly cont= entious Diamond Sports Group (DSG) bankruptcy hearing in Houston featuring = the regional sports network on one side, and MLB and four of its teams on the other.
With commissioner Rob Manfred often bobbing back and= forth during his time on the witness stand, MLB’s four-year-long bat= tle with DSG and its parent Sinclair got a full public airing. Held to dete= rmine if DSG should pay the Texas Rangers, Minnesota Twins, Cleveland Guardians and Arizona Diamondbacks full value o= n their TV contracts, the hearing ripped back the curtain on the bitter rel= ationship between MLB and DSG, which airs 13 baseball teams’ games in= addition to 28 from the NBA and NHL.
The central issue in the case is DSG’s passion= ate pursuit of streaming rights for all its teams, with those locked down f= or one more season for all its NBA and NHL franchises, but only for five ML= B squads. Since Sinclair purchased the RSN business in 2019, through the bankruptcy filing in March and on Wednesday,= it has aggressively sought MLB’s direct-to-consumer rights as the co= rd-cutting-induced demise of the traditional cable system accelerated and u= ltimately forced the bankruptcy.
“Blackmail,” an MLB outside counsel, Jam= es Bromley, called Diamond’s approach that it would pay the four team= s at issue full value if they simply handed over their direct streaming rig= hts. Another MLB outside counsel, Ben Walker, compelled Diamond CEO David Preschlack to divulge the number of subscribers to Bally= Sports Plus since the direct-to-consumer app launched last June, a figure = the company has held tight. The answer is 203,000, a figure Preschlac= k admitted is 55 percent of the corporate goal.
“And despite this budget miss in the first qua= rter, you’re still projecting over 850,000 subscribers by the end of = the year?” Walker asked. “More than four times the number of su= bscribers as of April.” Preschlack answered affirmatively, though he used a figure of 802,000, and confirmed the next question that D= iamond is projecting 10 million subscribers by 2028.
It’s been no secret that DSG and MLB have been= at loggerheads for some time, but the depths of the enmity came into the o= pen with Manfred’s time on the witness stand. Friendly questioning fr= om Bromley elicited an anecdote in which the commissioner accused the executive chairman of Sinclair, David Smith, of threatening ec= onomic harm to baseball if it did not consent to the DTC handover.
The “chairman of Sinclair actually came to New= York to see me, we met one-on-one,” Manfred said, without detailing = when the meeting occurred. “And Mr. Smith, you know, said, ‘You= know, we want these rights.’ And I said, ‘Well, you know, unfortunately, sometimes people want things they’re not going to get= and you’re not getting these rights.’ And he said to me, ̵= 6;So let me tell you what’s going to happen.’ He says, ‘I= put $2 billion into the purchase of these RSNs … so what I’m g= oing to do is I’m going to keep this going long enough until I get my $2 billio= n out, OK?And then I’m going to start squeezing your clubs to take th= eir rights fees down, OK, in order to make sure that I stay profitable in t= he RSN business. And if they don’t agree to that, I’m going to put the entity into bankruptcy, and then I’= m going to selectively reject contracts.'”
By rejecting contracts, Smith would have meant what = DSG just did with the San Diego Padres, in which Diamond Sports simply walk= ed away from its contract, which Chapter 11 allows.
In the case of the four teams represented at Wednesd= ay’s hearing, Diamond instead is using its rights in bankruptcy to pa= y “fair market value” during the time between the filing of the= bankruptcy and the decision whether to reject or keep the contract. Judge Lopez ordered last month for DSG to pay half the right= s after the company ceased payments. When DSG does make a decision, if it k= eeps the contracts, it must then revert to the original contract value. But= if DSG rejects, at that time it does not need to reimburse the teams for the lower payments.
When it came time for Manfred’s cross-examinat= ion, Diamond’s outside counsel John Higgins did not deny the Smith en= counter, but pointed out DSG is now all but separate from Sinclair.
“Commissioner, you enjoyed, relished telling y= our story about what David Smith said to you,” Higgins said. Then poi= nting to Preschlack, the Diamond CEO, in the gallery, Higgins asked Manfred= if he knew who he was. When the commissioner said yes, Higgins replied, “He doesn’t work for David Smith, r= ight?” Manfred responded, “I don’t know who he works for.= ” Sinclair’s role is greatly reduced since the bankruptcy, with= creditors agreeing to exchange their owed debt for Sinclair equity.
Higgins captured the last word on this exchange, say= ing, “And you also know that whatever it is, that Mr. Smith said to y= ou, and I understand you’ve told us you were quite upset by it, it do= esn’t affect today what the fair market value of the telecasts rights agreements are for the teams here.”
The issue of the telecast rights’ value —= ; and Diamond is arguing for a 25 percent cut — revolves around the o= ngoing decline in the cable business caused by cord-cutting and how much em= erging streaming rights are worth. The two sides spent hours going back and forth over the issue. A lawyer for the Guardians, for= example, elicited from Preschlack that the company’s Great Lakes RSN= makes $7 million annually, one of the five or six to earn money among DSG&= #8217;s 18 RSNs.
Preschlack replied, “We are keeping a close ey= e on Bally Sports Great Lakes because as I mentioned, subscriber churn is h= igher than we forecasted,” he said. “And the forecasts for Ball= y Sports Great Lakes is based on that lower subscriber churn and given the fact that the network is marginally profitable.”=
The hearing stretched from 10 a.m. ET to past 9 p.m.= ET, with more Thursday, and possibly Friday. At the end, Judge Lopez will = determine how much DSG should pay the four teams.
The sides even bickered over whether Diamond had res= ponded to a January MLB proposal — before the bankruptcy — to b= uy the then 14 teams’ rights back. MLB offered to assume the billions= of dollars of team contract obligations, pay $60 million, loan $150 million to cover losses at the unprofitable RSNs during an inter= im period and let Diamond keep $180 million from the profitable RSNs.<= /o:p>
Higgins responded to Manfred’s contention MLB = never heard from Diamond by saying the company had made a counter proposal = on April 19 to keep the rights through 2026 if the league ceded its DTC rig= hts.
Manfred and Higgins then bickered over the commissio= ner’s depiction that DSG this week had given baseball just hours befo= re walking away from the Padres, meaning MLB had a brief time to set up its= own TV production. Higgins asked Manfred if he was aware DSG had offered to extend the shutoff date until June 30, = to which Manfred replied he had not.
But talking about MLB’s new role in producing = local games, Manfred said he got the league ready to do so after his conver= sation with Smith.
Recounting his memory of the encounter, the commissi= oner said of his reply to the chairman, “‘But let me tell you, = every time you threaten to reject the contract … we’re going to= be there to stand up those broadcasts for clubs so that our fans are not deprived of their games. OK, so if you think the leverage is = fans are going to be screaming, you’re wrong, because we’re goi= ng to be there to stay in those games.'”
The sides would have kept arguing later into the nig= ht, but alas, it was so late that the air conditioning turned off in the Ho= uston courtroom and Judge Lopez mercifully called it a day.”
“ Vitriol between MLB, Diamond Sports exposed in marat= hon bankruptcy hearing
By Daniel Kaplan
May 31, 2023
“No easy task today,” U.S. judge Christo= pher Lopez quipped nine and a half hours into Wednesday’s highly cont= entious Diamond Sports Group (DSG) bankruptcy hearing in Houston featuring = the regional sports network on one side, and MLB and four of its teams on the other.
With commissioner Rob Manfred often bobbing back and= forth during his time on the witness stand, MLB’s four-year-long bat= tle with DSG and its parent Sinclair got a full public airing. Held to dete= rmine if DSG should pay the Texas Rangers, Minnesota Twins, Cleveland Guardians and Arizona Diamondbacks full value o= n their TV contracts, the hearing ripped back the curtain on the bitter rel= ationship between MLB and DSG, which airs 13 baseball teams’ games in= addition to 28 from the NBA and NHL.
The central issue in the case is DSG’s passion= ate pursuit of streaming rights for all its teams, with those locked down f= or one more season for all its NBA and NHL franchises, but only for five ML= B squads. Since Sinclair purchased the RSN business in 2019, through the bankruptcy filing in March and on Wednesday,= it has aggressively sought MLB’s direct-to-consumer rights as the co= rd-cutting-induced demise of the traditional cable system accelerated and u= ltimately forced the bankruptcy.
“Blackmail,” an MLB outside counsel, Jam= es Bromley, called Diamond’s approach that it would pay the four team= s at issue full value if they simply handed over their direct streaming rig= hts. Another MLB outside counsel, Ben Walker, compelled Diamond CEO David Preschlack to divulge the number of subscribers to Bally= Sports Plus since the direct-to-consumer app launched last June, a figure = the company has held tight. The answer is 203,000, a figure Preschlac= k admitted is 55 percent of the corporate goal.
“And despite this budget miss in the first qua= rter, you’re still projecting over 850,000 subscribers by the end of = the year?” Walker asked. “More than four times the number of su= bscribers as of April.” Preschlack answered affirmatively, though he used a figure of 802,000, and confirmed the next question that D= iamond is projecting 10 million subscribers by 2028.
It’s been no secret that DSG and MLB have been= at loggerheads for some time, but the depths of the enmity came into the o= pen with Manfred’s time on the witness stand. Friendly questioning fr= om Bromley elicited an anecdote in which the commissioner accused the executive chairman of Sinclair, David Smith, of threatening ec= onomic harm to baseball if it did not consent to the DTC handover.
The “chairman of Sinclair actually came to New= York to see me, we met one-on-one,” Manfred said, without detailing = when the meeting occurred. “And Mr. Smith, you know, said, ‘You= know, we want these rights.’ And I said, ‘Well, you know, unfortunately, sometimes people want things they’re not going to get= and you’re not getting these rights.’ And he said to me, ̵= 6;So let me tell you what’s going to happen.’ He says, ‘I= put $2 billion into the purchase of these RSNs … so what I’m g= oing to do is I’m going to keep this going long enough until I get my $2 billio= n out, OK?And then I’m going to start squeezing your clubs to take th= eir rights fees down, OK, in order to make sure that I stay profitable in t= he RSN business. And if they don’t agree to that, I’m going to put the entity into bankruptcy, and then I’= m going to selectively reject contracts.'”
By rejecting contracts, Smith would have meant what = DSG just did with the San Diego Padres, in which Diamond Sports simply walk= ed away from its contract, which Chapter 11 allows.
In the case of the four teams represented at Wednesd= ay’s hearing, Diamond instead is using its rights in bankruptcy to pa= y “fair market value” during the time between the filing of the= bankruptcy and the decision whether to reject or keep the contract. Judge Lopez ordered last month for DSG to pay half the right= s after the company ceased payments. When DSG does make a decision, if it k= eeps the contracts, it must then revert to the original contract value. But= if DSG rejects, at that time it does not need to reimburse the teams for the lower payments.
When it came time for Manfred’s cross-examinat= ion, Diamond’s outside counsel John Higgins did not deny the Smith en= counter, but pointed out DSG is now all but separate from Sinclair.
“Commissioner, you enjoyed, relished telling y= our story about what David Smith said to you,” Higgins said. Then poi= nting to Preschlack, the Diamond CEO, in the gallery, Higgins asked Manfred= if he knew who he was. When the commissioner said yes, Higgins replied, “He doesn’t work for David Smith, r= ight?” Manfred responded, “I don’t know who he works for.= ” Sinclair’s role is greatly reduced since the bankruptcy, with= creditors agreeing to exchange their owed debt for Sinclair equity.
Higgins captured the last word on this exchange, say= ing, “And you also know that whatever it is, that Mr. Smith said to y= ou, and I understand you’ve told us you were quite upset by it, it do= esn’t affect today what the fair market value of the telecasts rights agreements are for the teams here.”
The issue of the telecast rights’ value —= ; and Diamond is arguing for a 25 percent cut — revolves around the o= ngoing decline in the cable business caused by cord-cutting and how much em= erging streaming rights are worth. The two sides spent hours going back and forth over the issue. A lawyer for the Guardians, for= example, elicited from Preschlack that the company’s Great Lakes RSN= makes $7 million annually, one of the five or six to earn money among DSG&= #8217;s 18 RSNs.
Preschlack replied, “We are keeping a close ey= e on Bally Sports Great Lakes because as I mentioned, subscriber churn is h= igher than we forecasted,” he said. “And the forecasts for Ball= y Sports Great Lakes is based on that lower subscriber churn and given the fact that the network is marginally profitable.”=
The hearing stretched from 10 a.m. ET to past 9 p.m.= ET, with more Thursday, and possibly Friday. At the end, Judge Lopez will = determine how much DSG should pay the four teams.
The sides even bickered over whether Diamond had res= ponded to a January MLB proposal — before the bankruptcy — to b= uy the then 14 teams’ rights back. MLB offered to assume the billions= of dollars of team contract obligations, pay $60 million, loan $150 million to cover losses at the unprofitable RSNs during an inter= im period and let Diamond keep $180 million from the profitable RSNs.<= /o:p>
Higgins responded to Manfred’s contention MLB = never heard from Diamond by saying the company had made a counter proposal = on April 19 to keep the rights through 2026 if the league ceded its DTC rig= hts.
Manfred and Higgins then bickered over the commissio= ner’s depiction that DSG this week had given baseball just hours befo= re walking away from the Padres, meaning MLB had a brief time to set up its= own TV production. Higgins asked Manfred if he was aware DSG had offered to extend the shutoff date until June 30, = to which Manfred replied he had not.
But talking about MLB’s new role in producing = local games, Manfred said he got the league ready to do so after his conver= sation with Smith.
Recounting his memory of the encounter, the commissi= oner said of his reply to the chairman, “‘But let me tell you, = every time you threaten to reject the contract … we’re going to= be there to stand up those broadcasts for clubs so that our fans are not deprived of their games. OK, so if you think the leverage is = fans are going to be screaming, you’re wrong, because we’re goi= ng to be there to stay in those games.'”
The sides would have kept arguing later into the nig= ht, but alas, it was so late that the air conditioning turned off in the Ho= uston courtroom and Judge Lopez mercifully called it a day.”
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
Judge to Diamond Sports (Sinclair): “pay up”
https://tvnewscheck.com/business/articl ... +Prejudice
Unfortunately that will probably mean even more hardship for Sinclair run local news stations that will have to “pay” for the financial mismanagement of the Bally Sports RSNs.
https://tvnewscheck.com/business/articl ... +Prejudice
Unfortunately that will probably mean even more hardship for Sinclair run local news stations that will have to “pay” for the financial mismanagement of the Bally Sports RSNs.
- rugratsonline
- Posts: 496
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 1:20 pm
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
Meaning that we'll be seeing even more Sinclair stations, perhaps even those not lowly-rated, see their news departments give way to The National Desk.
Why can't Sinclair just sell some of their stations instead of decimating what they got?
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
MW: If local newscasts weren’t making money, you’d see local newscasts being dropped all across the country by all station groups. That’s simply not happening because this is a Sinclair issue. Other station groups have figured out how to adapt their strategies to still make significant cash. Station owners are making billions of dollars. Stocks are still turning quarterly dividends. CEOs are making record pay.
There certainly are challenges facing broadcasting. Mainly they start with how do companies monetize our programming considering younger viewers are migrating to digital platforms (websites, apps, streaming) and other future technologies.
I had a news director at 25/66 that said years ago we were no longer a TV station — that we needed to be a content provider on any and all digital platforms. People will always need news and entertainment programming, it’s just the way they receive it will evolve.
There are still filmmakers — but Blockbuster died because it didn’t evolve its business strategy. Netflix used to send out DVDs through the mail. It’s now the top streamer. It evolved.
That former news director of mine is now doing very well at the number one station (not Sinclair owned) in his market (not Flint/Saginaw), expanding staff, increasing the number of News and non-news shows and digital products.
He did what Sinclair chooses not do do… to focus on they key business… growing local audience levels by focusing on covering important local issues, then making sure those stories are everywhere. He evolved and is doing well.
My news Director before him escaped Sinclair as well and went to DC and now is doing well in West Palm Beach competing against Sinclair. Just two of many news directors that are prospering because they no longer are taking directives from Sinclair’s SVP of “News” Scott Livingston and his ship of fools.
Sinclair refuses to adapt and is on the precipice of a collapse a decade after it started buying up station groups like Barrington… apparently without a plan or vision on how to grow these stations.
The reason the 25-66 experiment failed is because of one singular reason… Sinclair is a poorly run company. It has poor leadership at the top who hires poor leadership at the station level and demand compliance to its failed strategies. (Conservative one-sided editorials, must-run segments, anchors forced to read promos, one-sized fits all graphic look, more resources taken away from local stations to support an unwatchable national “newscast”, etc.)
There certainly are challenges facing broadcasting. Mainly they start with how do companies monetize our programming considering younger viewers are migrating to digital platforms (websites, apps, streaming) and other future technologies.
I had a news director at 25/66 that said years ago we were no longer a TV station — that we needed to be a content provider on any and all digital platforms. People will always need news and entertainment programming, it’s just the way they receive it will evolve.
There are still filmmakers — but Blockbuster died because it didn’t evolve its business strategy. Netflix used to send out DVDs through the mail. It’s now the top streamer. It evolved.
That former news director of mine is now doing very well at the number one station (not Sinclair owned) in his market (not Flint/Saginaw), expanding staff, increasing the number of News and non-news shows and digital products.
He did what Sinclair chooses not do do… to focus on they key business… growing local audience levels by focusing on covering important local issues, then making sure those stories are everywhere. He evolved and is doing well.
My news Director before him escaped Sinclair as well and went to DC and now is doing well in West Palm Beach competing against Sinclair. Just two of many news directors that are prospering because they no longer are taking directives from Sinclair’s SVP of “News” Scott Livingston and his ship of fools.
Sinclair refuses to adapt and is on the precipice of a collapse a decade after it started buying up station groups like Barrington… apparently without a plan or vision on how to grow these stations.
The reason the 25-66 experiment failed is because of one singular reason… Sinclair is a poorly run company. It has poor leadership at the top who hires poor leadership at the station level and demand compliance to its failed strategies. (Conservative one-sided editorials, must-run segments, anchors forced to read promos, one-sized fits all graphic look, more resources taken away from local stations to support an unwatchable national “newscast”, etc.)
-
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2022 5:01 pm
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
It's funny how you use a West Palm Beach station, in an affluent city in Florida and compare it to 25/66 that exists in the asshole of the earth.sinklair wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 9:10 am MW: If local newscasts weren’t making money, you’d see local newscasts being dropped all across the country by all station groups. That’s simply not happening because this is a Sinclair issue. Other station groups have figured out how to adapt their strategies to still make significant cash. Station owners are making billions of dollars. Stocks are still turning quarterly dividends. CEOs are making record pay.
There certainly are challenges facing broadcasting. Mainly they start with how do companies monetize our programming considering younger viewers are migrating to digital platforms (websites, apps, streaming) and other future technologies.
I had a news director at 25/66 that said years ago we were no longer a TV station — that we needed to be a content provider on any and all digital platforms. People will always need news and entertainment programming, it’s just the way they receive it will evolve.
There are still filmmakers — but Blockbuster died because it didn’t evolve its business strategy. Netflix used to send out DVDs through the mail. It’s now the top streamer. It evolved.
That former news director of mine is now doing very well at the number one station (not Sinclair owned) in his market (not Flint/Saginaw), expanding staff, increasing the number of News and non-news shows and digital products.
He did what Sinclair chooses not do do… to focus on they key business… growing local audience levels by focusing on covering important local issues, then making sure those stories are everywhere. He evolved and is doing well.
My news Director before him escaped Sinclair as well and went to DC and now is doing well in West Palm Beach competing against Sinclair. Just two of many news directors that are prospering because they no longer are taking directives from Sinclair’s SVP of “News” Scott Livingston and his ship of fools.
Sinclair refuses to adapt and is on the precipice of a collapse a decade after it started buying up station groups like Barrington… apparently without a plan or vision on how to grow these stations.
The reason the 25-66 experiment failed is because of one singular reason… Sinclair is a poorly run company. It has poor leadership at the top who hires poor leadership at the station level and demand compliance to its failed strategies. (Conservative one-sided editorials, must-run segments, anchors forced to read promos, one-sized fits all graphic look, more resources taken away from local stations to support an unwatchable national “newscast”, etc.)
The excessive amount of news at 25/66 was dropped because it was not turning a profit. Simple as that. Most likely the reason news was dropped in other poorly performing Sinclair markets. From a business perspective it makes sense.
The other side of the 25/66/46 operation is still making money hand over fist.
If 5 and 12 were smart they would pare back their amount of news, and probably will in the near future.
Lets face it.
News viewership is not growing, it is actually shrinking. The numbers will continue to shrink as older folks check out.
Young people don't give 2 shits about local news. Everything they need is on their phone.
No need for hours and hours of rehashed news stories.
How many times do you need to see the same stories before you turn the channel.
Plus most of it is nation news because they no longer know how to get a local story.
If a story doesn't fall in their lap, you won't know about it.
When you get right down to it, they are not really providing much service.
Their promos say they are, but they're not.
The only thing that is relative is weather.
Shit, you can easily give up to date weather info with out a newscast.
You really don't need local meteorologists. They don't predict anything anyway. They just read what's on the weather wire and change the words to make it their own.
That brings us to ATSC3.0.
Sinclair is heavily invested in that. A new format that allows you to watch TV on you phone as well as in your home. As well as some other stuff. 25/66/46 is in a unique position in this market when ATSC1.0 goes away. The amount of bandwidth available between the 3 will make them a powerhouse.
It will be fun to watch how 12 transitions off of the WBSF lighthouse tit with their antique Harris transmitter that most likely can't be upgraded.
Maybe they can get new exciters.
Who knows.
Way beyond my pay grade.
Not sure if 5 is in the same position.
Local news, as we know it, is coming to an end.
- rugratsonline
- Posts: 496
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 1:20 pm
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
It's also due to the fact that viewers that watched 5 or 12 remained allegient to them. 25 has always been viewed all its life as an "also ran" that always tried hard, but still ended up being ignored. I imagine when 25 upgraded its facilities in 1972 to include Flint as part of its viewing area, Flint area viewers still watched WJIM (WLNS) Lansing, which claimed Flint first for CBS programming; 25 until then was a lowered-power station that served Saginaw and Bay City. The broadcasting landscape has changed over the years, but it remained a three-horse race.Soundchaser wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 11:54 am The excessive amount of news at 25/66 was dropped because it was not turning a profit. Simple as that.
As for 66, they always carried 10PM newscasts from others, initially channel 5, then 25. Their strengths is only as string as whoever provided then news.
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
Sound: do you even review your posts before hitting the ‘submit’ button? Your logic makes zero sense.
First, the West Palm Beach reference was about a former 25-66 news director who several claimed was one of the worst… yet has seen success outside of Sinclair. The reason why Sinclair stations struggle is because of its corporate top-down mandates.
Second, you say 25-66-46 isn’t making money, then later you say the ‘other side’ is making money hands over fist. Which is it? Let me tell you, it’s the latter. Since Sinclair bought out Barrington there was never a quarter in which the station was unprofitable. To claim otherwise is simply either you not knowing or lying. It’s just that 25-66 wasn’t making enough money — which isn’t the fault of the News Department. That’s the responsibility of the Sales Department.
You also claim that when ATSC 3.0 happens that 25-66-46 will be in a strong position. If that were to be the case, then eliminating the station’s localism makes no sense. You’d want to do the exact opposite.
Look at top performing stations in other markets. Those stations have more, not less, news.
Repetition of stories due to additional newscast dayparts is the result of viewer habits. Not all viewers sit down and watch the 6pm newscast or all 4 hours of the morning show. You add newscasts because there is an audience available at various time periods.
The failure has been with GMs adding newscasts without adding necessary staff, like reporters. So you’re not really getting more local news, just more local newscasts.
If Sinclair cared about local news and wanted to make 25-66 a market leader, they’d be going the things you do to make it grow. They’re not doing it simply because they don’t care about local journalism. They are using its local bandwidth to spread its poorly produced corporate propaganda.
News viewership is growing. You are stuck in the mindset that the only metric that matters is broadcast ratings. That’s why you’re the dinosaur. 25-66’s strength was connecting viewers with content everywhere— hell, they made us post that saying in the newsroom, on our email signatures, on our computers and mouse pads. When you take into account broadcast and digital (website, social media, live streaming impressions), 25-66 audience was growing. It’s not like Twitter or Meta has a reporter covering Flint City Council meetings, or what’s happening in Saginaw schools, or local weather or sports. That’s information local journalists are providing on those platforms. It’s the way younger viewers are getting their news. To disinvest in those areas shows how out of touch Sinclair is.
Sinclair thinks the National Desk broadcasts are what younger viewers want? How about political commentaries from Boris Epystein? Or any of its one-sided national reporting? You must be drinking the corporate kool-ade if you think that’s going to grow local station ratings and revenue.
Once again you have zero idea about meteorological science if you believe meteorologists sit at their computers and just rip and read forecasts. You might want to spend a day in the weather center during a severe weather outbreak to see how they provide advanced warnings to protect lives and property.
You say on one hand reporters don’t know how to get a story… then say they’ll be a powerhouse when NextGen TV allows viewers to receive information on the cell phones as well as their homes. That is contradictory again. If local stations don’t have important news and entertainment programming, viewers won’t watch regardless of the technology. By Sinclair eliminating newsroom staff and newscasts — the reason why people watch in the first place — they won’t have any success when TV on cell phones gets adopted. Engineers don’t understand their audience however in Sinclair they are developing platforms without any plan or strategy. And Sinclair’s sales teams don’t know how to sell digital platforms, so the company is investing all this money and not making any in return. Sounds like the mismanagement of the Bally Sports RSNs all over again.
The only thing we might both agree with your post is that any analysis of what is happening at 25-66 is well beyond your pay grade.
First, the West Palm Beach reference was about a former 25-66 news director who several claimed was one of the worst… yet has seen success outside of Sinclair. The reason why Sinclair stations struggle is because of its corporate top-down mandates.
Second, you say 25-66-46 isn’t making money, then later you say the ‘other side’ is making money hands over fist. Which is it? Let me tell you, it’s the latter. Since Sinclair bought out Barrington there was never a quarter in which the station was unprofitable. To claim otherwise is simply either you not knowing or lying. It’s just that 25-66 wasn’t making enough money — which isn’t the fault of the News Department. That’s the responsibility of the Sales Department.
You also claim that when ATSC 3.0 happens that 25-66-46 will be in a strong position. If that were to be the case, then eliminating the station’s localism makes no sense. You’d want to do the exact opposite.
Look at top performing stations in other markets. Those stations have more, not less, news.
Repetition of stories due to additional newscast dayparts is the result of viewer habits. Not all viewers sit down and watch the 6pm newscast or all 4 hours of the morning show. You add newscasts because there is an audience available at various time periods.
The failure has been with GMs adding newscasts without adding necessary staff, like reporters. So you’re not really getting more local news, just more local newscasts.
If Sinclair cared about local news and wanted to make 25-66 a market leader, they’d be going the things you do to make it grow. They’re not doing it simply because they don’t care about local journalism. They are using its local bandwidth to spread its poorly produced corporate propaganda.
News viewership is growing. You are stuck in the mindset that the only metric that matters is broadcast ratings. That’s why you’re the dinosaur. 25-66’s strength was connecting viewers with content everywhere— hell, they made us post that saying in the newsroom, on our email signatures, on our computers and mouse pads. When you take into account broadcast and digital (website, social media, live streaming impressions), 25-66 audience was growing. It’s not like Twitter or Meta has a reporter covering Flint City Council meetings, or what’s happening in Saginaw schools, or local weather or sports. That’s information local journalists are providing on those platforms. It’s the way younger viewers are getting their news. To disinvest in those areas shows how out of touch Sinclair is.
Sinclair thinks the National Desk broadcasts are what younger viewers want? How about political commentaries from Boris Epystein? Or any of its one-sided national reporting? You must be drinking the corporate kool-ade if you think that’s going to grow local station ratings and revenue.
Once again you have zero idea about meteorological science if you believe meteorologists sit at their computers and just rip and read forecasts. You might want to spend a day in the weather center during a severe weather outbreak to see how they provide advanced warnings to protect lives and property.
You say on one hand reporters don’t know how to get a story… then say they’ll be a powerhouse when NextGen TV allows viewers to receive information on the cell phones as well as their homes. That is contradictory again. If local stations don’t have important news and entertainment programming, viewers won’t watch regardless of the technology. By Sinclair eliminating newsroom staff and newscasts — the reason why people watch in the first place — they won’t have any success when TV on cell phones gets adopted. Engineers don’t understand their audience however in Sinclair they are developing platforms without any plan or strategy. And Sinclair’s sales teams don’t know how to sell digital platforms, so the company is investing all this money and not making any in return. Sounds like the mismanagement of the Bally Sports RSNs all over again.
The only thing we might both agree with your post is that any analysis of what is happening at 25-66 is well beyond your pay grade.
- rugratsonline
- Posts: 496
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 1:20 pm
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
Sinclair's role in ATSC 3.0 right now in Mid-Michigan is merely lending broadcasting space to 5 and 12, as well as their own 25/66/46, via WBSF, which is being use currently for 3.0 services. Once ATSC 1.0 is sunsetted, whenever that happens, all the players will have their own 3.0 signal, so saying that Sinclair will be stronger is a falsehood. If you replace an AM radio in a Ford Pinto with one that receives FM, HD-Radio and SiriusXM, it'll still be a Ford Pinto. If You replace 25/66/46's signal with ATSC 3.0, its programming -- and the qualities of such -- will remain the same.
That was how the weather was done in the 1950s and 1960s -- just read the current weather and forecasts according to the weather bureau. But since the late 1970s, stations wanted actual meteorologists who find out themselves what the conditions are and what it will be, rather than passing off information second hand from the National Weather Service or Accuweather. Stations want meteorologists that hold AMS and/or NWA seals, not someone who can do the weather at 6 whole hosting Dialing for Dollars at 9AM and a kiddie show at 4PM.
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
Like TV POW or Kenny Roberts the Jumpin'Cowboy?
-
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2022 9:42 am
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
I can say from personal experience watching the newscast on 24 in Toledo, the stations up north Michigan put out a better product.MWmetalhead wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 7:20 am If local news is making money, there is no reason to do away with local news.
My guess is the cancelled newscasts in places such as Flint and Toledo were turning little to zero profit.
TV news operations that actually amass large viewerships can charge a pretty penny for advertising.
I don't know anyone that watches their abomination of a newscast in Toledo. It didn't help that it originated from the "big city" of South Bend. It just don't look "right."
Also, channel 24 in Toledo has always been an also ran. It's pretty much between 11 and 13. Tho I honestly thought 36 was carving out their own little niche quite awhile back.
I'm kind of amazed Sinclair even attempted "news" on 24 in Toledo. THEY HAD to have known they'd get their asses handed to em, which obviously, they did.
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
Back on topic…
Diamond/Sinclair/Bally Sports is trying to get rid of its broadcasting contract with the Diamondbacks.
https://thedesk.net/2023/06/diamond-spo ... agreement/
It’s also interesting that you have organizations like the Utah Jazz that are essentially going it alone — creating its own media unit to take back its production and going old school by broadcasting games first on free-over-the-air stations in market, supplementing it with its own streaming (I assume subscription paid) channel to capture out of market and super fans.
https://thedesk.net/2023/06/utah-jazz-n ... hannel-14/
The only thing that really confuses me is that the Jazz is going to broadcast its games mainly on KJZZ, an independent Salt Lake City station run by… Sinclair.
So Sinclair couldn’t run the broadcast and streaming operation itself, but the company can now buy the NBA programming to prop up a little watched independent TV station? Sounds like a disastrous relationship in the making.
But if you watch the news conference, I think the Jazz owner is on to something. The cable model has been broken, limiting games to about a third of its fans. Going back to free TV opens up new revenue streams and builds back its audience. Let’s see if the Jazz’s direction catches on with other teams and franchises.
I think there’s some legitimacy that the NFL is the top grossing sport by a mile because you can watch games weekly free on FOX, CBS and NBC — while the NBA, NHL, and MLB all have smaller audiences that have to pay to watch on cable.
https://www.sltrib.com/sports/jazz/2023 ... free-sell/
Diamond/Sinclair/Bally Sports is trying to get rid of its broadcasting contract with the Diamondbacks.
https://thedesk.net/2023/06/diamond-spo ... agreement/
It’s also interesting that you have organizations like the Utah Jazz that are essentially going it alone — creating its own media unit to take back its production and going old school by broadcasting games first on free-over-the-air stations in market, supplementing it with its own streaming (I assume subscription paid) channel to capture out of market and super fans.
https://thedesk.net/2023/06/utah-jazz-n ... hannel-14/
The only thing that really confuses me is that the Jazz is going to broadcast its games mainly on KJZZ, an independent Salt Lake City station run by… Sinclair.
So Sinclair couldn’t run the broadcast and streaming operation itself, but the company can now buy the NBA programming to prop up a little watched independent TV station? Sounds like a disastrous relationship in the making.
But if you watch the news conference, I think the Jazz owner is on to something. The cable model has been broken, limiting games to about a third of its fans. Going back to free TV opens up new revenue streams and builds back its audience. Let’s see if the Jazz’s direction catches on with other teams and franchises.
I think there’s some legitimacy that the NFL is the top grossing sport by a mile because you can watch games weekly free on FOX, CBS and NBC — while the NBA, NHL, and MLB all have smaller audiences that have to pay to watch on cable.
https://www.sltrib.com/sports/jazz/2023 ... free-sell/
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
I believe Diamond is keeping all the teams that grant it streaming rights such as Detroit's three. They can get paid in market by cable and app streamers, and out of market by ESPN streaming.
I hold to the view as many others, RSN is necessary for the NBA, NHL & MLB. MLB is covering the lions share of lost money for teams that Diamond dumps, which is fine because they can do what they want with their money. But the fact that the agreement exists in the first place shows the jitters owners have about the short term ability to make money on broadcasting.
Local television would be preferred for all three teams to build on their fanbase. Hockey seems to draw young fans no matter the media platform. Basketball and baseball need to be thinking about getting the attention of the younger fans and local television would be a major advantage to an RSN.
Owners see thier team as an investment that they want a return on. Period.
I should add the NHL in Phoenix is a pathetic situation, but moving it would negate the owners a shared $1 billion expansion fee. Better for the NHL to fold it then move it for no cash consideration.
I hold to the view as many others, RSN is necessary for the NBA, NHL & MLB. MLB is covering the lions share of lost money for teams that Diamond dumps, which is fine because they can do what they want with their money. But the fact that the agreement exists in the first place shows the jitters owners have about the short term ability to make money on broadcasting.
Local television would be preferred for all three teams to build on their fanbase. Hockey seems to draw young fans no matter the media platform. Basketball and baseball need to be thinking about getting the attention of the younger fans and local television would be a major advantage to an RSN.
Owners see thier team as an investment that they want a return on. Period.
I should add the NHL in Phoenix is a pathetic situation, but moving it would negate the owners a shared $1 billion expansion fee. Better for the NHL to fold it then move it for no cash consideration.
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
A close friend of mine was responsible for signing on what I believe was Salt Lake's first "independent" UHF station in the late 70s. Sink's post about the Jazz piqued my curiosity. While I have learned my friend's station was/is not the station in question, I learned that KXIV-TV became the Salt Lake's second indy station when it signed on in 1989. And here is where the "Jazz story" begins. "In 1993, Larry H Miller, the then-owner of the Utah Jazz of the NBA, purchased the station and renamed it KJZZ-TV; it also became the new TV home of the basketball team for 16 seasons."The only thing that really confuses me is that the Jazz is going to broadcast its games mainly on KJZZ, an independent Salt Lake City station run by… Sinclair.
History repeating itself?
Re: Sinclair’s Sports Channels Prepare Bankruptcy, Putting Team Payments at Risk
Good to hear from you Nooz! I hope you are enjoying life!
Back to the topic….
It’s ironic that the industry mags are also making fun of this marriage by convenience between the Jazz and Sinclair.
https://www.nexttv.com/news/nbas-utah-j ... s-sinclair
Sinclair was putting up such a big fight with Diamond/Bally Sports about streaming rights. But now, they are giving all of that up… for a limited broadcast only deal with the Jazz… while the Jazz builds out its own direct to consumer platform.
Back to the topic….
It’s ironic that the industry mags are also making fun of this marriage by convenience between the Jazz and Sinclair.
https://www.nexttv.com/news/nbas-utah-j ... s-sinclair
Sinclair was putting up such a big fight with Diamond/Bally Sports about streaming rights. But now, they are giving all of that up… for a limited broadcast only deal with the Jazz… while the Jazz builds out its own direct to consumer platform.