Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bird watcher

MASN Solvency?

Recommended Posts

Hello all, I have been thinking about how this world crisis would affect sports programming and specifically the Orioles. 
 Firstly, without live sports, I have to believe people are cutting the cable cord at and extremely high rate. Sports were the only thing anchoring MANY people from cutting the cord.  Less disposable income for many many people and the exorbitant costs for cable don’t bode well for them. 
 

Secondly, without cable subscribers en masse, where do MASN and frankly all of the other MLB networks get their revenues?  MASN gets huge $ for every subscriber.  
 

Cable as we knew it was already dying. I predict the nail in the coffin of the golden goose it near, especially if Live sports continue to be shut down.  People will learn to live without it, will enjoy having a smaller bill, and may not have the financial ability to pay for it anyway. 
 

How does that affect MLB’s willingness to continue with guaranteed contracts?  Nobody knew that an economy could be turned this upside down in a matter of weeks. Long term liabilities just became a whole lot riskier. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MASN should doing pretty well. Still getting money from cable subscribers but not having to pay teams or broadcast live games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, atomic said:

MASN should doing pretty well. Still getting money from cable subscribers but not having to pay teams or broadcast live games. 

How do we know that A. MASN is still being paid by cable despite not carrying intended content or that B. MASN doesn’t have to pay the teams their rights fees despite the work stoppage?  Both seem like assumptions unless you know the contract language. 
 

There may be some carryover to keep MASN solvent for now but I have little doubt that the trend is not in their favor long term.  I think they’ll have to eventually move to streaming baseball and it’ll be sooner than expected.  I believe cable cutting over the next month will accelerate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bird watcher said:

Hello all, I have been thinking about how this world crisis would affect sports programming and specifically the Orioles. 
 Firstly, without live sports, I have to believe people are cutting the cable cord at and extremely high rate. Sports were the only thing anchoring MANY people from cutting the cord.  Less disposable income for many many people and the exorbitant costs for cable don’t bode well for them. 
 

Secondly, without cable subscribers en masse, where do MASN and frankly all of the other MLB networks get their revenues?  MASN gets huge $ for every subscriber.  
 

Cable as we knew it was already dying. I predict the nail in the coffin of the golden goose it near, especially if Live sports continue to be shut down.  People will learn to live without it, will enjoy having a smaller bill, and may not have the financial ability to pay for it anyway. 
 

How does that affect MLB’s willingness to continue with guaranteed contracts?  Nobody knew that an economy could be turned this upside down in a matter of weeks. Long term liabilities just became a whole lot riskier. 

I’ve also had similar thoughts and I believe that we’ll see advertisers of companies who simply can’t afford to promote themselves slow to a halt and also affect the circle of revenue tied into broadcast rights.  Tony Romo getting 17 mil to talk football may be a thing of the past and broadcasters getting 7 figure salaries to sit in a studio or a desk will get canned.  ESPN specifically was benefiting less and less like you outlined and live sports was the only connector between frustrated sports package paying customers and the college hoops, NBA, NFL games they crave watching live.

My main wonder is ‘will this be the event that convinces billionaire owners to shop their assets in an attempt to move them instead of just gauging their value?  Will it make the younger Angelos’ hold tighter or think sell?  These long term liabilities that you see as a larger risk may just stop being worth it.  I’m afraid of this process occurring and before I was confident it wouldn’t.  Very good talking point 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eric-OH said:

I’ve also had similar thoughts and I believe that we’ll see advertisers of companies who simply can’t afford to promote themselves slow to a halt and also affect the circle of revenue tied into broadcast rights.  Tony Romo getting 17 mil to talk football may be a thing of the past and broadcasters getting 7 figure salaries to sit in a studio or a desk will get canned.  ESPN specifically was benefiting less and less like you outlined and live sports was the only connector between frustrated sports package paying customers and the college hoops, NBA, NFL games they crave watching live.

My main wonder is ‘will this be the event that convinces billionaire owners to shop their assets in an attempt to move them instead of just gauging their value?  Will it make the younger Angelos’ hold tighter or think sell?  These long term liabilities that you see as a larger risk may just stop being worth it.  I’m afraid of this process occurring and before I was confident it wouldn’t.  Very good talking point 

ESPN was tossing major big bucks at Peyton to join the Monday night football crew, and he turned it down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Redskins Rick said:

ESPN was tossing major big bucks at Peyton to join the Monday night football crew, and he turned it down.

Let’s see how their advertisers hang on and how many of them can.  Who knows how the heads of companies like Outdoor World or Progressive or Gilette see the future of their names/logos needing to be on TV.  Consider the massive purge of subscribers and it may be a doomsday scenario for them.  Will it trickle down to talent?  My guess is it has to.

Peyton Manning can also claim the ability to move attention towards a product much better than a highly paid broadcaster who never took a snap.  How many games have you watched because Mike Tirico is calling it?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Eric-OH said:

Let’s see how their advertisers hang on and how many of them can.  Who knows how the heads of companies like Outdoor World or Progressive or Gilette see the future of their names/logos needing to be on TV.  Consider the massive purge of subscribers and it may be a doomsday scenario for them.  Will it trickle down to talent?  My guess is it has to.

Peyton Manning can also claim the ability to move attention towards a product much better than a highly paid broadcaster who never took a snap.  How many games have you watched because Mike Tirico is calling it?  

Personally, I would rather watch with my own eyes the sporting event, and require less talk from the dudes in the booth that are rambling about everything but what we just seen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Eric-OH said:

Let’s see how their advertisers hang on and how many of them can.  Who knows how the heads of companies like Outdoor World or Progressive or Gilette see the future of their names/logos needing to be on TV.  Consider the massive purge of subscribers and it may be a doomsday scenario for them.  Will it trickle down to talent?  My guess is it has to.

Peyton Manning can also claim the ability to move attention towards a product much better than a highly paid broadcaster who never took a snap.  How many games have you watched because Mike Tirico is calling it?  

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Redskins Rick said:

Personally, I would rather watch with my own eyes the sporting event, and require less talk from the dudes in the booth that are rambling about everything but what we just seen.

 

I agree, there’s a lot to be seen per play and I don’t need the audio reinforcement in NFL.  A better example might be vapid and boring ESPN accessory Trey Wingo.  He didn’t exactly have the network held hostage but his contact negotiations went long as he was doing the media version of holding out over some of January and February. He got his details exactly like he wanted.  Also, since he’s been back he’s been basically asleep at the wheel-disgusting. As much as I joke, they threw it to him last week and he just wasn’t there. At some point, this has to be seen  as a less than fully effective use of resources.  This should clearly be that point. 

 Now, maybe execs will be more inclined to let these overpaid vets who have already made the majority of their ‘contribituons’ walk.  Maybe, they’ll be ready to employ people who influence some thought in their viewers instead of paying the freight for a resume built on reading highlights written by someone else.  I know this sounds like my angry inner producer coming out, but it’s not.  Nobody is healing the sick or solving complicated equations here, I just see a bettter use of these resources than paying a face to read a script timed to some video.  I can talk with extensive experience here and I just don’t see what these people are bringing to the table for the sums they’re paid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eric-OH said:

I’ve also had similar thoughts and I believe that we’ll see advertisers of companies who simply can’t afford to promote themselves slow to a halt and also affect the circle of revenue tied into broadcast rights.  Tony Romo getting 17 mil to talk football may be a thing of the past and broadcasters getting 7 figure salaries to sit in a studio or a desk will get canned.  ESPN specifically was benefiting less and less like you outlined and live sports was the only connector between frustrated sports package paying customers and the college hoops, NBA, NFL games they crave watching live.

My main wonder is ‘will this be the event that convinces billionaire owners to shop their assets in an attempt to move them instead of just gauging their value?  Will it make the younger Angelos’ hold tighter or think sell?  These long term liabilities that you see as a larger risk may just stop being worth it.  I’m afraid of this process occurring and before I was confident it wouldn’t.  Very good talking point 

Rich people don't sell during an economic downturn. They buy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Mr. Chewbacca Jr. said:

Rich people don't sell during an economic downturn. They buy.

Barbara Corcoran said as much, she said there are some high end properties that have been reduced by 25% because their owners are hurting and need the money.

She said its a buyers market for those with money.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or they could always just get their stuff together and offer a streaming service.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, esmd said:

Or they could always just get their stuff together and offer a streaming service.

Or if they go bankrupt new owners could offer streaming services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






×
×
  • Create New...