I just saw this in the HBJ print version, but this was the first link I found on it. Hopefully we can get a platform that is easier to access going forward.

https://www.chron.com/sports/astros/article/tv-partner-astros-rockets-17804787.php

Quote:

---

According to a report from Sports Business Journal, Warner Bros' Discovery "has told teams that it plans to exit the regional sports network business entirely within the next several weeks." The company owns AT&T SportsNet Southwest, which currently serves as the television home of the Houston Astros, as well as the NBA's Houston Rockets.

Per the SBJ report, Warner Bros. Discovery has given teams a March 31 deadline to reach agreements to take their television rights back, with plans for a Chapter 7 liquidation filing if these negotiations prove fruitless.

---

Red Pear Realty said:

---

I just saw this in the HBJ print version, but this was the first link I found on it. Hopefully we can get a platform that is easier to access going forward.

https://www.chron.com/sports/astros/article/tv-partner-astros-rockets-17804787.php

Quote:

---

According to a report from Sports Business Journal, Warner Bros' Discovery "has told teams that it plans to exit the regional sports network business entirely within the next several weeks." The company owns AT&T SportsNet Southwest, which currently serves as the television home of the Houston Astros, as well as the NBA's Houston Rockets.

Per the SBJ report, Warner Bros. Discovery has given teams a March 31 deadline to reach agreements to take their television rights back, with plans for a Chapter 7 liquidation filing if these negotiations prove fruitless.

---

---

I doubt it will be any easier. This just means the Astros and Rockets will have to either find a new company willing to broadcast their games or broadcast them and sell ads on their own. This MIGHT allow for people to watch local games on MLB.TV but the revenue from streaming will be a tiny fraction of the money made from a cable network buying the rights. So it may be easier for the diehards who want to drop $150 per year to watch the Astros, but financially the Astros are going to be in trouble...along with most other MLB teams unless another tv broadcaster thinks they can make regional sports work.

Same.

Looks like the Astros/Rockets are about to buy it.

Quote:

---

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/texas-sports-nation/general/article/astros-rockets-att-sportsnet-southwest-purchase-17838568.php

A decade after losing millions of dollars from the collapse of Comcast SportsNet Houston, the Astros and Rockets are negotiating to get back into the regional sports network business as owners of AT&T SportsNet Southwest.

If negotiations proceed as planned, according to sources with knowledge of the talks, the teams will create a new business entity that will assume ownership of the network from Warner Bros. Discovery.

While negotiations continue, Astros and Rockets games will still air on AT&T SportsNet Southwest, which has carried both teams since 2014.

Officials with the Astros, Rockets and Warner Bros. Discovery declined comment on the nature and progress of the negotiations.

[…]

The Houston channel, which will get a new name once the Astros and Rockets take ownership, will join team-owned RSNs in several markets, among them New York, Seattle and Boston, that thus far have avoided the worst of the financial woes enveloping Bally Sports and AT&T SportsNet.

Under the proposal, the Rockets and Astros would acquire AT&T SportsNet Southwest and with it the license to telecast their games. The Astros owned 60 percent and the Rockets 40 percent of their previous joint venture before bringing in Comcast as a partner in 2010 for the CSN Houston launch, but it was unclear if those percentages would continue for the new venture.

The Houston teams are in a stronger position than some of their counterparts because they have distribution contracts for their games through 2032 with Comcast, AT&T and DirecTV.

[…]

Based on court documents filed in conjunction with the bankruptcy and ongoing litigation, the Astros and Rockets are believed to be making about $120 million in combined rights fees this year, with about $72 million for the Astros and $48 million for the Rockets.

[…]

While streaming adds eyeballs, analysts say it doesn't do much for the bottom line.

"Streaming economics are negative margin economics, which is a fancy way of saying that for every dollar you spend, you lose a buck 50," said Patrick Crakes, a former executive with Fox Sports. "And it keeps getting worse, not better.

"The Astros, for example, can't go direct to consumer (streaming) because they won't ever make as much money as they're making from the current system. Even if you went through bankruptcy and the judge said to the MLB teams, you've got to take a 20 percent cut and stay in the system, or you can leave, they wouldn't leave because they can't make any money on (streaming) and they need the rights fees or they can't make payroll."

[…]

As part of the acquisition of AT&T SportsNet Southwest, the Rockets and Astros will acquire the contracts of current network employees, including studio hosts and field reporters such as Julia Morales and Kevin Eschenfelder. The teams already employ play-by-play and color analysts such as Todd Kalas and Geoff Blum with the Astros.

---

Oh man. I'd posit that the more eyeballs you have on games, the more immediate and future fans of the team you'll create. Revenue follows. Baseball has been dying for a long time, and restricting access to watch games only accelerates that process. Right now the only options to watch are DirecTV, AT&T, and Comcast. Compare that with a team like the Yankees. The whole city has access to those games and the culture reflects that.

A couple things I've never understood about this model......

First, as Red Pear stated, the more eyes you get on the game the better. The more kids grow up watching it the more they'll ask to go to games, the more likely they'll be to take their kids to games, etc. There's a reason Braves fans are all over the country, for example.

Second, how the crap do we have a system where the entire stadium is billboard after billboard, you have a good chunk of time in commercials, and I'm paying to watch those commercials and see those on field advertisements, is it not a financially viable model? I feel like if anything, it seems like they're double dipping.

htxag09 said:

---

A couple things I've never understood about this model......

First, as Red Pear stated, the more eyes you get on the game the better. The more kids grow up watching it the more they'll ask to go to games, the more likely they'll be to take their kids to games, etc. There's a reason Braves fans are all over the country, for example.

Second, how the crap do we have a system where the entire stadium is billboard after billboard, you have a good chunk of time in commercials, and I'm paying to watch those commercials and see those on field advertisements, is it not a financially viable model? I feel like if anything, it seems like they're double dipping.

---

They are double dipping. However, the ballpark ads go straight to the team while the commercial ads go to the network. In the Astros case they will once again be part owners of the network.

The reason it is no longer financially viable is cord-cutting. 15 years ago the vast majority of homes had a basic cable plan. Part of that plan for almost every home was the regional sports network. That network would charge the cable company around $3 per cable subscriber. Not per viewer. Per subscriber. The higher ratings the network would get, the higher the carriage fee the network owner could negotiate with the cable company but these deals typically last for multiple years. Fast forward to the present and the amount of cable subscribers is now approaching half of what it used to be at its peak. These networks are still locked into deals that force them to pay millions per year to the pro teams but the amount of money the cable company has to pay them is significantly less which leaves the networks holding the hot potato in the cable sports bubble. Bally Sports tried to negotiate higher carriage fees to offset those losses since ratings really weren't that much worse than before and in the case of areas that have the rights to broadcast the Rangers, many of them said no thanks and Bally Sports SW is no longer offered on some cable packages.

TL;DR: Non-sports viewers have been subsidizing pro sports for decades and they are no longer helping foot the bill since they dont need cable to view their programs of choice.

cajunaggie08 said:

---

htxag09 said:

---

A couple things I've never understood about this model......

First, as Red Pear stated, the more eyes you get on the game the better. The more kids grow up watching it the more they'll ask to go to games, the more likely they'll be to take their kids to games, etc. There's a reason Braves fans are all over the country, for example.

Second, how the crap do we have a system where the entire stadium is billboard after billboard, you have a good chunk of time in commercials, and I'm paying to watch those commercials and see those on field advertisements, is it not a financially viable model? I feel like if anything, it seems like they're double dipping.

---

They are double dipping. However, the ballpark ads go straight to the team while the commercial ads go to the network. In the Astros case they will once again be part owners of the network.

The reason it is no longer financially viable is cord-cutting. 15 years ago the vast majority of homes had a basic cable plan. Part of that plan for almost every home was the regional sports network. That network would charge the cable company around $3 per cable subscriber. Not per viewer. Per subscriber. The higher ratings the network would get, the higher the carriage fee the network owner could negotiate with the cable company but these deals typically last for multiple years. Fast forward to the present and the amount of cable subscribers is now approaching half of what it used to be at its peak. These networks are still locked into deals that force them to pay millions per year to the pro teams but the amount of money the cable company has to pay them is significantly less which leaves the networks holding the hot potato in the cable sports bubble. Bally Sports tried to negotiate higher carriage fees to offset those losses since ratings really weren't that much worse than before and in the case of areas that have the rights to broadcast the Rangers, many of them said no thanks and Bally Sports SW is no longer offered on some cable packages.

TL;DR: Non-sports viewers have been subsidizing pro sports for decades and they are no longer helping foot the bill since they dont need cable to view their programs of choice.

---

Yeah, I think this is the big thing. They negotiated contracts at the height of the bubble.

It's just crazy to me how I can turn on a soccer game or F1 race on the other side of the world and it's pretty much commercial free.

But it seems I have to jump through hoops to watch the Astros. I mean I'd wager about 70% of why I went with Xfinity vs. streaming was because the Astros. Wasn't long ago when you couldn't even watch them....

sts7049 said:

---

damn, I thought this thread was about The CongressWO-MAN

---

FIFY

Red Pear Realty said:

---

Right now the only options to watch are DirecTV, AT&T, and Comcast.

---

And FuboTV. Fubo carrying ATTSN was the deciding factor for which streaming service I chose.

htxag09 said:

---

cajunaggie08 said:

---

htxag09 said:

---

A couple things I've never understood about this model......

First, as Red Pear stated, the more eyes you get on the game the better. The more kids grow up watching it the more they'll ask to go to games, the more likely they'll be to take their kids to games, etc. There's a reason Braves fans are all over the country, for example.

Second, how the crap do we have a system where the entire stadium is billboard after billboard, you have a good chunk of time in commercials, and I'm paying to watch those commercials and see those on field advertisements, is it not a financially viable model? I feel like if anything, it seems like they're double dipping.

---

They are double dipping. However, the ballpark ads go straight to the team while the commercial ads go to the network. In the Astros case they will once again be part owners of the network.

The reason it is no longer financially viable is cord-cutting. 15 years ago the vast majority of homes had a basic cable plan. Part of that plan for almost every home was the regional sports network. That network would charge the cable company around $3 per cable subscriber. Not per viewer. Per subscriber. The higher ratings the network would get, the higher the carriage fee the network owner could negotiate with the cable company but these deals typically last for multiple years. Fast forward to the present and the amount of cable subscribers is now approaching half of what it used to be at its peak. These networks are still locked into deals that force them to pay millions per year to the pro teams but the amount of money the cable company has to pay them is significantly less which leaves the networks holding the hot potato in the cable sports bubble. Bally Sports tried to negotiate higher carriage fees to offset those losses since ratings really weren't that much worse than before and in the case of areas that have the rights to broadcast the Rangers, many of them said no thanks and Bally Sports SW is no longer offered on some cable packages.

TL;DR: Non-sports viewers have been subsidizing pro sports for decades and they are no longer helping foot the bill since they dont need cable to view their programs of choice.

---

Yeah, I think this is the big thing. They negotiated contracts at the height of the bubble.

It's just crazy to me how I can turn on a soccer game or F1 race on the other side of the world and it's pretty much commercial free.

But it seems I have to jump through hoops to watch the Astros. I mean I'd wager about 70% of why I went with Xfinity vs. streaming was because the Astros. Wasn't long ago when you couldn't even watch them....

---

In the UK, they have to jump through the same hoops we do for College Football and NASCAR to watch Soccer and F1. Those events are ad free though since Soccer has no breaks and they would raise hell to have commercial breaks during a F1 race. We have easy access to those sports here since they are still in growth mode in the US and are prioritizing growing the market over monetizing the market.

The local streaming blackout exists because they are banking on you signing up for cable/fubo to watch the sport you want. If they were to cave in and give a local stream subscription service, I think it would need to be nearly $40/month or more to make a much money from the streamers to offset the losses from cable income

You forgot the part where they need a license from their post office to watch TV. We shouldn't try to emulate them on this one.

Definitely not saying we should emulate them.

But, imo, US sports are starting to approach territory of losing popularity. I've already cut out the add on sports channels. I just don't care to pay an extra $20/month to watch the football games on espnu that are dragged out to 4+ hours so they can also add as many commercial breaks as possible.

I've watched the Astros pretty much every night for as long as I can remember. But am not going to pay an extra $50 or whatever it is if they decide to make me get the mlb package this year.

Seems like more than anything this is another nail in the coffin for bundled TV offerings.

The consumer has been begging for a-la-carte channel selection and technology via streaming is making that possible.

Maybe dish will pick them up now

Wonder if it will go back to the old regional sports net like fox sports southwest with Dallas and SA teams to spread out costs and revenue?

lunchbox said:

---

Red Pear Realty said:

---

Right now the only options to watch are DirecTV, AT&T, and Comcast.

---

And FuboTV. Fubo carrying ATTSN was the deciding factor for which streaming service I chose.

---

Which is a killer, would like to be able to choose between sling, YTTV, etc

Until recently, there were commercials during F1 races in the US, but finally, once the races moved to ESPN and one race was specifically sponsored to be ad free for the whole race, people raised hell to have them all ad free. And since the ESPN feed is just a simulcast of the Sky feed, it wouldn't even recap what had happened during the commercial. At least when it was on NBCSN, they were doing their own commentary.

I was about to switch back to FUBO for the season.
What's the right move?

sts7049 said:

---

damn, I thought this thread was about The Congresswoman

---

A number of names came to my mind right off the bat (Congress-wooooooooooooooman and Dora at the top)

Build It said:

---

I was about to switch back to FUBO for the season.
What's the right move?

---

It seems all existing carriage agreements will stay in place so you will be fine going with FUBO. At least if the channel disappears you are only paying monthly for FUBO and not stuck with an annual contract.

Quote:

---

https://www.khou.com/article/syndication/ott/sports-ott/space-city-home-network-houston-astros-rockets/285-2673b3e9-84e0-462b-9dad-488ad1eff321

The new regional television broadcasting home of the Houston Rockets will likely be called Space City Home Network, KHOU 11 News' Jason Bristol has learned.

A trademark application for the name 'Space City Home Network' was filed on July 6, according to a search of the United States Patent and Trademark Office website. It was filed by an entity called Houston Sports Network, LLC, on 1510 Polk Street in Houston - the same address as Toyota Center, home of the Rockets.

The network will be responsible for, according to the application, the "Streaming audiovisual and multimedia content in the field of sports via a global computer network and the internet; video on demand transmission of audiovisual content in the field electronic transmission of sports content namely, transmission of voice, data, audio, video, graphics by means of telephone, telegraphic, cable and satellite transmission broadcasting services in the field of sports."

Two calls to the Rockets on Friday afternoon seeking comment were not returned. We also reached out to the Astros for comment, but have not heard back.

---

The change will be a seamless transition for fans as they will be able to continue to access Rockets and Astros games on the same channels they currently utilize. pic.twitter.com/EWPatsbyw2

— Houston Astros (@astros) September 29, 2023