caulfield12 Posted June 13, 2023 Author Share Posted June 13, 2023 https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/diamond-appears-ready-cut-more-171157005.html 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirdGen Posted June 13, 2023 Share Posted June 13, 2023 On 6/2/2023 at 6:55 PM, The Grinder said: Wasn't the issue with the ill-conceived sports vision was that most Chicagoland was not hooked up with cable then? So the White Sox basically disappeared The original version of SportsVision was broadcast over the air (on 60 or 66 I think). It was a scrambled broadcast and you needed a converter box to view it. OnTV was a movie channel that operated the same way on 44 (and also carried some Sox games for a while). It was just way too expensive for one or two channels and the Cubs were still free. It moved to cable as the area become wired for it. It did provide way more Sox, Hawks and Bulls than any free over the air channels were willing to air but wasn't even remotely cost effective. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted June 13, 2023 Author Share Posted June 13, 2023 6 hours ago, ThirdGen said: The original version of SportsVision was broadcast over the air (on 60 or 66 I think). It was a scrambled broadcast and you needed a converter box to view it. OnTV was a movie channel that operated the same way on 44 (and also carried some Sox games for a while). It was just way too expensive for one or two channels and the Cubs were still free. It moved to cable as the area become wired for it. It did provide way more Sox, Hawks and Bulls than any free over the air channels were willing to air but wasn't even remotely cost effective. WFLD... right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirdGen Posted June 13, 2023 Share Posted June 13, 2023 51 minutes ago, caulfield12 said: WFLD... right? WFLD 32 wasn't interested in sports at the time, they dumped the Sox around 1973 which forced them to WSNS 44. WFLD 32 was doing well with syndicated programming. Veeck talked about it a lot his last year or two of owning the team, and ended up signing a deal with Cablevision to take all home games and some road games, with the remaining games on WGN 9 when they didn't conflict with the Cubs. No way Veeck would move games off free TV if 32 was interested. And actually no way they would ever have been on 44 if 32 still wanted them, 44 paid next to nothing for rights. Einhorn was able to void that contract somehow after they bought the team and tried the scrambled OTA channel thinking at least more people would have access. But the cost was stupid high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted June 13, 2023 Share Posted June 13, 2023 2 minutes ago, ThirdGen said: WFLD 32 wasn't interested in sports at the time, they dumped the Sox around 1973 which forced them to WSNS 44. WFLD 32 was doing well with syndicated programming. Veeck talked about it a lot his last year or two of owning the team, and ended up signing a deal with Cablevision to take all home games and some road games, with the remaining games on WGN 9 when they didn't conflict with the Cubs. No way Veeck would move games off free TV if 32 was interested. And actually no way they would ever have been on 44 if 32 still wanted them, 44 paid next to nothing for rights. Einhorn was able to void that contract somehow after they bought the team and tried the scrambled OTA channel thinking at least more people would have access. But the cost was stupid high. An excerpt from my history of SportsVision which will be included in Dr. Fletcher's next book on the franchise which comes out next year, focusing on the 1990 team and the new stadium. "Einhorn was appalled when he got a look at the White Sox TV deal. In 1980, then Sox owner Bill Veeck signed a deal with Charles Dolan of Cablevision, an East Coast company that was getting into the cable TV market. The two-year deal gave the Sox $6,000 per game, WGN-TV also got the rights to show 60 Sox road games a season. The total worth of the deal to the Sox was only $840,000 a year. Dolan was a very sharp operator who took Veeck to the cleaners. Veeck, like most old-time owners, felt that television was nice to have, but the real way to make money in baseball was at the gate. Einhorn overturned the deal and came up with the idea for SportsVision which became a reality in May 1982. The idea was to get Chicago sports fans to sign up for the service which would provide a steady diet of White Sox games, primarily home games, along with the Chicago Bulls, Chicago Blackhawks and Chicago Sting. The channel would be provided by local and area cable services as a premium service. At the time of launching, it cost most fans $50 just to get it installed as it required a special descrambler, not counting the monthly fee which varied from system to system. The idea proved to be a failure as the original target of 50,000 subscribers was never met. Even during the playoff season of 1983 the subscriber base was far short of the original goal. The Sox claimed to have 30,000 subscribers but Bob Logan in his book, "Miracle On 35th Street: Winnin’ Ugly with the 1983 Chicago White Sox" wrote the actual total was closer to 20,000. Einhorn then wanted to change the service to a true pay-per-view option and charge three dollars per game to watch, but that never became a reality. Eventually SportsVision was sold off to Dolan and Cablevision and changed into SportsChannel-Chicago, part of a group of regional sports channels which then was absorbed by Rupert Murdoch and his Fox Broadcasting Company and changed into Fox Sports Chicago, which was part of the nationwide blanket of Fox regional sports affiliates. Eventually that regional network became Comcast Sports Chicago and now today having been bought by the NBC Company, NBC Sports Chicago." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted June 13, 2023 Author Share Posted June 13, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: An excerpt from my history of SportsVision which will be included in Dr. Fletcher's next book on the franchise which comes out next year, focusing on the 1990 team and the new stadium. "Einhorn was appalled when he got a look at the White Sox TV deal. In 1980, then Sox owner Bill Veeck signed a deal with Charles Dolan of Cablevision, an East Coast company that was getting into the cable TV market. The two-year deal gave the Sox $6,000 per game, WGN-TV also got the rights to show 60 Sox road games a season. The total worth of the deal to the Sox was only $840,000 a year. Dolan was a very sharp operator who took Veeck to the cleaners. Veeck, like most old-time owners, felt that television was nice to have, but the real way to make money in baseball was at the gate. Einhorn overturned the deal and came up with the idea for SportsVision which became a reality in May 1982. The idea was to get Chicago sports fans to sign up for the service which would provide a steady diet of White Sox games, primarily home games, along with the Chicago Bulls, Chicago Blackhawks and Chicago Sting. The channel would be provided by local and area cable services as a premium service. At the time of launching, it cost most fans $50 just to get it installed as it required a special descrambler, not counting the monthly fee which varied from system to system. The idea proved to be a failure as the original target of 50,000 subscribers was never met. Even during the playoff season of 1983 the subscriber base was far short of the original goal. The Sox claimed to have 30,000 subscribers but Bob Logan in his book, "Miracle On 35th Street: Winnin’ Ugly with the 1983 Chicago White Sox" wrote the actual total was closer to 20,000. Einhorn then wanted to change the service to a true pay-per-view option and charge three dollars per game to watch, but that never became a reality. Eventually SportsVision was sold off to Dolan and Cablevision and changed into SportsChannel-Chicago, part of a group of regional sports channels which then was absorbed by Rupert Murdoch and his Fox Broadcasting Company and changed into Fox Sports Chicago, which was part of the nationwide blanket of Fox regional sports affiliates. Eventually that regional network became Comcast Sports Chicago and now today having been bought by the NBC Company, NBC Sports Chicago." Is that Dolan related to the Guardians' ownership group? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Dolan Edited June 13, 2023 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted June 13, 2023 Share Posted June 13, 2023 2 minutes ago, caulfield12 said: Is that Dolan related to the Guardians' ownership group? They are brothers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted June 14, 2023 Author Share Posted June 14, 2023 1 hour ago, Lip Man 1 said: They are brothers. One thing you NEVER hear is how Dolan is affecting their scouting/talent evaluation/international departments...at age 92, not in the way Reindsdorf is pilloried around here. Granted, they've gone through something like 4 full rebuilds in the two decades since those great mid to late 90's team that was selling out all those consecutive games at Jacobs..eventually made it to two more World Series, and their fans are actually starting to get out in big/ger numbers just like in Cincy. The most impressive thing is that they hadn't been more than 7 games under .500 dating all the way back to the 2016 WS team that lost to the Cubs. That's some consistency for such a small market club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirdGen Posted June 14, 2023 Share Posted June 14, 2023 15 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: They are brothers. Dolan was also one of the bidders for the Sox before Debartolo was selected by Veeck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted June 23, 2023 Author Share Posted June 23, 2023 https://www.yahoo.com/sports/diamond-sports-files-motion-cut-184910890.html 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted July 20, 2023 Author Share Posted July 20, 2023 https://www.yahoo.com/sports/bally-sports-broadcaster-just-lost-185013711.html Brewers next to go 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted July 25 Author Share Posted July 25 https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2024/07/mlb-mlbpa-agree-to-redirect-cbt-money-to-teams-losing-tv-revenue.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Mite Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 (edited) On 6/13/2023 at 9:22 AM, ThirdGen said: The original version of SportsVision was broadcast over the air (on 60 or 66 I think). It was a scrambled broadcast and you needed a converter box to view it. OnTV was a movie channel that operated the same way on 44 (and also carried some Sox games for a while). It was just way too expensive for one or two channels and the Cubs were still free. It moved to cable as the area become wired for it. It did provide way more Sox, Hawks and Bulls than any free over the air channels were willing to air but wasn't even remotely cost effective. Correct on the original Sportsvision hookup, it was an abomination with the signal not all that great, we were living in Wheaton at the time and maybe being in the far west burbs was an issue. Sportsvision was the first bad move by JR with so many bad moves in his 43 years of ownership of the Sox which has led to Chicago becoming a Cubs town, it’s not even close anymore. JR and EE bring in pay TV to watch the Sox while the Cubs are televising all their games on free WGN with Harry Caray leading the way. WGN was soon to become a Super Station and the Cubs become not only Chicago’s team but also America’s team. Edited July 25 by The Mighty Mite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted October 3 Author Share Posted October 3 (edited) https://www.fox43.com/article/news/nation-world/bally-sports-mlb-team-games-broadcasting-2025-season/507-68a9f5cf-8d33-42a3-8edf-de80f5c16e99 Down to only the Braves As part of its reorganization plan, Diamond plans to void the contracts of the Detroit Tigers and Tampa Bay Rays and to attempt to rework the deals of the five franchises that are partial owners of their regional sports networks — the Cincinnati Reds, Kansas City Royals, Los Angeles Angels, Miami Marlins and St. Louis Cardinals. The Cleveland Guardians, Milwaukee Brewers, Minnesota Twins and Texas Rangers have contracts that expired at the end of the regular season. That would leave the Atlanta Braves as the only franchise whose contract would be unchanged. Edited October 3 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Mite Posted October 3 Share Posted October 3 On 6/13/2023 at 4:35 PM, Lip Man 1 said: An excerpt from my history of SportsVision which will be included in Dr. Fletcher's next book on the franchise which comes out next year, focusing on the 1990 team and the new stadium. "Einhorn was appalled when he got a look at the White Sox TV deal. In 1980, then Sox owner Bill Veeck signed a deal with Charles Dolan of Cablevision, an East Coast company that was getting into the cable TV market. The two-year deal gave the Sox $6,000 per game, WGN-TV also got the rights to show 60 Sox road games a season. The total worth of the deal to the Sox was only $840,000 a year. Dolan was a very sharp operator who took Veeck to the cleaners. Veeck, like most old-time owners, felt that television was nice to have, but the real way to make money in baseball was at the gate. Einhorn overturned the deal and came up with the idea for SportsVision which became a reality in May 1982. The idea was to get Chicago sports fans to sign up for the service which would provide a steady diet of White Sox games, primarily home games, along with the Chicago Bulls, Chicago Blackhawks and Chicago Sting. The channel would be provided by local and area cable services as a premium service. At the time of launching, it cost most fans $50 just to get it installed as it required a special descrambler, not counting the monthly fee which varied from system to system. The idea proved to be a failure as the original target of 50,000 subscribers was never met. Even during the playoff season of 1983 the subscriber base was far short of the original goal. The Sox claimed to have 30,000 subscribers but Bob Logan in his book, "Miracle On 35th Street: Winnin’ Ugly with the 1983 Chicago White Sox" wrote the actual total was closer to 20,000. Einhorn then wanted to change the service to a true pay-per-view option and charge three dollars per game to watch, but that never became a reality. Eventually SportsVision was sold off to Dolan and Cablevision and changed into SportsChannel-Chicago, part of a group of regional sports channels which then was absorbed by Rupert Murdoch and his Fox Broadcasting Company and changed into Fox Sports Chicago, which was part of the nationwide blanket of Fox regional sports affiliates. Eventually that regional network became Comcast Sports Chicago and now today having been bought by the NBC Company, NBC Sports Chicago." I was one of the 20,000, hated the idea but I loved my White Sox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewokpelts Posted October 8 Share Posted October 8 On 10/3/2024 at 5:20 AM, The Mighty Mite said: I was one of the 20,000, hated the idea but I loved my White Sox. and now it's back to rabbit ears and less than 20k viewers. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 On 10/3/2024 at 5:20 AM, The Mighty Mite said: I was one of the 20,000, hated the idea but I loved my White Sox. I was in the electronics industry. $50 for a black box. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted October 11 Author Share Posted October 11 https://www.si.com/mlb/four-mlb-teams-drop-television-partnership-bally-sports-2025-season MLB announced Tuesday that the Cleveland Guardians, Milwaukee Brewers and Minnesota Twins will have their local games produced and distributed by the league next season, which will provide more opportunities for fans to watch or stream their favorite teams. Additionally, the Texas Rangers announced they will no longer partner with Diamond Sports Group in 2025 and will explore other options for the future of their television broadcast. In 2024, MLB handled the broadcasts for three teams: the Arizona Diamondbacks, Colorado Rockies and San Diego Padres. All three teams offered direct-to-consumer streaming options as well as negotiated cable and satellite distribution. The Padres, for example, offered packages that cost either $19.99 per month or $99.99 for the entire season to stream local games without dealing with blackouts. The league estimated that Guardians games will be available to reach 4.86 million households—up from 1.45 million last year—and the Twins will be able to reach 4.40 million homes—an increase of 307% from 1.08 million in 2024. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falstaff Posted October 11 Share Posted October 11 6 hours ago, caulfield12 said: https://www.si.com/mlb/four-mlb-teams-drop-television-partnership-bally-sports-2025-season MLB announced Tuesday that the Cleveland Guardians, Milwaukee Brewers and Minnesota Twins will have their local games produced and distributed by the league next season, which will provide more opportunities for fans to watch or stream their favorite teams. Additionally, the Texas Rangers announced they will no longer partner with Diamond Sports Group in 2025 and will explore other options for the future of their television broadcast. In 2024, MLB handled the broadcasts for three teams: the Arizona Diamondbacks, Colorado Rockies and San Diego Padres. All three teams offered direct-to-consumer streaming options as well as negotiated cable and satellite distribution. The Padres, for example, offered packages that cost either $19.99 per month or $99.99 for the entire season to stream local games without dealing with blackouts. The league estimated that Guardians games will be available to reach 4.86 million households—up from 1.45 million last year—and the Twins will be able to reach 4.40 million homes—an increase of 307% from 1.08 million in 2024. I hope they should lose their small market status when it comes to the draft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted November 6 Share Posted November 6 https://awfulannouncing.com/mlb/mlbpa-local-tv-deals-team-revenue.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted November 7 Share Posted November 7 https://awfulannouncing.com/local-networks/atlanta-braves-financials-reveal-increase-tv-revenue.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted November 7 Author Share Posted November 7 5 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: https://awfulannouncing.com/local-networks/atlanta-braves-financials-reveal-increase-tv-revenue.html So they barely improved with one of the best built-in markets in the US and coming off the 2023 season where they looked like the best team in baseball with Acuna Riley Strider all of the way... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 7 Share Posted November 7 37 minutes ago, caulfield12 said: So they barely improved with one of the best built-in markets in the US and coming off the 2023 season where they looked like the best team in baseball with Acuna Riley Strider all of the way... The team won the World Series 3 years before this and they're still increasing TV revenue at a reasonable rate, in a fairly tough local TV market environment. Seems fine to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted November 8 Author Share Posted November 8 At $110 a year that's only $4.4m in revenue. Very, very long way away from replacing the cash flow the RSN deals provide. Fangraphs in 2020 estimated that the Padres made $46m from their RSN deal (not accounting for the Padres 20% ownership stake). They'd need 800,000+ subscribers to make back the RSN money at the current price point, which would be like 25% of the metro population (or they'd have to set the price point at $95 a month which consumers obviously wouldn't tolerate). What's truly crazy is that the Padres are STILL #1 in all of MLB considering SD is one of the smallest media markets for a professional sports team in the entire country. But still only a drop in the bucket compared to the $46 million they were previously receiving through their RSN deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted November 8 Author Share Posted November 8 3 hours ago, Balta1701 said: The team won the World Series 3 years before this and they're still increasing TV revenue at a reasonable rate, in a fairly tough local TV market environment. Seems fine to me. Fine for the Braves, but that's the BEST, ultimate example of success. Out of 30 teams. 2% growth isn't even keeping up with inflation. Certainly going to see a lot more than 2% growth in the average MLB contract for players in arbitration and FA in terms of a year on year comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.webp.29cc6c9fee0f01ceeb4f722593e5e3ba.webp)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.