Blues News Forum

There is an article on StL Today from Dan Cesar on this, but it is paywalled. Here is another link to a different site that has the same info

https://allfans.co/media-views-bally-sp ... ct-access/

$20 a month seems pretty high, though Sinclair says this information is not accurate, so I guess we will see. I pay about $120 a year to stream games on NHL.TV, so it's about the same for me, but seems pretty high for local people who are used to having it "free".

That's interesting. This kind of direct to consumer model was inevitable. The price point would be crucial. I wonder if you can purchase this out of market. Probably not because I think next year's out of market package will be part of an ESPN+ subscription, which I think is like $8 a month or less, but get's you a lot more features. The fact that they screwed so many local customers including many on this forum all season is infuriating.

I've gone without the Blues and the Cards this year because I'm fed up with chasing FSMW from one provider to another, because they charge too much. If we get an app for $20 to $25 a month, I'll pay it. If not - fuck it.

Wow. When I think about other single channel stream services being 5-10 a month, this seems a bit high.

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 12:33 pm Wow. When I think about other single channel stream services being 5-10 a month, this seems a bit high.

It is. On the other hand, as it stands now, you have to sign on to a high priced network month, even if you don't need the rest of their programming. I will never again sign onto a carrier where I have a contract. It's not a good deal, for sure, but for me, its better than anything else I see out there. I'll burn in hell before a cable will ever again be hooked to my tv.

so, as stated, NHL.tv, where you can get all the (out of market) games from every team, has been about $120/season. what bally is proposing - after a full year of completely fucking fans - is essentially around $180/season to watch all the games (not nationally televised) for ONE team. also remaining to be seen is how intrusive their in-game betting bullshit is going to be.

i realize they've already come out and said this is inaccurate and they don't know the price point yet, but i guarantee this was "leaked" to gauge reaction. if this is anywhere remotely close to what they are thinking, they can fuck themselves forever. one of you suckers that will pay that can have this site, i'm done.

i've looked on all the sites i can think of and can't find anything. has anyone seen anything on any hockey-related site discussing how the vast majority of local fans are unable to watch games for the second season in a row? seems to me a) no one in the NHL is commenting on this situation, which is cowardly at best, and b) no hockey sites have even mentioned it, which to me begs the question - why not? this is kind of a big deal. why is no one talking about this? any conspiracy theories welcome, because i can't think of anything that makes any kind of sense. as a league, you don't get to bitch about low viewership while not actively discussing what you're doing (via contracts you agreed to) to suppress said viewership. as a site that discusses affected sports, are you simply not talking about it because you actually don't care, since the only way people have to consume the sport is to read about it, so you're getting more clicks?

T.C. wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 12:19 pm i've looked on all the sites i can think of and can't find anything. has anyone seen anything on any hockey-related site discussing how the vast majority of local fans are unable to watch games for the second season in a row? seems to me a) no one in the NHL is commenting on this situation, which is cowardly at best, and b) no hockey sites have even mentioned it, which to me begs the question - why not? this is kind of a big deal. why is no one talking about this? any conspiracy theories welcome, because i can't think of anything that makes any kind of sense. as a league, you don't get to bitch about low viewership while not actively discussing what you're doing (via contracts you agreed to) to suppress said viewership. as a site that discusses affected sports, are you simply not talking about it because you actually don't care, since the only way people have to consume the sport is to read about it, so you're getting more clicks?

Just this piece from a few weeks ago

https://www.androidheadlines.com/sincla ... vice-sucks

interesting. doesn't really look like a sports site, but i appreciate the write-up. they had me until this:

RSNs are pretty necessary though. National sports channels are not able to show every single game from the NBA, MLB, NHL and the NFL.

no they fucking aren't. NHL has their own app, where you can watch whatever game you want...out of market. remove the "out of market" from that statement and it's a perfect service, no RSN "necessary". i don't know shit about the other leagues, but i'm positive there is some sort of app/service. if not, fucking stand one up. easy-peasy. scrap the entire fucking model before we have to live through yet another year of this bullshit before sinclair decides to sell everything for scraps.

T.C. wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 1:49 pm interesting. doesn't really look like a sports site, but i appreciate the write-up. they had me until this:

RSNs are pretty necessary though. National sports channels are not able to show every single game from the NBA, MLB, NHL and the NFL.

no they fucking aren't. NHL has their own app, where you can watch whatever game you want...out of market. remove the "out of market" from that statement and it's a perfect service, no RSN "necessary". i don't know shit about the other leagues, but i'm positive there is some sort of app/service. if not, fucking stand one up. easy-peasy. scrap the entire fucking model before we have to live through yet another year of this bullshit before sinclair decides to sell everything for scraps.

I hate it when some media org cites some arbitrary bullshit rule as an unbreakable fact of life or impossibility.

There is only one factor preventing all this nonsense from ending and that's greed by the media and sports leagues and owners.

right. which is why it's so baffling that almost no one is talking about it. all these fucking talking heads who are always looking for something else to talk about and NO ONE is discussing this? i have to assume it's drastically affecting the bottom line of these leagues.

The Avs are going through the same thing with Altitude not being available anywhere. Nothing has changed going into like the 3rd year now. I don't know why they can't get this shit figured out.

Seems to me that having the league talking heads constantly - like, regular daily or weekly updates/stories on the situation - talking about it, giving both the league and the media company black eyes would lead to a resolution pretty quickly. No one talking about it = why should they care? I mean, i’ve never brought it up to anyone who reacted like “oh yeah, that’s a completely reasonable situation.” EVERYONE thinks this is very fucked up. So why isn’t this a top topic on the reg on sports shows, websites, radio, etc.? There has to be a reason.

T.C. wrote: Seems to me that having the league talking heads constantly - like, regular daily or weekly updates/stories on the situation - talking about it, giving both the league and the media company black eyes would lead to a resolution pretty quickly. No one talking about it = why should they care? I mean, i’ve never brought it up to anyone who reacted like “oh yeah, that’s a completely reasonable situation.” EVERYONE thinks this is very fucked up. So why isn’t this a top topic on the reg on sports shows, websites, radio, etc.? There has to be a reason.

Would the media talking about it solve it pretty quickly? Seems like Sinclair has a specific plan in place and getting off of providers was all apart of their plan.

Also, how many times on a sports show can it be talked about? Not much is changing on a day to day basis.

The whole situation is shitty and truly sucks, but I dont see it changing until Sinclair launches their own service, whenever that is ready to go.

With that said, blackout restrictions are the bigger issue that need to be abolished.

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 10:10 am

T.C. wrote: Seems to me that having the league talking heads constantly - like, regular daily or weekly updates/stories on the situation - talking about it, giving both the league and the media company black eyes would lead to a resolution pretty quickly. No one talking about it = why should they care? I mean, i’ve never brought it up to anyone who reacted like “oh yeah, that’s a completely reasonable situation.” EVERYONE thinks this is very fucked up. So why isn’t this a top topic on the reg on sports shows, websites, radio, etc.? There has to be a reason.

Would the media talking about it solve it pretty quickly? Seems like Sinclair has a specific plan in place and getting off of providers was all apart of their plan.

Also, how many times on a sports show can it be talked about? Not much is changing on a day to day basis.

The whole situation is shitty and truly sucks, but I dont see it changing until Sinclair launches their own service, whenever that is ready to go.

i don't know. if i'm sinclair and being shit on constantly by respected people in the industry rather than individuals, blamed for what's happening, i'd find a resolution pretty quickly before the PR absolutely destroys any slim chance of whatever the fuck they're doing succeeding. but clearly they are not logical, so maybe you're right.

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote: With that said, blackout restrictions are the bigger issue that need to be abolished.

absolutely. at that point, who gives a shit about sinclair.

BLUES TIE IT UP!!!!

CaptSMRT wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 8:21 pmBLUES TIE IT UP!!!!

Thank you, CaptRobb_SMRT!

If the fans don't react to this big time....the Blues will keep steaming ahead on this. The Blues are the people who need to feel the heat here...but fans are pretty unreliable when it comes to that.

STLBlueshistory wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 9:50 am I really get a kick out of reading people think blackouts should be abolished.

Yep; just destroy the model in one fell swoop. Why wouldn't the league, teams & players go for that wonderful idea.

Next, they should just give tickets away and stop charging for them.

I agree with your last sentence. Make games affordable and accessible to ALL of your fans.

"The model"..The model was started in the freaking 70's. Do you think there's a chance that something that was created to work in the 70s might not be viable anymore in 2021 or are you just upper management at Bally's?

You're hawking for a rule that limits fans from seeing their favorite sports team based on their address. This rule strictly exist to keep RSN's happy. Leagues can protect their profits now at the expense of fans and pay the price for it later when people are so use to not watching sports that they just don't. Then leagues will spend millions and millions trying to figure out why their sports are dying and figuring out ways to bring fans back. It's such an archaic and shortsighted mindset.

Its pretty wild to me that its so much easier and cheaper for me, an out of market fan, to see every Blues game than it is for people that actually live in STL. $5 or whatever for ESPN+ a month and I get every Blues (and every other out of market team) game.

Almost wonder if ESPN+ and a VPN might be the best way to go for you in market folks.

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:04 am

STLBlueshistory wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 9:50 am I really get a kick out of reading people think blackouts should be abolished.

Yep; just destroy the model in one fell swoop. Why wouldn't the league, teams & players go for that wonderful idea.

Next, they should just give tickets away and stop charging for them.

I agree with your last sentence. Make games affordable and accessible to ALL of your fans.

"The model"..The model was started in the freaking 70's. Do you think there's a chance that something that was created to work in the 70s might not be viable anymore in 2021 or are you just upper management at Bally's?

You're hawking for a rule that limits fans from seeing their favorite sports team based on their address. This rule strictly exist to keep RSN's happy. Leagues can protect their profits now at the expense of fans and pay the price for it later when people are so use to not watching sports that they just don't. Then leagues will spend millions and millions trying to figure out why their sports are dying and figuring out ways to bring fans back. It's such an archaic and shortsighted mindset.

What follows is not at all researched, just how I understand things to work so just take it with a grain...or shaker...of salt.

I assume part of the problem is that RSNs are a huge revenue driver for teams. I don't know what kind of figure we're talking about for hockey, but I know in baseball it's just silly numbers. The model is outdated as you've pointed out, but I wonder if it's just too much of a monster for the league to tackle. All of these different RSNs have different contracts that expire at different times. If you want to start from scratch, you have to wait for them all to expire or pay out termination fees.

All of this is bad for fans. Local blackouts are a joke. The Blackhawks famously had all their home games blacked out under Bill Wirtz. As soon as Dollar Bill died, that was the first thing Rocky Wirtz changed, and it along with a couple young prospects that I'm sure went on to do nothing, helped spur one of the all-time franchise value turnarounds in North American professional sports.

Franchises need eyeballs on their teams. The need locals to be interested. If situations like what we're seeing in St. Louis and elsewhere where many many local fans can't watch the game, that local interest is going to erode. When that happens, the sponsors get pissed. When they get pissed enough on large enough of a scale, that's probably what it will take for any meaningful change to the model. Sadly in the NHL, they tend to wait until a fire rages to grab a hose rather than snuffing out a few sparks.

Dave's a mess wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:37 am

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:04 am

STLBlueshistory wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 9:50 am I really get a kick out of reading people think blackouts should be abolished.

Yep; just destroy the model in one fell swoop. Why wouldn't the league, teams & players go for that wonderful idea.

Next, they should just give tickets away and stop charging for them.

I agree with your last sentence. Make games affordable and accessible to ALL of your fans.

"The model"..The model was started in the freaking 70's. Do you think there's a chance that something that was created to work in the 70s might not be viable anymore in 2021 or are you just upper management at Bally's?

You're hawking for a rule that limits fans from seeing their favorite sports team based on their address. This rule strictly exist to keep RSN's happy. Leagues can protect their profits now at the expense of fans and pay the price for it later when people are so use to not watching sports that they just don't. Then leagues will spend millions and millions trying to figure out why their sports are dying and figuring out ways to bring fans back. It's such an archaic and shortsighted mindset.

What follows is not at all researched, just how I understand things to work so just take it with a grain...or shaker...of salt.

I assume part of the problem is that RSNs are a huge revenue driver for teams. I don't know what kind of figure we're talking about for hockey, but I know in baseball it's just silly numbers. The model is outdated as you've pointed out, but I wonder if it's just too much of a monster for the league to tackle. All of these different RSNs have different contracts that expire at different times. If you want to start from scratch, you have to wait for them all to expire or pay out termination fees.

All of this is bad for fans. Local blackouts are a joke. The Blackhawks famously had all their home games blacked out under Bill Wirtz. As soon as Dollar Bill died, that was the first thing Rocky Wirtz changed, and it along with a couple young prospects that I'm sure went on to do nothing, helped spur one of the all-time franchise value turnarounds in North American professional sports.

Franchises need eyeballs on their teams. The need locals to be interested. If situations like what we're seeing in St. Louis and elsewhere where many many local fans can't watch the game, that local interest is going to erode. When that happens, the sponsors get pissed. When they get pissed enough on large enough of a scale, that's probably what it will take for any meaningful change to the model. Sadly in the NHL, they tend to wait until a fire rages to grab a hose rather than snuffing out a few sparks.

T.C should code it in that all of our post start with that disclaimer

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:48 am

Dave's a mess wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:37 am

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:04 am

I agree with your last sentence. Make games affordable and accessible to ALL of your fans.

"The model"..The model was started in the freaking 70's. Do you think there's a chance that something that was created to work in the 70s might not be viable anymore in 2021 or are you just upper management at Bally's?

You're hawking for a rule that limits fans from seeing their favorite sports team based on their address. This rule strictly exist to keep RSN's happy. Leagues can protect their profits now at the expense of fans and pay the price for it later when people are so use to not watching sports that they just don't. Then leagues will spend millions and millions trying to figure out why their sports are dying and figuring out ways to bring fans back. It's such an archaic and shortsighted mindset.

What follows is not at all researched, just how I understand things to work so just take it with a grain...or shaker...of salt.

I assume part of the problem is that RSNs are a huge revenue driver for teams. I don't know what kind of figure we're talking about for hockey, but I know in baseball it's just silly numbers. The model is outdated as you've pointed out, but I wonder if it's just too much of a monster for the league to tackle. All of these different RSNs have different contracts that expire at different times. If you want to start from scratch, you have to wait for them all to expire or pay out termination fees.

All of this is bad for fans. Local blackouts are a joke. The Blackhawks famously had all their home games blacked out under Bill Wirtz. As soon as Dollar Bill died, that was the first thing Rocky Wirtz changed, and it along with a couple young prospects that I'm sure went on to do nothing, helped spur one of the all-time franchise value turnarounds in North American professional sports.

Franchises need eyeballs on their teams. The need locals to be interested. If situations like what we're seeing in St. Louis and elsewhere where many many local fans can't watch the game, that local interest is going to erode. When that happens, the sponsors get pissed. When they get pissed enough on large enough of a scale, that's probably what it will take for any meaningful change to the model. Sadly in the NHL, they tend to wait until a fire rages to grab a hose rather than snuffing out a few sparks.

T.C should code it in that all of our post start with that disclaimer

Nothing beats wild speculation.

BluesSK wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:54 am

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:48 am

Dave's a mess wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:37 am

What follows is not at all researched, just how I understand things to work so just take it with a grain...or shaker...of salt.

I assume part of the problem is that RSNs are a huge revenue driver for teams. I don't know what kind of figure we're talking about for hockey, but I know in baseball it's just silly numbers. The model is outdated as you've pointed out, but I wonder if it's just too much of a monster for the league to tackle. All of these different RSNs have different contracts that expire at different times. If you want to start from scratch, you have to wait for them all to expire or pay out termination fees.

All of this is bad for fans. Local blackouts are a joke. The Blackhawks famously had all their home games blacked out under Bill Wirtz. As soon as Dollar Bill died, that was the first thing Rocky Wirtz changed, and it along with a couple young prospects that I'm sure went on to do nothing, helped spur one of the all-time franchise value turnarounds in North American professional sports.

Franchises need eyeballs on their teams. The need locals to be interested. If situations like what we're seeing in St. Louis and elsewhere where many many local fans can't watch the game, that local interest is going to erode. When that happens, the sponsors get pissed. When they get pissed enough on large enough of a scale, that's probably what it will take for any meaningful change to the model. Sadly in the NHL, they tend to wait until a fire rages to grab a hose rather than snuffing out a few sparks.

T.C should code it in that all of our post start with that disclaimer

Nothing beats wild speculation.

I might go the other way just to keep everyone on their toes. "All of my comments have been proven correct both by the nerds and the eye test."