What's the status of the new Clippers' TV deal?

[Akklaim1]

So as of now, we don't have a local TV network. There were talks of Ballmer creating a streaming service, but I don't know if they're still serious.

[MrHill]

Curious to know myself, but so far, nothing new.

I've been of the belief, that because of the Dodgers' own TV situation (especially with no live off-season programming), they would go after the Clippers' TV rights, but now since Charter just swallowed-up Time Warner Cable, I can see Charter finding a way to get out of that albatross of the Dodgers' TV contract (and maybe that of the Lakers' own deal as well).

I think at the end, they'll stay with Fox...if the Clips had gone to another network (or launch their own streaming network), we would heard by now. I remember when the Lakers announced with new TV deal with TWC, they had still a year or so left on their then-current deal with Fox and KCAL.

[Akklaim1]

Is it really possible for Charter to ditch the Dodger contract? How would that happen, though?

[madmaxmedia]

Ballmer is going to have a streaming service but you have to buy a Surface Pro 4 to access it.

[madmaxmedia]

Is it really possible for Charter to ditch the Dodger contract? How would that happen, though?

Someone would have to read the entire contract which is probably the size of a telephone book. I doubt there is a scot-free out for them though. They overestimated their own hand, and have to decide whether to cut their losses or not.

The first season without a deal with the other TV providers, there was outrage and a lot of press. Now, people just sort of groan and turn away. I feel like their position gets weaker as time passes. Anyone who was going to switch providers because they weren't getting Dodger baseball probably has by this point, so there's less urgency for providers to pay what TWC is asking for.

[MrHill]

I'm not entirely sure on the contractual language on the Dodgers' TV contract, but I do know they finagled the agreement in such a way they don't have pay as much as into the MLB revenue sharing plan, which is why they own the channel although TWC/Charter handles everything else. That's partly why the Dodgers and Lakers don't share a channel, which they should have from the get-go...no TV provider is going to justify charging an extra $5 or so month for a single-team channel, especially when people are dumping cable left and right (I like I recently had--I have PlayStation Vue, with $55 a month with at least the local Fox Sports channels, plus others). At least with the Laker network, there's some year-round live programming with the Galaxy, Sparks, Mountain West and WAC basketball and football, and some European soccer.

It's just too bad Vin Scully's final season is wasted on a channel that most of the market can't see...

[Akklaim1]

With FOX Sports having a deal with Sling TV, I hope the Clippers stay with Prime Ticket. Only $20 a month and you can watch anywhere.

[mkwest]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/latbbolch/status/742875783962628096[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/latbbolch/status/742876433341501440[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/latbbolch/status/742876803723755520[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/latbbolch/status/742922175972139010[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/DanWoikeSports/status/742873081308282880[/tweet]

[Roscoe Sheed]

I always DVR games and don't start watching them until at least 1 hour after the game has started. I wonder if it would be possible to do the same watching on a stream?

[madmaxmedia]

I always DVR games and don't start watching them until at least 1 hour after the game has started. I wonder if it would be possible to do the same watching on a stream?

It would depend on how they set it up. It would seem to make sense to provide access to previous games with a subscription service, as that adds value to the service. At the very least, maybe provide access to the most recent week of games or something like that.

[Akklaim1]

I also wonder which local RSN will pick up the Rams preseason games.

[mkwest]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/latbbolch/status/743225415154601985[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/latbbolch/status/743225687046184961[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/latbbolch/status/743225966298730496[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/latbbolch/status/743226209694146560[/tweet]

[QRich3]

I'm very intrigued to see what they finally do with it. Spearheading the change in the way we watch games is definitely a thing I'd be proud of, as I'm convinced that the current model of cable TV, for sports at least, has been obsolete for years now.

[Akklaim1]

I'm very intrigued to see what they finally do with it. Spearheading the change in the way we watch games is definitely a thing I'd be proud of, as I'm convinced that the current model of cable TV, for sports at least, has been obsolete for years now.

Cable TV is only surviving because of their own streaming service that goes along with their subscriptions.

[Clemenza]

I also wonder which local RSN will pick up the Rams preseason games.

CBS channel 2 here in LA will do the Rams preseason games

[Don Tommy]

I got that survey today. Looks like they want to charge over $250 a season for this. That's more than the entire NBA League Pass!

[Ranma]

I got that survey today. Looks like they want to charge over $250 a season for this. That's more than the entire NBA League Pass!

That's ridiculous! That better come with season tickets or something. Or partner up with other local teams like the Rams, Dodgers, Kings, Angels, and Ducks. Yikes!

[Ranma]

What rights owners don't get is that customers want value and choice in their products. Why pay a premium price for Clippers games that is higher than what you would have gotten on cable? In addition to team-exclusive content, there has to be more than such half-hearted attempts at separating money from our wallets. Yes, the Time-Warner Cable deal with the Dodgers was misplayed, but the YES network works just fine for the Yankees in New York. Obviously, the population is denser there but it's not like Los Angeles is a major media market itself.

Just because people live under the sun and blue sky of the West Coast, does not mean we're willing to pay more than what New Yorkers are currently for their team sports. Quite the contrary, there is more alternatives to recreational activities. Angelenos love their sports, but we're not going to be gouged for them.

If Ballmer wants to incorporate technology into the viewing experience, then fine, charge a little more to fund such endeavors but people have to be convinced with a sample of such breakthrough innovation to determine if it's worth the premium price.

Bob Wallace, Patriots.com (6/23/16)

THE FUTURE OF RSNS

If the Clippers decide to forego the RSN route for a live streaming service, it would be a landmark event for sports where National Football League has banked on broadcast networks but teams from other pro sports; the NBA, NHL and MLB have long called home. The SportsNet LA situation with the Dodgers is looked upon as a rather unique situation - and with disdain locally.
RSNs that are partially or totally team-owned have said to be more financially successful, especially in large TV markets. Bu can a team can be more successful with its own live game streaming service than with a RSN, or with a broadcast and pay-TV combo approach that the NFL employs? We can only wait to hear more from Ballmer and the Clippers.

LIVING AND LEARNING?

Though it was a partnership with cableco, Ballmer need only look across town to be reminded of what many consider an epic fail - that's still hurting Major League Baseball's L.A. Dodgers sports fans - to be reminded of team-driven initiatives gone bad.
...

THE NFL APPROACH AND THE B PLAN

The NFL has already begun to embrace streaming of live games domestically (something it has done for years overseas). In the last year, Yahoo streamed a game globally online last season and the league has teamed with Twitter to rebroadcast Thursday Night Football games this season.
...

THE BOTTOM LINE

MLB teams and other pro leagues employ approaches that are quite different from that of the NFL. With that said the possibility of the L.A. Clippers running a live game streaming service online would spark greater interest in such an opportunity by pro sports entities and perhaps trigger a move away from traditional distribution strategies.

And if streaming services gained momentum with an offering from the extra tech-savvy L.A. Clippers Owner Steve Ballmer, perhaps they could eventually provide the long sought after pay-TV live games alternative that fans have been seeking from all pro sports leagues.

Tackling Tech: Why the L.A. Clippers' Streaming Interest?

[Don Tommy]

I got that survey today. Looks like they want to charge over $250 a season for this. That's more than the entire NBA League Pass!

That's ridiculous! That better come with season tickets or something. Or partner up with other local teams like the Rams, Dodgers, Kings, Angels, and Ducks. Yikes!

They asked what you would want bundled with it. Two upper deck tickets to a game, an authentic jersey, Jordan brand Clippers shoes, 10% clippers merchandise, money to be used for Clippers gear... one of the questions was how much would I be willing to pay, assuming the games were still on FSN. Some of the stuff they showed was cool (integrated stats, choose your own instant replay) some was dumb (NBA Jam animations on players heads) so I said $50. Then they asked if first $300 then $250 was about right. A chance to be unique and trailblazing is looking like an over priced money grab.

Another thing, they kept asking what kind of streaming devices you used, like Roky or Chromecast. I wonder if I will get blacklisted because I put in AppleTV?

[Ranma]