Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
That is interesting as hell. Now the RSN's don't just carry one sport though. Dallas for example, carries hockey, NBA and MLB I'm sure. I guess that makes the RSN model a little more viable, but you wouldn't expect the NHL to get much of that revenue pie.
All that said, the appeal of the US hockey franchise is probably little to do with the TV money. In Houston, for example it would give the owner another 50 or so home dates in an arena that he controls.
|
Dallas, for example does have the Mavericks and Rangers on their channel. Mavericks average around 40,000 viewers, and the Rangers around 60,000. If they are all unique viewers, and I'm sure they are not, that is 110,000 viewers tops. One other error in my post was that it was just the Dallas DMA, it's the entire state of Texas that is the Stars TV territory. That is 4.3 million cable TV households. So, basically, you go from the RSN collecting 10-20 million dollars
per month from all those households to having to get the 110,000 people who actually watch the games to voluntarily pay for that RSN. Still looking at having to charge $100-200 per month to replicate that revenue in the unlikely event you could get that many people to buy the channel.
Also not all sports channels have all 3 sports. Lots of markets have their teams split on Comcast/Fox/Team owned RSNs, each collecting their 2-6 dollars/month from their vast tv territories.
One other point, if you bring a Houston team, they'll be fighting over the Texas territory too. The Astros and Rockets already tried to take advantage of this model in Houston/Texas market and ended up bankrupting their RSN because they tried to push the model too far:
https://www.chron.com/sports/astros/...or-5802868.php