Bally Sports possible bankruptcy?

[westofyou]

But do any of them have 1.2 billion in assets?

Other than Joe Burrow in a few years?

I'll let someone who lives in town to address that. I went to HS in the shadow of Indian Hill, they were our schools main rival, I am very familiar with the area but not the current residents

[Cyclone792]

Care to elaborate what Indian Hill money refers to for us that only visit Cincy to see the Reds?

Like woy said, lots of old, generational money. But also new money now too. There are a lot of major corporations headquartered here, and there are also a lot of c-suite types from those companies living in Indian Hill. If you're made of money - we're talking BIG money - and you live in Cincinnati, odds are you're living in Indian Hill.

It's also the primary source of donor advised funds donating to many of the big foundations here locally.

But do any of them have 1.2 billion in assets?

Other than Joe Burrow in a few years?

It's important to note that the Castellini family only has enough shares for "controlling" interest in the Reds. The Reds are chock full of minority owners, each individually with less shares than Castellini, but there are still a good deal of them. The Cincinnati Business Courier wrote recently that one source told them that Cast personally may own as little as 15 percent of the team. I don't know how accurate that is, and I'm not sure I've ever seen a published breakdown of who owns what percentage of the team.

[M2]

And they're drawing a lot of people and economic activity to downtown businesses that would close up shop and shut down if the Reds were to ever figure out a way to leave and follow through with leaving. There has been a ton of money (public and private) poured into downtown and OTR in the last two decades, and the Reds and Bengals were two of the centerpieces for that foundation.

Except every study into this shows you could build almost anything else on that land and get a better downstream economic boost and more tax revenues - https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-th...-tax-revenues/. Bob Kraft couldn't build a football stadium in metro Boston because it was the worst possible development anywhere you wanted to put it. Like, if it's a stadium vs. housing, the economics say you pick housing every time (dense, urban housing, not suburban sprawl). The history and city identity absolutely matter. Sports teams are a nice thing to have, but they are not economic stimulus.

It's virtually impossible to describe to people who do not live here, but I'll give it a shot. If you were to find a time machine and visit Cincinnati in the 1990s, what you'd find next to Riverfront was a concrete barren wasteland. The ballpark had a parking garage alongside and underneath it, and next to that was vast space of open air run down surface parking lots. You'd also have a mix of industrial complexes and dilapidated abandoned buildings nearby. You'd have a small handful of bars upwards of a half mile away hidden in alleys and that'd be about it. Probably 99 percent who attended games would drive down right before gametime, park in the stadium garage or a pothole-filled surface lot, go straight to Riverfront, then leave immediately after. There was nowhere else to go.

If you do a 90s to today comparison, you'll find the same story in city after city after city, and it has no meaningful connection to pro sports. After white flight in the mid-20th century, cities got hollowed out, but then residents and jobs started to flow back into them and developers started developing. I'm evidence of it. My grandparents moved out of cities to the suburbs after WWII, my parents stayed suburban, then I moved back into the city. Urban renewal happened all over Greater Boston and we didn't build any new stadiums outside of the Garden replacing the Garden. We've got a skyline now.

If the new stadiums hadn't been built in those areas, other things would have and you'd have still seen a wave of development. If a team left and the stadium got torn down, something else would swoop in to replace it. Pro teams are not required. There's been massive turnover in Providence, RI and Richmond, VA. I have a hard time recognizing downtown Philadelphia now compared to the city from when I was kid, and the stadiums are nowhere near downtown. Sports is not what drives that engine.

Segue - Also, I had a good time outside of Riverfront back in the 90s. Saw a good blues band in a nearby haunt. /segue

Someone upthread alluded to the fact that Cincinnati is meh. I read that and know that they haven't been here, at least not recently. Or if so, they missed out. If you like baseball, local food and local beer, this is the place for you.

I don't think most cities are meh. Good food, local beer and different things to do are part of the standard package these days. Obviously a baseball game is a thing to do, but everything you've been listing sounds like it's great outside of game days too. That won't disappear. The Reds didn't cause that, they just get to be in the mix. If anything, those things make it a whole lot easier to ignore the terrible local baseball team.

My point in describing all of that is that the Reds help make all of that happen.

They really didn't. It's a widely disproven economic hypothesis. I wholly get the argument that Cincinnati has a nice current mix and you wouldn't want to subtract from it. I'm all in on that. I'm just saying you've got the cause and effect misplaced. As long as the Reds continue to be a nice thing to have, I assume they'll stay. It's if they suffer another lost decade, people lose interest in the product and it's going to be expensive to keep them when this maybe would arise. Again, this is all IF a bunch of stuff continues to go wrong.

So the answer to your question of would the local government (along with MLB, corporate and private interests) let them walk away? I don't think so. Chip and woy have alluded to this as well.

My question is would people really vote for a $2 billion referendum to buy the team? Plus whatever stadium costs might be associated? That's more than 4x the City budget. People would burn down City Hall in Boston if they tried that. Again, maybe where I live is weird. We told the Olympics and Formula One to punt too. I find it hard to believe anyone who has a kid or who likes running water or who likes it when the trash gets picked up is going to want to spend that kind of money. If a buyer wants to step up and take over the team, that's a very different scenario. I'm questioning the practicality of the Modell Law. Seems like the kind of thing that sounds great on paper, but would never get used in the real world.

[Redsfaithful]

I'm questioning the practicality of the Modell Law. Seems like the kind of thing that sounds great on paper, but would never get used in the real world.

The Modell Law is that the franchise has to be offered for sale locally before anywhere else - I don't think it's that the public has to buy the team.

[jimbroznan]

The Nashville Titans are reaching an agreement for a new $2.1 billion domed stadium, with the Titans chipping in $800 million. The state is putting in $500 million. As conservative as Tennessee has become I doubt Tennessee would be willing to fund a similar baseball stadium.

[M2]

The Modell Law is that the franchise has to be offered for sale locally before anywhere else - I don't think it's that the public has to buy the team.

My misunderstanding.

[Cyclone792]

Except every study into this shows you could build almost anything else on that land and get a better downstream economic boost and more tax revenues - https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-th...-tax-revenues/. Bob Kraft couldn't build a football stadium in metro Boston because it was the worst possible development anywhere you wanted to put it. Like, if it's a stadium vs. housing, the economics say you pick housing every time (dense, urban housing, not suburban sprawl). The history and city identity absolutely matter. Sports teams are a nice thing to have, but they are not economic stimulus.

If you do a 90s to today comparison, you'll find the same story in city after city after city, and it has no meaningful connection to pro sports. After white flight in the mid-20th century, cities got hollowed out, but then residents and jobs started to flow back into them and developers started developing. I'm evidence of it. My grandparents moved out of cities to the suburbs after WWII, my parents stayed suburban, then I moved back into the city. Urban renewal happened all over Greater Boston and we didn't build any new stadiums outside of the Garden replacing the Garden. We've got a skyline now.

If the new stadiums hadn't been built in those areas, other things would have and you'd have still seen a wave of development. If a team left and the stadium got torn down, something else would swoop in to replace it. Pro teams are not required. There's been massive turnover in Providence, RI and Richmond, VA. I have a hard time recognizing downtown Philadelphia now compared to the city from when I was kid, and the stadiums are nowhere near downtown. Sports is not what drives that engine.

I don't think most cities are meh. Good food, local beer and different things to do are part of the standard package these days. Obviously a baseball game is a thing to do, but everything you've been listing sounds like it's great outside of game days too. That won't disappear. The Reds didn't cause that, they just get to be in the mix. If anything, those things make it a whole lot easier to ignore the terrible local baseball team.

They really didn't. It's a widely disproven economic hypothesis. I wholly get the argument that Cincinnati has a nice current mix and you wouldn't want to subtract from it. I'm all in on that. I'm just saying you've got the cause and effect misplaced. As long as the Reds continue to be a nice thing to have, I assume they'll stay. It's if they suffer another lost decade, people lose interest in the product and it's going to be expensive to keep them when this maybe would arise. Again, this is all IF a bunch of stuff continues to go wrong.

I get that economics argument, and I know how it plays out in most localities. And I get that there'd be more dense residential spots taking up land where the stadium sits. Would it be enough though to offset all the commuters who visit downtown primarily for the Reds?

The money here isn't living anywhere near GABP - it's very much in the suburbs. It's largely still hollowed out here, and honestly that's not going to change anytime soon (if ever). To put it in perspective, something like 70 percent of the city's tax revenue comes from non-residents. The money drives in from 20-45 minutes away to work and spend; it doesn't live in the city and spend.

The Banks area restaurants are booming on game days, but those same shops are comparatively empty on non-game days. Some even close up shop after lunch hour on non-game days. Possibly one could argue without the Reds that the economic activity would be more evenly spread out across days and weeks vs. boom/bust on game/non-game days (and there'd be a few thousand more people living nearby). But there's a lot of dollars that would stop driving 20+ miles to visit that area if the Reds moved out.

Your take is that something else would swoop in and take the Reds place. Living here, knowing the people here, where they live, what they do, where they spend ... I don't know. This area is just different than a lot of other localities. People who don't live here don't know what I mean when I say that. But people who live here know what I mean.

My question is would people really vote for a $2 billion referendum to buy the team? Plus whatever stadium costs might be associated? That's more than 4x the City budget. People would burn down City Hall in Boston if they tried that. Again, maybe where I live is weird. We told the Olympics and Formula One to punt too. I find it hard to believe anyone who has a kid or who likes running water or who likes it when the trash gets picked up is going to want to spend that kind of money. If a buyer wants to step up and take over the team, that's a very different scenario. I'm questioning the practicality of the Modell Law. Seems like the kind of thing that sounds great on paper, but would never get used in the real world.

The county owns the stadium, not the city.

As for a buyer, it'd be highly, highly likely a local buyer would step up and the Modell Law guarantees that opportunity. That brings Indian Hill money in play. One scenario would be one or more existing minority owners stepping up. Or you'd have a new controlling ownership group altogether stepping up to keep the Reds here.

Segue - Also, I had a good time outside of Riverfront back in the 90s. Saw a good blues band in a nearby haunt. /segue

My guess is you went to the Blue Wisp Jazz Club. Great place, but it's been closed for about a decade or so.

Not sure how long it's been since you've been in town, but if it's been a long time, I'd recommend you get into town one weekend during a homestand.

[TNRED]

Perhaps this is a bit off topic but how are professional sports teams actually purchased? Does someone actually whip out their checkbook and stroke a check for a billion? Of course many are owned by a owner group. Do banks loan money to purchase a sports franchise? Do the sellers carry back some paper in the deal. A billion in hard cash is difficult for even billionaires to access.

[Roy Tucker]

The only bar I remember by Riverfront was Gameday. I think some RZ gatherings were there back in the day. 2005-ish.

[Kinsm]

Perhaps this is a bit off topic but how are professional sports teams actually purchased? Does someone actually whip out their checkbook and stroke a check for a billion? Of course many are owned by a owner group. Do banks loan money to purchase a sports franchise? Do the sellers carry back some paper in the deal. A billion in hard cash is difficult for even billionaires to access.

Just like you or I buy a house. Borrow it, with enough collateral, and pay it back w/ interest.

- - - Updated - - -

Astros owner paid back his short term loans by gutting the club when he first purchased it.

Reds owners paid a great deal of it back by selling non-voting shares.

[M2]

I get that economics argument, and I know how it plays out in most localities. And I get that there'd be more dense residential spots taking up land where the stadium sits. Would it be enough though to offset all the commuters who visit downtown primarily for the Reds?

The money here isn't living anywhere near GABP - it's very much in the suburbs. It's largely still hollowed out here, and honestly that's not going to change anytime soon (if ever). To put it in perspective, something like 70 percent of the city's tax revenue comes from non-residents. The money drives in from 20-45 minutes away to work and spend; it doesn't live in the city and spend.

The Banks area restaurants are booming on game days, but those same shops are comparatively empty on non-game days. Some even close up shop after lunch hour on non-game days. Possibly one could argue without the Reds that the economic activity would be more evenly spread out across days and weeks vs. boom/bust on game/non-game days (and there'd be a few thousand more people living nearby). But there's a lot of dollars that would stop driving 20+ miles to visit that area if the Reds moved out.

Your take is that something else would swoop in and take the Reds place. Living here, knowing the people here, where they live, what they do, where they spend ... I don't know. This area is just different than a lot of other localities. People who don't live here don't know what I mean when I say that. But people who live here know what I mean.

The answer to your first question is yes. In fact, commercial/residential mixed development would provide steadier business for those places that see a major drop off on non-game days. It's exactly why ballparks aren't great economic drivers - way too intermittent. Seems like you're bit focused on what they haven't built. Mixed downtown development works pretty much everywhere. You'd probably get something like OTR (at least from the descriptions I've read of it).

You did a real good job of listing out how the city is on the up and how there's been lots of infill development and how neighborhoods are being transformed. Given that, I'm 100% positive it would not be different in Cincinnati. What's working in Buffalo and Pittsburgh will work in your town too. Pretty much everywhere has the "it's different here" image of itself because many of us can remember how it was after a few generations of urban decay. It happened in every city. They got crushed, but they've been bouncing back for a few decades now. Blew my mind when my wife and I were having our first kid and we moved into a neighborhood famed for crack dealers and gay prostitution during my college days (the West Fens - right near Fenway Park).

If anything, the city/county planners probably made a mistake not putting more residential around the ballpark and ought to rectify that. There's been a ton of residential going up around Fenway for the past 20 years. Not coincidentally there's a whole lot more to do around there. My former service station turned into my favorite burger joint, which now has to move around the block because they're making way for another high rise. Anyway, probably not the forum for a full zoning geek session. I'll just go back to, if it had to bet on itself, Cincinnati would do fine.

[westofyou]

My wife was born and raised in Cincinnati, as was her father, his father was raised in Indiana right over the border. My wife is NOT a sports fan, she played sports, knows sports, does not care for them as a pastime for herself.

I told her about this conversation and she simply said, "I can't imagine Cincinnati without the Reds, it seems impossible to even ponder that reality."

I'm pretty sure that's built into the DNA of everyone who has those same sort of roots as she does. So yes, maybe in some folks world the Reds could move to some other city and it would slide by and MLS or the Bengals would step up and fill the void. But I'm going to say no, they would not and that if it was to actually become something that was kicked around that the whole damn city would bind together and make sure it did not happen

[Redsfaithful]

The Bengals are actually more likely to leave. I put the chances of that happening very close to 0%, but north of 0% when this lease is up.

I truly clock the Reds chances of moving at 0%. There's enough money in Cincinnati that would step up in a worst case scenario and I really don't think pro sports leagues feel like testing the Modell law in court because if it's upheld they could lose a lot of leverage in future cases in other states.

[Ron Madden]

My wife was born and raised in Cincinnati, as was her father, his father was raised in Indiana right over the border. My wife is NOT a sports fan, she played sports, knows sports, does not care for them as a pastime for herself.

I told her about this conversation and she simply said, "I can't imagine Cincinnati without the Reds, it seems impossible to even ponder that reality."

I'm pretty sure that's built into the DNA of everyone who has those same sort of roots as she does. So yes, maybe in some folks world the Reds could move to some other city and it would slide by and MLS or the Bengals would step up and fill the void. But I'm going to say no, they would not and that if it was to actually become something that was kicked around that the whole damn city would bind together and make sure it did not happen

watch this

https://twitter.com/cammillerfilms/s...C-qbOEnKotAAAA

[Ron Madden]

Bally Sports Looks Like It's Bailing on the Cleveland Guardians

The Cleveland Guardians appear to be the latest Major League Baseball team forsaken by Bally Sports, as the bankrupt regional sports network restructures and seeks to walk away from its most unprofitable TV contracts with pro sports teams.

According to Cleveland.com, Diamond Sports Group, the subsidiary set up by broadcast giant Sinclair to manage its Bally Sports channels, missed a due date on Saturday for first rights payment covering the just-started 2023 MLB season.

Diamond has 10 days of grace period from that April 1 due date to make the payment. But as the subsidiary seeks to wipe out around $8 billion of debt through bankruptcy restructuring, it's expected that the Guardians will be one of several MLB teams that Diamond cuts ties with.

In fact, unnamed Cleveland.com sources "close to the situation" said a payment from Diamond to the Guardians is "unlikely." The site reports that the team has a deal with Sinlair/Diamond through the 2027 season paying the club around $50 million a year.

Last month, Diamond similarly failed to pay the Arizona Diamondbacks. At the time, the Guardians, Cincinnati Reds and San Diego Padres were listed as the other MLB teams for which Diamond was losing significant money with.

However, the Padres reportedly received their check. It's unclear as to what the Reds' state of play is regarding Bally Sports and Diamond.

Bally Sports Ohio carries both the Guardians and Reds on separate sub-feeds.

Of the 19 Bally Sports channels, 14 have contracts with MLB teams. In all, 52 pro sports teams fall under the Bally Sports RSN umbrella. It's unclear at this point what NBA and NHL teams might also be similarly impacted.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb...ns/ar-AA19t7jl