Bell Media exploring sale of TSN

[MMC]

Click to read more...

 

[varsaku]

Not surprised by this news. This is only going to leave Rodgers and Amazon in the fight for the next Canadian TV Rights.

 

[nickp91]

disney owns 30% of TSN Interesting times across Canadian media

 

[hockey20000]

ugh this sucks. theres no way in hell i am buying amazon prime if they get full rights of nhl idc.

 

[CokenoPepsi]

ugh this sucks. theres no way in hell i am buying amazon prime if they get full rights of nhl idc.

There is no way they get full NHL rights, too early for that

 

[Yukon Joe]

From the article:

Industry insiders indicate Bell Media could be actively exploring the sale of TSN and its affiliated properties. This isn’t just idle speculation – it’s part of what many consider to be a a larger strategic shift at Bell, which has already announced plans to divest its MLSE shares. The company’s priorities became even clearer with Bell Canada’s $3.6 billion acquisition of Ziply Fiber, a Pacific Northwest broadband provider serving Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana. The message is clear: Bell is pivoting away from media content toward core telecommunications infrastructure.

The timing of these moves – a major U.S. fiber network acquisition, the MLSE share sale, and now a potential TSN divestiture – paints a picture of a company methodically exiting the volatile sports media business in favor of more stable infrastructure investments. While Bell plans to expand Ziply’s reach to more than three million locations in the next four years, it appears to be simultaneously planning its exit from sports media properties.

I can remember 20-25 years ago when Telcos were exactly the opposite - they did NOT want to be a series of "dumb pipes" and wanted to make sure they got in the content game. This was, not surprisingly, around the time Bell purchased TSN in the first place.

But who exactly would buy TSN? Rogers would almost certainly be barred by the Competition Bureau - but there's not really any other large Canadian media companies out there.

So really - Bell would have to hope to either sell to Rogers, or sell to foreign ownership - but both would likely be blocked by Competition Bureau and/or CRTC.

I can't imagine why Amazon (or Netflix) would want to buy an existing cable channel - they can just buy the broadcast rights themselves without all the legacy costs.

 

[Yukon Joe]

How about this for a possibility - TSN gets purchased by... the Winnipeg Jets, Montreal Canadians and the Ottawa Senators (or at least some consortium of their ownership groups)?

Basically this would be following what's going down in the US with regional broadcasters. The teams want to ensure they still have a regional broadcaster, so they just go out and purchase TSN. The three ownership groups do have a few bucks to play with.

I'm sure the CFL might like to get in on this - but as a very small minority partner at best.

Obviously the TML would not be interested, but potentially Calgary / Edmonton / Vancouver as well if they're worried about their Sportsnet deals. Not predicting this, but a possibility.

 

[Takuto Maruki]

So really - Bell would have to hope to either sell to Rogers, or sell to foreign ownership - but both would likely be blocked by Competition Bureau and/or CRTC.

The Competition Bureau and the CRTC really don't give a shit anymore what is actually good for the consumer or Canadian business on the whole. They're entirely intent on letting Rogers own the entirety of telecoms and media as the rest realize that the taps have run dry and there's no point in trying to spend on sports when cable is dying.

Maybe if there's enough of a nationalistic push from the Conservatives to protect TSN from foreign interests (specifically ESPN considering they're likely the only ones with enough money to actually pay for TSN) but even then, there's really only one way this goes. And the CRTC and Competition Bureau are all too happy to let it happen and go fully mask off in the 'five companies in a trench coat' moniker this country has always been.

 

[CokenoPepsi]

The Competition Bureau and the CRTC really don't give a shit anymore what is actually good for the consumer or Canadian business on the whole. They're entirely intent on letting Rogers own the entirety of telecoms and media as the rest realize that the taps have run dry and there's no point in trying to spend on sports when cable is dying.

Maybe if there's enough of a nationalistic push from the Conservatives to protect TSN from foreign interests (specifically ESPN considering they're likely the only ones with enough money to actually pay for TSN) but even then, there's really only one way this goes. And the CRTC and Competition Bureau are all too happy to let it happen and go fully mask off in the 'five companies in a trench coat' moniker this country has always been.

Not to get too political but the Conservatives would want to sell TSN to the Americans faster.

 

[archangel2]

disney owns 30% of TSN Interesting times across Canadian media

That 30% is via the Espn connection

 

[Yukon Joe]

Not to get too political but the Conservatives would want to sell TSN to the Americans faster.

That would be difficult to do without changing legislation.

Remember the CRTC specifically blocked ESPN from owning any larger portion of TSN back in the day.

As well - I'm not sure how interested ABC would be in owning a Canadian sports cable channel - they don't own any cable channels in Canada at present, and it is a very different regulatory environment to work in.

 

[ColinM]

I'm most curious as to the original source of this rumour (as opposed to who first reported it). My first thought was that it must have been a higher up at Bell, but when you consider how discretely they sold MLSE to Rogers I doubt it was them. Could it have been an employee at TSN who is worried about their job security and what a Sportsnet/TSN merger would look like? Or perhaps just as likely could it be a reporter who wanted to idolly speculate. I genuinely think it is the 3rd scenario, since I doubt Bell would be in the business of ditching one of their most valuable TV properties unless they want out of TV all together. But to me that is a stretch since I don't think they would want to be in the TV distribution business without being in the TV channel business.

 

[Voight]

I'm most curious as to the original source of this rumour (as opposed to who first reported it). My first thought was that it must have been a higher up at Bell, but when you consider how discretely they sold MLSE to Rogers I doubt it was them. Could it have been an employee at TSN who is worried about their job security and what a Sportsnet/TSN merger would look like? Or perhaps just as likely could it be a reporter who wanted to idolly speculate. I genuinely think it is the 3rd scenario, since TSN I doubt Bell would be in the business of ditching one of their most valuable TV properties unless they want out of TV all together. But to me that is a stretch since I don't think they would want to be in the TV distribution business without being in the TV channel business.

It was discreet because I believe Rogers had a first buy option. They had to offer their share to Rogers first before exploring the market.

 

[ColinM]

It was discreet because I believe Rogers had a first buy option. They had to offer their share to Rogers first before exploring the market.

Fair but what is different about TSN than MSLE? If I'm Bell why not just ask Rogers rather than leak something through the media? Is there a meaningful incentive to throw out a trail balloon?

 

[Voight]

Fair but what is different about TSN than MSLE? If I'm Bell why not just ask Rogers rather than leak something through the media? Is there a meaningful incentive to throw out a trail balloon?

Well for one, Rogers isn't a partner in it. Bell has other partners in the network including Disney, so I imagine they've been told to field offers across the board. Instead of just doing a backroom deal with Rogers.

There could also be outrage if they sold their share to Rogers and didn't solicit bids from anyone else. One, you'd now be giving them a monopoly when ti comes to sports media, two their shareholders may not like that.

 

[varsaku]

I'm most curious as to the original source of this rumour (as opposed to who first reported it). My first thought was that it must have been a higher up at Bell, but when you consider how discretely they sold MLSE to Rogers I doubt it was them. Could it have been an employee at TSN who is worried about their job security and what a Sportsnet/TSN merger would look like? Or perhaps just as likely could it be a reporter who wanted to idolly speculate. I genuinely think it is the 3rd scenario, since I doubt Bell would be in the business of ditching one of their most valuable TV properties unless they want out of TV all together. But to me that is a stretch since I don't think they would want to be in the TV distribution business without being in the TV channel business.

AT&T sold Direct TV
Comcast sold alot of channels
Disney is looking at selling portions of ESPN.

Alot of big players in this market are leaving the TV channel business. It was only about time before it reached Canada. This whole model is shrinking as streaming continues to grow. Even if not true currently, it is only a matter of time before Bell decides to leave it.

 

[rojac]

disney owns 30% of TSN Interesting times across Canadian media

Technically, Disney probably owns only 24% of TSN because they only own 80% of ESPN. Hearst Communications owns the other 20%.

 

[ColinM]

There could also be outrage if they sold their share to Rogers and didn't solicit bids from anyone else. One, you'd now be giving them a monopoly when ti comes to sports media, two their shareholders may not like that.

And perhaps that is the real end game. Like a lot of things TSN would be for sale not for just any price but for Bell's price.

 

[Yukon Joe]

I'm most curious as to the original source of this rumour (as opposed to who first reported it). My first thought was that it must have been a higher up at Bell, but when you consider how discretely they sold MLSE to Rogers I doubt it was them.

You know what I think you're right in that we should have looked more closely at the source of the story.

First of all it's posted by yyzsportsmedia.com On the homepage it has stories from December 8 (this one, then October 31 and October 20.

At the bottom of the article it says:

Born and raised in Toronto, Jonah Sigel is currently based in Seattle, WA. An avid sports fan, Jonah took to writing about the sports media world back in 2004 with two young kids at home, a new job and a return to Toronto.

This is some guys blog. I'll give him credit for posting under his real name, but I'm not quite sure why his reporting is more important than anyone else.

Then, let's look at the precise words he used to report:

Industry insiders indicate Bell Media could be actively exploring the sale of TSN and its affiliated properties. This isn’t just idle speculation – it’s part of what many consider to be a a larger strategic shift at Bell, which has already announced plans to divest its MLSE shares. The company’s priorities became even clearer with Bell Canada’s $3.6 billion acquisition of Ziply Fiber, a Pacific Northwest broadband provider serving Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana. The message is clear: Bell is pivoting away from media content toward core telecommunications infrastructure.

So just to make it clear - he isn't quoting anyone from Bell, or anyone with "knowledge from insiders" - he's only quoting "industry insiders". An awful lot of people could be considered an "industry insider". That could be a corporate bigwig at Rogers, or a major sports media figure like Bob McKenzie - or it could be the late night sports radio producer - or even someone with a blog about sports media.

And those "industry insiders" aren't saying Bell "is" selling TSN, rather that it "could be".

No fair enough - cable tv is not a good industry to be in, for all the reasons pointed out in the article. So maybe someday Bell will divest TSN. But nobody is credibly reporting it's happening right now.

Oh - and a spokesman at Bell categorically denies the story:

However, Bell Media is denying that TSN is for sale.

“There is no truth to the report that TSN is being considered for sale. It is not,” a Bell Media spokesperson told Daily Hive.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/tsn-for-sale-bell-media

Note there are no wiggle words here. There's no "at this time", or "is not actively pursuing" - instead a flat report that TSN is not for sale.

Public companies like Bell Canada have to be very careful about their public communications, because saying anything untrue can get them in trouble with securities regulators.

 

[ColinM]

Note there are no wiggle words here. There's no "at this time", or "is not actively pursuing" - instead a flat report that TSN is not for sale.

Public companies like Bell Canada have to be very careful about their public communications, because saying anything untrue can get them in trouble with securities regulators.

And I think this part is the most interesting. Is this convenient false denial by Bell or do they really mean this? You are right that what Publicly Traded Companies say publicly have consequences which is why what they said is likely truthful. I understand everything in the world of business is for sale for the right price but the fact that TSN's sports content is 1) likely profitable given what they pay for it 2) Streamable given that they sell TSN direct subscriptions, means Bell likely isn't shopping TSN yet.

 

[MMC]

You know what I think you're right in that we should have looked more closely at the source of the story.

First of all it's posted by yyzsportsmedia.com On the homepage it has stories from December 8 (this one, then October 31 and October 20.

At the bottom of the article it says:



This is some guys blog. I'll give him credit for posting under his real name, but I'm not quite sure why his reporting is more important than anyone else.

Then, let's look at the precise words he used to report:



So just to make it clear - he isn't quoting anyone from Bell, or anyone with "knowledge from insiders" - he's only quoting "industry insiders". An awful lot of people could be considered an "industry insider". That could be a corporate bigwig at Rogers, or a major sports media figure like Bob McKenzie - or it could be the late night sports radio producer - or even someone with a blog about sports media.

And those "industry insiders" aren't saying Bell "is" selling TSN, rather that it "could be".

No fair enough - cable tv is not a good industry to be in, for all the reasons pointed out in the article. So maybe someday Bell will divest TSN. But nobody is credibly reporting it's happening right now.

Oh - and a spokesman at Bell categorically denies the story:

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/tsn-for-sale-bell-media

Note there are no wiggle words here. There's no "at this time", or "is not actively pursuing" - instead a flat report that TSN is not for sale.

Public companies like Bell Canada have to be very careful about their public communications, because saying anything untrue can get them in trouble with securities regulators.

He was the first person to break the news of Amazon acquiring NHL games on Monday nights

 

[ColinM]

He was the first person to break the news of Amazon acquiring NHL games on Monday nights

So knowing this, here's a conspiracy theory:

The industry source is someone at Rogers who wants the world to think TSN is for sale in order to make any offers Bell makes for NHL broadcast rights seem less credible.

I realize that I have no proof of this. But sometimes when these things come up its fun to speculate.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

You could sell the rights to the hockey theme that you so proudly kept.

 

[Takuto Maruki]

Remember the CRTC specifically blocked ESPN from owning any larger portion of TSN back in the day.

Realistically though, does ESPN even *want* to own anymore then they currently do? They have a plum arrangement that basically has them as the sugar daddy raking in money from their ownership stake, in exchange for licensing out their content. Do they really want to take on more then they are already doing, especially knowing that they'll have to pay licensing rights from specifically NBC and Turner if they own the whole thing, and not have Bell paying those licensing fees?

This is some guys blog. I'll give him credit for posting under his real name, but I'm not quite sure why his reporting is more important than anyone else.

Jonah's more or less the most locked in guy in terms of Canadian sports media movement. He's about as credible as it gets when it comes to this niche.

 

[CokenoPepsi]

You could sell the rights to the hockey theme that you so proudly kept.

Just thinking about that the other day, man they really butchered the theme