Cont'd - NHL makes 12-year/$5.2 billion Canadian TV deal w/ Sportsnet, CBC, TSN out

[New Liskeard]

Things will be real ugly 5 years from now. Sportsnet is going to ruin hockey in canada.

Based on what? The magnitude of this venture and how Rogers delivers the NHL, was a big proponent on the NHL signing off on this deal. Rogers has the platforms, avenues and technical ingenuity to deliver in a way that has never been done anywhere in the world.

With what is at stake here, all areas will be looked at to perform effectively. That includes looking at the TSN model and its employees as well. There is little doubt, the TSN hockey staff is far superior, but logistics alone tells you Rogers will have to increase the hockey staff for this venture. and quite possibly, ex TSN employees.

 

[New Liskeard]

Just want to point out that this is a bad deal for fans for one very simple reason. Rogers now has a near total monopoly on the coverage of NHL games in Canada, on all platforms. They are a ISP, a content producer and a content provider. Believe me that a monopoly is never, and I mean never, good for consumers. Especially one like this.

This is the worst thing that could have happened for fans in Canada, just wait and see.

Yeah, Canadians all across the country can watch any team at any time, on TV the internet, hand held devices etc. Not to mention the immediate increase in revenue into the NHL to not only strengthen the sport, but increase HRR immediately, and potentially even more by allowing more people to more access of NHL hockey. Sounds awful.

 

[SomeSortOfHockey]

Bell was also negotiating under the assumption of the NHL moving to this 3 night a week national model with 3 networks owing the 3 days...so CBC on Saturday, Rogers on Sunday and TSN on Wednesday.

I'd say this deal came as a huge slap in the face to them.

THIS is what would have been good for fans. What actually happened is the worst possible outcome.

 

[kdb209]

To put it in perspective.

Rogers is paying 433 million per year in this current agreement

The NFL gets what 4 billion per year in TV rights in the states.

USA is 10x the size of Canada... so per capita Canada pays more for their TV rights than everyone combined in the US for the NFL the worlds best run league.

Actually, between FOX/CBS/NBC/ESPN/DirecTV the NFL will be pulling in ~$4.9B this year - increasing to ~$6B/yr in '14 when their new broadcast deals (FOX/CBS/NBC) kick in.

FOX: $725M/yr -> $1.1B/yr
CBS: $625M/yr -> $1.0B/yr
NBC: $612M/yr -> $950M/yr
ESPN: $1.9B/yr
DirecTV: $1B/yr

With Latest Network Agreements, the N.F.L. Outdoes Even Itself

 

[The CyNick]

Just want to point out that this is a bad deal for fans for one very simple reason. Rogers now has a near total monopoly on the coverage of NHL games in Canada, on all platforms. They are a ISP, a content producer and a content provider. Believe me that a monopoly is never, and I mean never, good for consumers. Especially one like this.

This is the worst thing that could have happened for fans in Canada, just wait and see.

How is it bad?

Its not like you have to have Rogers cable to get CBC, CITY TV and the Sportsnet suite of channels. You can get them on any cable company.

Rogers is in a very price sensitive business. They cant just jack up prices like crazy and expect to keep subscribers. And if they do, and customers pay, well fair play to them.

A lot of (ignorant) people in this thread cant seem to understand that the bottom line for FANS is that you will ow have access to more games. In reality, for the next 4 years, nothing will change. You will still tune in to CBC to watch games on Saturdays. The only difference will be you have to watch SN on Wednesdays instead of TSN, and you will get access to more games on Sunday and Saturday.

 

[Fenway]

Rogers gets to keep all advertising revenue generated from HNIC broadcasts. The CBC has used that huge piece of revenue to make up for the fact that they lose money on most of their other content. That other content must now be propped up entirely by Canadian taxpayers. CBC already costs taxpayers a lot of money, and now they've lost the one big money-maker they did have.

You may well see in the next 4 years CBC deciding to close down the TV service and sell the stations they own to Rogers.

Of course the CRTC may say no and just have CBC turn in the licenses like what happened when CBC abandoned the AM radio band.

 

[joelef]

A private profit making company trying to make revenue Oh the horror. Its seems like canadian hockey fans and bettman haters dont seem to have the first clue how to run a business.

 

[Vegeta]

Yeah, Canadians all across the country can watch any team at any time, on TV the internet, hand held devices etc. Not to mention the immediate increase in revenue into the NHL to not only strengthen the sport, but increase HRR immediately, and potentially even more by allowing more people to more access of NHL hockey. Sounds awful.

Yeah, and at what price? Rogers is calling all the shots, and they're going to make everyone pay a premium for their services.

 

[The CyNick]

You do know CBC is involved in other things, don't you?

Whistleblowing, documentaries, radio, original films, community work, investigating people problems, and so forth.

Hell I listen to CBC every morning just to get decent traffic reporting every 10 minutes.

Yes, and if those things were valuable to Canadians, they would be able to generate profit from advertising like other TV properties do.

Again, its no reason to have taxpayers pay for ANYTHING on CBC.

 

[saskganesh]

Rogers gets to keep all advertising revenue generated from HNIC broadcasts. The CBC has used that huge piece of revenue to make up for the fact that they lose money on most of their other content. That other content must now be propped up entirely by Canadian taxpayers. CBC already costs taxpayers a lot of money, and now they've lost the one big money-maker they did have.

Maybe, maybe not. One connected commentator I read today said that the CBC actually wound up losing money on the last deal, so when the lockout happened, the network did not fare badly.

It does put CBC at a crossroads. They are either going to have to invest in money making content/or put out really cheap stuff just to fill air.

We'll see. There's no way the CBC will get more/i] money from the feds. We do know there will be another round of layoffs.

 

[The CyNick]

Sportsnet just spent the first 9 minutes of their Sportsnet Connected gloating and being giddy of the deal.

As they should. Its a game changer. They now are the #1 sports channel in Canada. They have a right to gloat and be happy.

 

[Vegeta]

A private profit making company trying to make revenue Oh the horror. Its seems like canadian hockey fans and bettman haters dont seem to have the first clue how to run a business.

No one said this was bad for business. This is a great business deal for the NHL and Rogers, but it's **** for Canadian consumers.

 

[The CyNick]

So we should just have a public entity provide profits to a private enterprise? Nostalgia is goign to be prove very costly and problematic for Canadians. If we're going to have to pay more tax dollars to keep CBC Id rather it not make a profit for rogers.

The only other option in this was CBC gets nothing. They didnt have the cake to make the deal. At least this way they can promote their shows that nobody will watch during HNIC.

Dont create some false narrative where the big bad Rogers swooped in and stole something from the poor CBC.

If CBC cant turn a profit, they shouldnt exist in any capacity.

 

[The CyNick]

No taxpayer money is involved - CBC is simply giving Rogers the channel in return for promoting other CBC shows.

It is important to remember that HNIC has only been owned by CBC for 10-15 years.

It used to be owned by MacLaren Advertising which was the ad agency for Imperial Esso ( which simply bought the time from CBC ) and then in the 80's Molstar took over.

Bell crunched the numbers and walked.

You are assuming Bell was the NHL's first choice, perhaps Rogers was.

 

[saskganesh]

Yes, and if those things were valuable to Canadians, they would be able to generate profit from advertising like other TV properties do.

Again, its no reason to have taxpayers pay for ANYTHING on CBC.

By that argument, there's no reason for me to pay for the roads you drive on, the schools your children go to, or for your parent's hospital. After all, all those things should generate a profit as well

But we do pay for them. Because it's all infrastructure and generally considered public goods.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

How is it bad?

Its not like you have to have Rogers cable to get CBC, CITY TV and the Sportsnet suite of channels. You can get them on any cable company.

Rogers is in a very price sensitive business. They cant just jack up prices like crazy and expect to keep subscribers. And if they do, and customers pay, well fair play to them.

A lot of (ignorant) people in this thread cant seem to understand that the bottom line for FANS is that you will ow have access to more games. In reality, for the next 4 years, nothing will change. You will still tune in to CBC to watch games on Saturdays. The only difference will be you have to watch SN on Wednesdays instead of TSN, and you will get access to more games on Sunday and Saturday.

At an undoubtedly higher cost. How much higher remains to be seen, but when it comes to monopolies, there really is no supply-and-demand to naturally govern costs.

How many people were really clamouring for more content, to be honest? Under the current conditions, scarcely a night goes by that there isn't a game on TV, often two, sometimes three. As far as consumption of the product, my guess would be that the consumers are pretty much saturated. You can't watch 6 games at a time. Of course you can channel surf and stop in at numerous games, but for the vast majority of people, they'll be watching their favorite team play and only be flipping over during intermissions. If you're an Oiler fan, the fact that a Coyotes-Sharks game is being played on a different station while the Oilers are playing doesn't really matter too much.

 

[The CyNick]

You may well see in the next 4 years CBC deciding to close down the TV service and sell the stations they own to Rogers.

Of course the CRTC may say no and just have CBC turn in the licenses like what happened when CBC abandoned the AM radio band.

Very unlikely Rogers is able to purchase CBC stations due to CRTC regs.

 

[joelef]

At an undoubtedly higher cost. How much higher remains to be seen, but when it comes to monopolies, there really is no supply-and-demand to naturally govern costs.

How many people were really clamouring for more content, to be honest? Under the current conditions, scarcely a night goes by that there isn't a game on TV, often two, sometimes three. As far as consumption of the product, my guess would be that the consumers are pretty much saturated. You can't watch 6 games at a time. Of course you can channel surf and stop in at numerous games, but for the vast majority of people, they'll be watching their favorite team play and only be flipping over during intermissions. If you're an Oiler fan, the fact that a Coyotes-Sharks game is being played on a different station while the Oilers are playing doesn't really matter too much.

They were willing to pay more then TSN and CBC .End of story,

 

[The CyNick]

By that argument, there's no reason for me to pay for the roads you drive on, the schools your children go to, or for your parent's hospital. After all, all those things should generate a profit as well

But we do pay for them. Because it's all infrastructure and generally considered public goods.

Terrible comparison. There's no real benefit to Canadian culture from seeing Dragon's Den on CBC. That show could have been successful on Global, CITY, or CTV.

As for roads, I would be happy to see all roads have tolls on them. And I believe in private education and schooling, so next...

 

[madhi19]

Just want to point out that this is a bad deal for fans for one very simple reason. Rogers now has a near total monopoly on the coverage of NHL games in Canada, on all platforms. They are a ISP, a content producer and a content provider. Believe me that a monopoly is never, and I mean never, good for consumers. Especially one like this.

This is the worst thing that could have happened for fans in Canada, just wait and see.

They did not pay this much just to play nice with competitors that for sure. But Bell also own a crapload of content and if Rogers was to pull out of the Bell platform (FibeTV/BellTV) Bell would retaliate by pulling some of their own stuff. So really that not in the cards off course the small independent cable operator might not be so lucky if there any left anyway. Will Rogers and Videotron use that new content to make a push out of their own market? That was the whole point I believe more competition is never a bad thing.

 

[SomeSortOfHockey]

Yeah, Canadians all across the country can watch any team at any time, on TV the internet, hand held devices etc. Not to mention the immediate increase in revenue into the NHL to not only strengthen the sport, but increase HRR immediately, and potentially even more by allowing more people to more access of NHL hockey. Sounds awful.

You think that? Wow. No, fans will be able to watch games on their devices and tv if they pay, and pay, and pay. Do you think you are going to get these games for free as part of your basic cable, or some stream or what ever? Of course not. You will be paying for them, and you will be paying hell of allot more then you do today via all the other available options. You will have multiple sportsnet channels, each showing different games, each you will have to pay extra for. Add it all up and you will either be burning a hole in your pocket or you wont be watching "all these games". You want to stream them? Good luck unless you shell even more money.

Believe me this is the worst, absolutely worst thing that could have happened. Wait and see if you dont believe me.

 

[JBIZ14]

At an undoubtedly higher cost. How much higher remains to be seen, but when it comes to monopolies, there really is no supply-and-demand to naturally govern costs.

How many people were really clamouring for more content, to be honest? Under the current conditions, scarcely a night goes by that there isn't a game on TV, often two, sometimes three. As far as consumption of the product, my guess would be that the consumers are pretty much saturated. You can't watch 6 games at a time. Of course you can channel surf and stop in at numerous games, but for the vast majority of people, they'll be watching their favorite team play and only be flipping over during intermissions. If you're an Oiler fan, the fact that a Coyotes-Sharks game is being played on a different station while the Oilers are playing doesn't really matter too much.

If what Moore said about a possible SN centre ice that allows Canadians to watch all regional broadcasts for around $5-6 Ill be saving a considerable amount on NHL hockey next season.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Noooooooooooooo! No no no no no! I do NOT want to watch Hazel Mae, Nick Kypreos, Bob McGowan, Bill Watters, Gord Stellick, Darren Millard that idiot Gene Principe and the host of other Rogers Sportsnet Kast of Klowns.

If your taking ****ing hockey then hire the entire TSN broadcast crew and PLEASE - Jennifer Hedger - hire her NOW and boot Hazel Mae to the curb. And Dutchy, grab him while your there.

I just suffered through Hazel Mae earlier tonight and christ is she awful. One has to hope they nab Jennifer Hedger or Kate Beirness. Granted, TSN will still have Sportscentre. So worst comes to worst. We have that.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Maybe, maybe not. One connected commentator I read today said that the CBC actually wound up losing money on the last deal, so when the lockout happened, the network did not fare badly.

It does put CBC at a crossroads. They are either going to have to invest in money making content/or put out really cheap stuff just to fill air.

We'll see. There's no way the CBC will get more/i] money from the feds. We do know there will be another round of layoffs.

So no matter how you slice it, the Canadian people are at a disservice in one capacity or another. More tax money or layoffs of Canadian citizens to cut costs. While a private enterprise utilizes CBC to generate profit for themselves. It's ridiculous.

 

[New Liskeard]

Yeah, and at what price? Rogers is calling all the shots, and they're going to make everyone pay a premium for their services.[/QUOTE]

Oh? Based on what factual evidence? You see, when the rights were given to Rogers, the expectations are that through the various platforms Rogers has, they will bring more NHL to more people than every before through Canada. Once this is achieved the expectations is more significant growth in the NHL due to exposure to name but one of many things. Do you really think that Bettman and company would give Rogers all the rights, only to create a monolopy that would deter fans from watching hockey? Seriously think about that logically. Not to mention, Rogers charging so much for the product as you are suggesting, will provide much less revenue back to Rogers.