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

[Ducksforcup]

I'm biased laugh but as a fan of a team in a non-traditional market, this deal helps the struggling (financially) franchises tremendously. I'm not saying that's why Bettman did this deal, but we might be in a situation where most (if not all) of the teams in the NHL are either breaking even or even making money by next season.

NHL has never been in a healthier situation financially (IMO).

 

[Faltorvo]

You seriously believe that they will raise prices to get their 400M/year back?

These broadcasting rights mean higher ratings, therefore higher value of advertising on their channels. It's simple. It's not like it'll instantly cost 25$/month to have Sportsnet.

This is what your going to see happen.

We are going to gain access to more NHL games.

BUT the premium teams up here are going to get parcelled off (over time) to maximise Revs.

Over time, more games from those "premium teams" will find their way onto pay to view channels.

As an example, since Leafs TV inception, rogers has increased the amount of games on there by 100%.

Of the Leafs games that Rogers had broadcast rites to this season, how many did they stick onto their pay to view channel?

75% of them?

20% of all Leafs games are now on a single pay to view channel.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

You're not really paying more then you do now though. Just the ever increasing cable costs which would go up regardless of this but most people that have anything beyond the very basic cable package have the 6 Sportsnet channels and City and multiple CBC's already.

You've always needed a high end cable package to get all the games of any team outside your local region. And if you have that, you already have all the channels a national game will be on.

The value of SN One and SN 360 just increased significantly. You can bet your bottom dollar that Rogers will increase the cost to purchase these channels for their own subscribers and alternate carriers that they sell the right to broadcast the channel to. Right now those channels don't cost much to have because there's nothing on them but a bunch of junk nobody cares about. They're tacked on to the general sports package. That will be changing within a couple of years if not immediately now that they will become a hot commodity.

 

[joelef]

TSN didnt value NHL as much as rogers.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Actually, it is similar. TSN is still free to go get regional coverage. They already have the Jets, Habs and starting next year, some of the Maple Leafs.

As consumers, we will still get 2 games every Saturday night on CBC. Yes, CBC will lose editorial control over HNIC, but as a consumer, we have no idea if that will affect us or not. I doubt it will. Rogers will want to keep that brand alive and well since it gets the revenue it generates.

Playoffs will now be split between CBC and Rogers. It used to be split between CBC and TSN. Yes, Rogers has more control and will likely be able to dictate match ups more than CBC or TSN did, but whatever.

I'm not thrilled with the deal, but there's too much chicken little going on with this.

Sportsnet still has the majority of regional coverage, and 100% of non-regional coverage. If TSN had every Canadian team's regional coverage, this might be a different story. CBC is controlled by Rogers now, they are a non-factor in this. Rogers has 100% control over the Stanley Cup playoffs.

You can say "oh whatever", but people will be singing a different tune when a Leafs playoff game is on SN 360 while CBC is showing a Hurricanes-Lightning matchup.

 

[Jack Bauer]

The value of SN One and SN 360 just increased significantly. You can bet your bottom dollar that Rogers will increase the cost to purchase these channels for their own subscribers and alternate carriers that they sell the right to broadcast the channel to. Right now those channels don't cost much to have because there's nothing on them but a bunch of junk nobody cares about. They're tacked on to the general sports package. That will be changing within a couple of years if not immediately now that they will become a hot commodity.

That's not really how it works though.

Your bill didn't go up the day SN1 and/or TSN2 were launched.

Over time it ALL goes up. That goes without saying.

But there's no immediate need for a customer on most extended cable systems to buy more channels, they already have what they need and will see no immediate increase to their bills.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Sportsnet still has the majority of regional coverage, and 100% of non-regional coverage. If TSN had every Canadian team's regional coverage, this might be a different story. CBC is controlled by Rogers now, they are a non-factor in this. Rogers has 100% control over the Stanley Cup playoffs.

You can say "oh whatever", but people will be singing a different tune when a Leafs playoff game is on SN 360 while CBC is showing a Hurricanes-Lightning matchup.

I would say a more likely comparison is an OTT-FLA game on CBC while the Leafs are on SN1 or the regional SN channels as a national game.

I don't think you'll ever see a Saturday on CBC with 2 American teams. That defeats the purpose of even using the CBC. That's what SN360 and City are for.

 

[theaub]

Its extremely laughable that people think Rogers will put marquee matchups on a secondary channel.

Everything of value will be on the main Sportsnet channel or CBC. Per that sample schedule, it looks like Sportsnet will be the #1 station which frankly makes sense as more and more leagues move away from network television. But to think that they're going to shove the Leafs on SN360 or SN1 during the playoffs is frankly moronic.

 

[Jack Bauer]

How much crazier about hockey can Canada get?

I think it is much more likely they will just find ways to nickel and dime the already passionate fans.

It works for the Leafs!

This.

The post 2005 lockout buzz has long worn off here in Canada. Just ask Edmonton and Ottawa fans and look at some of their recent attendance figures which were at less then 100% of capacity.

Get ready to pay for any and all premium content including webcasts and the like that are currently available on CBC for free.

 

[FuriousSenator]

[MOD]



Let me spell it out for you: MONOPOLY = BAD FOR CONSUMER. Economics 101.

Rogers has unlimited power to charge you the maximum threshold to watch your favourite team now where it used to be split amongst three channels.

Before next year I would be able to watch every single Sens game (reg. season & playoffs) using exclusively SPORTSNET EAST, TSN (main channel), and CBC. One of those is free, two come with the basic package (or cost almost nothing to tack on).

Next year, in order to watch the Sens, I will in all likelihood be required to have Sportsnet East, Sportsnet One, Sportsnet 360, and CBC. I just bought two extra channels because I AM FORCED TO.

Do you see what kind of negative precedent this sets?

Those who think nothing will change in terms of cost need to get their heads checked.

Those who think an extra $20 a month is no big deal and we should "calm down" have not experienced hardship whatsoever and also need to get their heads checked.

 

[Faltorvo]

I would say a more likely comparison is an OTT-FLA game on CBC while the Leafs are on SN1 or the regional SN channels as a national game.

I don't think you'll ever see a Saturday on CBC with 2 American teams. That defeats the purpose of even using the CBC. That's what SN360 and City are for.

In general, this deal will benefit Canadian hockey fans on the whole, but mark my words, the fans of those teams with the largest national fans bases are going to have to pay more to watch "their team" over time.

Like Mon,Van,TO.

JB they have 4 years to slowly transition prime playoff games to the other channels.

This will be the slow boil effect. It will be a slow bait and switch.

An example, Rogers has increased the amount of Leafs games onto their pay to view channel by 100% since it's inception, has anyone really noticed or raised hell?

What is it now this year?75% of all Leafs games where Rogers has the rites are on this pay to view channel?

 

[Jack Bauer]

Its extremely laughable that people think Rogers will put marquee matchups on a secondary channel.

Everything of value will be on the main Sportsnet channel or CBC. Per that sample schedule, it looks like Sportsnet will be the #1 station which frankly makes sense as more and more leagues move away from network television. But to think that they're going to shove the Leafs on SN360 or SN1 during the playoffs is frankly moronic.

Exactly. Rogers goal isn't to make SN360 or SN1 or City the destination of hockey fans. It's to make people aware that those channels exist with other options then the 2 that have been shoved down your throat for 60 years on CBC.

I think more options are good, but I also realize that it's not REALLY more options because they're using marketing lingo to make it all sound better when it's really more like the current deal only with 1 company controlling production instead of 2 and we're supposed to care more about the Saturday night random american games then we are about the Sunday afternoon NBC games we get anyway even though we're still going to be watching the same game on Saturday at 7est that we would have on CBC this year anyway.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

That's not really how it works though.

Your bill didn't go up the day SN1 and/or TSN2 were launched.

Over time it ALL goes up. That goes without saying.

But there's no immediate need for a customer on most extended cable systems to buy more channels, they already have what they need and will see no immediate increase to their bills.

Well, actually it did go up when SN1 came out because you needed that channel in order to give you access to SN Oilers and SN Flames in Alberta. (Gee, Rogers strong-arming providers/customers into buying up multiple SN channels, how interesting). There was no increase when TSN2 came out because it wasn't really a necessary channel for most people since it rarely, if ever, shows games involving Canadian teams.

Now that Rogers has the potential to stick however many games they want involving Canadian teams on SN1, 360, or even World, the market for those channels just increased hugely. If SN360 disappeared today, nobody would care because nobody watches it. But when it is suddenly showing a bunch of hockey games involving Canadian teams, the demand for it shoots way up, and therefore to price Rogers charges their own subscribers and other carriers goes way up.

Is your cable bill going to skyrocket immediately in October of 2014? No, probably not. But it will start climbing, and the cost of having access to all the Sportsnet channels will be increasing far beyond the normal rate of cable price inflation. That I can say with certainty.

 

[Jack Bauer]

[MOD]



Let me spell it out for you: MONOPOLY = BAD FOR CONSUMER. Economics 101.

Rogers has unlimited power to charge you the maximum threshold to watch your favourite team now where it used to be split amongst three channels.

Before next year I would be able to watch every single Sens game (reg. season & playoffs) using exclusively SPORTSNET EAST, TSN (main channel), and CBC. One of those is free, two come with the basic package (or cost almost nothing to tack on).

Next year, in order to watch the Sens, I will in all likelihood be required to have Sportsnet East, Sportsnet One, Sportsnet 360, and CBC. I just bought two extra channels because I AM FORCED TO.

Do you see what kind of negative precedent this sets?

Those who think nothing will change in terms of cost need to get their heads checked.

Those who think an extra $20 a month is no big deal and we should "calm down" have not experienced hardship whatsoever and also need to get their heads checked.

Ottawa had regional games on SN1 in the past during the year they launched. The channel is still in the Eastlink guide. So you didn't always JUST need those 3 channels. Pretty sure there's been 1 or 2 on TSN2 as well.

I haven't seen anyone say a Monopoly is a good thing.

My argument is that cable is going up regardless of stuff like this, the CRTC is what keeps Rogers from basically monopolizing their channels in terms of becoming pay per view TV.

If they want to offer more coverage to the consumer on a PPV basis then that is their right.

But Rogers does NOT have the type of power you say they do to jack up cable rates. That is why the CRTC exists.

Just curious but how much extra does it cost to get SN360 and SN1 on a cable tier that already has TSN and SNE? Most providers that i've seen includes all those channels in the same bundle.

 

[colchar]

This is what your going to see happen.

We are going to gain access to more NHL games.

BUT the premium teams up here are going to get parcelled off (over time) to maximise Revs.

Over time, more games from those "premium teams" will find their way onto pay to view channels.

As an example, since Leafs TV inception, rogers has increased the amount of games on there by 100%.

Of the Leafs games that Rogers had broadcast rites to this season, how many did they stick onto their pay to view channel?

75% of them?

20% of all Leafs games are now on a single pay to view channel.

If what you suggest comes true, for those of us who have the full VIP package from Rogers it won't make one bit of difference as we are already getting those channels.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Well, actually it did go up when SN1 came out because you needed that channel in order to give you access to SN Oilers and SN Flames in Alberta. (Gee, Rogers strong-arming providers/customers into buying up multiple SN channels, how interesting). There was no increase when TSN2 came out because it wasn't really a necessary channel for most people since it rarely, if ever, shows games involving Canadian teams.

Now that Rogers has the potential to stick however many games they want involving Canadian teams on SN1, 360, or even World, the market for those channels just increased hugely. If SN360 disappeared today, nobody would care because nobody watches it. But when it is suddenly showing a bunch of hockey games involving Canadian teams, the demand for it shoots way up, and therefore to price Rogers charges their own subscribers and other carriers goes way up.

Is your cable bill going to skyrocket immediately in October of 2014? No, probably not. But it will start climbing, and the cost of having access to all the Sportsnet channels will be increasing far beyond the normal rate of cable price inflation. That I can say with certainty.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

Your bill DID go up the day SN1 came out but not TSN2? Perhaps it was a normal increase having nothing to do with that 1 channel?

Why didn't the cost of TSN go up over the last decade? It's in the same package as Sportsnet and The Score were for years on any cable system i've seen. No extra cost for the 1 channel. Never has been.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Its extremely laughable that people think Rogers will put marquee matchups on a secondary channel.

Everything of value will be on the main Sportsnet channel or CBC. Per that sample schedule, it looks like Sportsnet will be the #1 station which frankly makes sense as more and more leagues move away from network television. But to think that they're going to shove the Leafs on SN360 or SN1 during the playoffs is frankly moronic.

Why is it laughable? This is what monopolies do. This is why there are laws in place to prevent monopolization of services. You are going under the assumption that there are checks and balances in place, and those things are in place in competitive marketplaces. This is no longer a competitive marketplace, it's a monopoly.

Why would everything of value be on the main network or CBC? If that's the case, nobody is going to order SN1 or 360. The only way Rogers is going to recoup the massive amount of money they have shelled out for these rights is through droves of people being forced to subscribe to multiple Sportsnet channels in order to watch their favorite Canadian team.

Why wouldn't Rogers shove the Leafs on 360 during the playoffs? 2 million people are going to call up and order that channel instantly if that happens. It would be a great business decision for Rogers. The only thing that could possibly prevent it is the NHL themselves crying foul that Rogers has pissed off millions of their fans. But as long as that $400 million cheque doesn't bounce, I don't think they'll be too concerned.

 

[Faltorvo]

Well, actually it did go up when SN1 came out because you needed that channel in order to give you access to SN Oilers and SN Flames in Alberta. (Gee, Rogers strong-arming providers/customers into buying up multiple SN channels, how interesting). There was no increase when TSN2 came out because it wasn't really a necessary channel for most people since it rarely, if ever, shows games involving Canadian teams.

Now that Rogers has the potential to stick however many games they want involving Canadian teams on SN1, 360, or even World, the market for those channels just increased hugely. If SN360 disappeared today, nobody would care because nobody watches it. But when it is suddenly showing a bunch of hockey games involving Canadian teams, the demand for it shoots way up, and therefore to price Rogers charges their own subscribers and other carriers goes way up.

Is your cable bill going to skyrocket immediately in October of 2014? No, probably not. But it will start climbing, and the cost of having access to all the Sportsnet channels will be increasing far beyond the normal rate of cable price inflation. That I can say with certainty.

They will put every Canadian team on a rotation for each channel ,enough to warrant their specific fan base to get every channel.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I don't understand what you're saying here.

Your bill DID go up the day SN1 came out but not TSN2? Perhaps it was a normal increase having nothing to do with that 1 channel?

Why didn't the cost of TSN go up over the last decade? It's in the same package as Sportsnet and The Score were for years on any cable system i've seen. No extra cost for the 1 channel. Never has been.

TSN2 was just a nice perk in the sports package. Almost nobody was going to order that package on the basis of whether or not TSN2 was in there, because they rarely televise any hockey games involving somebody's favorite Canadian team. It wasn't in high demand. Bell couldn't charge providers that much to carry it, because providers couldn't charge their customers that much to access it.

SN1 however, gave you access to about a dozen or so Oilers and Flames games through the companion channel SN Oilers/SN Flames. Therefore, huge demand for the channel. Rogers charged Shaw Cable, the main provider in Western Canada, an outrageous amount of money for the right to carry it. Shaw was bombarded by thousands of customers demanding the channel, and had no choice but to buck up. Shaw in fact LOST money by deciding to carry SN1, but would have lost a whole lot more if a bunch of pissed off subscribers reacted by cancelling their cable subscriptions entirely.

Naturally, Shaw wasn't going to continue losing money in perpetuity over carrying the station, so the cost is eventually recouped by increasing cable bills across the board at a rate greater than inflation. If somebody's bill is suddenly $20 more per month, they're going to be angry. If it only goes up by $2 per month for 12 months, most people aren't even going to notice, even though it actually cost them slightly more in the end.

So no, my cable bill didn't instantaneously increase when SN1 hit the airwaves, but I still ended up paying for that increase incrementally over time.

 

[Faltorvo]

Why is it laughable? This is what monopolies do. This is why there are laws in place to prevent monopolization of services. You are going under the assumption that there are checks and balances in place, and those things are in place in competitive marketplaces. This is no longer a competitive marketplace, it's a monopoly.

Why would everything of value be on the main network or CBC? If that's the case, nobody is going to order SN1 or 360. The only way Rogers is going to recoup the massive amount of money they have shelled out for these rights is through droves of people being forced to subscribe to multiple Sportsnet channels in order to watch their favorite Canadian team.

Why wouldn't Rogers shove the Leafs on 360 during the playoffs? 2 million people are going to call up and order that channel instantly if that happens. It would be a great business decision for Rogers. The only thing that could possibly prevent it is the NHL themselves crying foul that Rogers has pissed off millions of their fans. But as long as that $400 million cheque doesn't bounce, I don't think they'll be too concerned.

KM, this 360 premise is a valid one but they will do it slowly, gently.

They will slowly start to shift Leaf reg season sat night games to those other channels.

They will in conjunction with the NHL schedulers have a premium game to slot into that sat game when the Leafs get shifted, say a Mon/Pitt matchup and the leafs will play a less marque team .

Fans of those 2 teams will flock to where ever the leaf game is and the sat night CBC game will retain the general HNIC hockey fans and those of their teams.

 

[Faltorvo]

TSN2 was just a nice perk in the sports package. Almost nobody was going to order that package on the basis of whether or not TSN2 was in there, because they rarely televise any hockey games involving somebody's favorite Canadian team. It wasn't in high demand. Bell couldn't charge providers that much to carry it, because providers couldn't charge their customers that much to access it.

SN1 however, gave you access to about a dozen or so Oilers and Flames games through the companion channel SN Oilers/SN Flames. Therefore, huge demand for the channel. Rogers charged Shaw Cable, the main provider in Western Canada, an outrageous amount of money for the right to carry it. Shaw was bombarded by thousands of customers demanding the channel, and had no choice but to buck up. Shaw in fact LOST money by deciding to carry SN1, but would have lost a whole lot more if a bunch of pissed off subscribers reacted by cancelling their cable subscriptions entirely.

Naturally, Shaw wasn't going to continue losing money in perpetuity over carrying the station, so the cost is eventually recouped by increasing cable bills across the board at a rate greater than inflation. If somebody's bill is suddenly $20 more per month, they're going to be angry. If it only goes up by $2 per month for 12 months, most people aren't even going to notice, even though it actually cost them slightly more in the end.

So no, my cable bill didn't instantaneously increase when SN1 hit the airwaves, but I still ended up paying for that increase incrementally over time.

Ahh ,the slow boil, incremental change.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

KM, this 360 premise is a valid one but they will do it slowly, gently.

They will slowly start to shift Leaf reg season sat night games to those other channels.

They will in conjunction with the NHL schedulers have a premium game to slot into that sat game when the Leafs get shifted, say a Mon/Pitt matchup and the leafs will play a less marque team .

Fans of those 2 teams will flock to where ever the leaf game is and the sat night CBC game will retain the general HNIC hockey fans and those of their teams.

Oh yeah, I don't expect this will happen next year, or even the year after that. They have a full decade to slowly turn the screws. If you screw everyone over in one fell swoop, it's usually trouble for you. But do it gradually enough and it will work like a charm.

 

[rojac]

They will put every Canadian team on a rotation for each channel ,enough to warrant their specific fan base to get every channel.

You think that's what they'll do. I think they'll put the big money teams on the most widely watched channels because they can sell more advertising that way. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Hemlor]

[MOD]



Let me spell it out for you: MONOPOLY = BAD FOR CONSUMER. Economics 101.

Rogers has unlimited power to charge you the maximum threshold to watch your favourite team now where it used to be split amongst three channels.

Before next year I would be able to watch every single Sens game (reg. season & playoffs) using exclusively SPORTSNET EAST, TSN (main channel), and CBC. One of those is free, two come with the basic package (or cost almost nothing to tack on).

Next year, in order to watch the Sens, I will in all likelihood be required to have Sportsnet East, Sportsnet One, Sportsnet 360, and CBC. I just bought two extra channels because I AM FORCED TO.

Do you see what kind of negative precedent this sets?

Those who think nothing will change in terms of cost need to get their heads checked.

Those who think an extra $20 a month is no big deal and we should "calm down" have not experienced hardship whatsoever and also need to get their heads checked.

It isn't a big deal to all people, and to those that it is, probably shouldn't get it.

 

[cbcwpg]

SHAW cable charges an extra $10/month if you want to add SN360 in HD, which today a lot of people don't have because there is no hockey that can be watched on that channel anyway... SN-W HD and SN-ONE HD are part of the base package. SN-P and SN-O are part of the $10 package to get SN360, but only in SD.

So any games that Rogers starts to allow us to watch on SN360 will cost us more, and potentially more than $10/month. Especially if SHAW is expected to have all the SN channels in HD one day.

And note: it's not just the cable costs, it's also the hardware costs. Every new channel that SHAW adds to HD is in mpeg-4 format which requires the latest hardware. Lots of people have older HD boxes that can't get any new channels.