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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wetcoaster

Guest
According to David Shoalts, the people at Bell/TSN may have been over confident and did not show Bettman the proper respect.

Separate sources say when negotiations opened between the NHL and TSN to extend its contract for the broadcast rights in Canada, executives from the all-sports cable network and its parent company could have showed NHL commissioner Gary Bettman a little more respect. Instead, sources say, the message delivered to Bettman and deputy commissioner Bill Daly was TSN carried the NHL’s water for many years and the network was prepared to pay only so much to carry on the relationship – so the league should sit down and sign a contract.

For example, sources say, BCE president and chief executive officer George Cope never became involved in the negotiations. At the same time, Rogers president and CEO Nadir Mohamed played a “very†important role in the talks, according to someone close to Bettman. Those who know Bettman say he has a keen idea of how important the NHL is to certain businesses and markets.

Also, Bettman takes a dim view of those who do not share that view – especially those who are supposed to be partners of the league.

Anyone who thinks otherwise should look back to the summer of 2005, when the NHL ended its lockout of the players and ESPN’s cable television contract for games in the United States expired. With no other bidders in sight, ESPN offered Bettman $30-million (U.S.) per season for the rights, down from $70-million, and was not exactly polite about it.

Bettman told the network to stuff it and was widely criticized for handing the U.S. rights package to Comcast Corp.’s Outdoor Life Network (which morphed into Versus before Comcast bought NBC Universal and renamed the channel NBCSN). Bettman later parlayed that relationship into the NHL’s current U.S. TV deal with NBC for 10 years at a total of $2-billion.

In other words, as many a negotiator can tell you: you trifle with Bettman at your peril. He is a merciless, smart negotiator who never forgets a slight.​
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...nhl/article15647965/?cmpid=rss1&click=dlvr.it
 

FakeKidPoker*

Guest
Uhmm what?

And once HNIC dies CBC is going to whither and die.

CBC has the rights to the next two olympics and the upcoming World Cup.

As much as it does hurt to lose the NHL for now this does free up money in the budget to peruse other sports properties do not be surprised to see CBC win the rights to the next games and then sublease them to Sportsnet like they are doing with Sochi.
 

DoyleG

Reality sucks, Princesses!
Dec 29, 2008
7,439
922
YEG-->YYJ-->YWG-->YYB
CBC has the rights to the next two olympics and the upcoming World Cup.

As much as it does hurt to lose the NHL for now this does free up money in the budget to peruse other sports properties do not be surprised to see CBC win the rights to the next games and then sublease them to Sportsnet like they are doing with Sochi.

Hate to hit you with reality.

The CBC won't have the opportunity to bid for broadcasting the World Cup after the current one. Bell Media won the rights from 2015 to the end of 2022. Seems FIFA wasn't happy with the way they handled the other events on the package.

As for the Olympics, the CBC has been reliant on other broadcasters since 2000 in order to carry what's going on. The money will do nothing to change that as it was well accepted that they would either need Rogers or Bell to help them deal with the burden.
 

FakeKidPoker*

Guest
Hate to hit you with reality.

The CBC won't have the opportunity to bid for broadcasting the World Cup after the current one. Bell Media won the rights from 2015 to the end of 2022. Seems FIFA wasn't happy with the way they handled the other events on the package.

As for the Olympics, the CBC has been reliant on other broadcasters since 2000 in order to carry what's going on. The money will do nothing to change that as it was well accepted that they would either need Rogers or Bell to help them deal with the burden.

Very well, so they don't have the World Cup.

They have the next two Olympics and other events in a partnership with Rogers and Sportsnet the number 1 sports channel in the nation... in a partnership that is likely to grow and grow as the years go by.
 

DoyleG

Reality sucks, Princesses!
Dec 29, 2008
7,439
922
YEG-->YYJ-->YWG-->YYB
Very well, so they don't have the World Cup.

They have the next two Olympics and other events in a partnership with Rogers and Sportsnet the number 1 sports channel in the nation... in a partnership that is likely to grow and grow as the years go by.

Sorry, this isn't a partnership. CBC is the weak leg now.

Face it.
 

Sacha Baron Corbin

Registered User
Jan 19, 2011
12,544
481
According to David Shoalts, the people at Bell/TSN may have been over confident and did not show Bettman the proper respect.

Separate sources say when negotiations opened between the NHL and TSN to extend its contract for the broadcast rights in Canada, executives from the all-sports cable network and its parent company could have showed NHL commissioner Gary Bettman a little more respect. Instead, sources say, the message delivered to Bettman and deputy commissioner Bill Daly was TSN carried the NHL’s water for many years and the network was prepared to pay only so much to carry on the relationship – so the league should sit down and sign a contract.

For example, sources say, BCE president and chief executive officer George Cope never became involved in the negotiations. At the same time, Rogers president and CEO Nadir Mohamed played a “very†important role in the talks, according to someone close to Bettman. Those who know Bettman say he has a keen idea of how important the NHL is to certain businesses and markets.

Also, Bettman takes a dim view of those who do not share that view – especially those who are supposed to be partners of the league.

Anyone who thinks otherwise should look back to the summer of 2005, when the NHL ended its lockout of the players and ESPN’s cable television contract for games in the United States expired. With no other bidders in sight, ESPN offered Bettman $30-million (U.S.) per season for the rights, down from $70-million, and was not exactly polite about it.

Bettman told the network to stuff it and was widely criticized for handing the U.S. rights package to Comcast Corp.’s Outdoor Life Network (which morphed into Versus before Comcast bought NBC Universal and renamed the channel NBCSN). Bettman later parlayed that relationship into the NHL’s current U.S. TV deal with NBC for 10 years at a total of $2-billion.

In other words, as many a negotiator can tell you: you trifle with Bettman at your peril. He is a merciless, smart negotiator who never forgets a slight.​
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...nhl/article15647965/?cmpid=rss1&click=dlvr.it

So is this pretty much the Canadian version of the NHL switching from ESPN to Versus?
 

saffronleaf

Registered User
May 17, 2011
26,392
28,797
Toronto, ON
So is this pretty much the Canadian version of the NHL switching from ESPN to Versus?

Exactly. Except TSN treated the NHL better than how ESPN treats the NBA. 2/3 of Sportscentre on TSN would be dedicated to NHL coverage.

Sportsnet is comparable, at best, to the Outdoor Life Network (so prior to the Versus rebranding). It's a backwater channel targeted to senior citizens.
 

FakeKidPoker*

Guest
Sorry, this isn't a partnership. CBC is the weak leg now.

Face it.

Really? Kind of looks like a partnership to me.

I mean, why else is CBC showing games next year.. and for the next four years? Heck they even get to show the Stanley Cup Final.

Along with the World Cup in 2014 and the upcoming two Olympics.

I expect this partnership to only grow with former CBCSports President now in charge of Sportsnet.

Wouldn't even be surprised sometime during this deal if Rogers actually sells a small part of its package to the CBC.
 

HabsByTheBay

Registered User
Dec 3, 2010
1,216
22
London
Has anyone discussed the knockon effects on other sports in Canada? For example, no doubt that TSN goes all out to retain the CFL when their contract is up. Also, there are rumors that Bell and TSN have been kicking the tires on MLB in Montreal with Rogers making a fortune on the Jays (who aren't even that good). Do they start thinking about pushing for baseball? I say yes.
 

optimus2861

Registered User
Aug 29, 2005
5,061
568
Bedford NS
Wouldn't even be surprised sometime during this deal if Rogers actually sells a small part of its package to the CBC.
You don't pay $5B to get exclusive rights for over a decade only to sell those rights to your competitors later. Taking over HNIC isn't just about showing CBC a shred of mercy. If Rogers got the full naming rights to HNIC as well (I think they did; can anyone confirm?), here's what you'll see on Saturday nights:

"Rogers Hockey Night in Canada on CBC"
"Rogers Hockey Night in Canada on City"
"Rogers Hockey Night in Canada on Sportsnet"
"Rogers Hockey Night in Canada on SN360"

Thus will Rogers plant the seeds of CBC's final exit from NHL broadcasting. In four years, everyone will be used to hearing "Rogers Hockey Night in Canada" and won't focus so much on the particular network it's on, especially since they will all look & feel the same anyway.
 

Chileiceman

Registered User
Dec 14, 2004
10,008
855
Toronto
Exactly. Except TSN treated the NHL better than how ESPN treats the NBA. 2/3 of Sportscentre on TSN would be dedicated to NHL coverage.

Sportsnet is comparable, at best, to the Outdoor Life Network (so prior to the Versus rebranding). It's a backwater channel targeted to senior citizens.

[MOD] OLN had exactly one serious sport property (Tour de France) and was in half the homes of ESPN at the time of the deal being signed.

Sportsnet is home to: MLB, NFL, NBA, CHL, Champions League, Europa League, EPL, World Cup Qualifiers, Regional NHL games, ATP, NCAA football, CIS, WWE, FIBA basketball, UFC, and probably more that I am missing.

It's in like 95% of the homes of TSN. So how in any way shape or form are the two comparable?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

eliostar

Registered User
May 28, 2008
1,283
2
Toronto
Has anyone discussed the knockon effects on other sports in Canada? For example, no doubt that TSN goes all out to retain the CFL when their contract is up. Also, there are rumors that Bell and TSN have been kicking the tires on MLB in Montreal with Rogers making a fortune on the Jays (who aren't even that good). Do they start thinking about pushing for baseball? I say yes.

I don't think Rogers is making a fortune on the Jays.
 

Neely2005

Registered User
Nov 3, 2006
19,004
291
Toronto, Ontario
Exactly. Except TSN treated the NHL better than how ESPN treats the NBA. 2/3 of Sportscentre on TSN would be dedicated to NHL coverage.

Sportsnet is comparable, at best, to the Outdoor Life Network (so prior to the Versus rebranding). It's a backwater channel targeted to senior citizens.

:biglaugh: Sportsnet has more channels than TSN and Sportsnet is just as available as TSN. If you're a Rogers customer most of the Sportsnet channels are included in a lower tier where as TSN and TSN HD cost extra.

Now if you don't like Sportsnet personalities or it's production that's one thing but don't go making up things.

Kypereos was on Prime Time Sports the day that the deal was announced and he said that Rogers is going to be improving their NHL production to NFL levels.
 

Neely2005

Registered User
Nov 3, 2006
19,004
291
Toronto, Ontario
Has anyone discussed the knockon effects on other sports in Canada? For example, no doubt that TSN goes all out to retain the CFL when their contract is up. Also, there are rumors that Bell and TSN have been kicking the tires on MLB in Montreal with Rogers making a fortune on the Jays (who aren't even that good). Do they start thinking about pushing for baseball? I say yes.

TSN has already renewed it's CFL deal at bigger money. The new deal starts with the 2014 season:

http://www.thestar.com/sports/footb...eal_worth_more_than_30_million_a_year.bb.html
 

cutchemist42

Registered User
Apr 7, 2011
6,706
221
Winnipeg
Has anyone discussed the knockon effects on other sports in Canada? For example, no doubt that TSN goes all out to retain the CFL when their contract is up. Also, there are rumors that Bell and TSN have been kicking the tires on MLB in Montreal with Rogers making a fortune on the Jays (who aren't even that good). Do they start thinking about pushing for baseball? I say yes.

I've been thinking this the past few days. Part of the drive for the CFL in Halifax from Cohon has been speculated to be fueled by TSN/Bell. The Maritimes is an untapped market for having teams on a weekly basis watching teams from the area, and TSN/Bell probably feels a CFL team will grab them.

I've also thought Bell/TSN would love an MLB team in Montreal, and those talks of Montreal being considered have really ramped up in the past year, with even American baseball analysts making the case for the city.

I've said it in other posts, but TSN/Bell might have to create new content through new teams.
 

ResilientBeast

Proud Member of the TTSAOA
Jul 1, 2012
13,903
3,561
Edmonton
Really? Kind of looks like a partnership to me.

I mean, why else is CBC showing games next year.. and for the next four years? Heck they even get to show the Stanley Cup Final.

Along with the World Cup in 2014 and the upcoming two Olympics.

I expect this partnership to only grow with former CBCSports President now in charge of Sportsnet.

Wouldn't even be surprised sometime during this deal if Rogers actually sells a small part of its package to the CBC.

If you think that you're delusional, SNET is just keeping them alive for a little bit then move all the good games to their premium channels and finally just cut them out altogether. ( I also love how you're taking shots at TSN in other threads, stat classy)
 

BraveCanadian

Registered User
Jun 30, 2010
15,354
4,626
isn't TVA owned by Quebecor?
how long till the Nords are back in the NHL?

Now that they have all that delicious public money spent on a new arena it probably won't be all that long.

Meanwhile Quebecor will continue their neo-con ranting to protect the taxpayers! (while they rake it in!)



Then again they could turn out to be another Hamilton.
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
24,062
2,283
You don't pay $5B to get exclusive rights for over a decade only to sell those rights to your competitors later. Taking over HNIC isn't just about showing CBC a shred of mercy. If Rogers got the full naming rights to HNIC as well (I think they did; can anyone confirm?), here's what you'll see on Saturday nights:

"Rogers Hockey Night in Canada on CBC"
"Rogers Hockey Night in Canada on City"
"Rogers Hockey Night in Canada on Sportsnet"
"Rogers Hockey Night in Canada on SN360"

Thus will Rogers plant the seeds of CBC's final exit from NHL broadcasting. In four years, everyone will be used to hearing "Rogers Hockey Night in Canada" and won't focus so much on the particular network it's on, especially since they will all look & feel the same anyway.
Hockey Night will be gone from the CBC in 2018, so I agree with this. One thing I could see is another 2 year deal, then it will be gone in 2020.
 

Mungman

It's you not me.
Mar 27, 2011
2,988
0
Outside the Asylum
Really? Kind of looks like a partnership to me.

Ya, "partners" like some kid named Rogers takes a kid named CBC's wallet and girlfriend, pushes CBC off a bridge only to rescue him from drowning, then letts CBC sit in on a date with CBC's old girlfriend (paid for with the money from CBC's wallet). Oh, but CBC is allowed to promote his dates with other less comely girls during the date he's allowed to attend.

"partner" can be a flexible term.
 

Inkling

Same Old Hockey
Nov 27, 2006
5,657
681
Ottawa
Hockey Night will be gone from the CBC in 2018, so I agree with this. One thing I could see is another 2 year deal, then it will be gone in 2020.

Could be true but I think it is too early to say. Rogers is spending a crapload of money. Everyone is assuming it will be a success but that still remains to be seen. If Rogers is losing their shirt (or even if they are just breaking even) they might be happy for CBC to pay them to reacquire some rights directly. Maybe even TSN or some other network that may or may not exist yet.

CBC has the Olympics because its competitors unloaded the piggy banks and then found that it was pretty hard to be profitable when the rights fees get really expensive. May be deja vu for hockey. Maybe Bell/TSN were the fiscally responsible ones here. Who knows? Time will tell.
 

phillipsj89

Registered User
Jan 9, 2012
1,123
55
Canada
I'm not sure that's a widely held view, at all. YMMV, I think.

At least in internet speeds Shaw is much faster than Telus (now up to 250 megabits is most of western canada, Telus is still beta testing their 50 meg connections)

Just for reference, Shaw's basic package is now 3990 a month, includes tsn/sportsnet/sportsnet1 in HD (but not TSN2 or sportsnet 360,which are part of a 10 dollar theme pack that includes sportsnet west and ontario) and comes with a free HD receiver. That's a month-to-month service, no contract, etc. The promo offer you get along with this would vary depending on the time of year, usually a 3 or 6 month reduced rate and free hardware rentals.

Honestly, not having a contract is not a selling point for me. With telus i can basically call whenever I want and just ask for money off. I have done it twice. They just promo me 20$ off my bill for 6 months. Its fantastic, and I'll most likely never switch.

Sure maybe shaw has faster internet speeds, but unless you captain a pirate ship, or I dunno, I guess if you want all digital downloads for games, you just dont need 250 mb/s. From my experience Telus' HD feed is far supperior, and the UI design of the menu system is lightyears ahead.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but Telus offers much more for me than shaw ever could.
 

rojac

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 5, 2007
13,301
3,142
Waterloo, ON
Rogers is losing about $30 million a year on the Jays. If it wasn't for their cable business, they would have gone bankrupt years ago...

Losses can be a bit funny is situations like this. While the team itself may be losing money, the group that owns them may be making up those losses in other areas. I don't know if that is the case or not with the Jays, but Blue Jays games along with regional TV rights for Canucks, Flames, Oilers, and Sens are pretty much the main drivers for SN1 subscriptions. Also, if SN is not actually paying money to the Jays for rights, then the Jays' losses will be exaggerated and advertising sales for Jays games will be even more profitable .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad