TV Contract Question

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Nope I don't know if there are any clauses but if the Flames owners wanted to relocated there's no way a TV contract would matter as the league would be gaining a new TV market in Seattle (I'm assuming this is the market they would target) anyway which would help for the next US network negotiations. There may be some changes in the Rogers deal but it would likely be a formality as owners would never want to be put in a situation where TV deals impose on their abilities to relocate their team.

Seattle market is a whole new deal, given Rogers bought the Canadian market. It's also possible the league nor Rogers thought for a second that they'd lose one of the big Canadian markets when they signed the deal. Who knows, it could've been an oversight. And if it was, chances are the league would require the Flames to suck it up in the Saddledome until the contract expires.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Seattle market is a whole new deal, given Rogers bought the Canadian market. It's also possible the league nor Rogers thought for a second that they'd lose one of the big Canadian markets when they signed the deal. Who knows, it could've been an oversight. And if it was, chances are the league would require the Flames to suck it up in the Saddledome until the contract expires.

The Calgary market doesn't leave with the Flames. The same people in the 1.2 million market watching the Wednesday and HNIC games will still be watching those games. It would just mean more Canucks and Oilers in the 2nd game which would actually be favorable seeing those markets bring in more viewers.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Only the regional contract would be affected as the national contract is based on HNIC and the rights to broadcast national games and has nothing to do with regional rights to teams. Rogers would still get the exact same amount of national games to broadcast and it's not like the viewing population in Calgary leaves with the Flames. Did HNIC ever sue the NHL when the Jets or Nordiques moved? No.

The Coyotes are still in Arizona because if they're not, the league has to give NBC money back because they don't have a presence in a TV market of 5+ million people.

The Rogers deal is worth significantly more and hinges on Canadians in major Canadian cities caring.

Again, to them I say good luck. The Flames aren't going anywhere.

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by Fire

99% sure expansion/contraction wouldn't result in any changes in the contract.

one would have to think that there would be a loss in viewers if one of the Canadian based teams were to leave Canada.

if a million people watch every flames games and the flames were to leave, would you expect all million to simply watch each broadcast of other teams games? certainly some would, but I would expect some portion to not watch, thereby making the deal a little less valuable to the same 7 advertisers

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

The Coyotes are still in Arizona because if they're not, the league has to give NBC money back because they don't have a presence in a TV market of 5+ million people.

The Rogers deal is worth significantly more and hinges on Canadians in major Canadian cities caring.

Again, to them I say good luck. The Flames aren't going anywhere.

LOL if you say so.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

LOL if you say so.

They're not moving, dude - I don't know what else to tell you.

And if they did, I suspect my NHL viewing habits would go back to my pre Calgary days on the east coast. Saturday nights and playoffs. And I suspect many are in the same boat - Arizona didn't get wicked TV numbers in Winnipeg for 20 years before the Jets returned, and Quebec City isn't secretly an Avs town.

The Flames allegedly made $18M last year in an 'antiquated' Saddledome.

Why aren't the Cubs or Red Sox threatening to move to Montreal without a new building? Because that would be stupid. Same situation here. Leaving would be asinine. If they don't close now, they wait for a new mayor and a new council, they don't leave town.

[tsquared1967]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Why aren't the Cubs or Red Sox threatening to move to Montreal without a new building? Because that would be stupid. Same situation here. Leaving would be asinine. If they don't close now, they wait for a new mayor and a new council, they don't leave town.

The Cubs own Wrigley Field and the Red Sox own Fenway Park. If they did they would get public funding just like the Detroit Red Wings, the Dallas Cowboys and Baltimore Orioles got as taxes or bonds.