[News] Sportsnet signs 12 year $5.2 billion for NHL CDN Broadcast rights.

[TurnedTheCorner]

If Button thinks a short-term deal would be better/more profitable for the NHL, I'm confident the NHL made a smart move with a long term deal.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

That is still 162 games a year. and the playoffs draw around 2million people and the Grey Cup draws 4.5 million. TSN isn't folding.

That's not much content really for a 24 hour sports network. And it only lasts for 4 months, then 3 playoff games.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

If Button thinks a short-term deal would be better/more profitable for the NHL, I'm confident the NHL made a smart move with a long term deal.

Lazy post. Rather than attacking the person, comment on the idea. Is he right?

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by troutman

That's not much content really for a 24 hour sports network. And it only lasts for 4 months, then 3 playoff games.

So you are saying TSN is going to fold? They also aren't paying $430million/year for hockey...

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by troutman

Lazy post. Rather than attacking the person, comment on the idea. Is he right?

Button is prob wrong. He just said because of his job insecurity. $430million/per is pretty huge.

If the NHL wanted more money they should have given TSN part of the bone.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by troutman

Lazy post. Rather than attacking the person, comment on the idea. Is he right?

Fine, sorry.

I don't think he's right. As discussed in the thread, the media and distribution landscapes have been going through a lot of upheaval, and will probably continue to do so. In the here and now, integrated media companies such as Rogers are seeing the value of having live sports content to offer its consumers, as its one of the few types of content remaining that viewers consume "traditionally" - i.e. they don't time shift it, they don't subscribe to a service and binge watch it, they tend to see the advertisements, and so on. In the here and now, that makes NHL broadcast rights extremely valuable.

The NHL was at a great place to monetize this, and did so. The value of this agreement more than doubles the annual value of the last contract. It's certain revenue. Who knows what kind of money might be available in 4 or 5 years? It's possible the annual value might be higher, it's possible that it's lower. That's a risk that is taken any time you negotiate a deal for term instead of value (ex. 5 year fixed rate mortgage vs. 6 month variable rate).

Given the uncertainty of how the industry will look in a few years, and the amount offered for the duration of the deal, I think the NHL did extremely well.

I'd be curious as to exactly why Button thinks more money would be there in five years, other than "numbers always go up". He doesn't exactly strike me as a savvy expert in the world of media and content distribution. And honestly, I wonder how much of his comments are about sour grapes or hurt feelings given his current employment status.

Whew, that was exhausting. I like my lazy attacks better.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

So you are saying TSN is going to fold? They also aren't paying $430million/year for hockey...

I don't know if they will fold, but I don't think the CFL rights are a big bonanza for them.

[Senator Clay Davis]

TSN will be fine. Now they have more money to get other programming. If they were wise they'd try and get as much NFL content as possible. Theoritically, with CTV and TSN2, they could show as many as 8-10 NFL games a week. Football draws from the most important advertising demo, 18-49 males. And if Andrew Wiggins does become LeBron North, TSN is already on the ground floor there (showing every Kansas game this year) and again thats a good demo for advertisers. TSN also has ESPN backing so they'll have enough content to fill the NHL void.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by T@T

They'll be irrelevant next june, in a couple of years they might be gone completely.

lol no. Some people are overreacting, like those that thought the Flames would be playing this season in Saskatoon because of the floods.

Obviously losing national rights is a big blow, but they still have the CFL, NFL, NBA, World Juniors. Plus they will still be the place to go for hockey news ("That's Hockey") and general sport highlights ("SportsCentre").

[troutman]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

I'd be curious as to exactly why Button thinks more money would be there in five years, other than "numbers always go up". He doesn't exactly strike me as a savvy expert in the world of media and content distribution. And honestly, I wonder how much of his comments are about sour grapes or hurt feelings given his current employment status.

Whew, that was exhausting. I like my lazy attacks better.

Good post.

One thing that might worry the NHL is the idea that sports networks might get un-bundled from standard cable subscriber packages.

[moon]

Originally Posted by troutman

That's not much content really for a 24 hour sports network. And it only lasts for 4 months, then 3 playoff games.

NFL, MLB, NBA, Golf, NCAA Football and Basketball, NASCAR, Curling, Junior Hockey, International Hockey, 30 for 30's, That's Hockey.

There is still a ton of content for TSN and while I isn't the big name of the NHL they do things so much better than RSN that anytime NHL isn't on they should easily kill them in the ratings.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Fire

lol no. Some people are overreacting, like those that thought the Flames would be playing this season in Saskatoon because of the floods.

Obviously losing national rights is a big blow, but they still have the CFL, NFL, NBA, World Juniors. Plus they will still be the place to go for hockey news ("That's Hockey") and general sport highlights ("SportsCentre").

And it's not going to be a situation like ESPN where they lost hockey rights and then just decided to stop covering the sport; TSN still knows where its audience's interest lies.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by Fire

lol no. Some people are overreacting, like those that thought the Flames would be playing this season in Saskatoon because of the floods.

Obviously losing national rights is a big blow, but they still have the CFL, NFL, NBA, World Juniors. Plus they will still be the place to go for hockey news ("That's Hockey") and general sport highlights ("SportsCentre").

Yeah. If national hockey deals were a requirement to keep a sports channel alive in Canada, SN would have been dead long ago. It survived without NHL national games. So will TSN.

[wingmaker]

From listening to interviews on the radio yesterday, what I gathered is that Sportsnet pitched this plan to the NHL. They sold it as a total vision for how to improve the hockey experience in Canada. They were willing to pay so much money BECAUSE of how long the deal was, given that it would give them the exclusivity and duration to establish a whole new way of watching hockey. It didn't seem to me that the price per year was set and the number of years negotiated. It was all tied in together. It didn't sound to me like the nhl could have gotten a shorter deal with the same kind of figures involved. Rogers paid so much to get the exclusivity that the 12 years affords them. The NHL took the money and ran. It makes sense, really.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by troutman

Good post.

One thing that might worry the NHL is the idea that sports networks might get un-bundled from standard cable subscriber packages.

That could be a concern to the NHL, although probably less of one for it considering fans have shown they will follow the sport however they need to. Two lockouts have shown that. In fact, a lot of sports fans would probably be entirely happy to only subscribe to an NHL service that showed all games without having to pay for other cable channels they rarely watch.

The concern about unbundling is probably much more frightening to Rogers. macflame has made some good points about how this move is probably a preemptive attempt to slow down or stop subscribers from cutting the cord. This kind of thinking seems to be very prevalent right now, and I think it's why we've seen huge TV money pouring into the NHL, the NFL, the NCAA, and so on. The NBA might be positioned to cash in in a big way if things remain as they are when its deals expire after the 15-16 season.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by wingmaker

From listening to interviews on the radio yesterday, what I gathered is that Sportsnet pitched this plan to the NHL. They sold it as a total vision for how to improve the hockey experience in Canada. They were willing to pay so much money BECAUSE of how long the deal was, given that it would give them the exclusivity and duration to establish a whole new way of watching hockey. It didn't seem to me that the price per year was set and the number of years negotiated. It was all tied in together. It didn't sound to me like the nhl could have gotten a shorter deal with the same kind of figures involved. Rogers paid so much to get the exclusivity that the 12 years affords them. The NHL took the money and ran. It makes sense, really.

Yeah, I know I read or heard somewhere that the NHL was initially looking for a maximum 10 year deal with this renewal.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by troutman

Button said on QR77 last night that the NHL left a ton of $ on the table by agreeing to 12 years. He thought they shouldn't have gone longer than 5 years. Why the long term?

I think it really depends on what they think the Canadian landscape will be during the 12 years. You can argue that the Canadian market (barring expansion teams) is pretty much saturated. Arenas are all operating at capacity, and the TV market is also pretty saturated. I'm not sure how much room there is left to grow when most Canadians already watch the NHL as it currently stands. If that's how the NHL feels, then I can see why they're comfortable signing the 12 years. Now they can focus on growing it in the US again.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

TSN will be fine. Now they have more money to get other programming. If they were wise they'd try and get as much NFL content as possible. Theoritically, with CTV and TSN2, they could show as many as 8-10 NFL games a week. Football draws from the most important advertising demo, 18-49 males. And if Andrew Wiggins does become LeBron North, TSN is already on the ground floor there (showing every Kansas game this year) and again thats a good demo for advertisers. TSN also has ESPN backing so they'll have enough content to fill the NHL void.

There's not much left.

TSN shows the two NFL night games but Sportsnet/Cityshows the 4pm games
TSN shows curling (Scotties/Brier/Worlds) but Sportsnet shows the Grand Slams
TSN shows the tennis grand slams but Sportsnet shows the rest of the ATP Tour
They split EPL games equally
They split poker as well.
The Raptors are split too(?)
Sportsnet has cricket!

What's left? TSN shows CFL and motor car racing. Will TSN show a lot of college football?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Well I seriously doubt Sportsnet will retain everything they already have, and if they do you can expect that programming to get buried deep in costly places. Sportsnet will probably shift EPL and European sports programming to SportsnetWorld (at $12.95 a month, customers will be thrilled...). Sportsnet will be squeezing groups outside hockey fans if they retain all their programming. So I suppose they could do it, even if they piss everyone off in the process. TSN will also now be able to be more aggressive in content bidding.

I'd also add TSN survived what, like 20 years, without being the NHL's national broadcaster. They'll be fine because they've been run as a solid operation their entire existence. Sportsnet meanwhile has ONLY been run as a second rate operation for its existence. But they don't need to be anything other than a second rate operation because they have the content locked in. People acting like they'll upgrade forget they have no incentive to.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I think it really depends on what they think the Canadian landscape will be during the 12 years. You can argue that the Canadian market (barring expansion teams) is pretty much saturated. Arenas are all operating at capacity, and the TV market is also pretty saturated. I'm not sure how much room there is left to grow when most Canadians already watch the NHL as it currently stands. If that's how the NHL feels, then I can see why they're comfortable signing the 12 years. Now they can focus on growing it in the US again.

IMO this is another issue with the deal. We fans don't tune into RSN unless it's to watch the Flames or Oilers. We tolerate it because we are Flames fans and we have no choice but if you aren't a fan how is Rogers mickey mouse presentation going to win over new fans or viewers? How are blowhards like Kypreos going to win over young fans that weren't around when he played? What does a has-been GM's that have destroyed franchises like MacLean got that's going to rope in interest from those that aren't already fans? How are PBP guys with grating voices going to win over a new generation of fans?

I know personally a typical Coyotes vs Flames game broadcasted by Kerr and Simmer is almost enough to make a hardcore fan like me change the channel so how is that going to rope in a curious fan? I think TSN did wonders to grow the CFL and IMO they also should be credited for growing the NHL in Canada as they were the ones that made the WJHC, trade deadline, and draft day a big deal. The CFL and NHL owe a lot to TSN and it's a little disgusting that the NHL could just blow them off like this. Can RSN take over that mantle and continue the growth that TSN started? I have major doubts that Rogers is up to the task.