Fallout from new Canadian TV deal uncertain, but expect prices to rise

Jonathan Willis
November 27 2013 07:47AM

With the news yesterday that Rogers and the NHL had agreed on a 12-year, $5.232 billion Canadian television deal, the overwhelming reaction was uncertainty. We don’t know how this will effect TSN or CBC, we don’t know how Rogers will cover the game, and we don’t know if the hockey-watching experience will be better a year from now than it is today.

What we know for sure is that NHL hockey is going to be on Rogers. What we also know, with barely less certainty, is that it’s going to cost more to watch.

The Experts

Jim Jamieson of The Province talked to two business experts: UBC’s James Brander and SFU’s Linday Meredith. The full article is here (and well worth reading) but note the similarity in comments both made.

First, Brander:

The first thing I noticed is the big price tag, and obviously Rogers has to recoup that.

And Meredith:

We’ll see a lot of bundling or extra charges for premium channels. I’m sure Rogers will be pushing hard on all those buttons because they’ve got a lot of money to recoup. Whether it means having to buy stuff you don’t want or premium channels, your cable bill will be going up.

The Logic

It’s pretty straight forward. The NHL’s national television rights cost lots more now than they used to (Chris Botta of Sports Business Journal put the total value of the old deals at roughly $190 million); this new deal increases that to an average of over $400 million per year. Even assuming that NHL hockey was a cash cow for CBC and TSN (which seems likely, given the spike in price), it’s a pretty decent bet that a massive increase in the cost of the product for the provider is going to result in price increases for the consumer.

Commissioner Gary Bettman and the executives at Rogers Communications can pay lip service to the idea that, on some level, this deal was the best deal for fans but it would be a mistake to see it as more than lip service.

The NHL is focused on one thing: money. They’ve demonstrated it time and again, especially with their willingness to force labour stoppages to squeeze as much money as possible out of the sport. Rogers was willing to pay up for the television rights; consequently, the NHL was all too happy to do a deal with Rogers.

Likewise, Rogers is a business with the primary focus of making money. A lot of that money, doubtless, will come from expanding the amount of product available and milking advertisers for all that they are worth. But it would be silly to assume that every available revenue stream won’t be tapped, and that’s likely to include increased prices for the consumer.

A shiny new television deal is unquestionably good for the business of the NHL. It may yet prove to be good for fans, too, if Rogers can deliver a superior product. Right now there’s no way of knowing whether the product will be better or worse, only that it’s likely to cost more.

74b7cedc5d8bfbe88cf071309e98d2c3
Jonathan Willis is Managing Editor of the Nation Network. He also currently writes for the Edmonton Journal's Cult of Hockey, Grantland, and Hockey Prospectus. His work has appeared at theScore, ESPN and Puck Daddy. He was previously founder and managing editor of Copper & Blue. Contact him at jonathan (dot) willis (at) live (dot) ca.
Avatar
#101 Old Retired Guy (A.K.A. Die-Nasty)
November 28 2013, 12:54AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
5
props

Oh yeah.....and all NHL hockey games should be broadcast on HBO so the commentators can get real...ask tough politically incorrect questions, swearing is mandatory, grill the players and coaches with hard hitting between period interviews....stop lobbing them soft balls and excepting their mind numbing cliched answers...High Octane girls could be nude.....and screw the 50/50 crap....there should on site betting windows in every arena.....and did I mention the Beer should be CHEAP!

Avatar
#102 Spydyr
November 28 2013, 06:34AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
2
props
Dipstick wrote:

They didn't get rich by sitting on their asses complaining.

I get up at 4:30am to work five days a week at 5:30am.

I asked the city to pay for a building for a business. They said they only do that for billionaires. I was SOL.

Avatar
#103 Romulus' Apotheosis
November 27 2013, 08:21AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
54
props

This comment:

“I think he has a big appeal, but Rogers is much more interested in the smooth, professional, modern sports image,” said Brander. “I’m sure they don’t know and they’re looking hard at it. I don’t think we’re going to see more of Don Cherry, but I would expect him to be phased out.”

Doesn't jibe with reality. HNIC with Cherry and all its flaws is a much more "smooth, professional, modern sports image" than anything SportsNet has ever produced.

SN productions always look like they are shot in the back of dimly lit full-sized van.

Avatar
#104 book¡e
November 27 2013, 08:40AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
0
props
Spydyr wrote:

Tell me in the end who pays for the advertising ?

Perhaps it is the consumer?

Yes, the consumer pays through product purchases, so you pay through your beer and shampoo purchases, but I didn't say the overall budget of advertising for firms will increase (rather that they will be more expensive for NHL games - this may mean that they spend less elsewhere), so prices for those products may not change.

Regardless, we are talking about the price for viewing NHL games here and I am arguing that we may not see an increase due to this deal.

Avatar
#105 Lowe Expectations
November 27 2013, 08:46AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
18
props

Remember, a big part of this is the push for people to have rogers plans for smartphones, tablets etc in order to get the streaming of games. I think the streaming side is the untapped market Rogers will be going after. TV in it's current format is slowly dying.

Avatar
#106 bleedblue
November 27 2013, 08:59AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
23
props

I hear the cable provider is discounting Oiler games and are charging AHL rates.

Avatar
#107 Romulus' Apotheosis
November 27 2013, 09:17AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
2
props

@Serious Gord

CBC doesn't currently have a monopoly on Canadian media rights.

TSN broadcasts national canadian NHL games.

Avatar
#108 Romulus' Apotheosis
November 27 2013, 09:43AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
0
props
Spydyr wrote:

Actually Sportsnet has said they will air other games on Saturday night. HNIC will no longer have a monopoly on Saturday with their national game.

As per the continuing conversation, it will continue to be a monopoly, i.e., controlled by Rogers (though as we've been discussing, it will appear on numerous platforms -- CBC, SN, City, etc), whereas before it was controlled by CBC.

The issue isn't the platform but the right's holder.

Avatar
#109 mayorblaine
November 27 2013, 09:59AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
9
props

this is a business decision. it is about money. anyone who thinks "we" matter is wrong. "we" don't but our money does.

Avatar
#110 Doctor Smashy
November 27 2013, 10:33AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
4
props
camdog wrote:

Nick Kyperos, the new voice of the nation, lol. Ya he's way better...

Now that is a chilling thought...

...from the network that brought us this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI2FVbtNv0U

...stay classy Sportsnet.....

Avatar
#111 TonyT
November 27 2013, 10:52AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
6
props

I regularly watch trade deadline day on both networks (tsn and sportsnet), and I have been pleasantly surprised as to how many trades Kypreos actually breaks before the insiders.

Avatar
#112 Derick V
November 27 2013, 10:55AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
5
props

TL'DR: There is a scenario where Rogers screws fans and gouges them for access to hockey. Alternately, they subsidize this with creative revenue streams as a service provider and aggressive ad sales. I hate greedy Rogers just as much as you guys, but relax people!

It's interesting that the reaction to this is solely that Rogers plans to subsidize the cost of this deal solely on our backs alone. I don't see this as being entirely the case.

First you must consider that Rogers will try to leverage NHL coverage to lure customers away from other service providers (mainly Bell and minor carriers) by bundling access to hockey coverage for their customers. Look no further than how much Bell advertised TSN Mobile to customers during the playoffs (where Rogers was locked out).

Rogers would rather have you as a cable customer at Bell's loss to save you money on more hockey than screw everybody and alienate customers. You're worth more to them as a customer of their services than as a consumer of their content. If they can put the two together they'll make a lot more money than if they just jack up the prices on access to content. There are already overtures hidden in the media coverage that they are thinking of doing this.

Secondly, the more ways consumers CAN watch, the more games they offer TO watch, the more people hockey people will watch. This blanketed national coverage will clearly drive up ad prices on Rogers' networks. They will seek to subsidize this deal heavily with ad sales. They are taking 100% of ad revenue on HNIC AND using the brand to draw eyeballs in the Cup playoffs and finals. They'll make a killing on that and it's a bigger loss to CBC than people realize.

Avatar
#113 Derick V
November 27 2013, 11:02AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
4
props
The Benevolent Orca wrote:

I don't see increase's coming. If this means more hockey on TV to watch, I'm all for it. TSN has dreadful commentary anyways, so good riddance.

One question from me. What happens to TSN now? Their viewership in Canada is going to plummet. Maybe they can work a stronger CFL deal. I'd be all over that.

TSN will be fine as long as two things happen:

1. They compete with the NHL coverage for ratings by acquiring strong media deals for other sports people like to watch (NFL, CFL, NBA, MLB).

2. Keep their strong hockey news coverage and analysis when the games aren't on so people switch channels when the game's over and they want to hear smart people talk about the game that just ended.

I'd say both have to happen, but likely won't. It'll be hard for fans to stomach NBA on TSN with the abrupt transition to TH2N and Insider Trading right afterwards. Trying to keep both fan-bases watching at different times will likely piss off other content providers because their product isn't getting suitable wrap-around coverage.

If they go all in on other sports products, the hockey team will likely jump ship to Rogers or NBC, possibly keeping a "loaner" clause to come back for IIHF tournaments.

Dark days ahead indeed. They survived for four years a while back, but this is three times the length in an age where people will watch the product they want on 2+ screens at a time with little attention for other venues.

Avatar
#114 Gravis82
November 27 2013, 11:06AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
5
props
Todd wrote:

Man I don't get it... Why are people complaining? Its so typically Canadian to feel entitled. But sports? Really? People feel entitled to their NHL hockey...

If it costs too much, don't watch. If you don't like the product, don't watch. If you do like it, and its worth the cost for you, great! That's how the real world works.

Maybe some of the lefties out there can get involved here. Regulate it, unionize it, cap it, watchdog it. Send ideas to a policy think tank and figure out how to socially engineer the optimal NHL TV deal that is accessible, honest, fair and FREE for everyone! Maybe get those fat cat executives at Rogers to subsidize it for us.

OR - it could be run like the NFL. A league who has focused on making money and having an amazing product and the end result is THE BEST sports product on the planet.

Agree, but right now Rogers Sportsnet is actually the worst product. That's the problem with this. I'm sure they get will better and one day reach an NFL level of "amazingness". I'm just not looking forward to paying more to watch an inferior product go through 5 years of growing pains. I also simply cannot choose to not watch if i don't like the product. It's a required element in my life, just like gas in my gas in my car, which i also think is overpriced, but i buy it anyway. I'm screwed.

Avatar
#116 Todd
November 27 2013, 11:18AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
0
props
Jonathan Willis wrote:

The new deal works out to roughly $14.5MM/season on average for every NHL team.

Darren Dreger reported that some of that money comes off the top to the Canadian clubs, but I haven't seen anyone report how much of it does.

No idea if this is accurate, but yesterday on Hockey Central, Doug MacLean said the US teams will get about $10mil/year

Avatar
#118 book¡e
November 27 2013, 11:31AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
11
props
The Benevolent Orca wrote:

I don't see increase's coming. If this means more hockey on TV to watch, I'm all for it. TSN has dreadful commentary anyways, so good riddance.

One question from me. What happens to TSN now? Their viewership in Canada is going to plummet. Maybe they can work a stronger CFL deal. I'd be all over that.

I think we will finally get back to the great coverage of World Strongman Competitions that we were provided with in the 1990s.

It used to be that you could find a good caber tossing competition just by flipping through the channels, now even finding people carrying fridges in a 50 meter dash is difficult.

Avatar
#119 Lochenzo
November 27 2013, 11:40AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
0
props

I agree JW. The first concern I had upon hearing the news was production quality. I like what TSN and HNIC bring to the table and prefer watching Oiler games through those venues. Assuming that there is a price increase to watch hockey, I would expect Rogers to increase the production value.

I don't see how Rogers doesn't increase the price. They have a monopoly on a product that is in tremendous demand. They will find a price point that most of us would pay and charge that price.

The angle with the CBC sounds more like a transition period. It would be a shock to the system to lose HNIC within a year. They've given us 4 years to be weened off of HNIC.

Avatar
#120 Dipstick
November 27 2013, 11:48AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props
book¡e wrote:

To be fair to Spydyr, our system has done a pretty good job of being biased towards certain groups of wealthy individuals and companies while not always providing an opportunity for individuals from less fortunate backgrounds to succeed. I love the market system for directing many aspects of the economy, but I would double the amount currently invested in public schools and programs targeted towards young individuals in general.

Having a society where economic 'winners' prosper is great, but it needs to provide everyone with a chance to succeed. Then, its up to them if they take it or not.

There is no question that the NHL owners and media companies benefit by the non competitive CRTC rules in this case. I would really appreciate being able to pick which channels I want to watch and only pay for those. Maybe, someday. No offence meant to Spydr.

Avatar
#121 CaptainLander
November 27 2013, 12:17PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
0
props

Really? I am going to have to pay more for something I like? That never happens.

If you look at this another gouging of "Canadians are so made about hockey that we can charge what we want, miss seasons have the local teams be crap eve-year and still sell out every game and have big local tv ratings..." time will tell if this is a good strategy for the NHL. I live in Cowtown and have kids in Jr. High. They, like many of their friends as I found through my recent inquiring do not give a rats @$$ about hockey. In asking them, maybe 5 out their class mates actually watched hockey, out 30ish. I can completely understand not wanting to watch the local team here but as an Oil fan I am a bit biased. Maybe this a back example of nation wide opinions but they will always take xbox time over hockey watching. I just get the feeling that 20 years from now the NHL will be a vary different league then it is today. Granted it looked pretty different 20 years ago.

Avatar
#122 Hat Pughes
November 27 2013, 12:48PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
2
props
Ed in Edmonton wrote:

I see this as not a big deal to hockey fans. It make no difference to me which channel I watch a game on, other than the varying production qualities. But some people just like to complain.

I hope the Rogers improves its production quality, as it is far behind TSN and HNIC. The local Oiler product borders on amateur hour.

On air and off air talent is just commerce..with there being less work at TSN in all likelihood talent will move from TSN to Rogers.

Labour resources will go to where the work is.

Dont think for a minute TSN can or will keep everybody.....the only way this (production quality at Rogers that is) becomes and issue is if all the networks start producing more hockey and the market expands. Dont think that will happen ..yet or maybe ever

Avatar
#123 hankthetank
November 27 2013, 01:50PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
6
props

TV timeouts will be three times longer...

Avatar
#124 A-Mc
November 27 2013, 01:57PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
3
props
Supernova wrote:

Interested to see how Center ice / game pass will work with no local blackouts.

The only reason I keep cable is for sports. But if I could pay $x for a subscription to the oilers and watch the Games with no blackouts I would do that In a second.

I am, for all intents and purposes, living in a 1 tv house. If i want to watch a hockey game, i need to take over the TV from the Woman of the house and our 4 year old (who wants nothing more than cartoons on 24/7, even when he's not home).

Every season i gripe about blackouts. If in some way, this rogers deal can remove blackouts from the streamed product the NHL offers, i am 10000% for this. I would pay the $$ to watch hockey, IN ALL MARKETS, as long as i could get around blackouts for Oilers games.

Blackouts need to go...

PS: I'm referring to subscribing to the streamed online product so that i am free to watch all games as opposed to fighting for the TV to watch them over cable. PLZ REMOVE STREAM BLACKOUTS!

Avatar
#125 Katzhater
November 27 2013, 04:00PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
3
props

You just wrote that because most of the revenue comes from ads, Rogers won't charge more for subscriptions. Disconnected from any semblance of monopoly behavior understanding. Not surprising considering I've heard you on the radio.

Avatar
#126 please cancel acct
November 27 2013, 05:27PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
6
props
sec206 wrote:

5.2 billion to get rid of Mark Lee, Kevin Weekes, Glen Healy? Worth every penny.

You forgot PJ Stock with his little man syndrome

Avatar
#127 gaz
November 27 2013, 06:07PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
2
props

@Serious Gord

My only issue with your hypothesis is that you're forgetting that wages are 'sticky', particularly in the short-term. This is backed by empirical evidence in decades of economic studies.

So, I think it more likely that wages will not in fact change much. What should happen is that premier NHL analyst/insider talent would hypothetically flock to Sportsnet...but then, we should remain cognizant that TSN is owned by Bell, who also has some moola, and might be more than happy to defend against potential talent loss (since their trade deadline and free agency shows are very popular).

Some movement of talent is inevitable, but downward pressure on talents' wages? Very unlikely.

Avatar
#128 Dave
November 27 2013, 06:28PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
0
props
please cancel acct wrote:

You forgot PJ Stock with his little man syndrome

So true. On TV you really have to be articulate and be able express yourself in sentences and paragraphs.

Avatar
#129 Fresh Mess
November 27 2013, 06:29PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props
The Benevolent Orca wrote:

I don't see increase's coming. If this means more hockey on TV to watch, I'm all for it. TSN has dreadful commentary anyways, so good riddance.

One question from me. What happens to TSN now? Their viewership in Canada is going to plummet. Maybe they can work a stronger CFL deal. I'd be all over that.

I suspect TSN will fill out their programming with a drastic increase in NFL, NBA, and NCAA football. TSN buys most of the rights to this stuff anyways and prevents anyone else from offering it, so they may as well start showing some of it.

I do doubt that TSN will keep both Mackenzie and Dregher at 400k+/anum.

Let's face it, Cuthbert, Hughson, and Gord Miller are always going to be at the top of the pecking order no matter who has the content rights. Those guys will always have jobs.

Avatar
#130 Fresh Mess
November 27 2013, 06:45PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
3
props
Jon wrote:

I thought point #3 of yours also sounded ridiculous, so I took a look on my own. According to the former vice-chair of CRTC, under a la carte unbundling, the most popular specialty channel (TSN at the moment) would be $9/month, not 30-40 as you claim.

Look harder. It's not my claim. It's the claim of industry analysts. Right now the cost of TSN on average works out to roughly $5 per month. Every Canadian IPO subscriber who wants anything beyond the local OTA stations HAS to subscribe to TSN in order to get whatever channel they want. It is bundled in the first or second tier of every carrier.

Therefore TSN is heavily subsidized. The question up for debate is how many households would be willing to pay for it a la carte.

Avatar
#131 Fresh Mess
November 27 2013, 06:54PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
0
props
Fresh Mess wrote:

Look harder. It's not my claim. It's the claim of industry analysts. Right now the cost of TSN on average works out to roughly $5 per month. Every Canadian IPO subscriber who wants anything beyond the local OTA stations HAS to subscribe to TSN in order to get whatever channel they want. It is bundled in the first or second tier of every carrier.

Therefore TSN is heavily subsidized. The question up for debate is how many households would be willing to pay for it a la carte.

sorry, meant BDU subscriber, not IPO

Avatar
#132 Fresh Mess
November 27 2013, 06:58PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
5
props
Jon wrote:

So the Sportsnet crew is hired by the Oilers?? That makes no sense, why do they do the Olympics stuff for Sportsnet then? When TSN bought 1260 why did they get rid of all the Sportsnet guys if they're just hired by the Oilers? Why is it just the 630 Ched guys that do the Oilers website stuff if Sportsnet guys are also Oilers employees?

I'm not going to debate you on conspiracy theories. Quinn,Principe, Debrusk, Staufer, Michaels are all on the Oiler payroll.

Avatar
#133 Cynic
November 27 2013, 07:19PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
0
props

"They are not pointing a gun at your head to force you to subscribe it, are they?"

You don't really understand how cable TV works, do you? It's only been 40 years, so I get that you've still got your head up your --- on this particular file.

Avatar
#134 Gaz
November 27 2013, 07:45PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
0
props

@Serious Gord

I'm not disagreeing that withsuppky outstripping demand, price (ie wages) experience downward pressure. In the specific case though, when the commodity is labour, as stated before, it has been empirically proven that wages do not react the same as other goods to imbalances in supp!y, particularly in the short-run.

I don't think its that big of a deal. Some guys will move to Sportsnet, which will need more people to cover more games. Meanwhile, TSN will pay their top-tier guys very well to break news and do the once a year events.

Avatar
#135 Fresh Mess
November 27 2013, 08:05PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
2
props
Gaz wrote:

The irony, or course, is that people who make comments like you just did are also the same people who do in fact get offended by "having their noses rubbed in" things like a gay pride parade.

What? I don't get the least offended by gay pride parades as long as they are not lewd. Same standards I would have for any parade. Your assumptions are false.

Avatar
#136 Gaz
November 27 2013, 08:11PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
0
props

@Fresh Mess

I wouldn't have expected you to respond to my comment any other way.

You go on thinking you're right, and I'll do the same, and that'll be that!

Now where's DSF? His absence causes too much infighting.

Avatar
#137 Fresh Mess
November 27 2013, 08:31PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
0
props
Gaz wrote:

I wouldn't have expected you to respond to my comment any other way.

You go on thinking you're right, and I'll do the same, and that'll be that!

Now where's DSF? His absence causes too much infighting.

Has nothing to do with thinking I'm right. You made a veiled accusation of me formed by baseless constructs of your own mind. Perhaps I may not fit in to your tidy subjective ideas of political correctness, but that doesn't give you the right to try and slander me.

How about this: The funny thing Gaz, is that people who make comments like you just did also tend to support the Zionist oppression in the holy land, based on tenuous historical ideology. ----

how would you respond to a baseless and slanderous comment like that?

Avatar
#138 NsxZero
November 28 2013, 12:50PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
0
props

I hope TSN is still able to run the NHL highlights on their website. Sometimes I find myself automatically typing in tsn.ca when I start up my browser..

Avatar
#139 EHH Team
November 28 2013, 01:11PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props
Serious Gord wrote:

First off; where do you get off telling me or anyone to shut their "yap"?

Second you know nothing of my qualifications/knowledge of monopolies and their pricing dynamics and other behaviors in a market.

For the record:

I minored in economics in university;

have worked on and or chaired on various economic policy committees for the provincial and Canadian chambers of commerce, the Conservative party of Canada and the Wildrose party.

One of those CofC committees developed the policy that called for the end of the Canadian wheat board monopsony (it was not a monopoly as many laypeople assume) that the Cdn minister of Ag at the time said was instrumental in laying the ground for its abolition

as well as policies on removing the CBCs special status and it's HNIC monopoly;

appeared before two provincial royal commissions where I submitted an extensive brief calling for the end of the various Ag marketing board monopolies;

have been involved in marketing and market budgets for my Own company for 12 years and other companies and marketing groups since 1990 some with annual budgets into the millions;

and that's just off the top of my head - there is more.

The point is: disagree with my opinion if you wish, better yet give some concrete reasoning/reasons of your own,

But don't question my qualifications.

What are your qualifications?

Thank you for your CV. Now I understand more clearly why I generally disagree with your opinions.

Avatar
#140 Jordan Nugent-Hallkins
November 27 2013, 08:08AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
77
props

I already pay too much for the premium sports channels, this could be tiresome. Hopefully Sportsnet can step up its game, I always found the TSN panels and presentations a higher quality.

Avatar
#141 vetinari
November 27 2013, 08:14AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
32
props

I generally preferred the TSN coverage to the Sportsnet coverage, especially for special events like trade deadline day and draft day.

I like the idea of no blackouts and out of market games, but not if they get too silly on their (likely) price increase.

Also, from a cap standpoint, I guess that some GMs will breathe a little easier knowing that the cap will probably rise over the next few years with this guaranteed bump in revenue.

Avatar
#142 freeze
November 27 2013, 08:21AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
29
props

I bet we see a lot more of those distracting, superimposed ads on the glass during every game.

Avatar
#143 Spydyr
November 27 2013, 08:23AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
18
props

The consumer will pay the end cost of the $5.232 billion and the profit Sportsnet will make on top of that.That is how business works.

Avatar
#144 pelhem grenville
November 27 2013, 08:29AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
6
props

JW...as I understand it, this deal won't kick in til the start of the 2014-15 season

lotsa time for all to freakout til then no?

Avatar
#145 boxman
November 27 2013, 08:35AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

Any idea Jonathon how much the annual take will be for the Oilers?

Avatar
#146 Wäx Män Riley
November 27 2013, 08:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
8
props
Supernova wrote:

Interested to see how Center ice / game pass will work with no local blackouts.

The only reason I keep cable is for sports. But if I could pay $x for a subscription to the oilers and watch the Games with no blackouts I would do that In a second.

NHL Gamecenter and a $5/month subscription to unblock-us.com and you get all the non-playoff (aka Oilers) hockey you can handle.

Works like a charm and gets you American Netflix too.

Avatar
#147 Ca$h-Money!
November 27 2013, 08:44AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
7
props
Wäx Män Riley wrote:

NHL Gamecenter and a $5/month subscription to unblock-us.com and you get all the non-playoff (aka Oilers) hockey you can handle.

Works like a charm and gets you American Netflix too.

I do this. Gamecenter with no blackouts gets me every single NHL game for $99. Between US Netflx & Hulu I get all the TV I can handle.

I realised at one point that the only reason I still had TV was for sports. When you think about an $80 tv bill you realise you are spending $1000/year on TV.... just wasn't worth it. With two young kids at home I just don't have the time to justify it.

I just hope this new ownership arrangement doesn't lead to big changes in GC.

On the broader article, I'm not sure I agree with the experts. I think this is a defensive play by Rogers; I think they see that lots of people keep TV only for the sports, and so they understand the huge advantage that comes with controlling sports. In Canada, other than one off events like the Olympics, Sports = Hockey.

Avatar
#148 book¡e
November 27 2013, 08:45AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
4
props

I would add that part of this is Rogers using this desalination as a means to gain market share in the cable/online market which may mean they recoup their costs through a larger customer base as opposed to higher prices.

They would do this with hockey watching perks for Rogers customers that would not be available to Bell customers.

Avatar
#149 Gerald R. Ford
November 27 2013, 08:53AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
33
props

I'm looking forward to TSN's year-end highlights show called: "Stuff We Used to Show You".

The Canadian Competition Bureau is forcing Sobey's to close the only grocery store in my neighborhood because of the Safeway takeover, but Rogers can, apparently, own the universe, and no one blinks.

Sometimes, Canada = no sense

Avatar
#150 -30-
November 27 2013, 08:57AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
9
props

Not sure how bundling will work since the CRTC is pushing to unbundle television channels and allow you to pic them a la carte.

The government has been knocking cell providers telling us that we pay too much. I wonder if the screws will be put to the cable providers who up until now have had a license to print money in Canada.

If the Oilers go to premium channels that I don't have I will gladly listen to it on the radio or find a stream on the net.

-30-

Comments are closed for this article.