New TV deal announced

[CB123]

Wont know if I like this untill I see it in action in 2008.

[LFITQ]

Hmmm Saturday night.

TSN/CTV - Football night in Canada

CBC - Hockey Night in Canada

Head to head match up.

Could be interesting just to see what does happen.

[B.C.FAN]

Hmmm Saturday night.

TSN/CTV - Football night in Canada

CBC - Hockey Night in Canada

Head to head match up.

Could be interesting just to see what does happen.

It would only be for the last four weeks of the football season and first four weeks of the hockey season. Most Saturday nights in the fall, TSN already broadcasts a CFL game, often from B.C. Place. I know what I'd be watching.

[LFITQ]

Hmmm Saturday night.

TSN/CTV - Football night in Canada

CBC - Hockey Night in Canada

Head to head match up.

Could be interesting just to see what does happen.

It would only be for the last four weeks of the football season and first four weeks of the hockey season. Most Saturday nights in the fall, TSN already broadcasts a CFL game, often from B.C. Place. I know what I'd be watching.

Watching yes. But not from the TV set. If the game is from BC Place you'll be right there with me in the stands!

[KnowItAll]

I see a lot of discussion about the tv side of the deal, but have not noticed any comment on how the economics compares to previous deals. Did the CFL get more, less, or same money as previous combined CBC\TSN???

[Lionut]

http://www.globesports.com/servlet/stor ... tball/home

Some food for thought from Bill Houston of the Globe and Mail regarding the TV deal. He makes some good points -- as the CFL dislocates its shoulder patting itself on the back for this deal, you have to stop to consider that the group they didn't even want to hear from may have offered more money, and that the league may have left money on the table by signing away all of their alternate media platform rights to TSN in the bargain. In addition, freezing out CBC/Global means that the League has now married TSN as a broadcast partner for the forseeable future -- there will be no shopping the deal around five years from now.

[Rammer]

I think that the marriage already happened when TSN began Friday night football, and if it wasn't clear then, the exclusive bargaining that TSN had consumated it.

As for shopping the product in five years, well the CBC had a similar marriage with the NHL at one point and as we speculate now, that seems to be gone by the wayside. Remember the only certain things in life are death and taxes, if the CFL thrives, all the television stations will want a piece of that lucrative pie.

[MacNews]

you have to stop to consider that the group they didn't even want to hear from may have offered more money, and that the league may have left money on the table by signing away all of their alternate media platform rights to TSN in the bargain.

I'm fine with that Lionut. CBC has an amateur broadcast (Remember not carrying the Als/Lions game because of the lockout?) so I think this is better for the league.

[KnowItAll]

I see a lot of discussion about the tv side of the deal, but have not noticed any comment on how the economics compares to previous deals. Did the CFL get more, less, or same money as previous combined CBC\TSN???

The last five-year deal with TSN (2003-07) paid the league $45 million over 5 years...which bought TSN all the games. They sold off some games, playoffs and GC to CBC. The previous five-year deal (1998-2002) was for $42 million over 5 years (although one columnists recently said it was for $35 million, but the $42M is usually the number quoted).

The new five-year deal is for $80 million over 5 years (again some columnists are saying $75 million), which adds TSN running the on-line broadcasting service. The deal also calls for TSN to sponsor signage in all home stadiums, further increasing each teams revenue.

The home Blackout policy has also been modified with the league guaranteeing that a certain number of games will have their blackouts lifted, league-wide, not team by team. Apparantly the league will be deciding which blackouts to lift, not the team.

thanks. So it looks like the old, risk long term loss for short term gain. Sure hope this doesnt backfire.

[Belize City Lion]

Global is in no position to handle a major sports property like CFL. They have nobody inside their organization with experience with broadcasting sports and most likely what would happen is it would become the pet project of David Asper. Trust me, it wouldn't be a good product.

As for CBC, I just got a copy of the Grey Cup on DVD, so I finally got to see their pre-game coverage. You would have thought they were covering a funeral, not the Grey Cup. What a boring piece of crap product they put together for Canada's biggest sporting event. It has been years since I have seen a Grey Cup broadcast and I was almost embarrassed at how the production was. The coverage of the game was decent (technical, not talent wise). But the overall package was very weak.

The CFL has done the right thing in signing an exclusive deal with TSN. TSN is in the sport business so they will do what it takes to make their CFL broadcasts slick and exciting. CBC is too mired in the politics of being a public broadcaster, while Global should stick to buying blocks of US sitcoms and dramas.

[Robbie]

A good, long-term television contract would be the best Christmas present for the CFL.

[cromartie]

Ok, I'm going to call BS on this column.

Houston: Did CFL give away too much in TSN deal?
WILLIAM HOUSTON

Globe and Mail Update

Media executives are giving thumbs-up to TSN for the landmark deal that will have the Canadian Football League and Grey Cup rights moving to the cable network in 2008.

But they're reserving judgment on the CFL, which may have given away too much and, more important, made a Faustian bargain that could be ruinous when the next rights negotiation comes up.

Also Thursday, Richard Stursberg, the head of CBC Television, rapped the CFL for not soliciting a bid from the network, which has been airing CFL games since 1952.

And the quality of the broadcast over the last four years, in addition to the de-emphasis on sports broadcasting (or at least, any sport not named soccer) is clearly lost on the columnist. If you show my product in a crappy, college level production light, what obligates me to solicit a bid from you?

"What makes [Wednesday's] announcement particularly frustrating is that we were not even afforded an opportunity to present our bid to the CFL," Stursberg said in an internal CBC memo.

"Our offer, which included another conventional broadcast partner [CanWest Global], would have ensured that all Canadians would have had access to all CFL games free over the air. Clearly, though, reaching as many Canadians as possible, including those who don't have cable access, was not a priority for the league."

Overall Cable penetration in Canada exceeds 85%. I would venture that in the metro areas where the CFL has teams, it exceeds 90%. I would submit the percentage of non-cabled people who would be ticket buyers and would miss out on the CFL product is very small because of the move to TSN.

And CTV would be stupid not to simulcast the Grey Cup with TSN, it being the most watched program in Canada, at a minimum.

He added: "This is really a blow to Canadians who will have their access to Canadian football limited as a result of the CFL's decision."

All 80,000 of them.

It is speculated the CFL might have left money on the table by not seeking a bid from the CBC.

Speculated by whom? The CBC guy that wrote a memo? The columnist?

The league sold the rights to everything, television and new media, to TSN for about $16-million a year, perhaps slightly more, over five years. That's $2-million a club each year.

The current TSN-CBC deal, which will expire at the end of next season, pays the league about $10-million.

But we'll let the fact the league is making more money pass without comment, apparently.

A source said the CBC-CanWest bid had planned to offer more than $20-million a year for TV rights.

That couldn't be confirmed.

Then it shouldn't be printed. It's heresay. Nothing like a column based on heresay.

But one media executive said the league's decision to sell digital rights (Internet, mobile phones and video on demand) to TSN was a mistake.

"Every other league is doing the reverse," he said. "They're keeping the rights. But the CFL is so hungry to reach a profitable point that it went for the cash. That's what drives them."

Would someone like to find me a new media content supplier, other than the ones that supply porn, that actually makes money? And the last time I checked, cash drives every business, that's why they're called for profit

Another source said the league, by selling new media to TSN, has lost revenue streams that will grow over the course of the contract.

Again, some sort of proof of profitability potential is called for here. Didn't the CFL have to drop the price on game streams this year because they weren't selling? Haven't we been sold on how profitable the internet was going to make existing media properties for a decade now? How's that working out?

"Once you give up controlling rights to your digital properties, what growth revenue streams do you have?" a source asked. "Sponsorship? No, because TSN will go and sell the sponsorships to the content-related devices. That leaves the clubs with ticket sales."

Which most of them are quite good at and, unlike most other major sports leagues, still comprised the majority of the club's revenue.

But Tom Wright, the outgoing CFL commissioner, said the league sold the rights to the new media to TSN because its website, TSN.ca, is a high-volume online brand. What's more, TSN has the resources and expertise to help the CFL product grow on digital platforms.

TSN president Phil King said the CFL's Internet model is different from that of Major League Baseball, which has enjoyed success selling out-of-market regional broadcasts online. Unlike baseball's huge regional schedule of games, all CFL games are aired nationally.

Sources

Who?

believe the biggest potential problem facing the CFL could be the next rights negotiation.

The league, by not requesting a bid from the CBC-CanWest partnership, may have alienated both networks to the extent that neither will present a bid in 2012.

So, let me get this straight. New media is fragmenting existing media, but the existing media is so distraught on being left out of the bidding, that they might pass up their opportunity to bid on one of two domestic Canadian television properties that delivers a steady Male 25-54 audience, including the one property that more Canadians watch than any other? Ooooookay.

"At the end of the day, while the CFL clubs have a guaranteed income now, they will have nobody to negotiate with down the road," a source

Who?

predicted. "There will be one person sitting at the end of the table. He will be from TSN and he will say, 'This is what we're going to pay you.' "

If I owned a bird, this column would be useful for lining the cage.

[Lionheart]

This is good for the CFL. While the viewer numbers for the GC may not be as big given TSN isn't available on aerial broadcast, the overall season product delivered will be far superior.

Bye Bye Bluto err Walby ...

The big downside is that exposure will be down. It's not just the airwaves, but on basic cable as well.