Rogers Getting Exclusive NHL Rights - Horrible

[Dobber]

From the Canadian Press:

The National Hockey League has reached a 12-year, $5.2 billion agreement with Rogers Communications for the league's broadcast and multimedia rights.
As part of the deal, Rogers says the CBC will continue to broadcast its iconic Hockey Night in Canada broadcast and that the TVA network in Quebec has all of the Canadian French-language multimedia rights.
The league says the deal gives Rogers national rights to all NHL games, including the Stanley Cup Playoffs and Stanley Cup Final, on all of its platforms in all languages.
In addition, the NHL says the agreement guarantees that there will be no further regionalization of games or local blackouts.
The NHL says the partnership, which is subject to approval by the NHL Board of Governors, will begin with the 2014-15 season and run through the 2025-26 season.

First of all, from strictly a hockey coverage standpoint, freezing out TSN is a dumb idea at any price and I can't believe the NHL agreed to it. Relegating Bob MacKenzie to covering the World Juniors and just talking about NHL action as opposed to doing it during live games is just wrong. Would TSN have a need to have both Darren Dreger and MacKenzie now? And about about the other talent? They were bringing Aaron Ward along nicely, Martin Biron looked like he might have a future there, Paul Maurice, etc etc. A broadcaster completely frozen out of the NHL would have no need for so many talking heads. And Sportsnet won't hire any more than two or three of those guys because they already have their own crew. Three years from now, NHL coverage will be down to one perspective - Rogers.

Second, Rogers is legendary for their greed. Myself, I haven't given Rogers a dime in four years. I use Tek Savvy for Internet and phone, Shaw for TV, WIND for mobile. Easily saved $5000 over four years. But I digress. Rogers is greedy. Do you really think that hockey will be free in five years? Rogers is part owner of the Leafs so right off the bat, Leafs TV will have more games. Is a "hockey channel" that you have to pay for forthcoming? I'm not talking Center Ice - that will remain (at whatever price Rogers chooses). But something like the NHL channel but with a game every night that will cost a few bucks a month and would be blacked out on the NHL Center Ice (much like games on Leafs TV).

Third, Rogers is legendary for their greed. Oh wait, I said that. But what does this mean for DobberHockey? Would I be able to post YouTube clips in the ramblings in 2016? Or after posting a clip, would I get a notice from Rogers? Let me tell you this - if Rogers ever does that, I will go public with their notice and battle it out every step publicly. Would Rogers remove any Canadian NHL coverage on YouTube?

Fourth, doesn't it rub you the wrong way that Rogers charges far more than is necessary for mobile use? Canada is the highest in the world in terms of rates, and Rogers just took that profit and gave a lot of it to the NHL. You pay $70/month for your mobile phone (let's say) and Rogers has exclusive NHL rights. When you could be paying $50/month (let's say) and Rogers does not have exclusivity and TSN gets half the coverage. Which do you prefer? Rogers is being rewarded for overcharging us. And then any move to allow competitors into the market gets blocked by propaganda (see: Verizon) and payola to government officials. The real losers here - us.

[Dobber]

Next year, will I be allowed to say "NHL" on the site? How much power will Rogers have? How much will they choose to wield? (the latter is a silly question - of course they'll wield all the power they possibly can)

[blayze]

While I agree that less competition is worse for the end consumers, I think you're overreacting a little here. I agree with you overall that this is bad for a number of reasons (different perspectives, content, etc), it's not necessarily all bad.

A friend of mine works as a senior producer at Sportsnet and her feeling is that this will mean more "free" games on their regular sportsnet channel. I think net-net, it may mean more "free" games overall (at least for those of us who aren't willing to shell out an extra $35 a month just for ****ing TSN). True they'll shift more to Leafs TV, but for consumers on basic cable I think they will get more games overall.

Also, you need to keep in mind that these cable services are very price-elastic. If they suddenly moved a bunch of stuff to pay-tv, they may make more revenue/customer, but they'll have to weight against the loss in total subs as well as the impact of that on advertising revenue, so it's not so cut and dry. Come on Dobber, you run a website - you should know this stuff

[blayze]

Just to share a different perspective, here is my dialogue with my friend on FB who works as a senior producer there. Obviously she's biased, but good to have her view none the less. Sounds like they'll bring on at least a few of the TSN guys.
Alex - not sure I'm convinced. The NHL cutting off TSN is a bad move for the fans IMO. Hate to say it but the broadcasting team at TSN is pretty solid and now the fans will be limited to just the Rogers' perspective. Less competition is never good, and Rogers owns Leafs TV so I'm sure they'll shift more games to that pay channel. Hope I'm wrong.
13 minutes ago · Like
XXXXXXXXXXX Alex - I promise you'll be fine. And I wouldn't rule out any further big news between now and the 2014-15 season, especially in terms of talent. Just my opinion - not that I know anything. Running that many games across the board is going to mean more talent is required. Also, I wouldn't necessarily assume that many games would be placed on LeafsTV. The digital integration strategy is meant to make the broadcasts more available to viewers. The paid model doesn't necessarily work better for viewership than making sponsorship available to everyone, so I'd assume LeafsTV will still only broadcast the same percentage.

[Dobber]

Some things that lead to this reaction of mine:
1. To this day, TSN runs "stills" rather than Olympic highlights that Rogers owns the rights to. Can you find Olympics on YouTube?
2. Leafs TV promised that they would never show live games and force consumers to subscribe if they wanted to watch all Leafs games. Three years later they "only" showed a few games on, occasionally Friday nights. A couple of years after that they show about 15 games.

Gradually, not "suddenly", as you say. But watch for charges to appear and/or rise over the course of six or seven years. Watch. My only hope is that the NHL puts down their foot on freedom of content online (i.e. YouTube).

[Axeman33]

Doug MacLean just stated on Hockey Central that blackouts will be lifted with this new deal on Sportsnet. I will believe it when I see it.

[Pengwin7]

I feel the pain here a bit.

In the US, ESPN lost hockey (which seemed devastating) only to have Versus pick it up.
For a while, it was cool having a small op station having hockey because I could get it with several cable providers (I believe).

Then, Comcast/NBC buys Versus and turns it into NBC Sports Network and re-negotiates the big extended US cable deal.
The coverage is awesome... but that exclusivity of "big brother" probably means that I can't get a decent hockey page included with any other cable subscriber.

And... every January, Comcast (who is the cable/internet LORD down here) jacks their rates through the roof.
I'm expecting our cable/internet bill to go from it's current $98/month to probably $160/month next January when our "promo 12 month rate" expires.

Yeesh.
Seriously... who is our community tech guru?

Perhaps the NHL has broadcast rights with Europe and we can all "share viewing" from a European Internet feed of future NHL games.
(oh... and I'm serious about that. My family may need to ditch cable costs in the future and stream shows via Internet.)

[ultrawhiteness]

Pengwin, what you want already exists and it is hockeystreams.com.

i hate this news, though i would quibble with a lot of dobber's 'what-if' scenarios... Bobby Mac will stay on TSN doing what he does, the rest of the good guys will find work elsewhere. If there is a silver lining, it's that Sportsnet gets rid of the regional blackouts and hopefully replaces some of their terrible talent.

even though I know the answer, I still can't believe the NHL chose a little extra money over the better product and a healthy competitive environment.

[blayze]

Originally posted by ultrawhiteness View Post
even though I know the answer, I still can't believe the NHL chose a little extra money over the better product and a healthy competitive environment.

It's a business at the end of the day. The unique feature about the Canadian hockey market is we're such rabid fans and hockey is engrained so deeply into our fabric that businesses can do whatever they want, and we will keep coming back.

Leafs can go 0-82 and most games will still sell out (at ridiculous ticket prices) and ratings will still be strong. Best business EVER.

[ultrawhiteness]

I would love to know why Bell thought they should get cheap on this deal. Seems to me it will make their investment in TSN much less valuable.

[agentzero]

When I learned of this deal, all I could picture was the late Ted Rogers cruising around the Monopoly board in that stainless steel roadster, stopping on the Bell utilities square to drop off some millions at every pass..

The telecommunications giants in this country disgust me so much that I'm actually thinking I'll have to start some kind of public action against this farce that is these giants and their ridiculous monopoly of our telecommunications market. How the competition bureau stands to see this is beyond me. Nevermind the CRTC, a regulatory body partly funded by the industry itself (so, Bell and Rogers..) and whose Board makeup counts a number of former industry executives (so, from Rogers or Bell...). Then, these supposed "competitors" go out on a joint venture to buy the nation's most valuable franchise and wait for it...wait for it..... one of the venturers gets exclusive broadcast rights for the sport played by that franchise??? Huh!?!?!?!?!?!

Astounding.

Also worse is that both companies regularly modify the programming made available to you in the package you pay through the nose for and give you the "option" of constantly "upgrading" to get those same channels you used to get... This has happened to me with Rogers and then with Bell and is now happening to my brother with Rogers... What a surprise.

Sure, we can find some ways to stream on the net... but for those of us who want to watch live sports, at home on the very TVs we purchased to watch them? The cost is getting astronomically prohibitive. It's unbelievable. I will not take a single argument from the clowns that work for these companies about how this deal "helps" me in any way. It does not. Competition fosters innovation and affordable prices. Monopoly fosters...well...remember what used to happen near the end of the game at like 1 am when you landed on Boardwalk with 3 hotels on it?.. Pretty well sure you had to mortgage Indiana and trade-in any houses you had on the light-blues...

The market was already bad. This does not sound like it will make it better. As a Habs fan living in Ottawa, I have no idea if I will be able to get RDS without selling my pancreas to buyers in Uzbekistan and losing the NHL on TSN pretty well spells the end of me wanting the channel at all. It also takes hockey away from the Network that covers it the best, even better than that once called institution CBC.

It's looking rough.

[ultrawhiteness]

well, tough to rant about the evils of monopoly when we are all addicts of the NHL... basically a monopoly itself.

this deal is all about Rogers trying to defend their cable tv business (and perhaps to provide a reason to be a mobile subscriber in the future). if you're one who wants to see the old models die, this should be a good news story as it is a bit of a desperation move.

[agentzero]

Hey UW, I'm not actually sure I understand your analogy for us being rabid NHL fans to a monopoly... you mean, that the sport/league monopolizes our own interest in television/sport? (i.e. I only watch tv to watch hockey?). If that's what you mean, I would say you're right. If I could watch only hockey on TV all the time, I would. Awesome sport. I like many others too, but this one is awesome.

I just find it sad that I have to shell out 200 bucks a month to watch a few hockey games here and there. Seems like a lot and it used to be a lot less, not so long ago.

Finally, I have no sympathy for Rogers losing cable business and in the end their "losses" only serve to hurt consumers. People wouldn't flee to Netflix if Cable prices were reasonable and packages were not re-bundled and repriced mercilessly... Their monopoly is what led to the emergence of trying to get free or cheap tv online... People will always choose the path of least resistance and 200 bucks a month is one heck of a resistance.. That and Bell and Rogers are pretty well some of the only available internet providers around so their monopoly ropes you in, one way or another... and unless I'm going to live like a Mennonite, I'm pretty sure I will need the internet to function, like most people.

In the end, the users in Canada get screwed. Live sports will be harder and harder to afford watching. What the heck, man. Just trying to watch some hockey on the nice TV I bought to watch it on, without breaking the bank and without having to watch it by streaming it off the internet. Apparently, that's too much to ask. Never thought it would be...

[ultrawhiteness]

Originally posted by agentzero View Post
Hey UW, I'm not actually sure I understand your analogy for us being rabid NHL fans to a monopoly...
...
In the end, the users in Canada get screwed. Live sports will be harder and harder to afford watching. What the heck, man. Just trying to watch some hockey on the nice TV I bought to watch it on, without breaking the bank and without having to watch it by streaming it off the internet. Apparently, that's too much to ask. Never thought it would be...

oh man, trust me, i'm with you. i was just trying to explain the realpolitik of the whole affair. the tragedy.

the NHL is a monopoly business, basically. they've chosen to use that to create another one. i don't think that's a wise decision... does anyone think TSN would be as good now if them or CBC or SN had had exclusive rights since the year 2000? a competitive environment is the reason they've been so relentlessly kickass.

that said, the NHL has investors. Rogers has shareholders. their obligation is to produce value for these people. and hell, i've contemplated buying rogers stock because it's relatively stable and pays a good dividend, so i can't protest too much. to dream that these old empires would go quietly into the night is... too much.

also, i should note that i work for telus and obviously follow this industry quite closely. telus has not gone crazy buying these old media properties because the leadership here do not think it is a good bet down the road. but rogers and shaw and bell feel differently about that old tv model... either because they know something we don't or because they were too heavily invested in the first place. if i knew which was right, i'd be paid more. maybe. well probably not.

[Dutch]

I think you guys are way overreacting. I think we get to see more games now for the same package. In fact, I can finally ditch tsn of my package because I could give a shit about their sportscenter reruns. TSN is the worst sports channel in the bloody world. I can't believe you guys have such positive words for Mckenzie Dreger and Duthie. These guys are brutal. They think they are the best of the best in the business, while all the stuff that they report is widely found on twitter, often before they even release it.

On a side note. I don't think you quite understand the way the communications world works Dobber. We have had a discussion about this in the past. While its true that guys like Koodo and Wind offer better rates. The fact of the matter is, they just don't have the same coverage in the country as Rogers, Telus, and Bell do. So unless you stay in the city where your service works, quite often you may experience problems in other areas where if you use the main 3 your coverage may still work. So doesn't mean Rogers, Bell, and Telus are per se greedy. ( I do think we need some other major players though) They first of all can charge these rates, but secondly they need to build the networks and spend millions on new towers and such. The smaller, cheaper options use these towers and need to "rent" them, therefore not having as widespread coverage.

Not sure if that makes sense, but myself I like Rogers (worked 8 years for them, and use their cell service for 10+ years, while telus does the rest for me) because I like to have my phone available wherever I go.