Could MLSE sale forever change the face of Canadian hockey media?

[viper0220]

This is an article i found to be interesting and i agree with and i think this is what proably will happen, if the sale of MLSE went throgh.

http://www.2forboarding.com/nhl-news/996/

Click to read more...

 

[Moobles]

The huge problem with that article is it's basically equating Leafs with Canada. So that if Rogers decides to monopolize coverage on the Leafs, TSN is suddenly screwed. If that were the case, TSN would probably just shift coverage to all the other Canadian teams and become TSN only in name.

It would change things but I don't think it would lead to a collapse in sports networks as the article says, and while the Leafs are the richest franchise in Canada the other franchises collectively make more money them- so it's worth giving them their time of day as well.

 

[rebel diamond]

I don't buy it. The NHL is the one that signs TV contracts for national broadcasts (TSN and CBC) so Rogers owning the Leafs would not force either of those networks out.

 

[bodybreak]

If Rogers makes this purchase, does this affect naming rights of the Canucks Arena at all? Are there league by-laws that would prevent the naming rights from staying in tact / blocking the sale due to the naming rights? Doubt the 2nd part (sale not allowed) is true or this rumour wouldn't have so much traction... If the first part (naming rights) is in question then what kind of protection would the arena owners have in that case?

 

[Trizent]

If Rogers makes this purchase, does this affect naming rights of the Canucks Arena at all? Are there league by-laws that would prevent the naming rights from staying in tact / blocking the sale due to the naming rights? Doubt the 2nd part (sale not allowed) is true or this rumour wouldn't have so much traction... If the first part (naming rights) is in question then what kind of protection would the arena owners have in that case?

Naming rights are just another sponsorship. It won't affect it at all. The same way that Molson's owning the Habs doesn't affect beer sponsorship with any other teams.

 

[Hoser]

The author is a crackpot.

"With control of the Leafs, Rogers could potentially put a stop to the broadcast of any Canadian sports team on stations that are not under the Sportsnet brand."

Huh? The deal(s) with Rogers for coverage of Canucks, Flames, Oilers and Senators games was(/were) not signed in perpetuity, and the broadcast rights are contingent on the TV networks actually airing games. If Rogers fails to broadcast the number of games agreed to then it's a breach of contract and the NHL will sue and/or sell the rights to someone else (TSN).


This whole article seems predicated on the idea Rogers can usurp hockey broadcast rights because they did the same for baseball, which is preposterous. Rogers had to bid and pay money to MLB to get the rights to the Blue Jays games, just like any other broadcaster. What Rogers can do is give Blue Jays broadcasts preferential treatment on its networks, whereas on TSN a Jays game might get bumped for something else.

Rogers doesn't have exclusive broadcast rights for Jays games because they own the Jays: they have exclusive broadcast rights because they paid more for them than TSN was willing to. It's quite likely they overpaid.

 

[Acesolid]

That article makes no sense!

Who cares aboout who will broadcast the games of one of the constantly worst teams in the NHL?

Do you see me caring about who broadcasts the Florida Panthers games? And anyways, it's not like it'll ever matter past April in the near future.

Just kidding, I'm just pre-empting the anti-Toronto hate. But seriously, I doubt TSN and CBC will let Rogers take away their hockey games broadcasts without a fight.

 

[Thrillingbroom]

The article doesn't make sense, the only way Rogers gets sole TV rights to MLSE teams is if they outbid everyone else, whether they are owners or not. According to the MLSE charter, the TV rights must be auctioned off to the highest bidder. If Rogers plans on having sole TV rights they are going to have pay alot more than the $1.3 Billion for the team. No way the other owners give up those revenues.

 

[The Shrike]

"While Canada continually sounds off on pro-Leafs coverage and the assumed Toronto sports media bias, is it possible Rogers owning the Leafs along with all viewing rights would turn it into a constant barrage of nary-a-negative from those covering the games. ."

The sports medias relationship with the Leafs (and their fans) is one of the most toxic in all of professional sports. In that light, anything Rogers could do to alter that dynamic would be a considerable step forward.

 

[knorthern knight]

The article doesn't make sense, the only way Rogers gets sole TV rights to MLSE teams is if they outbid everyone else, whether they are owners or not.

Actually, it does make sense. It's called "vertical integration". Here's an example using some made-up numbers...

• Rogers buys 2/3rd ownership of MLSE, and ends up with effective control
• The NHL negotiates a contract with CBC for Saturday games. As owner of one team, Rogers will have only one vote out of 30 on the NHL BOG, so they won't be able to affect anything except a very close vote.
• The Leafs' regional games are a different story. Under the current situation, if Rogers bids $100 million for Leafs regional rights, and TSN bids $101 million, then TSN wins the TV contract.
• With Rogers owning the Leafs, Rogers will simply use their control of MLSE to give themselves the TV rights to the regional games.

According to the MLSE charter, the TV rights must be auctioned off to the highest bidder.

If the minority 1/3rd shareholders complain to the courts, Rogers will "pay" $102 million for the rights. Oh yeah, did I mention that Rogers wil own 2/3rds of MLSE? As 2/3rds shareholder, they will be due 2/3rds of the proceeds, i.e. $68 million. So the net cost to Rogers is $34 million, to beat out a TSN bid of $101 million. This is the "new math" of vertical integration.