ESPN Dumps NHL

[SedinFan*]

Hey, maybe now I won't have to watch Saturday afternoon hockey again.

Let's hope that.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

Another casualty of the NHLPA thinking its worth a lot more than it really is, and another nail in Goodenow's coffin. Bettman has been telling them for years this was coming, and they just didn't believe it thinking they were in the same ballpark as the big three sports.

Wake up and smell the indifference, NHLPA, and get the deal done at all costs while you still have a livelihood. Your bargaining games are long over.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Which is a foolish argument. The coverage sucks in every sport.

Hockey got bad ratings with FOX, it got bad ratings with ESPN, and it'll get bad ratings from the next place it goes.

Yep.
Let the contraction begin.

America doesn't like hockey, so why pretend?

Bye bye Nashville, Anaheim, Carolina, Atlanta, Florida, Phoenix.

 

[Dr Love]

Bye bye Nashville, Anaheim, Carolina, Atlanta, Florida, Phoenix.

Yeah, let's contract Phoenix, I'm sure the lawyers for city of Glendale, which just paid for a shiny new stadium won't have anything to say. Or for the Thrashers, who just got new owners.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Ive yet to see Fox or ESPN do good coverage so no wonder it gets bad ratings.

ESPN wasn't that bad.
Think about it. On the one hand, you've got the diehard hockey fans in AMerica. These guys expect top notch coverage.
On the otherhand, you've got to market to newbies, so you've gotta make it as basic as possible, explaining offsides every god damn game.

I don't think it's HNIC. But it's not bad. They've definitely improved their broadcasts in the last 5 or 6 years.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Yeah, let's contract Phoenix, I'm sure the lawyers for city of Glendale, which just paid for a shiny new stadium won't have anything to say. Or for the Thrashers, who just got new owners.

Yeah. Teams have never screwed over cities before. And new owners have never moved franchises to other locales.

 

[Dr Love]

Yeah. Teams have never screwed over cities before. And new owners have never moved franchises to other locales.

Not after a building a brand new arena they haven't. If the Coyotes were to be contracted, Glendale has every right to sue.

When the Colts moved out of Baltimore, Baltimore sued them, and the Colts had to pay $400,000 (in 1987). Browns fans sued Modell when he moved the team.

 

[SedinFan*]

This isn't doom and gloom for the NHL. Both parties (NHL and NHLPA) decided to play with fire, and now they're burned.

ESPN not picking up their option is pretty understandable from a business perspective. Why would a company want to put 60 million down on a product that hasn't been around in a volitile market such as the US for almost a year. It doesn't make economic sense for ESPN to pick up their option. Plus, they realize that the NHL will come crawling back to them for a lower price sometime in the near future. So it's a win-win situation for ESPN.

This however gives the NHL a chance to go for NBC, Spike and if they want, to go back to ESPN for a lower price.

Some on this board might say 'why spike tv?'; here's your answer. The NHL is desperate to get their product out there, more than ever. What's so bad about having their product on another channel? It makes the most sense for the NHL to go after those three channels while retooling their marketing department (hopefully).

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Not after a building a brand new arena they haven't. If the Coyotes were to be contracted, Glendale has every right to sue.

When the Colts moved out of Baltimore, Baltimore sued them, and the Colts had to pay $400,000 (in 1987).

Well, I'm not sure how the ownership is structured, but what if the Coyotes simply declared bankruptcy and got contracted and went out of business?

 

[Dr Love]

Well, I'm not sure how the ownership is structured, but what if the Coyotes simply declared bankruptcy and got contracted and went out of business?

I'm not a lawyer but I imagine there could be some legal aspects of that which Glendale could file on (in addition to a possible civil suit), considering they haven't been in the arena for even a full season, perhaps they could argue that they were mislead or something. I don't know, like I said I'm not a lawyer.

 

[JimEIV]

I don't understand this top notch coverage/ poor coverage thing some of you are talking about.....

I sit through cheezy radio broadcast and bad local commercials because I like the music, I watch Monday night football with the volume off cause I like football....I watch college sports of all kinds and there are no worse broadcasters but I watch because I like the games.

The best broadcast in the world isn't going to get people interested if they simply don't like the game.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Some on this board might say 'why spike tv?'; here's your answer. The NHL is desperate to get their product out there, more than ever. What's so bad about having their product on another channel? .

I checked Spike TV's corporate website and checked their advertising demographic studies.

Apparently, companies that sell hygienic products will not advertise with that audience.
However, one dental floss company does advertise with Spike. Strange, though. The floss is three inches thick.

Spike tv is a failure.
The NHL needs the credibility of a real sports network.
ESPECIALLY after this amatuer hour lockout.

 

[Hockeyfan02]

They're going to have to. Attendance will drop so severly they'll have no choice.

Ed Snider has already said he's going to drop prices.

I agree. Thats why I said " after the NHL cuts prices to get their fans back, if they do come back, tickets will not be cheaper." Some people think once the fans are back the tickets will stay cheaper because the owners will be paying the players less, that's what they're hoping this lockout will bring. After a year or two (more like 3 IMO because fans won't come back that fast), ticket prices will be right back where they were in 03-04, maybe higher. The ticket prices will not be slashed because the owners are paying the players less, like the poster I quoted indicated in his post.

 

[Dr Love]

Some people think once the fans are back the tickets will stay cheaper because the owners will be paying the players less

Well anyone who thinks that is being naive. I disagree about it going back to what it was in 3 years though, I think it will take much longer than that.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

I'm not a lawyer but I imagine there could be some legal aspects of that which Glendale could file on (in addition to a possible civil suit), considering they haven't been in the arena for even a full season, perhaps they could argue that they were mislead or something. I don't know, like I said I'm not a lawyer.

Me neither.
But this ESPN thing is a bad sign.

Corporate sponsorships won't be far behind. Advertising revenue in the rinks will start to dry up.

If I owned a fledgling team, I'd start to get nervous.
I suppose, if I'm Nashville, that I couldn't live under the old system.

But now I own a mediocre team in a crappy market in a league with no players, no games, poor television revenues, poor television exposure, and drying up corporate sponsorship.

Some teams are going to be in trouble.

 

[Hasbro]

Not after a building a brand new arena they haven't. If the Coyotes were to be contracted, Glendale has every right to sue.

When the Colts moved out of Baltimore, Baltimore sued them, and the Colts had to pay $400,000 (in 1987). Browns fans sued Modell when he moved the team.

Modell's a pretty bad example though, he makes Dolan look like Bill Gates. The Cavs and Indians and later Al Lerner made deals with cleveland yet Modell left for greener pastures and is still having to sell controling interest in his team.

 

[Roger's Pancreas*]

This is terrible for every hockey fan in latin america. ESPN was the only place to watch hockey and now we have nothing. My only hope is that NHL.com doessomething like MLB.com where you can watch the games online.
Thank you very much Bob and Gary.

I honestly do believe that next year, or whenever the league begins, they will have online broadcasts up for sale. To offer free broadcasted games like the Halifax Mooseheads would be a disaster. They would have to somehow accomodate the entire population of hockey fans that have a highspeed connection. How they price the broadcasts is beyond me though.

 

[danaluvsthekings]

Me neither.
But this ESPN thing is a bad sign.

Corporate sponsorships won't be far behind. Advertising revenue in the rinks will start to dry up.

If I owned a fledgling team, I'd start to get nervous.
I suppose, if I'm Nashville, that I couldn't live under the old system.

But now I own a mediocre team in a crappy market in a league with no players, no games, poor television revenues, poor television exposure, and drying up corporate sponsorship.

Some teams are going to be in trouble.

Corporate sponsorships and advertising revenue drying up depends on the arena. Sure teams could lose the companies that have advertising on the boards or the ice. As for the arena itself and the ads you see on the arena concourses, the area on the edges of each deck like where they have those display boards that go all away around the edge of the upper deck, or on the sides of the jumbotron, most of those sponsors aren't going to leave because their advertising is going to be seen at other events in the arena. Teams likely get a percentage of that advertising in their lease deal. Arenas that have more than one pro team as a tenant would be in better shape than those that only have an NHL team. Obviously Staples Center, United Center, MSG, American Airlines Arena would still be better off than say San Jose Arena, the new arena in Phoenix, the arena in Nashville, etc. One more thing to remember is a lot of those businesses have contracts with the arenas. Yes I know contracts can be broken but if the companies wanted to pull out completely I'd imagine they'd have to pay some sort of penalty. Like when Staples Center was built AEG signed its big naming rights deal with Staples but I know other businesses like McDonalds, Toyota, United Airlines, the LA Times signed deals for 10 or 15 years for their sponsorships and signage in the arena. For example the premiere seats at Staples have the United Airlines logo in the fabric. So while the Kings might lose the Jiffy Lube or Panda Express advertisements on the boards, I don't think Staples Center is going to lose any of its corporate sponsors.

 

[Staalweiser]

Well, there goes hockey for me. I live in Australia, and the only hockey we get is on ESPN...

Ah, well...

 

[RangerBoy]

ESPN will want a NBC type of deal with no rights fee

 

[futurcorerock]

Yeah I understand what your saying. But you still seem to have this idea that ESPN owe's hockey something. Yes it's ESPN's job to market the games that they are going to broadcast. But it's beyond ESPN to market and nurture the game into a thriving existence. Sure they would love for that to happen, because the better ratings they get means more money.

As much as you and I wish it were different, hockey will never get the money or airtime dedicated to it as other sports. Whose fault is that to blame?

No not at all -- I understand much of the NHL's failed product rests with their inability to market themselves, but Disney hasn't done anything to promote their product. Granted, they don't owe hockey or the NHL anything by not picking up their option, but this kind of thing poses a very important question about business ethics. Where do you cross the line when it comes to turning a profit? Do you sever friendly relationships and favorship in order to turn a buck? Obviously ESPN doesn't see the NHL as profitable anymore, so they cut the dead weight.

But my argument deviates here -- My point is that the NHL doesnt need ESPN by any measure. Yes 60 million is a huge amount of money for me to turn away from, but in the long run this gives the NHL a very poignant opportunity to seek partnerships elsewhere to help get the game back on it's feet. IMO the struggling NHL on a network where it would have to compete with other sports like outdoor games and billiards is going to be more detrimental to the NHL than being on a network where the NHL would absolutely be the marquee sporting event. That type of marketing and exposure by another network in the long run may offset that 60 million necessary to keeping the league afloat for a few years by injecting the on-air product with some fresh blood and further help develope this "new" NHL that we've been promised in the form of rule changes, uniform tweaks and HDTV

Given that now the NHL TV package is going to be bargain basement priced, it gives the NHL a chance to start fresh with a new cable network and do something to change one aspect to the slide which is killing hockey: Innovate how the game is shown on television

Also, some posters pointed out that this "ticking clock" syndrome is hurting the bargaining process by making the "best deal possible" constrained by time. We've now eliminated one more clock hanging over the NHL's head. Good

I say good riddance to ESPN. It was a bittersweet relationship, but it's time to move on.

 

[RangerBoy]

Is Sports Channel America still in business?

Sports Channel America went out of business in 1992.All of the Sports Channel properties became Fox Sports Net

 

[Steve L*]

Well, there goes hockey for me. I live in Australia, and the only hockey we get is on ESPN...

Ah, well...

In England we get ESPN, Comcast, Sunshine network, all the crappy local stations, TSN and CBC.

The trouble is they replaced hockey with basketball and Im not sure were going to get hockey back although I know the editor is a huge hockey fan so there may be a slim hope.

 

[Jarqui]

Funny, you left out the part where the only sport you sited was football.

Was it that hard to mention in the first place?

I actually cited "the other major sports broadcasting arrangements". I just gave one example. I didn't realize "the rules" were that I had to give specific examples for every "major sport" that was of interest to you. Sorry.

 

[Dr Love]

Modell's a pretty bad example though, he makes Dolan look like Bill Gates. The Cavs and Indians and later Al Lerner made deals with cleveland yet Modell left for greener pastures and is still having to sell controling interest in his team.

A bad example of what? I'm talking about lawsuits against teams for leaving.