Who asked Rogers to give the NHL that much money? Where the hell did that number come from in negotiations? The NHL had no business getting that much.
News Article: Toronto Maple Leafs rebuild takes a bite out of Rogers’ bottom line
- Thread starter Bluelines
- Start date
They made the third round 4 times between 1993 and 2002, and you're only going to mark off 1993?
killer1980
Registered User
Over 48 years the overall team performance has been less than spectacular but that has never affected the HNIC ratings until Rogers took over. There are still no guarantees that this leadership team will generate anything better. I've heard the same hopes and dreams year after year for a long time. My point is that has never been a reason to watch HNIC. Team performance has always been irrelevant to the ratings.
Bluelines
Python FTW!
- Nov 17, 2013
- 12,349
- 4,559
Not so much, Bell has no expense or no ad revenue from the NHL deal, Rogers has paid an exorbitant expense to buy the NHL rights but also gets ad revenue, the Leafs merchandise sales and the gate revenue are shared by Rogers and Bell... I haven't seen recent numbers but I think those (gate/merchandise) revenues are flat. No they are not both hurting.
I wouldn't call it hurting, its just that they are not hitting ad revenue forecast, the expected return is not there.
Bluelines
Python FTW!
- Nov 17, 2013
- 12,349
- 4,559
It's not about self serving egos. Both companies compete for the same market dollars. TV, Internet and phone, it's not surprising that they have a less than a pleasant relationship with each other.
Rogers has decided to invest heavily into content, Leafs, Raptors, Blue Jays, NHL rights, etc. and not invest heavily into emerging tech, their cable infrastructure is over 20 year old technology. Bell has decided to do a balance approached, buying a portion of MLSE and heavily investing into fiber, I guess we will see which one was the wiser choice.
The CyNick
Freedom of Speech!
- Sep 17, 2009
- 11,364
- 2,032
Bell WANTED to be invested heavily in content, but they LOST the bidding war to Rogers.
The investments on the cable side were happening either way.
yeah, cynick is right. Bell wanted to win the rights. It was a shock that they didn't win it, like everyone thought they would, when rogers made their surprise offer
The CyNick
Freedom of Speech!
- Sep 17, 2009
- 11,364
- 2,032
You mean those special elements like Hughson, Simpson, and Healy calling the games? Ron and Don in the 1st intermission? Friedman and a bunch of geeks pretending they have scoops? Ads for the latest Jerry Dee show? Yeah I miss those culturally iconic moments too.
Bluelines
Python FTW!
- Nov 17, 2013
- 12,349
- 4,559
HNIC did better because what they paid for the NHL rights, was significantly less than what Rogers paid for their rights. The charge rates for ads is similar for both Rogers and CBC but the big difference is the COG (Cost of Goods) that Rogers paid to air the NHL.
Now that the viewership is down 10% to 20% in some markets the charge rate for ads, will eventually drop (if it hasn't already). Companies will not pay the same rate to air their commercials if you have 800k viewers vs 1 million viewers.
The Leafs problems are not the sole reason for Rogers poor performance, but it is one of a few things that influencing the less than stellar fiscal performance for the department that is responsible for the NHL content.
Bluelines
Python FTW!
- Nov 17, 2013
- 12,349
- 4,559
Sure Bell wanted to have the NHL rights but they were disciplined enough to know what is a good value and what is a poor value. Bell put a dollar number on what the NHL rights were worth and stuck to that number. Its evident from the billions of dollars spent on fiber, that Bell understands their core business is telecommunications and as such they have made the financial commitments to continue to invest into modern telecommunication infrastructure.
IMO Rogers in their haste to be the biggest bully on top of the hill lost focus on what got them to where they are. To over invest into NHL rights while ignoring their ancient infrastructure is IMO fool hearty. Rogers miscalculated the value of owing the NHL rights in Canada and IMO made a poor investment.
If I was buying a $400,000 house, no matter how bad my family wanted it, I wouldn't get into a bidding war and spend $800,000 to out bid other people. This is what Bell did, they didn't get into a bidding war, this is what Rogers should have done.
killer1980
Registered User
@Bluelines So, Rogers overestimated the value of the product. Probably the reason the 2 guys that made the deal are no longer with the company. They didn't help themselves by putting the production team in place that they did. I still believe that it was egos that dictated the direction of their productions, "We'll show them how hockey should really be done". That has accelerated the severe ratings decline. Somebody knew that what they were doing wasn't working. That is evidenced by the unceremonious dumping of Gord Cutler.
Bluelines
Python FTW!
- Nov 17, 2013
- 12,349
- 4,559
I'm sure that the people involved have huge egos, most top executives do, but to make business decisions based on a **** measuring contest is a sure way to find yourself out of business. You can have a huge ego but still make sound business decisions. This has not been a sound investment, that is not to say it will never be one because they have a decade to turn it around.
I'm sure that the bid went through a vetting process that was passed by numerous people. Any company that is worth its weight would scrutinize that bid to the nth degree. This is when ego's would be filtered out and sound business decisions are made.
I think Rogers was for a lack of a better word caught up in the race to the top, not because of egos but because they thought it was where they would have a competitive advantage. 3 years back when this bid was placed, the buzz word in the telecommunication business was "content", it was thought the companies who had the most content would be positioned to be the victors in future. I think Rogers felt that any price paid for content was a valid expense. They over estimated the value of the NHL rights and overestimated the ad revenues.
killer1980
Registered User
First of all, I believe you are giving the people at Rogers way too much credit. Also, from what I hear, unbelievably large egos run rampant in the television industry. There are probably people on this board that will attest to that. The other issue, that you haven't addressed is the firing of the guy that was supposed to create this new era of hockey broadcasting. Clearly, some people there don't know what they are doing. That includes all the people that would have gone through the vetting process to hire him. The timing of his departure is curious at best.
Bluelines
Python FTW!
- Nov 17, 2013
- 12,349
- 4,559
LOL maybe I am giving them too much credit. I do know people at both companies in executive positions and they are highly intelligent people, minus the egos, so I can't say that my personal experience will confirm your ego theory.
There were two people in executive positions that I can recall that were fired, the head of Marketing and another person, I think the firings were unrelated to the NHL rights purchase. Their residential product was losing significant market share (in some cities) and I'm assuming that was the reasoning behind their firings.
Nadir Mohamed stepped down in 2013, Keith Pelley left in 2015 not sure if he was forced or chose to leave but he did leave to take a position with another company. Its not uncommon for executives to leave for other challenges. I'm not sure if the person you are refering to was fired or chose to leave.
killer1980
Registered User
TheCLAM
Registered User
The CyNick
Freedom of Speech!
- Sep 17, 2009
- 11,364
- 2,032
You clearly don't understand how the negotiations went. Bell wasnt given a chance to counteroffer. They were blindsided by NHL giving the entire package to Rogers.
The CEO of the company literally said sports content was vital to the future of their business. That's the entire reason why they went in with Rogers on the Leafs.
You're also just making up the part of Rogers not investing in the cable business.
Bluelines
Python FTW!
- Nov 17, 2013
- 12,349
- 4,559
LOL, tell yourself whatever makes you happy.
Clearly you don't understand the concept of vetting COG, Bell had a figure in mind that made sense, the figure Rogers paid was excessive, which is evident by the 10% margin. If you think for a second that Bell and the NHL didn't have discussions prior to the Rogers deal, its would be you that clearly does not understand the relationship Bell and the NHL had, at the $$$ Rogers offered there would have been no counter offer by Bell, remember that 10% ROI?
Tell me one emerging technology that Rogers has invested in the last 5 years? Bell has their Fiber Op. Rogers has 20 year old Cable. Where is Rogers next gen investment?
TheCLAM
Registered User
It's simple economic theory..
The NHL benefits with more competitors in the mix to buy rights. These companies offering massive deals for broadcasting rights, I repeat, never pan out. It's never as profitable for the broadcaster as opposed to the league.
Obviously there's certain instances where profit is made (NFL), but look to baseball and basketball as examples.
The CyNick
Freedom of Speech!
- Sep 17, 2009
- 11,364
- 2,032
Maybe ask your executive buddies how well the loss of the rights went over at the top of the organization. Do your friends know Phil King, how did he fare?
killer1980
Registered User
I'm not sure he's just not a pretender and defender. He didn't even know the guy who created Rogers new hockey look got canned a couple weeks ago.
Drugstorecowboi
Registered User
- May 5, 2009
- 3,664
- 17
With every Canadian team doing poorly or just flat out disappointing their fanbases on a weekly basis...OFCOURSE ratings are going to drop. Have some winning seasons and you'll see an increase in viewership.
If all of us take 5 minutes to fill out this "compliment form" explaining to rogers why they're production is so pathetically incompetent maybe they will actually consider some changes
Neil Hamburger
Five Bagger!
That's because they use Rogers and Bells infrastructure, and Rogers and Bell have no incentive to help a rival's customer.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
GAME 3 - Drummondville Voltigeurs @ Victoriaville Tigres - Drummondville Voltigeurs leads series 2-0Wagers: 1Staked: $35.00Event closes- Updated:
-
