Jokerit 16
Registered User
move Ottawa to Houston. Poor franchise, owner and no a New arena.
Bettman dont want to Arizona or any other USA based team moved, because new TV deal is coming.
Will Bettman ever get a US TV contact that pays like the NFL, the NBA? MLB?
- Thread starter sawchuk1971
- Start date
move Ottawa to Houston. Poor franchise, owner and no a New arena.
Bettman dont want to Arizona or any other USA based team moved, because new TV deal is coming.
- Houston is 4th largest city in USA
- Lots of corporate money,
- many transplanets from the north.
- Also a big TV market.
- Good for the USA TV deal move Senators to Houston.
- Toyota center is ready for hockey, still its quite old building, should be renovate.
Barclay Donaldson
Registered User
Franchise still made money as of 2019. So no, not a poor franchise.
Eugene Melnyk is worth $1.21 billion. So no, not a poor owner.
Ottawa has been Top 5 in attendance multiple times over the last 10 years. A new arena isn't needed. Once the team is good, then they'll start attracting fans again. So a new arena is not necessary.
So no, no Ottawa to Houston.
Try again if you want. Just make it harder next time.
Barclay Donaldson
Registered User
The only possible owner is Tilman Fertitta, who has made it perfectly clear multiple times he is not willing to pay the going rate for a NHL team. Bettman and Daly also privately ripped him a new one when they privately met. Fertitta hasn't opened his gigantic and hockey-ignorant mouth since. The rest doesn't really matter if there isn't an owner on the table. The Senators are not relocating to Houston, not sure where one even gets that idea. And having a hockey ready arena that already has a main tenant that gets priority dates isn't a qualifier for a NHL team. Having a hockey ready arena also isn't a qualifier. There's no less than 6 other US cities that have NHL arenas that aren't getting teams any time soon.
This^^ And I'm wanting/looking to date Rihanna/Jessica Alba etc...
Bettman knows things aren't ideal and it's NOT GOOD if this is being leaked by the NHL now instead of NHL being in the thick of negotiating the new deal with NBC who has right of first refusal. It seems more a sign of uncertainty and potential issues. Its similar to CBA negotiations, when there isn't any news getting leaked is when you know real incremental work is getting done. Leaks are usually a sign of stalled negotiations or issues with negotiations when one side lacks leverage but tries to use public opinion or in this case hoping another company bites the bait and NHL can lure interested parties into paying the fee they want "if" NBC isn't backing up the brinks truck.
I've been following the potential of this next US TV deal. I don't fault NHL for aiming high because maybe just maybe you raise your floor higher on what you can get. I also hope they don't over play there hand. I think prior to moving to NBC this is what happened with ESPN/ABC and Fox I obviously was younger back in the mid to late 90's and wasn't tracking this stuff as a young teen then, but maybe one of the old timers on here remember what exactly happen with FOX and ESPN I seem to remember NHL wanting big bucks and getting a smaller deal and ESPN pulled the contract after the labor strike? Not sure entirely sure on FOX.
BTW doesn't it seem like bad luck always happens when a NHL TV deal is happening/around the corner. The lockout in the 90's the 2010, the Great recession, 2020 Global Pandemic. It's like lol you gotta be effing kidding me smh are you serious?
Last edited:
No team is moving before the next US tv deal goes into effect.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 22,826
- 11,145
John Shannon said the Rogers TV deal, goes down in the last few years, and said it is around 300 million in the last year. So must of been front loaded a bit.
NHL has gaps in its US markets. Houston and Atlanta are missing, alongside b-tier markets like Kansas City and Hartford.
NHL has 25 teams in 22 markets once u subtract the 2nd and 3rd teams in socal and NYC.
It is akin to the other 3 leagues having a total of 2 Canadian franchises. Any wonder why their popularity in Canada is lacking?
NHL has 25 teams in 22 markets once u subtract the 2nd and 3rd teams in socal and NYC.
It is akin to the other 3 leagues having a total of 2 Canadian franchises. Any wonder why their popularity in Canada is lacking?
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 22,826
- 11,145
Lol the Bay area, Minnesota, and Denver lost NHL teams as well. Ditto with Winnipeg. In the NBA, Vancouver, Seattle, San Diego (twice). In the MLB, Montreal, Seattle, New York (2 teams.) Even mighty LA lost 2 NFL teams in the same year.
Relocating teams say more about ownership being mismanaged/greedy than their markets.
Relocating teams say more about ownership being mismanaged/greedy than their markets.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 22,826
- 11,145
Gee, the NHL has big gaps in its coverage of US markets?
The other 3 leagues have limited Canadian popularity because of their limited coverage. The NHL has the same problem in the US.
The other 3 leagues have limited Canadian popularity because of their limited coverage. The NHL has the same problem in the US.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 22,826
- 11,145
The NHL originated in Canada, the other 3 leagues were formed in the USA, even though basketball was invented close to Ottawa . Like I said Atlanta had 2 teams.
Pretty sure the leagues are more interested in making money than any sort of national loyalty.
The NBA for instance had greedy owners who decamped from Seattle and Vancouver for heavily subsidized, but much smaller and poorer markets in Oklahoma City and Memphis respectively. That did not help with their TV contracts.
As much as people love Winnipeg, the Thrashers were run by crooks who gutted their franchise for a quick buck. Nashville and Tampa are considered good markets but Atlanta is larger than those 2 combined.
The NBA for instance had greedy owners who decamped from Seattle and Vancouver for heavily subsidized, but much smaller and poorer markets in Oklahoma City and Memphis respectively. That did not help with their TV contracts.
As much as people love Winnipeg, the Thrashers were run by crooks who gutted their franchise for a quick buck. Nashville and Tampa are considered good markets but Atlanta is larger than those 2 combined.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 22,826
- 11,145
Two misses and you’re out for NHL in Atlanta
Atlanta was given 2 expansion franchises, poor attendance and ownership issues, and now gone, They even had Time Warner as an owner at one time. Atlanta market hasn’t supported their teams well unfortunately.
Time Warner wasn't the owner when they left.
Their owners were essentially grifters who needed fast cash. They were the NHL version of the Vancouver Grizzlies/Orca Bay.
Both of these owners would have several hundred million extra $ in their pockets if they actually ran their franchises properly.
The original Flames had the same issue.
Their owners were essentially grifters who needed fast cash. They were the NHL version of the Vancouver Grizzlies/Orca Bay.
Both of these owners would have several hundred million extra $ in their pockets if they actually ran their franchises properly.
The original Flames had the same issue.
With the other leagues getting more interest from the US and hockey needing Canada to get most of it's fans and interest, I am not sure anyone will ever be able to get more money out of the big networks....
ESPN didn't do a horrible job with the NHL when they had. Could they have done more? Sure. I think I read John Buccigros(sp?) did have to push to get what they did air. But they had NHL 2 Nite, a couple of games a week, and since they carried them, there was some time on SportsCenter dedicated to the NHL. But once they got the NBA(and paid the massive bucks to get it), it all went away. Everything went there, coupled with the fact ESPN decided to become more about the drama behind sports rather than the sports themselves, and the NHL was a dead entity in their eyes.
Looks like we have eddygee arguing with himself...
*No* numbers being leaked is a bad sign for the NHL!!!
Numbers being leaked is a bad sign for the NHL!!!
*No* numbers being leaked is a bad sign for the NHL!!!
Numbers being leaked is a bad sign for the NHL!!!
Last edited:
I'm not arguing with myself. Look try to understand the nuance of what I'm saying. When these lofty numbers "like we're looking for $750m yr for media rights" are coming from the NHL and not the media and or networks or at least not from a place of mutual understanding like you see with other leagues. Look at the MLB TV deal back in Aug. Media like Sport Business Journal and Forbes had that deal sourced with ball park numbers well before the deals were actually signed. The media talk to both sides independently (TV media and league figures). The fact that there has been no consensus number released by media with NHL & NBC regardless if it's a part of a exclusive or split deal isn't good this late into the game. We do know the two sides are apart that's why media has repeatedly stated the $400m yr number while NHL is looking for almost twice that. I have been looking at it in this perspective since NHL announced they would push back negotiations citing "waiting to see what happens with NFL" in one article.
I took the real reason NHL put out the statement that they would delay TV negotiations with NBC who has rights of first refusal til the end of the year is that NHL didn't like the numbers they were hearing early on.
Here is a article from Dec 2 from Sports Business Journal again saying what's been said all along the rights will go for about 2x. NHL is talking $750m yr. The discrepancy tells me NHL is really throwing out flyers of "hey we are open for business"; ideally you'd see your hot property locked up or even overpaid for to get locked up in a renewal deal. The fact that negotiations had to be pushed from the summer to end of the year/ early next year isn't promising. I don't knock the NHL strategy of aiming high, but I don't think it's a sign of strength or certainty of the game changer they are seeking.
SBJ Media: Sinclair To Lose Top RSN Executive
Expect NHL To See Uptick For Next Media Rights Deal
The NHL is in a good position when it comes to its next media rights deal, which would start with the 2021-22 season. At least three TV networks -- NBC, ESPN and Fox -- have shown interest. So, too, has at least one streaming platform.
Expect the NHL to see a significant increase from the 10-year, $2 billion deal it has with NBC -- with an average annual value that could double in value. Expect the league to split its TV package across at least two TV networks. And expect the NHL to negotiate a streaming component.
NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman addressed the media rights situation during today’s Dealmakers in Sports virtual event. He said the league is prioritizing connectivity to try and attract the next generation.
Bettman: “It’s about exposure; it’s about promotion; it’s about how the games are covered. Production values; the talent they use. ... Whether it’s traditional media or on the digital platforms and streaming, it’s how we’re going to be able to connect with our fans going forward, particularly the younger fans.”
Bettman said the NHL has seen “lots of interest” from both traditional broadcasters and streaming platforms, but he did not identify any specific suitors.
Last edited:
So leaks are good, unless they are coming from someone who is well connected with league HQ? Ummm... OK, I guess.
I don't know what the league will end up getting (I've posted on here $600 million/year, but I really don't know), but the idea the league is getting desperate and has John Shannon tossing out numbers publicly as a hail mary to goose fees seems a little tin foil hattish... and nonsensical.
I don't know what the league will end up getting (I've posted on here $600 million/year, but I really don't know), but the idea the league is getting desperate and has John Shannon tossing out numbers publicly as a hail mary to goose fees seems a little tin foil hattish... and nonsensical.
Last edited:
So leaks are good, unless they are coming from someone who is well connected with league HQ? Ummm... OK, I guess.
I don't know what the league will end up getting (I've posted on here $600 million/year, but I really don't know), but the idea the league is getting desperate and has John Shannon tossing out numbers publicly as a hail mary to goose fees seems a little tin foil hattish... and nonsensical.
Call it what you will I have stated I felt like this before that. I have said I feel the number will be around $500m could see your $600m if things break right but that would require a change in fortune things in general are a mess right now. I'm not knocking Shannon I have no doubt he was told by NHL hey we're looking at $750m yr. That is not the same as John Shannon saying hey I've talked with networks and they are prepared to offer xyz. That's not tinfoil just common sense. It's in the leagues best interest to aim high no one goes into a negotiation citing what you honestly can see yourself getting without a fight, you aim high. That's what NHL is doing, I'm sure they've had some talks about the soon to be expiring TV deal with NBC. It'd be tinfoil to believe they actually haven't really discussed numbers in depth with NBC and that they are as NHL said during June/July waiting for the NFL to sign their deals and the media picture to become clearer.
Last edited:
Byrddog
Lifer
- Nov 23, 2007
- 7,483
- 826
There is nothing currently to indicate that the new contract will increase like that. Most of the speculation was prior to CoVid. The expiring contract was 10 years at about 200 mil per year, in the current situation NBC stock dropped nearly 18% from Feb to June it rebounded and is currently down about 6%, it is impossible to think they will ink a long term contract that doubles the NHL TV revenue much less triple it to 600 mil per. In fact there is not one sport that has not experienced a decline in viewership. Canceling games has forced viewers to find alternate entertainment. If I were betting there will be a two year extension of the current contract at 200 mil per year then they go back to negations because Bettman has no leverage to ask for increase now.
Jokerit 16
Registered User
Totally disagree. NHL should be targeting at least a 600-800 million per year. Anything less is totally failed for negoations.
I have to admit, this guy has a point for ESPN. I wonder where NHL would be ft for ESPN?
They dont have coverage/promote the NHL enough.
A Broadcasting Deal With ESPN Can Help Grow the NHL - Drive4Five
They dont have coverage/promote the NHL enough.
A Broadcasting Deal With ESPN Can Help Grow the NHL - Drive4Five
