Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook
Register
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,769

    Superbowl on TSN in 2015?

    Interesting Reuters article:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7137B320110204

    Fast version: ESPN reaches 100 million homes, charges 3$-4$ per subscriber per month, and sells advertisement for a high price. This is way more than what the consortium NBC-CBS-FOX can collectively afford selling advertisements, whose deal expire in 2014. By the way, a network like ABC is available in 116 million homes.

    If the Superbowl moves to ESPN in 2015, CTV will have nothing to simsub, so they'll dump the Superbowl on TSN, forcing cord-cutters to subscribe again to cable/satellite in order to watch the game. TSN will then charge more for the channel. In 2008, TSN was asking 1.12$ per subscriber per month.
    "It's not a rerun if you haven't watched it yet." (© 2010 by TVViewer)
    "Ne jamais s'obstiner avec un épais. Il va vous abaisser à son niveau et vous battre avec l'expérience."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Miramichi, NB
    Posts
    132
    interesting report but it fails to mention what a comcast owned NBC brings to the table, there's now much more $ at Rockerfeller Centre, granted there are a lot of major wounds that need to be patched to stop that corpoarte bloodbath but I wouldn't put the Superbowl on cable.. just yet.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    CTV would absolutely love it if EPSN ended up with The Super Bowl. Not because it means they will put it on TSN, but because they could put it on CTV and get more viewers than ever before since there is no way viewers can legally watch it on a U.S. OTA network.

    If The Super Bowl does ever end up on EPSN, you wont need to worry about it moving to TSN, the fact that they can't simulcast it actually gives CTV an advantage. Given the way NFL broadcast rights are sold in the U.S. it does make sense that The Super Bowl could end up on EPSN, but it is a totally different situation in Canada, it doesn't make any sense for The Super Bowl to end up on TSN, the circumstances are totally different.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,769
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    but it is a totally different situation in Canada, it doesn't make any sense for The Super Bowl to end up on TSN, the circumstances are totally different.
    Well, it does, a little. With CTV signals nearby the US border, residents living in US cities nearby the Canadian border will try to catch CTV for free instead of subscribing to cable in order to get ESPN, and the NFL (and ABC/Disney/ESPN) won't allow that.

    Plus, more money from ESPN mean they'll probably ask more from international broadcasters as well, and CTV can't afford such a high price since they rely solely on advertising revenues. TSN makes more sense, IMHO.

    Please elaborate the "doesn't make any sense to end up on TSN" bit.
    Last edited by InMontreal; 02-09-2011 at 03:58 PM.
    "It's not a rerun if you haven't watched it yet." (© 2010 by TVViewer)
    "Ne jamais s'obstiner avec un épais. Il va vous abaisser à son niveau et vous battre avec l'expérience."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    New Brunswick
    Posts
    1,697
    Trust me when I say the Super Bowl won't end up on ESPN anytime soon. There has been some talk about putting playoff games on ESPN if the playoffs go to more than 12 teams, but CBS, Fox and NBC wouldn't be happy at all if a 4th network were added into the Super Bowl rotation. Trust me when I say there is no chance this happens for the next rotation. The NFL still wants to Super Bowl to be on OTA TV for the time being.

    Also this quote is misleading
    NBC has moved more of its Olympics coverage to its cable properties. In 2010, more hours of Winter Olympics content were seen on cable than on the network.
    While it is true that the NBC cable channels (and for that matter CTV-Rogers cable channels) aired more Olympic coverage than ever before in 2010, the two OTA networks also aired the most hours ever for a Winter Olympics, so it isn't really a valid point. NBC isn't taking Olympic coverage off the main net and moving it over to MSNBC, they are just showing more of niche sports that weren't even broadcast before, like curling and biathlon, on cable.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,769
    Quote Originally Posted by NB Josh View Post
    While it is true that the NBC cable channels (and for that matter CTV-Rogers cable channels) aired more Olympic coverage than ever before in 2010, the two OTA networks also aired the most hours ever for a Winter Olympics, so it isn't really a valid point.
    If I remember correctly, NBC kept their network morning news, Regis & Kelly show, afternoon soaps, 6pm news and Jeopardy/WoF during the olympics, which were most likely time-delayed and aired in primetime and overnight after the late talk shows, while CTV cleared their whole schedule and was almost 24/7 Olympics dedicated.
    "It's not a rerun if you haven't watched it yet." (© 2010 by TVViewer)
    "Ne jamais s'obstiner avec un épais. Il va vous abaisser à son niveau et vous battre avec l'expérience."

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    New Brunswick
    Posts
    1,697
    You are correct InMontreal. NBC has never went to the lengths that CTV/CBC have went to for the Olympics because they like to save the "big event" programming (athletics, swimming, gymnastics alpine skiing etc.) for tape delay in primetime. NBC usually does a 2-3 hour afternoon show (it was 10am-1pm for Beijing and 3-5pm for Vancouver) and 3.5-4 hour primetime show and a late night one after local news. I still think that NBC's coverage of last year's Winter Olympics was more than they aired in Salt Lake (which I know was the previous high), but I may be wrong.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,769
    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    Please elaborate the "doesn't make any sense to end up on TSN" bit.
    That question was for you, TVViewer. ;)
    "It's not a rerun if you haven't watched it yet." (© 2010 by TVViewer)
    "Ne jamais s'obstiner avec un épais. Il va vous abaisser à son niveau et vous battre avec l'expérience."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    New Brunswick
    Posts
    1,697
    I think TVViewer's point was that since none of the US nets would put any original programming on that night (except at 10:30pm ET maybe). CTV wouldn't have any new programming to simulcast. Because of this it would make just as much (if not more) sense to put the Super Bowl on CTV as TSN. I don't even think ESPN is getting rights, so it isn't really an issue anyway.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [quote=InMontreal;41517]

    Well, it does, a little. With CTV signals nearby the US border, residents living in US cities nearby the Canadian border will try to catch CTV for free instead of subscribing to cable in order to get ESPN, and the NFL (and ABC/Disney/ESPN) won't allow that.
    If they even care (and I don't think they do, especially the NFL) there is nothing they can do about it. Disney doesn't have that much power to control how the NFL sells broadcast rights and how CTV operates.

    Plus, more money from ESPN mean they'll probably ask more from international broadcasters as well, and CTV can't afford such a high price since they rely solely on advertising revenues. TSN makes more sense, IMHO.
    First you assume that CTV will only have one revenue stream by 2015. You also assume that the NFL would play hardball with the only broadcaster in Canada that can afford and is willing to purchase NFL broadcast rights. If the NFL makes an unreasonable offer CTV can't afford, they can say no and walk away knowing that no other network in Canada will be able to afford it either.

    Please elaborate the "doesn't make any sense to end up on TSN" bit.
    It makes sense for EPSN to try and get The Super Bowl (not sure if they will be successful) because ESPN is a competitor to the other networks that air football games, CTV and TSN are not competitors. EPSN is bidding against the other networks for broadcast rights, CTV and TSN are not bidding against each other.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,769
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    If they even care (and I don't think they do, especially the NFL) there is nothing they can do about it. Disney doesn't have that much power to control how the NFL sells broadcast rights and how CTV operates.
    Huh? The NFL controls broadcast rights and blackouts, but when it comes to NFL in Canada, they have no control whatsoever over which channel will air the show?!?! Something isn't right here.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    First you assume that CTV will only have one revenue stream by 2015.
    What else? Money doesn't grow in trees!
    LPIF? That's money reserved for local stations producing in-house shows, not to be used by Toronto headquarters.
    Fee-For-Carriage (or VFS)? Does that new way for the broadcaster to make money will serve to buy more american programming? I do remember the debate was "Local TV Matters", not "American shows on Local TV Matters even more".
    So, what will be CTV's other revenue stream they CAN use for buying american sports?

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    You also assume that the NFL would play hardball with the only broadcaster in Canada that can afford and is willing to purchase NFL broadcast rights. If the NFL makes an unreasonable offer CTV can't afford, they can say no and walk away knowing that no other network in Canada will be able to afford it either.
    Hmmm, no, I don't think so. CanWest could afford the Superbowl broadcast rights prior to 2007. Citytv doesn't have enough stations across the country to carry such a high-profile show.

    As I said earlier, if the Superbowl goes to ESPN, there's no interest anymore in broadcasting the show OTA since there's no sports simsub to perform (but they still can simsub the reruns scheduled on US OTA channels that night), so CTV, Rogers and Shaw have an open occasion to either bid for the Superbowl on their sport channel or they could "consortium" like they did for the Olympic games but take turn each year to air the Superbowl (just like current NBC/CBS/FOX) on their respective sport channel. TSN is already in 12 million homes while Sportsnet is in 9 milion homes, and Shaw requested a sports licence recently.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    It makes sense for EPSN to try and get The Super Bowl (not sure if they will be successful) because ESPN is a competitor to the other networks that air football games, CTV and TSN are not competitors. EPSN is bidding against the other networks for broadcast rights, CTV and TSN are not bidding against each other.
    ... But CTVgm is bidding against Rogers and Shaw !
    "It's not a rerun if you haven't watched it yet." (© 2010 by TVViewer)
    "Ne jamais s'obstiner avec un épais. Il va vous abaisser à son niveau et vous battre avec l'expérience."

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Yeah, i'm sure CTV sees no interest in broadcasting the most watched television program of the year.

    You just don't get it, the circumstances are totally different in the U.S. than they are in Canada. When CTV purchases NFL broadcast rights, there is no EPSN to bid against them, there is no broadcaster in Canada that can afford something CTV can't, the NFL knows this and they aren't going to be stupid and demand a price for NFL broadcast rights (which include The Super Bowl) that CTV can't afford.

    It's not even a sure thing that EPSN will ever get The Super Bowl, i'm sure they will try and ask for it, but actually getting the NFL to agree is another story, NBJosh made another important point that the other networks aren't going to stand for it going from a 3 year rotation to a 4 year rotation, and that's just one of the many issues that would need to be addressed.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,769
    TVViewer, tell my why is it out of the question that Global (backed up by Shaw) or Sportsnet (backed up by Rogers) could afford NFL broadcast rights? If CTV can afford it, why not Global or Sportsnet?
    "It's not a rerun if you haven't watched it yet." (© 2010 by TVViewer)
    "Ne jamais s'obstiner avec un épais. Il va vous abaisser à son niveau et vous battre avec l'expérience."

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    TVViewer, tell my why is it out of the question that Global (backed up by Shaw) or Sportsnet (backed up by Rogers) could afford NFL broadcast rights? If CTV can afford it, why not Global or Sportsnet?
    Are you not reading what I'm saying? I said if the NFL were to demand a price that is so high CTV can't afford it (which is your argument for why it would end up on TSN), the other Canadian networks wouldn't be able to afford it either. If the price the NFL is demanding is so high that CTV can't even make money on it, there is no way Global or any other network would be able to either. The NFL knows this and that's why they aren't going to demand a price that CTV can't afford.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,769
    Just for the record, when I was reffering to CTV, I was talking about the CTV Television Network, not CTV Globemedia. After all, CanWest dumped E! stations because they were not making money on their own.

    Back to my point, TSN makes more money with subscriber revenues + advertisements than CTV making money selling advertisement only.
    Fee-For-Carriage for CTV may reach more homes than TSN because CTV is on basic cable and TSN is optional, but TSN makes 1.12$ per subscriber (and increasing) and I doubt CTV will ask 1$ per subscriber for FFC. TSN makes much more money than CTV. Rogers Sportsnet has similar carriage agreements than TSN.

    "The NFL knows this and that's why they aren't going to demand a price that CTV can't afford." Sure, but if they can make more money with TSN or Sportsnet, they ain't gonna demand a price that TSN or Rogers can't afford.
    "It's not a rerun if you haven't watched it yet." (© 2010 by TVViewer)
    "Ne jamais s'obstiner avec un épais. Il va vous abaisser à son niveau et vous battre avec l'expérience."

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Again, TSN isn't bidding against CTV for NFL broadcast rights, it's not like the U.S. where EPSN is competing against FOX/CBS/NBC. The competitors that CTV does have (like Rogers) can't afford something that CTV can't. I actually doubt that Rogers would be able to afford CTV's NFL package combined with the package they already have.

    The Super Bowl isn't sold on its own, CTV gets it with the NFL package they buy. Also, NFL rights are not negotiated every year, CTV signs multi year deals for its NFL package that include The Super Bowl. In the unlikely event that ESPN does get The Super Bowl, there is no way they will get it every year, and unlike in the U.S. where it rotates networks every year, CTV purchases a multi year NFL package deal that includes The Super Bowl every year. Again, the circumstances are totally different on so many levels.

    That being said, it looks like your mind is already made up that The Super Bowl will air on TSN no matter what, so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,769
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    The competitors that CTV does have (like Rogers) can't afford something that CTV can't. I actually doubt that Rogers would be able to afford CTV's NFL package combined with the package they already have.
    (...)
    That being said, it looks like your mind is already made up that The Super Bowl will air on TSN no matter what, so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
    So, are you saying that the CTV Television Network (with their 20 O&O stations) makes more money than Sportsnet or TSN? I mean, in their respective budget, not their parent company. Hard to believe.
    "It's not a rerun if you haven't watched it yet." (© 2010 by TVViewer)
    "Ne jamais s'obstiner avec un épais. Il va vous abaisser à son niveau et vous battre avec l'expérience."

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    So, are you saying that the CTV Television Network (with their 20 O&O stations) makes more money than Sportsnet or TSN? I mean, in their respective budget, not their parent company. Hard to believe.
    No i'm not saying that. If Rogers purchased CTV's entire NFL package they wouldn't be able to air it all on Sportsnet, a lot of it, especially games that air on OTA U.S. networks would go to Citytv and OMNI, I doubt Rogers could overall afford that.

    Again, your mind is already made up that The Super Bowl will end up on TSN, and it doesn't look like you will change your mind no matter what anyone says, so I don't see a point in continuing this debate.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,769
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Again, your mind is already made up that The Super Bowl will end up on TSN, and it doesn't look like you will change your mind no matter what anyone says, so I don't see a point in continuing this debate.
    I don't either. I just know how you operate and bully, and you keep repeating yourself, so I had to ask the question directly to figure out what you meant, but you rather avoid it and insult me, rendering this debate useless.
    "It's not a rerun if you haven't watched it yet." (© 2010 by TVViewer)
    "Ne jamais s'obstiner avec un épais. Il va vous abaisser à son niveau et vous battre avec l'expérience."

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post
    I don't either. I just know how you operate and bully, and you keep repeating yourself, so I had to ask the question directly to figure out what you meant, but you rather avoid it and insult me, rendering this debate useless.
    I'm not bullying anyone. Your continued misuse of the word "bully" is disrespectful to anyone that is actually bullied in real life.

    I didn't avoid your question, stating that it looks like your mind is already made up isn't an insult. If you want to see actual insults read some of the rude comments you made to other members.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 02-15-2011 at 01:29 PM.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •