The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Is the Sun Belt Expansion becoming a success? (Mod: or Non-traditional markets)
I'm not sure if Bettman is counting the individual teams in his figures? The collection of data thread at the top of the Business board has any/all links we've ever seen on both national (Cdn and US) and individual team TV revenues. The team contract values are much harder to find.
My national data listed all the Cdn sources: CBC, TSN, RDS
Well I see your stuff does omit Sportsnet, albeit they probably don't add much. If the link I quoted is accurate it does say 500 million for 30 teams to split. So I don't think they'd be including any TV money a team keeps for itself.
I'm assuming we're talking about ESPN. How much was the ESPN contract for the NHL?
And you're correct, all that matters is their current contracts. The Versus contract is a joke (the NBC contract isn't a joke - it's more sad than anything) and even if they get Versus to double it (doubtful) it's still pretty embarassing.
6 teams in Canada generate more TV money than 24 teams in the US... yet the NHL is bending over backwards to ensure hockey is exposed as much as possible in the US for the hopes (and fantasy-land dreams) that they'll get some major TV money. Not gonna happen.
ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 1999-2003 $120 million $600 million
OLN/VS 2005-2007 $67.5 million $135 million
NBC 2005-2007 Revenue Sharing Revenue Sharing
Seeing some people are getting slick with the way they present figures, the $600m is the total received by the NHL over a five year period, or as noted in the chart above, $120m per year.
Well I see your stuff does omit Sportsnet, albeit they probably don't add much. If the link I quoted is accurate it does say 500 million for 30 teams to split. So I don't think they'd be including any TV money a team keeps for itself.
I'm listing what they're getting now. What you linked to is what Bettman promises the league will have in total Cdn + US contracts after 2011.
I'm listing what they're getting now. What you linked to is what Bettman promises the league will have in total Cdn + US contracts after 2011.
Yes that is correct, however the Canadian deal is set and won't change until the current deal expires in 2014 I believe. The only wild card left is the U S deal which is where the speculation begins.. 75 million to possibly 150 million or more. I couldn't see the or more being more than 200 million. Which would be more than GB is hoping for or dared to speculate. Hence I deduced Canadian broadcasters must be paying 300 to 350 million.
Yes that is correct, however the Canadian deal is set and won't change until the current deal expires in 2014 I believe. The only wild card left is the U S deal which is where the speculation begins.. 75 million to possibly 150 million or more. I couldn't see the or more being more than 200 million. Which would be more than GB is hoping for or dared to speculate. Hence I deduced Canadian broadcasters must be paying 300 to 350 million.
Yes, we had that discussion earlier in this forum when Bettman made those statements. The numbers didn't add up then either-- at least as far as current national contracts.
No it's a he won't let his babies move but anyone else is fair game!
Ah, yes, his babies - Edmonton, Pittsburgh, Ottawa...
The league has defended every team. EVERY TEAM. It's ability to do so has increased over the years - in no small part thanks to Bettman. Without him, there wouldn't even be a hint of any hope for the Winnipegs or Quebecs of the world, let alone teams in Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, Pittsburgh, Nashville, and probably several other places.
So spare me this "he only protects his teams" nonsense.
Crazy Ike is right to say Balsillie didn't follow the rules. Or that we had a TV contract. Key word is HAD. Versus is NOT availiable in every home. We don't have a real one right now. Period. There is no excuse for being a gate league in 2010.
The games should be availiable on a national network or basic cable. It should also be the primary source of revenue to help struggling teams. We DON'T have that. Gary needs to work on that. He is not perfect like you are saying.
He IS working on that.
This is going to come to a shock to some people, but Bettman cannot go door to door with a shotgun and make people watch hockey. The current low visibility deal is a direct outcome of three things: the dead puck era, the lockout, and a vindictive anti-hockey culture at ESPN. The dead puck era has been solved, and the lockout was a necessary evil given the idiots running the NHLPA, and I have heard that ESPN is not as hostile to hockey now as it used to be. These things take time to change and the NHL has done some very good things to bring this change about. We'll see what the next TV deal looks like when the current contract expires.
Quote:
Originally Posted by berklon
And you're correct, all that matters is their current contracts.
There is some goalpost shifting going on here. The original claim was that the league would NEVER get a TV deal. The fact is, it has, at least twice depending on how you want to define a successful one as, perhaps as many as four.
In that context, no, that's not "all that matters". What matters is, CAN they get a good TV deal? The answer, given the past, is an absolute "yes".
And I believe they are doing mostly the right things on getting one now.
This is going to come to a shock to some people, but Bettman cannot go door to door with a shotgun and make people watch hockey. The current low visibility deal is a direct outcome of three things: the dead puck era, the lockout, and a vindictive anti-hockey culture at ESPN. The dead puck era has been solved, and the lockout was a necessary evil given the idiots running the NHLPA, and I have heard that ESPN is not as hostile to hockey now as it used to be. These things take time to change and the NHL has done some very good things to bring this change about. We'll see what the next TV deal looks like when the current contract expires.
There is some goalpost shifting going on here. The original claim was that the league would NEVER get a TV deal. The fact is, it has, at least twice depending on how you want to define a successful one as, perhaps as many as four.
In that context, no, that's not "all that matters". What matters is, CAN they get a good TV deal? The answer, given the past, is an absolute "yes".
And I believe they are doing mostly the right things on getting one now.
I think the only shifting going on that of blame-- and by you.
In the other thread you admit to hindsight being 20/20 and a lack of support for new teams, yet now you blame the NHLPA for the lockout? And ESPN for the backpedaling the NHL has had in the annual and total values of its national US contract.
Is anyone at the NHL ever responsible for the state of the league and that central revenues only make up about 10%, maybe 15%, of total HRR?
They reached a far higher value in their TV deal in 1999, and here it is 2010 and we're up to $71m + change?
People get fired for losing that much revenue from a major stream.
If we're talking about TV Deals, I can't say we'd be in better times if the NHL had stayed with ESPN.
Let's clarify something here: The NHL signed with NBC in May 2004, long before the 2004 finals took place, so it wasn't because of the lockout. If ABC continued to televise the NHL they demanded to show fewer regular season games, possibly only 2 or 3 games, compared to 5 in their final four seasons televising the NHL, as ESPN and (at the time) ABC Sports had acquired the rights to broadcast the NBA.
I think the only shifting going on that of blame-- and by you.
First post - the league will never get a major TV deal.
Response - they already have.
Last post - well they don't have one NOW!
The context changed. The goalposts shifted.
Quote:
In the other thread you admit to hindsight being 20/20 and a lack of support for new teams, yet now you blame the NHLPA for the lockout?
Uh, pretty sure there were plenty of us pointing out the problems in the NHLPA as it happened... right here. Wasn't this board all nice and snuggly during the lockout? Those were some glorious discussions. But yeah, no, no hindsight needed there.
Quote:
And ESPN for the backpedaling the NHL has had in the annual and total values of its national US contract.
Is anyone at the NHL ever responsible for the state of the league and that central revenues only make up about 10%, maybe 15%, of total HRR?
You tell me. What should they have done, if the league is responsible? Your theory depends on the league having done something "wrong" and should have done something "else". What was that?
Quote:
They reached a far higher value in their TV deal in 1999, and here it is 2010 and we're up to $71m + change?
People get fired for losing that much revenue from a major stream.
The person most directly responsible WAS. Goodenow. Behind the militant NHLPA, who incidentally was also behind refusing to even consider any rule changes that were needed to break the dead puck era.
It is very rare to see games when just two American teams are playing each other. Pretty safe to say the Canadian broadcasters would be more than happy just broadcasting Canadian teams and for the most part they do.
For the great majority of time we only see two U S teams when there is no Canadian alternative.
Edit to Add: Much like the U S broadcasters are telling us about U S teams
Maybe you should check the stats:
Out of 83 games on the CBC schedule, only 22 of them were CDN-CDN matchups - 3 on a day designed on that theme, BTW. Overall, 64 team slots are filled by US-based teams.
Of course, those facts are only peripheral. Most of the value of the NHL deals (indeed TV deals for EVERY sport) are driven by the value provided by the playoffs. In this regard, the US teams contribute extremely disproportionately. I don't think I have to calculate the number of team slots filled by US teams, including the finals (almost always).
Canadian TV deals are driven by the entire league - not the Canadian teams. That idea that it is driven by the 6 CDN teams is an old and absolutely false canard that needs to be extinguished, and the sooner the better. It is a highlight of the jingoistic attitudes that abound around here (and elsewhere), which attitudes poison many a fine discussion.
kdb209, what if Katz want to move the Oil to Hamilton? Will Gary or Toronto or Buffalo be powerless then?
That would likely be up to the Canadian Competition Bureau and the Canadian Courts.
While not the final say, the CCB has reviewed the League's current relocation policy (simple majority vote with no single team veto) and issued an opinion that it does not violate Canadian anti-trust law.
Out of 83 games on the CBC schedule, only 22 of them were CDN-CDN matchups - 3 on a day designed on that theme, BTW. Overall, 64 team slots are filled by US-based teams.
TSN is in fact littered with US/US matchups (48, to be precise) of 126 TSN games. Out of 252 team slots, 171 are filled by US teams.
. Most of the value of the NHL deals (indeed TV deals for EVERY sport) are driven by the value provided by the playoffs. In this regard, the US teams contribute extremely disproportionately. I don't think I have to calculate the number of team slots filled by US teams, including the finals (almost always).
Giving Canadian hockey fans more coverage of their teams has always been a top priority for TSN and this new deal delivers with greater access to Canadian teams
•TSN will televise 70 regular-season games annually; for the first time, all games will feature at least one Canadian team.
As I said, Canadian broadcasters only show U S vs U S matchups, when there are no other options.
How you can argue that and think you are correct is unbelievable.
Do you think U S broadcasters are showing Habs vs Calgary in the sunbelt? ofcourse not. It's the same thing in Canada. The difference being if Canada is not involved they will show U S teams. More Canadian teams and less U S teams would be just fine and prefered for Canadian broadcasters.
A link about CBC
Bettman said the new deal will feature fewer Toronto Maple Leafs games during the regular season, with more dates being allocated for other Canadian teams.
"The mix is not going to be what it's been in previous years," Bettman said. "We decreased the number of the Leaf games and increased the number of games of the other Canadian teams that can be made available
Giving Canadian hockey fans more coverage of their teams has always been a top priority for TSN and this new deal delivers with greater access to Canadian teams
•TSN will televise 70 regular-season games annually; for the first time, all games will feature at least one Canadian team.
As I said, Canadian broadcasters only show U S vs U S matchups, when there are no other options.
How you can argue that and think you are correct is unbelievable.
Do you think U S broadcasters are showing Habs vs Calgary in the sunbelt? ofcourse not. It's the same thing in Canada. The difference being if Canada is not involved they will show U S teams. More Canadian teams and less U S teams would be just fine and prefered for Canadian broadcasters.
A link about CBC
Bettman said the new deal will feature fewer Toronto Maple Leafs games during the regular season, with more dates being allocated for other Canadian teams.
"The mix is not going to be what it's been in previous years," Bettman said. "We decreased the number of the Leaf games and increased the number of games of the other Canadian teams that can be made available
Can you show me one article anywhere, that a Canadian broadcaster is trying to increase it's broadcasts of AMERICAN teams?
No, you are wrong. I went to the schedule and actually COUNTED the broadcasts and the teams, okay? That counts as a little more factual than people's "intent".
"Fewer" vs. "more" is not the same issue and furthermore is entirely beside the point.
Read my post: TV pays for all of the teams in the league, not just the CDN ones. TV also pays primarily for the playoffs, where the REAL pot of gold is. More importantly, check my links, whihc have the actual TV schedules.
Out of 83 games on the CBC schedule, only 22 of them were CDN-CDN matchups - 3 on a day designed on that theme, BTW. Overall, 64 team slots are filled by US-based teams.
Of course, those facts are only peripheral. Most of the value of the NHL deals (indeed TV deals for EVERY sport) are driven by the value provided by the playoffs. In this regard, the US teams contribute extremely disproportionately. I don't think I have to calculate the number of team slots filled by US teams, including the finals (almost always).
Canadian TV deals are driven by the entire league - not the Canadian teams. That idea that it is driven by the 6 CDN teams is an old and absolutely false canard that needs to be extinguished, and the sooner the better. It is a highlight of the jingoistic attitudes that abound around here (and elsewhere), which attitudes poison many a fine discussion.
It is and always has been completely false.
This tack again? A bit of red herring.
If Canada had 6-8 teams, and there were 16 in the US (for argument's sake), do you think the value of the Canadian contracts would decrease if the same number of games were covered?
Furthermore, if there were more Canadian teams, you might see more of them making the playoffs, so I'd bet that the Cdn broadcasters would preferentially pick up any game that had at least one Canadian team.
If Canada had 6-8 teams, and there were 16 in the US (for argument's sake), do you think the value of the Canadian contracts would decrease if the same number of games were covered?
Furthermore, if there were more Canadian teams, you might see more of them making the playoffs, so I'd bet that the Cdn broadcasters would preferentially pick up any game that had at least one Canadian team.
This tack again?
If things were different, they wouldn't be the same.
Canadians like hockey. Canadians are fans of a variety of teams. Tons of Canadians are fans of US-based teams. Tons of Canadians watch to see certain players on US-based teams.
THe point was that it is not merely Canadian teams that generate Canadian TV revenue. It is merely spouting a baseless cliche to state otherwise. Jingoism drives this meme.
Your position might bear a slight bit of weight if I was arguing that Canadian teams DO NOT contribute to Canadian tv revenue. However, I am not saying that.
EDIT: On a particular note regarding whether more CDN teams could make the playoffs, that has nothing at all to do with value. The CDN networks are paying their money without any assurance that ANY CDN teams will make the playoffs. That value is derived from the product being NHL hockey, and the best teams playing said product in a given year.
I'm listing what they're getting now. What you linked to is what Bettman promises the league will have in total Cdn + US contracts after 2011.
To clarify, Bettman said nothing about $500M. It is at best what "sources" have said, and the article frankly does not even make it clear that the sources said it, or even in that way.
If things were different, they wouldn't be the same.
Canadians like hockey. Canadians are fans of a variety of teams. Tons of Canadians are fans of US-based teams. Tons of Canadians watch to see certain players on US-based teams.
THe point was that it is not merely Canadian teams that generate Canadian TV revenue. It is merely spouting a baseless cliche to state otherwise. Jingoism drives this meme.
Your position might bear a slight bit of weight if I was arguing that Canadian teams DO NOT contribute to Canadian tv revenue. However, I am not saying that.
EDIT: On a particular note regarding whether more CDN teams could make the playoffs, that has nothing at all to do with value. The CDN networks are paying their money without any assurance that ANY CDN teams will make the playoffs. That value is derived from the product being NHL hockey, and the best teams playing said product in a given year.
Ratings would suggest otherwise. These are far higher if the Leafs or Habs especially are involved. There is a reason HNIC gets so much flack from airing too many Leafs games.
Ratings would suggest otherwise. These are far higher if the Leafs or Habs especially are involved. There is a reason HNIC gets so much flack from airing too many Leafs games.
Ratings would in fact NOT suggest otherwise. Ratings are by far the highest in the playoffs.
As regards regular season, the ratings change only at the periphery. The NHL has a huge ratings base without regard to the teams playing. Even using your simplistic approach, if HNIC (for example) gets 1.1 M people watching but goes up to 1.3 M if the Leafs are involved (keep in mind these are only illustrative numbers), then it is the NHL that is responsible for that base number.
Ratings would in fact NOT suggest otherwise. Ratings are by far the highest in the playoffs.
As regards regular season, the ratings change only at the periphery. The NHL has a huge ratings base without regard to the teams playing. Even using your simplistic approach, if HNIC (for example) gets 1.1 M people watching but goes up to 1.3 M if the Leafs are involved (keep in mind these are only illustrative numbers), then it is the NHL that is responsible for that base number.
There's nothing simplistic about it. Canadian broadcasters and newspapers give preferential coverage to Canadian-based teams.
If you want to continue on this tack that Canadians will tune in to St. Louis vs Phoenix or LA or SJ if instead they could watch Edmonton, Vancouver or Montreal, then fine. We'll agree to disagree. You make it sound like it was necessary to add 10 US teams so that Canadians would watch more hockey-- and Cdn networks would pay more money. I disagree. Hold the number of Cdn teams constant, or even add a couple, and the Cdn networks will show greater interest.
You make it sound like it was necessary to add 10 US teams so that Canadians would watch more hockey-- and Cdn networks would pay more money. I disagree. Hold the number of Cdn teams constant, or even add a couple, and the Cdn networks will show greater interest.
Exactly if there were 20 less U S teams, the Canadian broadcast dollars wouldn't change. If you added more Canadian teams the broadcast dollars would go up.
Why do some think this situation is not the same for Canadians as it is for Americans? NBC doesn't care how many Canadian teams there are, but somehow CBC cares how many American teams there are. I think not.
Fact is, the Canadian TV money is what it is, inspite of the American teams, not because of them.
Last edited by Charon of Styx: 07-11-2010 at 01:18 PM.
Exactly if there were 20 less U S teams, the Canadian broadcast dollars wouldn't change. If you added more Canadian teams the broadcast dollars would go up.
Why do some think this situation is not the same for Canadians as it is for Americans? NBC doesn't care how many Canadian teams there are, but somehow CBC cares how many American teams there are. I think not.
Fact is, the Canadian TV money is what it is, inspite of the American teams, not because of them.
So are you saying if there were teams in Hamilton, Winnipeg and Quebec rather than Nashville, Atlanta and Phoenix the NHL would have more TV revenue to share with the rest of the league? If that indeed is the case then it's even more of a no brainer.
Exactly if there were 20 less U S teams, the Canadian broadcast dollars wouldn't change. If you added more Canadian teams the broadcast dollars would go up.
Why do some think this situation is not the same for Canadians as it is for Americans? NBC doesn't care how many Canadian teams there are, but somehow CBC cares how many American teams there are. I think not.
Fact is, the Canadian TV money is what it is, inspite of the American teams, not because of them.
I must say HH, I have to take issue with this post. Absent any American teams, broadcast dollars here would have dropped from the 50's to the 90's, while in recent times, with the advent of PPV, network payments would have remained stagnant & be of a more localised nature with Rogers & TSN battling it out market by market or taking a run at CBC' national coverage.
Secondly, NBC/ESPN/CBS/ABC etc do indeed care about scheduling & "Canadian Content" in regards to teams. Absent "marquee" players on Canadian based teams, rating for tilts between, say, the Rangers & Flyers, or Chicago vs. Detroit, San Jose' @ LA etc are higher than a Leafs' at Colorado or Edmonton vs. Anaheim tilt. You dont think Gary Bettmans' worst nightmare is a Stanley Cup Final between, say, Vancouver & Ottawa?. Just take a look at the BBM's. Its a fact.
Consider the failed CFL expansion into the football crazy US. Americans have little affinity to Canadian based teams, and why should they?. You can Bet ur' Bippy US network & cable providers care a whole bunch about it.
