MLSE Sale: Wins Expected To Matter

[clc12]

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/nhl/article/1234299--mlse-sale-wins-expected-to-matter-under-new-rogers-bell-regime

After reading this article in The Star it almost makes me think that we will have Tom Anslemi for a little while longer. Its pretty sad.

For MLSE, that’s a hard read. Economically, the pension fund managers created a powerhouse. But if wins and losses matter more, MLSE is a disaster.

This line is the one that makes me think they will want him to stay. God help us all!!

[T-boy]

I actually read that line the opposite way around.

This is the important part:

“Under the Teachers’ pension plan, this was an investment to generate resources to pay their pension,” said O’Reilly. “Now you have a syndicate of owners all that have vested interest in the teams being more successful.”

That means the sucess of MLSE will be judged less on the bottom line (profit) and more about the success of the sports teams. If Anslemi is judged on team results, he won't be in a job for long. Until now he's been judged most on whether he can get the pensions plan a lot of money, which he's clearly good at. But a sports franchase should be about results, never about the bottom line.

[Phil]

Results would mean profits for the new ownership. It means runs in the playoffs, higher ticket renewals and better ad revenue from TV.

Again, that seems pretty straight forward, MLSE seem to consistantly cock it all up along the way.

[ensco]

That's 5 minutes I'll never get back.

The article is poorly written, and the U of T professor quoted is brain dead. This business have having "experts" on absurd topics in universities (sports mgmt? are you kidding me?) that get quoted by newspapers, is a fricking joke.

[clc12]

I actually read that line the opposite way around.

This is the important part:

“Under the Teachers’ pension plan, this was an investment to generate resources to pay their pension,” said O’Reilly. “Now you have a syndicate of owners all that have vested interest in the teams being more successful.”

That means the sucess of MLSE will be judged less on the bottom line (profit) and more about the success of the sports teams. If Anslemi is judged on team results, he won't be in a job for long. Until now he's been judged most on whether he can get the pensions plan a lot of money, which he's clearly good at. But a sports franchase should be about results, never about the bottom line.

If looking at the bottom line then Tom Anselmi looks good. Its the GM's that they might be looking at for the lack of results. I totally agree with you that it should be about the results.

[brad]

Pointless article. The financial incentive to win is always there. I wonder how much additional revenue they would be looking at in a given year if the Leafs were to make a deep playoff run? I suspect that it is going to be high.

[Beach_Red]

That's 5 minutes I'll never get back.

The article is poorly written, and the U of T professor quoted is brain dead. This business have having "experts" on absurd topics in universities (sports mgmt? are you kidding me?) that get quoted by newspapers, is a fricking joke.

This is a little off-topic, but I find it interesting that universities are interested in 'sports management' and the business schools seem to get very involved in sports but the 'film studies' department seems to go out of its way to make sure the 'business' part of the 'entertainment business' never gets mentioned. Is there an equivalent professor at U of T who could talk about what Bell and Rogers have done in the TV production part of their businesses? Sure, they've resold US product at a healthy profit in a highly regulated marketplace, but what have they made themselves? That might be a better indicator of how they're going to treat the product on the ice/court/pitch.

[DangerRed]

That's 5 minutes I'll never get back.

The article is poorly written, and the U of T professor quoted is brain dead. This business have having "experts" on absurd topics in universities (sports mgmt? are you kidding me?) that get quoted by newspapers, is a fricking joke.

I couldn't agree with you more. The Star interviews two sports professors with no direct knowledge whatsoever of MLSE's inner workings or the intentions of the new ownership, and this is considered strong enough journalism to be newsworthy? Fucking pathetic.

[Richard]

MLSE makes money without winning. Why should Bell/Rogers care about wining when the fans in this city still pay top dollar?

I get they make more money but they will be indifferent like the current ownership if they still roll in cash. Anyways i hope for everyones sake they actually care and dont decide to hike your cable or interent bill in the near future.

[T-boy]

Pointless article. The financial incentive to win is always there. I wonder how much additional revenue they would be looking at in a given year if the Leafs were to make a deep playoff run? I suspect that it is going to be high.

You can argue either way, actually. A play-off run is NEVER guaranteed in any sport. If a team puts masses of money into their team, you can pretty much "guarantee" a ploy-off spot, yes. But once you get into the playoffs themselves, nothing is guaranteed. So, you end up putting a mass of money in and getting possible 3 extra home games (in hockey). In the MLS, you only get ONE extra guaranteed game. That one game isn't going to generate enough income to compensate for paying 3 David Beckhams' worth of DP money.

If you are going to sell out a stadium every game anyways (like the Leafs, and up until now, TFC) the safest way to get guaranteed profit is to sink as little into the players as possible, and be mid table.

Getting DEEP into the playoffs is profitable, but getting to round one and then being knocked out won't get you anything, especially if you've put a lot of money into players at the start of the season.

That's where I have a problem with the play off model in the MLS. When you come to 1 off cup knock out games, or 2 leg games, nothing is guaranteed. Look at NYRB's and LAG 2 season's ago - knocked out by Dallas and Colorado even though both teams were loaded with DP's.

[OgtheDim]

MLSE makes money without winning. Why should Bell/Rogers care about wining when the fans in this city still pay top dollar?.......

Because they make far more money from content on their stations, in their newspaper, and on the net then they ever will with ticket and merchandise sales.

This is about making those team sellable to eyeballs.


****

There is one bit of that article I do agree with. Tannembaum is the key - if he continues to rule the roost, Anselmi, and Mariner, stay in charge. If Anselmi is instead kicked upstairs (he will not be fired), then this show will change.

[Brooker]

The myth that MLSE doesn't care about winning because they already make a lot of money is so unbearably stupid I don't know why people continue to spew it out.

[Beach_Red]

You can argue either way, actually. A play-off run is NEVER guaranteed in any sport. If a team puts masses of money into their team, you can pretty much "guarantee" a ploy-off spot, yes. But once you get into the playoffs themselves, nothing is guaranteed. So, you end up putting a mass of money in and getting possible 3 extra home games (in hockey). In the MLS, you only get ONE extra guaranteed game. That one game isn't going to generate enough income to compensate for paying 3 David Beckhams' worth of DP money.

If you are going to sell out a stadium every game anyways (like the Leafs, and up until now, TFC) the safest way to get guaranteed profit is to sink as little into the players as possible, and be mid table.

Getting DEEP into the playoffs is profitable, but getting to round one and then being knocked out won't get you anything, especially if you've put a lot of money into players at the start of the season.

That's where I have a problem with the play off model in the MLS. When you come to 1 off cup knock out games, or 2 leg games, nothing is guaranteed. Look at NYRB's and LAG 2 season's ago - knocked out by Dallas and Colorado even though both teams were loaded with DP's.

There are other ways to spend, or not spend, too. When Burke took over the Leafs he talked about having to completely rebuild the scouting and in TFC's case there were all kinds of places they could have spent but didn't - even something like grass didn't get put in until after the Edu sale.

And yeah, there isn't really a "deep" to go in MLS playoffs, but in that case the word 'playoff' is really just a way of saying, "winning season."

[T-boy]

The myth that MLSE doesn't care about winning because they already make a lot of money is so unbearably stupid I don't know why people continue to spew it out.

The facts are in the history of the organisation and each individual sporting team!

Look at the Leafs - richest team in the NHL: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/31/hockey-valuations-10_land.html

And yet they haven't reached the play offs in 8 seasons?

If MLSE REALLY cared about getting their teams to the top of their respective sports, they would do it.

Running a business is done with your head - running a sports team is run with your heart. MLSE has purely been a front for money making for a pension fund. You cna't run a sports team successfully while the main objective is making money for a bunch of people (teachers) who's future depend on that money.

[Super]

Business is all about increasing profits - not just about making profits. Surely the board, or owners, can't be happy with the massive lost potential in all of the MLSE owned properties. If there is more to be made, then you bring in the guy who can do that - and not just the guy who can make you the minimum profit (Tom Anselmi).

[Ultra & Proud]

The facts are in the history of the organisation and each individual sporting team!

Look at the Leafs - richest team in the NHL: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/31/hockey-valuations-10_land.html

And yet they haven't reached the play offs in 8 seasons?

If MLSE REALLY cared about getting their teams to the top of their respective sports, they would do it.

Running a business is done with your head - running a sports team is run with your heart. MLSE has purely been a front for money making for a pension fund. You cna't run a sports team successfully while the main objective is making money for a bunch of people (teachers) who's future depend on that money.
He is right, all the talk of MLSE not wanting to succeed to maximize profits is stupid. It's not like MLSE teams are spending near the bottom of all of their respective leagues in payroll. All are fairly high up minus the Raptors last season but still not in the bargain basement zone. This whole MLSE doesn't care about winning is proven to be idiotic by that and that alone. All your stats show is that all our teams toss big bucks at fairly proven people to run their organizations and all of them fail. Honestly, did everyone think both Colangelo & Burke would fail this massively? Are these cheap ass appointees that MLSE dropped a few measly bucks on to to be puppets? No. The system makes sense business wise as business people are running the show and entrusting qualified hirings to run each operation. Obviously their selections aren't panning out and we did have Mo for some time so their selections are sometimes questionable but they didn't come cheap.

Also last time I checked, playoffs were worth quite a bit of cash. You think they like losing out on that cash? Especially when they dump a cap thresholds amount of coin on players that never get you to the playoffs?

Incompetence = yes. Wanting to fail = stupid.

[Shakes McQueen]

MLSE makes money without winning. Why should Bell/Rogers care about wining when the fans in this city still pay top dollar?

Because in addition to being a financial investment for Bell/Rogers, these teams they bought are now also going to be on-air programming for them, providing a stronger incentive to make them contenders than they had under OTPP.

The Leafs may be more immune to the ebb and flow of results-based ratings and income than most sports teams, but TFC and the Raptors are decidedly NOT.

- Scott

[ginkster88]

All this head/heart talk is nonsense.

Philadelphia Flyers
New York Rangers
Boston Bruins
Florida Panthers
Nashville Predators
St. Louis Blues
Vancouver Canucks
San Jose Sharks
Chicago Blackhawks

Nine of 16 teams in the NHL playoffs this year are corporately owned. To say that corporate ownership=/=winning is simplistic and misses the big picture.

[Shakes McQueen]

Incompetence = yes. Wanting to fail = stupid.

This is what I've always maintained about MLSE - they aren't cheap, they are incompetent. There is a distinct difference.

I have no doubt MLSE want to win. The problem is they have been too incompetent to get there.

- Scott

[ensco]

We spend way too much time on the few people who say MLSE don't want to succeed. That is pretty obviously wrong. The issue is, why haven't the people who have not succeeded, been held accountable?

I will be popping a champagne cork when Teachers is gone.

This will all change tomorrow, so it's beating a dead horse now.

[Beach_Red]

Because in addition to being a financial investment for Bell/Rogers, these teams they bought are now also going to be on-air programming for them, providing a stronger incentive to make them contenders than they had under OTPP.

The Leafs may be more immune to the ebb and flow of results-based ratings and income than most sports teams, but TFC and the Raptors are decidedly NOT.

- Scott


So, it may be that the Leafs - being more immune, as you say - are the US on-air programming they buy and the Raptors/TFC are the domestic programming they make themselves. There is a very big difference in the way they treat their on-air programming.

[ManUtd4ever]

Because in addition to being a financial investment for Bell/Rogers, these teams they bought are now also going to be on-air programming for them, providing a stronger incentive to make them contenders than they had under OTPP.

The Leafs may be more immune to the ebb and flow of results-based ratings and income than most sports teams, but TFC and the Raptors are decidedly NOT.

- Scott


All this head/heart talk is nonsense.

Philadelphia Flyers
New York Rangers
Boston Bruins
Florida Panthers
Nashville Predators
St. Louis Blues
Vancouver Canucks
San Jose Sharks
Chicago Blackhawks

Nine of 16 teams in the NHL playoffs this year are corporately owned. To say that corporate ownership=/=winning is simplistic and misses the big picture.

Agreed.

[T-boy]

He is right, all the talk of MLSE not wanting to succeed to maximize profits is stupid. It's not like MLSE teams are spending near the bottom of all of their respective leagues in payroll. All are fairly high up minus the Raptors last season but still not in the bargain basement zone. This whole MLSE doesn't care about winning is proven to be idiotic by that and that alone. All your stats show is that all our teams toss big bucks at fairly proven people to run their organizations and all of them fail. Honestly, did everyone think both Colangelo & Burke would fail this massively? Are these cheap ass appointees that MLSE dropped a few measly bucks on to to be puppets? No. The system makes sense business wise as business people are running the show and entrusting qualified hirings to run each operation. Obviously their selections aren't panning out and we did have Mo for some time so their selections are sometimes questionable but they didn't come cheap.

Also last time I checked, playoffs were worth quite a bit of cash. You think they like losing out on that cash? Especially when they dump a cap thresholds amount of coin on players that never get you to the playoffs?

Incompetence = yes. Wanting to fail = stupid.

Of course I'm oversimplying the argument, for sure.

But there is no "guarantee" of extra profit for MLSE if the Leafs get in the play offs or not. The stadium is full anyways, without getting into the play offs. So then you are only talking about extra "guaranteed" revenue from 3 extra home games. How much money will those 3 games genarate? Minimal in comparison to the possible salary increase to try and get you there in the first place.

In any sport you can either run your team conservatively, or liberally. MLSE run the Leafs fairly convervatively as far as I can see. And that's fine for them, as they are guaranteed to sell every seat to every single game anyway!

I'm not saying that MLSE "want to fail". But I'm saying that MLSE "have little incentive to be the best in the league". If the Leafs sell out EVERY seat, and yet never reach the play offs, what's the incentive to put MORE money in, when the play offs aren't guaranteed?

[brad]

You can argue either way, actually. A play-off run is NEVER guaranteed in any sport. If a team puts masses of money into their team, you can pretty much "guarantee" a ploy-off spot, yes. But once you get into the playoffs themselves, nothing is guaranteed. So, you end up putting a mass of money in and getting possible 3 extra home games (in hockey). In the MLS, you only get ONE extra guaranteed game. That one game isn't going to generate enough income to compensate for paying 3 David Beckhams' worth of DP money.

It's interesting that you should mention this. Putting massive amounts of money into a team does not guarantee a playoff spot. The Leafs have one of the highest wage bills in the NHL and do not make the playoffs. So do TFC for that matter, and they do not make the playoffs. It's not about how much you spend, it's about how you spend it.

And when dealing with big name players like Beckham, the off field revenue far outweighs what comes from the on field improvement. I bet the Galaxy could have brought in a much better player than Beckham for the kind of money they paid, but would not have made financial sense.

Also, the argument is not one about whether or not spending more money is an incentive to win. The incentive to win is always there, and is not changing based upon ownership.


If you are going to sell out a stadium every game anyways (like the Leafs, and up until now, TFC) the safest way to get guaranteed profit is to sink as little into the players as possible, and be mid table.

Getting DEEP into the playoffs is profitable, but getting to round one and then being knocked out won't get you anything, especially if you've put a lot of money into players at the start of the season.

But we are talking about MLSE in specific here. They spend the money on players already. This is not a discussion about whether or not spending the money on players is worthwhile when balanced against potential income from playoffs. It's a case MLSE already spends larger amounts on players compared to the other teams in the league. In this situation, is there a change in incentive to win based on the change of ownership. Not in the least. Winning = extra revenue.


That's where I have a problem with the play off model in the MLS. When you come to 1 off cup knock out games, or 2 leg games, nothing is guaranteed. Look at NYRB's and LAG 2 season's ago - knocked out by Dallas and Colorado even though both teams were loaded with DP's.

We aren't just talking TFC/MLS here. This is talking about MLSE as a whole. Leafs are what drives it all. We are small potatoes.

[OgtheDim]

TFC profits come from bums in the seats.

They will come from eyes on the smartphone/tablet/monitor/big screen watching the pitch surrounded by bums in the seats.

BTW, CBC is never getting a sniff of MLS again.

[TOBOR !]

That's 5 minutes I'll never get back.

The article is poorly written, and the U of T professor quoted is brain dead. This business have having "experts" on absurd topics in universities (sports mgmt? are you kidding me?) that get quoted by newspapers, is a fricking joke.

Cheers.

[takes extra five minutes and puts in pocket for future use]

[TOBOR !]

It's not about how much you spend, it's about how you spend it.

... and what you do with what you've spent it on.

[T-boy]

It's interesting that you should mention this. Putting massive amounts of money into a team does not guarantee a playoff spot. The Leafs have one of the highest wage bills in the NHL and do not make the playoffs. So do TFC for that matter, and they do not make the playoffs. It's not about how much you spend, it's about how you spend it.

And when dealing with big name players like Beckham, the off field revenue far outweighs what comes from the on field improvement. I bet the Galaxy could have brought in a much better player than Beckham for the kind of money they paid, but would not have made financial sense.

Also, the argument is not one about whether or not spending more money is an incentive to win. The incentive to win is always there, and is not changing based upon ownership.



But we are talking about MLSE in specific here. They spend the money on players already. This is not a discussion about whether or not spending the money on players is worthwhile when balanced against potential income from playoffs. It's a case MLSE already spends larger amounts on players compared to the other teams in the league. In this situation, is there a change in incentive to win based on the change of ownership. Not in the least. Winning = extra revenue.



We aren't just talking TFC/MLS here. This is talking about MLSE as a whole. Leafs are what drives it all. We are small potatoes.

In regards to the wage bill. You are looking at the current wage bill only. Until mid-last season, TFC didn't have the wage bill they have now, with Koev's and Frings adding a massive amount of money to the current wage bill. I don't think bringing TFC's 2012 wage bill into the argument is very valid just because we all realise Aron Winter wasn't getting anywhere near enough out of the squad as he should have been. With a decent coach at the start of this season, TFC should have been in the playoffs. But before this season, other teams had been far out paying TFC in regards to DP's. With the income that MLSE (the company) has, TFC "could" be paying Beckham money to players, and attracting the likes of Henry and Cahill.

And agreed, TFC is tiny potatoes in comparison to MLSE's main business.

[brad]

In regards to the wage bill. You are looking at the current wage bill only. Until mid-last season, TFC didn't have the wage bill they have now, with Koev's and Frings adding a massive amount of money to the current wage bill. I don't think bringing TFC's 2012 wage bill into the argument is very valid just because we all realise Aron Winter wasn't getting anywhere near enough out of the squad as he should have been. With a decent coach at the start of this season, TFC should have been in the playoffs. But before this season, other teams had been far out paying TFC in regards to DP's. With the income that MLSE (the company) has, TFC "could" be paying Beckham money to players, and attracting the likes of Henry and Cahill.

And agreed, TFC is tiny potatoes in comparison to MLSE's main business.

I'm not concerned about TFC here, I only mentioned them as an aside. This article is not about TFC - it's about MLSE as whole. So the Leafs are what is relevant in this discussion - not us. They have around the top of the league in spending for a long time.

[Shakes McQueen]

The title of this thread is fucking hilarious, and really signifies how dire things are in Toronto sports at the moment.

"Wins expected to matter" is a provocative and interesting statement in an Onion article, not real life. And yet here we are.

- Scott

[Richard]

This is what I've always maintained about MLSE - they aren't cheap, they are incompetent. There is a distinct difference.

I have no doubt MLSE want to win. The problem is they have been too incompetent to get there.

- Scott

And there it is. The point i was trying to make is the level of desire and willingness to innovate and take risks is not in existance. Why should the pension fund find a new person when they got someone who can guarantee a profit(Anselmi & whoever runs the leafs). A pension fund by nature is conservative and ensures they dont take many risks. Unfortunately in sports you have to get the person who is going to challange ideals and bang some heads together to move forward. Sure they may spend money but if they got executives who are incompotent at spending it what good is it. The owners have been willing to put up with this nonsense because they have not faced any financial difficulties, what other reason does Anselmi still have a job? It sure is not making the playoffs at the very minimum, since he is the president afterall(unofficially).

They overlook onfield incompetence over making money and hope the guys they got who can make money learn to win eventually. Good luck with that Bell/Rogers.

[Jack]

MLSE are quite competent at their principal objective: making money. Winning would make them more money, so I'm sure they would love to do that. But they don't know how to build winning organizations and they have too many assholes in the high-up positions who stick their fingers into the pie.

But still, they've increased the value of the company to 1.5 billion (triple?). You can't argue that isn't a success. Sure, you could probably make more by winning, but things still aren't that bad.

[Whoop]

Winning means needing to take risks. I always felt that while MLSE spent the money they never took risks.

Sure the Leafs are always a cap team, but the Raptors could be spending way more money (ie going over the soft cap) for example.

But why spending more money over and above when it doesn't guarantee winning per se?

Just maintain the status quo, with some good marketing, and while you may not win, you have consistent money coming in. No need to put your neck on the line.

I think the Jays are good example. I think that's what you'll get out of Rogers/Bell... steady, consistent spending, but not over the top spending even though they're more than capable of... just to maintain healthy margins.

[Richard]

MLSE are quite competent at their principal objective: making money. Winning would make them more money, so I'm sure they would love to do that. But they don't know how to build winning organizations and they have too many assholes in the high-up positions who stick their fingers into the pie.

But still, they've increased the value of the company to 1.5 billion (triple?). You can't argue that isn't a success. Sure, you could probably make more by winning, but things still aren't that bad.


Not sure if your serious. Its nice to see the sport franchises gain value and make money, but seriously you think it has not been "that bad". They havnt won shit to put it bluntly, not even making the playoffs.

[Whoop]

I think Jack meant money wise, they're still make tons of it, so even though they haven't won, things aren't that bad... for MLSE.

[Richard]

You are probably correct.

[Pookie]

Another angle to all of this is what do they spend on. They are willing to spend. Our payroll through much of this season is testament to that. 3rd in the league.

However, the desire to protect short term profits dictates where that spend goes.

If there was a choice to invest $2M in a scouting network or $2M in a well known DP, which do they choose? The DP provides free marketing, merchandising opportunity and helps maintain immediate interest in the team. It also helps the optics of the high ticket price.

The jury remains out as to whether it impacts performance but a side benefit might be increased playoff revenue if they ever made it. Despite Winter's MLS record, his contribution to the bottom line via the CCL has been unmatched. A side benefit in bringing Frings and Koevermans here.

The scouting investment is probably going to benefit the club more over the long term. Rather than 1 or 2 impact players for a short time frame, it could feed the club for years to come. It would take awhile to get established and probably a few years before identified players make an impact. Most casual fans wouldn't notice anything other than the standings in the present moment. The immediate issues of protecting profits are still going to be there, unless they are willing to swallow them and think of the long term.

MLSE chooses the short terrm fix every time. And it isn't working. Never has. Never will.

[brad]

Gauging MLSE's success based on sporting results - failure.
Gauging MLSE's success based on corporate results - success

And there is the problem in a nutshell. MLSE are successful by the metrics that matter to them. Those metrics are very different than the ones that matter to us.

[Beach_Red]

Another angle to all of this is what do they spend on. They are willing to spend. Our payroll through much of this season is testament to that. 3rd in the league.

However, the desire to protect short term profits dictates where that spend goes.

If there was a choice to invest $2M in a scouting network or $2M in a well known DP, which do they choose? The DP provides free marketing, merchandising opportunity and helps maintain immediate interest in the team. It also helps the optics of the high ticket price.

The jury remains out as to whether it impacts performance but a side benefit might be increased playoff revenue if they ever made it. Despite Winter's MLS record, his contribution to the bottom line via the CCL has been unmatched. A side benefit in bringing Frings and Koevermans here.

The scouting investment is probably going to benefit the club more over the long term. Rather than 1 or 2 impact players for a short time frame, it could feed the club for years to come. It would take awhile to get established and probably a few years before identified players make an impact. Most casual fans wouldn't notice anything other than the standings in the present moment. The immediate issues of protecting profits are still going to be there, unless they are willing to swallow them and think of the long term.

MLSE chooses the short terrm fix every time. And it isn't working. Never has. Never will.

You're certainly right about the bolded part, but you need to define what you mean by "works" in your last paragraph. We all like to think that a $2M investment in a proper scouting network would work in this market, but maybe it wouldn't. They certainly sold a lot of tickets without ever hiring proper management for years. And there was never much pressure on them to do anything but fire this guy or fire that guy and replace him with another guy. I remember when there was an article that talked about Vancouver putting together a much more experienced and professional front office we had discussions on here that pretty much started and stopped with, "Shitecaps are shite."

[prizby]

That's 5 minutes I'll never get back.

The article is poorly written, and the U of T professor quoted is brain dead. This business have having "experts" on absurd topics in universities (sports mgmt? are you kidding me?) that get quoted by newspapers, is a fricking joke.

you might think its a joke, but I actually know Norm O'Reilly; he was the director of my program at Laurentian, and I can tell you, without ever stepping into one of his classes, I learned a lot from him, just by conversing; he knows his shit. And if you read his comments; they were spot on in comparison to that joker from Rotman



I couldn't agree with you more. The Star interviews two sports professors with no direct knowledge whatsoever of MLSE's inner workings or the intentions of the new ownership, and this is considered strong enough journalism to be newsworthy? Fucking pathetic.

http://www.trojanone.com/successful/who-we-work-with/

that would be a false statement

[ensco]

you might think its a joke, but I actually know Norm O'Reilly; he was the director of my program at Laurentian, and I can tell you, without ever stepping into one of his classes, I learned a lot from him, just by conversing; he knows his shit. And if you read his comments; they were spot on

Fine. Not my point. I hate this journalistic practice. I want full disclosure of any and all interactions between any "expert" and any "subject", and to share that disclosure with us. As I said elsewhere, in this case, what access to data, interviews, free tickets, anything, did these guys get from MLSE, when, and from who?

If nothing, great. If something, tell us.

[prizby]

Fine. Not my point. I hate this journalistic practice. I want full disclosure of any and all interactions between any "expert" and any "subject", and to share that disclosure with us. As I said elsewhere, in this case, what access to data, interviews, free tickets, anything, did these guys get from MLSE, when, and from who?

If nothing, great. If something, tell us.

they, well at least Norm is, considered an industry expert in this field; just like a surgeon would be considered an expert in surgery, even if each surgery is different and unique from the next one

[Code Red]

Gauging MLSE's success based on sporting results - failure.
Gauging MLSE's success based on corporate results - success

And there is the problem in a nutshell. MLSE are successful by the metrics that matter to them. Those metrics are very different than the ones that matter to us.

QFT!

[ensco]

they, well at least Norm is, considered an industry expert in this field; just like a surgeon would be considered an expert in surgery, even if each surgery is different and unique from the next one

C'mon prizby, I hear you, you happen to know the guy, but there is no Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons in Sports management! These weird so-called self-appointed experts in disciplines that actually don't exist are doing a lot of harm in the world (this example really doesn't matter, but there are tons in subjects that do).

[prizby]

C'mon prizby, I hear you, you happen to know the guy, but there is no Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons in Sports management! These weird so-called self-appointed experts in disciplines that actually don't exist are doing a lot of harm in the world (this example really doesn't matter, but there are tons in subjects that do).

there is a bachelor of arts in sports management; a bachelor of commerce in sports administration (my major), a masters in arts in sports administration, and an MBA in sports administration in Ontario. But i guess a person who's company he has an invested interest in has done consulting projects for both bell and rogers, who has worked on an olympic bid, been part of an olympic mission, worked for sport canada, and sat on two national boards in specific sports wouldnt know what he's talking about it

[ensco]

^My choice of language was imprecise. Not all sports management experts are weird or crooked or boneheads! I am absolutely conceding that if I met your guy, I would think he is great. That is not my point at all. Hell, I don't need to meet him, I can see it from your passion. Also his comments were reasonable, unlike the U of T bonehead.

My point is about newspapers (and courts and regulatory bodies) that rely on experts, not on experts themselves. I do think many (not all) experts are pursuing undisclosed agendas. Your man's consulting background proves my point. If the paper doesn't disclose those entanglements, it's plain wrong.

Go see the movie Inside Job and tell me what you think about the Dean of Columbia Business School after you see it.

[jloome]

That's 5 minutes I'll never get back.

The article is poorly written, and the U of T professor quoted is brain dead. This business have having "experts" on absurd topics in universities (sports mgmt? are you kidding me?) that get quoted by newspapers, is a fricking joke.

You ain't kidding. In fact, the renta-expert is rife in reporting now. Everyone's a friggin' expert, and even a good chunk of the friggin' experts don't seem particularly interested in accuracy.

[BayernTFC]

Is there an equivalent professor at U of T who could talk about what Bell and Rogers have done in the TV production part of their businesses? Sure, they've resold US product at a healthy profit in a highly regulated marketplace, but what have they made themselves? That might be a better indicator of how they're going to treat the product on the ice/court/pitch.
This is an interesting point Beach_Red. I think you could include the CBC in a discussion about the part of your quote I bolded.


BTW, CBC is never getting a sniff of MLS again.
It might not just be MLS broadcasts which the CBC gets shut out from. The Canadian government's decision to slach the CBC's budget may force them out of the bidding for HNIC:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/budget/cbc-sees-government-funding-slashed-by-115-million/article4096663/

The CBC will have its government funding slashed by $115-million beginning in 2014, the federal budget tabled on Thursday reveals.

The reduction is about 10 per cent of the $1.1-billion the public broadcaster has received annually from the federal government in recent years.
Like other departments, the CBC was told to prepare for two cost-cutting scenarios, one with cuts of 5 per cent and the other with 10 per cent. Gradual cuts will begin with $27.8-million in reductions planned for 2012-13 and $69.6-million in 2013-14.

While the Crown corporation also receives revenues from advertising and specialty services, government funding has accounted for more than 60 per cent of its budget in recent years.



CBC management appears to have decided to cannibalize other parts of their programming budget in order to try to hang on to HNIC, but I think focusing on reducing the quality in all other programming areas in an attempt to avoid cutting the largest part of the budget is a foolish plan:


The CBC announced on Tuesday (April 10) a series of specific cost-cutting measures it will take in response to budget cuts. The federal government announced (http://www.straight.com/article-648781/vancouver/public-broadcaster-supporters-pan-cuts-cbc-federal-budget) in last month's budget that the CBC would lose $115 million in funding over three years.
In response, the CBC had previously announced (http://www.straight.com/article-651316/vancouver/cbc-plans-chop-650-jobs-put-ads-cbc-radio-2-due-budget-cuts) that 650 positions would be cut.
The list of measures announced by the CBC includes the following:

CBC News:


CBC News will cut $10 million from its budget
88 news jobs will be eliminated
South American and African bureaus will be closed
the one-hour TV news program Connect With Mark Kelley , which airs on CBC News Network, will be cancelled in June
18 positions in the in-house CBC documentary unit will be eliminated


CBC TV:


CBC TV will develop six fewer series, resulting in 175 fewer hours of original programming and more repeats


CBC Radio:


CBC Radio will have $3 million cut in funding and 18 jobs will be eliminated
the radio show Dispatches will be cancelled in June
drama programming on Radio One will be eliminated
CBC Radio Two is cancelling live music recordings and closing regional recording studios in St. John’s, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary, and Edmonton


CBC Sports:


CBC Sports will face a $4-million funding cut
Sports Weekend will become a seasonal program, with a focus on snow and ice sports in winter and signature programs in summer
amateur sports programming will be reduced


CBC Kids:


CBC Kids programming will be reduced by four hours


A total 215 jobs will be cut from English services by June 21.

http://www.straight.com/article-656696/vancouver/cbc-make-cuts-news-sports-radio-tv-and-more


According to Toronto Star reporters Vanessa Lu and Bob Mitchell, the CBC is believed to have paid $90 million to $100 million for HNIC in 2007 (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AuEdfV3ncDUzkr8sYgV4Z1deEJtG;_ylu=X3oDMTFtZzl lcm92BG1pdANSRSBBcnRpY2xlIEJvZHkEcG9zAzgEc2VjA01lZ GlhQXJ0aWNsZUJvZHlBc3NlbWJseQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTM2Ym1hbmoxBGludGwDY2EEbGFuZwNlbi1jYQRw c3RhaWQDZWE1YThmODUtYjRlYi0zNmRlLWFkNDktYjFjZjVlMD Q1ODM1BHBzdGNhdAN0b3BpY3N8ZWRpdG9yc3BpY2tzBHB0A3N0 b3J5cGFnZQ--;_ylv=0/SIG=14feq9313/EXP=1345009445/**http%3A//www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/nhl/article/1202357--hockey-night-in-canada-rights-expected-to-be-fierce-battle%3Fbn=1), when the deal last came up for renewal. The contract was primarily for the TV rights
http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/blogs/insight/hockey-night-canada-rights-battle-pits-cbc-against-152154967.html



The CBC should be focusing on viewer experience and offering a level of quality and type of programming that cannot be found elsewhere. The World has changed and so have viewing habits. If CBC management is not careful, the station won't survive:


The reaction of the roughly two million Canadians watching at home on Hockey Night in Canada (http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockeynightincanada/) is anyone's guess. It's that crowd that's now up for grabs as media giants Rogers (http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=RCI-B.TO) and Bell (http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=BCE&ql=1) begin prepping their shot at owning the program. After 60 years of hosting HNIC, the CBC could find itself outbid when the rights comes up for renewal in 2014. For the public broadcaster, that would mean the loss of 450 hours of prime-time TV, a money-spinning prize that has underwritten much of their other programming.


"I think the chances of (retaining the contract) are low," former CBC VP Richard Stursberg told the Globe and Mail's Bruce Dowbiggin (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/bruce-dowbiggin/hockey-night-in-canadas-days-may-be-numbered/article2435006/) recently.

"It's going to be very, very difficult. The sports networks are jacking up the prices, so they're going to have even deeper pockets when they come to the table. TSN and Sportsnet have proven that they can get big TV audiences as easily as the CBC does. And that's very hard to fight against. Especially when their owners are very keen to have the property."

HNIC's value is driven in large part by the rapidly changing nature of people's viewing habits. Before YouTube (http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=GOOG&ql=0), digital recording and high-powered smartphones, viewing anything meant appointment TV. The show would begin at, say, 7 p.m. whether you were watching or not. Now it starts when you hit play, and the choice of programs are seemingly endless. Reaching a massive audience at a set time is now a near impossibility for an advertiser; except with live sports. Games start at a set time, of course, and continue to amass a broad following.

It's the reason Rogers and Bell teamed up this year to spend $1.32-billion on Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment (http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/rogers-raise-1-1b-debt-235133808.html). It wasn't for the luxury boxes or parking around the stadium, it was for the rights to broadcast Maple Leaf games.

http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/blogs/insight/hockey-night-canada-rights-battle-pits-cbc-against-152154967.html


Perhaps the CBC should start preparing now? It would mean becoming more innovative and taking risks. There would be a need to partner with less luxurious brands and show an ability to add value and elevate a product. If you can't compete for NHL and MLS, bring Canadians the OHL and NASL experience. I have been impressed with CBC's attempts to be the home of FC Edmonton:

http://www.cbc.ca/edmonton/soccer/


The CBC broadcasts are much better quality and infinitely more professional than the US ones. It would be nice if CBC continues the venture with Ottawa. If the CBC really wanted to be creative, perhaps they could be the impetus for a Canadian League? Dare to dream...

[Richard]

^ Thanks for the info.

A little off topic but shouldnt the advertisment revenue cover the cost of HNIC? Isnt it the #1 watched show every staturday in Canada?

[Abou Sky]

Pointless article. The financial incentive to win is always there. I wonder how much additional revenue they would be looking at in a given year if the Leafs were to make a deep playoff run? I suspect that it is going to be high.

It's not the same, with Rogers/Bell a winning team means they get 100% of increase in revenue.

Under teachers a playoff run meant they got a few extra bucks to sell the TV rights and then broadcasters made profit from the commercials.

It is 'vertical integration' in a place it will matter.

Rogers and Bell have a lot more incentive to have winning teams then teachers did.

Basically: Teachers spends an additional $10m to maybe get TFC to playoffs, payoff is let's say $15m (random number)

Rogers & Bell spend $10m and payoff is $20m (again random)

It makes more sense to take the $10m risk to make 100% than to make 50%

[Shakes McQueen]

I think it's an absolute shame what the government is doing to the CBC.

- Scott

[Whoop]

Had to laugh. Given the topic on hand.



Brian Costello ‏@bcostellothn (https://twitter.com/bcostellothn)
If wins are going to matter for the #Leafs (https://twitter.com/#!/search/%23Leafs) new ownership, GM Burke is headed for trouble. We're picking Toronto 12th in the East.Costello is the senior editor of The Hockey News. I guess they're preparing the season preview.

[Beach_Red]

I think it's an absolute shame what the government is doing to the CBC.

- Scott

I'd like to agree, but my experience with the CBC makes me feek it could just as easily be said that, "It's a shame what the CBC is doing to itself." I made my first sale to the CBC in 1995 and since then I can't call it a very well-run place. These days you can go to a meeting at the CBC and then simply never hear back from them. If industry standard turn-around on a project is a week to ten days at the CBC it's measured in months, usually six at a minimum (and there are always more CBC people at a meeting than any other network). I believe strongly in what the CBC should be doing, but even with the cuts they've had (and known were coming) they've done a very poor job with the money they do have. I guess they're like TFC that way, they have one of the biggest payrolls in their \league' but they never make the playoffs.

There are a lot of similarities between the TV business and the sports teams in this city.

[T-boy]

I'm not concerned about TFC here, I only mentioned them as an aside. This article is not about TFC - it's about MLSE as whole. So the Leafs are what is relevant in this discussion - not us. They have around the top of the league in spending for a long time.

The point is that the way MLSE has run the Leafs is setting a precident for how they run their other sports. MLSE are getting away with running the Leafs with fairly minimum investment (compared to the size of their income), not getting into the play offs, but STILL selling out all their seats, and getting masses of advertising/media revenue.

It works for the Leafs, so MLSE run the Raptors and TFC the same way. And why wouldn't they - its worked in one sport, and so far (for TFC at least) its working for another.


And there it is. The point i was trying to make is the level of desire and willingness to innovate and take risks is not in existance. Why should the pension fund find a new person when they got someone who can guarantee a profit(Anselmi & whoever runs the leafs). A pension fund by nature is conservative and ensures they dont take many risks. Unfortunately in sports you have to get the person who is going to challange ideals and bang some heads together to move forward. Sure they may spend money but if they got executives who are incompotent at spending it what good is it. The owners have been willing to put up with this nonsense because they have not faced any financial difficulties, what other reason does Anselmi still have a job? It sure is not making the playoffs at the very minimum, since he is the president afterall(unofficially).

They overlook onfield incompetence over making money and hope the guys they got who can make money learn to win eventually. Good luck with that Bell/Rogers.

Exactly! If I was on the board of MLSE and my principle employer was the Teachers Pension Fund (the vast proportion of MLSE board members were) and the CEO of MLSE suggested "give me 10 million more and I'll guarantee the play offs", I would probbly tell them NO WAY. To protect MY main employers, I would want minimal risk to my investment.

You simply cannot run a sports company when your main objective as board member, is to GUARANTEE profit. You are correct, Richard, why would MLSE and the Pensions Fund want any more investment than they already put in - they want to run conservatively, guarantee a return, and put nothing of their pensions funds at risk.

[BayernTFC]

^ Thanks for the info.

A little off topic but shouldnt the advertisment revenue cover the cost of HNIC? Isnt it the #1 watched show every staturday in Canada?
You're welcome.

The environment isn't static though. Viewing habits change, revenue models must be adjusted, and value can go up and down. Also, others may be able to exploit assets in different ways, so assessed value can vary from business to business:


These are trying times for Hockey Night In Canada. No Canadian teams left in the playoffs, diminished advertising revenues as a result, and the prospect of negotiating a new national TV and digital rights contract in the next two years. The Canadian NHL teams should rebound. But, says Richard Stursberg, CBC’s former executive vice president for English Services, the chances of CBC keeping the most valuable TV brand in Canada are gloomy.

“I think the chances of (retaining the contract) are low,” Stursberg said Wednesday in Calgary as he promoted his book The Tower Of Babble. “It’s going to be very, very difficult. The sports networks are jacking up the prices, so they’re going to have even deeper pockets when they come to the table. TSN and Sportsnet have proven that they can get big TV audiences as easily as the CBC does. And that’s very hard to fight against. Especially when their owners are very keen to have the property.”

Stursberg believes the business model for pro sports has changed dramatically since CBC won the last contract in 2005. Sports is now, in the words of Rupert Murdoch, the “battering ram of television”. “Everyone has come to recognize the value of sports TV rights. Just look at what Rogers and Bell spent for MLSE ($ 1.32 B.) just to buy themselves 60 or 70 regional Toronto Maple Leafs games a year.”

The growth in mobile and digital platforms has also changed the landscape. “When we did the (2005) deal, we wanted first and foremost to get the TV rights,” Stursberg explains. “But we also took the mobile and digital rights. At the time the NHL didn’t understand completely how valuable they’d be, because they sort of threw them in at the end of the negotiations. Then they tried to buy them back from us.”

Stursberg relates in his book how CTV (along with Rogers) purchased the 2010/ 2012 Olympics knowing they’d likely lose money but taking the Games from CBC. “When you buy sports properties for CBC you have to ensure that they’re going to make money. You can’t put the public subsidy into buying them. It would be wrong. You have only one revenue stream to support them with, and that’s advertising. If you’re TSN, however, you have two streams. You have the big cable and satellite fee stream. And the revenue stream (from advertising).

“CBC can go as high as the revenues will bear. But they can't go beyond that. If they do, all the private broadcasters will rightly object that you’re competing against them with public money. And if you lose money you’re going to have to cut something else in radio or TV.”

In the past, CBC could make the argument that its enormous reach gave it an advantage over the competition, but Stursberg points out that TSN’s estimated audience of six million for the 2011 Grey Cup game has defeated the notion that you can’t get a large audience from a sports channel. “That was always CBC’s big argument historically, and now it’s not true.”


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey-night-in-canadas-days-may-be-numbered/article4184807/




I think it's an absolute shame what the government is doing to the CBC.

- Scott


I understand the sentiment, but I think it is a little bit misguided. The television business is in flux and has hit a crossroads. Change is coming rapidly and relying on slow moving government which has an extremely short-term focus to stably fund innovation is folly. When was the last time public broadcasting was discussed in Canada other than to question its existence? Do Canadians still support publicly funded broadcasting? How strongly? Those are the conditions which can encourage management to be cautious and allow atrophy to set in. It's easier for management to care more about their jobs and protect a legacy than to proactively search for answers and speak with Canadians. There is no reason for the CBC to wait for the Canadian government to find out what Canadians want, unless one is afraid of the answer. That's why it's so much easier to rest on the success of the past and cater to HNIC:


Stursberg grimaces as he describes the impact of losing HNIC and its 450 hours of prime time Canadian programming. “What needs to happen is people need to have a serious conversation about the future of the CBC. The next few years are going to be very difficult. It’s at a point that, in three years, CBC might just collapse. So now if the right time to start this conversation. The No. 1 thing that needs to be done to fix CBC is for the government to choose (between) an elite CBC with ballet or a popular CBC. Choose. Right now, you say ‘Let’s go in this direction’, and they say, ‘what about that direction?’They can’t choose.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey-night-in-canadas-days-may-be-numbered/article4184807/


Perhaps losing HNIC would be the best thing for CBC? Right now, HNIC can help fund other projects as long as too many mistakes aren't made. With enough opposition (ironically within a majority government) aiming for the removal of public broadcasting in Canada, the current CBC model means risk can lead to extinction. One big mistake can lead to the end. Without HNIC, CBC would have to take risks. The model needs to change. Some people at the CBC need to go. Management at CBC is dealing with a Canadian government that doesn't see much value in public broadcasting. It was a mistake to believe the Liberals were going to return to office quickly. It's not enough for top officials at CBC to only worry about the television schedule. There is a battle taking place over the role of public broadcasting. Is it wise to allow the Conservative government to frame the debate and control the outcome? Defensive Generals aren't the best option when you need to go on the attack.

[Beach_Red]

I understand the sentiment, but I think it is a little bit misguided. The television business is in flux and has hit a crossroads. Change is coming rapidly and relying on slow moving government which has an extremely short-term focus to stably fund innovation is folly. When was the last time public broadcasting was discussed in Canada other than to question its existence? Do Canadians still support publicly funded broadcasting? How strongly? Those are the conditions which can encourage management to be cautious and allow atrophy to set in. It's easier for management to care more about their jobs and protect a legacy than to proactively search for answers and speak with Canadians. There is no reason for the CBC to wait for the Canadian government to find out what Canadians want, unless one is afraid of the answer. That's why it's so much easier to rest on the success of the past and cater to HNIC:



They key word is probably "broadcasting." What we'd like to do is buy the product directly from the producers, not the middle-man. CBC spends a billion dollars and makes very little product. You're right, losing HNIC would probably be good for the CBC. (as an aside here, last year I got the CBC HNIC app and went to watch a game and saw that there was an additional charge of $2.99 per game - this seemed crazy after already giving the CBC the billion dollars).

When it comes to drama, sure, there needs to be risks but what no one seems to be saying is that what's really needed is more - more hours of production. No one can be good at something they rarely do. CBC (all Canadian networks really) develop and produce so few shows - it's like a soccer team that plays three games a season up against teams that play 34.

[jloome]

they, well at least Norm is, considered an industry expert in this field; just like a surgeon would be considered an expert in surgery, even if each surgery is different and unique from the next one

But that's the key, and I've been a reporter for 23 years so I have a little knowledge of the subject matter.

The problem with rent-a-profs is that they usually aren't looking into the specifics of what they're commenting on before they do so; they're speaking in general terms but applying them -- and fully aware the reporter will apply them -- to specific circumstances, largely to gain exposure for their department.

That's partly internal university politics but it's also ego. I was as bad as anyone for years at taking advantage of the quick quote, and of knowing who gives them and who doesn't.

You can be an expert in brain surgery of such refined skill that you can remove the amygdala with your pinkie finger; but if you haven't even looked at the patient yet, forensic-level work isn't really recommended.

[nfitz]

It might not just be MLS broadcasts which the CBC gets shut out from. The Canadian government's decision to slach the CBC's budget may force them out of the bidding for HNIC:I disagree. They just bid and won the 2014 and 2016 Olympics. I'm sure if CBC thought they could make money on MLS, then they'd bid on it too.

[BayernTFC]

They key word is probably "broadcasting." What we'd like to do is buy the product directly from the producers, not the middle-man. CBC spends a billion dollars and makes very little product.


When it comes to drama, sure, there needs to be risks but what no one seems to be saying is that what's really needed is more - more hours of production.
We are in agreement. It's a lot riskier, and costlier, to produce one's own content than to just license someone else's creations. Also, it's harder to convince others to watch something they don't know that they want yet than it is to feed them programs others have already done the work to market. Where risks are taken, failure is born. Sometimes quality ideas don't catch on. Failing isn't always bad. Good lessons can be learned through failure. With the right people leading, failure can lead to innovation. The current environment the CBC finds itself in, in conjunction with the business model the CBC uses, doesn't leave much room for failure. The current CBC management team doesn't consist of the right people to produce change. They have survived because they are good at protecting what others have achieved and they are adept at avoiding mistakes by unabashedly refusing to take any risks. As you've said:


No one can be good at something they rarely do. CBC (all Canadian networks really) develop and produce so few shows - it's like a soccer team that plays three games a season up against teams that play 34.



However, it's not just about content creation. It's also, as you said in a previous post, about the CBC mismanaging it's resources:


they've done a very poor job with the money they do have.


The CBC has also done a poor job of leveraging its assets. The CBC has a wonderful platform. They have squandered their advantage to reach into nearly every household in the nation. The CBC's ability to reach so many Canadians means that they don't have to produce everything on their own. Youtube doesn't create the content, but it provides the platform which allows the creators to reach an audience. It's also about the right partnerships. The CBC needs to utilize its reach to secure its programming. They cannot use the volume model like youtube, but they can provide the access some ventures will need to grow for partial ownership or at least for an exclusive relationship. Stop engaging in activity which, for example, helps the CFL recover and grow only to jump ship to TSN for a wealthier contract. It's about seeing the potential in something, like getting in on the ground floor of a Premier Canadian Soccer League. What is the ability to reach into the households of Canadians worth? Is it enough to encourage the establishment of a Curling league? What is the value of being able to help market and grow an enterprise? Would promising to make the OHL or NLL a flagship brand on your station be enough to secure a share in the business?

[Beach_Red]

The CBC has also done a poor job of leveraging its assets. The CBC has a wonderful platform. They have squandered their advantage to reach into nearly every household in the nation. The CBC's ability to reach so many Canadians means that they don't have to produce everything on their own. Youtube doesn't create the content, but it provides the platform which allows the creators to reach an audience. It's also about the right partnerships. The CBC needs to utilize its reach to secure its programming. They cannot use the volume model like youtube, but they can provide the access some ventures will need to grow for partial ownership or at least for an exclusive relationship. Stop engaging in activity which, for example, helps the CFL recover and grow only to jump ship to TSN for a wealthier contract. It's about seeing the potential in something, like getting in on the ground floor of a Premier Canadian Soccer League. What is the ability to reach into the households of Canadians worth? Is it enough to encourage the establishment of a Curling league? What is the value of being able to help market and grow an enterprise? Would promising to make the OHL or NLL a flagship brand on your station be enough to secure a share in the business?

It's the marketing that's important. It's the whole idea of "your station" that's in flux. How many people here have subscribed to MLS Live? How many more would if they got every game? Why will sports leagues need to go through networks? Whatever advantage the CBC had for being able to reach into everyone's home is gone. That's what's driving the Bell-Rogers purchase of MLSE, isn't it? They can sell the product directly into our homes without going through a network contract.

I'm still not sold on this idea that it increases the incentive to make the teams better because as you say, the whol mentality here is on reduced risk and control of the market, not so much on competing to be the best in the market.

[brad]

The point is that the way MLSE has run the Leafs is setting a precident for how they run their other sports. MLSE are getting away with running the Leafs with fairly minimum investment (compared to the size of their income), not getting into the play offs, but STILL selling out all their seats, and getting masses of advertising/media revenue.

It works for the Leafs, so MLSE run the Raptors and TFC the same way. And why wouldn't they - its worked in one sport, and so far (for TFC at least) its working for another.

Without a doubt they had the Leafs model in line for TFC. Folk on here have had conversations with Tommy A about exactly that.

It's a critical misjudgment though, of the teams the sports in general. The Leafs, in a lot of ways are like football teams overseas (although to a lesser degree IMHO). They are woven into the fabric of the city, into family's, into social gatherings, etc. Many leafs fans have a connection to the team from birth - they grew up watching the team, going to games with the family (when they were accesible) and are Leafs fans through thick and thin (well, mostly think). That connection does not and can not exist for a team that is only a few years old. It needs to be built, and quite frankly, a lot of folks have already walked away from it as a result of whats been going on.

[cherono]

The Leafs, I think, are increasingly alienating those life-time families of fans. It's pretty difficult for a lot of people to take two kids to a Leafs game these days with the ACC pricing. On one hand you could argue that's just the way it goes (and the Premiership for example is doing the same thing), but combine it with poor results, and it's no wonder all the kids in the GTA wear Pittsburgh/Washington/Chicago gear.
TFC can still be a family day out but if it's marketed exclusively as such, then it's only a matter of time before gamedays become completely soul less (as many others here have pointed out).

[BayernTFC]

It's the marketing that's important. It's the whole idea of "your station" that's in flux.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you read the articles, or at least the quotes, I posted above. The game has changed. It's all about content ownership now. People now want to watch what they want to watch and when and how they want to watch it. CBC's old model (bidding for rights to events/programs) is dead. The competition has already changed their approach. CBC is still stuck in the past. CBC has made some adjustments. They do offer content online. However, they do not offer a delivery service per se (cable/satellite/smart phone/internet service).


How many people here have subscribed to MLS Live? How many more would if they got every game? I don't know. Do they get every game? What if a service/content provider owns one of the teams. ;)


Why will sports leagues need to go through networks?
Exactly. Own the team or league outright, or be a share holder and have a stake, so you can exert some control over the content.


Whatever advantage the CBC had for being able to reach into everyone's home is gone. That's what's driving the Bell-Rogers purchase of MLSE, isn't it? They can sell the product directly into our homes without going through a network contract.
Exactly. CBC did have an advantage. They squandered it, and their advantage is long gone. However, many Canadians still watch CBC. The CBC still has a following and an ability to attract viewers to their TV station and website. The CBC should be busy creating that new model and making adjustments before it's all gone.



I'm still not sold on this idea that it increases the incentive to make the teams better because as you say, the whol mentality here is on reduced risk and control of the market, not so much on competing to be the best in the market.
I think this statement is more geared to the broader topic of this thread. I was specifically just commenting on the part of your quote that I bolded originally. True, the whole mentality is on reducing risk and controlling the market. CBC is still playing the old game of bidding for rights. CBC could never improve performance of an American league in which they bought the rights to televise matches, on any level. The only thing they could have marginal control over in such a situation would be ratings on their station, maybe? Don't underestimate the ability to connect people to the content that they want. Youtube doesn't own the content, or the internet, but a lot of people visit that site. It's just not smart for youtube to create a 100 year business model based on how people consume content today. Are you suggesting that CBC become a service provider to compete with Rogers/Bell/Telus/Cogeco on that level? Should all bars/pubs/clubs shut down and just become breweries/distilleries?


EDIT: I should note that CBC does have the ability to deliver the signal for their television station in HD over the air. It's an inexpensive way for their content to be reached by viewers. How broad is that reach?

[Jack]

Not sure if your serious. Its nice to see the sport franchises gain value and make money, but seriously you think it has not been "that bad". They havnt won shit to put it bluntly, not even making the playoffs.

Yeah, I meant money, not sports. On a businesslevel, you can't argue with their success. A few extra million from playoffs would be nice , but things are still looking good to their board. A tripling of your value, an increase of one billion dollars, is going to be considered a success by any corporate entity. So for them, winning would be awesome and they really want it to happen, but losing only costs the pawns their jobs,. not the kings and queens.

[Abou Sky]

Winning means needing to take risks. I always felt that while MLSE spent the money they never took risks.

Sure the Leafs are always a cap team, but the Raptors could be spending way more money (ie going over the soft cap) for example.

But why spending more money over and above when it doesn't guarantee winning per se?

Just maintain the status quo, with some good marketing, and while you may not win, you have consistent money coming in. No need to put your neck on the line.

I think the Jays are good example. I think that's what you'll get out of Rogers/Bell... steady, consistent spending, but not over the top spending even though they're more than capable of... just to maintain healthy margins.

Baseball is different, you have to spend gobs of money to have a chance at winning, MLS roster including DPs is less than many player salaries in baseball

[Macksam]

MLSE makes money without winning. Why should Bell/Rogers care about wining when the fans in this city still pay top dollar?

I get they make more money but they will be indifferent like the current ownership if they still roll in cash. Anyways i hope for everyones sake they actually care and dont decide to hike your cable or interent bill in the near future.

Easy, they need to think of the long-term. MLSE isn`t going to be rolling in the cash 20 or 30 years from now when they try selling their products to an apathetic generation.

[boban]

Easy, they need to think of the long-term. MLSE isn`t going to be rolling in the cash 20 or 30 years from now when they try selling their products to an apathetic generation.

They don't give two squats about tomorrow. It's all about rolling in the money and taking profits today.
From even before TFC's first game MLSE has operated on that principle and will continue to do so - regardless of who owns it.

If tomorrow is a thought in MLSE's mind, you think they would have had minimal stadium investment . They had a chance to start and fix that with the expansion a couple of years back - failed again. It's all about taking profits. If tomorrow a thought you'd think we'd have the 2nd highest ticket prices in the league? If tomorrow was a thought you'd think the Real Madrid in '09 debacle would not have happened. If tomorrow was a thought the coaching carousel would not have happened.
These guys are so short term it's not even funny.