MLSE Sale: Wins Expected To Matter

[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/...rticle4096663/

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 in last month's budget that the CBC would lose $115 million in funding over three years.
In response, the CBC had previously announced 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-6566...io-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, when the deal last came up for renewal. The contract was primarily for the TV rights

http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/blogs/in...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 is anyone's guess. It's that crowd that's now up for grabs as media giants Rogers and Bell 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 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, 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. 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/in...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
If wins are going to matter for the #Leafs 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/sport...rticle4184807/

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/sport...rticle4184807/


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.