MLSE Sale: Wins Expected To Matter

[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.