How Would Moving the CFL Season Earlier Affect the Argos?

[paulwoods13]

Right now TSN is paying $35+ Million a year just for the Ottawa Senators LOCAL TV rights. The CFL TV rights are National and for the entire league, not just one team.

http://ottawasun.com/2014/01/29/live...9-0c9352b14533

TSN is massively under paying for the Canadian CFL Canadian TV rights.

The US has ten times our population and the CFL is putting up good numbers with little or no promotion. Do you really think it's a coincidence that all this talk of moving the season up is gaining traction at the same time that the US CFL TV deal is about to expire?

I have no doubt the league thinks it might get a big score from US TV. And I have little to no doubt it will not come even close to getting $40M/year for spring and summer coverage of a league that most Americans do not follow or care about.

The league is smart to see if it can increase revenues -- in fact, I argued many times that increasing revenue and growing the business was the primary factor they should look for in a new commissioner -- but that doesn't mean a windfall is about to happen.

What TSN pays for local hockey rights is completely irrelevant in this discussion, as is what TSN pays the CFL. Whether or not Bell is getting a bargain in its CFL deal is a matter of conjecture, but I can guarantee NFL Network does not base its programming purchase decisions on any economics other than how any deal would affect its own bottom line.

[rdavies]

What TSN pays for local hockey rights is completely irrelevant in this discussion, as is what TSN pays the CFL.

This part I don't agree with, and whether these two things can be conflated or not.

It says to me the CFL is being underpaid for what it is delivering but that doesn't mean TSN has to give the CFL more than they do the Sens. It's TSN's choice and the unfortunate part is the CFL doesn't have much choice. Maybe their best option is to try and parcel out games to different carriers, hopefully one of which is an OTA network. As a member of the growing cord cutter club I'd like to see the CFL back on CTV and CBC.

[paulwoods13]

This part I don't agree with, and whether these two things can be conflated or not.

It says to me the CFL is being underpaid for what it is delivering but that doesn't mean TSN has to give the CFL more than they do the Sens. It's TSN's choice and the unfortunate part is the CFL doesn't have much choice. Maybe their best option is to try and parcel out games to different carriers, hopefully one of which is an OTA network. As a member of the growing cord cutter club I'd like to see the CFL back on CTV and CBC.

What TSN pays the CFL and the Senators absolutely has relevance to the CFL and to the Senators, but it has zero relevance to the NFL Network. It will pay whatever it pays, if anything, based on what CFL rights are worth to the NFL Network, not based on what TSN is paying for hockey or football.

The CFL signed the current rights agreement with Bell in good faith. Both parties agreed on the price. If the CFL got taken to the cleaners (which a lot of people who have no access to Bell's profit-and-loss statements for CFL broadcasts seem to take for granted), the CFL has no one to blame but itself.

If the CFL can negotiate a bigger score next time the contract is up, either with Bell or with someone else, or a combination, great! But like all negotiations, it will end with a number all parties can agree to. Just as the last one did. And just as the CFL's negotiations with the NFL Network, if they actually happen, will.

[KCargosfan]

What TSN pays the CFL and the Senators absolutely has relevance to the CFL and to the Senators, but it has zero relevance to the NFL Network. It will pay whatever it pays, if anything, based on what CFL rights are worth to the NFL Network, not based on what TSN is paying for hockey or football.

The CFL signed the current rights agreement with Bell in good faith. Both parties agreed on the price. If the CFL got taken to the cleaners (which a lot of people who have no access to Bell's profit-and-loss statements for CFL broadcasts seem to take for granted), the CFL has no one to blame but itself.

If the CFL can negotiate a bigger score next time the contract is up, either with Bell or with someone else, or a combination, great! But like all negotiations, it will end with a number all parties can agree to. Just as the last one did. And just as the CFL's negotiations with the NFL Network, if they actually happen, will.

Agreed wholeheartedly. I honestly would be surprised if the NFL Network shelled out more than $5 million.

[Rich]

Agreed wholeheartedly. I honestly would be surprised if the NFL Network shelled out more than $5 million.

I wouldn't. NFL Network is competing against ESPN for the rights. The audience for CFL games on ESPN was very promising this year, and they added extra games mid-season. June and July is a dead zone for US sports -- that's one-sixth the entire year -- and the networks are desperate for good content. There are so many football fans down there, it's not too far-fetched to imagine they could grow their viewership for CFL games over a few seasons, given the right presentation and good scheduling.

[AngeloV]

I wouldn't. NFL Network is competing against ESPN for the rights. The audience for CFL games on ESPN was very promising this year, and they added extra games mid-season. June and July is a dead zone for US sports -- that's one-sixth the entire year -- and the networks are desperate for good content. There are so many football fans down there, it's not too far-fetched to imagine they could grow their viewership for CFL games over a few seasons, given the right presentation and good scheduling.

Personally, I think many on here have overvalued what CFL rights are worth in the US. For starters, ESPN pays next to nothing for the current rights, and I highly doubt that a bidding war will emerge for a league that has no teams in the United States.

[doubleblue]

Personally, I think many on here have overvalued what CFL rights are worth in the US. For starters, ESPN pays next to nothing for the current rights, and I highly doubt that a bidding war will emerge for a league that has no teams in the United States.

I was wondering just how much the CFL is getting from ESPN now. When it all started we heard it was next to nothing just for the exposure. But as the viewership has grown maybe there is some money coming to the CFL now. Reason I say that is there seems to be more money available now for more Coaches and more high profile US Head Coaches. Trestman is rumoured to be making in the 600-700,000 range. June Jones and Mike Sherman wouldn't be coming to the CFL for 250,000 IMO.
Then all of a sudden people with big money are interested in putting a team in Halifax. I think something is in the wind. The old saying money always talks.
Good for the CFLP as that should translate into a much higher salary cap in 2019.

[Neely2005]

Personally, I think many on here have overvalued what CFL rights are worth in the US. For starters, ESPN pays next to nothing for the current rights, and I highly doubt that a bidding war will emerge for a league that has no teams in the United States.

The CFL usually gets better ratings on ESPN than MLS does. Right now ESPN is paying 37.5 Million USD a year for those MLS rights.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/t...html?mobi=true

[KCargosfan]

I wouldn't. NFL Network is competing against ESPN for the rights. The audience for CFL games on ESPN was very promising this year, and they added extra games mid-season. June and July is a dead zone for US sports -- that's one-sixth the entire year -- and the networks are desperate for good content. There are so many football fans down there, it's not too far-fetched to imagine they could grow their viewership for CFL games over a few seasons, given the right presentation and good scheduling.

You seem to think both of those networks have that kind of money to burn, which isn't the case. ESPN, for sure, isn't going to shell out any kind of substantial cash with its financial position.