CBC - CCA - TSN
Icebound
magazine, about the CBC television deal.
Perhaps the details were already available somewhere else by now, but the
SWEEP! articles is the first I had seen.
In any case, the article has convinced my to withdraw my sympathy toward
TSN. This debacle was largely of THEIR making.
Carole
"Icebound" <ice_bound@rogers.!!!EXTRACT!!!.com> wrote in message
news:idadnTlQ75S...@rogers.com...
Rod Gramlich
"Icebound" <ice_bound@rogers.!!!EXTRACT!!!.com> wrote in message
news:idadnTlQ75S...@rogers.com...
> magazine, about the CBC television deal.
uh, .... no
>
> Perhaps the details were already available somewhere else by now, but the
> SWEEP! articles is the first I had seen.
>
> In any case, the article has convinced my to withdraw my sympathy toward
> TSN. This debacle was largely of THEIR making.
it's all a matter of perspective .... which includes writer's angle. All I
know is that the CBC 'outbid' TSN (who yes, did apparently suggest to the
CCA that they (i.e. TSN) wanted exclusive rights for weekend play ... i.e.
playoff curling as well .. and why not, if I may ask) with taxpayer's money.
AND NOW THE CBC is putting live curling on some digital channel which the
VAST MAJORITY of us do NOT subscribe to. If it's CBC, it's government ...
and I have an innate despise of present day governments ..... sorry - just a
personal problem ................. so I ain't buying into ANYTHING that
paints a pretty portrait of this deal.
>
>
Catester
Where would I be likely to find a copy of Sweep! magazine? Is this
something that would be in my local curling club?
--
Catester
"As Canadian as possible under the circumstances." ~ E. Heather Scott - 1972 ~
Carole
well.
"Catester" <ca...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:l99dn09e6kbnoji6p...@4ax.com...
Rod Gramlich
> <ice_bound@rogers.!!!EXTRACT!!!.com> wrote:
>
>
> Where would I be likely to find a copy of Sweep! magazine?
> something that would be in my local curling club?
David
subscription for a year costs $6 in Canada, but $46 for those of us in
Europe. I'm too cheap to subscribe. As an expat Canadian, I am interested
in what is happening back in the "motherland" so I would appreciate if
someone could provide further info on what was in the article on the CBC
television deal.
David Leal
Brussels
"Icebound" <ice_bound@rogers.!!!EXTRACT!!!.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: idadnTlQ75S...@rogers.com...
Icebound
1. The morning games were never part of the package, even in past years.
TSN provided them out of the goodness of their heart.... or maybe because
they filled an otherwise useless time slot in which they usually played
endless reruns of the previous night's "Sports Centre".
2. TSN had already made it known that they would not be providing the
morning games THIS year, even if they won the contract, so that is not even
an issue.
3. CBC was happy with the status-quo, and had already signed to do the
weekend games, expecting TSN to take the rest, like always....
4. ... but TSN wanted it all or nothing.... they put in a bid for the whole
package, and made it clear that they did not want anything less...
5. ...so CBC had to rebid. ( CBC, having broadcast at least SOME curling in
Canada "forever", was cornered into a position where they were going to lose
it all. I can now sympathize with them going after the rights
"aggressively")
6. When CBC came up with a bid that TSN could not match, the public bawling
started. CBC's flaw was that they did not respond aggressively in the
media.... otherwise TSN might not have gotten as much sympathy from us as
they did.
7. TSN continued to display their negotiating skills, by losing the rights
to the McCain skins game also (after this year). After December, they are
totally out of curling.
I fully agree that the effect on the average viewer (who already subscribes
to TSN and CBC both, but not Country Canada) will probably be worse, with
fewer games "live". And we all will be missing Linda, Vic, and Ray.
But none of that is the CBC's fault. They were perfectly happy with their
weekends, until TSN cornered them.
"David" <david...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:4176ca7d$0$19562$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
>... so I would appreciate if someone could provide further info on what was
>in the article on the CBC television deal.
>
> David Leal
> Brussels
>
> "Icebound" <ice_bound@rogers.!!!EXTRACT!!!.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news: idadnTlQ75S...@rogers.com...
Rod's news
>subscription for a year costs $6 in Canada,
yes .... but only for new subscribers and only for 1 year. Once you're a
subscriber, it's about a 200% increase for annual subscription. Reminds me
of the cable and cell phone companies ................... "sign up now and
get 6 months free .... and then give up one right side body part annually to
continue with subscription".
Rod's news
"Icebound" <ice_bound@rogers.!!!EXTRACT!!!.com> wrote in message
> 5. ...so CBC had to rebid. ( CBC, having broadcast at least SOME curling
> in Canada "forever", was cornered into a position where they were going to
> lose it all. I can now sympathize with them going after the rights
> "aggressively")
Give me a blank cheque, ............ give anyone a blank cheque, for that
matter. "Agressively", is a relative thing when it's someone else's (in this
case, tax paying Canadians) money.
> But none of that is the CBC's fault. They were perfectly happy with their
> weekends,
PLEEEEEZZZZ !!!!! Round robin coverage is NOT the glamour - and that is the
reason. I can fully understand TSN's wants. They do all the trench work, and
in comes the government subsidized (funded) network to assume the role in
the limelight of the play_offs. TSN never cornered anyone. The real
assessment may better be desribed as that TSN was getting screwed out of
prime time coverage. The jack asses at CBC sports pull the same bullshit
with other sports (CFL football immediately comes to mind).
Icebound
"Rod's news" <rod....@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:DoFdd.165547$a41.151320@pd7tw2no...
>
> "Icebound" <ice_bound@rogers.!!!EXTRACT!!!.com> wrote in message
> news:tq2dnUWWc5k...@rogers.com...
>
>> 5. ...so CBC had to rebid. ( CBC, having broadcast at least SOME curling
>> in Canada "forever", was cornered into a position where they were going
>> to lose it all. I can now sympathize with them going after the rights
>> "aggressively")
> Give me a blank cheque, ............ give anyone a blank cheque, for that
> matter. "Agressively", is a relative thing when it's someone else's (in
> this case, tax paying Canadians) money.
>
>
Well, nobody has released the bids, so we don't know how far apart they
were. Conspiracy theorists would suggest that TSN was actually trying to
steal the complete package for cheap, if they could.... and if they could
not steal it for cheap, then they didn't really want to compete for it
anyway.... Curling does not match their audience demographic... just as it
doesn't match the Labatt Brewer's demographic.
I do not see that CBC is going to be any less fiscally responsible than TSN.
Sure they are subsidized, but the atmosphere in Canada for government
corporations is not very conducive to fiscal irresponsibility, given Sheila
Fraser....
I am not sure what your CFL reference was about, but CBC was broadcasting
CFL football, (and the weekend curling games) long before TSN was invented.
So I am not exactly sure how continuing to do them the same old way is
somehow "screwing" TSN. Like curling, I am not all that sure that TSN
really cares about CFL football, other than it fills air time. It doesn't
fit their demographic, either. I am guessing that they would be way more
happy if the NFL came to Toronto.
Perry Domzella
> 7. TSN continued to display their negotiating skills, by losing the rights
> to the McCain skins game also (after this year). After December, they are
> totally out of curling.
I noticed here
http://www.womenscurlingtour.com/schedule1.htm
that the women's skins game scheduled for December 13/14 has been cancelled.
Sayonara, TSN.
Rod Gramlich
"Icebound" <ice_bound@rogers.!!!EXTRACT!!!.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
> Well, nobody has released the bids, so we don't know how far apart they
> were.
True enough, .... fair enough
Conspiracy theorists would suggest that TSN was actually trying to
> steal the complete package for cheap, if they could.... and if they could
> not steal it for cheap, then they didn't really want to compete for it
> anyway....
Again ... fair enough (but remember - it's only a conspiracy theory
................. and when it comes to me and conspiracy theories, and a
government is involved, my theory never involves the other party !! :>)
Curling does not match their audience demographic... just as it
> doesn't match the Labatt Brewer's demographic.
Is that a statement or a question ???????????? Initially by whom ???
>
> I do not see that CBC is going to be any less fiscally responsible than
TSN.
> Sure they are subsidized, but the atmosphere in Canada for government
> corporations is not very conducive to fiscal irresponsibility, given
Sheila
> Fraser....
Hogwash. Ms. Fraser may have exposed (with help) some gut wrenching
corruption, and deterred it for a while (and deterred momentarily seems to
fit the case here ............. cuz if it were any of the rest of us
screwing the government over, we'd be serving a jail sentence - NOT SERVING
AS PRIME-MINISTER) ............. but it's still same old, same old (there's
no accountability when playing with money that comes as easily as tax
revenue from the masses).
>
> I am not sure what your CFL reference was about, but CBC was broadcasting
> CFL football, (and the weekend curling games) long before TSN was
invented.
.......... and prop aircraft were the measure of the day. Times change
............ and TSN brought welcome change to the television aspect of ..
oh, let's say curling and football in Canada. If the CBC couldn't (wouldn't)
keep pace, then who makes them god and affords them rights to every final
(game) ever played ? Make no mistake ... the CBC is SELF SERVING !!!
> So I am not exactly sure how continuing to do them the same old way is
> somehow "screwing" TSN.
I'd state is as 'continuing to do the same old thing' at considerable
additional expense to taxpayers (hell, although we don't know actual bid
numbers, Warren's claim is that the CBC made an offer the CCA couldn't
refuse).
Like curling, I am not all that sure that TSN
> really cares about CFL football, other than it fills air time. It doesn't
> fit their demographic, either.
OK ... I assume that these are statements ....... sourced by you. IYHO, what
does, then (poker, darts, body building, MSG dog shows, figure skating ....
???) ?????????????????
I am guessing that they would be way more
> happy if the NFL came to Toronto.
Check out the CBC 'employee list' from Athens 2004 .............. and tell
me that the CBC wasn't happy that the olys were in the Mediterranean. Same
concept.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Icebound
"Rod Gramlich" <rod.gr...@ualberta.ca> wrote in message
news:cl8fr1$5em$1...@tabloid.srv.ualberta.ca...
>
> "Icebound" <ice_bound@rogers.!!!EXTRACT!!!.com> wrote in message
> news:ld2dnRIRKft...@rogers.com...
>>
>
>> doesn't match the Labatt Brewer's demographic.
> Is that a statement or a question ???????????? Initially by whom ???
When Labatts quit major sponsorship in 2000 or thereabouts, they made that
statement. They were looking for the 19-35 group or something like that,
and curling viewership ain't it.
...
>> Make no mistake ... the CBC is SELF SERVING !!!
>
TSN, of course, is not.
>> So I am not exactly sure how continuing to do them the same old way is
>> somehow "screwing" TSN.
>
> I'd state is as 'continuing to do the same old thing' at considerable
> additional expense to taxpayers (hell, although we don't know actual bid
> numbers, Warren's claim is that the CBC made an offer the CCA couldn't
> refuse).
>
The "considerable expense" of government subsidy to CBC, amounts to about a
case of beer per year for each person in Canada. I am sure most of that
goes to areas that are "good for your mind" but not financially recoverable,
such as some of their radio documentaries and programming. Yeah, most of us
couldn't care less....we love the pablum of the commercial networks.
It would be interesting to see whether or not CBC sports pays for itself and
subsidizes the rest of CBC operations.
> Like curling, I am not all that sure that TSN
>> really cares about CFL football, other than it fills air time. It
>> doesn't
>> fit their demographic, either.
> OK ... I assume that these are statements ....... sourced by you. IYHO,
> what
> does, then (poker, darts, body building, MSG dog shows, figure skating
> ....
> ???) ?????????????????
>
>
Yes, Poker, body building. After that, Wrestling, NFL Football, hockey...
all the 19 to 35 stuff.
> I am guessing that they would be way more
>> happy if the NFL came to Toronto.
> Check out the CBC 'employee list' from Athens 2004 .............. and tell
> me that the CBC wasn't happy that the olys were in the Mediterranean. Same
> concept.
You and I might call it a boondoggle. CBC might call it big-time coverage.
Do you have the dollar numbers for other big-time coverage, say, by the
American Networks??
CBC is able to provide exposure to lesser-known sports even if it doesn't
recover advertising revenue, where a commercial network could not. That is
not all bad.
I haven't yet seen the bill for 2004, but until 2002, CBC's government
allotment doesn't seem much different in dollar numbers than it was in 1996.
So in real dollars, it has been falling (up to the last posted year:
2002)...
Rod Gramlich
"Icebound" <ice_bound@rogers.!!!EXTRACT!!!.com> wrote in message
>
> >
> > Curling does not match their audience demographic... just as it
> >> doesn't match the Labatt Brewer's demographic.
> > Is that a statement or a question ???????????? Initially by whom ???
>
> When Labatts quit major sponsorship in 2000 or thereabouts, they made that
> statement. They were looking for the 19-35 group or something like that,
> and curling viewership ain't it.
OK ... I got ya' now ................ I didn't follow what you were saying
(i.e. that the curling crowd doesn't meet the beer company wants/needs???).
As far as curling goes wrt TSN demographics, ya gotta think it beats poker,
darts and bowling.
>
> ...
> >> Make no mistake ... the CBC is SELF SERVING !!!
> >
>
> TSN, of course, is not.
I never said that. But what I have a big problem with is the CBC claiming
that they better serve Canadian viewership, and so it's in the best
interests of Canadians to utilize the CBC (and hence, have the CCA accept
the CBC bid .. and that WAS one of the CBC's claims when campaigning their
bid).
>
> >
>
> The "considerable expense" of government subsidy to CBC, amounts to about
a
> case of beer per year for each person in Canada.
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????
yeah, right !!!!!
http://www.fin.gc.ca/fiscmon/2004-08e.html When you're talking billions,
you're not cases of beer.
>
> It would be interesting to see whether or not CBC sports pays for itself
and
> subsidizes the rest of CBC operations.
It would just flat out be interesting to see ALL the CBC numbers ..........
unedited and unabridged
>
>
> Yes, Poker, body building. After that, Wrestling, NFL Football, hockey...
> all the 19 to 35 stuff.
12 year olds and 45 year olds don't play football.
>
>
> You and I might call it a boondoggle.
MIGHT ???????????????
CBC might call it big-time coverage.
and yes, might still applies in that respect as well.
> Do you have the dollar numbers for other big-time coverage, say, by the
> American Networks??
I could care less about the planet police's big networks ............ for
they are a major contributor to Americanisation of the planet, and trust me,
I am NOT a big fan of that concept. I just wanna watch curling, ice !!!!
>
> CBC is able to provide exposure to lesser-known sports even if it doesn't
> recover advertising revenue, where a commercial network could not. That
is
> not all bad.
yeah , yeah ,yeah ........................... the social perfecting tool of
Canada, eh ................ a gov't. run / controlled media / propaganda
tool. That's largely what it is (it's nothing more than an infantile CNN ..
speaking of large yankee networks)
>
> I haven't yet seen the bill for 2004, but until 2002, CBC's government
> allotment doesn't seem much different in dollar numbers than it was in
1996.
The CBC budget from 03/04 to 04/05 increased well in excess of
$60,000,000.00 / annum.
> So in real dollars, it has been falling (up to the last posted year:
> 2002)...
see above
>
>
Icebound
>
> "Icebound" <ice_bound@rogers.!!!EXTRACT!!!.com> wrote in message
> news:EvadnTIZe6a...@rogers.com...
>> >> Make no mistake ... the CBC is SELF SERVING !!!
>> >
>>
>> TSN, of course, is not.
> I never said that. But what I have a big problem with is the CBC claiming
> that they better serve Canadian viewership, and so it's in the best
> interests of Canadians to utilize the CBC (and hence, have the CCA accept
> the CBC bid .. and that WAS one of the CBC's claims when campaigning their
> bid).
That was the spin on the fact that CBC reaches 99% of Canadian population,
but TSN reaches "only" about 72%, hence curling is spread to a larger
audience.
>> >
>>
>> The "considerable expense" of government subsidy to CBC, amounts to about
> a
>> case of beer per year for each person in Canada.
>
> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
> ??????
>
> yeah, right !!!!!
> http://www.fin.gc.ca/fiscmon/2004-08e.html When you're talking billions,
> you're not cases of beer.
>
Actually, you are. Parliament allots just about 1 billion dollars to the
CBC per year. That works out to about 35 dollars per Canadian....
30,000,000 x $35 = 1.05 billion.
I haven't seen that number, but I will assume it is true. It still makes it
about 1 Billion, and so you see above.
Rod's news
"Icebound" <ice_bound@rogers.!!!EXTRACT!!!.com> wrote in message
>
>
> That was the spin on the fact that CBC reaches 99% of Canadian population,
> but TSN reaches "only" about 72%, hence curling is spread to a larger
> audience.
yeah ... sure - before they decided to insistthat we all pay for an
additional digital channel (Country Canada ???) to watch it live. It's a
government scam to line their pockets by holding curling fans at ranson
(kinda .. we've always got tape delay).
>
>
>
> Actually, you are. Parliament allots just about 1 billion dollars to the
> CBC per year. That works out to about 35 dollars per Canadian....
> 30,000,000 x $35 = 1.05 billion.
show me the billion on paper. We were discussing the cbc budget at curling
tonight and some folks reckon it's MUCH higher than what you are suggesting
(I've tried to find that number in federal gov't. documentation, but I
couldn't locate anything).
>
>
> I haven't seen that number, but I will assume it is true. It still makes
> it about 1 Billion, and so you see above.
That number I did find (an increase from 400+ to ~500 million - but I
couldn't determine if that was quarterly number or an annual number. Surely
someone lurking in here could point us to'actuals' wrt cbc annual budget.
cheers
>
>
Rod's news
"Icebound" <ice_bound@rogers.!!!EXTRACT!!!.com> wrote in message
>
> Actually, you are. Parliament allots just about 1 billion dollars to the
> CBC per year. That works out to about 35 dollars per Canadian....
> 30,000,000 x $35 = 1.05 billion.
see at: (your number seems right)
http://www.friends.ca/News/Friends_News/archives/articles04020404.asp
but it's far from 'official' .......... and it only refers to "SUBSIDIES"
(and it's not clear if that is over and above annual budget ...... iow, why
would they refer to annual budget as any part of a subsidy ??) There is one
line in this reportthat refers to there being no official CBC subsidy number
from senate ... so these are estimates. Why is the CBC annual budget such a
secret ??? (or maybe I'm not looking in the right places).
Rod's news
Bringing it back home
In mid-November, when our Integrated Media Association delegation from the South met with CBC.ca staffers, almost everyone from the States was surprised to learn how little CBC was spending on the Web. Its presence seemed so large; the graphics so eye-catching. This must cost a fortune, we thought. Contrary to our preconceptions, we discovered CBC.ca had a base operating budget for 2004 of $6.7 million, with $746,000 for special projects and capital spending of $500,000 a year (all figures in U.S. dollars). This represents less than 1 percent of the CBC budget.
If we assume this to be true, then the math is ~ $8,000,000.00 / annum for cbc.ca. If that's 1% of the total, then the total is likely approaching a billion / annum. Ice's number appears to be pretty accurate.
Icebound
"Rod's news" <rod....@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:QI%dd.1373$Pl.272@pd7tw1no...
>
> "Icebound" <ice_bound@rogers.!!!EXTRACT!!!.com> wrote in message
> news:Z-udnZIfNPd...@rogers.com...
>>
>>
>> That was the spin on the fact that CBC reaches 99% of Canadian
>> population, but TSN reaches "only" about 72%, hence curling is spread to
>> a larger audience.
>
> yeah ... sure - before they decided to insistthat we all pay for an
> additional digital channel (Country Canada ???) to watch it live. It's a
> government scam to line their pockets by holding curling fans at ranson
> (kinda .. we've always got tape delay).
>>
>>
They get to 99% without Country Canada, which means more PEOPLE will see
weekday curling, not necessarily more LIVE games. (They will, in fact, get
to see the same number of games, just not all LIVE unless they have Country
Canada)
>>
>> Actually, you are. Parliament allots just about 1 billion dollars to the
>> CBC per year. That works out to about 35 dollars per Canadian....
>> 30,000,000 x $35 = 1.05 billion.
>
> show me the billion on paper. We were discussing the cbc budget at curling
> tonight and some folks reckon it's MUCH higher than what you are
> suggesting (I've tried to find that number in federal gov't.
> documentation, but I couldn't locate anything).
>>
In one of your other posts, you talk about the CBC budget as being "a big
secret". Their recent financial reports (up to 2003) are posted on the CBC
site.
and Parliamentary allocations are here:
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20032004/a1_0304e.pdf
page 16, 860 million.
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20032004/a2_0304e.pdf
page 6, additions to the 860 bringing it up to 997 million
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20032004/a3_0304e.pdf
page 5. add additional 50 million in September, bringing total to just over
1 billion
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20032004/a4_0304e.pdf
page 6. additional 18 million which seems to be some kind of trade between
Heritage and CBC
Grand total 1.065B, probably a rise since 2002, after cuts since the early
nineties. The yearly average of the last 10 years is still "about 1
Billion".
Other sources:
http://cbc.radio-canada.ca/htmen/annual_report/2002-2003/pdf/financial.pdf
page 8, "Government Funding"
http://www.friends.ca/News/Friends_News/archives/articles04020404.asp
first paragraph.
Even the critical
http://www.cbcwatch.ca/?q=taxonomy/page/or/1
shows the CBC budget as "1 billion in taxes"
Rod Gramlich
"Icebound" <ice_bound@rogers.!!!EXTRACT!!!.com> wrote in message
>
> >>
>
> They get to 99% without Country Canada, which means more PEOPLE will see
> weekday curling, not necessarily more LIVE games. (They will, in fact,
get
> to see the same number of games, just not all LIVE unless they have
Country
> Canada)
Are you clarifying MY point, or making anew ???? LOLOLOL
Icebound
The point I was clarifying was way back from one of your previous posts:
" But what I have a big problem with is the CBC claiming
that they better serve Canadian viewership, and so it's in the best
interests of Canadians to utilize the CBC (and hence, have the CCA accept
the CBC bid .. and that WAS one of the CBC's claims when campaigning their
bid)."
The point I was making was that the CBC spin on the statement "better serve
Canadian viewership" was:
1. They reach 99% of population vs TSN 72%, and they do it for free, vs the
extra $72 I have to pay to get TSN.
2. Hence the weekday games reach a larger audience (albeit not as many live
games, but wait....).
3. An individual can see exactly as many games as with TSN, even if he does
not have Country Canada, (albeit not all live, but wait...).
4. And if I save the $72 on TSN, and add Country Canada (single channel for
$36), I get all the same LIVE curling, save $36, and have curling in more
households in Canada.... ie: "better serve"
Naturally, I doubt that anybody will actually go that route, but the claim
that CBC "better serves" can certainly be made in that way.
There is an estimate that 30% of cable subscribers are digital NOW
http://www.digitalhomecanada.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=34
(and we all know in which direction that is going... with or without
curling.)
So another way of looking at the curling exposure is as follows:
For every 100 households in Canada.
72 have TSN. two games a day, live curling is exposed to 144 household-games
on a given day.
CBC is in 99 homes, 1 live game per day equals 99 house-games per day.
PLUS 30% of cable subscribers have digital, equals 21 (.3 of 72) households
can get the extra live game for $15 per year, see below).
So CBC exposes curling to a potential 120 household-games per day, TODAY,
before any additional digital subscribers pop up, about 83% of what TSN did,
and somewhat cheaper for the cable subscriber.
Plus about 2 million satellite subscribers between the two providers.
Live curling will not cost the digital cable subscriber a whole lot, and I
am betting on a spike in Country Canada subscriptions. I don't have digital
yet, so I am speculating.... but I would assume that people who do, are
buying the multi-channel "packs" to save money, 15 channels for $19, etc.
So the curling viewer will take 14 channels and "throw away" the extra 1.27
($15 PER YEAR) on Country Canada to have the best of all worlds.
We can all pretend to grumble about having to buy digital, but the recent
discussions around MY after-curling beer table have often been about the
latest 54 inch high-definition plasma whatzit that somebody got a real deal
for under a few gazillion thousand, and I don't see THAT little item being
parked in the corner stuck onto an old analogue cable signal.