View Full Version : ESPN dilly dallying on TV deal
ESPN faces NHL deadline
Sportsnet.ca -- The NHL's much coveted US television deal appears to be close to reality.
Sources tell Sportsnet ESPN has until midnight Wednesday to match an offer by Comcast with OLN as a partner.
An offer that totals $440 million over the term of the contract.
The agreement is believed to be a six-year deal that will air between 58 and 78 NHL games in the US per year, with a consistant game of the week, along with the possibility of another night dedicated to a double-header.
Sources say the package also includes wall to wall coverage of the first two rounds of the playoffs.
This deal is littered with options and outs that can be triggered at any point by either side if the arrangement doesn't satisfy.
Sportsnet link (http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20050817_193633_6280)
Looks like a good deal for the NHL no matter which broadcaster wins. My only concern at this moment is US networks' crazy start times for playoff games. Noon EST is not a good time for starting a playoff game. :mad:
Iced Tea
8-18-05, 12:18 AM
TSN (http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=133834) says ESPN has declined the NHL's final offer.
MadDevil
8-18-05, 12:40 AM
Can't say as this is that bad of a thing, nobody at ESPN actually gave a damn about the NHL to begin with, and with the lockout, they were sure to lose even more interest. Besides, more people in the US would apparently watch "Bowling Night" than they would an NHL game.:curse:
Can't say as this is that bad of a thing, nobody at ESPN actually gave a damn about the NHL to begin with, and with the lockout, they were sure to lose even more interest. Besides, more people in the US would apparently watch "Bowling Night" than they would an NHL game.:curse:
Yup.
I really hope the NHL plays hardball when ESPN wants hockey again. I'd love to see the league raking in money, and telling ESPN to go **** themselves and or pay through the nose. That'd be some sweet justice
ESPN pay throught the nose? LOL something tells me money won't be an issue if they like the asking price....
==========================
The Walt Disney Company holdings
==========================
Publishing
Book Publishing Imprints
Hyperion
Miramax Books
ESPN Books
Theia
ABC Daytime Press
Hyperion Audiobooks
Hyperion East
Disney Publishing Worldwide
Cal Publishing Inc.
CrossGen
Hyperion Books for Children
Jump at the Sun
Volo
Michael di Caupa Books
Disney Global Children's Books
Disney Press
Global Retail
Global Continuity
Magazine titles include:
Automotive Industries
Biography (with GE and Hearst)
Discover
Disney Adventures
Disney Magazine
ECN News
ESPN Magazine (distributed by Hearst)
Family Fun
Institutional Investor
JCK
Kodin
Top Famille - French family magazine
US Weekly (50%)
Video Business
Quality
Broadcasting
(includes the Capital City/ABC subsidiary)
Television
ABC Television Network
Owned and Operated Television Stations
WLS - Chicago
WJRT - Flint
KFSN - Fresno
KTRK - Houston
KABC - Los Angeles
WABC - New York City
WPVI - Philadelphia
WTVD - Raleigh - Durham
KGO - San Francisco
WTVG - Toledo
Radio Stations
WKHX ? Atlanta
WYAY ? Atlanta
WDWD ? Atlanta
WMVP ? Chicago
WLS ? Chicago
WZZN ? Chicago
WRDZ ? Chicago
WBAP ? Dallas
KSCS ? Dallas
KMEO ? Dallas
KESN ? Dallas
KMKI ? Dallas
WDRQ ? Detroit
WJR ? Detroit
WDVD ? Detroit
KABC ? Los Angeles
KLOS ? Los Angeles
KDIS ? Los Angeles
KSPN ? Los Angeles
KQRS ? Minneapolis - St. Paul
KXXR ? Minneapolis - St. Paul
KDIZ ? Minneapolis - St. Paul
WGVX ? Minneapolis - St. Paul
WGVY ? Minneapolis - St. Paul
WGVZ ? Minneapolis - St. Paul
WABC ? New York City
WPLJ ? New York City
WQEW ? New York City
WEVD ? New York City
KGO ? San Francisco
KSFO ? San Francisco
KIID ? Sacramento
KMKY ? Oakland
WMAL ? Washington DC
WJZW ? Washington DC
WRQX ? Washington DC
KQAM ? Wichita
KKDZ ? Seattle
WSDZ ? St. Louis
WWMK ? Cleveland
KMIX ? Phoenix
KADZ ? Denver
KDDZ ? Denver
WWMI ? Tampa
KMIC ? Houston
WMYM ? Miami
WWJZ ? Philadelphia
WMKI ? Boston
WDZK ? Hartford
WDDZ ? Providence
WDZY ? Richmond
WGFY ? Charlotte
WDYZ ? Orlando
WMNE ? West Palm Beach
WEAE ? Pittsburgh
WDRD ? Louisville
WPPY ? Albany, NY
KPHN ? Kansas City
WQUA ? Mobile
WBML ? Jacksonville
WFDF ? Flint
WFRO ? Fremont, OH
WDMV ? Damascus, MD
WHKT ? Norfolk
Radio Disney
ESPN Radio (syndicated programming)
Cable Television
ABC Family
The Disney Channel
Toon Disney
SoapNet
ESPN Inc. (80% - Hearst Corporation owns the remaining 20%) includes ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN News, ESPN Now, ESPN Extreme
Classic Sports Network
A&E Television (37.5%, with Hearst and GE)
The History Channel (with Hearst and GE)
Lifetime Television (50%, with Hearst)
Lifetime Movie Network (50% with Hearst)
E! Entertainment (with Comcast and Liberty Media)
International Broadcast
The Disney Channel UK
The Disney Channel Taiwan
The Disney Channel Australia
The Disney Channel Malaysia
The Disney Channel France
The Disney Channel Middle East
The Disney Channel Italy
The Disney Channel Spain
ESPN INC. International Ventures
Sportsvision of Australia (25%)
ESPN Brazil (50%)
ESPN STAR (50%) - sports programming throughout Asia
Net STAR (33%) owners of The Sports Network of Canada
Other International Ventures (all with minority ownership)
Tele-Munchen - German television production and distribution
RTL-2 - German television production and distribution
Hamster Productions - French television production
TV Sport of France
Tesauro of Spain
Scandinavian Broadcasting System
Japan Sports Channel
Television Production and Distribution
Buena Vista Television
Touchstone Television
Walt Disney Television
Walt Disney Television Animation (has three wholly owned production facilities outside the United States - Japan, Australia, Canada)
Movie Production and Distribution
Walt Disney Pictures
Touchstone Pictures
Hollywood Pictures
Caravan Pictures
Miramax Films
Buena Vista Home Video
Buena Vista Home Entertainment
Buena Vista International
Financial and Retail
Financial
Sid R. Bass (partial interest - crude petroleum and natural gas production)
Retail
The Disney Store
Multimedia
Walt Disney Internet Group
ABC Internet Group
ABC.com
ABCNEWS.com
Oscar.com
Mr. Showbiz
Disney Online (web sites and content)
Disney's Daily Blast
Disney.Com
Family.Com
ESPN Internet Group
ESPN.sportzone.com
Soccernet.com (60%)
NBA.com
NASCAR.com
Skillgames
Wall of Sound
Go Network
Toysmart.com (majority stake - educational toys)
Disney Interactive (develops/markets computer software, video games, CD-ROMs)
Music
Buena Vista Music Group
Hollywood Records ( popular music and soundtracks for motion pictures)
Lyric Street Records (Nashville based country music label)
Mammoth Records (popular and alternative music label)
Walt Disney Records
Theater and Sports
Theatrical Productions
Walt Disney Theatrical Productions (productions include stage version of The Lion King,Beauty and the Beast, King David)
Professional Sports Franchises
Anaheim Sports, Inc.
Mighty Ducks of Anaheim (National Hockey League)
Theme Parks & Resorts
Disneyland - Anaheim, CA
Disney -MGM Studios
Disneyland Paris
Disney Regional Entertainment (entertainment and theme dining in metro areas)
Disneyland Resort
Disney Vacation Club
Epcot
Magic Kingdom
Tokyo Disneyland (partial ownership)
Walt Disney World - Orlando, FL
Disney's Animal Kingdom
Disney - MGM Studios
Walt Disnery World Sports Complex (golf course, auto racing track and basball complex)
Disney Cruise Line
The Disney Institute
Other
TiVo (partial investment)
-------------------------------------
The money is there... the NHL first needs to prove it can attract mainstream viewers. Then the corporate dollars will start to flow. :)
charlio lemieux
8-18-05, 8:34 AM
Impressive list. Rich b#@!#rds!
:curse: :box:
I really hope the NHL plays hardball when ESPN wants hockey again. I'd love to see the league raking in money, and telling ESPN to go **** themselves and or pay through the nose. That'd be some sweet justice:laughing: I don't think so.
They just won't do it. ESPN is making the right move here. There is a lacking interest of hockey in the United States, so why should they make the mistake of paying to televise the games?
There are some people at ESPN who do care about hockey and the NHL. John Buccigross and Todd Wright just to name a couple. I don't see why there is all of a sudden a hate and people are bashing the Worldwide Leader in Sports, simply because they don't want to take a major risk on something that lost them money the first time around.
I'm surprised the Outdoor Life Network will be showing hockey in the upcoming season.
:laughing: I don't think so.
They just won't do it. ESPN is making the right move here. There is a lacking interest of hockey in the United States, so why should they make the mistake of paying to televise the games?
There are some people at ESPN who do care about hockey and the NHL. John Buccigross and Todd Wright just to name a couple. I don't see why there is all of a sudden a hate and people are bashing the Worldwide Leader in Sports, simply because they don't want to take a major risk on something that lost them money the first time around.
I'm surprised the Outdoor Life Network will be showing hockey in the upcoming season.You going to put this down on a resume sometime in the future JR? ;)
Actually Matt nascar.com is owned by Turner Sports Interactive, or better yet TBS.
But really that is not going to your list all that much.
:D :D :D
Yeah that list (http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/disney.asp) was last updated just over a year ago (7/30/04).
Obviously, they no longer own the Mighty Yucks either, having sold the franchise some months back.
But Disney's holdings are still, how you say, substantial? :)
I guess my point is the NHL is never going to stick it to any major television network. They are all pieces of bigger pies, with deep pockets. If ESPN thought it made business sense to pay 500 million for NHL broadcasting rights over x years, it would happen in the blink of an eye. ESPN declining this agreement, it's just business nothing more. They know the ratings of old, the future is uncertain. I'd say it's quite likely ESPN and the NHL will cross paths again, as long as the NHL not only recovers it's fans... but grows its popularity with a supposed improved on-ice product.
If I were ESPN, I would also wait-and-see.
Leafs_Fa_Life
8-18-05, 11:47 AM
I thought ESPN would've matched the Comcast offer. I've read things over the past week that have said Comcast with the NHL, and potentially Thursday and Saturday NFL games would try and launch their own national sports network. I guess ESPN isn't scared of competition :coffee:
If ESPN or another larger network with more viewers comes a bidding 3 years from now... The NHL drops the Outdoor Life Network like Tuesday's trash, guaranteed.
If ESPN wanted to stop this from happening, they could have. But they didn't think it was worth the money.
BTW - am I crazy or have I never heard of the Outdoor Life Network... I don't think my cable provider carries it. :confused:
Max Power
8-18-05, 12:31 PM
BTW - am I crazy or have I never heard of the Outdoor Life Network... I don't think my cable provider carries it. :confused:
Yah you'll need to flick through the channels in hope of finding a hockey game. Or look for any bird watching or hut building show. It should be followed by a Rangers game
Leafs_Fa_Life
8-18-05, 12:38 PM
BTW - am I crazy or have I never heard of the Outdoor Life Network... I don't think my cable provider carries it. :confused:
On other boards I've heard people complain that OLN isn't part of the basic cable package in their area, and in some regions it's not even offered at all. Needless to say they reach less homes than ESPN or ESPN2.
FYI ESPN is available in 90 million U.S. homes; Outdoor Life reaches about 63 million.
source (http://www.freep.com/sports/hockey/nhl10e_20050810.htm)
None of it matters to me anyway, as I'll be purchasing Cablevision Center Ice package, which airs pretty much every single game over 10 channels :pimp:
We don't need ESPN. While there are a lot of true hockey fans in ESPN, for whatever reason ESPN did not want the NHL to succeed, because it wasn't given the chance to. Horrible time slots, poor selection of games and next to no advertising. Then they low ball the NHL. Kudos to Gary Bettman for giving a big 'ole "EFF YOU" to ESPN. As far as I'm concerned, I could care less if another game ever airs on ESPN again. If they do want to air another game, I truly hope that Bettman makes them pay noticably more than Comcast is willing to.
As far as Comcast goes.. great news for the NHL. They own the Flyers. They are huge on the internet. They're planning on airing games via the internet. These guys will reap the rewards.
KB in Kelowna
8-18-05, 3:41 PM
Beides OLN needs contentother than the Tour de France and whatever else they broadcast. I hardly ever stop at that chanel when I am flipping through.
swflyers25
8-18-05, 4:35 PM
OLN's homepage:
Big advertising.. (http://www.olntv.com/)
Leafs_Fa_Life
8-18-05, 4:46 PM
Good stuff.
Debuting with the Rangers and Flyers is a good call. Two of the biggest American hockey markets and division rivals.
We don't need ESPN. While there are a lot of true hockey fans in ESPN, for whatever reason ESPN did not want the NHL to succeed, because it wasn't given the chance to. Horrible time slots, poor selection of games and next to no advertising. Then they low ball the NHL. Kudos to Gary Bettman for giving a big 'ole "EFF YOU" to ESPN. As far as I'm concerned, I could care less if another game ever airs on ESPN again. If they do want to air another game, I truly hope that Bettman makes them pay noticably more than Comcast is willing to.
As far as Comcast goes.. great news for the NHL. They own the Flyers. They are huge on the internet. They're planning on airing games via the internet. These guys will reap the rewards.
I hate to say it PDO... but the NHL needs ESPN or a bigger network, not the other way around. That's just the way it is. I disagree with your assessments about ESPN's handling of the NHL. To be honest I quite enjoyed their hockey broadcasts, and especially their half hour wrap show at the end of national NHL broadcasting nights, led by John Saunders.
That may seem trivial to you... but here in the states, there is really no comparable national hockey coverage. ESPN ran through all the night's action... well beyond a few quick highlights, with good in-depth commentary on every game. We just don't have that here. After the Rangers post game show... they'll usually go to MSG sports desk, who will run down the night's NHL action very quickly... not even showing highlights of every game. They have baseball, basketball and football to get to. Nowhere else do we get national dedicated hockey coverage. I will miss that. I don't get Outdoor Life Network.
Of course ESPN wanted the NHL to succeed. All these people live for is ratings... and they do all they can from a marketing standpoint to gain viewers. The sad truth is that people just weren't tuning in. Gary won't, and in fact can't "make them pay" more than what they perceive the NHL's value to be. They didn't low ball the NHL... they made a business decision to stop losing money. From ESPN.com....
...."Tonight, we informed the NHL that we did not accept their final contract offer," ESPN and ABC Sports president George Bodenheimer said in a statement. "We worked very hard to build and sustain our relationship with the league and would have liked to continue. However, given the prolonged work stoppage and the league's TV ratings history, no financial model even remotely supports the contract terms offered."
In the 2003-04 season, NHL games on ESPN drew an audience in 416,000 homes and games on ESPN2 were watched in 209,000 homes......
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2137098
It comes as no surprise that their lack of return on past investment, coupled with the damage done to the league by a year-long work stoppage... would cause them to decline their TV option. But like I said, if ESPN is once again willing to roll the dice on the NHL down the road... the NHL will be all over it. Gary Bettman and the NHL powers that be, are by no stretch of the imagination going to turn their collective backs on a more lucrative deal, and more importantly an immediate 50% increase in households... as petty "payback" to ESPN for declining this option. On the contrary they'll be elated.
What the NHL craves most of all would be Comcast, Disney, and maybe 3 or 4 more conglomerates trying to out bid eachother for NHL broadcast rights.
Gary is putting a positive spin on the Outdoor Life Network deal... but in reality it stinks. They were very lucky to get 100 million out of Comcast, so in that respect it is a positive. But losing some 27 million households was no less than a punch in the stomach, to hopes of selling the "new and improved" game and reeling fans in, both old and new.
Daryl Shilling
8-18-05, 6:47 PM
Gary is putting a positive spin on the Outdoor Life Network deal... but in reality it stinks. They were very lucky to get 100 million out of Comcast, so in that respect it is a positive. But losing some 27 million households was no less than a punch in the stomach, to hopes of selling the "new and improved" game and reeling fans in, both old and new.
If the NHL could have, I'm quite sure they'd have preferred to be airing games on ESPN rather than OLN. That makes perfect sense, what with the larger number of homes the games would air in. That said, for the money, ESPN just wasn't going to do it, with them getting strong ratings out of bowling, poker, etc.
For the positive aspect of the NHL's deal with Outdoor Life Network, the league will now be the centre-piece of a network trying to move into being an ESPN-like all-around sports channel. They will be in fewer homes, but will be right at the front of OLN's marketing plans (that is, if they want this deal to work, and it's obvious they do), and should gain stronger visibility on that network than they would have with ESPN.
Daryl
I'd say it's quite likely ESPN and the NHL will cross paths again, as long as the NHL not only recovers it's fans... but grows its popularity with a supposed improved on-ice product.
If I were ESPN, I would also wait-and-see.Well its a 2 year deal and I assume comcast has the right of first refusal the way ESPN did. I mean it only makes sence that they would have that, they are paying 100 m so it stands to reason. So with that, ESPN and the NHL could cross paths on or near the next CBA negotiations ;)
Daryl - good point. I didn't really think of that. ESPN, while they have roughly 150% of the households of Outdoor life... has many other sports on their plate to push (not to mention poker and bowling).
Outdoor life, *should* be making the NHL the focal point of their drive to compete w/ ESPN. I hadn't looked at it like that. So there is that silver lining. Comcast does have the Mojo to make a big splash about the NHL.... just as much as Disney, or close enough.
Amo - the way I understood it is that the deal is for 2 years. Comcast has the option for a 3rd year at $72.5 mill if I'm not mistaken.
Beyond that... Comcast has the rights to extend the contract for 3 additional years, however there are no terms for those years i.e. they have the right to match, much like ESPN did just now, but the bid will be open. So Comcast has 2 years with an option for 3... Then they have "dibs" for the following 3 years, if ESPN or NBC wants to bid they can... but Comcast has right to match and keep NHL broadcast rights.
At least that's how I understand it...don't quote me on that. I could be dead wrong. (wouldn't be the first time ;) )
Matty Boy - You bring up some solid points, but here`s my rebuttal, and I`ll even keep it short and sweet :).
The NHL will get better ratings in 60 million Comcast homes than it would in 90 million ESPN homes.
Daryl - good point. I didn't really think of that. ESPN, while they have roughly 150% of the households of Outdoor life... has many other sports on their plate to push (not to mention poker and bowling).
Outdoor life, *should* be making the NHL the focal point of their drive to compete w/ ESPN. I hadn't looked at it like that. So there is that silver lining. Comcast does have the Mojo to make a big splash about the NHL.... just as much as Disney, or close enough.
Amo - the way I understood it is that the deal is for 2 years. Comcast has the option for a 3rd year at $72.5 mill if I'm not mistaken.
Beyond that... Comcast has the rights to extend the contract for 3 additional years, however there are no terms for those years i.e. they have the right to match, much like ESPN did just now, but the bid will be open. So Comcast has 2 years with an option for 3... Then they have "dibs" for the following 3 years, if ESPN or NBC wants to bid they can... but Comcast has right to match and keep NHL broadcast rights.
At least that's how I understand it...don't quote me on that. I could be dead wrong. (wouldn't be the first time ;) )From ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2137098) Comcast offered a three-year deal worth more than $200 million, and ESPN officials were brought back to the table. They had until Wednesday to once again decide if it was in the network's best interest. Comcast agreed to broadcast the league's games for at least two years, but that can be extended up to six years.If the NHL and comcast end up being a happy marriage, then I can see ESPN being out of the loop for a long time.
From Eklund (http://hockeyrumors.blogspot.com/) A Brand New Day
Way back when I wrote a blog about the NHL and how I was thrilled they didn't accept ESPN's pity bid of 30M for this year. I got pretty crazy in that post, but I was upset by the many people I was talking to around the league who thought the loss of ESPN was the death of hockey. I thought we should think more of ourselves. We have an awesome "bleeping" sport! Remember?
Well this morning we wake up with a new home of the NHL. A company that will treat us with the respect we deserve. Finally the NHL will get the "A" Treatment. Before I go any further. let me say this. The folks at ESPN who put on hockey did a phenomenal job. John Buccigross is one of my favorite people. Melrose, Pito, Ferraro(even if he does think I'm a fraud), Hradek (apparently not a fan either), Pang, Erin, Thorne, Clement, and the crews...they really did an outstanding job. But they themselves would tell you it was always a battle. NHL2-NIGHT was a great example. ESPN2 thought there were better things to put on at 11:30 at night. And on how many sportcenters did we hear the passive-aggressive digs against the sport?....you quickly realize the NHL was waaaay down the priority list..
But today is a brand new day. Comcast loves hockey. They own a team (the Flyers) for crying out loud. The people there... are hockey people. They are in Philadelphia...a killer hockey town. And they didn't throw 30M at the NHL for a single season. They threw 200M for three seasons with incentives to be more money. These are progressive people. These aren't people who throw money around lightly. They see what is happening. They see a sport about to explode. Exciting new stars coming with new rules and a cost certainty that adds stability and enables teams to be competitive everywhere.
A great example of what they are doing is that they are bringing the NHL Network to the states as part of this deal. And they will have pay-per-view games along with the Center Ice Package. They will also broadcast streaming games on the internet. All progressive moves. "Hipper" moves. This is more like it.. This is what this great sport deserves...
Matty Boy - You bring up some solid points, but here`s my rebuttal, and I`ll even keep it short and sweet :).
The NHL will get better ratings in 60 million Comcast homes than it would in 90 million ESPN homes.
It's difficult to back up that statement. Only time will tell... Are you suggesting more viewers will be had through the outdoor life network... even though they have only 2/3 of the households of an ESPN?
Neither of us knows the answer. Time will tell. But I find that very hard to believe. As Daryl suggested, they may get more priority from Outdoors Life than they would from ESPN..... but does that translate into more viewers? especially with the 27 million fewer households? Advertisers pay in bulk. X dollars per eyeball is what it boils down to.
I could be talking out me arse because I know nothing of this outdoor life network and maybe their viewers will flock to NHL broadcasts. Maybe they'll get 90% of their viewers tuned in when the NHL is on... I don't know. My gut tells me they'll get no better results than ESPN, which means even less viewers than ESPN provided. Again what do I know I could be dead wrong... but I still think this is a bone thrown to the NHL which Gary Bettman is trying to twist into something more than it is. Hey, no problem, that's his job. But I can see through it. Don't you think they were praying for ESPN to match, and get back to the coverage they had prior to the lockout?
I live in the metro NY area with some 18 million people. Everybody knows ESPN... nobody yet (that I've talked to) has ever heard of the outdoor life network. That's not to say NY is the only market that matters.... on the other hand, it's not a good start for comcast/nhl. (don't forget NYC metro area is ruled by cablevision)
Comcast offered a three-year deal worth more than $200 million, and ESPN officials were brought back to the table. They had until Wednesday to once again decide if it was in the network's best interest. Comcast agreed to broadcast the league's games for at least two years, but that can be extended up to six years.
The way I read it is like this. 2 years is set in stone. Neither party can escape for 2 years
Year 3 is an option for comcast at 72.5 million. It's their choice, the NHL is bound to their choice.
Year's 4-6, YES comcast still has the ability to extend their rights.... but they must MATCH competing offers. i.e. even if Disney offers a billion a year for 3 years.... comcast still has the RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL to match and retain exclusive rights, but they do not have an agreement in place for years 4-6.
At least that's my understanding of it. In theory, YES they could keep coverage for 6 years... but they are only guaranteed to keep coverage for 2 years or 3 if they exercise the set price option.
Beyond that, they'll have to make a decision if they want to match the bidding price, much like ESPN just declined. Yes, *In theory* they can hug on to their NHL rights for 6 years. But that assumes they will still feel it a worthy investment in years 4-6.
RE: Eklund
But today is a brand new day. Comcast loves hockey. They own a team (the Flyers) for crying out loud.
Disney owned a team too. Cablevision owns a team as well. They are a conglomerate... Means nothing.
They threw 200M for three seasons with incentives to be more money.
For a guru... this Eklund doesn't express himself very well does he?
200 mill with incentives to be more money so they can broadcast 2 whole games a week from the Outdoor Life Channel?
And they will have pay-per-view games along with the Center Ice Package.
The Center Ice package is not bound to Comcast, any cable provider is free to sell it to their subscribers. Spin away, this is the best the NHL could do given the present circumstances. Even fortune teller eklund should be able to see that. Stevie Wonder could see it. If the NHL strives over the next few years in savvy marketing and winning back fans and improving the game... outdoor life network will be remembered as a stepping stone.
I hope that's what happens because if the NHL is relying on outdoor life channel 10 or even 5 years from now... :freeze:
I'm not trying to spin anything, the fact is, this is the best deal that the NHL could get but another fact, if Comcast and the NHL make this work and both make money, then ESPN and NBC will be on the outside looking in becasue comcast will match all reasonable offers.
ESPN made a mistake walking away from the 60m option. If they want NHL back in the future they have to make the bid high enough that comcast says no. And that my friends is VERY good for the NHL.
I'm not trying to spin anything, the fact is, this is the best deal that the NHL could get but another fact, if Comcast and the NHL make this work and both make money, then ESPN and NBC will be on the outside looking in becasue comcast will match all reasonable offers.
ESPN made a mistake walking away from the 60m option. If they want NHL back in the future they have to make the bid high enough that comcast says no. And that my friends is VERY good for the NHL.
Couldn't agree more.
Matt:
It's possible that OLN could hit 1/10 of their viewers on a good night, is it not? Roughly 6,000,000, which would be a "6" rating?
I have doubts ESPN ever hit 1/10, and would be surprised if they were often over 1/20.. which would be much less than OLN.
Obviously only time will tell, but I really like this deal for the NHL, and I hope that ESPN is kicking themselves in the rear.
Not to defend Eklund.. but it's not fair to compare the Flyers to the Ducks :). There's a respectable franchise in there, that was built to win, and a micky mouse opperation.
I'm not trying to spin anything, the fact is, this is the best deal that the NHL could get but another fact, if Comcast and the NHL make this work and both make money, then ESPN and NBC will be on the outside looking in becasue comcast will match all reasonable offers.
No argument here. That's true. And like I said the NHL would love nothing more than a bidding war over their rights. But don't kid yourself... if the offer is lucrative enough from a major network like NBC or ABC, that's the route they would go. That's a no-brainer. There comes a point where exposure and publicity is more valuable than money in the pocket.
Yes Comcast could match, but they'll have to make a business decision much like ESPN just did based on ratings and revenue generated from NHL broadcasting rights. The more a major network was interested... the absurdly higher Comcast would have to bid to compensate for the lack of mainstream exposure.
(that is assuming Comcast doesn't expand by buying up some other companies, they already tried an unsolicited takeover of the entire Disney empire to the tune of 66 billion :nod: )
Regardless of what happens, Comcast can still be squeezed out in 6 years. The worst case scenario for the NHL is that Comcast is still the only taker in 4-6 years... or worse. They decline like ESPN just did, after 2 or 3 years.
ESPN made a mistake walking away from the 60m option. If they want NHL back in the future they have to make the bid high enough that comcast says no. And that my friends is VERY good for the NHL.
ESPN based their decision on real dollars, and a proven track record with the NHL. What they view as a mistake was the 5 year $600 million deal they had with the NHL previously. They came out of that deal with the conclusion that they grossly over-paid. And wouldn't even pay less than half to continue the relationship. That speaks volumes.
Again I think you guys are assuming that, because the outdoor life network doesn't have much else going on... they'll dump more marketing resources into the league than ESPN did (quite possible)... and as a result get more people tuned in (<- that's the big IF). I don't see it happening. I think they'll find out like ESPN did, that hockey doesn't fare much better than bowling or poker.... sometimes even worse. There's no sense debating it, because none of us knows how it will work out.
At any rate, this deal is better than nothing, pretty much a god-send for the NHL at this point in time. But let's hope it's a just stepping stone to bigger and better deals for the league... and/or growth for Comcast so they can reach more households.
It's possible that OLN could hit 1/10 of their viewers on a good night, is it not? Roughly 6,000,000, which would be a "6" rating?I highly doubt a National Hockey League game would draw 6,000,000 viewers. ESPN's Sunday Night Baseball doesn't even get that many.
I have doubts ESPN ever hit 1/10, and would be surprised if they were often over 1/20.. which would be much less than OLN.If I remember correctly ESPN was around 750,000 or so viewers, on average, during its NHL telecasts.
Obviously only time will tell, but I really like this deal for the NHL, and I hope that ESPN is kicking themselves in the rear.A deal with ESPN would have been better than a deal with OLN - a network not many people A) have heard of and B) even subscribe to. They might as well have signed on with GSN: The Network for Games. I've always thought that The Worldwide Leader has held the key to the NHL's success south of the Canadian border and I'm sticking to that.
I don't think Canadian subscribers will be receiving any NHL hockey on their OLN channel, since it's produced by TSN, which is then in turn owned by ESPN. :laughing:
It's possible that OLN could hit 1/10 of their viewers on a good night, is it not? Roughly 6,000,000, which would be a "6" rating?
That slipped right by me.... OLN is available in 63 million households. That doesn't mean they are all watching OLN every night. Huge difference!
6 million people watching OLN at the same time? That's wishful thinking. Their all time record was a 1.7 million viewers for Lance Armstrong.
It's great the league got this deal for the financial boost, but the loss of exposure is going to hurt short-term. They need exposure above all else right now to get back on track and try to sell the game.
I've always thought that The Worldwide Leader has held the key to the NHL's success south of the Canadian border and I'm sticking to that.
When they only show games involving Colorado, Detroit, Philadelphia, and Dallas I don't see how it's contributing to success south of the Canadian border. Yes, it would be better to have a media giant like ESPN than OLN, but ESPN did nothing to help out the ratings of hockey. They had an obsession with the whole Avs/Wings rivalry, and didn't show much of the rest of the league. They hardly gave much in terms of analysis on shows like SportsCenter, and had idiots like Chris Berman doing hockey games (I almost puked when he did the Finals in 2003). Not to mention any ads for hockey were more afterthoughts than anything else.
It's hard to watch a sport on a network that doesn't really give it a chance. Did the NHL contribute to it's own low ratings? Absolutely, but ESPN sure didn't do much to help them either.
Not that it really matters to me, I'll be getting CenterIce this year again anyway.:)
An interesting take on this from Howard Berger.
Howard Berger (http://hockeyrumors.blogspot.com/)
BY HOWARD BERGER
The Fan-590, Toronto
The National Hockey League?s rejection by ESPN and adoption by the Outdoor Life Network [OLN] may seem discouraging, as ESPN has long been the worldwide leader in sports broadcasting. Clearly, engaging in a rights-holder agreement with the cable colossus generates a level of prestige for any amateur or professional league, as the NFL and Major League Baseball will surely attest. But, none of that matters for hockey? nor should it.
As a critical factor, the connotation of being part of ESPN?s family did not apply to the NHL. Casual sports fans obviously were not drawn to hockey telecasts, simply because they were shown on ESPN or ESPN-2. There are any number of reasons why, and the root of the issue likely dates to its origin in the mid-1960s, when the NHL chose to double its membership in order to attract nationwide TV affluence in the U.S. Expanding westward, beyond Chicago ? particularly into populace California ? was thought to be the path of fortune for the league, both financially and in terms of awareness and popularity. Regrettably, the strategy did not work back then, nor has it panned out in the interim. Professional hockey ? despite the commendable efforts of many people ? has almost always been a regional, or niche sport in the U.S., and will likely remain as such. On only one occasion did the sport threaten to infiltrate a larger segment of the American viewing public... when the New York Rangers ended their 54-year Stanley Cup drought in 1994 by knocking off Vancouver in a scintillating Final. But, the league, itself, destroyed whatever momentum had developed by shutting down for business at the start of the following season and the NHL as a nationwide TV property has never recovered from that damaging, 103-day lockout.
Others will suggest that the monotony of watching hockey in the so-called ?dead puck era? was primarily responsible for the declining TV numbers. I?m not sure I subscribe to that theory, simply because the NHL wasn?t threatening to overtake football, baseball or basketball as a viewing commodity during the splendor of the 1980s, when Wayne Gretzky, Paul Coffey, Mario Lemieux, Peter Stastny, Denis Savard and other puck wizards gave us a thrilling, wide-open spectacle every night. Some will say that the NHL?s unwillingness to ban fighting caused sports viewers to observe the game as they do wrestling or roller derby? as a put-on, or a sham. Still others contend that hockey is simply not understood in far too many areas of the U.S., and this is where I tend to lean. Baseball, basketball and football are played and watched in all corners of the country, and at all levels (high school, college, minor-pro). Hockey has forever been seen as a provincial sport, played in the northernmost regions where the climate allows for winter-like pursuits. It has never been even remotely allied with popular, every day activities in places like New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Wyoming, Nebraska ? States that routinely identify with the other major pro sports. And the league has not yet made strong enough inroads in areas relatively new to the game ? Arizona, Florida and the Carolinas.
As a result, the NHL?s affiliation with ESPN was never much of a factor. And that?s why I believe that the new partnership with Comcast/OLN will be more than adequate. Times have changed in the past 35 years, but the concept of NFL games in prime time ? routine today ? was scoffed at prior to the advent of ABC?s Monday Night Football (in 1970). What fledgling ABC did (and what powerful NBC and CBS were unwilling to try) was make football the centerpiece of a larger entertainment package. It was the first network to utilize a three-man broadcast crew, and the actual games often played second-fiddle to the shenanigans in the TV booth of Frank Gifford, Don Meredith and Howard Cosell. ABC made football seem like a priority, and not just another three-hour endeavor. Within five years, the once-nonsensical concept of evening football became the No. 1-rated prime time television show in the U.S. Hockey, I believe, has a grand opportunity right now, particularly if the rules to be introduced this season serve to make the game more appealing.
If Comcast/OLN adopts the NHL as its pet-project, the way ABC adopted football in 1970, the possibilities are immense. And that?s not to suggest that ESPN turned out a second-rate hockey telecast. Everything about the production was top-notch, from the camera-work, the graphics, and, of course, the on-air personalities. Its ownership affiliation with ABC brought hockey viewers instantly recognizable figures like Al Michaels and Chris Berman for Stanley Cup telecasts. But, there was always the feeling ? justifiable or not ? that hockey was little more than a time-filler for ESPN. I would watch regulars Gary Thorne, Mike Emerick, Bill Clement, John Saunders, John Buccigross and Barry Melrose, and often feel for them, knowing that their best efforts were not generating large audiences. In my country, the likes of Ron MacLean, Don Cherry, Bob Cole and Harry Neale had no such problem. I remember flying with Saunders ? who once worked in my home-town, Toronto ? while I covered the 2004 Western Conference Final between San Jose and Calgary. Normally a jovial sort, John seemed particularly forlorn on this occasion, and not in the mood to chat. Figuring he might be dealing with a personal issue, I respected his disposition. During the ensuing flight, however, I was reading USA TODAY when I came upon a story by sports-TV columnist Rudy Martzke that suggested ESPN?s hockey telecasts were lagging behind championship arm-wrestling in the ratings. And I quickly realized how bummed out I?d be in Saunders? position.
Thorne, Emerick, Clement, Saunders, Buccigross and Melrose are consummate professionals, who gave their best for the sport on ESPN. I?m hoping they all get the chance to continue their pursuits with Comcast/OLN. And if the network quickly leaves the impression that hockey is its No. 1 property, perhaps that mentality alone will help to attract larger audiences. The league must step up and find a way to market its personalities the way NASCAR has promoted its drivers. And the game itself certainly has to become more of a spectacle than it?s been in recent years. It isn?t realistic to expect hockey will usurp the other major pro sports, or even pull alongside any of them. But the game, as a TV entity, has the potential to grow far beyond its current boundaries. If you?re a fan, give Comcast/OLN a big chance, and disregard the meaningless connotation of the NHL no longer being a part of ESPN. Both parties can do without the other.
The Insider
8-20-05, 12:47 PM
I think that the move to Comcast will either be a sink or swim scenario. First off, with games on OLN the NHL has a good opportunity to start fresh and not have to worry about how it is doing ratings wise as compared to Bowling, Arm-Wrestling or Poker which would basically be the alternatives for ESPN to put up against them if they remained on ESPN. I think that the constant comparisons to the others when it came to viewership really hurt the game's image and what people thought about it. If Poker on ESPN2 can outdraw hockey playoff games on ESPN, what does that say about game? Basically now with a brand new start on a brand new network they do not have to take much concern into that kind of scenario. But say what you want about the quality of the games or the network it's on, but the NHL and OLN marriage will basically go as far as they want it to. OLN needs to market the game as a must see event since the only way to draw people back into it is to make them feel like they missed something by not seeing it. Wishful thinking maybe, but with a whole station now being able to dedicate itself to the game during winter time there is no reason why the marketing department cannot get the buzz out about the game.
For example, when looking at the best time for NHL games to be shown you do not want to put it up against stiff competition, so since Thursday nights are ratings bonazas all over other networks, probably not the best time to make it your "Game of the Week". If it were up to me, you have 30 teams(that's right 30 not 5 or 10) and 7 nights/afternoons of possibilities for games so there is plenty of time to not only get exposure for a lot of teams, but build for a big time showdown. Now Sidney Crosby the "next" one's first NHL games will be on Oct. 5th just like everyone else, and even though there are some pretty attractive matchups between rivals, I believe in the new NHL marketing the stars is the #1 priority so Pittsburgh's game on Oct 5th is the one that must be aired, because putting any other game on immediately takes any kind of Sidney Crosby hype out of the equation if you're not even going to show his first NHL game. So after the first day of games you can sit back and then circle games that will immediately spark interest, like the second game of a back to back or a big rivalry game that you know will be a good game excitement wise. I think OLN also has to devote time & money into advertising for it's games, especially for the playoffs since if you are going to spend the money to get the games, you mightaswell take it as far as you can go.
I believe that this could be a brilliant move by both parties and if they really do want it to thrive and grow, then the time is now to really promote the hell out of it and get people talking since that's the only way you will ever be able to get the game back onto it's feet.
I believe in the new NHL marketing the stars is the #1 priority so Pittsburgh's game on Oct 5th is the one that must be aired, because putting any other game on immediately takes any kind of Sidney Crosby hype out of the equation if you're not even going to show his first NHL game.
www.olntv.com
http://www.olntv.com/images/OLN-NHL-2.jpg
Well Comcast does own the Flyers so I imagine they'll be airing a lot of Flyer games on OLN. At least ESPN split up broadcasts by region. i.e. they'd broadcast multiple games on a single night.
If OLN is simply going to pick one game and show that game only to their entire network... I can't fathom them getting more viewers than ESPN. It's bad enough they have only 2/3 of the potential viewers that ESPN has.
Again let's hope this is a stepping stone to a brighter future for the NHL.
Madferret
8-21-05, 1:57 PM
I plan on submitting my Center Ice receipt with my tax claim in 2006.
:boogie:
Leafs_Fa_Life
8-21-05, 3:03 PM
If OLN is simply going to pick one game and show that game only to their entire network... I can't fathom them getting more viewers than ESPN. It's bad enough they have only 2/3 of the potential viewers that ESPN has.
Well from the POV of OLN, if they can get the ratings ESPN got they'd be doing good. I've heard the average rating OLN gets is 0.2, and hockey on ESPN got a 0.5 on average. So for OLN if they can get those numbers they'll still be doing good from their prespective, although for the NHL that's not the greatest thing because it means the game is still in the same sad state it was in before the lockout.
Another thing, do you think they'll show NHL highlights on Sportscenter anymore, Mel?
Another thing, do you think they'll show NHL highlights on Sportscenter anymore, Mel?
I didn't even think of that... they better!!!!
The Insider
8-23-05, 10:55 PM
All I can say is that OLN is dropping the ball already. I understand that the Flyers and Rangers are two of the big tickets, but advertising teams over "Stars" are not going to draw, ask ABC they had Saturday afternoon hockey featuring marquee games, Wings vs Blues, Flyers vs Rangers etc. etc. and they failed. Two words: Sidney Crosby, the hype is all over the place, hell in Pittsburgh they've been actually selling season tickets since the lottery went the Pens way, and if the OLN network wants to ignore the obvious ratings bonanza it can have by broadcasting the "Next One's" first NHL game over a one-sided matchup between the Flyers and Rangers who will meet another 7 times in the season, then it shows the Comcast network has no clue how to promote the league. I am tempted to send them an e-mail basically explaining what they are missing the boat on...
I couldn't agree more... based on their home page, it looks like the Flyers will be their number one priority. If they were still on ESPN, you can bet your bottom dollar that Crosby's first game would have been the national marquee match-up on opening night.
Perhaps it's too early to judge how successful OLN is going to be at marketing the game, but you're right, this is a shaky start to say the least. The day they sign the deal.... there's a huge graphic on their home page advertising the Flyers game.... hmmmmmm. How convenient for Comcast.
I hope they come to their senses... or maybe take a hint from NHL execs about how the game can be best marketed. But that's highly unlikely - considering the amount of cash they paid... they can do whatever they please with the broadcasting rights.
Anyway, if anyone gets OLN, I'd like to hear what's going on with their marketing efforts leading up to the season.
Leafs_Fa_Life
8-24-05, 1:55 PM
Games will be blacked out in biggest US market.
Just when you thought hockey was back, troubling news has surfaced for fans on Long Island and around the metro area.
Cablevision has 3 million subscribers, and if any of them were thinking of spending $4.95 a month for the digital sports tier that carries OLN, the channel that is replacing ESPN and ESPN2 for the NHL's national cable telecasts this season, they can forget it. The puck stops here.
Up to 78 regular-season games, including as many as eight Rangers, eight Devils and eight Islanders games, as well as a slate of Stanley Cup playoff games and Games 1 and 2 of the Finals, won't be available to you on OLN, we've learned.
Why? Because OLN is on expanded basic digital service in 90 percent of its U.S. distribution of 64 million homes, but not in Cablevision households on Long Island, Brooklyn, the Bronx, Westchester and northern New Jersey.
So, in the latest twist in the wacky world of cable, even if you're willing to pay to watch the NHL here, you can't buy it.
"In markets where OLN is offered on a digital sports tier, which includes Cablevision, we are required through our contracts to black out the games," an OLN spokesperson confirmed yesterday. "There will be alternative programming in that time slot. We are working with our affiliates on the situation. We believe OLN should be included on expanded basic, not a sport tier."
Bull-riding rather than Rangers, perhaps?
It's all about leverage: OLN wants Cablevision to make the channel available to all potential viewers and charge Cablevision a broad-based fee. Viewers, again, are the pawns.
Not only will the Rangers-Flyers season opener Oct. 5 - an OLN exclusive - be unavailable to Cablevision subscribers, the rest of OLN's NHL schedule, primarily on Monday and Tuesday nights, will go unseen in one of the NHL's largest markets.
Anytime OLN chooses to air a Rangers, Devils or Islanders game here, Cablevision subscribers will be totally shut out. The conflict affects only Cablevision subscribers, not Time Warner customers in Manhattan and Queens or DirecTV and DISH Network subscribers who receive OLN as part of a general programming package.
link (http://www.newsday.com/sports/hockey/ny-spzip234394749aug23,0,4365614.column?coll=ny-hockey-headlines)
A Comcast conflict with Cablevision???? how surprising :rolleyes:
I don't see how Cablevision subscribers will be shut out if OLN blacks out a Ranger game for example. Does that mean OLN has the rights to black out the Ranger telecast not only on OLN.... but on MSG network as well ?
That doesn't sound right, MSG network has always had rights above all other carriers to air the Rangers locally. Even Center Ice can't show the Rangers here.
Not to mention MSG network and the Rangers are owned and operated by................. Cablevision :eek: :groovy:
The Insider
8-24-05, 11:58 PM
Wow, this deal is sounding even better as time goes on... :rolleyes:
So, for those keeping score let's see what we've got:
1. The Canadian English national telecasts(aka CBC) #1 priority is the Maple Leafs and the French is the Habs, leaving 3 western teams rotating night games and 24 American markets in the dark, unless they are in the games.
2. The American national telecasts(Comcast/OLN) will now be a #1 to Philly, and maybe when a good game comes on, they'll put in some other games featuring other teams leaving 23 American teams and most likely 6 Canadian teams with very limited coverage.
3. Regional Coverage for most teams: NBC has some regional, I'm sure FoxSportsnet will keep their's, Rogers Sportsnet does the Leafs, Sens, Oil, Nucks and Flames, while RDS has the Habs.
Sounds like the TV coverage is shaping up well :thumb:
Newfie John
8-25-05, 12:32 PM
A Comcast conflict with Cablevision???? how surprising :rolleyes:
I don't see how Cablevision subscribers will be shut out if OLN blacks out a Ranger game for example. Does that mean OLN has the rights to black out the Ranger telecast not only on OLN.... but on MSG network as well ?
That doesn't sound right, MSG network has always had rights above all other carriers to air the Rangers locally. Even Center Ice can't show the Rangers here.
Not to mention MSG network and the Rangers are owned and operated by................. Cablevision :eek: :groovy:
MSG will keep their coverage, because it's regional. That's my understanding anyway.
I like this...
This Tuesday, OLN aired ?Outdoor Investigates: The Case of the Missing Salmon,? followed by ?All-Star BBQ Showdown?
from:
NHL chilled in TV deal (http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050825/COLUMN08/508250893/1009/SPORTS)
OK this is almost as stupid as the Summer we couldn't watch the Yankees on Cablevision even if we paid :curse:
Am I confused? I have IO digital cable (http://www.io.tv/index.jhtml?pageType=channel_list) through cablevision... If you'll take a gander there, you'll see I get just about every channel known to man, except the Outdoor Life Network. That is above and beyond what is on all the regular channels < 100... ESPN, ESPN2, MSG, FOX Sports yada yada.
On top of this, I subscribe to NHL Center Ice for the entire season, channels 420-429, which brings me almost every NHL game of the season.
So you mean to tell me with all these channels for local coverage, on top of the NHL Center Ice package... I'm still not going to be able to watch a stupid Ranger game when Comcast has the rights? Just because I don't want to pay another $5 / month for the IO sports pak (http://www.io.tv/index.jhtml?pageType=sports_tier) which includes the Outdoor Life Network? What a load :rolleyes: I'll pass on the Fuel channel, and the interactive horseracing network, thanks.
August 29, 2005 -- Despite repeated OLN claims to the contrary, the NHL's new cable network partner does not have the contractual right to black out games carried by Cablevision on a digital subscription tier, unimpeachable sources have told The Post.
As such, Ranger fans with Cablevision will be able to watch their team's Oct. 5 season-opener in Philadelphia that will be telecast exclusively over OLN.
They'll also be able to see every regular-season and playoff game carried on an exclusive basis by the national cable network.
According to sources with access to the contract between OLN and the NHL, the specific language granting the right to black out games that do not appear on basic extended cable applies only "on a going-forward basis."
This is terminology in the cable business legally understood to mean any future agreements that might be struck between OLN and new cable system carriers.
Beyond that, the contract explicitly gives the NHL the right to approve the telecast of any game over any cable system.
That's regardless of whether the game would or would not appear on a subscription sports tier package.
"Unless the NHL otherwise approves, rights to exhibit OLN games . . . may not be granted on a going-forward basis by OLN/Comcast to any . . . distributor [that carries the games] . . . on a sports-tier . . ." the contract reads.
Apparently not wishing to publicly repudiate its new partner, the league last week was coy in responding to inquiries regarding OLN's stated position on the blackout issue.
Potential blackouts would not only have affected Cablevision customers in the metropolitan area, but also subscribers in Buffalo, Phoenix and Dallas, whose cable systems do not carry OLN as part of a basic extended package.
While refusing to address the specifics of the contract, a league spokesperson on Friday repeated the official position.
"Fans shouldn't be overly concerned at this point," the spokesman said.
The fact is, fans who pay the monthly $4.95 charge to purchase the Cablevision sports tier that includes OLN shouldn't be concerned at all.
For they will be able to watch the games. All of them, beginning with Oct. 5.
http://www.nypost.com/sports/27446.htm
Leafs_Fa_Life
9-14-05, 8:48 PM
I'm sure some of you have already heard of this news, but in case you haven't, the NHL has a deal in place with XM radio that will pay them 10 million dollars a year. Good to see the NHL is still finding ways of making money.
leaferfan87
9-14-05, 9:14 PM
All this cable fighting between Cablevision and Comcast is reminding me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry has to buy illegal cable.
All this cable fighting between Cablevision and Comcast is reminding me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry has to buy illegal cable. Ah yes. The Baby Shower. Good early episode.
TABACHNICK (posing as an illegal Russian cable installer): Mr. Seinfeld, Agent Stone. FBI. Undercover.
(Jerry looks around for an excape, then makes a mad dash for the door)
KRAMER: No! Jerry! (The FBI agents open fire. Jerry's gunned down by a hailstorm of bullets. Kramer leans next to a fallen Jerry, cupping Jerry's head in his hands) Cable boy, cable boy.. What have you done to my little cable boy?..
(Scene ends)'Cable boy.' BWAHAHAHA. 8)
Regarding XM Satellite Radio picking up the NHL broadcasts for next season, it's a good thing. Now hopefully their sister company, Canadian Satellite Radio, can get off the ground so Canadians can listen too.
vBulletin® v3.6.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.