SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Canada (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   The Great Canadian Sports Attendance, Marketing and TV Ratings Thread (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=228928)

blueandgoldguy Nov 13, 2018 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mistercorporate (Post 8376912)
That wasn't a prediction, that was a desire, and a concept I promoted. Predicting Olympic cities is a crapshoot and has more to do with internal politics which I'm not privy to.

Desire = when my bold claims don't come to fruition.;)

mistercorporate Nov 13, 2018 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy (Post 8376968)
Desire = when my bold claims don't come to fruition.;)

Project all you want, whatever floats your boat ;)

JHikka Nov 13, 2018 1:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy (Post 8376852)
Actually MLS Teams rely on gates far more then CFL teams. The TV contracts are very small and the team salaries are quite a bit higher than CFL teams. There are at least a few articles out there discussing this with some questioning whether MLS is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme. Teams are relying on ever larger expansion fees to limit losses and break even.

I'd recommend going back and re-reading my previous post on this matter.

From their 2017 Annual Reports:
  • Game Revenue, as its called by the Blue Bombers, accounts for 41% of their revenues.
  • Gate receipts account for 42% of the Riders revenues.
  • Gate receipts account for 39% of the Eskimos revenues.

This is in a league with declining attendance and for three of the stronger franchises in the league.

Do you think MLS teams rely on more than 40% of their revenue being gate receipts? I find that difficult to believe given the sponsorship and corporate heft that MLS has been working with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy (Post 8376852)
As of right now, Montreal is losing 10 - 11 million per year thanks to one of the worst stadiums in the league, with limited high-end seating options while Vancouver is one of the lowest revenue teams in the league due to their existing relationship with BC Place. Decent alternative revenue sources would stem the tide but up to this point, MLS is very limited in that regard.

Sounds like an issue with their stadiums and less to do with the product or business model. I believe Saputo cited they're spending effectively $2M+/year on property taxes on buildings they don't even own. There are plans for $50M+ upgrades to Stade Saputo for things like high-end seating options which won't be going ahead until that issue is sorted.

Vancouver sold Davies for millions upon millions, so that's decent revenue for a team with average ownership at best.

A decent alternative revenue source, sleeve sponsorships, are something i've mentioned previously in this thread, and are something MLS will be introducing in a few years time.

elly63 Nov 13, 2018 2:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy (Post 8376852)
There are at least a few articles out there discussing this with some questioning whether MLS is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme.

More than a few articles, that term seems to come up quite often.

JHikka Nov 13, 2018 2:11 AM

Sportslogos.net has a decent scoop on the potential Alouettes logos for 2019:

http://news.sportslogos.net/2018/11/...ouettes-logos/

http://news.sportslogos.net/wp-conte...19-590x324.jpg

JHikka Nov 13, 2018 10:13 PM

Saskatchewan Rush pre-season game cancelled due to NLL labour dispute

https://globalnews.ca/news/4656766/s...ame-cancelled/

The pre-season game between Saskatchewan and the Colorado Mammoth will no longer happen on Nov. 16 at SaskTel Centre.

Due to the cancellation, all ticket holders will receive a full refund for the game.

According to the Rush, all future home games remain scheduled to be played at this time.

The first Rush game of the regular season is scheduled for Dec. 1 against the Georgia Swarm in Atlanta, Ga.

elly63 Nov 13, 2018 10:19 PM

Ticats make official presentation to host 2020 Grey Cup
Steve Milton 3downnation.ca November 13, 2018

For now, visit somebody else’s house; then throw open your own doors.

The Hamilton Tiger-Cats still have a chance to play in this year’s Grey Cup in Edmonton, but they also want to host the 2020 game and festival in Hamilton. This is first time they have been in a position to bid for the cup since the new stadium was completed in 2015.

Last Monday in Toronto, the Tiger-Cats made a presentation to the CFL’s Grey Cup subcommittee as part of a multi-step bid process to determine who will host 2020’s prestigious — and profitable — league championship.

“We presented a vision of what a Grey Cup in Hamilton would look like,” Ticats president of business Matt Afinec told The Spectator. “We spoke about the facts: that we just came through a municipal election; that we’re working with great spirit and co-operation with the city, but that we’re still establishing the exact details of that partnership in light of the fact that the municipal election has just concluded.”

Afinec confirmed that Mayor Fred Eisenberg had provided the Tiger-Cats with a letter of support.

Negotiations over a new stadium came with the expectation of two CFL championship games within a decade. But shortly after the new stadium opened, a series of construction-related problems — and eventually competing lawsuits — made it impossible for the city and football team to do business. Those issues have now largely been settled.

Neither Afinec nor team CEO Scott Mitchell would reveal any concrete details of the bid, but both talked of a downtown-based festival from Wednesday through Saturday of the November Grey Cup week centred around city-owned venues like the Hamilton Convention Centre and the Art Gallery of Hamilton. The festivities would move to the “stadium precinct” on game-day Sunday, and could involve events at Gage Park.

The Saskatchewan Roughriders, considered by many CFL observers to be the current front-runners, and the long-shot Montreal Alouettes also made bids for 2020.

Regina last had the Grey Cup in 2013, a wildly successful event which featured the home team beating the Tiger-Cats, but has built a new state-of-the-art stadium since then.

Unlike the former rotation system, Grey Cups are now awarded through a bid process that involves an undisclosed profit-sharing formula on Grey Cup income between the CFL and the host team.

So the ability to create maximum income is vitally important to a bid and Saskatchewan, with its wide fan base, new stadium and homecoming diaspora ranks high in profitability.

But the Ticats also have also shown a consistent capability to generate revenue at Tim Hortons Field, even without the roughly 12,000 temporary seats which would be installed for a Grey Cup Game, bringing stadium capacity to 35,000.

And what cannot be underestimated is the CFL’s desire and need to regularly profit from, and also seed, the lucrative southern Ontario marketplace. Hamilton is in the heart of the country’s corporate and population power base. The 2012 Grey Cup in Toronto succeeded in that regard but for various reasons, which don’t apply to Hamilton for 2020, the 2016 Cup in Toronto had no significant wider-market impact.

Mitchell said the Ticat bid is specific to 2020 and the team would “have to think about it” should the CFL suggest they settle for 2021 instead. It is extremely unlikely the Ticats would not be awarded one of those two dates.

Tourism Hamilton is handling the Grey Cup file for the city and will bring a report on the prospective bid to the new council on Dec. 12. But tourism manager Carrie Brooks-Joiner refused to say what recommendations, if any, are included in the report until it is made public ahead of the meeting.

The Edmonton Eskimos are receiving $1.5 million from the province of Alberta to help with its Grey Cup, as is Calgary for the 2019 Cup week.

City support, whether in cash or in kind, is estimated to be roughly equal to that of the province.

Hamilton put up $550,000 as part of its most recent bid for the Junos, which traditionally have a much lower economic impact than a Grey Cup.

“There hasn’t been an ask of the city other than a general discussion of what a Grey Cup here could look like and what kind of things we could do together,” Mitchell says. “But no team is going to ever get a Grey Cup without specific support from the city. It’s an aligned partnership with that city and the team.”

Mitchell said there is “no drop-dead date” for a formal commitment from the city because the CFL had not yet set a deadline for finalized bids. The team would work backward from that to establish a deadline for an agreement with the city.

Hamilton already meets the CFL’s requirement for number of hotel rooms, without going beyond the formal city limits, Mitchell said.

In the last 46 years there has only been one Grey Cup held in Hamilton: in 1996, a year in which the Ticats struggled for fan and sponsor support and the CFL itself came within weeks of bankruptcy. That event lost $1.2 million but did have an audited $23-million impact on Hamilton’s economy.

Both Ottawa, last year’s host, and this year’s host, Edmonton, estimate local economic impact at $100 million. Unlike most other events, Grey Cups tend to attract a large migration of fans who make the trip regardless of whether their home team is in the game or not.

The 2020 Grey Cup coincides with the 70th anniversary of the amalgamation of the Hamilton Tigers and Hamilton Wildcats to form the modern-day Tiger-Cats.

blueandgoldguy Nov 13, 2018 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8377030)
I'd recommend going back and re-reading my previous post on this matter.

From their 2017 Annual Reports:
  • Game Revenue, as its called by the Blue Bombers, accounts for 41% of their revenues.
  • Gate receipts account for 42% of the Riders revenues.
  • Gate receipts account for 39% of the Eskimos revenues.

This is in a league with declining attendance and for three of the stronger franchises in the league.

Do you think MLS teams rely on more than 40% of their revenue being gate receipts? I find that difficult to believe given the sponsorship and corporate heft that MLS has been working with.


Sounds like an issue with their stadiums and less to do with the product or business model. I believe Saputo cited they're spending effectively $2M+/year on property taxes on buildings they don't even own. There are plans for $50M+ upgrades to Stade Saputo for things like high-end seating options which won't be going ahead until that issue is sorted.

Vancouver sold Davies for millions upon millions, so that's decent revenue for a team with average ownership at best.

A decent alternative revenue source, sleeve sponsorships, are something i've mentioned previously in this thread, and are something MLS will be introducing in a few years time.

Yep, I think the majority if not all teams rely on 40% or more of their revenues from game day revenues. Game day revenues would include, general tickets, suites, club seats, concessions, game day merchandise purchases, parking, in-stadium advertising.

As for those sponsorships, I believe that includes in-game advertisement which would be directly effected by attendance. If no one is there to see it the price of those sponsorship packages would decrease. I think they are at least partially linked to game day revenues.

Even if Saputo is no longer charged 2 million in land taxes, he is still losing nearly $10 million a year. We shall see if he will actually invest $50 million in the stadium or come to the city/province to pitch a "partnership."

Agreed, the sale of Davies will help Vancouver in the short to medium term. Given their lack of revenue streams from BC Place the future is fuzzy.

The reported $1 million per team for ad spot on the jersey is a nice new revenue source.

Bottom line is, most teams are losing money and the current tv deal is merely OK. We will see in 2022 if the ratings increase are sufficient enough for a significant rise in tv/streaming rights to stem the bleeding.

JHikka Nov 13, 2018 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy (Post 8378238)
Yep, I think the majority if not all teams rely on 40% or more of their revenues from game day revenues. Game day revenues would include, general tickets, suites, club seats, concessions, game day merchandise purchases, parking, in-stadium advertising.

You originally said they rely on gates, IE solely tickets to enter the stadium:

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy
Actually MLS Teams rely on gates far more then CFL teams.

EDM/SSK are relying on 40% of their revenues just from gates. Winnipeg is tougher to discern since they change the categorization of their revenues every few years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy (Post 8378238)
As for those sponsorships, I believe that includes in-game advertisement which would be directly effected by attendance. If no one is there to see it the price of those sponsorship packages would decrease. I think they are at least partially linked to game day revenues.

It would be affected by league-wide attendance, then, if they're league-wide sponsors. League-wide attendance has been increasing the past few years and is only stalling because the new stadiums they're building are effectively a drag on the current league average (LA/DC, and MIN when it comes online are all below or at league average attendance). It would also affect TV deals since you can still see sponsors when viewing on TV.

For 2019, Portland's stadium expansion moves that stadium from 21K to 25K and Cincinnati joining the league provides a 25K-30K bump to the average.

Shirt sponsor revenue by Canadian MLS team, per year:
Montreal (BMO): $4M
Toronto (BMO): $4M
Vancouver (Bell): $3.9M

http://www.totalfootballmag.com/feat...are-to-europe/

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy (Post 8378238)
Even if Saputo is no longer charged 2 million in land taxes, he is still losing nearly $10 million a year. We shall see if he will actually invest $50 million in the stadium or come to the city/province to pitch a "partnership."

Either way it's a hefty amount of money to invest in a team. The thing with the investor-operator model for MLS franchise ownership is that profits and deficits are filtered through MLS as a whole. Saputo may lose $10M/year on the Impact but if the franchise valuation, revenues, and cash flows increase then that's fine in the short-term. It's if revenues level off where there is an issue with running in the red.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy (Post 8378238)
Agreed, the sale of Davies will help Vancouver in the short to medium term. Given their lack of revenue streams from BC Place the future is fuzzy.

Again, MLS teams make more from revenues than simply what their stadium is able to provide them. VWFC's situation at BC Place isn't great, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy (Post 8378238)
The reported $1 million per team for ad spot on the jersey is a nice new revenue source.

That would be $1M each just for the sleeve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy (Post 8378238)
Bottom line is, most teams are losing money and the current tv deal is merely OK. We will see in 2022 if the ratings increase are sufficient enough for a significant rise in tv/streaming rights to stem the bleeding.

The current TV deal will grow when it expires in 2021/2022. Average ratings in both the US and Canada have been increasing year over year, and MLS is the only NA sports league that has seen consistent year over year growth over the past half decade. The new jersey deal with Adidas is a sign that sponsors are willing to go in on the sport, and having a sponsor like Target bail on NASCAR before committing to MLS says a lot about the corporate atmosphere south of the border right now.

Hackslack Nov 13, 2018 11:51 PM

How does it make sense for BMO to spend $4 million to put their tiny logo on a jersey that only, maybe, 100k people including both tv viewers and those in attendance, will see?

I would expect then that CFL teams should be able to garner at least $8 million for jersey sponsors, seeing as they get at least 4-5 times the tv viewers... seems like real bad business either on the jersey sponsor for spending that much, or the CFL teams not raking in at least twice or three times what TFC, Van or Mtl get.

And $1 million each JUST for the sleeve?... seems crazy to think ad sponsors are willing to pay that much for such minimal eyes to see. CFL teams should get with it Andy start raking in multi millions worth, if TFC is setting that standard.

blueandgoldguy Nov 14, 2018 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8378277)
You originally said they rely on gates, IE solely tickets to enter the stadium:
Well by gates I meant all the revenue derived from in-stadium revenue.
Excuse me:rolleyes:



EDM/SSK are relying on 40% of their revenues just from gates. Winnipeg is tougher to discern since they change the categorization of their revenues every few years.
I would have to take a look at the financial reports for the team. Too lazy to right now. Perhaps, Edmonton, Saskatchewan are including suites/club seats, concessions and in-stadium advertising in the gate revenues? Also, sponsorships can include blocks of seats or the rights to buy blocks of empty seats for pennies on the dollar to that could possibly be tied in the gat revenue as well depending on how they account for it

It would be affected by league-wide attendance, then, if they're league-wide sponsors. League-wide attendance has been increasing the past few years and is only stalling because the new stadiums they're building are effectively a drag on the current league average (LA/DC, and MIN when it comes online are all below or at league average attendance). It would also affect TV deals since you can still see sponsors when viewing on TV.
That's true. I am referring to sponsorship at a local/regional level

For 2019, Portland's stadium expansion moves that stadium from 21K to 25K and Cincinnati joining the league provides a 25K-30K bump to the average.

Shirt sponsor revenue by Canadian MLS team, per year:
Montreal (BMO): $4M
Toronto (BMO): $4M
Vancouver (Bell): $3.9M

http://www.totalfootballmag.com/feat...are-to-europe/


Either way it's a hefty amount of money to invest in a team. The thing with the investor-operator model for MLS franchise ownership is that profits and deficits are filtered through MLS as a whole. Saputo may lose $10M/year on the Impact but if the franchise valuation, revenues, and cash flows increase then that's fine in the short-term. It's if revenues level off where there is an issue with running in the red.

Teams are only worth what individuals are willing to pay for them. In fairness there was a team that sold a few years ago for slightly higher then the Forbes estimate so in that case they seemed to be reasonably accurate.
I think another team sold as well. The terms of the sale for the Columbus Crew haven't been released as I believe it is still being negotiated. We haven't seen one of the big teams sell though so those values may be speculative at this point.


Again, MLS teams make more from revenues than simply what their stadium is able to provide them. VWFC's situation at BC Place isn't great, though.
Yes, they do. The gate from the stadium and ancillary revenues from the stadium are by far the most important. The WhiteCaps ancillary revenues from BC Place can generously be described as lacking as well. They also lie about attendance, not new in the world of sports but something to make note of.

https://biv.com/article/2016/07/vanc...attendance-num


That would be $1M each just for the sleeve.
There was an article stating that each team would received an additional $1 million per season as an addional corporate patch is to be placed on the jersey

The current TV deal will grow when it expires in 2021/2022. Average ratings in both the US and Canada have been increasing year over year, and MLS is the only NA sports league that has seen consistent year over year growth over the past half decade. The new jersey deal with Adidas is a sign that sponsors are willing to go in on the sport, and having a sponsor like Target bail on NASCAR before committing to MLS says a lot about the corporate atmosphere south of the border right now.

The current TV deal should increase, but by how much remains to be seen. Ratings did not increase year-over-year the previous season before this one.

https://www.libertynation.com/the-po...league-soccer/

The league’s bread and butter – TV ratings – is lagging. During regular-season matchups, TV viewers averaged fewer than 300,000. And it wasn’t great for the MLS Cup final either, which drew in 11 million viewers, a 43% decline across ESPN and Univision Deportes. This is bad news since ratings drive advertising.

Ratings on TSN are still so small that they refuse to publish them.



See bolded.

JHikka Nov 14, 2018 1:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hackslack (Post 8378335)
How does it make sense for BMO to spend $4 million to put their tiny logo on a jersey that only, maybe, 100k people including both tv viewers and those in attendance, will see?

Because sports advertising is about more than simply counting TV viewers every week. It's a very antiquated way to look at things by simply looking at TV numbers alone and assuming X=Y.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hackslack (Post 8378335)
I would expect then that CFL teams should be able to garner at least $8 million for jersey sponsors, seeing as they get at least 4-5 times the tv viewers... seems like real bad business either on the jersey sponsor for spending that much, or the CFL teams not raking in at least twice or three times what TFC, Van or Mtl get.

Again, there's more going on than simply TV. This isn't the 1980s anymore.

Unfortunately the CFL doesn't make public any sponsorship figures. There are some team numbers available, though.

Edmonton total operating revenue for 2017 was $25M (rounded up).
Sponsorships made up 21.5% of operating revenue.
Sponsorship revenue in 2017: $5.35M

That's total sponsorship revenue for a CFL team in a strong football market.

Here's a full breakdown for the Eskimos 2017 operating revenue sources, courtesy of their annual report:

Gate Receipts 39.40% ($10.0M)
Sponsorships 21.50% ($5.35M)
CFL (TV) 17.00% ($4.30M)
Concessions/Game Day 16.70% ($4.20M)
Merchandise 4.70% ($1.25M)
Other 0.5%
Post-Season 0.10%
TOTAL REVENUE $25M

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hackslack (Post 8378335)
And $1 million each JUST for the sleeve?... seems crazy to think ad sponsors are willing to pay that much for such minimal eyes to see. CFL teams should get with it Andy start raking in multi millions worth, if TFC is setting that standard.

TFC isn't setting the standard - MLS is. The difference between MLS TV audiences and CFL TV audiences is that MLS audiences are younger on average and sponsors aren't going after older viewers. There's nothing in it for a sponsor to go after older viewers because their buying habits are less likely to change.

Remember, the 18-49 demographic on CFL TSN in 2016 only accounts for 32% of the viewing audience. The rest is 50+.

https://plot.ly/~grspur/1405/#/

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy
I would have to take a look at the financial reports for the team. Too lazy to right now. Perhaps, Edmonton, Saskatchewan are including suites/club seats, concessions and in-stadium advertising in the gate revenues? Also, sponsorships can include blocks of seats or the rights to buy blocks of empty seats for pennies on the dollar to that could possibly be tied in the gat revenue as well depending on how they account for it

Edmonton splits Game Day/Concessions from Gate Receipts. See above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy
Teams are only worth what individuals are willing to pay for them. In fairness there was a team that sold a few years ago for slightly higher then the Forbes estimate so in that case they seemed to be reasonably accurate.
I think another team sold as well. The terms of the sale for the Columbus Crew haven't been released as I believe it is still being negotiated. We haven't seen one of the big teams sell though so those values may be speculative at this point.

A portion of Orlando City was sold and that put the value of the team at roughly $500M. Probably a bit of an overvaluation, IMO, but that's sort of what's setting the bar. I don't think anything with Columbus has been released but that's understandable given how messy that whole situation was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy
The current TV deal should increase, but by how much remains to be seen. Ratings did not increase year-over-year the previous season before this one.

https://www.libertynation.com/the-po...league-soccer/

I don't even know where to begin with that article. Most of it is rubbish and lifted from Wikipedia by the looks of it. Have you looked at the home page of that website?

Here's Forbes saying that MLS viewership grew in 2017 year over year (not by a ton), and here's SBD confirming 2018 growth in TV figures.

Again, it's 2018, and there's more going on than simply putting a magnifying glass on TV numbers and expecting them to answer all your questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy
Ratings on TSN are still so small that they refuse to publish them.

Corporations in Canada hardly ever post TV ratings - only during playoffs or marquee matchups. I think CFLPR only publicly announced ratings for opening weekend and then went radio silent. The only sourcing we have for those are 3downnation. Bell usually posts playoffs numbers and that's it. This isn't an issue with MLS on TSN, it's an issue with all sports. How often do we hear about Raptors ratings? Or Leafs ratings? Very rarely, and certainly not for every game.

Again, even if MLS TV numbers are lower in Canada than CFL numbers, it's the demographic that counts. If a million people on average watch a CFL game but nearly 700K of them are over 50 that doesn't mean anything to advertisers. Companies are looking to sell to young people and more young people watch soccer than football. :P

EpicPonyTime Nov 14, 2018 1:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hackslack (Post 8378335)
How does it make sense for BMO to spend $4 million to put their tiny logo on a jersey that only, maybe, 100k people including both tv viewers and those in attendance, will see?

I would expect then that CFL teams should be able to garner at least $8 million for jersey sponsors, seeing as they get at least 4-5 times the tv viewers... seems like real bad business either on the jersey sponsor for spending that much, or the CFL teams not raking in at least twice or three times what TFC, Van or Mtl get.

And $1 million each JUST for the sleeve?... seems crazy to think ad sponsors are willing to pay that much for such minimal eyes to see. CFL teams should get with it Andy start raking in multi millions worth, if TFC is setting that standard.

I don't really want to see the CFL put ads on their jerseys, but it might be a good idea depending on how much companies are willing to pay for it. It could be a solid boost to their bottom lines which can help combat the stagnant attendance and TV ratings. Especially if it could help lead to higher salaries for the players, I'm all for it; unfortunately the CFL isn't in the position where they should/could turn down a few million for each team.

I'm sure they can do better than CP Rail if they wanted to.

king10 Nov 14, 2018 2:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EpicPonyTime (Post 8378435)
I don't really want to see the CFL put ads on their jerseys, but it might be a good idea depending on how much companies are willing to pay for it. It could be a solid boost to their bottom lines which can help combat the stagnant attendance and TV ratings. Especially if it could help lead to higher salaries for the players, I'm all for it; unfortunately the CFL isn't in the position where they should/could turn down a few million for each team.

I'm sure they can do better than CP Rail if they wanted to.

Am i living on a totally differnt planet?

1. Cfl has had sponsor patches on their jerseys for years
2. CP rail is one of the largest most profitable companies in canada that sure provides the CFL with a large steady income stream. Not to mention credibilty as CP is a very credible company

elly63 Nov 14, 2018 2:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8378416)
Again, even if MLS TV numbers are lower in Canada than CFL numbers, it's the demographic that counts. If a million people on average watch a CFL game but nearly 700K of them are over 50 that doesn't mean anything to advertisers. Companies are looking to sell to young people and more young people watch soccer than football.

Problem is no one watches MLS in Canada, when the cult millennial following tires in the local markets, they're could have a real problem. TSN was looking at cancelling the contract a few years ago, when the ratings averaged 38k. Had TFC not started performing better it could have been gone, but they saved themselves for the present.

Just wondering how you think the PGA Golf tour is able to air every week on network TV with its dearth of young viewers?

You're always the first guy who goes into the CFL thread to shit on any good news someone posts. Why is that? No one goes into your MLS/TFC thread, in fact there's not too many posts there at all.

JHikka Nov 14, 2018 2:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elly63 (Post 8378509)
Problem is no one watches MLS in Canada, when the cult millennial following tires in the local markets, they're could have a real problem.

Has there been any actual sign of this happening, though? Otherwise it's just idle speculation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by elly63 (Post 8378509)
TSN was looking at cancelling the contract a few years ago, when the ratings averaged 38k. Had TFC not started performing better it could have been gone, but they saved themselves for the present.

Any sourcing on this? Regardless, TSN viewing figures for TFC in 2018 are nearly quadruple that number, and all three teams are north of 100K. Impact averaged 114K on TVA this year, as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by elly63 (Post 8378509)
Just wondering how you think the PGA Golf tour is able to air every week on network TV with its dearth of young viewers?

Tiger. The PGA tour is hitting eight and nine year highs now that he's competitive again.

NASCAR would be a better comparison in the US for the CFL, but this thread isn't about the US and Golf numbers in Canada are rarely available. :)

elly63 Nov 14, 2018 2:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8378514)
Tiger.

You know golf did exist before Mr Woods. Bear

elly63 Nov 14, 2018 2:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8378514)
Any sourcing on this? Regardless, TSN viewing figures for TFC in 2018 are nearly quadruple that number.

Stop, I think I've just hurt my ribs :)

elly63 Nov 14, 2018 3:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elly63 (Post 8378516)
You know golf did exist before Mr Woods. Bear

Hmmmm

https://i.imgur.com/rBdHfid.jpg

Acajack Nov 14, 2018 4:13 AM

Just wondering... who says advertisers don't care about people over 50?


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.