DAZN subscription

[BomberFan73]

my sentiment exactly!!

I third this. 
We are far from alone.  I suspect it is anyone who still pays cable that is upset by this.  Even more so if you pay for the complete package.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Think of the children! (TM)

All well and good.  But there were 2 aspects to most of our desires for league health: 1) becoming financially sound, and 2) getting more fans to be seat-butts and watch TV.

Johnston solved (1), but I posit that this harms goal (2).  Most of us were instead trying to solve (2) in order to organically bring about (1).

I'd also argue that (2) is integral to (1) being sustainable.  If instead of growing butts/eyeballs by 10% you shrink it by 10%, how are you going to negotiate such a sweet media deal next time around?

Maybe he could have hosted a call to explain to the league's owners and players that instead of signing a deal for an extra 60% in broadcast revenue (learning it's a 6 year term through 2033) he chose to decline that and keep things the same.

You guys really are too much. Blinded by bias to the point of complete silliness. Even when the guy secures a huge win by essentially all measures you're trying to tie yourself into knots to explain how it's wrong.

[bunker]

Maybe he could have hosted a call to explain to the league's owners and players that instead of signing a deal for an extra 60% in broadcast revenue (learning it's a 6 year term through 2033) he chose to decline that and keep things the same.

You guys really are too much. Blinded by bias to the point of complete silliness. Even when the guy secures a huge win by essentially all measures you're trying to tie yourself into knots to explain how it's wrong.

I can see both sides of this. On the one hand its a win for the league in terms of revenue.

Both its not a win for the fan's experience.  You have a choice of losing 25% of the games, including some playoff games, or paying a lot more (possibly as much as 75% more than my current cost for cable and TSN) to retain the viewing exposure I had last year. You're asking the fans to be happy about this? For a benefit that is intangible and vague, the "good of the league". The league will make more money. Your assuming that translates in some way into a more stable league with a better product, which is good for the fans. But all it may mean is more money for players (most of which might go to the players making over 200k per year), more money in the owner's pocket, and more drift towards an Americanized game that most CFL fans don't want. You have no difficulty seeing one side of the issue, but there's clearly a second side that's valid as well.

[bunker]

As far as I know, we also don't know the specifics of how much of the approximately 60 million per year TSN pays and how much DANZ pays. And that will colour my view of the deal as well. If TSN is paying 30 million for their  75% of games, and DANZ was willing to cough up 30 million for 25% of the games, then it would be hard to argue with Johnson's decision. But if TSN is paying 45 million for 75% of the games, and DANZ 15 million for their 25% of the games, and if TSN was actually willing to pay the same prorated for all the games ie 60 million, but Johnson opted to go with this current deal, then its not fan friendly at all. Because he would have got the same money by giving it all to TSN, and maintained fan access to all the games. And if for some reason DANZ is paying less per game than TSN, well then this deal becomes even harder to defend. Any defense would have to fall back on some vague "streaming on a streaming only platform is good, and will bring in the younger fans" argument, which may or may not turn out to be true. I'm skeptical.