HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   National Hockey League Talk (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=60)
-   -   Direction for TV Deal (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=13853)

Douggy 09-24-2003 04:09 AM

Direction for TV Deal
 
Consider the following scenarios:

#1: An Eight year T.V. contract, paying 'x' dollars per year.

#2: A Three year T.V. contract, paying '2x' dollars per year.

Assuming each one will give the NHL the same amount of exposer per year, and the same amount of games per week, which one do you choose?

SuperUnknown 09-24-2003 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douggy
Consider the following scenarios:

#1: An Eight year T.V. contract, paying 'x' dollars per year.

#2: A Three year T.V. contract, paying '2x' dollars per year.

Assuming each one will give the NHL the same amount of exposer per year, and the same amount of games per week, which one do you choose?

I'd say short term. The ratings are at their lowest so take the short deal and hope for the ratings to grow.

West 09-24-2003 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douggy
Consider the following scenarios:

#1: An Eight year T.V. contract, paying 'x' dollars per year.

#2: A Three year T.V. contract, paying '2x' dollars per year.

Assuming each one will give the NHL the same amount of exposer per year, and the same amount of games per week, which one do you choose?

Can you think of a good reason that you'd take the first optinion? The only one I can think of is that your assuming that your TV ratings are going to go in the crapper even more than they are now. I think if your that worried about your TV rating you'd take the short term deal anyways and start making changes to your marketing and adjusting the rules of the game to make it more interesting.

discostu 09-24-2003 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by West
Can you think of a good reason that you'd take the first optinion? The only one I can think of is that your assuming that your TV ratings are going to go in the crapper even more than they are now. I think if your that worried about your TV rating you'd take the short term deal anyways and start making changes to your marketing and adjusting the rules of the game to make it more interesting.

Exactly what I was thinking. To choose option 1, you would have to assume if you chose option 2 that your revenues after that would be .4x per year, an 80% drop from the 2x in the first 3 years..

Douggy 09-24-2003 04:22 PM

While using the numbers I gave may favour certain situations, I was basically trying to ask: Should the NHL try to sign a long term TV deal, or a short term one that offers a greater amount of money?

My point being that a longer deal would be better because the TV Network would be more inclined to market a product that they were commited to for the long term.

MVP 09-25-2003 09:15 AM

Short term would be a better deal.

Epoch 09-25-2003 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smail
I'd say short term. The ratings are at their lowest so take the short deal and hope for the ratings to grow.

That's exactly what is was going to say.

Why go for the long-term package when the ratings were the lowest in NHL history? (I don't know this for sure),taking the long-term is a big risk.

Short term is much better.If they grow you could always sign-on for many more years.:)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:08 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.