HFBoards Direction for TV Deal
 Register FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
 Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
 National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

# Direction for TV Deal

 09-24-2003, 04:09 AM #1 Douggy Registered User     Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: London, Ontario Country: Posts: 9,833 vCash: 500 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?
09-24-2003, 04:13 AM
#2
SuperUnknown
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,669
vCash: 500
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.

09-24-2003, 04:23 AM
#3
West
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 753
vCash: 500
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.

09-24-2003, 04:37 AM
#4
discostu
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2002
Country:
Posts: 18,591
vCash: 500
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..

 09-24-2003, 04:22 PM #5 Douggy Registered User     Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: London, Ontario Country: Posts: 9,833 vCash: 500 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.
 09-25-2003, 09:15 AM #6 MVP Registered User   Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 2,627 vCash: 500 Short term would be a better deal.
09-25-2003, 12:44 PM
#7
Epoch
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country:
Posts: 16,221
vCash: 500
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.

Forum Jump