Started By
Message

re: ESPNs contract with the NBA

Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:48 pm to
Posted by AlexLSU
Member since Jan 2005
25341 posts
Posted on 3/21/17 at 10:48 pm to
quote:

ESPN could of signed a 1 year deal. Simply put , Disney made a bad investment.


Aside from the fact that you're arguing a 1 year deal was possible (as if there was no competition for the rights), I don't agree that it was a bad investment. It may not be as lucrative as ESPN anticipated, but what's the cost of NOT doing the deal? ESPN kinda needs live sports
Posted by Tiger Prawn
Member since Dec 2016
22619 posts
Posted on 3/22/17 at 9:45 am to
quote:

It may not be as lucrative as ESPN anticipated, but what's the cost of NOT doing the deal? ESPN kinda needs live sports


Bingo!

ESPN is the most expensive cable network per subscriber, by a wide margin. Without live sports, ESPN has no justification being able to charge those types of subscriber fees because people aren't going to pay that kind of money to watch nothing but Sportscenter and talk shows.
Posted by crazycubes
Member since Jan 2016
5256 posts
Posted on 3/22/17 at 11:00 am to
quote:

Aside from the fact that you're arguing a 1 year deal was possible (as if there was no competition for the rights), I don't agree that it was a bad investment. It may not be as lucrative as ESPN anticipated, but what's the cost of NOT doing the deal? ESPN kinda needs live sports


You and the other poster have a point, I'm sure the NBA would have went with the next 10 year offer. That being said, it seems dump to sign a contract that you know you will lose money on. I guess they thought that they could make it work .
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram