Time:
Log out
Subject: General Sponsorship Offers| Select a country: |
|
Canada |
HR and marketing would impact the value at each level. For example, 3 stars = 400k vs. 3 stars = 450k... it shouldn't impact the odds of getting each level. Right? Valid argument though...
WTF indeed!
So far 39% of all formally reported offers were 1 stars. Followed by 27% for 2 stars, 16% for 3 stars, 6% for 4 stars and 12% at 5 stars.
TV is different so far with:
24% 1 star, 21% 2 stars, 15% 3 stars, 15% 4 stars and 26% 5 stars.
So far 39% of all formally reported offers were 1 stars. Followed by 27% for 2 stars, 16% for 3 stars, 6% for 4 stars and 12% at 5 stars.
TV is different so far with:
24% 1 star, 21% 2 stars, 15% 3 stars, 15% 4 stars and 26% 5 stars.
5 star offer
Contract worth: 158 317 248
Weekly donation: 9 894 828
Contract worth: 158 317 248
Weekly donation: 9 894 828
Principal (3,4):
4 stars : 75M (4th playoffs, 6th season, OTC : 206) , 2nd offer.
TV (5):
5 stars : 8M, 1st offer.
4 stars : 75M (4th playoffs, 6th season, OTC : 206) , 2nd offer.
TV (5):
5 stars : 8M, 1st offer.
Got a 4 star general sponsorship today. w00t!
Contract worth: 78 834 368
Weekly donation: 4 927 148
Contract worth: 78 834 368
Weekly donation: 4 927 148
4 Star!! Phew!
Contract worth: 65 823 488
Weekly donation: 4 113 968
You'll have to add this 4 to your results canucks
Contract worth: 65 823 488
Weekly donation: 4 113 968
You'll have to add this 4 to your results canucks
Nice contract. I only got 4 star = 140M$
Isn't it possible that the level of the HR department and marketing efficiency influence the odds of getting each star level? It definitely ought to be a variable that is controlled for in any statistical assessment.
That's the thing. I'm not sure. I feel like the star would be random and it would be the value at each star level that would be controlled. Otherwise the $$$ would favour higher end clubs even more.
There could be a ratio in play to counter that effect, e.g. (for simplicity's sake) HR: TeamOR.
Mine is 4:125 (1:31) - perhaps each range (e.g. 1:26-1:35, 1:36-1:46, etc.) is associated with varying statistical probabilities of obtaining each star level of offer. If this is the case, then having a proportionally good HR facility would influence not only how high the offer is, but the likelihood of getting the best offer.
Mine is 4:125 (1:31) - perhaps each range (e.g. 1:26-1:35, 1:36-1:46, etc.) is associated with varying statistical probabilities of obtaining each star level of offer. If this is the case, then having a proportionally good HR facility would influence not only how high the offer is, but the likelihood of getting the best offer.
Quite possible. Especially since the limited numbers I have right now haven't really pointed to a practical distribution.
Your favorite threads
Newest posts
Copyright © 2007-2025 - POWERPLAY MANAGER, s.r.o. - All rights reserved
Contact - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy - Cookies settings - Site map
Advertising on PowerPlay Manager - Become our partner!
Partners: www.tennismania.com - www.biathlonmania.com - www.skijumpmania3.com - www.athleticsmania.com - www.wintersportsmania.com - www.summersportsmania.com
[all: 100ms / php: 61ms / db: 39ms ]
Web server: WB1
Contact - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy - Cookies settings - Site map
Advertising on PowerPlay Manager - Become our partner!
Partners: www.tennismania.com - www.biathlonmania.com - www.skijumpmania3.com - www.athleticsmania.com - www.wintersportsmania.com - www.summersportsmania.com
[all: 100ms / php: 61ms / db: 39ms ]
Web server: WB1