LA Times Article - GBP Looks to Be Heading For a Split

LOL @ the frauds stans who feel the need to point out Oscar's addiction's "He a coke head doe and never ran the company himself what makes him think he can" no sh1t sherlocks wtf makes you fraudatics believe he won't hire another CEO when there are thousands of Grads out there waiting for there opportunity .Snakefer is done.

You're a Top Rank shill. Mayweather consistently outsells Pac, and smashes his gate numbers. You're probably one of the TR "fans" who argue that Arum is doing the right thing by having garbage undercards. I dare you to do annual PPV # for Pacquiao and Floyd after they became the A-side PPV fighters. That means after they both fought Oscar. Last year was the first year that Floyd outsold Pac since 2008 2009 Pacquiao 2010 Pacquiao 2011 Pacquiao 2012 Pacquiao 2013 Floyd And everyone knows what HBO's saying is "It's Not TV, It's HBO" What's SHO? Not only do there shows suck but they are losing 10's of millions in there boxing budget and have nothing to show for it

Your bullsh*t anecdote means nothing. You've been repeating the same thing all thread. Signing Mayweather brought an entire Haymon stable. Plus, SHO subscribers get unlimited access to PPV fights a week later (same as HBO). Not everyone streams or DLs, so some people enjoy being able to watch it multiple times in good quality. Also you keep saying SHO had no good non-PPV fights in 2013, are you crazy or just blind? For one, Canelo-Trout was a superb matchup, they sold 40K tix to it, so obviously it was in demand. Subscribers don't have access to PPVs, idiot. Non PPVs became very rare. There are 52 Saturdays in a year. Why don't you list the number of non-PPVs they have made since your hero joined Showtime? Sorry to hurt your feelings, doe. Truth butt hurts. They failed.

First, I don't want to argue that the Floyd PPVs aren't under performing. IMHO, they probably are, but: -The PPV is drenched in Sho branding, with Sho commentators, and is intended to Showcase Sho as a premium boxing destination. -The teaser shows for the PPVs are on Sho. -Floyd's potential opponents box on Sho. -Floyd came with a slate of boxers that were Sho's TV content. So even if the PPVs didn't have a great conversion rate to subscribers many of the boxers that came with Floyd did have a lot of HBO money invested on their names and may have brought some of their fans with them. To say that the PPVs don't / won't draw subscribers is a little dubious. It's just a question of how many, at what cost, and over what period of time. In the end Sho's premium boxing push may not be worth it. That's perfectly possible, even likely, but to say eating a loss over the short term in a 1 on 1 subscriber war can't be strategically advantageous just isn't right. It seems pretty apparent that this is what Sho was trying. Has it worked? Seems 'iffy' to me, but they weren't wrong to try. My dad signed up for a SHO subscription, when this whole GBP/Mayweather vs HBO rift thing started, which he eventually cancelled after a year and a half when it became clear that they're laser-focused on making PPVs. Non-PPV fights are rare. The idea of signing up for subscription was based on the expectation that the money generated from these PPVs will help fund numerous non-PPV fights. Didn't happen. HBO still beat them. (We watch boxing on HBO in my uncle's house.)

Bob Arum must be laughing his old ass off right now.

Floyd ain't on Pac's level? What did Pac-Rios do for PPV #'s? vs. The worst Floyd PPV... Gurerro? Pac's best PPV did 1.3m buys. 2/3 of the highest grossing fights involved Floyd, both breaking 2m buys. Floyd's been in numerous PPV's that did less than 1 million, Hatton, Guerrerro, Maidana, etc And Pacquiao is a bigger draw because hes selling the PPV by himself. Floyd knows that he can't draw so he always stacks his cards so foolish people actually think hes a bigger draw. When Pacquiao fights, the entire country of the Philippines stops what its doing and watches. When Floyd fights, NSB doesn't even slow down. When Floyd fought Maidana I thought I had google fiber when I logged on to this site

PPVs don't attract subscribers. Making non-PPV fights as many as possible does. Mayweather is on PPV. First, I don't want to argue that the Floyd PPVs aren't under performing. IMHO, they probably are, but: -The PPV is drenched in Sho branding, with Sho commentators, and is intended to Showcase Sho as a premium boxing destination. -The teaser shows for the PPVs are on Sho. -Floyd's potential opponents box on Sho. -Floyd came with a slate of boxers that were Sho's TV content. So even if the PPVs didn't have a great conversion rate to subscribers many of the boxers that came with Floyd did have a lot of HBO money invested on their names and may have brought some of their fans with them. To say that the PPVs don't / won't draw subscribers is a little dubious. It's just a question of how many, at what cost, and over what period of time. In the end Sho's premium boxing push may not be worth it. That's perfectly possible, even likely, but to say eating a loss over the short term in a 1 on 1 subscriber war can't be strategically advantageous just isn't right. It seems pretty apparent that this is what Sho was trying. Has it worked? Seems 'iffy' to me, but they weren't wrong to try.

According to the latest numbers from NPD Group, premium services such as HBO, and Showtime,and others registered a 6% decline in U.S. subscribers while customers preferring subscription video-on-demand (SVOD) grew by 4% over the past two years.

That's not necessarily untrue. Trading a short term loss for winning medium and long term mind and market share (subscribers in the case of Sho) is a tried and true strategy. Video game consoles use this strategy. They make up the loss on the games. Printer companies use this strategy. They make up the loss on the ink. Sho is going tooth and nail with HBO. CBS may be willing to eat losses for a while if it translates into subscribers and good will. You can also see this in Sho's TV productions. PPVs don't attract subscribers. Making non-PPV fights as many as possible does. Mayweather is on PPV.

He was also saying that when Showtime signed floyd, that it was OK lose money with under performing PPV'S because they were there to attract new customers and not really in it to make a profit. That's not necessarily untrue. Trading a short term loss for winning medium and long term mind and market share (subscribers in the case of Sho) is a tried and true strategy. Video game consoles use this strategy. They make up the loss on the games. Printer companies use this strategy. They make up the loss on the ink. Sho is going tooth and nail with HBO. CBS may be willing to eat losses for a while if it translates into subscribers and good will. You can also see this in Sho's TV productions.

how about your dumbass try to explain what you mean by "long-term liquidity"? that's the simple question i asked you before you went full retard with this stupid copy-pasting. cmon, explain it and try to redeem yourself. some of the things you're posting are shameful. you're trying to use some business terms but you have no clue what is it all about. what the **** is day to day liquidity? and a single-day chart? a collective metric? long term day to day activity and performance charts demonstrating solvency? pure gibberish:lol1::lol1: You obviously won't even begin to grasp what it all means. In trying to expose me, you have just exposed yourself as a full-retard. aaramis is your typical pseudo intellect. there's a reason why he wont answer your question. dude was talking about LLCs being bad only to be told off by sugar adam ali, an actual business owner. not some lame ass wanna be business mogul online. Post that!!! I wanna see where I made that statement. And I bet you can't ... All my e-points, a sig-bet ..... You name it!!! Respond with the post where I made that statement. And this will expose you as a fraud, and full of shit! Just because you manufacture some BS doesn't mean its true. Perhaps in the moronic world you live in but not hear. that idiot have no clue what he's talking about. he thinks posting a long-winded copy pasted quotes makes him look smart. He was also saying that when Showtime signed floyd, that it was OK lose money with under performing PPV'S because they were there to attract new customers and not really in it to make a profit. Post that!!! I wanna see where I made that statement. And I bet you can't ... All my e-points, a sig-bet ..... You name it!!! Respond with the post where I made that statement. You guys collectively, are proving to be quite stupid, butthurt trolls :lol1: I owned you fools in other threads and I'm gonna continue to own you dumbasses .... because its that easy! Back-up your bullshit posts .... Put up or shut up Bitches and take the bet!!!

aaramis is your typical pseudo intellect. there's a reason why he wont answer your question. dude was talking about LLCs being bad only to be told off by sugar adam ali, an actual business owner. not some lame ass wanna be business mogul online. He was also saying that when Showtime signed floyd, that it was OK lose money with under performing PPV'S because they were there to attract new customers and not really in it to make a profit.

I see a Schaeffer/Floyd partnership on the horizon and a few well known fighters jumping ship.

Warren Buffett's Rules of Money Management 1. Don't lose money. 2. Don't forget Rule 1. SHO are losing millions and have nothing to show for it. They guy the grossly overpaid is posting abortion pictures on twitter and starting riots at Fatburger. SHO thought that after Pacquiao vs Mosley did 1.3 million with barely any promotion than they could sign Floyd and it would be the same thing. They were completely wrong. Floyd ain't on Pacquiao's level and never will be. Skip Bayless, You Don't Know $h1t about boxing.

aaramis is your typical pseudo intellect. there's a reason why he wont answer your question. dude was talking about LLCs being bad only to be told off by sugar adam ali, an actual business owner. not some lame ass wanna be business mogul online. that idiot have no clue what he's talking about. he thinks posting a long-winded copy pasted quotes makes him look smart.

how about your dumbass try to explain what you mean by "long-term liquidity"? that's the simple question i asked you before you went full retard with this stupid copy-pasting. cmon, explain it and try to redeem yourself. some of the things you're posting are shameful. you're trying to use some business terms but you have no clue what is it all about. what the **** is day to day liquidity? and a single-day chart? a collective metric? long term day to day activity and performance charts demonstrating solvency? pure gibberish:lol1::lol1: aaramis is your typical pseudo intellect. there's a reason why he wont answer your question. dude was talking about LLCs being bad only to be told off by sugar adam ali, an actual business owner. not some lame ass wanna be business mogul online.

Is that really the best you can do :lol1: You're one of those ignorant fools that when proven wrong go on a "you're copying and pasting" rant to deflect from the real. You don't and can't defeat what is C&P, so you ignore it for the sake of remaining a complete and utter moron. Yeah I C&P a direct link for your stupid azz and now on top of being an idiot, you're also in denial. Bottom-line: What good is day to day liquidity, if it doesn't put you in a position to evaluate long-term possibilities. That's where the ratios come into play you freakin moron and how company performance charts are built. That's like someone looking to invest in the stock of a company with only a single-day chart to reflect and make a decision on. That's stupid! No, investors want to see long-term performance based on day to day liquidity charts and performance. You, with your moronic replies don't understand that a companies life-cycle isn't determined on only a single day's performance ... It is a collective metric derived from long-term day to day activity and performance charts demonstrating solvency. how about your dumbass try to explain what you mean by "long-term liquidity"? that's the simple question i asked you before you went full retard with this stupid copy-pasting. cmon, explain it and try to redeem yourself. some of the things you're posting are shameful. you're trying to use some business terms but you have no clue what is it all about. what the **** is day to day liquidity? and a single-day chart? a collective metric? long term day to day activity and performance charts demonstrating solvency? pure gibberish:lol1::lol1:

If anything, the fighters (haymon's) themselves need to speak up on their own on who they wanna fight. I'm sure they would want a shot at a cash cow thats not only just Mayweather. Broner called out Manny and he's an Al Haymon fighter, surely Mr. Haymon cant deny his fighters request to getting that paper.

Warren Buffett's Rules of Money Management 1. Don't lose money. 2. Don't forget Rule 1. SHO are losing millions and have nothing to show for it. They guy the grossly overpaid is posting abortion pictures on twitter and starting riots at Fatburger. SHO thought that after Pacquiao vs Mosley did 1.3 million with barely any promotion than they could sign Floyd and it would be the same thing. They were completely wrong. Floyd ain't on Pacquiao's level and never will be. Floyd ain't on Pac's level? What did Pac-Rios do for PPV #'s? vs. The worst Floyd PPV... Gurerro? Pac's best PPV did 1.3m buys. 2/3 of the highest grossing fights involved Floyd, both breaking 2m buys.

Just so you know, and you don't waste your time trying to figure it out. There are people who post here that are going to side with Mayweather no matter what the circumstances. In this case, since Scheafer and Haymon have helped propel floyd to his status today, these people are going to try and make DLH look bad. But if floyd was siding with Oscar, they'd side with Oscar too. They follow every move of floyds. Floyd doesn't like Oscar, they don't like Oscar. So they are going to bash him, even when its clear hes trying to do something good for the sport. I doubt that. His business has taken a hit, and maybe a little side dish of Schaefer and Haymon cooking something on the side. I doubt DLH would do business with Arum unless he needed to, it's just to a point where he might have to. JMO