Hauser makes himself look stupid...

You're simply lying. Viewers for the first Saturday night network show of 2016 were way up compared to the last one in 2015. Rating goes way up, you lie and say it declined. PBC is the name of a television show. If CBS is willing to spend a lot of money when the time buys end, but want "Showtime Boxing" as the branding on CBS and Spike . . . everything is negotiable. Haymon is trying to grow the pie. I don't think he's going to let the name of the TV show stop that. Haymon Sports will still be around after the time buys end. I have no doubt about that. I'm very secure about my intellectual credentials. My IQ is 155 and I started college when I was 11 years old. I've built several successful businesses as well as turning around businesses that I bought out of bankruptcy. A random stranger on the internet calling me a "complete retard" but offering nothing to back up the claim does not affect my life in any way. If you can't counter my positions and have to resort to personal insults, you're essentially admitting defeat. Networks do not care if Haymon makes a profit. They care about 18-34 year old viewers who are watching live and not skipping commercials on a DVR. It's none of their business what Haymon's fighters get paid. The viewers will be worth whatever they're worth. Haymon fighters get paid a fair market rate to make a living... not $15k FNF main events money LOL

well yea...what else are we gonna watch for brunch on Sunday? :lol1: :lol1: :lol1:

thanks for the notes...i guess i'm DVR-ing and going with the fellas to watch Batman vs Superman...i told them i was a 'maybe' because of this fight :D I already have a movie lined up for Sat night :lol1: I can't front though, I've got that sh*t DVR'ed.

Dazed, school me on this Barrera kid...no clue who he is...should i even expect a semi competitive bout this Saturday? I watched his last fight and was moderately impressed. Emphasis on moderately. Ward should handle him easy except...I thought Ward looked like trash against Smith. But if he's not shot/faded and it was just rust then no, don't expect a competitive fight lol.

Hausser for President! :lol1: :lol1:

Weakest series of all-time.

PBC delivers MILLIONS of viewers on a Saturday night. PBC delivers the same amount of viewers on a Saturday night as the NBA does. So you must be suggesting that the NBA generates "zero ratings." Which calls into question who is really delusional in this situation. PBC isn't delivering anything, son - they've barely had anything scheduled this year. Only on NBC have they consistently done those type of numbers, and even then the viewership has continued to decline. You're a complete retard if you seriously think PBC will even be around by the time those time buys end, let alone thinking network bosses will be falling over each other to fork over millions for a product that they already know isn't profitable.

There's only been a few Saturday night network shows so far. So of course only a few fighters have generated High ratings. There's only been a few shows! Which is why it'll be interesting to see what kind of ratings Spence-Algieri and Ortiz-Berto II do.

Which is precisely why most believe the aim is to ultimately have PBC sign an exclusive one network deal (preferably one with multiple outlets), thus giving that network control/influence over all the fights/fighters that will be broadcast. An exclusive deal wouldn't seem to help them corner the market if HBO is still televising boxing and some of the networks (like ESPN and Fox Sports) get back into televising boxing. And would an exclusive network deal, even if it's with CBS/SHO, give the PBC enough dates and money for the entire PBC roster?

Nowhere have I mentioned anything as "collateral." I've said that W&R most likely bought a majority stake in Haymon's boxing companies and that Haymon's companies will have value whether the PBC television series is a success or not. The TV series could be canceled tomorrow and Haymon's boxing companies are still going to be valuable. Doesn't mean it'll have been a wise investment if the TV series is unsuccessful, but Haymon's boxing companies are going to be around a long time regardless. If you were confident in the merits of your argument, you wouldn't be resorting to childish insults. I'm actually tired of your stupidity which is why I'm calling you out as the fat low budget wrestler that you are. You don't know **** all pilsbury dough boy.

But we've already established that when you label something as absurd, it turns out that it's actually your position that's absurd. These events keep losing money because they are designed as loss leaders. If a network believes the ratings justify paying millions, it doesn't matter to them if the event doesn't break even. That isn't their problem. The ratings aren't dropping. The first 2016 Saturday night network broadcast had substantially more viewers than the last 2015 Saturday night network broadcast. You simply don't have your facts straight and repeatedly post false information. Nothing is going over my head. You're just wrong. And if we can't trust you on the facts, why would anybody trust your opinions? Absurd is mentioning haymon's management fees as collateral when speaking about a $400 million investment. Do you not realize how inconsequential that fee is relative to the amount invested? That's why it's absurd. Go eat another pizza you fat Phuck.

There aren't 200+ PBC boxers who can generate good ratings. There's only a small fraction of the 200+ that can. Thurman-Guerrero can get ratings. Garcia-Malignaggi can get ratings. Many of these other PBC fights/fighters can't. Which you can see if you compare the ratings of those fights to fights like Lara-Zavek and Martinez-Alexander. But those other fighters can competently complete undercard and walkout bouts with quality fights, interesting backstories, and future headliner potential, which is what you would need to fill a 2 hour primetime slot on a major network. Actually, it could create a different headache, which is giving over control to the PBC and allowing the PBC to dictate which fights are on PBC Network A, and PBC Network B, PBC Network C, etc. If Haymon controls the entire PBC roster, and he has 3-5 networks he's dealing with, and he only has maybe a few fighters that fans really want to watch, how does PBC Network A know they're getting Danny Garcia and not Erislandy Lara, and that Haymon isn't going to take his best fighters to some other network? Which is precisely why most believe the aim is to ultimately have PBC sign an exclusive one network deal (preferably one with multiple outlets), thus giving that network control/influence over all the fights/fighters that will be broadcast. That is exactly the leverage Haymon/PBC has right now. Why do you think Showtime is nutting up for PBC fights over the first half of 2016? Those fighters may not be available to them in a year or two. Then what? You see HBO's stuggles right now without it. That Haymon portfolio is very, very valuable.

ESPN and other networks are willing to 'giving up control' because unlike dealing with Top Rank/GB etc, Al Haymon brings a 200+ roster that has multiple world champions, familiar names, and interesting up and coming prospects. There aren't 200+ PBC boxers who can generate good ratings. There's only a small fraction of the 200+ that can. Thurman-Guerrero can get ratings. Garcia-Malignaggi can get ratings. Many of these other PBC fights/fighters can't. Which you can see if you compare the ratings of those fights to fights like Lara-Zavek and Martinez-Alexander. It also takes ESPN and any other interested network out of the headache of all the BS the business of boxing (promoter conflicts, fighters exculisvely signed to networks, etc.) brings. Actually, it could create a different headache, which is giving over control to the PBC and allowing the PBC to dictate which fights are on PBC Network A, and PBC Network B, PBC Network C, etc. If Haymon controls the entire PBC roster, and he has 3-5 networks he's dealing with, and he only has maybe a few fighters that fans really want to watch, how does PBC Network A know they're getting Danny Garcia and not Erislandy Lara, and that Haymon isn't going to take his best fighters to some other network?

Why has the scheduling been a problem when the network Saturday night events have MILLIONS of viewers regardless of the network? 3.5 million people tuned in to watch Danny Garcia in a world title. Is Hauser suggesting a lot more people would have watched had the network been known further in advance? How far in advance does it need to be known? That FOX date was known MONTHS in advance. Why would it be so important that the date be known six months in advance? How far in advance is HBO announcing their dates? We're one year into a 5 year rollout plan. Maybe that's why it feels like the first round? It is the first round . . . Yes, and despite the MILLIONS of viewers these events keep losing money because of absurd purses and production costs. Why would any network fork out millions for events that can't even break even? The ad money isn't there and ratings are actually dropping. This seems to keep going over your head. I've said repeatedly PBC can work but not with the purses it pays. It's unsustainable.

That fight cost $2.5 million. What indication is there that ESPN would be willing to pay those prices for individual boxing matches when they've been cutting costs and they just fired perhaps the biggest boxing advocate at ESPN (Brian Kweder)? And if ESPN was willing to pay millions of dollars for individual boxing events...why would they want to give up control over what fights they get by giving the PBC a long-term deal instead of doing what most networks do, and pay for fights on a fight-by-fight basis? and, So you think some of these networks are going to flip from "minimum interest in even broadcasting boxing" to giving out long-term deals worth tens of millions of dollars without talking to other promoters to, if nothing else, bring down the PBC's asking price? Dude, you're all over the map on this. Everyone has always understood that part of the challenge for PBC as a proof of concept was to actually show that there is a market for world class level boxing on non-premium TV. That has not changed. ESPN and other networks are willing to 'giving up control' because unlike dealing with Top Rank/GB etc, Al Haymon brings a 200+ roster that has multiple world champions, familiar names, and interesting up and coming prospects. Unlike the Main Events of the world, PBC has the ability to present HBO/SHO level quality fights over a multitude of dates. It can potentially be a ready-made, right-out-the-box functioning major sport. It also takes ESPN and any other interested network out of the headache of all the BS the business of boxing (promoter conflicts, fighters exculisvely signed to networks, etc.) brings. Again, THERE ARE NO OTHER PROMOTERS to leverage with a roster worth spending that of money on. Main Events' fights that flopped on NBCSports isn't going to get a promotion the primetime Sat night NBC/Fox/CBS/ESPN slots. GB's streamed fights or Top Rank's defunct TruTV series aren't either. It's not happening, and doesn't make sense to even speculate on that happening. PBC is a unique opportunity and is an all-or-nothing proposition. It will either be the vehicle for boxing on free/non-premium cable TV or not. What you are arguing is the equivalent of saying that a network like ESPN won't pay to broadcast the English Premier League football because soccer isn't big in the US while simultaneously speculating how ESPN will leverage the MSL (which it stopped broadcasting on its smaller networks) to bring down the Premier League's asking price. http://e.lvme.me/3risbcx.jpg

Don't pay any attention to him, he literally is getting paid to specifically write negatively about Al Haymon and PBC. He works for HBO/The Ring, who are against PBC/Haymon.

The initial time buys were for 2 years. Then you up that to 5 years in your OP. Now you are saying 10 years? That is just not feasible. So how far, in your mind, are you planning to move the goal posts? PBC profitable in 20 years, perhaps? You do realize the time buys are part of a longer term plan, and it would take a longer time to really make that money back. They are using the time buys to consolidate the industry and kill off their competition. That would be the current goal not profit which comes later. Is it that hard to understand? Amazon which only recently started making a profit didn't go under and in fact thrived because they had the plan and the forward guidance that people saw was going to work.

The initial time buys were for 2 years. Then you up that to 5 years in your OP. Now you are saying 10 years? That is just not feasible. So how far, in your mind, are you planning to move the goal posts? PBC profitable in 20 years, perhaps? Lol. He threw in 7 years prior to that. These guys are retarded.

ESPN wants a brand... not some no name promoter. If PBC can get even $750k they are in great shape. That's literally a $1.5M swing in their favor if they are currently out of pocket $750k for time buy/production per event. It's a 10 year plan nitwits. Hahaha The initial time buys were for 2 years. Then you up that to 5 years in your OP. Now you are saying 10 years? That is just not feasible. So how far, in your mind, are you planning to move the goal posts? PBC profitable in 20 years, perhaps?

ESPN wants a brand So ESPN wants to sign on to a brand, and isn't as interested in particular fights/fighters? And you think ESPN feels their boxing audience is the same way? ESPN will open up the checkbook and be fine with Keith Thurman or Erislandy Lara, it doesn't make a difference between the two, they're both part of the PBC brand?