Haymon lost 430 million in one year!

If Haymon is losing these huge amounts of money, what is he doing to recover them? Is he even trying?

haymon manages those guys and takes a percent. he's a cagey guy. don't count him out yet. haymon's investors may very well get their butts handed to them. if haymon gets the next floyd mayweather in his stable and under contract it may not matter. Floyd isn't giving any young fighters a chance to take the throne the way Oscar did. There is no next Floyd or Pacquiao for a very long time. Especially since no one is fighting each other to build their names. Look at the name value Floyd and pac had on their resume on their way up. No one is fighting big names lioe that anymore. There will be no major ppv seller in the U.S. for a long time. Haymon did a great Job using Floyd to create his empire, but he has no idea how to build another Floyd.

We never know.

I really want PBC to succeed because of free boxing but he overpaid a lot of boxers for easy fights. He should of paid them based on what the fight was truly worth. For someone as smart as he is, he should of known better. haymon manages those guys and takes a percent. he's a cagey guy. don't count him out yet. haymon's investors may very well get their butts handed to them. if haymon gets the next floyd mayweather in his stable and under contract it may not matter.

$430 million gone with very little to show for it.

http://www.fightopinion.com/2016/08/08/boxing-al-haymon-myspace-430-million-waddell-ivy/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fightopinion+%28FightOpinion.com+-+Your+Global+Connection+to+the+Fight+Industry.%29 Holy ****! How is that even possible, I knew he was blowing money but 430 mill!? Thief! Why you fixated on a pimp's burn rate?

I said it from the beginning, Haymon was overpaying his fighters because he was oayng himself at the same time. Every time they fought he got paid. Over paying them just meant he made more money too. He's a fcking thief. yes haymon is the elon musk-rat of boxing

You got sports nobody cares that cost a fraction of what PBC costs to produce these shows and they draw much better ratings then that on ESPN2. Hell ESPN produced their own boxing series FNF on ESPN2 that operated on a 50k fight budget and still got better ratings then that. You got sports where a weird dude is chopping down a tree with a axe at 3am that draw higher ratings then PBC does for some of their fights. And that sport is not foolishly paying that guy 1m to do it like PBC paid their fighters. That's just stupid business. I miss FNF.

Even if PBC is broke, there is still Showtime. So what are the fights Espinoza is working on? You're trying to hard.

Even if PBC is broke, there is still Showtime. So what are the fights Espinoza is working on?

did someone just compare the massive failures of PBC to a Jordan buying an NBA team or the billionaire who just bought the Clippers? Damn some people are stupid around here. NBA is a established brand with TV deals and team sharing and revenue streams already in place for these teams where damn near NONE of the teams lose money. Plus most of the owners buy the teams not to make money but to be associated with a pro team. It's the ultimate boys club they are really buying into first and foremost. And even the initial losses don't even compare to the loses PBC has occurred while being a brand that NOBODY cares about and who fans care about less and less as PBC goes on. PBC on ESPN just drew 300k viewers last week. Almost half their WORST PBC rating on ESPN last year. You got sports nobody cares that cost a fraction of what PBC costs to produce these shows and they draw much better ratings then that on ESPN2. Hell ESPN produced their own boxing series FNF on ESPN2 that operated on a 50k fight budget and still got better ratings then that. You got sports where a weird dude is chopping down a tree with a axe at 3am that draw higher ratings then PBC does for some of their fights. And that sport is not foolishly paying that guy 1m to do it like PBC paid their fighters. That's just stupid business. My point was not a comparison of the sports, as the two sports are very different, but an example to show you how the cash flows are in sports. No where was I analyzing PBC's success. I was merely showing how buying a team and building a team -well PBC seems to be trying to build a major boxing association- results in the same kind of cash outflow in year 1. We think their end goal is to be the UFC of boxing, which would potentially be huge. Whether they succeed or not, based on their end goal, the cash flows to this point are not surprising at all. PBC is playing a long game, because it will take a while to reprogram the nation to watching boxing on TV like it was 25 years ago. Again, I am not arguing PBC's viability, because quite frankly, I don't have enough information at this point, it has only been 18 months. They cash flows and PBC's expectations were the only things I was looking at, and at this point we only have TWO cash flow to look at. And NBA owners buy teams to be part of that boys club, but also for the appreciation of the franchise.

did someone just compare the massive failures of PBC to a Jordan buying an NBA team or the billionaire who just bought the Clippers? Damn some people are stupid around here. NBA is a established brand with TV deals and team sharing and revenue streams already in place for these teams where damn near NONE of the teams lose money. Plus most of the owners buy the teams not to make money but to be associated with a pro team. It's the ultimate boys club they are really buying into first and foremost. And even the initial losses don't even compare to the loses PBC has occurred while being a brand that NOBODY cares about and who fans care about less and less as PBC goes on. PBC on ESPN just drew 300k viewers last week. Almost half their WORST PBC rating on ESPN last year. You got sports nobody cares that cost a fraction of what PBC costs to produce these shows and they draw much better ratings then that on ESPN2. Hell ESPN produced their own boxing series FNF on ESPN2 that operated on a 50k fight budget and still got better ratings then that. You got sports where a weird dude is chopping down a tree with a axe at 3am that draw higher ratings then PBC does for some of their fights. And that sport is not foolishly paying that guy 1m to do it like PBC paid their fighters. That's just stupid business.

Excellent stuff! I have to give you props on everything you wrote, because you're dead on! If you're ever in nyc I'll be glad to buy you a beer. I co-own a private equity firm and fully understand the world that W/R are in, as well as strategic financing and planning. I have had to write-down a few of investments for various reasons and with different methods, and in most of the cases became profitable years after. The first year, we almost always see the biggest cash outflows with the following years a fraction of that. What follows must be a positive trend in the outflows (the degrees of the outflows depend on the strategy) as well as an increase in market share, which is gained by having a successful product. If PBC's goal is to be worth billions, then a first year loss of ≈ $450M is not bad at all, which is similar to buying a sports franchise. Just think about how long it will take before Steve Ballmer and the group that bought the Dodgers to breakeven. If you want a similar recent example, look at the NBA's Charlotte Hornets. Michael Jordan paid $175M, the initial investment, for the team in 2010. The following year, the team lost $20M, next year lost $25M, and after that the numbers began trending upward. The franchise is currently valued at $750M. So in other words PBC's first year loss (maybe also the 2nd year too) is like buying your way into a franchise. The success of PBC will be told in time but not in the first 18 months. If you want to check out the Charlotte Bobcats numbers, google their team on Forbes. They do a great breakdown. That's a poor comparison. You're talking about a team in a popular sports league that continues to grow in value versus a new company in a sport that's not even in the top ten anymore. Furthermore losing $45 million over two years is peanuts compared to what PBC has lost in 18 months and presumably will continue to lose. There is no value in something that consistently loses money, this isn't a tech or mining company that can pull a rabbit out the hat. Boxing just isn't that popular anymore and ratings are down on every platform. In the end they might get a deal with some channel but the numbers will be drastically different and it will still be viewed as a financial disaster.

Just think about how long it will take before Steve Ballmer and the group that bought the Dodgers to breakeven. I think you mean the Clippers. And I'm not sure I see the direct comparison between buying a team in an established sports league and what the PBC is attempting.

I see no sign of Waddel investors recovering their money. The only sign I see is Haymon beginning to reduce the purses for his fighters. Thurman, for example, got $1.5 mil in the Collazo fight and admitted to Fat Dan getting another $1.2 million in bonus. A total of $2.7 million. In comparison, he got a mere $1.3 mil in the Porter fight, which was riskier.

If PBC's goal is to be worth billions, then a first year loss of ≈ $450M is not bad at all, which is similar to buying a sports franchise. Just think about how long it will take before Steve Ballmer and the group that bought the Dodgers to breakeven. Let's hope you're right bro. To be fair, boxing is huge when it wants to be huge. There must be an end game that would come out out of all these loses. Question is when?

Hindsight is always 20/20. And **** sometimes companies just do dumb ****. I mean go read about Crystal Pepsi. So to assume any company couldn't do things better is a simplistic way to think about PBC or any business. That said how you react to mistakes or bad decisions IS important I will admit. And I will say I thought that PBC was slow to implement some basic changes like putting Cubans on cards in Florida or Broner in Cleveland & other guys on cards in their region that will drive up the gate & help build followings for fighters. I also think the scattered approach to TV networks is as good at cornering the market & preventing competitors from stealing a part of this new marketplace they are trying to create for pro boxing on national TV as it is bad for the overall general confusion with boxing being in too many places after being in too few places just 18 months ago. So I see the issues with this strategy, but I think it evens out with keeping others from riding their coattails too so you can pet peeve this decision either way. So yea sure PBC could've done things better out of the gate & can do things better now, but its kinda like saying if you knew a year ago what you know today your life would be better. All you can really do is play your hand as you feel is optimal in the moment & then reevaluate after the hand & play things better the next time & more or less I feel like PBC has done that so far. Obviously how far they end up going or not going in the future will be based on reevaluating to maximum benefit which they may or may not be able to do. The main issue I have with the negative Nancy boxing fans is they are quick to call PBC a failure as negative Nancy boxing fans tend to call everything or anyone in boxing a failure upon the first negative fact they can pull up. Its like that predictable stance those negative Nancy boxing fans have of whoever loses between Kovalev & Ward will be called a bum or has been "exposed" on Nov. 20 instead of the loser having just lost a fight to a better elite level fighter on that particular night. Excellent stuff! I have to give you props on everything you wrote, because you're dead on! If you're ever in nyc I'll be glad to buy you a beer. I co-own a private equity firm and fully understand the world that W/R are in, as well as strategic financing and planning. I have had to write-down a few of investments for various reasons and with different methods, and in most of the cases became profitable years after. The first year, we almost always see the biggest cash outflows with the following years a fraction of that. What follows must be a positive trend in the outflows (the degrees of the outflows depend on the strategy) as well as an increase in market share, which is gained by having a successful product. If PBC's goal is to be worth billions, then a first year loss of ≈ $450M is not bad at all, which is similar to buying a sports franchise. Just think about how long it will take before Steve Ballmer and the group that bought the Dodgers to breakeven. If you want a similar recent example, look at the NBA's Charlotte Hornets. Michael Jordan paid $175M, the initial investment, for the team in 2010. The following year, the team lost $20M, next year lost $25M, and after that the numbers began trending upward. The franchise is currently valued at $750M. So in other words PBC's first year loss (maybe also the 2nd year too) is like buying your way into a franchise. The success of PBC will be told in time but not in the first 18 months. If you want to check out the Charlotte Bobcats numbers, google their team on Forbes. They do a great breakdown.

Excellent stuff, ! I have to give you props on everything you wrote, because you're dead on! If you're ever in nyc I'll be glad to buy you a beer. I co-own a private equity firm and fully understand the world that W/R are in, as well as strategic financing and planning. I have had to write-down a few of investments for various reasons and with different methods, and in most of the cases became profitable years after. The first year, we almost always see the biggest cash outflows with the following years a fraction of that. What follows must be a positive trend in the outflows (the degrees of the outflows depend on the strategy) as well as an increase in market share, which is gained by having a successful product. If PBC's goal is to be worth billions, then a first year loss of ≈ $450M is not bad at all, which is similar to buying a sports franchise. Just think about how long it will take before Steve Ballmer and the group that bought the Dodgers to breakeven. If you want a similar recent example, look at the NBA's Charlotte Hornets. Michael Jordan paid $175M, the initial investment, for the team in 2010. The following year, the team lost $20M, next year lost $25M, and after that the numbers began trending upward. The franchise is currently valued at $750M. So in other words PBC's first year loss (maybe also the 2nd year too) is like buying your way into a franchise. The success of PBC will be told in time but not in the first 18 months. If you want to check out the Charlotte Bobcats numbers, google their team on Forbes. They do a great breakdown.

Sounds a bit pie in the sky at this point m8. It looks very much like a plan that didn't come off (if one wants to take the "plan" at face value). Indeed, I'm not convinced it wasn't just a continuation of what Haymon did to HBO and Sho for years, extracting overpaid amounts of money for fights that didn't warrant it, except this time he did it to a hedge fund. And it would seem that Haymon was never in it for the long haul. Once the funds get depleted, he'll move on to another and repeat the same practice of overpaying fighters in meaningless fights.

I didn't say you shouldn't judge them. I'm merely saying that every company should attempt to make the best decision at the moment they need to make that decision. As a poker player I know that when there are so many variables in play even if you play things perfectly you can have a negative outcome or just not as positive an outcome as you had hoped for. I think there is some of that in play in trying to revive boxing on regular TV. And as I also stated I do think mistakes were made, but EVERY company makes mistakes & misjudgements. Apple makes mistakes. Walmart makes mistakes. Netflix makes mistakes. Whats important is learning & surviving after those mistakes & so far PBC has done just that. What was expected? I think bringing boxing back to the mainstream was considered a long term game from the start as PBC's original plan with the strategy we do know about has stated they are going to be the irrational player in the market for several years (into the 4-5 year mark iirc) which is exactly what they have been in their first 17 months. And I don't think anyone said there would be a 6M viewer fight within 17 months or anything like that so I'm not sure how they are failing on any known expectations although its a fair assessment private expectations haven't been met, but again if you reach all your expectations your expectations are too f#cking low. It is a long term plan no doubt and still not even worth judging because their disruption to the boxing market has yet to be totally fulfilled. There s no way they went in with the plan they have not ready to absorb a lot of losses because no one starts up a business that is changing how things work in any industry expecting to print money off the rip. There is literally no way anyone involved was like lets put boxing on TV and count the profits as they roll in, anyone would know it would take time, effort and even more investment to make that money back longer term after they have a much firmer grasp on the market. Plus any start-up given money is expected to spend that money not be holding onto it even if he spent it on a matching set solid gold toilets for the office. It seems the money was spent on the product or infrastructure though which is money that needed to be spent. They could have messed up and they could fail earlier than they intended to make that call but that is how things go sometimes. PBC has made their share of mistakes like any start-up and some are inherent in their plan as you say, but they will adjust and fix things as they have to. I still don't get how they don't have a PBC mouthpiece like Danny White, it is not like Schaefer and Dibella are bad at what they do but it is not like they can create an over arching PBC voice to really push the product from the positions they currently hold.