Comments Thread For: Peter Nelson Named Executive Vice President, HBO Sports

[OnePunch]

Both. It's not vague at all smdh. Just think it through.

Some of y'all kill me.

Haymon Boxing, PBC, and Waddell are 3 different en******. If from that paragraph you can determine who the "revenue" is going to, then you must have an extra-sensory link to the author.

[IMDAZED]

Haymon Boxing, PBC, and Waddell are 3 different en******. If from that paragraph you can determine who the "revenue" is going to, then you must have an extra-sensory link to the author.

Or maybe I understand why he married those two separate things in that one sentence. But whatever. Clowns like you need Al to tell you firsthand. Because obviously, a hedge fund will give you a treasure chest, allow you to keep all the revenue that comes in until you say it's ok. Like I said, just think it through.

[Fetta]

great link, and an interesting read.

The wording of that paragraph is a little clumsy though, and open to several interpretations.

"revenue would come from the 15 percent that haymon’s company received from fighter earnings, typically beginning only after the fighter has begun to earn purses of $100,000 or more."

"revenue" for whom? Haymon? Pbc? Waddell? Its extremely vague. If the "revenue" goes to pbc, how much of an ownership stake does al have vs waddell?

But if indeed haymons percentage goes back to waddell (which im still not convinced of based on that wording) then that would certainly alter my perspective of his ambitions.....

smdh!!!!!!!!!!!

[OnePunch]

Or maybe I understand why he married those two separate things in that one sentence. But whatever. Clowns like you need Al to tell you firsthand. Because obviously, a hedge fund will give you a treasure chest, allow you to keep all the revenue that comes in until you say it's ok. Like I said, just think it through.

or maybe you just see what you want to see.

I should have known better than to think a rational conversation was possible with you. Its impossible for you to suppress your inner douchebag long enough.


One butchered sentence in a story relating something that relevant, that not one other source says, but YOUVE got it all figured out. BRAVO!

Whatever. Youre 100000% right, and clearly the smartest person I've ever met.


Peace

[Fetta]

or maybe you just see what you want to see.

I should have known better than to think a rational conversation was possible with you. Its impossible for you to suppress your inner douchebag long enough.


One butchered sentence in a story relating something that relevant, that not one other source says, but YOUVE got it all figured out. BRAVO!

Whatever. Youre 100000% right, and clearly the smartest person I've ever met.


Peace

No thats what you do.

Shown you were wrong and got upset. Went out Barcham style

[IMDAZED]

or maybe you just see what you want to see.

I should have known better than to think a rational conversation was possible with you. Its impossible for you to suppress your inner douchebag long enough.


One butchered sentence in a story relating something that relevant, that not one other source says, but YOUVE got it all figured out. BRAVO!

Whatever. Youre 100000% right, and clearly the smartest person I've ever met.


Peace

[OnePunch]

No thats what you do.

Shown you were wrong and got upset. Went out Barcham style

not likely.

You clowns cant point to a single source (other than ONE ridiculously worded sentence, which is open to MULTIPLE interpretations) to back up your claim. Not a single earnings report, anything at all showing a single Haymon Boxing commission being transferred to Waddell.

You are pretty good at patting each other on the back, and trading emoticons though.

[IMDAZED]

not likely.

You clowns cant point to a single source (other than ONE ridiculously worded sentence, which is open to MULTIPLE interpretations) to back up your claim. Not a single earnings report, anything at all showing a single Haymon Boxing commission being transferred to Waddell.

You are pretty good at patting each other on the back, and trading emoticons though.

An earnings report? An earnings report? Are you serious right now?

I guess so since you say a rerun of Cops showed a greater ROI than PBC. Did you ever find that earnings report? You have no clue what you're reading. Or saying for that matter

[OnePunch]

An earnings report? An earnings report? Are you serious right now?

I guess so since you say a rerun of Cops showed a greater ROI than PBC. Did you ever find that earnings report? You have no clue what you're reading. Or saying for that matter

Right. Probably at least 500 stories written about PBC/Haymon/Waddell, the deal got looked at up and down by countless people, multiple lawsuits filed, plenty of stories about that too, and yet, not a single solitary reference to an issue involving TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. Nope. Nobody else ever bothered to mention it.

But you find ONE single, mangled, multi-interpretational sentence in an otherwise interesting Bill King story, and you 2 clowns have it all figured out. Thats your proof. ONE non-definitive sentence in ONE story. Out of probably 500+

All I can say is WOW

[IMDAZED]

Right. Probably at least 500 stories written about PBC/Haymon/Waddell, the deal got looked at up and down by countless people, multiple lawsuits filed, plenty of stories about that too, and yet, not a single solitary reference to an issue involving TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. Nope. Nobody else ever bothered to mention it.

But you find ONE single, mangled, multi-interpretational sentence in an otherwise interesting Bill King story, and you 2 clowns have it all figured out. Thats your proof.

All I can say is WOW

It's multi-interpretational to you because you have no idea what you're talking about. You're funny to me. Talking about a return on investment on a TV show like you seriously understand how that's calculated or what it entails.

Funny how I knew exactly what that poster was referring to and could provide a link at the drop of a hat. It's one of the few things that caught my eye when I first read that article months ago because I was LOOKING FOR IT. Unfortunately, it doesn't show show the revenue split (maybe some other article does but I haven't seen it and I doubt they're that transparent based on their 3Q release) but the sentence is so straightforward even a dummy like you should be able to understand it instead of pretending it's Sanskrit. There is no connection between the money invested and Haymon's client fee unless...there is a connection. And why would there be? You'd have to have a little background to figure that out. So you can keep pretending it's so ambiguous but you won't pull that small-time BS on me, homey. I'll be here waiting for your next nonsensical post. I doubt you get past first few sentences of mine. Probably too much for you to comprehend.