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

[OnePunch]

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.

The fact that you have a highly over inflated sense of your own intellect is no surprise, but you are simply making **** up to suit your own agenda.

Fact: you cant find a single solitary source to back up your claim that Haymons management fees are being kicked back in their entirety to Waddell.

And even sifting through the Top Rank vs Haymon documents, all those indicate is that there are a half dozen or so different en******, (Haymon Boxing LLC; Haymon Sports LLC; Haymon Holdings, LLC; Waddell and Reed Financial Inc.; Media Group Holdings, LLC; Alan Haymon Development, Inc.; Waddell & Reed Investment Management Co.; Ivy Investment Management Co.), all somewhat intertwined, and that a few Waddell guys have board seats on the Haymon Companies, with veto power.

Nobody that I'm aware if has a copy of the "Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement" executed between Haymon and Waddell, so nobody has a clue what the revenue splits are between them, yet you idiots want to claim that Haymon isnt making a dime off his management fees?? Sure, I believe that. LOL


and as for ROI on advertising, I was taking a literary shortcut I figured you could follow. My bad. EVERY ad spot is priced relative to the ratings. You dont pay 50k for a 30 second spot during a show that is pulling a .2 rating. And demo excluded, dollar for dollar, COPS is a better ad buy than PBC is. Thats simply a fact.

[IMDAZED]

The fact that you have a highly over inflated sense of your own intellect is no surprise, but you are simply making **** up to suit your own agenda.

Fact: you cant find a single solitary source to back up your claim that Haymons management fees are being kicked back in their entirety to Waddell.

And even sifting through the Top Rank vs Haymon documents, all those indicate is that there are a half dozen or so different en******, (Haymon Boxing LLC; Haymon Sports LLC; Haymon Holdings, LLC; Waddell and Reed Financial Inc.; Media Group Holdings, LLC; Alan Haymon Development, Inc.; Waddell & Reed Investment Management Co.; Ivy Investment Management Co.), all somewhat intertwined, and that a few Waddell guys have board seats on the Haymon Companies, with veto power.

Nobody that I'm aware if has a copy of the "Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement" executed between Haymon and Waddell, so nobody has a clue what the revenue splits are between them, yet you idiots want to claim that Haymon isnt making a dime off his management fees?? Sure, I believe that. LOL


and as for ROI on advertising, I was taking a literary shortcut I figured you could follow. My bad. EVERY ad spot is priced relative to the ratings. You dont pay 50k for a 30 second spot that nobody is watching. And demo excluded, dollar for dollar, COPS is a better ad buy than PBC is. Thats simply a fact.

There's so much nonsense here I don't even know where to begin.

The fact that there are several en****** is irrelevant to the quote in discussion. Strawman #1

I never said Haymon isn't making a dime off his management fees. We said the author doesn't provide the split. Strawman #2

You have provided no facts regarding whether COPS (on what channel? What day? When? Compared to what? Which ratings? Which release?) is a better ad buy than PBC except to say it's fact because you say so. Strawman #3

Go on

[OnePunch]

There's so much nonsense here I don't even know where to begin.

The fact that there are several en****** is irrelevant to the quote in discussion. Strawman #1

I never said Haymon isn't making a dime off his management fees. We said the author doesn't provide the split. Strawman #2

You have provided no facts regarding whether COPS (on what channel? What day? When? Compared to what? Which ratings? Which release?) is a better ad buy than PBC except to say it's fact because you say so. Strawman #3

Go on

Complete BULL****

The entire reason for this dialog was the other poster saying that Haymon doesnt make a dime off his fees because they all go to Waddell.

I said I had never heard that, and would love to see a source.

You then had to stick your nose in, and provided a link to supposedly back up what the other poster said.

Except thats not what your link does. It doesnt back up his claim. Not even close. The "split", if there even is one, could be 99-1 Haymons way. You dont know. You havent the slightest idea. Yet you run your mouth like you're on Haymons Board of Ds

Maybe you should just go do a couple of 8 balls and watch "Wolf of Wall Street" for the 67th time.

[IMDAZED]

Complete BULL****

The entire reason for this dialog was the other poster saying that Haymon doesnt make a dime off his fees because they all go to Waddell.

I said I had never heard that, and would love to see a source.

You then had to stick your nose in, and provided a link to supposedly back up what the other poster said.

Except thats not what your link does. It doesnt back up his claim. Not even close. The "split", if there even is one, could be 99-1 Haymons way. You dont know. You havent the slightest idea. Yet you run your mouth like you're on Haymons Board of Ds

Maybe you should just go do a couple of 8 balls and watch "Wolf of Wall Street" for the 67th time.

Really? Maybe you should go back and read my posts

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.

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.

Are you done? Please, keep going.

[Eff Pandas]

Why would the commission be transferred to Waddell & Reed? They invested in Haymon's management company. The commission goes to Haymon's management company, which Waddell & Reed happens to own an unknown percentage of.

Bruh I didn't say that. You are quoting OnePunch's post as me.

[OnePunch]

Really? Maybe you should go back and read my posts

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.

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.

Are you done? Please, keep going.

nice try chump, but you only put that in 3 posts ago.

Edit: my bad, post 142. So 6 posts ago lol


but fine, whatever man. Youre right. Youre so smart. You got it all figured.


peace

[IMDAZED]

nice try chump, but you only put that in 3 posts ago.

Edit: my bad, post 142. So 6 posts ago lol


but fine, whatever man. Youre right. Youre so smart. You got it all figured.


peace

Only three posts ago? As in, it's been there but you didn't read it?

[OnePunch]

I really don't understand what's being argued about.

Waddell & Reed invested in Haymon's management company. They acquired an UNDISCLOSED stake in the company.

The commission from fighter purses would be company revenue. A private company, the ownership split of which is not public knowledge and none of our business.

But the argument over who gets the commissions is silly. Obviously the management fees belong to the management company.

Technically Waddell did not invest in Haymon's management company. Through several different funds, they bought shares of Media Group Holdings, which holds an unknown stake in one or more of Haymons companies. Its all about as clear as a Bejing sky

The argument itself though was pretty simple:

1. Another poster claimed Haymon gets zero of the management fees, and they all go to Waddell.

2. I said I doubted that, and would like to see a source.

3. IMDAZED stuck his big snout in, and posted a link, but the only relevant thing in the link was vague and open to interpretation, and didnt indicate exactly WHERE the management fees went, and in what percentages.

4. IMDAZED claimed that no, it wasnt vague, and only smart people like himself knew which entity the money went to. (Yet in truth he hasnt the slightest idea which entity the money goes to, if its split, and if it is split how it is divided)

5. I searched a bit and was unable to find ANY corroborating evidence to support the theory of management fees reverting to Waddell, and even their pleadings in the Top Rank case Waddell is playing down their involvement, and the Amended LLC Agreement between Haymon and Waddell was not available for review. Maybe if either the TR or the GB lawsuits get far enough, that Agreement will be available in discovery. Until then, its all just speculation.

6. Meanwhile, mr big shot gordon gekko can only throw more insults, and no facts, and then of course backtracks and claims the Q3 is too vague to determine anything. Yet up to this moment he has been asserting that the fees go to Waddell.

I suggested he go do some blow and watch "Wolf of Wall Street for the 87th time. Maybe thats what he did lol


That about sums it up.......

[IMDAZED]

Technically Waddell did not invest in Haymon's management company. Through several different funds, they bought shares of Media Group Holdings, which holds an unknown stake in one or more of Haymons companies. Its all about as clear as a Bejing sky

The argument itself though was pretty simple:

1. Another poster claimed Haymon gets zero of the management fees, and they all go to Waddell.

2. I said I doubted that, and would like to see a source.

3. IMDAZED stuck his big snout in, and posted a link, but the only relevant thing in the link was vague and open to interpretation, and didnt indicate exactly WHERE the management fees went, and in what percentages.

4. IMDAZED claimed that no, it wasnt vague, and only smart people like himself knew which entity the money went to. (Yet in truth he hasnt the slightest idea which entity the money goes to, if its split, and if it is split how it is divided)

5. I searched a bit and was unable to find ANY corroborating evidence to support the theory of management fees reverting to Waddell, and even their pleadings in the Top Rank case Waddell is playing down their involvement, and the Amended LLC Agreement between Haymon and Waddell was not available for review. Maybe if either the TR or the GB lawsuits get far enough, that Agreement will be available in discovery. Until then, its all just speculation.

6. Meanwhile, mr big shot gordon gekko can only throw more insults, and no facts, and then of course backtracks and claims the Q3 is too vague to determine anything. Yet up to this moment he has been asserting that the fees go to Waddell.

I suggested he go do some blow and watch "Wolf of Wall Street for the 87th time. Maybe thats what he did lol


That about sums it up.......

Oh is that how you saw it? Lol, funny guy. No need to recount, the posts are right there. All can read and decide, not that it matters to me. Don't be so sore.

[OnePunch]

Oh is that how you saw it? Lol, funny guy. No need to recount, the posts are right there. All can read and decide, not that it matters to me. Don't be so sore.

On that point, we agree 100%.