Waddell investment down to the last 82M? OUT of (521M)

[Dr Rumack]

Eff Pandas -

I think it's pretty clear that Haymon's plan is to give as many networks a taste as possible so that when the rights go up for bid, he has as many interested parties as possible and the highest bidder will feel like not only are they gaining something, they're taking something away from all of their competitors.

Not to mention the incredible image boost and mainstream acceptance that comes from being on every major network imaginable. HBO paid $3 million for Tim Bradley to win the least prestigious welterweight title. The fight peaked at one million viewers.

Danny Garcia peaked at THREE AND A HALF million viewers when he won the most prestigious welterweight title. Even though Fox hadn't had prime time world championship boxing in decades. First fight right out of the gate, Danny Garcia's exposure on Fox completely obliterated the exposure you can get on HBO.

So if you're Joe Q Public. Who barely watched boxing, or never watched boxing, doesn't have HBO, etc. And over the course of 2-3 years, you keep seeing this "PBC" boxing pop up on NBC, CBS, Fox, ESPN, Spike, etc etc etc.

At some point, the fighters on those networks will be the most well known in the sport. It's simply math.



Sugar Adam -

The numbers prove that you are 100% incorrect.

Boxing was just on a random network for the first time in DECADES and *3.5 MILLION PEOPLE* were watching Danny Garcia. 3.5x what a fighter would do on HBO.

Why are you comparing premium network viewers and free tv viewers. It's not the same thing. Premium networks don't need to generate anywhere near as many viewers for a broadcast to be viable.

Big fights in the UK in the 90s could draw 10-15 million viewers (Benn-Eubank II was 16.5m) but the free tv networks still couldn't match the money being offered by the Sky Sports subscription network. And so boxing in the UK like boxing in the US migrated to where the money was.

All that matters with PBC is advertising revenue. When it comes down to it that's what will determine whether boxing on free tv has a chance or not. The stuff about fighters on free tv being the best known is nonsense because in this day and age people aren't reliant on television for news about a sport. Social media and sports blogs are just as influential and they're not going to stop talking about a boxer just because he doesn't fight for Al Haymon. Gennady Golovkin, a foreigner with pidgin English who fights on a premium network has more followers and a higher search volume than Danny Garcia.




If PBC works it will be because the advertising revenue makes it work. That's what you should be focusing on if you want to make a business case for the venture. Not this fantasy stuff about a future where mediocre talent overshadows real charisma and star power just because it's on PBC. A star will be a star no matter what network they're on.

[original zero]

Dr Rumack -

A poster wrote that PBC has no recognition outside of hardcore fans.

But when 3.5x as many people are watching PBC as are watching HBO, that would clearly suggest that PBC is far more well known than any of you are giving them credit for.

Tim Bradley is a big HBO and PPV "star" and yet Danny Garcia has twice as many twitter followers.

Why? Because he keeps fighting on channels that everybody gets!

Haymon is trying to establish the NFL or UFC of boxing. Mainstream acceptance is the name of the game. And there is literally no better way to gain mainstream acceptance than to be on the biggest networks.

So those claiming PBC should have only been on one channel are completely ignoring several critical elements of Haymon's plan.

[bigdunny1]

Why are you comparing PBC on network ratings to premium cable? Idiotic comparison seeing how HBO is only in 1/3rd the amount of homes and is a entirely different business model. Need to compared PBC ratings to its competitors for those channels and PBC content to similar content on those channels and times. When you do that you will see how terrible the ratings are. These networks getter better ratings from cheaper content. So why the hell is any network going to pay for PBC which loses millions each event they air? PBC is not building the ratings on every network is trending down. The NBC ratings have dropped each show and bottomed out at 1.8 viewers. They just debuted on FOX and it did 33% less viewers then PBC debuted on NBC. So They are starting at a lower point then NBC did. UFC debuted on FOX with like a 6 or 7m viewers and UFC is cheaper to air then PBC. But PBC could only debut with a 2.2m overnight rating on FOX. why would fox pay for a inferior performing product that is actually more expensive to produce?

Spike,ESPN, NBC, CBS all saw weak PBC ratings and all trending down. PBC on spike get less ratings on avg then reuns of Cops that air same day and time. ESPN saw PBC beat out in ratings head to head to WNBA or ESPN2. They running out of cash burning through hundreds of millions in less then 1 year and no network will pay for this garbage when they can find cheaper content that will get better ratings. HBO top new show last year was Ballers with The Rock maybe the biggest movie star right now. That show Avg only 1.7m viewers sat night yet the show was a massive success generating millions for HBO and picked up for season 2 instantly. If a network show avg that many viewers that's terrible and they get canceled. PBC having 1 show since they started that cracked 3m viewers in not a success and the fact you have compare it to HBO shows how bad it really is. Apple to apple comparisons to Network programming shows how big PBC failures are.

[bigdunny1]

UFC just aired on FOX this weekend same time slot as PBC did and pulled a higher overnight rating then PBC debuted on FOX the week before. But look how cheap UFC pays it's fighters

http://mma-manifesto.com/ufc-fighter...ance-gate.html

All the fighters combined make less then PBC just paid Danny Garcia alone. Salaries in the tens of thousands. While both Garcia and Guerrero made over 1 mil each. And PBC using Danny it's biggest name and still can't get high ratings. UFC airing it's preliminary and under card fights. Putting it's C and D level fighters and blowing away PBC shows with their A level fighters. Also UFC makes money at the gate. Sell more tickets and releases their live gate generated amounts. PBC attendance is terrible they forced to give mass amounts of free tickets away which is why they refuse to release their live gate figures because they are pathetic and prove how many free tickets they give away. It's a business model that PBC can not sustain and too expensive for this to last and not successful enough in pulling ratings to offset these losses. That's how you blow through hundreds of millions in such a short time by paying guys like Lara who have no fanbase 1mil to fight tomato cans in a rainy tent in front of 100 fans.

In other word stop comparing this PBC mess to UFC. At every step and every comparable UFC blows PBC away in terms of profit, ratings, ect. UFC generated avg ratings of 1.7m on spike to warrant a network deal from fox. PBC on spike avg about 500k viewers. Yet idiots think PBC will get the same TV deal as UFC. With lower ratings and more the triple the cost to produce these fights LMAO

[original zero]

Big Dunny -

As I already expained, I'm comparing the number of PBC viewers to the number of HBO viewers because because Sugar Adam said PBC has no recognition outside of hardcore fans. Danny Garcia had 3.5x more people watch him than watched Tim Bradley and Danny Garcia has twice as many Twitter followers as Tim Bradley.

Bradley has been an HBO and pay-per-view staple for years. HBO was boxing's biggest outlet, so for decades, HBO was the most effective platform for building stars. That model is being turned upside down though because PBC is now slowly becoming the most effective platform for building stars because so many more people are watching the PBC fights.

You say that the PBC ratings are terrible, but more people watched PBC on FOX last week than watched UFC on FOX on this week. FOX pays a hundred million a year for UFC. PBC wants a hundred million a year too. More people are watching PBC than are watching UFC. HBO was only paying $30 million a year and Haymon had to split that pie with Top Rank, Main Events, Golden Boy and whoever else.

If he can create a $100 million pie, that he controls, he'll be unstoppable. Even if he has to lose a ***BILLION*** dollars to facilitate the landscape he's trying to create.

What UFC and PBC pay their fighters is irrelevant. FOX isn't paying the fighters' salaries. FOX is paying for the content. If PBC can land a major TV deal, that pays far more than what HBO was paying, it's a huge win for Haymon. It doesn't matter if UFC is making even more. You don't become allergic to money just because somebody else is making more than you. If you're making more than you were making before, UFC's profit has nothing to do with anything.

HBO is paying $30 million for boxing. FOX is paying $100 million for UFC. Even with Haymon dominating HBO, what would his cut of the pie be? $20 million?

He's trying to grow the business beyond that. Even if he only ends up with a $65 million TV deal (half way between HBO & UFC), he's in a much better position than before.

Haymon is in the leverage business. HBO had all of the power before. A portion of a $30 million business is a joke to Haymon. If you know his history and the kind of money he generated, you know that he would have never even gotten into boxing if all he was going to end up with was $20 million a year in TV licensing fees for his fights. Go big or go home.

As long as PBC continues to draw 2-3 million viewers on average on Saturday nights, Haymon will get a TV deal that far exceeds what HBO pays for boxing. Nothing that you've presented indicates that he won't be able to do that. The status quo had a low ceiling. He's trying to kick through that ceiling and so far he's succeeding.

You say that PBC's ratings are "terrible" (your words), even though more people watched PBC than watched UFC. UFC gets paid WAY more for TV than HBO pays for boxing. So why wouldn't Haymon do whatever it takes to break out of the HBO bubble and go where the REAL money is: network TV?

[bigdunny1]

Big Dunny -

As I already expained, I'm comparing the number of PBC viewers to the number of HBO viewers because because Sugar Adam said PBC has no recognition outside of hardcore fans. Danny Garcia had 3.5x more people watch him than watched Tim Bradley and Danny Garcia has twice as many Twitter followers as Tim Bradley.

That means nothing. Thurman did higher TV viewers on the PBC debut on NBC and his very next fight he drew only 4k fans in attendance and horrible TV ratings on ESPN. Wilder/Broner/Quillin/Jacobs and numerous other Haymon fighters are doing WORSE ratings now that they are going back to Showtime then what they did on Showtime BEFORE appearing on PBC. Again highlighting how PBC have done little to nothing to improve their recognition outside of hardcore fans. Comparing to HBO ratings is flawed no matter how you spin it. 2.2m overnight rating on FOX is terrible for Network prime time if that were a Premium cable rating then that would be different but premium cable is in 1/3rd the amount of homes as FOX. If you are on FOX it's a given you should be doing higher ratings then HBO they are not even competitors. FOX competitors are CBS, NBC, ABC and that's who you need to compare the ratings to

Bradley has been an HBO and pay-per-view staple for years. HBO was boxing's biggest outlet, so for decades, HBO was the most effective platform for building stars. That model is being turned upside down though because PBC is now slowly becoming the most effective platform for building stars because so many more people are watching the PBC fights.

How is PBC effective? They are losing hundreds of millions and casual fans still either don't know what PBC is or don't care. The TV ratings reflect that.

You say that the PBC ratings are terrible, but more people watched PBC on FOX last week than watched UFC on FOX on this week. FOX pays a hundred million a year for UFC. PBC wants a hundred million a year too. More people are watching PBC than are watching UFC. HBO was only paying $30 million a year and Haymon had to split that pie with Top Rank, Main Events, Golden Boy and whoever else.

NO that's a lie the overnight rating on PBC for FOX DEBUT was 2.2mil. The overnight rating for UFC this weekend was 2.4mil

http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/article...1-23-2016.html

http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/article...1-30-2016.html

And why are you comparing the LOW WATER mark for UFC to the debut of PBC on FOX? Why aren't you comparing what UFC debuted on FOX to what PBC debuted on FOX because you almost always pull higher ratings in your debut then the ratings level off. The reason you not doing this is because you know damn well FOX debut for UFC was 3X that of PBC. Also you keep ignoring that PBC debuted 33% higher ratings on NBC. So forget UFC for a second why are the PBC ratings down when they just had a huge launch on a new channel with a huge ads during NFL Playoff games?

If he can create a $100 million pie, that he controls, he'll be unstoppable. Even if he has to lose a ***BILLION*** dollars to facilitate the landscape he's trying to create.

How is he getting a 100mil contract when the ratings are terrible and don't compare to what UFC debuted on FOX or what UFC drew on SpikeTV to warrant the contract in the first place? You living in fantasy land if you think an inferior product that has produced far less then UFC is going to get the same contract UFC got

What UFC and PBC pay their fighters is irrelevant. FOX isn't paying the fighters' salaries. FOX is paying for the content. If PBC can land a major TV deal, that pays far more than what HBO was paying, it's a huge win for Haymon. It doesn't matter if UFC is making even more. You don't become allergic to money just because somebody else is making more than you. If you're making more than you were making before, UFC's profit has nothing to do with anything.

Are you an idiot of course what they pay for the fighters and how much the product costs to produce is relevant. What PBC is paying to produce it's shows is unsustainable and causing them to hemorrhage funds and right now they are paying for it. They want a network to come in and pay for it. So why is a network going to pay for something that is losing too much money because the production costs are too expensive. Networks can find cheaper programming that performs as good or better then PBC. They will invest their money in cheaper content which results in more profitable and lower risk.

HBO is paying $30 million for boxing. FOX is paying $100 million for UFC. Even with Haymon dominating HBO, what would his cut of the pie be? $20 million?

Get it through your head buddy they ain't getting a 100 mil contract from any network when their programming cost 3X that of UFC and still get's worse ratings with their debut then UFC's lowest ratings. How has PBC dominated HBO when HBO had an increase in TV ratings in 2015 while PBC flopped in 2015 and set a dumpster fire to it's investor's money? HBO = profitable. PBC = so far in the red that they are not even promised to be around next year because they are running out of money and have no TV deal.

He's trying to grow the business beyond that. Even if he only ends up with a $65 million TV deal (half way between HBO & UFC), he's in a much better position than before.

Haymon is in the leverage business. HBO had all of the power before. A portion of a $30 million business is a joke to Haymon. If you know his history and the kind of money he generated, you know that he would have never even gotten into boxing if all he was going to end up with was $20 million a year in TV licensing fees for his fights. Go big or go home.

We know what he tried to do the problem is he hasn't done jack yet but steal his investors money. There are tons of business men with a better track record then Haymon who still made bad moves and had epic failures on deals. He swindled a ton of money and has shown no return on their investment. The writings on the wall for PBC to fold. And you keep quoting these TV deals when we have seen nothing to suggest he will get anything once his money runs out.

As long as PBC continues to draw 2-3 million viewers on average on Saturday nights, Haymon will get a TV deal that far exceeds what HBO pays for boxing. Nothing that you've presented indicates that he won't be able to do that. The status quo had a low ceiling. He's trying to kick through that ceiling and so far he's succeeding.

Continues? There is only 1 show that has cracked 3mil and that was the debut on NBC a year ago. EVERY show since on NBC has seen ratings plummet and the last card did 1.8mil on NBC. His new debut on FOX did WORSE then NBC debuted. You are quoting numbers he can't deliver and the TV ratings on every network PBC is on has fallen like a cliff from the first half of last year to second half. Based on the trends we have seen from PBC the FOX ratings you saw at 2.2 are likely the highest they will get. Since all others have fallen the longer it goes on

You say that PBC's ratings are "terrible" (your words), even though more people watched PBC than watched UFC. UFC gets paid WAY more for TV than HBO pays for boxing. So why wouldn't Haymon do whatever it takes to break out of the HBO bubble and go where the REAL money is: network TV?

Not my words compare PBC on any network it's on you choose now go look at that networks competitors or to that own networks comparable programming. When you look at the numbers you see a bloodbath and it makes it worse when you consider PBC is far more expensive then all those other programs it loses to in ratings.

[original zero]

Big Dunny's logic is incredibly flawed and his arguments are extremely dishonest. I know that he is a troll, but some fans might be confused by his posts and not realize he is full of it. So I'm going to explain why Big Dunny is misleading the community.

In post #264, he states that PBC's ratings are terrible. In post #266, I pointed out that he used the word "terrible" to describe PBC on FOX ratings that were more successful than UFC on FOX ratings a week later.

Then in post #267, he denies that those were his words! That is the kind of idiot we are dealing with. You quote his post and in the same thread, where his words are still sitting there and easily verifiable, he denies that he said it! Unless he's claiming his account was hacked, then he's blatantly lying.

Worse, rather than compare the most recent PBC on FOX & UFC on FOX ratings, he insists on comparing the most recent PBC ratings to the UFC ratings from YEARS ago. He then criticizes PBC for having lower ratings than their debut last year, even though the UFC ratings he's quoting have fallen off a cliff since the debut years ago.

There is no logic or consistency to any of Dunny's arguments (hence the nickname Big Dummy).

Then, for some bizarre reason, even though FOX isn't paying for the fighters, he believes FOX won't pay comporable money for comporable ratings because PBC has to pay more for their fighters than UFC does . . .

HUH?!? FOX cares about THEIR wallet, not Al Haymon's.

Then Dunny insists that fans don't know what PBC is, even though PBC just did more viewers than UFC and 350% more viewers than HBO.

So if nobody knows what PBC is, why did 3.5 million people watch Danny Garcia's fight?!?

Of course, Dunny has no answer for this.

Dunny says if you compare PBC to comporable programming that it's a "bloodbath," yet when you compare PBC to comporable programming (UFC on FOX the week after), the number of viewers was nearly identical.

So unless Dunny is also claiming UFC's ratings are terrible, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

And if UFC's "terrible" ratings are worth a hundred million to a network and boxing is only worth 30 million to HBO, why wouldn't PBC be able to get a TV deal worth somewhere in between?

[bigdunny1]

I'll break it down so even a simple re tard like you can understand. UFC got the FOX 100mil because it avg 1.7 mil viewers on Spike TV for a relatively cheap product to produce and FOX assumed that by moving a great performing brand from basic cable to network TV the ratings would jump up. And it did debuting at about 6million viewers.

Had UFC been drawing weak 0.5 avg viewers on SPIKE would Fox of given them the same 100mil tv deal? If their production costs were 3X more expensive and resulted in them losing hundreds of millions in less then 1 year time would FOX give them a 100mil TV deal to pay for those production costs that make no business sense? Instead of guessing what UFC would avg once they made the jump to FOX if they didn't debut well and pulled a 2.2mil viewers their first show on FOX would FOX of given them a 100mil TV deal? NO they wouldn't and that's what PBC has done in 1 year time which doesn't mirror anything UFC did to get their TV deal from FOX.

You are comparing the low water mark for UFC bench marks to the high mark and debut for PBC. I get it you are twisting the numbers to try and make the situation which is bleak for PBC to look better then it is. But only an idiot compares PBC debut on FOX to the worst UFC rating and ignoring UFC's debut on FOX which smokes PBC or the fact that UFC did 3X the ratings on Spike TV to sucker FOX into giving them 100mil. None of that exists for PBC who debuted like crap and based on the history of PBC on every network it's on that's likely the best they will get. And oh yeah PBC pays it's fighters in the millions and uses it's A level fighters while UFC pays guys in the thousands and airs their preliminary and undercard fights and still the low water mark years later on FOX still beats PBC's best ratings. So why would FOX ever pay a dime for PBC when they are already in the fight game with UFC which draws better ratings and is cheaper to produce? Why is Spike going to pay for PBC when it draws 1/3 what UFC did and less then their other content that they air on their channel at a fraction of the cost that PBC operates at? Why is ESPN going to pay for PBC when it gets less ratings the WNBA or ESPN2 and they can go back to producing friday night fights at a fraction of the cost? The answer is they wouldn't because networks aren't in the business of losing millions on a p iss poor performing product that cost too much money to maintain when there is cheaper options for programming.

The fact that the investors money for PBC is almost dried up this quick tells you how bad things are for PBC. All we heard last year from idiots like you was the money was so deep that they could operate for 2 years at these losses before they needed a TV deal. Yet less then a year in they are closer to folding then they are to getting any TV deal let alone a fantasy 100mil deal by an idiot comparing this to UFC when every measurable possible shows you how these 2 products are not operating the same way. UFC had a winning formula with low costs, 1 network time buy, then got the Spike deal killed it in ratings and turned that to FOX Tv deal. PBC went nuts buying too many network time buys, got terrible ratings on all of them, lost hundreds of millions and now are running out of money to the point they can't even afford their 2 biggest fights to date to air under the PBC brand. Jacobs vs Quillin and Thurman vs Porter both announced as PBC fights last fall. Neither will be PBC fights both sent to Showtime to produce those fights because they can't afford it. There are less future events scheduled for PBC right now then at any point since they launched. All Haymons big name fighters are moving to Showtime. But since you dumb enough to compare FOX ratings to HBO ratings even though FOX could care less about HBO and vice versa they are no competing networks, every thing must be ok. HBO competes with Showtime and other premium networks who don't have advertisers and are only in 1/3 of the homes that FOX is in while FOX compares to CBS, NBC and ABC other networks who need to attract advertisers. PBC goal is not to get higher ratings then HBO that should be a given if you on Network and Cable tv and not a sign of success. PBC goal is to get higher ratings then FOX competition, or Spike competition, or ESPN competition ect. And in that they failed.

PBC is has no TV deal no brand recognition and has a business model that makes no sense for any network to buy it.

[original zero]

If the facts were on your side, you wouldn't be resorting to petty name calling. I make my full time living in the combat sports industry and have done so for nearly two decades. I'm very confident that my level of intelligence and experience far exceeds yours and I will continue to prove it by exposing the flaws in your logic.

I am not twisting any numbers. PBC has been on network TV for a year now. I compared their most recent numbers to UFC's most recent numbers. PBC was a bigger success. You specifically wrote that PBc's ratings were "terrible." Then you lied and claimed you didn't say they were terrible.

But if PBC's ratings are terrible, what does that make UFC's ratings?

And unless you believe that UFC's next TV deal will be for less than $20 million a year, isn't it reasonable to believe that PBC's next TV deal will be for more than what Haymon was receiving from HBO?

You have no idea how much money PBC has spent and you have no idea how much money they have coming in. You really don't have any idea about anything, other than accidentally posting ratings that countered your own argument. Which was pretty funny.

Look, you're a fan, I get it. Like whatever you like. But 3.5 million people just watched Danny Garcia's fight and a network will pay for a sports league that attracts that level of viewership.

Will they pay enough to justify what Haymon pays Danny Garcia? Maybe not, but they'll pay more than HBO was paying and once Haymon controls everything, he'll be able to pay fighters whatever he wants. If you don't see the end game here, that's your problem, not mine. The numbers prove that you are 100% incorrect when you say the ratings are "terrible," which is why you lied about it afterward.

[bigdunny1]

If the facts were on your side, you wouldn't be resorting to petty name calling. I make my full time living in the combat sports industry and have done so for nearly two decades. I'm very confident that my level of intelligence and experience far exceeds yours and I will continue to prove it by exposing the flaws in your logic.

I am not twisting any numbers. PBC has been on network TV for a year now. I compared their most recent numbers to UFC's most recent numbers. PBC was a bigger success. You specifically wrote that PBc's ratings were "terrible." Then you lied and claimed you didn't say they were terrible.

But if PBC's ratings are terrible, what does that make UFC's ratings?

And unless you believe that UFC's next TV deal will be for less than $20 million a year, isn't it reasonable to believe that PBC's next TV deal will be for more than what Haymon was receiving from HBO?

You have no idea how much money PBC has spent and you have no idea how much money they have coming in. You really don't have any idea about anything, other than accidentally posting ratings that countered your own argument. Which was pretty funny.

Look, you're a fan, I get it. Like whatever you like. But 3.5 million people just watched Danny Garcia's fight and a network will pay for a sports league that attracts that level of viewership.

Will they pay enough to justify what Haymon pays Danny Garcia? Maybe not, but they'll pay more than HBO was paying and once Haymon controls everything, he'll be able to pay fighters whatever he wants. If you don't see the end game here, that's your problem, not mine. The numbers prove that you are 100% incorrect when you say the ratings are "terrible," which is why you lied about it afterward.

Dude answer the question if UFC produced the same ratings PBC has gotten on SpikeTV would they of gotten 100mil TV deal from FOX? So why the F would FOX pay 100mil to PBC for worse bench marks then UFC did to earn thier TV deal despite the fact that PBC is far more expensive product? I don't care one bit about about UFC or their next deal I don't even watch MMA I'm a boxing fan. But I know UFC is a better business model and the numbers prove it. UFC suckered FOX into a 100 mil deal based on amazing TV ratings on Spike. Whether FOX looks dumb today now that the ratings from FOX fell from 6mil viewers to 2.5mil viewers 4 years later is on them. I do know if organization A got 100mil by doing triple the TV viewers of organization B why would you think organization B will get that same 100mil for less results? Let alone the fact that FOX didn't force UFC to do a time buy first to prove itself and watched them fail out gate with a debut of 2.2mil. Stop throwing around the peak rating like that means something. Advertisers care about the entire rating for the time slot which did a overnight 2.2 ratings. You think 3.5 peak for maybe 1 round in the Garcia fight impresses networks? Dude UFC peaked at 8.8 million viewers on their FOX debut. Whatever numbers you want to play with the comparable to UFC don't match up.

And if PBC is growing and doing well why are there less PBC events scheduled right now then at any time since PBC launched? Just around the same time of reports that the money from the investors is almost all gone. And why is PBC unable to afford Thurman vs Porter and Jacobs vs Quillin and sending these 2 fights that PBC were promising for months are no longer PBC? Twist it however you want the writing is on wall you hearing stories of them flushing hundreds of millions down the drain in 2015, stories they running out of money earlier then anticipated, and they can't afford the production costs of some of these fights so they going to showtime, and less events scheduled despite the time buys already paid for, the ratings on all networks that air PBC are trending down are bad compared to those networks time slots and network competition. Things are crumbled around and you talking about TV deals like UFC got when this crap likely won't even be around by 2017 with these kinds of losses they are taking. Keep dreaming that some network is going to give them a TV deal and wipe all these problems away. Networks don't give programs that lose money like this a TV deal just out of charity.