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

[bigdunny1]

Like Haymon has always done, he's outsmarted everybody every step of the way. Dangling big money to these networks, promising to pay dollar X per event, but having NO OBLIGATION to run all of those events and getting the exclusive on the network regardless. If Haymon never runs ESPN again, he still kept everybody else off the network. If he never runs Spike again, he still kept everybody else off the network.

And he will run on those channels again, but the point is that there was a reason he had to run so many events at first and doesn't need to now.

Dunny then references "stories they running out of money" [sic]. Stories with no basis in reality. Just fanboy fantasy speculation. He then lies and says ratings are trending downward, even though PBC just did their biggest rating since April.

Hmmmm . . . let's think about that. January 2016 was the biggest rating since April 2015. If the ratings are trending down, how is that possible? How can PBC score their highest rating of the last 9 months if the ratings are going down?

ARE YOU REALLY THIS DUMB? PBC just debuted on a new network of course it's going to do better ratings then most of their shows BECAUSE most of the shows since then have aired on BASIC cable! The fact this show was the first on FOX should of guaranteed the best NON basic cable ratings. BUT it wasn't. The only ratings you can compare to FOX would be the NBC ratings everything else aired on cable. But here are the NBC prime time ratings since they debuted last year

NBC
3.4 - March
2.9 - April
2.3 - June
2.2 - Sept
1.8 - Dec

They just debuted on a NEW NETWORK STATION and once again you trying to compare it to NBC's worst ratings rather then NBC's debut which was 3.4. FOX just did 2.2 for it's debut so how is it trending up when it's starting at a 33% decrease from what NBC started at? And it's tied with the SECOND worst performance on NBC only better then the last show which did 1.8. AND THIS IS A DEBUT ON A NEW STATION. And NBC is not the only station that saw a downward trend in the ratings. Let's look at the basic cable numbers shall we.

ESPN first 3 PBC shows did avg 1.0 ratings. THE NEXT 3 SHOWS AVG 0.45 RATING. Finished with a avg of 0.7 for the entire year. ESPN2 avg 0.4 rating for Friday Night Fights which paid like 15K for their fighter purses. Stiverne vs Arreola on ESPN pulled a 0.94 ratings and COST a fraction of what PBC paid Thurman or Garcia to fight on ESPN. So why will they buy PBC?

Spike PBC debuted with a 0.86 rating the highest of the entire year. First 3 cards avg 0.7 ratings. THE NEXT 6 CARDS AVG 0.39 RATING. Finished with a avg of 0.5 for the entire year. UFC for comparison did avg 1.7 ratings on SPIKE. Bellator on SPIKE get's a avg of 0.56 ratings which operates at a fraction of the cost of PBC. So why will they buy PBC?

FS1 is actually the ONLY exception where the ratings didn't fall off a complete cliff from the first half to second. But that's only because they debuted with a horrible 0.18 rating didn't have far to fall it's been pretty consistently bad all year. Finished with a avg of 0.16 rating. Comparison Golden Boy live before PBC bought the air time on FS1 did the EXACT same 0.16 rating on FS1 paying guys 1/10 the amount PBC is. Again why will they buy PBC?

Do you see a trend here? All stations were bad and only an idiot compares the BASIC cable ratings to a NETWORK like FOX. Only comparable for FOX is NBC and even when you compare it to NBC to you see that it debuted far less then NBC and only 1 card on NBC all last year performed worse. So yes Phuk Boy the ratings are bad and trending down.

How can PBC have just scored their second best quarter hour rating ever if the ratings are going down?

Why the hell are you looking at only a quarter hour rating instead of looking at the entire PBC block? Oh yeah I know because the entire block rating ******. 2.2 overnight ratings but you want to just take the highest 30 mins of it and act like the rest didn't exist. Again trying to compare the high water mark to a low water mark to try and slap lip stick on this pig. Sorry advertisers look at the ENTIRE 2 hour block PBC just bought on FOX not just the BEST 30 mins you want to prop up. This is the type of child I am dealing with. LMAO

The truth is that PBC ratings started high for the debut, like most new TV shows, started to stabilize, like most new TV shows, and now the ratings are shooting back up.

They are not shooting back up they simply debuted on a new station at a lower TV rating then the only comparable station PBC is on...NBC. 33% less!

Dunny offers no explanation though for why the ratings are shooting back up. He also offers no explanation for why, out of all of the networks out there, one of them wouldn't bite on PBC if it's doing the same ratings as UFC and UFC's deal is $100 million a year.

Again they aren't shooting back up this loser is simply comparing FOX ratings to Spike/ESPN/FS1 (basic cable stations that are in about 30-40% less homes then FOX or NBC and don't get near the same amount of viewers as NETWORK tv). When you compare FOX's 2.2 debut rating to NBC they are significantly down from.

That's because his argument has no basis in reality. He says PBC's ratings are terrible (then lies about it), says FOX made a terrible deal with UFC, etc. According to Dunny, everything is terrible. Everybody is doing terribly.

But last I checked, any live sport that can generate millions of viewers manages to land a TV deal. Yet Dunny lives in some fantasy world where FOX pays $100 million for one rating, but NOBODY will pay even a fraction of that for the same rating.

How strange.

I know this thread is long and I know Dunny is throwing around a lot of numbers, but when you analyze what he's saying, it's very clear that he's trying to fool the community. The facts do not support his premise. UFC & PBC were on FOX, back to back, and did the same rating.

PBC will land a TV deal. That is guaranteed.

How big of a deal it lands is anyone's guess, but as long as it's more than what HBO was giving Haymon, this was a smart move.

No network is going to pay for PBC when it get's the CRAPPY TV RATINGS I just posted especially when it operates at ridiculous cost more then comparable programming options for those networks. And only an idiot will tell you that even though PBC paid for air time on all these channels they simply don't want to use it. It has nothing to do with the drop in ratings, or the stories that they are running out of money or the fact that fights that get announced as PBC get shipped to Showtime. PBC is hemorrhaging money and failing in the ratings but butt boy thinks a network will swoop in and pay them hundreds of millions and take on the risk of losing their own money like PBC has already lost when they are funding it themselves. Sorry don't buy it. Networks give TV deals to far cheaper content that performs better then this train wreck does.

[original zero]

Since Dunny won't quit, I hope you guys don't mind me continuing to point out his logical fallacies. Dunny's strategy is to make his posts so long and so difficult to read that he hopes people won't bother to pay close enough attention to figure out how flawed his logic is. So let me simplify it for everyone:


#1 - Dunny tried to compare UFC on Spike (Spike was UFC's #1 outlet) to PBC on Spike (Spike was PBC's #5 or #6 outlet).

Obviously it would make far more sense to compare UFC's #1 outlet to PBC's #1 outlet. Why would you compare their #1 show to PBC's d-list programming? But to a simple minded person like Dunny, he thought he could trick people with the Spike vs Spike comparison.

When I point out how ridiculous his comparison was, while also pointing out that PBC on FOX had more viewers than UFC on FOX one week later, he ignored the facts and instead claimed that UFC was #1 on Spike and PBC was #5 or 6 on Spike.

Which isn't what I said at all, and doesn't even make any sense, but Dunny's hope is that people won't have the time to carefully read his poorly formatted posts.


#2 - Dunny continues to insist that PBC's first FOX show be compared against UFC's FOX show from four years ago, even though PBC's first FOX show was NOT their first network show. PBC had already aired on network TV many times. It was not the public's first chance to see PBC on free TV.

So Dunny is trying to ignore the difference between airing on network TV for the first time ever and simply airing on a different network than you aired on a few months before. When you breakdown what he's saying, it's hilarious how little sense it makes, but again, he's hoping people won't have the time to carefully read his poorly formatted posts.


#3 - PBC on FOX had more viewers than UFC on FOX, although they essentially had the same amount of viewers. I made it very clear that PBC had more viewers, but mentioned they were "virtually identical."

Dunny then claims that I lied and that he exposed me, apparently not understanding the difference between identical and virtually identical? The facts are on my side, not his, but to be nice I noted that the viewership was very similar. But he's so dense that in the course of labeling me a liar, he didn't realize it was actually him that's lying.

Very similar to him accidentally posting viewership numbers that supported my argument, not his. He's so busy throwing mud at the wall that he's not even reading what he's posting and continues to make my argument for me.



#4 - Dunny continues to push the idea that a network won't buy a show that's losing money. NEWSFLASH: The network doesn't pay the fighters' purses! I'm not sure why I'm having to point this out again. Just goes to show that Dunny not only doesn't know what he's writing, he doesn't know what I'm writing either.

A sports league that attracts millions of viewers is going to be worth X to a network regardless of whether the sports league is profitable.

If PBC is paying fighters too much, that isn't FOX's problem. Dunny is trying to convince us that a network is going to look at the viewership and refuse to pay what it's worth because the league might be paying their fighters too much.

HUH?!?

If the NFL decided to overpay their players, are CBS & FOX going to no longer be interested in the viewers the games attract because the NFL is paying too much for their talent?

HAHAHA, NO, OF COURSE NOT!

But that is the entire crux of Dunny's argument. That FOX will be more worried about Al's wallet instead of worried about their own wallet.

His entire position is a house of cards built upon a giant fallacy.

Hopefully you guys are smart enough to see through Dunny's tactics.

[bballchump11]

The UFC puts ppv quality cards on FOX from time to time like Cain Velasquez vs Junior Dos Santos. If Garcia vs Khan II and Thurman vs Porter under performs, then I'll be worried.

[bigdunny1]

Interesting comparison in that article. Spike got 2x+ the Fnf ratings for almost 2m in purse, some 50x the Fnf cost. Then they cut the purses in half, and got Fnf ratings. Some good fight though, hope for more, but if I was working for Spike I'd say lets do more Cops reruns when these guys stop buying TV time

That is the part that these idiots don't get the amount for each event is too expensive even PBC is tell you it's too expensive which is why they only have 2 cards scheduled right now the fewest in the PBC era. 50X the purse of FnF for double the ratings and a net loss of millions. But idiots think the cost to produce this mess isn't a factor. That investors losing hundreds of millions don't care about a return on investment which only comes if a network makes a massive investment and buys this crap. But as I pointed out all these networks have far cheaper content that performs better. PBC getting killed in ratings to cops reruns on Spike. Or ESPN getting killed in ratings to WNBA on ESPN2 or FS1 getting the exact same ratings as Golden Boy live but Golden Boy live operated on a FnF cost. WHY DO ANY OF THESE NETWORKS WANT TO ASSUME THE RISK OF GIVING A TV DEAL TO PBC and now the roles are reversed and they are paying the production costs to events that are failing on epic levels. Losing ungodly amounts every event to the point that it has almost put PBC to screeching halt and they are sending fights to Showtime and choosing NOT TO AIR ANYTHING even though they already paid for the air time on these channels. Does that sound like a smart business model? Let alone one networks want to be involved in? Networks ONLY air PBC right now because there is no risk. It's all time buys. They get paid up front PBC investors pay for everything and if the event fails they lose millions networks don't lose a dime. But once the investors money is up and all reports say the money is almost all gone A FULL YEAR AHEAD OF SCHEDULE BY THE WAY. When the money is gone or when the investors pull the plug because they see this is a sinking ship no network will pay anything for PBC and take on those production costs for crap ratings. You got idiots that really think they getting 100mil tv deal when they can barely air any fights on PBC right now because the loses are too high. PBC is hoping they get a tv deal so they can use that money to pay the fighters and production costs instead of PBC investors wallet. Why give a tv deal and pay for something that performs this badly and has almost no chance of showing a return on investment for that network? Got idiots flat out lying about the ratings and pretending like they aren't horrible or trending down ON EVERY SINGLE NETWORK THAT AIRS PBC. Even most of the hard core PBC defenders have resigned themselves to the fact that PBC is in trouble they don't even argue the ratings are down and declining. But you still have a few idiots hoping a network comes out with a parachute and saves them despite all logic that says otherwise.

[bigdunny1]

The UFC puts ppv quality cards on FOX from time to time like Cain Velasquez vs Junior Dos Santos. If Garcia vs Khan II and Thurman vs Porter under performs, then I'll be worried.

Thurman vs Porter IS NOT EVEN PBC. They couldn't afford it even after they already bought the air time from CBS LMAO. Showtime is paying the fighters purses so they putting their brand name on it again DESPITE the fact PBC investors spent millions for CBS air time. So now this fight has nothing to do with PBC brand. And who knows if Garcia vs Khan 2 even gets made and even if it does who is to say that fight isn't also shipped to Showtime just like Jacobs vs Quillin because if you paying guys 1mil to fight tomato cans in fights that lose millions. Can you afford to pay both guys 1.5-2mil each to face each other? No matter how you slice it the numbers don't work this mess just doesn't make business sense. Ratings are down and fans say well make better matchups if you want better ratings. But they pay to much for the mismatches and are losing too much money so now they can't afford the better matchups those have to go to Showtime.

[IMDAZED]

Thurman vs Porter IS NOT EVEN PBC. They couldn't afford it even after they already bought the air time from CBS LMAO. Showtime is paying the fighters purses so they putting their brand name on it again DESPITE the fact PBC investors spent millions for CBS air time. So now this fight has nothing to do with PBC brand. And who knows if Garcia vs Khan 2 even gets made and even if it does who is to say that fight isn't also shipped to Showtime just like Jacobs vs Quillin because if you paying guys 1mil to fight tomato cans in fights that lose millions. Can you afford to pay both guys 1.5-2mil each to face each other? No matter how you slice it the numbers don't work this mess just doesn't make business sense. Ratings are down and fans say well make better matchups if you want better ratings. But they pay to much for the mismatches and are losing too much money so now they can't afford the better matchups those have to go to Showtime.

The highly anticipated 12-round showdown headlines a Premier Boxing Champions card from Mohegan Sun Casino Resort in Uncasville, Connecticut (CBS, 8:30 p.m. ET/5:30 p.m. PT).

From the PBC website. They're lying thouugh. What you're saying is true

[IMDAZED]

Btw you have to be one warped individual to pretend a network buying a fight is a bad thing for PBC. You probably don't realize it but...that's the point.

[original zero]

Dunny continues to post fallacy after fallacy. Hopefully some of you have found it helpful for me to waste my time reading through his nonsense line by line to expose the flaws of his logic.

He continues to talk about the risk of giving a TV deal to PBC when their fighter costs are so high, but the network isn't paying the fighter costs, so what the heck do they care?

Networks care about ratings. A league generating millions of viewers will get a TV deal. If PBC is paying fighters too much, then once they have a monopoly, they'll pay them less. But that isn't the network's problem. The network will pay what they think the viewers are worth. Danny Garcia's purse is irrelevant to the network.

This is very very simple stuff, that for some reason Dunce can't grasp, even though it's been explained repeatedly.

He also continues to insist that Thurman vs Porter isn't a PBC fight, even though it's listed on the PBC website, was announced as a PBC fight to the media and Dan Rafael has already gone public that he was WRONG when he said it wasn't a PBC fight.

As I've already posted on this site over and over, Thurman vs Porter is Showtime on CBS, presented by PBC. Since Dunce doesn't pay attention, he continues to post the same false information over and over.

Then he claims PBC can't "afford" the fight, as if it's a bad thing that Haymon has managed to convince Viacom to buy a major fight and put it on CBS.

If you open your eyes, you'll see what a huge thing this is for the sport. How long has it been since an over the air network bought a major world championship fight in the United States?

We're less than a year into the PBC era and Haymon has already convinced a network to dip their toe in the water by buying a major fight instead of Haymon having to pay for it.

Wasn't that the whole point of all of this? To spend money to prove your concept and then convince the networks to start footing the bill?

Yet in Dunce's bizarro land, this is somehow proof that Haymon's plan won't work.

He uses a clear example of Haymon's plan working as "proof" that it's not working.

Hilarious.

[Mitchell Kane]

"That $100 million price tag is probably not a good benchmark to use when projecting what the PBC might get in a network deal"


hahahaha that's not you saying $100 million is too high of an estimate of what PBC might get?

I also said the $100 million deal may not be that similar to what the UFC gets in it's next contract, and that's not because I think $100 million is too high of an estimate.

The point is, people keep referring to that $100 million as though that number (which is likely very out-dated by now) has much bearing on what networks currently value the UFC at...much less what they might value the PBC at.

We won't really know what the UFC is worth to FOX, or perhaps to ABC/ESPN, until we see what the results are of their next round of negotiations...but the #'s may well not be very similar to current deal.

[bigdunny1]

The highly anticipated 12-round showdown headlines a Premier Boxing Champions card from Mohegan Sun Casino Resort in Uncasville, Connecticut (CBS, 8:30 p.m. ET/5:30 p.m. PT).

From the PBC website. They're lying thouugh. What you're saying is true

You mean the PBC Website that hasn't been updated because they have no new fights announced in about a month? Yes they are lying....according to the official press release last week that made no mention of PBC and featured direct quotes from the head of showtime sports saying this will be branded showtime on CBS and they are producing the fight not PBC.

http://espn.go.com/boxing/story/_/id/14633142/welterweight-titleholder-keith-thurman-shawn-porter-face-march-12

"Although Thurman and Porter have had their recent fights on Premier Boxing Champions cards, which their adviser, Al Haymon, has bought time for on a variety of networks, including CBS, this fight will not carry PBC branding. Instead, it will be branded as "Showtime Championship Boxing on CBS." CBS is the parent company of Showtime, which will produce the telecast."

Showtime Sports vice president and general manager Stephen Espinoza said. "Fights of this caliber don't come along very often, and when they do, they deserve to be on the biggest stage possible. That's why all of us at Showtime and CBS are so excited to be able to deliver this pivotal matchup to a prime-time audience on America's highest-rated network."


Sorry i will take the word of the head of showtime who is paying for the production over anything on that pbc website. Money is apparently tight at PBC right now they have blown almost all their investors money likely can't even afford to update the info on their website such a shame.