HBO only offering $1 Million for Walters-Lomanchenko?

[OnePunch]

One Punch -

Discussions can still be productive and/or interesting regardless of whether they result in anybody changing their mind. I really enjoyed reading your last post and appreciate the focus on substance instead of insults. If you feel I've contributed to the hostility, I apologize and hopefully from this point forward our interactions can be civil.

I am not convinced Haymon will be successful, but I do believe many assume the worst and draw unfair conclusions. Since Haymon doesn't speak publicly, the anti-Haymon propaganda has been very successful because he doesn't defend himself. Not to mention the fact that HBO has been the absolute jedi master of boxing propaganda for the past 30 years and so their spin on the narrative is going to be effective for many years to come regardless of what happens.

But I do think there are possibilities you aren't considering beyond "stupid" and "indifferent." We've both ruled out stupid. So that just leaves indifference. Let's look at the subjects you mentioned and see if there are reasonable posibilities beyond indifference.


Re: "Dartboard" scheduling - We both agree an organized and easy to follow schedule is one of the benefits of a proper sports league and while PBC appears to aspire to someday be a proper sports league, thus far they have not adhered to an organized and easy to follow schedule.

I believe they will do just that eventually, when the time buys are up and they sign traditional TV deals. But at this juncture, is it POSSIBLE, that instead of indifference, the reason for the "dartboard" scheduling is a combination of the following?

#1 - In order to get CBS/FOX/NBC in primetime on Saturday night, PBC is at the mercy of the select few Saturdays that those networks have available and if PBC wants the benefit of being on network TV on a Saturday night, the dates will be sporadic and spread out in an unorthodox fashion?

#2 - In order to maximize the number of interested parties when the rights are up for sale, PBC must spread out their content during the proof of concept phase to show a variety of networks that boxing can be a success on their channel(s)?



Re: Mediocre ratings - Mediocre comapred to what? A big fight on HBO does a million viewers. A big fight on PBC does 2-4 million viewers. That is a HUGE new/lapsed audience checking out boxing that wasn't watching before. Obviously the additional eyeballs are due to being on network TV, but isn't that the whole point?

What kind of ratings were you expecting? PBC on network TV is doing around the same ratings as the NBA is doing on network TV. I'm not saying the PBC ratings are great, but to label them as "mediocre" seems extremely unfair. If PBC is doing comporable ratings to what NBA/UFC do on the same night and those leagues are huge TV deals, I don't think mediocre is the appropriate term.



Re: Absentee ESPN cards - We don't know the minimum number of cards PBC must provide to ESPN, we only know the maximum number of cards they can produce. If they're paying per show and if one of the benefits of signing the deal was locking out other promoters from being on ESPN, wouldn't it actually be really smart to produce the minimum number of cards to minimize losses while still having the benefit of locking out promoters from being on the channel?

I'm not saying for certain that's what the strategy is, but my point is that those who prefer to assume the worst about PBC often over look very realistic possibilities that would paint Haymon in a much wiser light. We agree he's not stupid. I personally believe he's smarter than ESPN and considering he just hired the guy that gave him the deal, I'm much more willing to believe he got over on ESPN than I am willing to believe he paid for time slots he's not going to be able to use.

PBC will be back on ESPN this year. PBC had the right to pay for monthly shows. They chose not to. We have no idea the exact details of the arrangement, but you are quick to assume Haymon is "indifferent," while I am willing to reserve judgement.



Re: ZERO momentum built for his biggest stars -

3.5 million people just watched Danny Garcia win a world title live on FOX.

Deontay Wilder is about to get, by far, the most massive payday of his life.

Keith Thurman is about to defend his world title live on America's most watched network.

Adrien Broner is about to defend his world title live on basic cable.

Amir Khan is about to get, by far, the most massive payday of his life.

Charles Martin is about to get, by far, the most massive payday of his life.

Errol Spence is about to fight live on NBC on saturday night and will soon challenge for a world title.

Ortiz and Berto are about to fight live on FOX on saturday night.

Carl Frampton just became one of the very few unified world champions in the entire sport.

That's just off the top of my head. If Haymon's stars have zero momentum, who are the managers with more stars and more momentum than Haymon?



Re: Burning through cash - We have no idea how much has been spent. We have an amateur financial analysis from some random dude on reddit that didn't realize that the market value of a fund is based on the ROI compared to other things to invest in. It's not necessarily reflective of how much money has been spent.

The whole "plan" comes down to the ability to sell it to advertisers, and THATS where I think the PBC model fails. You make comparisons to other sports, but there really is no sport like boxing. All the "big" sports like football, baseball, etc. have regional built-in fanbases, established schedules, backup players in the event of injury, the college system for player development, the drafts, etc, and most importantly, a relatively consistent block of time the event will take. A football game wont be over in 7 minutes. Adveriser-driven boxing content works at the ESPN / Telemundo level, where specific fighter participation is not relevant, but at the higher end of the spectrum, its all about the individual fighter. Big-time national advertisers dont want to allocate part of their budget to buying spots for Thurman-Porter, only to have the event cancelled because Thurman got hurt.

The UFC model is probably the closest thing to boxing, and even that isnt the same. The content deal UFC has with Fox is for some lower-tier events, but the biggest part of it is the Ultimate Fighter series. All the big UFC events still have to go to PPV in order to create enough revenue. A 9-figure content deal for boxing, from a broadcast network, I think is never going to happen. There are simply too many other (safer) options for them to take. Look at shows like Criminal Minds. Costs maybe what, $3 million an episode to make? It does about 9.5 million viewers, and then they STILL get to sell it in syndication for the next 30 years after that. Unless a tv executive somewhere is a huge boxing fan, and is willing to put his job on the line, I just dont see a content deal for high-profile fights. I could see a smaller scale deal for lower-end content with the premium events going to PPV or Showtime, but that doesnt fit the "free boxing doe" platform.

I will also touch on the ESPN issue. The deal Haymon made was for a MONTHLY series. Obviously we dont know the specific contract details (perhaps they will come out in the discovery portion of the unfair competition lawsuit) but when you make a deal for a monthly series, and then only do 1 show in 8 months, it raises questions. Do they have money problems? Did they buy the ESPN time just to eliminate opportunities for other promoters? (if so that plays right in to the unfair competition angle)

And lastly, I think the time-buy scenario was really a bad idea. Sure, I understand the concept of putting boxing on numerous networks to try and get them interested, but I just think that once you give someone something for free, it makes it very hard for them to see the actual value in it.

Oh, and one other thing. Even you have to admit that Caldwell selling this idea to Waddell & Reed, getting it closed, and then immediately resigning and taking a position with Haymon is not a good look. It doesnt pass the smell test, and if it's not a quid pro quo, I dont know what is..........

[original zero]

The whole "plan" comes down to the ability to sell it to advertisers, and THATS where I think the PBC model fails. You make comparisons to other sports, but there really is no sport like boxing. All the "big" sports like football, baseball, etc. have regional built-in fanbases, established schedules, backup players in the event of injury, the college system for player development, the drafts, etc, and most importantly, a relatively consistent block of time the event will take. A football game wont be over in 7 minutes. Adveriser-driven boxing content works at the ESPN / Telemundo level, where specific fighter participation is not relevant, but at the higher end of the spectrum, its all about the individual fighter. Big-time national advertisers dont want to allocate part of their budget to buying spots for Thurman-Porter, only to have the event cancelled because Thurman got hurt.

Boxing thrived on network TV for decades despite all of the obstacles you mentioned. Despite all of the advantages other sports have, PBC on Saturday nights on NBC/FOX still brings in the same amount of viewers as the NBA on Saturday nights on ABC. PBC has been reliable with the length of their events, utilizing swing bouts and rarely going over their allotted window. The Thurman delay is unfortunate, but they're no more at risk of a fight being delayed than UFC is and had it been a less important fight on the PBC schedule, an alternate opponent would have filled in.

The UFC model is probably the closest thing to boxing, and even that isnt the same. The content deal UFC has with Fox is for some lower-tier events, but the biggest part of it is the Ultimate Fighter series. All the big UFC events still have to go to PPV in order to create enough revenue. A 9-figure content deal for boxing, from a broadcast network, I think is never going to happen. There are simply too many other (safer) options for them to take. Look at shows like Criminal Minds. Costs maybe what, $3 million an episode to make? It does about 9.5 million viewers, and then they STILL get to sell it in syndication for the next 30 years after that. Unless a tv executive somewhere is a huge boxing fan, and is willing to put his job on the line, I just dont see a content deal for high-profile fights. I could see a smaller scale deal for lower-end content with the premium events going to PPV or Showtime, but that doesnt fit the "free boxing doe" platform.

Even though it's lower tier fights appearing on FOX, the viewership still far out paces The Ultimate Fighter, so I'm not sure if it's cut and dry which elements of the TV deal FOX values most. Regardless, as you point out, FOX paid $100 million without any of UFC's biggest fights being included in the deal. Every month there is a PPV and FOX is getting the scraps for $100 million.

So isn't it actually more desirable to a network that Haymon could offer them his biggest fights every month, not just lower tier fights with every big fight appearing on PPV? Even if a deal as big as UFC's isn't realistic, if FOX or Viacom offered half as much for exclusive rights to Haymon's entire stable as UFC got for the rights to their lower tier fights, that's still way more than Haymon would have ended up with by staying with HBO.

HBO's budget is so small now and shared with so many promoters that for this endeavor to result in a bigger pie for Haymon's stable, PBC only needs to land a TV deal that pays a mere fraction of what UFC's deal pays.

You can talk all you want about Criminal Minds, but networks are clearly placing a premium on live sports because they are considered DVR proof and once HBO's budget shrunk as much as it did, Haymon made a calculated decision that the tides had turned to a degree where network TV could actually be more lucrative for boxing than premium cable.

If you think he's wrong, you may be right. It's too soon to say. But I would suggest that if you were intimately familiar with the ratings and rights fees of every league on TV, you'd see that the 2-4 million PBC can reliably generate with their top stars has a legitimate shot at landing a respectable deal.

As for a TV executive being a huge boxing fan, Les Moonves is precisely that and with him now in charge of CBS/Showtime/Spike etc, as long as Haymon can create some leverage via FOX, I think he's got a good shot at getting Les to loosen the purse strings even further.

I will also touch on the ESPN issue. The deal Haymon made was for a MONTHLY series. Obviously we dont know the specific contract details (perhaps they will come out in the discovery portion of the unfair competition lawsuit) but when you make a deal for a monthly series, and then only do 1 show in 8 months, it raises questions. Do they have money problems? Did they buy the ESPN time just to eliminate opportunities for other promoters? (if so that plays right in to the unfair competition angle)

It was announced publicly as a "monthly" series, but not every series is year round. A weekly series is not necessarily year round and neither is a monthly series. I was told at the time that Haymon had the right to buy up to 12 shows per year. I have no idea what the minimum was. He did 7 shows the first year and if he goes monthly in June, that'll be 7 shows for the second year as well.

We agree he's not stupid. You're convinced he's indifferent. I'm not willing to draw that conclusion yet. Would you agree it's possible that Al dangled the potential money ESPN would make on 24 events and used that to get exclusivity, even if he never intended to run more than the minimum required by the contract?

And lastly, I think the time-buy scenario was really a bad idea. Sure, I understand the concept of putting boxing on numerous networks to try and get them interested, but I just think that once you give someone something for free, it makes it very hard for them to see the actual value in it.

NBC has publicly denied it was a time buy. Personally I believe that's a bit of posturing and the deal appears to be a hybrid between a time buy and a traditional deal. The networks paying some of the expenses and some rights fees, but PBC being on the hook to sell the advertising and I assume making up the difference for unsold inventory.

But let's not forget that UFC was a time buy and it worked out just fine for them. So even if PBC was a traditional time buy, I don't think that disqualifies them from future success.

The most important element though of the PBC strategy IMO is how competitive all of these networks have been to snatch up live sports rights and paying huge sums for low ratings. Whatever network Haymon ends up with, they've now gained a sports brand with exposure on EVERY network and now those other networks are losing a brand they just helped build.

It's certainly a calculated risk, but based on all of the bidding wars we've seen, I personally would be shocked if Haymon can't get an annual rights fee that far exceeds what his slice of the HBO pie would have been.

Oh, and one other thing. Even you have to admit that Caldwell selling this idea to Waddell & Reed, getting it closed, and then immediately resigning and taking a position with Haymon is not a good look. It doesnt pass the smell test, and if it's not a quid pro quo, I dont know what is..........

No, I don't admit that at all. If W&R is investing half a billion (and potentially more) into Haymon Boxing, which would have to make them a significant if not majority stake holder in Haymon Boxing, why wouldn't they want to make sure one of their guys is there running the thing for them?

[OnePunch]

So isn't it actually more desirable to a network that Haymon could offer them his biggest fights every month, not just lower tier fights with every big fight appearing on PPV? Even if a deal as big as UFC's isn't realistic, if FOX or Viacom offered half as much for exclusive rights to Haymon's entire stable as UFC got for the rights to their lower tier fights, that's still way more than Haymon would have ended up with by staying with HBO.

except that boxing fans do not forgive losses as easily as MMA fans do, so Haymon isnt going to pit his top guys against each other often enough. Sure, he's made some good fights along the way, but besides Mares-Santa Cruz, Quillin-Jacobs, and MAYBE Thurman-Porter, Haymon doesnt give us many matches between 2 of the top 5 guys in a division.

HBO's budget is so small now and shared with so many promoters that for this endeavor to result in a bigger pie for Haymon's stable, PBC only needs to land a TV deal that pays a mere fraction of what UFC's deal pays.

I dont necessarily disagree with you on this point. Although a "mere fraction" probably doesnt get Waddell & reed back to even lol

It was announced publicly as a "monthly" series, but not every series is year round. A weekly series is not necessarily year round and neither is a monthly series. I was told at the time that Haymon had the right to buy up to 12 shows per year. I have no idea what the minimum was. He did 7 shows the first year and if he goes monthly in June, that'll be 7 shows for the second year as well.

We agree he's not stupid. You're convinced he's indifferent. I'm not willing to draw that conclusion yet. Would you agree it's possible that Al dangled the potential money ESPN would make on 24 events and used that to get exclusivity, even if he never intended to run more than the minimum required by the contract?

My understanding of the deal (and I certainly could have been misinformed), was that the deal was for 24 events over 2 years. It was a straight time-buy, with Haymon paying for the 24 dates whether he provided content or not.

No, I don't admit that at all. If W&R is investing half a billion (and potentially more) into Haymon Boxing, which would have to make them a significant if not majority stake holder in Haymon Boxing, why wouldn't they want to make sure one of their guys is there running the thing for them?

I dont think thats how it really went down.......... http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascit...-contract.html

[original zero]

except that boxing fans do not forgive losses as easily as MMA fans do, so Haymon isnt going to pit his top guys against each other often enough. Sure, he's made some good fights along the way, but besides Mares-Santa Cruz, Quillin-Jacobs, and MAYBE Thurman-Porter, Haymon doesnt give us many matches between 2 of the top 5 guys in a division.

How often does UFC give FOX a fight between 2 of the top 5 guys in a division? More importantly, how often does UFC give FOX a world title fight? Haymon was able to give them a world title fight on day one and 3.5 million people tuned in to watch even though Robert Guerrero had already lost a PBC fight less than a year earlier.

Boxing for so long has revolved around protecting the few guys you have with everyone else doing the same. Which meant a loss could set your guy back years of progress. Since Haymon has so many guys and has so much control, a loss doesn't ruin a guy the same way it did in previous years.

Guerrero got knocked off by Mayweather, but 4.2 million still tuned in to see him fight Thurman. Guerrero got knocked off by Thurman, but 3.5 million still tuned in to see him fight Garcia. Hardcore fans may complain about Haymon's matchmaking, but he's not deserting guys after losses.

Berto has lost 4 of his last 7, but millions will still be watching his next fight. What "boxing fans" forgive and don't forgive starts to change when there are suddenly 3-4 million watching boxing instead of 1 million. The existing 1 million was going to watch no matter what. That means there are 2-3 million new viewers who may not act the same way the original million did.

I dont necessarily disagree with you on this point. Although a "mere fraction" probably doesnt get Waddell & reed back to even lol

Let's even say, for the sake of keeping the numbers simple, that Haymon Boxing runs through $500 million by the time the TV deals run up and then signs a $50 million a year TV deal.

It may take a long time to actually make back the $500 million, but it really wouldn't take very long for Haymon Boxing to be valued at $500 million.

And if HBO keeps cutting their budget and Haymon's budget grows, there's really no turning back. So however long it takes, W&R ending with with a near monopoly on big time US boxing would seem inevitable.

My understanding of the deal (and I certainly could have been misinformed), was that the deal was for 24 events over 2 years. It was a straight time-buy, with Haymon paying for the 24 dates whether he provided content or not.

The deal runs up July 2017. The press release said monthly shows and people assumed 24 events, but all of Haymon's other deals gave him a lot of wiggle room on the number of events. Either way, he locked out other promoters and even if you and I don't know all of the specifics, I still see no reason to believe that Haymon is indifferent as to whether his company succeeds or not.

It definitely wasn't a straight time buy though because ESPN is footing the bill for production. On a straight time buy you literally are paying to air content you own or created. If the network is paying to produce the show themselves, that is not a traditional time buy.

I dont think thats how it really went down..........

W&R announced on May 15, 2014 that Caldwell was leaving, offered no reason and said he was leaving the industry.

Which caused the media, which had no idea what was going on, to speculate that there must have been some sort of dispute.

Little did the media know that W&R was making a large investment in a business and that Caldwell would be leaving to run that business for them. The press release was worded very carefully as to give away nothing while complying with the law.

If you're suggesting that W&R and Caldwell had some sort of nasty split in May of 2014 why were they discussing their new venture together publicly a year later?

You linked to an article written before anybody figured out what was going on and point to it as proof that something shady went down when in reality we found out the truth a year later and clearly nothing shady had gone down.

[OnePunch]

You linked to an article written before anybody figured out what was going on and point to it as proof that something shady went down when in reality we found out the truth a year later and clearly nothing shady had gone down.

"shady" is simply a matter of opinion. I think the Caldwell situation stinks to high heaven. If a company like Waddell & Reed sacrificed a top money manager for every investment their fund makes (the PBC thing represented less than 1% of Waddell & Reeds portfolio). they wouldnt have any guys left.