Hauser makes himself look ******...

[HeroBando]

Really? I think Spike is a lock, though how much money they want to/ are able to put out could be limited, and Bounce would likely only put in for the small cards they have been getting. Those small cards are important, but they are not real money makers.

I am certainly not a tv programming expert or anything, but the best thing for the PBC is for it to be on one channel, or failing that, one networks channels (like the way UFC goes from Fox to Fox Sports 1)

I have seen nothing that makes me see NBC as a "lock'. They've done worse ratings each Prime time show, they (seem to) have ditched the daytime cards and NBCSN cards that were in the original contract. Maybe they do end up going with PBC, but I haven't heard anything and I can't imagine they'd be thrilled to pay much for it.

The PBC said they were going to do monthly shows on ESPN, and they are going to go from November until (at least) June before there next one. An ESPN contract is not happening.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-al-haymon-boxing-20160203-story.html

Overall, Premier averaged about 500,000 viewers for its eight Spike TV boxing shows, significantly less than the Bellator MMA cards, which drew an average of 840,000 viewers.

"It's premature to have discussions about if this will make it after one year," Spike's Kay said. "[Haymon] is going to have to deliver ratings, and then at some point, they have to flip the model," and begin charging the networks license fees.

FNF averaged 400k for like 20x less, so I don't think Spike is a lock.

[Rich2123]

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-...203-story.html


FNF averaged 400k for like 20x less, so I don't think Spike is a lock.

Maybe Spike will continue, but they will just spend less money on the cards? That would help explain the 2 lame cards they have to start the year.

[Zaroku]

Hauser is a joke of a writer. Comes off as a guy who holds a bitter grudge against Al because he was never in "the know" when it came to his moves in boxing. They state the same crap in every article, every single time out. "Haymon don't like interviews doe, Haymon is mysterious doe, Haymon don't like the cameras doe."

It's all a bunch of nonsense by a bunch of butthurt Top Rank/HBO shill writers who have nothing better to do.

But in slow motion... Hauser is and always will be a hater..

[AllEyesOpen]

No. Thomas Hauser is a clown. In Floyd's 19 year span and merits find me significant articles from Hauser praising Floyd.

Who else is trying? Dude you'Re livigin under a rock.

Yup. It's much easier to be a great writer when you're writing fiction, facts tend to be much more boring.

[OnePunch]

Recoup in valuation you ******ed donk.

If they plunk $550 million down, in 5 years they have 7 multi-year contracts with 7 different networks with multi-year contracts with sponsors and global TV... yes, their 90% stake will be valued at $550 million worth of equity EASILY.

If you factor in future valuations... way more than $550 million.

you sound exactly like those bozos at Moodys who were rating sub-prime MBS's as AAA back in 2006...........

[Mitchell Kane]

NBC was already putting up $150k for Main Events shows.

PBC will be looking for a premium up

If the PBC is looking for more money, then what would keep NBC (or any other network) from talking to Main Events (or any other promoter) and trying to get a more favorable deal at a better price?

[Mitchell Kane]

If they plunk $550 million down, in 5 years they have 7 multi-year contracts with 7 different networks

Why would a network want to share PBC content with 6 other networks?

What kind of quality control does that give a network if they're splitting Haymon's stable with all those other networks?

[Mitchell Kane]

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-...203-story.html


FNF averaged 400k for like 20x less, so I don't think Spike is a lock.

Why would any of these networks be "locks" other than maybe CBS/SHO?

The networks still have the negotiating power here, they control money and the dates.

Long term deals take power and control away from networks and gives it to the promoters.

Why is that in all these networks best interest?

We've seen what happens to the quality of boxing when a network gets locked into one promoter, whether it's Haymon on SHO, or Top Rank on Versus.

Competition among promoters is better for the networks and better for the viewers.

So why would a network agree to Haymon's asking price without also getting the prices of Top Rank or Golden Boy or Main Events?

[original zero]

You're the second person to mention this and I don't think you realize how absurd it is. It would take 100 years just to recoup that initial investment using that strategy, never mind actually making money waiting around for a portion of that 15% advisor fee.

If you're suggesting the $400 million was a loan or a gift, that is far more absurd than suggesting it was an investment in exchange for a majority stake in Haymon's companies.

PBC is not a company. It's a TV series owned by Haymon Sports. It was already publicly confirmed that W&R was "marrying" their funds to Haymon's management business. So either it was an investment or a loan.

Since you appararently have no idea how business works, W&R doesn't have to wait around to make their money back from management commissions. If they land a prominent TV deal, the valuation of Haymon Sports, a company W&R is most likely the majority owner of, would be significant.

When Front Line management sold a 25% stake for $116 million a few years ago, that put the valuation at nearly $500 million, but that didn't mean they were going to have $500 million in management fees any time soon.

As for your theory that PPV is dying, it might retract a little, but I think the reporting of it being on its deathbed is a bit premature. UFC relies on PPV to fund all its major shows. I think innovation needs to come into play a bit, and perhaps advancements in online delivery or other means would help quite a bit, because having to give almost HALF the revenue to the cable distributors is insane, and everyone (not just haymon) should be trying to find alternate delivery methods for PPV content......

WWE pulled out too fast, boxing ran out of PPV stars and UFC stayed the course. So they'll be enjoying whatever milk is left until the teet is ****** dry.

But clearly UFC is preparing their Fight Pass service to fill the void once PPV is no longer viable.

Haymon is choosing to target network deals instead. Considering UFC is a promoter and Haymon is a manager, it's understandable why they're going different routes, even if it's inevitable that they both end up using WWE's model eventually.

WWE just made the jump too soon and left a lot of money on the table.

The PPV distributors are desperate for content now and treating UFC like gold. Is PPV on its deathbed? No. Should it be the long term business model? No. How long will the transition take? Nobody knows.

That's not what you or the other guy said. You said their collateral is a portion of haymon's management fees. Thats what I'm talking about.

I don't know who said that, but it sure as hell wasn't me. Next time you label what I write as "absurd," take the time to actually read it. Collateral has nothing to do with any of this. There's no reason to believe W&R gave Al a loan. That is actually absurd.

The most logical conclusion is that Haymon sold W&R a majority stake in his companies.

[original zero]

Why would a network want to share PBC content with 6 other networks?

What kind of quality control does that give a network if they're splitting Haymon's stable with all those other networks?

i think it's pretty clear haymon wanted as many networks involved as possible so there would be as many potential bidders involved when it came time to sell the rights.

all he needs is two of those networks to want what he's got and he'll have a bidding war on his hands.

so for those questioning the strategy of "dartboard" scheduling... what they're missing is that it's an effort to maximize the chances of multiple interested parties so achieve maximum value from the "winning" bidder.