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

[Ham Porter]

LOL @ networks bidding over a piece of **** product that generates zero ratings or hype and is run by a control freak who won't even disclose his plans with the networks themselves.

The delusion of Haymon bumsniffs would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

[Mitchell Kane]

ESPN wants a brand

So ESPN wants to sign on to a brand, and isn't as interested in particular fights/fighters?

And you think ESPN feels their boxing audience is the same way?

ESPN will open up the checkbook and be fine with Keith Thurman or Erislandy Lara, it doesn't make a difference between the two, they're both part of the PBC brand?

[North Star]

ESPN wants a brand... not some no name promoter.

If PBC can get even $750k they are in great shape. That's literally a $1.5M swing in their favor if they are currently out of pocket $750k for time buy/production per event.

It's a 10 year plan nitwits. Hahaha

The initial time buys were for 2 years. Then you up that to 5 years in your OP. Now you are saying 10 years? That is just not feasible. So how far, in your mind, are you planning to move the goal posts? PBC profitable in 20 years, perhaps?

[El-blanco]

The initial time buys were for 2 years. Then you up that to 5 years in your OP. Now you are saying 10 years? That is just not feasible. So how far, in your mind, are you planning to move the goal posts? PBC profitable in 20 years, perhaps?

Lol. He threw in 7 years prior to that. These guys are ******ed.

[The Gambler1981]

The initial time buys were for 2 years. Then you up that to 5 years in your OP. Now you are saying 10 years? That is just not feasible. So how far, in your mind, are you planning to move the goal posts? PBC profitable in 20 years, perhaps?

You do realize the time buys are part of a longer term plan, and it would take a longer time to really make that money back. They are using the time buys to consolidate the industry and kill off their competition. That would be the current goal not profit which comes later.

Is it that hard to understand? Amazon which only recently started making a profit didn't go under and in fact thrived because they had the plan and the forward guidance that people saw was going to work.

[-Kev-]

Don't pay any attention to him, he literally is getting paid to specifically write negatively about Al Haymon and PBC. He works for HBO/The Ring, who are against PBC/Haymon.

[Sweet Jones]

That fight cost $2.5 million.

What indication is there that ESPN would be willing to pay those prices for individual boxing matches when they've been cutting costs and they just fired perhaps the biggest boxing advocate at ESPN (Brian Kweder)?

And if ESPN was willing to pay millions of dollars for individual boxing events...why would they want to give up control over what fights they get by giving the PBC a long-term deal instead of doing what most networks do, and pay for fights on a fight-by-fight basis?

and,

So you think some of these networks are going to flip from "minimum interest in even broadcasting boxing" to giving out long-term deals worth tens of millions of dollars without talking to other promoters to, if nothing else, bring down the PBC's asking price?

Dude, you're all over the map on this.

Everyone has always understood that part of the challenge for PBC as a proof of concept was to actually show that there is a market for world class level boxing on non-premium TV. That has not changed.

ESPN and other networks are willing to 'giving up control' because unlike dealing with Top Rank/GB etc, Al Haymon brings a 200+ roster that has multiple world champions, familiar names, and interesting up and coming prospects. Unlike the Main Events of the world, PBC has the ability to present HBO/SHO level quality fights over a multitude of dates. It can potentially be a ready-made, right-out-the-box functioning major sport.

It also takes ESPN and any other interested network out of the headache of all the BS the business of boxing (promoter conflicts, fighters exculisvely signed to networks, etc.) brings.

Again, THERE ARE NO OTHER PROMOTERS to leverage with a roster worth spending that of money on. Main Events' fights that flopped on NBCSports isn't going to get a promotion the primetime Sat night NBC/Fox/CBS/ESPN slots. GB's streamed fights or Top Rank's defunct TruTV series aren't either. It's not happening, and doesn't make sense to even speculate on that happening.

PBC is a unique opportunity and is an all-or-nothing proposition. It will either be the vehicle for boxing on free/non-premium cable TV or not.

What you are arguing is the equivalent of saying that a network like ESPN won't pay to broadcast the English Premier League football because soccer isn't big in the US while simultaneously speculating how ESPN will leverage the MSL (which it stopped broadcasting on its smaller networks) to bring down the Premier League's asking price.

[Lester Tutor]

Can Hauser revoke Lem Satterfield's membership from the BWAA because he and Haymon be pimpin it?

[original zero]

Idk if I necessarily agree with this. Its not like ESPN, Spike & Bounce are gonna be competing with NBC, CBS or Fox when it comes to finding out where PBC lands. I suppose there could be an element of that in all this cuz some of these networks are competing, but I feel like there was more of a desire to block competitors from getting on some of these networks & having boxers realize if they wanna be on TV being with Haymon greatly improves your chances of doing so. I've felt like an important part of his strategy is just getting guys who aren't the tip top HBO guys, up & coming guys & top class of 2016 fighters coming to PBC due to TV options. Plus with his 200+ fighters he just sorta needs a lot of TV time to grow names + keep them active.

Haymon owns Bounce. CBS/Spike/Showtime are the same company. NBC/USA/NBCSN are the same company. FOX/FX/FS1 are the same company. ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 are the same company.

So really it comes down to Viacom (CBS), Universal (NBC), FOX and Disney (ABC). You've got four en****** that have been fighting over the rights to live sports, which has driven up the price.

If there was enough live sports to go around, they wouldn't be fighting and they wouldn't be bidding against each other to drive up the price.

There is a fifth party that has been involved in this fight, Warner, which owns TBS/TNT/HBO. Obviously they're out of the equation on this one.

But Haymon did manage to strike deals with the other four. Giving each of the four a taste. Proving to each of the four that he can deliver millions of viewers.

If the plan was to eventually strike traditional deals with all four en******, that would seem extremely unrealistic to me because what is going to drive the price up if there is enough programming to go around?

And why would they pay for non-exclusive rights, when it's exclusive rights that gives them negotiating leverage with the cable companies, driving up their re-transmission fees?

I could see a deal being struck with two of the four as there are only going to be so many open Saturdays when you consider all of the other sports programming the channels air. But 3 of the 4 or 4 of the 4 like PKing is suggesting, I just don't see it happening.

Haymon needs a bidding war to make this work.

[original zero]

LOL @ networks bidding over a piece of **** product that generates zero ratings or hype and is run by a control freak who won't even disclose his plans with the networks themselves.

The delusion of Haymon bumsniffs would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

PBC delivers MILLIONS of viewers on a Saturday night. PBC delivers the same amount of viewers on a Saturday night as the NBA does.

So you must be suggesting that the NBA generates "zero ratings."

Which calls into question who is really delusional in this situation.