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

[original zero]

The scheduling of PBC’s fights has also been a problem. There’s no continuity. The date, time, and network for telecasts are often a mystery until late in the process. “Even boxing people don’t know when or where Al’s guys are fighting,” says promoter Gary Shaw.

But on PBC, each fight seems like a one-off. There’s no continuity from show to show and no natural progression toward fights of greater importance. Viewers are consigned to watching what seems like the endless first round of what could have been an exciting tournament.

Why has the scheduling been a problem when the network Saturday night events have MILLIONS of viewers regardless of the network?

3.5 million people tuned in to watch Danny Garcia in a world title. Is Hauser suggesting a lot more people would have watched had the network been known further in advance? How far in advance does it need to be known? That FOX date was known MONTHS in advance. Why would it be so important that the date be known six months in advance? How far in advance is HBO announcing their dates?

We're one year into a 5 year rollout plan. Maybe that's why it feels like the first round? It is the first round . . .

[original zero]

Only a few of his fighters have generated high ratings. Danny Garcia and Keith Thurman are among them.

There's only been a few Saturday night network shows so far. So of course only a few fighters have generated High ratings. There's only been a few shows!

[El-blanco]

Why has the scheduling been a problem when the network Saturday night events have MILLIONS of viewers regardless of the network?

3.5 million people tuned in to watch Danny Garcia in a world title. Is Hauser suggesting a lot more people would have watched had the network been known further in advance? How far in advance does it need to be known? That FOX date was known MONTHS in advance. Why would it be so important that the date be known six months in advance? How far in advance is HBO announcing their dates?

We're one year into a 5 year rollout plan. Maybe that's why it feels like the first round? It is the first round . . .

Yes, and despite the MILLIONS of viewers these events keep losing money because of absurd purses and production costs. Why would any network fork out millions for events that can't even break even? The ad money isn't there and ratings are actually dropping. This seems to keep going over your head. I've said repeatedly PBC can work but not with the purses it pays. It's unsustainable.

[Mitchell Kane]

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.

There aren't 200+ PBC boxers who can generate good ratings.

There's only a small fraction of the 200+ that can.

Thurman-Guerrero can get ratings. Garcia-Malignaggi can get ratings.

Many of these other PBC fights/fighters can't.

Which you can see if you compare the ratings of those fights to fights like Lara-Zavek and Martinez-Alexander.

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.

Actually, it could create a different headache, which is giving over control to the PBC and allowing the PBC to dictate which fights are on PBC Network A, and PBC Network B, PBC Network C, etc.

If Haymon controls the entire PBC roster, and he has 3-5 networks he's dealing with, and he only has maybe a few fighters that fans really want to watch, how does PBC Network A know they're getting Danny Garcia and not Erislandy Lara, and that Haymon isn't going to take his best fighters to some other network?

[Sweet Jones]

There aren't 200+ PBC boxers who can generate good ratings.

There's only a small fraction of the 200+ that can.

Thurman-Guerrero can get ratings. Garcia-Malignaggi can get ratings.

Many of these other PBC fights/fighters can't.

Which you can see if you compare the ratings of those fights to fights like Lara-Zavek and Martinez-Alexander.

But those other fighters can competently complete undercard and walkout bouts with quality fights, interesting backstories, and future headliner potential, which is what you would need to fill a 2 hour primetime slot on a major network.

Actually, it could create a different headache, which is giving over control to the PBC and allowing the PBC to dictate which fights are on PBC Network A, and PBC Network B, PBC Network C, etc.

If Haymon controls the entire PBC roster, and he has 3-5 networks he's dealing with, and he only has maybe a few fighters that fans really want to watch, how does PBC Network A know they're getting Danny Garcia and not Erislandy Lara, and that Haymon isn't going to take his best fighters to some other network?

Which is precisely why most believe the aim is to ultimately have PBC sign an exclusive one network deal (preferably one with multiple outlets), thus giving that network control/influence over all the fights/fighters that will be broadcast.

That is exactly the leverage Haymon/PBC has right now.

Why do you think Showtime is nutting up for PBC fights over the first half of 2016? Those fighters may not be available to them in a year or two. Then what? You see HBO's stuggles right now without it.

That Haymon portfolio is very, very valuable.

[ИATAS]

Why has the scheduling been a problem when the network Saturday night events have MILLIONS of viewers regardless of the network?

Which events/networks are getting millions of viewers other than prime time time slots? Overall the numbers haven't been great.

3.5 million people tuned in to watch Danny Garcia in a world title. Is Hauser suggesting a lot more people would have watched had the network been known further in advance? How far in advance does it need to be known? That FOX date was known MONTHS in advance. Why would it be so important that the date be known six months in advance? How far in advance is HBO announcing their dates?

Perhaps you missed the point or even the exact quote that stated each event feels like a one-off and there is no continuity. I think that's certainly true and Hauser isn't alone in that view. So while Danny Garcia got good numbers on prime time TV (which should by definition get a lot of viewers), where was the follow up? What did that fight lead into? Nobody knows.

It's not about how much time specifically in advance there is, my point (which is what I quoted from the article) was about the lack of continuity with PBC. They are all over the place with what only can be described as random fights with little rhyme or reason. Since you brought up HBO, usually, almost always, the key fights are building towards something - when you watch Golovkin you anticipate a Canelo clash; when Crawford is fighting you anticipate a Postol fight and/or Pacquiao/Bradley; when you watch Kovalev you anticipate bigger things like Ward or Stevenson and so on. What some people feel with the PBC is that each event is just a single event and there is no real idea of who is going to fight who next, it doesn't feel like anything is building towards something or any kind of tournament or just basic structure, which sucks since 140-154 is essentially locked down by Haymon so a lot of us expected/assumed there would be logical fights, the best fighting the best type of fights being made but unfortunately it hasn't really been that way (with exception of a couple good fights here and there that actually made sense (there's been like three - Quillin-Lee, Garcia-Peterson & Thurman-Guerrero I guess)).

We're one year into a 5 year rollout plan. Maybe that's why it feels like the first round? It is the first round . . .

In order to even reach 5 years there has to be some sort of return in the investment. You can't just time buy for 5 years straight.

Look, all I'm saying is PBC can and should do a better job structuring this thing or maybe the ship sinks. For starters Haymon needs a spokesperson for the PBC, be the guy that talks directly to the fans and the media (I don't care who it is personally, whether its Schaefer or some random person) and ideally do a better job promoting the product so that yes, people are aware there is some sort of schedule and then yes, these fights are meaningful and will lead to bigger fights (explain to fans & the media how and why, etc). More importantly though, and I've been saying this for a few months, is the matchmaking needs to improve. PBC has a lot of talent and it's deep, so there shouldn't be a problem putting together entertaining fights, and yet, it's been one of the biggest problems for them so far (they've put together a lot of head scratchers, fights that no one wants to see or fights that, based on style, are guaranteed to be snoozers). If they can improve the matchmaking, the rest won't matter as much.

[original zero]

Yes, and despite the MILLIONS of viewers these events keep losing money because of absurd purses and production costs. Why would any network fork out millions for events that can't even break even? The ad money isn't there and ratings are actually dropping. This seems to keep going over your head. I've said repeatedly PBC can work but not with the purses it pays. It's unsustainable.

But we've already established that when you label something as absurd, it turns out that it's actually your position that's absurd.

These events keep losing money because they are designed as loss leaders.

If a network believes the ratings justify paying millions, it doesn't matter to them if the event doesn't break even. That isn't their problem.

The ratings aren't dropping. The first 2016 Saturday night network broadcast had substantially more viewers than the last 2015 Saturday night network broadcast.

You simply don't have your facts straight and repeatedly post false information.

Nothing is going over my head. You're just wrong.

And if we can't trust you on the facts, why would anybody trust your opinions?

[El-blanco]

But we've already established that when you label something as absurd, it turns out that it's actually your position that's absurd.

These events keep losing money because they are designed as loss leaders.

If a network believes the ratings justify paying millions, it doesn't matter to them if the event doesn't break even. That isn't their problem.

The ratings aren't dropping. The first 2016 Saturday night network broadcast had substantially more viewers than the last 2015 Saturday night network broadcast.

You simply don't have your facts straight and repeatedly post false information.

Nothing is going over my head. You're just wrong.

And if we can't trust you on the facts, why would anybody trust your opinions?

Absurd is mentioning haymon's management fees as collateral when speaking about a $400 million investment. Do you not realize how inconsequential that fee is relative to the amount invested? That's why it's absurd. Go eat another pizza you fat Phuck.

[original zero]

Natas -

The numbers haven't been great compared to what? Millions more are watching PBC than any other boxing and PBC is doing the same ratings as major sports leagues in the same time slot. 3.5 million people watched Danny Garcia win a world title. If the fight had been on HBO, a million people would have watched. Were you expecting 5 million to watch? If so, why?

The events feel like one offs because they are one offs. PBC is giving samples to all of the major networks while having to keep Showtime happy simultaneously. Not reasonable to expect Haymon to be able to logically build from show to show until he no longer needs to fill dates on so many different channels.

He still hasn't made his big move yet. He's just accumulating world champions. Moving guys up the rankings. Collecting as many belts as possible. He's not going to have a defined explained narrative like HBO when he doesn't want anyone to know what he's up to yet.

If W&R invested enough to be the irrational player for 3-5 years, it's very possible they'll reach year 5 with or without a ROI.

[original zero]

Absurd is mentioning haymon's management fees as collateral when speaking about a $400 million investment. Do you not realize how inconsequential that fee is relative to the amount invested? That's why it's absurd. Go eat another pizza you fat Phuck.

Nowhere have I mentioned anything as "collateral." I've said that W&R most likely bought a majority stake in Haymon's boxing companies and that Haymon's companies will have value whether the PBC television series is a success or not. The TV series could be canceled tomorrow and Haymon's boxing companies are still going to be valuable. Doesn't mean it'll have been a wise investment if the TV series is unsuccessful, but Haymon's boxing companies are going to be around a long time regardless.

If you were confident in the merits of your argument, you wouldn't be resorting to childish insults.