Hearn: Thank god we didn't take $50m. Next year we may be looking at making $200m

[N/A]

With Canelo-GGG 2 in September and Mcgregor in October another PPV in November it would seem foolish for SHO to gurantee $50M.

Thank you for your inexperienced amateur opinion. I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm just saying the experienced experts were willing to take the risk. Maybe it was foolish. But the point is that for major PPVs, the premium network advances the purses as part of the services they provide for retaining a percentage of the PPV. SHO confirmed the money was real.

Hearn didn't say anything about BT Involvement, Warren did. Why would Finkle use Warren to find out about the Uk Market, when the fight was taking place in the US and Sky and Matchroom are the Dominant Boxing Providers in the UK.

That's incorrect, Hearn mentioned BT in several interviews when trying to come up with excuses for turning down the 50 million. Finkel needed Warren's help in the UK market to determine the value of the fight in the UK market. Even with the fight taking place in the US, UK PPV would have been a significant portion of the revenue and if BT was willing to guarantee X amount of buys and front the money, Sky would need to match that offer to get the rights to the fight. Why should Wilder's side guarantee the 50 million AJ asked for, and then be bound to selling the UK rights to Sky if Sky wasn't willing to pay market value?

When taking into account Las Vegas Judges and natural American Bias towards Wilder winning in America. It's the correct decision to have this fight in the UK from Joshua and Hearn's perspective. Less money for hometown advantage is worth it

Nobody has taken 15 million less for hometown advantage in the entire history of boxing. Yes both fighters would prefer hometown advantage, but that impasse, in the entire history of boxing, has always been solved by going where the money is. Nobody has ever spent 15 million for a hometown ref before.

[koolkc107]

"Gee, I am glad we didn't take that 50 million, it could be 200 million by next year!"

Amazing.

Video of Hearn admitting the 50 million was real, yet AJ fanboys still talking about how it wasn't.

Fast Eddie got these guys sprung worse than $2 hoes...

[that g]

"Gee, I am glad we didn't take that 50 million, it could be 200 million by next year!"

Amazing.

Video of Hearn admitting the 50 million was real, yet AJ fanboys still talking about how it wasn't.

Fast Eddie got these guys sprung worse than $2 hoes...

the offer was real, sure. but clearly, finkel and haymon didn't have the money, what with frank warren admitting that BT sport was going to fund the 50 mil.

not many people are still arguing that it wasn't real, and very few people are still talking about the 50 mil stuff, for that matter. well, except wilder fans. fact is both sides have moved on. right or not, AJ chose to fight in the UK. u can choose to remain deluded and call it a duck if you like. that's your opinion. right or not, wilder and finkel wanted hearn and AJ to accept a ****ty deal and contract that would have ruined AJs career before he even stepped in the ring. that's my opinion, among many others.

move on and join folks in the present. what we have right now is that finkel and wilder are able, but unwilling to come to the table to negotiate for a unification fight that already has a date and venue set. that's the reality.

[koolkc107]

the offer was real, sure. but clearly, finkel and haymon didn't have the money, what with frank warren admitting that BT sport was going to fund the 50 mil.

not many people are still arguing that it wasn't real, and very few people are still talking about the 50 mil stuff, for that matter. well, except wilder fans. fact is both sides have moved on. right or not, AJ chose to fight in the UK. u can choose to remain deluded and call it a duck if you like. that's your opinion. right or not, wilder and finkel wanted hearn and AJ to accept a ****ty deal and contract that would have ruined AJs career before he even stepped in the ring. that's my opinion, among many others.

move on and join folks in the present. what we have right now is that finkel and wilder are able, but unwilling to come to the table to negotiate for a unification fight that already has a date and venue set. that's the reality.

That isn't what Warren said.

They were not depending on BT for 50 million.

They wanted the fight to air on BT and they wanted to buy (NOT SELL!!!) the rights from BT to show the fight in Britain.

THEY WERE NOT LOOKING FOR MONEY FROM BT. THEY SOUGHT TO PAY BT!

It was a problem for AJ because he has a contract with Sky, although I am certain that WASN'T a deal stopper anymore than it would be for Wilder to allow a fight to be shown on Sky even though he has a deal with Showtime.

Came in handy as still another excuse for Fast Eddie and AJ tho.

[that g]

That isn't what Warren said.

They were not depending on BT for 50 million.

They wanted the fight to air on BT and they wanted to buy (NOT SELL!!!) the rights from BT to show the fight in Britain.

THEY WERE NOT LOOKING FOR MONEY FROM BT. THEY SOUGHT TO PAY BT!

It was a problem for AJ because he has a contract with Sky, although I am certain that WASN'T a deal stopper anymore than it would be for Wilder to allow a fight to be shown on Sky even though he has a deal with Showtime.

Came in handy as still another excuse for Fast Eddie and AJ tho.

So here's a direct quote from the interview, posted on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VkZhknNkeA question and answer start at 4.45:

"well, that's what they were doing: they offered the guarantee of the 50 and the 30 on the strength of buying the rights for... to put the fight on. now, you know, i'm sure if i was in hearn's position, if i wanted the fight, i would say it's got to go on sky, but the fact was that was the conversations i was having with shelley. we wanted to get it out, we wanted to put the fight on BT, and we had lots of conversations about it, but i said to him all along, i don't think they'll take it cos they don't want the fight. and that's how it transpired."

if you read that, and tell me that they were not dependent on BT, you are lying or just unable to read. frank warren clearly says that BT was going to fund 80mil in total just to stick it to sky, hearn and AJ. it was definitely a deal stopper (even though, again, AJ wanting a uk fight was the ultimate dealbreaker).

again, all that doesn't matter anymore. move on and join folks in the present. what we have right now is that finkel and wilder are able, but unwilling to come to the table to negotiate for a unification fight that already has a date and venue set. that's the reality.

[koolkc107]

So here's a direct quote from the interview, posted on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VkZhknNkeA question and answer start at 4.45:



if you read that, and tell me that they were not dependent on BT, you are lying or just unable to read. frank warren clearly says that BT was going to fund 80mil in total just to stick it to sky, hearn and AJ. it was definitely a deal stopper (even though, again, AJ wanting a uk fight was the ultimate dealbreaker).

again, all that doesn't matter anymore. move on and join folks in the present. what we have right now is that finkel and wilder are able, but unwilling to come to the table to negotiate for a unification fight that already has a date and venue set. that's the reality.

Nonsense.

...they offered the guarantee of the 50 and the 30 on the strength of buying the rights for...

How was BT financing anything by Haymon and Finkel GIVING THEM (BT) MONEY FOR THE BRITISH TV RIGHTS???????

Why don't YOU read what was said.

They were guaranteeing 50 million for the first fight and 30 for the second.

They wanted to buy the rights to show it on BT most likely to cut Hearn and Sky out of everything since they didn't need them involved at all especially with Warren on board in Britain.

It is the same type of thing Hearn tried when he offered Wilder fights on DAZN, knowing he has a relationship with Showtime.

It has zero to do with Haymon or Finkel needing money from BT, which they didn't. If they did, trying to PAY BT is a funny way of going about it, don't you think?

I hope this helps...

[Manlikefemi]

Thank you for your inexperienced amateur opinion. I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm just saying the experienced experts were willing to take the risk. Maybe it was foolish. But the point is that for major PPVs, the premium network advances the purses as part of the services they provide for retaining a percentage of the PPV. SHO confirmed the money was real.




That's incorrect, Hearn mentioned BT in several interviews when trying to come up with excuses for turning down the 50 million. Finkel needed Warren's help in the UK market to determine the value of the fight in the UK market. Even with the fight taking place in the US, UK PPV would have been a significant portion of the revenue and if BT was willing to guarantee X amount of buys and front the money, Sky would need to match that offer to get the rights to the fight. Why should Wilder's side guarantee the 50 million AJ asked for, and then be bound to selling the UK rights to Sky if Sky wasn't willing to pay market value?




Nobody has taken 15 million less for hometown advantage in the entire history of boxing. Yes both fighters would prefer hometown advantage, but that impasse, in the entire history of boxing, has always been solved by going where the money is. Nobody has ever spent 15 million for a hometown ref before.

Tv Networks don't get involved in fights until venue and purses are sorted. Showtime does not have a contract with Joshua or Wilder. They have no right to claim themselves as the host broadcaster.

Showtime could easily confirm if they put the money up. But Stephen Espinoza has never said that, because tv companies do not finance deals, unless your someone like Mayweather.

Your not understanding you dimwit. No Sky, no Matchroom and therefore no Joshua. Unlike Showtime and Wilder, Sky have a contract with Joshua. He has to honour the terms or it's a trip to the courts.

If you want high UK PPV Numbers, you go with Sky Sports Box Office, not a platform which has never done a PPV in it's existence....as Mayweather Promotions did for May v Pac and May v Conor. Getting BT involved which is Sky's Direct Rival, is not the best of way's to facilitate a deal between Matchroom and Shelly Finkle. It's a unnecessary barrier.

[Manlikefemi]

Nonsense.

...they offered the guarantee of the 50 and the 30 on the strength of buying the rights for...

How was BT financing anything by Haymon and Finkel GIVING THEM (BT) MONEY FOR THE BRITISH TV RIGHTS???????

Why don't YOU read what was said.

They were guaranteeing 50 million for the first fight and 30 for the second.

They wanted to buy the rights to show it on BT most likely to cut Hearn and Sky out of everything since they didn't need them involved at all especially with Warren on board in Britain.

It is the same type of thing Hearn tried when he offered Wilder fights on DAZN, knowing he has a relationship with Showtime.

It has zero to do with Haymon or Finkel needing money from BT, which they didn't. If they did, trying to PAY BT is a funny way of going about it, don't you think?

I hope this helps...

LOL, But Sky have a contract with Joshua. Showtime don't with Wilder. Tv Networks do not finance deals, they do marketing and promotion to get High PPV Numbers which they take a cut from.

BT have never done a PPV. If you want high UK PPV Numbers at 5am in the morning, you go with Sky. Mayweather-Pacquiao, Mayweather- Hatton, Mayweather- Mcgregor, all record PPV's at US Prime Time were marketed and set by Sky and got record numbers in the UK.

BT is a small platform in the Uk. Think of Sky as HBO and BT as it's little sister.

[GGG Gloveking]

When Eddie says the fight could do $200M next year, is he saying (1) he seriously miscalculated the value of the fight, thus being an idiot, or (2) he knew the real value of the fight, and that $15M flat fee was a total bullsh it offer from the beginning, thus making him a snake?

[N/A]

Tv Networks don't get involved in fights until venue and purses are sorted.

That is incorrect. Why are you under that impression? If you have no experience or insight into putting together fights or dealing with networks, why are you making authoritative declarations about how things work when you really have no idea?

Showtime does not have a contract with Joshua or Wilder. They have no right to claim themselves as the host broadcaster.

Showtime has an agreement with Wilder's adviser to be given priority on his fights. There is nothing wrong with Wilder's adviser coming to Showtime and asking what they would be willing to guarantee for a fight he's attempting to put together.

Showtime could easily confirm if they put the money up. But Stephen Espinoza has never said that, because tv companies do not finance deals, unless your someone like Mayweather.

That is incorrect. Why are you under that impression? If you have no experience or insight into putting together fights or dealing with networks, why are you making authoritative declarations about how things work when you really have no idea?

For pretty much every major US PPV in history, HBO or SHO has advanced the purses. That is part of what they get paid to do.

Your not understanding you dimwit. No Sky, no Matchroom and therefore no Joshua. Unlike Showtime and Wilder, Sky have a contract with Joshua. He has to honour the terms or it's a trip to the courts.

LOL I've been doing this for a living for nearly 20 years. What are your qualifications exactly? And if your position is so strong, why are you resorting to name calling?

Yes, the fight must be on Sky. Nobody is denying that. Warren's role was to help Finkel determine the value of the UK rights. You don't guarantee AJ 50 million and then give the fight to Sky for free do you? How do you make sure to get fair value from Sky if you don't have a legitimate offer from BT for Sky to match or reject?