Re: Angel Garcia in Eye-Opening Interview
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
If PBC keeps on making fights like Garcia-Salka they're not going to get anywhere. Boxing has had decades of guys winning a belt and making somewhat of a name for themselves and then having half a dozen Salka-like fights or more before they fight anybody dangerous. That's mainly why it's in the position it's in. PBC is not going to reverse boxing's slide by more of the same.
It is on free network and they are winning fans that would not normally watch. It is a good business model.
It's not a good business model at all, it's currently a massive loss-making enterprise. It's based on hope that more and more fans keep watching PBC as time goes by and eventually PBC becomes something that TV companies will pay money to show. Currently Haymon's backers are paying the TV companies to show the shows and paying the fighters HBO money.
They're investing tens of millions of dollars in the hope that PBC becomes a lot more popular than it is. If it doesn't they lose their dough. And the calibre of fights they're showing isn't even impressing existing fans, never mind attracting new fans in the numbers needed to make PBC financially viable.
It may not even come down to whether the product is any good. Haymon is facing a couple of potentially game-ending lawsuits but his biggest problem may be that the hedge fund putting up all the money having been making big losses over the past year. Losses at hedge funds are often followed by management firings and hirings and the new guys may not see PBC as worth the investment. It's only about 1% of the fund that they're investing with Haymon but when you've made big losses that 1% suddenly becomes a lot of money.
That 1% is a tax right off.
Re: Angel Garcia in Eye-Opening Interview
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Swanson
Everyone ready to blame PBC, tell me just what Brook has done? He's a talent too. Is it the PBCs fault Brook has an awful CV? Stop trying to blame one entity when everyone is doing it FFS. You can't see the Forrest for the trees.
Go to an undefeated PBC/Haymon IBF champions backyard, whoop him, then go back to England with his belt to headline his own shows, whilst getting shamelessly ducked by his biggest rival, who is a PBC/Haymon fighter.
Re: Angel Garcia in Eye-Opening Interview
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Swanson
Everyone ready to blame PBC, tell me just what Brook has done? He's a talent too. Is it the PBCs fault Brook has an awful CV? Stop trying to blame one entity when everyone is doing it FFS. You can't see the Forrest for the trees.
Everyone does it. No doubt about it. Most people, however, deny it. Garcia outright admits it, which makes it all the more intriguing. PBC has most of the fighters in the premiere divisions, stages more shows, and is on television more so the Salka-esque fights happens more often with the PBC. Consequently, the effect of the Salka-esque fights is cumulatively larger. If you look at the PBC landscape at 147-154, this is maybe the first time that they've put two of their best, and arguably A-sides, in with each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
If PBC keeps on making fights like Garcia-Salka they're not going to get anywhere. Boxing has had decades of guys winning a belt and making somewhat of a name for themselves and then having half a dozen Salka-like fights or more before they fight anybody dangerous. That's mainly why it's in the position it's in. PBC is not going to reverse boxing's slide by more of the same.
It is on free network and they are winning fans that would not normally watch. It is a good business model.
PBC needs to win new boxing fans and get it exposure for it to be characterized as a success. There are many problems with their strategy. First, they are ignoring the hardcore boxing fan by staging so many "Salka-esque" fights. Second, they aren't going to win new fans by staging Salka-esque fights. Third, by paying boxers so much for facing Salka-esque opponents, they request a ridiculous amount of money to face a challenge, and it distorts the market. As Garcia said, why face a tough guy, when you can get paid well to face Salka.
Re: Angel Garcia in Eye-Opening Interview
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
If PBC keeps on making fights like Garcia-Salka they're not going to get anywhere. Boxing has had decades of guys winning a belt and making somewhat of a name for themselves and then having half a dozen Salka-like fights or more before they fight anybody dangerous. That's mainly why it's in the position it's in. PBC is not going to reverse boxing's slide by more of the same.
It is on free network and they are winning fans that would not normally watch. It is a good business model.
It's not a good business model at all, it's currently a massive loss-making enterprise. It's based on hope that more and more fans keep watching PBC as time goes by and eventually PBC becomes something that TV companies will pay money to show. Currently Haymon's backers are paying the TV companies to show the shows and paying the fighters HBO money.
They're investing tens of millions of dollars in the hope that PBC becomes a lot more popular than it is. If it doesn't they lose their dough. And the calibre of fights they're showing isn't even impressing existing fans, never mind attracting new fans in the numbers needed to make PBC financially viable.
It may not even come down to whether the product is any good. Haymon is facing a couple of potentially game-ending lawsuits but his biggest problem may be that the hedge fund putting up all the money having been making big losses over the past year. Losses at hedge funds are often followed by management firings and hirings and the new guys may not see PBC as worth the investment. It's only about 1% of the fund that they're investing with Haymon but when you've made big losses that 1% suddenly becomes a lot of money.
That 1% is a tax right off.
They don't pay tax anyway. And it's not a write off, it's a loss.
