-
Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
Joshua seems to be trying to tempt Wlad for a rematch with the idea of a last hurrah in Vegas . Do you think it would do the numbers and would you like to see it or do you think he should just get on with Pulev (probably in the UK)?
"He gained a lot of admiration and respect (at Wembley), even though he lost," Joshua added."Vegas, it is the mecca of boxing and this is an opportunity.
"People wouldn't mind travelling and it is a nice big hurrah for himself. He has achieved so much, does he have the motivation?
"I think Vegas will get his blood boiling again."....
http://www.express.co.uk/sport/boxin...chko-Las-Vegas
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
The fight should be in the UK, the only reason I can see it be in the US is so that AJ can say he headlined over there and open that market to him.
I prefer this fight that Pulev.
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
Vegas and HBO combined might just generate as much as a full Wembley but I really doubt it. But they'd want it at four am UK time so that fucks up the biggest revenue stream, UK TV. I can't see either of them taking so much less money to make the fight. I think if it happens it's Wembley again or a big German stadium and on at UK prime time.
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
Those Stadium fights don't make as much as people think. With such a huge venue you have to drop prices. For example Joshua vs Klitschko did 7m gate. Floyd had 11 higher gates including 72m being his highest gate. None in a stadium. If Calzaghe vs Hopkins can do a gate of 11.67in Vegas I assume Joshua vs Klitschko could do more than 7m.
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
That Calzaghe-Hopkins gate must be suspect. All the top 30 reported gates feature Oscar, Floyd, Pac, Tyson and Holyfield - with those two virtual no-marks (in relation) wedged in. The AJ-Klit gate has to be converted from £-to-$. I've also seen it reported at £8-9-10 million.
Vegas is certainly where the dough is though if you're a big enough attraction. That's why Canelo-Golovkin went there instead of 80,000 at the baseball/AF stadium (Dodgers? Jerry Roth? Something like that)
Can't do Wembley in the winter. What happened to Nigeria? Sure Wlad was well up for that
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
Vegas is a wise move and the logical one, AJ is now a brand as well as a fighter so he needs to crack the US market.
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
I don't care where they fight..... I'd like to see the rematch, now that Klitschko suddenly rediscovered his balls after all these years.
Vegas would be great for the U.S. exposure.
It would be huge.
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
The mere talk of this in the grand ol USA should have Wilder rethinking his agents career path. Would be awesome in Vegas and love to see the rematch!
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
I've been looking for an excuse to return to Vegas - this just might be it.....
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smashup
Vegas is a wise move and the logical one, AJ is now a brand as well as a fighter so he needs to crack the US market.
I think that hits the nail on the head. If he beats Wlad again he can put on stadium shows back home in Britain but the opportunity to fight in Vegas and showcase in front of the American market is something he might not get the chance to do again unless Wilder gets his act together.
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mark TKO
I've been looking for an excuse to return to Vegas - this just might be it.....
Didn't you go over for the Hatton / Floyd fight ? I think the Brits and our supporters help make it an even bigger spectacle.
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
I was thinking that they're not going to be queuing up in Vegas to put another Klitschko fight on but at least one casino will come up with some money hoping Joshua can bring a Hatton sized crowd over with him. They're definitely going to lose out with the UK PPV money though if it's on at four am UK time. Unless a casino puts up a big wedge a German stadium is probably the best way to keep everybody happy.
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
Germany viewers get the fight on free TV and UK/USA viewers pay for the fight. Fantastic con that people have been brought into.
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
RTL (German TV) paid a reported £4 million for AJ-Wlad, it's not the BBC who have this fantastic con that requires by law you give them money without any say in what it gets spent on.
Instead of constantly attacking the greedy fighters for making "more than they deserve" and "mug" fans that pay them remember you pay for a station that doesn't even show boxing.
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
RTL (German TV) paid a reported £4 million for AJ-Wlad, it's not the BBC who have this fantastic con that requires by law you give them money without any say in what it gets spent on.
Instead of constantly attacking the greedy fighters for making "more than they deserve" and "mug" fans that pay them remember you pay for a station that doesn't even show boxing.
I do not blame the fighters, I blame the promoters and the TV companies for allowing this business model to flourish so that they can pocket the profits for themselves.
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
I get that but the fighters benefit most, so you might as well say they're not worth the money they get paid.
AJ-Wlad - £30 million was amassed from UK PPV.
You expect them to leave all those millions behind for the sake of who? You. Because you're unwilling to pay for your entertainment.
Now for people that can't afford it then it's entirely different, fuck, i'm even ditching this Sky lark now. However, it still doesn't change the fact it's the fighters that benefit.
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
I get that but the fighters benefit most, so you might as well say they're not worth the money they get paid.
AJ-Wlad - £30 million was amassed from UK PPV.
You expect them to leave all those millions behind for the sake of who? You. Because you're unwilling to pay for your entertainment.
Now for people that can't afford it then it's entirely different, fuck, i'm even ditching this Sky lark now. However, it still doesn't change the fact it's the fighters that benefit.
Fighters benefit but they are used as an excuse by promoters and TV companies for doing this when it is they that are pushing it to maximise their profits. Sky have grossly over paid on the football so have to recoup their money back and one way is the excessive use of ppv.
If these people stopped pushing ppv the fighters would have little option but to take the next best deal. It is in the interest of Sky and Eddie to manufacture these fight to be ppv when they are clearly not.
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
The fights clearly are PPV worthy that's why it's a roaring success getting stronger and stronger with more and more scheduled. Don't forget ITV and BoxNation/BT. BoxNation will be charging PPV on a subscription channel specific for boxing.
Eubank Jr's last fight apparently bombed. Yet here we are again, this time at 16.95 - the same as AJ-Wlad, Floyd-Pac - not the reduced price.
Again, you think the fighters aren't worth your money. Fine. It's a choice.
P.s - you do a great job promoting PPV for them, you're forever printing their press releases, promo pics and sales pitch. ;D
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
The fights clearly are PPV worthy that's why it's a roaring success getting stronger and stronger with more and more scheduled. Don't forget ITV and BoxNation/BT. BoxNation will be charging PPV on a subscription channel specific for boxing.
Eubank Jr's last fight apparently bombed. Yet here we are again, this time at 16.95 - the same as AJ-Wlad, Floyd-Pac - not the reduced price.
Again, you think the fighters aren't worth your money. Fine. It's a choice.
P.s - you do a great job promoting PPV for them, you're forever printing their press releases, promo pics and sales pitch. ;D
As you have pointed out not all PPV are a success but the companies and promoters still persist on them. It will put more and more people off the sport and if you can get the fights in Germany and South Korea for free why are we having to pay? It is totally unjust.
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
No need to worry yourself sick about the damage this is doing to do sport mate, there's more boxing shows now than at anytime since WW2. The attendance at boxing clubs is higher than anytime since TV was invented, clubs all over the country reported huge increases in juniors joining in the aftermath of AJ-Wlad. Boxing is absolutely thriving.
I never said Eubank's PPV wasn't a success I said "apparently," however, they're doing it again at a higher price.
You personally don't pay for anything. Like I said, German TV paid £4 million for a fight that took place in another country. You should find out why the BBC won't invest a penny of your money.
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
No need to worry yourself sick about the damage this is doing to do sport mate, there's more boxing shows now than at anytime since WW2. The attendance at boxing clubs is higher than anytime since TV was invented, clubs all over the country reported huge increases in juniors joining in the aftermath of AJ-Wlad. Boxing is absolutely thriving.
I never said Eubank's PPV wasn't a success I said "apparently," however, they're doing it again at a higher price.
You personally don't pay for anything. Like I said, German TV paid £4 million for a fight that took place in another country. You should find out why the BBC won't invest a penny of your money.
BBC were bitten by Audley when they over paid for him and never looked at boxing ever since.
Wlad could easily say to the Germans you have to pay to watch him but he deliberately does not and takes British money because he knows he will receive more in adulation, exposure and notoriety than just money. Just look at Bruno who is still loved more than Lennox.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
I get that but the fighters benefit most, so you might as well say they're not worth the money they get paid.
AJ-Wlad - £30 million was amassed from UK PPV.
You expect them to leave all those millions behind for the sake of who? You. Because you're unwilling to pay for your entertainment.
Now for people that can't afford it then it's entirely different, fuck, i'm even ditching this Sky lark now. However, it still doesn't change the fact it's the fighters that benefit.
Fighters benefit but they are used as an excuse by promoters and TV companies for doing this when it is they that are pushing it to maximise their profits. Sky have grossly over paid on the football so have to recoup their money back and one way is the excessive use of ppv.
If these people stopped pushing ppv the fighters would have little option but to take the next best deal. It is in the interest of Sky and Eddie to manufacture these fight to be ppv when they are clearly not.
Fighters are used as an excuse?
Just out of curiousity, who exactly do you think earns the most money out of a ppv event?
A. The fighters
B. The promoter
C. The TV Company
D. The Taxman
Better still, it would be great if you put them in order.
That way, you work out who you should be castigating.
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
I get that but the fighters benefit most, so you might as well say they're not worth the money they get paid.
AJ-Wlad - £30 million was amassed from UK PPV.
You expect them to leave all those millions behind for the sake of who? You. Because you're unwilling to pay for your entertainment.
Now for people that can't afford it then it's entirely different, fuck, i'm even ditching this Sky lark now. However, it still doesn't change the fact it's the fighters that benefit.
Fighters benefit but they are used as an excuse by promoters and TV companies for doing this when it is they that are pushing it to maximise their profits. Sky have grossly over paid on the football so have to recoup their money back and one way is the excessive use of ppv.
If these people stopped pushing ppv the fighters would have little option but to take the next best deal. It is in the interest of Sky and Eddie to manufacture these fight to be ppv when they are clearly not.
Fighters are used as an excuse?
Just out of curiousity, who exactly do you think earns the most money out of a ppv event?
A. The fighters
B. The promoter
C. The TV Company
D. The Taxman
Better still, it would be great if you put them in order.
That way, you work out who you should be castigating.
It is blood sucking business model perpetuated by the TV companies and promoters who are to blame, the fighters will retire but these greedy people will remain for many years to come.
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
The fighter is on 80% of those major Matchroom PPV shows. Every penny spent relating to them (undercard, etc) comes out of their pot.
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
No need to worry yourself sick about the damage this is doing to do sport mate, there's more boxing shows now than at anytime since WW2. The attendance at boxing clubs is higher than anytime since TV was invented, clubs all over the country reported huge increases in juniors joining in the aftermath of AJ-Wlad. Boxing is absolutely thriving.
I never said Eubank's PPV wasn't a success I said "apparently," however, they're doing it again at a higher price.
You personally don't pay for anything. Like I said, German TV paid £4 million for a fight that took place in another country. You should find out why the BBC won't invest a penny of your money.
BBC were bitten by Audley when they over paid for him and never looked at boxing ever since.
Wlad could easily say to the Germans you have to pay to watch him but he deliberately does not and takes British money because he knows he will receive more in adulation, exposure and notoriety than just money. Just look at Bruno who is still loved more than Lennox.
Bruno is the pioneer of PPV in Britain. So greedy Frank is to blame for all this? Audley is to blame for the BBC? Greedy, greedy fighters.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
I get that but the fighters benefit most, so you might as well say they're not worth the money they get paid.
AJ-Wlad - £30 million was amassed from UK PPV.
You expect them to leave all those millions behind for the sake of who? You. Because you're unwilling to pay for your entertainment.
Now for people that can't afford it then it's entirely different, fuck, i'm even ditching this Sky lark now. However, it still doesn't change the fact it's the fighters that benefit.
Fighters benefit but they are used as an excuse by promoters and TV companies for doing this when it is they that are pushing it to maximise their profits. Sky have grossly over paid on the football so have to recoup their money back and one way is the excessive use of ppv.
If these people stopped pushing ppv the fighters would have little option but to take the next best deal. It is in the interest of Sky and Eddie to manufacture these fight to be ppv when they are clearly not.
Fighters are used as an excuse?
Just out of curiousity, who exactly do you think earns the most money out of a ppv event?
A. The fighters
B. The promoter
C. The TV Company
D. The Taxman
Better still, it would be great if you put them in order.
That way, you work out who you should be castigating.
It is blood sucking business model perpetuated by the TV companies and promoters who are to blame, the fighters will retire but these greedy people will remain for many years to come.
No disrespect Máté, but you talk some horseshit when you try to swerve the question. Just fucking answer it mate.
@Fenster even gave you a bit of help with the answer.
-
Bruno was no pioneer he was pissed off that sky had made their fight ppv as he wanted a percentage of it. I am not blaming the fighters but it is not them demanding the fights be ppv.
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
I get that but the fighters benefit most, so you might as well say they're not worth the money they get paid.
AJ-Wlad - £30 million was amassed from UK PPV.
You expect them to leave all those millions behind for the sake of who? You. Because you're unwilling to pay for your entertainment.
Now for people that can't afford it then it's entirely different, fuck, i'm even ditching this Sky lark now. However, it still doesn't change the fact it's the fighters that benefit.
Fighters benefit but they are used as an excuse by promoters and TV companies for doing this when it is they that are pushing it to maximise their profits. Sky have grossly over paid on the football so have to recoup their money back and one way is the excessive use of ppv.
If these people stopped pushing ppv the fighters would have little option but to take the next best deal. It is in the interest of Sky and Eddie to manufacture these fight to be ppv when they are clearly not.
Fighters are used as an excuse?
Just out of curiousity, who exactly do you think earns the most money out of a ppv event?
A. The fighters
B. The promoter
C. The TV Company
D. The Taxman
Better still, it would be great if you put them in order.
That way, you work out who you should be castigating.
It is blood sucking business model perpetuated by the TV companies and promoters who are to blame, the fighters will retire but these greedy people will remain for many years to come.
No disrespect Máté, but you talk some horseshit when you try to swerve the question. Just fucking answer it mate.
@
Fenster even gave you a bit of help with the answer.
Even on Mastermind people do not have to answer the question. Who are you Geremia Paxmano?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
I get that but the fighters benefit most, so you might as well say they're not worth the money they get paid.
AJ-Wlad - £30 million was amassed from UK PPV.
You expect them to leave all those millions behind for the sake of who? You. Because you're unwilling to pay for your entertainment.
Now for people that can't afford it then it's entirely different, fuck, i'm even ditching this Sky lark now. However, it still doesn't change the fact it's the fighters that benefit.
Fighters benefit but they are used as an excuse by promoters and TV companies for doing this when it is they that are pushing it to maximise their profits. Sky have grossly over paid on the football so have to recoup their money back and one way is the excessive use of ppv.
If these people stopped pushing ppv the fighters would have little option but to take the next best deal. It is in the interest of Sky and Eddie to manufacture these fight to be ppv when they are clearly not.
Fighters are used as an excuse?
Just out of curiousity, who exactly do you think earns the most money out of a ppv event?
A. The fighters
B. The promoter
C. The TV Company
D. The Taxman
Better still, it would be great if you put them in order.
That way, you work out who you should be castigating.
It is blood sucking business model perpetuated by the TV companies and promoters who are to blame, the fighters will retire but these greedy people will remain for many years to come.
No disrespect Máté, but you talk some horseshit when you try to swerve the question. Just fucking answer it mate.
@
Fenster even gave you a bit of help with the answer.
Even on Mastermind people do not have to answer the question. Who are you Geremia Paxmano?
All in the interests of healthy debate . He still ain't answered though.
Anyway, I'd expect that reply from you seeing as you've been swerving my questions for the last few days.😉
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
I get that but the fighters benefit most, so you might as well say they're not worth the money they get paid. AJ-Wlad - £30 million was amassed from UK PPV. You expect them to leave all those millions behind for the sake of who? You. Because you're unwilling to pay for your entertainment.Now for people that can't afford it then it's entirely different, fuck, i'm even ditching this Sky lark now. However, it still doesn't change the fact it's the fighters that benefit.
Fighters benefit but they are used as an excuse by promoters and TV companies for doing this when it is they that are pushing it to maximise their profits. Sky have grossly over paid on the football so have to recoup their money back and one way is the excessive use of ppv. If these people stopped pushing ppv the fighters would have little option but to take the next best deal. It is in the interest of Sky and Eddie to manufacture these fight to be ppv when they are clearly not.
Fighters are used as an excuse? Just out of curiousity, who exactly do you think earns the most money out of a ppv event?A. The fighters B. The promoterC. The TV Company D. The TaxmanBetter still, it would be great if you put them in order.That way, you work out who you should be castigating.
It is blood sucking business model perpetuated by the TV companies and promoters who are to blame, the fighters will retire but these greedy people will remain for many years to come.
No disrespect Máté, but you talk some horseshit when you try to swerve the question. Just fucking answer it mate. @
Fenster even gave you a bit of help with the answer.
Even on Mastermind people do not have to answer the question. Who are you Geremia Paxmano?
All in the interests of healthy debate . He still ain't answered though. Anyway, I'd expect that reply from you seeing as you've been swerving my questions for the last few days.😉
Uh...Yeah.. OK.
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
Primo, what is wrong with you? I am saying there is no need for ppv format. It happens in US and UK for boxing fans but not in Germany where Wlad is more popular than AJ will ever be.
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Primo, what is wrong with you? I am saying there is no need for ppv format. It happens in US and UK for boxing fans but not in Germany where Wlad is more popular than AJ will ever be.
Mate, I detest some of these ridiculous PPV's as much as you do. I also feel that Joe Public is getting rinsed in the UK .
But you have to be realistic and accept that the reason there are more PPV's is because of the demand of the fighters. Yes , promoters and TV Stations are making money, but that's what they're there to do.
And you turn around and say "fighters are earning but they'll be retired soon , but the promoters and TV Leeches will still be taking the money."
Well , you could actually turn that around and say "The fighters are taking the money out of the sport and will ride off into the sunset, but the promoters and TV will carry on investing in the sport and putting money back into it."
Hey, the top fighters know their market value and best of luck to them. But you can't deny the Promoters and TV the money they make because they're stumping up the dough and taking the risks!
Bit of perspective needed bud.
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Primo, what is wrong with you? I am saying there is no need for ppv format. It happens in US and UK for boxing fans but not in Germany where Wlad is more popular than AJ will ever be.
Mate, I detest some of these ridiculous PPV's as much as you do. I also feel that Joe Public is getting rinsed in the UK .
But you have to be realistic and accept that the reason there are more PPV's is because of the demand of the fighters. Yes , promoters and TV Stations are making money, but that's what they're there to do.
And you turn around and say "fighters are earning but they'll be retired soon , but the promoters and TV Leeches will still be taking the money."
Well , you could actually turn that around and say "The fighters are taking the money out of the sport and will ride off into the sunset, but the promoters and TV will carry on investing in the sport and putting money back into it."
Hey, the top fighters know their market value and best of luck to them. But you can't deny the Promoters and TV the money they make because they're stumping up the dough and taking the risks!
Bit of perspective needed bud.
They invest to make money and make huge profits any risks/mistakes they make they pass it on to subscribers. Let's not feel too sorry for them.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Primo, what is wrong with you? I am saying there is no need for ppv format. It happens in US and UK for boxing fans but not in Germany where Wlad is more popular than AJ will ever be.
Mate, I detest some of these ridiculous PPV's as much as you do. I also feel that Joe Public is getting rinsed in the UK .
But you have to be realistic and accept that the reason there are more PPV's is because of the demand of the fighters. Yes , promoters and TV Stations are making money, but that's what they're there to do.
And you turn around and say "fighters are earning but they'll be retired soon , but the promoters and TV Leeches will still be taking the money."
Well , you could actually turn that around and say "The fighters are taking the money out of the sport and will ride off into the sunset, but the promoters and TV will carry on investing in the sport and putting money back into it."
Hey, the top fighters know their market value and best of luck to them. But you can't deny the Promoters and TV the money they make because they're stumping up the dough and taking the risks!
Bit of perspective needed bud.
They invest to make money and make huge profits any risks/mistakes they make they pass it on to subscribers. Let's not feel too sorry for them.
Trust me, NOBODY ever feels sorry for them. But you have to have balance and accept the fighters role in this.
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Primo, what is wrong with you? I am saying there is no need for ppv format. It happens in US and UK for boxing fans but not in Germany where Wlad is more popular than AJ will ever be.
Mate, I detest some of these ridiculous PPV's as much as you do. I also feel that Joe Public is getting rinsed in the UK .
But you have to be realistic and accept that the reason there are more PPV's is because of the demand of the fighters. Yes , promoters and TV Stations are making money, but that's what they're there to do.
And you turn around and say "fighters are earning but they'll be retired soon , but the promoters and TV Leeches will still be taking the money."
Well , you could actually turn that around and say "The fighters are taking the money out of the sport and will ride off into the sunset, but the promoters and TV will carry on investing in the sport and putting money back into it."
Hey, the top fighters know their market value and best of luck to them. But you can't deny the Promoters and TV the money they make because they're stumping up the dough and taking the risks!
Bit of perspective needed bud.
They invest to make money and make huge profits any risks/mistakes they make they pass it on to subscribers. Let's not feel too sorry for them.
Trust me, NOBODY ever feels sorry for them. But you have to have balance and accept the fighters role in this.
Fighters have not created this ppv platform it was there before they came and will be there long after they retire.
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Primo, what is wrong with you? I am saying there is no need for ppv format. It happens in US and UK for boxing fans but not in Germany where Wlad is more popular than AJ will ever be.
Mate, I detest some of these ridiculous PPV's as much as you do. I also feel that Joe Public is getting rinsed in the UK .
But you have to be realistic and accept that the reason there are more PPV's is because of the demand of the fighters. Yes , promoters and TV Stations are making money, but that's what they're there to do.
And you turn around and say "fighters are earning but they'll be retired soon , but the promoters and TV Leeches will still be taking the money."
Well , you could actually turn that around and say "The fighters are taking the money out of the sport and will ride off into the sunset, but the promoters and TV will carry on investing in the sport and putting money back into it."
Hey, the top fighters know their market value and best of luck to them. But you can't deny the Promoters and TV the money they make because they're stumping up the dough and taking the risks!
Bit of perspective needed bud.
They invest to make money and make huge profits any risks/mistakes they make they pass it on to subscribers. Let's not feel too sorry for them.
Trust me, NOBODY ever feels sorry for them. But you have to have balance and accept the fighters role in this.
Fighters have not created this ppv platform
it was there before they came and will be there long after they retire.
how can that be? If there were no Fighters, there would be no ppv! Am I missing something here?
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Primo, what is wrong with you? I am saying there is no need for ppv format. It happens in US and UK for boxing fans but not in Germany where Wlad is more popular than AJ will ever be.
Mate, I detest some of these ridiculous PPV's as much as you do. I also feel that Joe Public is getting rinsed in the UK .
But you have to be realistic and accept that the reason there are more PPV's is because of the demand of the fighters. Yes , promoters and TV Stations are making money, but that's what they're there to do.
And you turn around and say "fighters are earning but they'll be retired soon , but the promoters and TV Leeches will still be taking the money."
Well , you could actually turn that around and say "The fighters are taking the money out of the sport and will ride off into the sunset, but the promoters and TV will carry on investing in the sport and putting money back into it."
Hey, the top fighters know their market value and best of luck to them. But you can't deny the Promoters and TV the money they make because they're stumping up the dough and taking the risks!
Bit of perspective needed bud.
They invest to make money and make huge profits any risks/mistakes they make they pass it on to subscribers. Let's not feel too sorry for them.
Trust me, NOBODY ever feels sorry for them. But you have to have balance and accept the fighters role in this.
Fighters have not created this ppv platform
it was there before they came and will be there long after they retire.
how can that be? If there were no Fighters, there would be no ppv! Am I missing something here?
It was there long before Joshua and will be after he retires.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Primo, what is wrong with you? I am saying there is no need for ppv format. It happens in US and UK for boxing fans but not in Germany where Wlad is more popular than AJ will ever be.
Mate, I detest some of these ridiculous PPV's as much as you do. I also feel that Joe Public is getting rinsed in the UK .
But you have to be realistic and accept that the reason there are more PPV's is because of the demand of the fighters. Yes , promoters and TV Stations are making money, but that's what they're there to do.
And you turn around and say "fighters are earning but they'll be retired soon , but the promoters and TV Leeches will still be taking the money."
Well , you could actually turn that around and say "The fighters are taking the money out of the sport and will ride off into the sunset, but the promoters and TV will carry on investing in the sport and putting money back into it."
Hey, the top fighters know their market value and best of luck to them. But you can't deny the Promoters and TV the money they make because they're stumping up the dough and taking the risks!
Bit of perspective needed bud.
They invest to make money and make huge profits any risks/mistakes they make they pass it on to subscribers. Let's not feel too sorry for them.
Trust me, NOBODY ever feels sorry for them. But you have to have balance and accept the fighters role in this.
Fighters have not created this ppv platform
it was there before they came and will be there long after they retire.
how can that be? If there were no Fighters, there would be no ppv! Am I missing something here?
It was there long before Joshua and will be after he retires.
What about the others? And future guys? It's not just about Joshua.
I'm more concerned about the guys who are not ppv worthy?
AJ is HW champion of the World and probably the Man in the division.
That's always been a big prestigious thing. He's bound to be ppv.
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
I do not care about others, Bellew is now a ppv fighter, it is a joke.
-
Re: Joshua v Klitschko in Vegas?
850,000 PPV buys for Bellew's last fight.
Greedy fighters have ruined the sport (even though it's more popular than ever)
