BoxRec

Boxerbeetle wrote:Frank's IFL interview yesterday was funny, he absolutely ripped the piss out Eubank Sr and said he'd never deal with him again.

Maybe they should send Eubank out to the Middle East as an ambassador - I reckon Israel and Palestine would quickly settle their differences amicably rather than listening to Chris trying to broker the peace.

I think there'd be a huge spike in people offering themselves up as suicide bombers.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:Frank's IFL interview yesterday was funny, he absolutely ripped the piss out Eubank Sr and said he'd never deal with him again.

Maybe they should send Eubank out to the Middle East as an ambassador - I reckon Israel and Palestine would quickly settle their differences amicably rather than listening to Chris trying to broker the peace.

I think there'd be a huge spike in people offering themselves up as suicide bombers.

For both comments

ALI wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:Eddie claims to take 20% of the profit from the entire show.

I'm sure this is fact. Matchroom take 20% of the shows profit, the fighter 80%. Seems to me to be a very honest business model, far better than a fighter been offered X amount and the promoter earning 10 x more.

On the face of it, this sounds good - however, how is the "profit" calculated ?

The show will generate income from a variety of sources, and incur a variety of costs to hopefully leave a profit - for all we know, the costs could include Eddie's consultancy services at £x and a whole bunch of other costs. And then he gets another 20% of what is left.

These things are rarely as simple and straightforward as they first appear.

bripez wrote:

ALI wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:Eddie claims to take 20% of the profit from the entire show.

I'm sure this is fact. Matchroom take 20% of the shows profit, the fighter 80%. Seems to me to be a very honest business model, far better than a fighter been offered X amount and the promoter earning 10 x more.

On the face of it, this sounds good - however, how is the "profit" calculated ?

The show will generate income from a variety of sources, and incur a variety of costs to hopefully leave a profit - for all we know, the costs could include Eddie's consultancy services at £x and a whole bunch of other costs. And then he gets another 20% of what is left.

These things are rarely as simple and straightforward as they first appear.

I agree, anybody who claims to know exactly who earns what, who isn't directly involved, is talking shite. It's a labyrinthine business.

sounded like a good honest formula

but I think Sky take 50% of all PPV... I imagine Matchroom get a rebate of this figure too... plus their '20%'

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

bripez wrote:

ALI wrote:
I'm sure this is fact. Matchroom take 20% of the shows profit, the fighter 80%. Seems to me to be a very honest business model, far better than a fighter been offered X amount and the promoter earning 10 x more.

On the face of it, this sounds good - however, how is the "profit" calculated ?

The show will generate income from a variety of sources, and incur a variety of costs to hopefully leave a profit - for all we know, the costs could include Eddie's consultancy services at £x and a whole bunch of other costs. And then he gets another 20% of what is left.

These things are rarely as simple and straightforward as they first appear.

I agree, anybody who claims to know exactly who earns what, who isn't directly involved, is talking shite. It's a labyrinthine business.

Eddie talked openly about not only going through the budget with the fighter and his advisors pre event, but also sharing the profit & loss account records post event. You cannot get any more open book than that, it comes across pretty damn fair to me.

Why would he say all that on film if it was not true. Froch, Brook, Joshua et all would surely take issue if he was talking tripe?

ALI wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

bripez wrote:
On the face of it, this sounds good - however, how is the "profit" calculated ?

The show will generate income from a variety of sources, and incur a variety of costs to hopefully leave a profit - for all we know, the costs could include Eddie's consultancy services at £x and a whole bunch of other costs. And then he gets another 20% of what is left.

These things are rarely as simple and straightforward as they first appear.

I agree, anybody who claims to know exactly who earns what, who isn't directly involved, is talking shite. It's a labyrinthine business.

Eddie talked openly about not only going through the budget with the fighter and his advisors pre event, but also sharing the profit & loss account records post event. You cannot get any more open book than that, it comes across pretty damn fair to me.

Why would he say all that on film if it was not true. Froch, Brook, Joshua et all would surely take issue if he was talking tripe?

I'm sure he does, but what I'm saying is that there's lot of earning streams from boxing, and fighters themselves don't like to reveal their earnings, so the truth is, we're all making educated guesses at best.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

ALI wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
I agree, anybody who claims to know exactly who earns what, who isn't directly involved, is talking shite. It's a labyrinthine business.

Eddie talked openly about not only going through the budget with the fighter and his advisors pre event, but also sharing the profit & loss account records post event. You cannot get any more open book than that, it comes across pretty damn fair to me.

Why would he say all that on film if it was not true. Froch, Brook, Joshua et all would surely take issue if he was talking tripe?

I'm sure he does, but what I'm saying is that there's lot of earning streams from boxing, and fighters themselves don't like to reveal their earnings, so the truth is, we're all making educated guesses at best.

I get what your saying, but when the books are tallied up the 80/20 split will provide a clear number for both sides. Of course both promotor and fighter can earn additional income outside of the contract, and that is their right to do so, but i think whats important here is the 80/20 split. If an earning figure is to be quoted for either party it would be said number. But i do get your point, even if figures are put out there who is anyone outside of the show to know if they are correct or not.

I am very intreagued to learn about Matchroom's 80/20 split of the profits in favour of the fighter. All revenue generated from 'the event' is tallied up, costs deducted and the profit split accordingly. I'm sure Matchroom play an honest hand, it would be very unwise of Matchroom to 'cook the books', or to try and hide certain revenue streams that are specifically generated from the event if they are providing the profit & loss account to the fighters team. Eddie would be increadibly stupid to talk so openly about their 80/20 business model if they were playing that game.

For me it was heartening to hear Eddie break down their business model in such a frank and open manner, i'm not saying he's a saint or anything else for thar matter, but such an approach to the financial side of this sport between promoter/fighter is something i would not have figured on getting an insight on. I would have pictured a much moee grey and seedy arrangement.

Does anyone know if this 80/20 'open book' business model is practiced by other promoters?

Iisten, koogs

A good few people on here said it was all a publicity stunt and wouldn't happen, I didn't believe it then but it's like Boxing News said this week if you are going to play the Prima Donna at contract talks you do it after you've won the title, not before.

What % of the 80 % goes to Eubank and what % to GGG

coneye wrote:What % of the 80 % goes to Eubank and what % to GGG

I can guarantee that Eubank gets 0%.

BigDoofus wrote:

coneye wrote:What % of the 80 % goes to Eubank and what % to GGG

I can guarantee that Eubank gets 0%.

Its boxing even that could still change

Brook's payday would be based on the PPV sales.
Eubank would have wanted a guarantee rather than a possibility of what they'd earn.
Nothing wrong with that.

southace wrote:Brook's payday would be based on the PPV sales.
Eubank would have wanted a guarantee rather than a possibility of what they'd earn.
Nothing wrong with that.

It's the equivalent of a business owner interviewing a sales person.

To the first person he says that if they sell £1m of stuff he will pay them a commission of £200k

Next in is English who listens to the same offer and then demands his £200k up front irrespective of sales.

BigDoofus wrote:

coneye wrote:What % of the 80 % goes to Eubank and what % to GGG

I can guarantee that Eubank gets 0%.

Horse wrote:I back him.

A fight fell through, big deal.

You could say it was big yeah, worth millions.

I think they probably didn’t want it. If Jnr is as unbending as his father was then I could see a bit of a sustained hiding by the Russian.

I agree with the consensus on here "massive bell end" "Matchroom and Fwank agree on one thing, he's a nightmare to deal with", however, I think he did the right thing by his son and scuttled the Golovkin fight. Eubank Jr., while busting out of domestic and genuinely on the fringe, is young and, perhaps, has a big future ahead of him in a prestigious division, he's not nearly ready for Golovkin and isn't running out of time nor is he desperate for a big payday so he shouldn't be sent to the slaughter, particularly by his manager and definately not by his father.

dberry wrote:I agree with the consensus on here "massive bell end" "Matchroom and Fwank agree on one thing, he's a nightmare to deal with", however, I think he did the right thing by his son and scuttled the Golovkin fight. Eubank Jr., while busting out of domestic and genuinely on the fringe, is young and, perhaps, has a big future ahead of him in a prestigious division, he's not nearly ready for Golovkin and isn't running out of time nor is he desperate for a big payday so he shouldn't be sent to the slaughter, particularly by his manager and definately not by his father.

That's all well and good, but why call out Golovkin in the first place if they had no intention of fighting him?

Seems to me they wanted the fight but Snr is a terrible business man, nothing wrong with trying to negotiate as much dough as possible for your fighter. But he clearly pushed too far and ruined his sons chances of facing the biggest name in the division and career best payday.

keirw wrote:That's all well and good, but why call out Golovkin in the first place if they had no intention of fighting him?

Publicity?

coneye wrote:What % of the 80 % goes to Eubank and what % to GGG

GGG's earnings will be marked up as a cost of the event. When all costs are deducted from the total revenue generated, Brook/Matchroom split the profit 80/20.

I'm sure Brook has a minimum guarantee in place.

ALI wrote:

coneye wrote:What % of the 80 % goes to Eubank and what % to GGG

GGG's earnings will be marked up as a cost of the event. When all costs are deducted from the total revenue generated, Brook/Matchroom split the profit 80/20.

I'm sure Brook has a minimum guarantee in place.

So orbtastic's claim that Eddie earns lots more than Brook out of the fight is nonsense?

BigDoofus wrote:

ALI wrote:

coneye wrote:What % of the 80 % goes to Eubank and what % to GGG

GGG's earnings will be marked up as a cost of the event. When all costs are deducted from the total revenue generated, Brook/Matchroom split the profit 80/20.

I'm sure Brook has a minimum guarantee in place.

So orbtastic's claim that Eddie earns lots more than Brook out of the fight is nonsense?

Correct.