BoxRec

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I can help you with this business side you struggle so hard to understand. You just have to listen. Lol

Na I'm good man. You were wrong n Degale being with Haymon at the time of purse bid. We'll see if you're right or not if it goes to a purse bid

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

lefty wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: This is where you miss the boat. When he pays out it's other peoples money and he makes his cut off of his fighter. That's why he overpaid for your other example, it made him MORE money. This move would make him nothing.

Yeah but he didn't have Degale at that stage so surely that could have backfired if Degale didn't sign with him 6 weeks later?

Obviously that deal would have been in place prefight.

Pure conjecture there. Degale didn't sign until 6 weeks after the bout

http://www.BS.com/james-degale ... mon--93336

lefty wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I can help you with this business side you struggle so hard to understand. You just have to listen. Lol

Na I'm good man. You were wrong n Degale being with Haymon at the time of purse bid. We'll see if you're right or not if it goes to a purse bid

As usual, you miss the point of everything.

lefty wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

lefty wrote: Yeah but he didn't have Degale at that stage so surely that could have backfired if Degale didn't sign with him 6 weeks later?

Obviously that deal would have been in place prefight.

Pure conjecture there. Degale didn't sign until 6 weeks after the bout

http://www.BS.com/james-degale ... mon--93336

Vintage lefty, turning it into a degale signing debate. The one minute detail. Lmao

Vintage lefty maybe. Vintage arrogant Saad aswell.

lefty wrote:Vintage lefty maybe. Vintage arrogant Saad aswell.

How? By conceding a minor point as soon as you disagreed with it? Yes, how arrogant.

No, by saying that Haymon had an investment in both fighters when he bid on the fight when Degale wasn't signed with him at that point. Then when you realise that you were mistaken on thar point you revert to "well they clearly had an agreement in place beforehand" to justify the size of the bid.

Haymon is well known for inflating the market place in terms of purses. I don't know why it's so shocking that he could have done the same thing there.

lefty wrote:No, by saying that Haymon had an investment in both fighters when he bid on the fight when Degale wasn't signed with him at that point. Then when you realise that you were mistaken on thar point you revert to "well they clearly had an agreement in place beforehand" to justify the size of the bid.

Haymon is well known for inflating the market place in terms of purses. I don't know why it's so shocking that he could have done the same thing there.

He was flinging around money at the time because it made him money. Virtually boxing money laundering. I've never claimed to be the top expert on UK fighting. When you said he signed after the fight I said fine. It's common sense to me that they were working on a deal beforehand but it's only worth arguing for you because it takes away from the actual subject matter that you're woefully off base with.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

lefty wrote:No, by saying that Haymon had an investment in both fighters when he bid on the fight when Degale wasn't signed with him at that point. Then when you realise that you were mistaken on thar point you revert to "well they clearly had an agreement in place beforehand" to justify the size of the bid.

Haymon is well known for inflating the market place in terms of purses. I don't know why it's so shocking that he could have done the same thing there.

He was flinging around money at the time because it made him money. Virtually boxing money laundering. I've never claimed to be the top expert on UK fighting. When you said he signed after the fight I said fine. It's common sense to me that they were working on a deal beforehand but it's only worth arguing for you because it takes away from the actual subject matter that you're woefully off base with.

Typical Saad resorts to ad hominem attacks. Where was he making his huge sums from at that point by the way? He wasn't being paid by the networks and I doubt Degale and Dirrell were selling a huge number of tickets. Where was the revenue coming from when he made that decision?

lefty wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

lefty wrote:No, by saying that Haymon had an investment in both fighters when he bid on the fight when Degale wasn't signed with him at that point. Then when you realise that you were mistaken on thar point you revert to "well they clearly had an agreement in place beforehand" to justify the size of the bid.

Haymon is well known for inflating the market place in terms of purses. I don't know why it's so shocking that he could have done the same thing there.

He was flinging around money at the time because it made him money. Virtually boxing money laundering. I've never claimed to be the top expert on UK fighting. When you said he signed after the fight I said fine. It's common sense to me that they were working on a deal beforehand but it's only worth arguing for you because it takes away from the actual subject matter that you're woefully off base with.

Typical Saad resorts to ad hominem attacks. Where was he making his huge sums from at that point by the way? He wasn't being paid by the networks and I doubt Degale and Dirrell were selling a huge number of tickets. Where was the revenue coming from when he made that decision?

He is the manager of the pbc fighters, he makes money off of their purses.so he was buying network time and hoping to build sponsorship for the network's to pay out instead of them paying in. Surely you can see there are less pbc fights now then there were then? Less investor money obviously means taking a chance like bidding a bundle to pay out 75% to a guy you have no piece of that is likely to beat one of your top guys(Durrell never was) is just stupid business. Al is many things, dumb isn't one of them. And if that last post was an attack, lol, you really need thicker skin.

Makes sense that you didn't know where his profit comes from. Perhaps that helps you understand the overbidding. Doesn't make any sense for him to do it here.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Makes sense that you didn't know where his profit comes from. Perhaps that helps you understand the overbidding. Doesn't make any sense for him to do it here.

... unless he is certain that Golovkin can't fight off HBO. Then he is risking nothing.

boxing_rocks wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Makes sense that you didn't know where his profit comes from. Perhaps that helps you understand the overbidding. Doesn't make any sense for him to do it here.

... unless he is certain that Golovkin can't fight off HBO. Then he is risking nothing.

Doesn't he have an exclusive deal with HBO?

boxing_rocks wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Makes sense that you didn't know where his profit comes from. Perhaps that helps you understand the overbidding. Doesn't make any sense for him to do it here.

... unless he is certain that Golovkin can't fight off HBO. Then he is risking nothing.

He's not gaining anything. I think it really comes down to if Jacobs wants the fight. If he does they'll work it out. If he doesn't they'll waste time on a pursebid that Danny won't sign.

Interesting comments from Espinoza

“We are definitely interested and will aggressively pursue,” Golovkin-Jacobs, Showtime Executive Vice President Stephen Espinoza told The Times in a text message Friday

http://www.BS.com/golovkin-jac ... ht--109535

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Makes sense that you didn't know where his profit comes from. Perhaps that helps you understand the overbidding. Doesn't make any sense for him to do it here.

... unless he is certain that Golovkin can't fight off HBO. Then he is risking nothing.

He's not gaining anything. I think it really comes down to if Jacobs wants the fight. If he does they'll work it out. If he doesn't they'll waste time on a pursebid that Danny won't sign.

His fighter is getting a WBA super title and is not getting brutally stopped.

boxing_rocks wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:
... unless he is certain that Golovkin can't fight off HBO. Then he is risking nothing.

He's not gaining anything. I think it really comes down to if Jacobs wants the fight. If he does they'll work it out. If he doesn't they'll waste time on a pursebid that Danny won't sign.

His fighter is getting a WBA super title and is not getting brutally stopped.

They already have a paper belt. Wouldn't change anything. The risk certainly outweighs that reward. Ggg gets an exception from HBO and you pay him millions to smash your fighter. If anything they're probably just putting the screws to k2 to force as big a bid as possible. I guess warrior boxing will be the bidder for Jacobs.

I am sure that Jacobs is being offered at least $2 mil. In order to get more than that via the purse bid, it should be above $8 mil. Who will throw that kind of money at this fight?

Showtime clearly wants the fight by the sounds of things.

However, if the fight goes to purse bid and the WBA has opted to amend the co-champion split to 60-40, Showtime and the Barclays Center in Brooklyn could move to make a rich offer for the bout.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/boxing/la ... story.html

boxing_rocks wrote:I am sure that Jacobs is being offered at least $2 mil. In order to get more than that via the purse bid, it should be above $8 mil. Who will throw that kind of money at this fight?

The only remote possibility of an overpay I could think of is Schaefer. My guess is it either gets agreed to or k2 bids 4 million and wins wide with no fight to follow.

An amended 60-40 split to Golovkin or it goes to purse bids which K2 lose forcing Golovkin to drop the belt.

Reading between the lines there- it looks like Showtime is willing to back Haymon in a purse bid situation in turn forcing HBO's hand. Best case scenario HBO has to pay over the odds for the fight.

lefty wrote:An amended 60-40 split to Golovkin or it goes to purse bids which K2 lose forcing Golovkin to drop the belt.

Reading between the lines there- it looks like Showtime is willing to back Haymon in a purse bid situation in turn forcing HBO's hand. Best case scenario HBO has to pay over the odds for the fight.

I am sure that an offer to Jacobs is no worse than 40% of the purse. The disagreements are about its absolute value, venue, network, etc.

boxing_rocks wrote:

lefty wrote:An amended 60-40 split to Golovkin or it goes to purse bids which K2 lose forcing Golovkin to drop the belt.

Reading between the lines there- it looks like Showtime is willing to back Haymon in a purse bid situation in turn forcing HBO's hand. Best case scenario HBO has to pay over the odds for the fight.

I am sure that an offer to Jacobs is no worse than 40% of the purse. The disagreements are about its absolute value, venue, network, etc.

You could be right. If it's about networks then it's hard to see how it won't end up in a purse bid situation though.

lefty wrote:An amended 60-40 split to Golovkin or it goes to purse bids which K2 lose forcing Golovkin to drop the belt.

Reading between the lines there- it looks like Showtime is willing to back Haymon in a purse bid situation in turn forcing HBO's hand. Best case scenario HBO has to pay over the odds for the fight.

Where does it say the top line? The article simply mentions that Jacobs' side could make a nice offer, not that they would win if it goes to bids.

It would be also funny if Haymon's rep put down a huge bid, only for GGG to be given an exemption. I wonder if the fight would still happen then...