Page 2 of 3
Re: Do you think FW should retire from being a promoter?
Posted: 10 May 2013, 14:37
by earsjohn
Ratchet Exits Nu wrote:columbo wrote:I know this has been mentioned before so shout outs to whoever brought it up first! Anyway im wondering whether Frank should just retire from promoting and put all his time and money into his channel! Its become a really good niche channel for boxing fans and at the moment I imagine its the promotional stuff that causes him more pain financially with all these fighters he's losing to matchroom! What do you guys think?
When he sells to BT Vison ( Allegedly ) he will be the biggest UK Promoter. Do not mess wth the Bunny Man!
Sells what?
Re: Do you think FW should retire from being a promoter?
Posted: 10 May 2013, 14:39
by lefty
earsjohn wrote:Ratchet Exits Nu wrote:columbo wrote:I know this has been mentioned before so shout outs to whoever brought it up first! Anyway im wondering whether Frank should just retire from promoting and put all his time and money into his channel! Its become a really good niche channel for boxing fans and at the moment I imagine its the promotional stuff that causes him more pain financially with all these fighters he's losing to matchroom! What do you guys think?
When he sells to BT Vison ( Allegedly ) he will be the biggest UK Promoter. Do not mess wth the Bunny Man!
Sells what?
He's talking about the channel.
Re: Do you think FW should retire from being a promoter?
Posted: 10 May 2013, 14:42
by Ratchet Exits Nu
'I'm a bad bad bunny!'
He will never be defeated!
Re: Do you think FW should retire from being a promoter?
Posted: 10 May 2013, 14:59
by earsjohn
columbo wrote:earsjohn wrote:Ratchet Exits Nu wrote:
When he sells to BT Vison ( Allegedly ) he will be the biggest UK Promoter. Do not mess wth the Bunny Man!
Sells what?
He's talking about the channel.
I get that, but what is there to sell? More pertinently what would BT consider worth buying? Asset wise, it appears to be worthless.
Re: Do you think FW should retire from being a promoter?
Posted: 10 May 2013, 15:02
by DMA1987
earsjohn wrote:
I get that, but what is there to sell? More pertinently what would BT consider worth buying? Asset wise, it appears to be worthless.
I agree. If they had a suscriber base on 12 month contracts then it would be more valuable. But I see no reason why BT don't start their own channel?
Re: Do you think FW should retire from being a promoter?
Posted: 10 May 2013, 15:03
by Ratchet Exits Nu
earsjohn wrote:
I get that, but what is there to sell? More pertinently what would BT consider worth buying? Asset wise, it appears to be worthless.
Have vision my friend, vision.
DD
Re: Do you think FW should retire from being a promoter?
Posted: 10 May 2013, 15:06
by DMA1987
Ratchet Exits Nu wrote:earsjohn wrote:
I get that, but what is there to sell? More pertinently what would BT consider worth buying? Asset wise, it appears to be worthless.
Have vision my friend, vision.
DD
I can't figure out whether you are a Warren fanboy, or a parody of one.
Re: Do you think FW should retire from being a promoter?
Posted: 10 May 2013, 15:13
by ScottDetonator
BT won't buy the channel but I see the point that they will probably look at showing some sort of boxing on BT Sports - think Loaded TV.
Most people won't get BT Sports for free. New subscribers means more money.
Plenty of fights they could pick up such as Hatton, Maloney, Coldwell, Goodwin's shows etc. Then you have the big international cards. Pacquiao Vs Rios for example would be a massive tempter for new subscribers and we all know, the boxing fans are willing to stump up when asked.
Re: Do you think FW should retire from being a promoter?
Posted: 10 May 2013, 15:43
by warriorbox
DMA1987 wrote:Ratchet Exits Nu wrote:earsjohn wrote:
I get that, but what is there to sell? More pertinently what would BT consider worth buying? Asset wise, it appears to be worthless.
Have vision my friend, vision.
DD
I can't figure out whether you are a Warren fanboy, or a parody of one.
I have been trying to work that out as well
Re: Do you think FW should retire from being a promoter?
Posted: 10 May 2013, 15:51
by Ratchet Exits Nu
warriorbox wrote:
I have been trying to work that out as well
Neither, but I know a good product when I see one. Look on B.Naton like a .com business, they will be bought by a bigger player.
Re: Do you think FW should retire from being a promoter?
Posted: 10 May 2013, 15:55
by DMA1987
Ratchet Exits Nu wrote:warriorbox wrote:
I have been trying to work that out as well
Neither, but I know a good product when I see one. Look on B.Naton like a .com business, they will be bought by a bigger player.
Why though mate? Their subscriber base isn't tied in longer than a month is it? And that is its only assett. allegedly can't do anything BT could do themselves.
If BT buy the fights allegedly fails. Easy.
Re: Do you think FW should retire from being a promoter?
Posted: 10 May 2013, 16:14
by Ratchet Exits Nu
DMA1987 wrote:Ratchet Exits Nu wrote:warriorbox wrote:
I have been trying to work that out as well
Neither, but I know a good product when I see one. Look on B.Naton like a .com business, they will be bought by a bigger player.
Why though mate? Their subscriber base isn't tied in longer than a month is it? And that is its only assett. Allegedly channel can't do anything BT could do themselves.
If BT buy the fights Allegedly Channel fails. Easy.
http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=165792
I think B.Nation owns the rights to a decent back catalogue of fights involving the biggest and best of britain from years gone by. They have fingers in many pies and big investment.
Time will tell, but the landscape will change and it will be eff Matchroom and their additional PPV .
Re: Do you think FW should retire from being a promoter?
Posted: 10 May 2013, 16:19
by DMA1987
So that means they are buying allegedly?
You are all hopes and dreams. Again, if they outbid allegedly for the fights, people cancel subscriptions and they have overtaken BN without having to buy them.
Why would they buy the channel and tinpot website? Tell me. Because it ain't for the subscribers.
And when allegedly folds, their assets, including back catalogues are sold off. Hardly worth paying what allegedly will want just for a back catalogue.
God you don't like Hearn.
Re: Do you think FW should retire from being a promoter?
Posted: 10 May 2013, 16:29
by Ratchet Exits Nu
DMA1987 wrote:So that means they are buying Allegedly Channel?
You are all hopes and dreams. Again, if they outbid Allegedly Channel for the fights, people cancel subscriptions and they have overtaken BN without having to buy them.
Why would they buy the channel and tinpot website? Tell me. Because it ain't for the subscribers.
And when Allegedly Channel folds, their assets, including back catalogues are sold off. Hardly worth paying what allegedly will want just for a back catalogue.
God you don't like Hearn.
The only creditor to B.Nation is......Frank. I doubt be will call the debts in.
The back catalogue etc is just oone part of the revenue.
We will see, I think its great for Boxing, and I am not Fan of Frank.
Re: Do you think FW should retire from being a promoter?
Posted: 10 May 2013, 16:36
by DMA1987
Ratchet Exits Nu wrote:DMA1987 wrote: I am not Fan of Frank.
Then I can't imagine the faith his actual fans have!
I don't care what happens to his channel to be honest, but I can't imagine BT buying it. It isn't iconic, it doesn't have assets worthy of the price I'm sure Warren would want. Moving back to my original question (seems like years ago) how would them buying BN make Frank the biggest promoter?
Re: Do you think FW should retire from being a promoter?
Posted: 10 May 2013, 16:37
by Parson Cross
Back to the title of the thread. The question was should be retire as a Promotor. Nah !
Re: Do you think FW should retire from being a promoter?
Posted: 10 May 2013, 17:00
by Ratchet Exits Nu
Parson Cross wrote:Back to the title of the thread. The question was should be retire as a Promotor. Nah !
No, and when he gets that BT money!
Re: Do you think FW should retire from being a promoter?
Posted: 10 May 2013, 18:50
by warriorbox
Ratchet Exits Nu wrote:warriorbox wrote:
I have been trying to work that out as well
Neither, but I know a good product when I see one. Look on B.Naton like a .com business, they will be bought by a bigger player.
Be honest - are you on a windup? Lol
It has no similarities to a .com start-up, literally none
No big player needs to buy it, the channel doesn't really own anything outside of the EPG slot, the programming doesn't really have any repeat value, they have no original programming outside of boxing promotions and anyone could hire bunce as a cheerleader. If another channel started buying the international fights allegedly would fold - and very quickly.
BT could be very bad news for allegedly, all they have to do is start outbidding allegedly on the international fights and they will pick up the subscribers without having to buy the channel.
The only USP allegedly has is it broadcasts live boxing - any channel could do that
Re: Do you think FW should retire from being a promoter?
Posted: 10 May 2013, 20:36
by DMA1987
warriorbox wrote:Ratchet Exits Nu wrote:warriorbox wrote:
I have been trying to work that out as well
Neither, but I know a good product when I see one. Look on B.Naton like a .com business, they will be bought by a bigger player.
Be honest - are you on a windup? Lol
It has no similarities to a .com start-up, literally none
No big player needs to buy it, the channel doesn't really own anything outside of the EPG slot, the programming doesn't really have any repeat value, they have no original programming outside of boxing promotions and anyone could hire bunce as a cheerleader. If another channel started buying the international fights Allegedly channel would fold - and very quickly.
BT could be very bad news for Allegedly channel, all they have to do is start outbidding Allegedly channel on the international fights and they will pick up the subscribers without having to buy the channel.
The only USP Allegedly channel has is it broadcasts live boxing - any channel could do that
Good post.
Re: Do you think FW should retire from being a promoter?
Posted: 11 May 2013, 11:17
by mcjarvo
I dont think he should retire. Eddie Hearns has over took him but that is what FW needs. He will now get the big fights for his fighters instead of feeding them journey mean and c level fighters. he has always gave Chisora the good fight but he is putting frankie gavin in with vassell :) so hopefully more to come.
Re: Do you think FW should retire from being a promoter?
Posted: 11 May 2013, 11:32
by palooka
DMA1987 wrote:Ratchet Exits Nu wrote:warriorbox wrote:
I have been trying to work that out as well
Neither, but I know a good product when I see one. Look on B.Naton like a .com business, they will be bought by a bigger player.
Why though mate? Their subscriber base isn't tied in longer than a month is it? And that is its only assett. Allegedly channel can't do anything BT could do themselves.
If BT buy the fights Allegedly Channel fails. Easy.
I don't think it's as easy as it looks; isn't the reason SKY decided to lump in with just one promoter because of the constant headaches/time spent dealing with balls ups/injuries/everything in boxing outside of the bouts?
Re: Do you think FW should retire from being a promoter?
Posted: 11 May 2013, 12:33
by squared circle
Allegedly channel balance sheet is pretty worthless. I cannot see what assets it has. The rights to the back catalogue really won't be worth that much. It has "value" for fwank in that he can fill swathes of airtime very cheaply. BUT If that's all the channel broadcast, and didn't show live content, I doubt anyone would subscribe - so in itself it has little intrinsic value.
Agree with others. BT is bad news for fwank.
Re: Do you think FW should retire from being a promoter?
Posted: 11 May 2013, 13:33
by palooka
squared circle wrote:Allegedly channel balance sheet is pretty worthless. I cannot see what assets it has. The rights to the back catalogue really won't be worth that much. It has "value" for fwank in that he can fill swathes of airtime very cheaply. BUT If that's all the channel broadcast, and didn't show live content, I doubt anyone would subscribe - so in itself it has little intrinsic value.
Agree with others. BT is bad news for fwank.
There are a lot of other companies with 'worthless' balance sheets that are profitable and worthwhile; I very much doubt that the directors of the company do not know what they are doing/doing voluntary work/running the channel for the thrill of it.
Re: Do you think FW should retire from being a promoter?
Posted: 11 May 2013, 13:53
by Ratchet Exits Nu
palooka wrote:
There are a lot of other companies with 'worthless' balance sheets that are profitable and worthwhile; I very much doubt that the directors of the company do not know what they are doing/doing voluntary work/running the channel for the thrill of it.
This.
Re: Do you think FW should retire from being a promoter?
Posted: 11 May 2013, 14:01
by mickey1975
Isn't Simon Green the most important figure in all this?