BoxRec

iamasadlittleboy wrote:...has anyone been on Warrens youtube channels recently? I was checking it out in February and they didn't have a full fight on there in the previous 12 months! In fact the most recent fights were Liam Walsh v Barrie Jones and Lewis Rees v Damien Turner. A good promoter should have taken more fights and put them on there to allow fight fans to have share the fight and help promote fighters. There is massive potential to use facebook and youtube as a promotional tool, yet Warren hasn't used it.

So if we are to blame the internet for Warren's demise then we need to blame his misuse of it.

To me the Haye v Chisora fight was little more than a pay day loan, it allowed him to carry on a bit longer but he didn't build on it, he didn't build on the momentum and instead he served up dross. His next show was 2 months later and saw Jarrod Fletcher facing Billy Joe Saunders. Maybe it was poor timing having it just prior to the Olympics but it was a decision made by W.arren/Box.nation.

Warren did apparently 17 cards last year, most of them were god awful with only a few standing out as we got mismatch after mismatch after mismatch. This, is the arguably the crux of the problem, the mismatches simply drowned out the good stuff. Had he been putting on good stuff regularly people would pay attention yet sadly he has given us a replay of what the WWF used to do with repeated squash matches rather than competitive action.

Doesn't matter how good (or bad) the fighters are, if they are evenly matched and have styles that work well then we generally get a decent fight. I've seen plenty of cards from Mexico, Argentina and the Philippines which were enthralling despite neither fighter e being all that good, yet I've heard Bunce and Co. Raving about fighters like Bradley Skeete and John Thain who aren't going to get the pulses racing I'm afraid. They are good fighters but damn are they ever boring and a boring fighter in a mismatch isn't fun to watch.

Had Warren been putting on good to watch fights, then whacking them on youtube it'd have increased the interest in seeing those fighters again (damnit that's promotion!) and allowed fans on facebook and general interest forums, reddit, stumbleupon etc etc etc etc etc to have said "look at this great fight!"

Whilst my views on b.allegedly are that they should have been picking up cheap cards internationally to fill up their schedule to fulfill their promise of 2 cards a week that doesn't change the fact that Warren has failed to promote his fighters. How often have we seen Ricky Burns, Nathan Cleverly, Billy Joe Saunders, Frankie Gavin or Kevin Mitchell on general TV? We saw David Price on BBC Breakfast before his fight with Tony Thompson and he had clear potential to be a cross over star with the fact he was doing more cross over media work than it seems the entire of the Warren stable.

It may not be what a fighter wants to do, but going on to things like Question of Sport, Alan Carr, Graham Norton, BBC Breakfast, This Morning, The One Show, Johnathan Ross and Day Break increases their profile. Increasing the profile of your fighters will see an increase the general awareness of the fighters this in turn will see people wanting to see fighters.

My missus with all her girly rags has mentioned fighters like Froch, Haye, the Klitschko's (in part due to Wladimir's relationship with Pantierre at the time) all being in there and attracting the female fan base as opposed to just the hardcore fans.

Deserter wrote:

Finn wrote:
What part are you finding hard to understand? I'm saying its not too far off becoming a great channel for fight nuts if it had a few tweaks. But since you brought the financial aspect up BT are apparently looking to buy allegedly channel with a big budget FW could be onto to a winner. I didnt say he isnt on the ropes, i said i dont think he is, the channel could fall flat on its arse but since FW has been about for donkeys and always managed to comeback, im inclined to believe he could be onto a winner.

If you would like me to enlighten you in the future i could tell you who your father is, that would probably come as a shock to you.

What a bizarre tangent. Talking about a few tweaks of BN while ignoring the stuttering business model is the equivalent of me talking about making a few cosmetic changes to a car while ignoring the fact the engine isn't working.
The examples you gave earlier hardly constitute tweaks and in almost all cases would involve significant investment so you need to be able to build an ROI case i.e. an Ultimate Fighter show would cost x amount to produce but this would be justified by the belief it would generate y amount of new subscriptions for the channel.
To talk about your 'tweaks' that require investment but to then say you weren't taking into account the financial side is utterly pointless. Best you stick to telling me who my father is...

orbtastic wrote:He doesn't look too clever on this week's Boxing News. I suspect it's intentional :)

Finn wrote:I was ignoring the financial side because none of us are in a position to comment on it, do you know the revenue and overheads for Allegedly Channel, or the money available in the pot? .

Deserter wrote:

Finn wrote:I was ignoring the financial side because none of us are in a position to comment on it, do you know the revenue and overheads for Allegedly Channel, or the money available in the pot? .

Absolutely ridiculous. Nobody should comment on it despite there being plenty in the public domain regarding that type of business model and the inherent challenges relating to size of market, cost base, dependency on a single revenue stream etc?
Aside from the generic situation you can then add the clear issues relating to the specific platform, whether that's in terms of situations indicative of cashflow problems or the situation revealed by the filing of accounts....
But no, you're right, all of this doesn't constitute grounds for any sort of comment and the whole thing should be swept under the carpet...

Finn wrote:

Deserter wrote:

Finn wrote:I was ignoring the financial side because none of us are in a position to comment on it, do you know the revenue and overheads for Allegedly Channel, or the money available in the pot? .

Absolutely ridiculous. Nobody should comment on it despite there being plenty in the public domain regarding that type of business model and the inherent challenges relating to size of market, cost base, dependency on a single revenue stream etc?
Aside from the generic situation you can then add the clear issues relating to the specific platform, whether that's in terms of situations indicative of cashflow problems or the situation revealed by the filing of accounts....
But no, you're right, all of this doesn't constitute grounds for any sort of comment and the whole thing should be swept under the carpet...

I commented on things to make the channel better and you threw a hissy fit crying about how i shouldnt be making a comment because i didnt mention the financial side, how dare I? Im saying you dont know the budget for Allegedly Channel so shouldn't be commenting now you're crying about that, make your mind up its either a comment board or it isnt.

You pointing out the parts i highlighted in red is like a child pointing out the flashing lights on a fire engine. We're all aware of them you're not giving people a lesson in business you're stating the obvious then trying to act like Peter Jones. Im saying i think he has a channel which could be a valuable asset and he should be speculating to accumulate (albeit with low budget options which i mentioned as im assuming he doesnt have much money in the pot) since he has already passed the point of no return, you dont seem to understand that a business model can be changed. When companies are looking to be sold they start trying to increase their customer base by giving special offers, the customer base is one of the factors potential investor and buyers look at. Allegedly channel could potentially be taken on by a bigger tv platform, invested in and FW would be the main promoter on the channel he owns a smaller percentage of - would that not be a good position? More investment, less risk, wider viewers?

Whats your idea slick? declare bankruptcy?

You're obviously upset about your Dad and not thinking straight. I've been in touch with Chris and he's disappointed with you.

Finn wrote:

Deserter wrote:

Finn wrote:I was ignoring the financial side because none of us are in a position to comment on it, do you know the revenue and overheads for Allegedly Channel, or the money available in the pot? .

Absolutely ridiculous. Nobody should comment on it despite there being plenty in the public domain regarding that type of business model and the inherent challenges relating to size of market, cost base, dependency on a single revenue stream etc?
Aside from the generic situation you can then add the clear issues relating to the specific platform, whether that's in terms of situations indicative of cashflow problems or the situation revealed by the filing of accounts....
But no, you're right, all of this doesn't constitute grounds for any sort of comment and the whole thing should be swept under the carpet...

I commented on things to make the channel better and you threw a hissy fit crying about how i shouldnt be making a comment because i didnt mention the financial side, how dare I? Im saying you dont know the budget for Allegedly Channel so shouldn't be commenting now you're crying about that, make your mind up its either a comment board or it isnt.

You pointing out the parts i highlighted in red is like a child pointing out the flashing lights on a fire engine. We're all aware of them you're not giving people a lesson in business you're stating the obvious then trying to act like Peter Jones. Im saying i think he has a channel which could be a valuable asset and he should be speculating to accumulate (albeit with low budget options which i mentioned as im assuming he doesnt have much money in the pot) since he has already passed the point of no return, you dont seem to understand that a business model can be changed. When companies are looking to be sold they start trying to increase their customer base by giving special offers, the customer base is one of the factors potential investor and buyers look at. Allegedly channel could potentially be taken on by a bigger tv platform, invested in and FW would be the main promoter on the channel he owns a smaller percentage of - would that not be a good position? More investment, less risk, wider viewers?

Whats your idea slick? declare bankruptcy?

You're obviously upset about your Dad and not thinking straight. I've been in touch with Chris and he's disappointed with you.

Deserter wrote: You carry on suggesting your 'tweaks' fella - I assume your father was the same guy advocating shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic as it was going down?
Though you're obviously trying to change position as you talked about tweaks and now you're talking about 'changing a business model'... quite a different proposition.
Let's park the banter element for a second (which to be fair was quite enjoyable ) and I'll ask you some genuine questions, because I think where we're honestly seeing things differently is you see BN as a potential valuable asset, and I don't. So my questions to you:
1) What about it makes it constitute a valuable asset? My perspective is the subscription base is too narrow, no appeal to advertisers etc. Genuinely interested in why you differ from this? The BT scenario represents a 'lifeline' but surely more on the basis of someone having more money than sense (which of course can happen!), rather than BT rationally believing that spending big on BN will somehow propel them significantly forward in their bid to get traction in a very competitive marketplace. Again, I can't see why they would spend big on BN given the other investment opportunities open to them and their warchest.
2) In terms of those low investment options, what do you see them as? The reason I ask is that I see it as the law of diminishing returns i.e. any boxing fan 'hardcore' enough to want a dedicated subscription channel is almost certainly already on board, so the only 'win' in investing in a TUF-style show, for example, would be in being able to entice a more general fan, and I can't think of a single investment option where the return in terms of number of new subscriptions, would amount to more than the cost of investment - it's just too much of a niche proposition.

In summary, of course I'm aware you can change a business model - Intel was a perfect example of that in the 1980s - but equally some of the time you are simply better off cutting your losses and accepting the venture was a bold move but the wrong one, rather than throwing good money after bad. Warren clearly doesn't understand a lot of the modern world - PR, social media, content creation etc, but from a business perspective he's been Britain's best ever promoter. He's better off getting out of the content game and going back to the landscape he understands and excels at.
Would welcome your thoughts...

Finn wrote:

Deserter wrote: You carry on suggesting your 'tweaks' fella - I assume your father was the same guy advocating shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic as it was going down?
Though you're obviously trying to change position as you talked about tweaks and now you're talking about 'changing a business model'... quite a different proposition.
Let's park the banter element for a second (which to be fair was quite enjoyable ) and I'll ask you some genuine questions, because I think where we're honestly seeing things differently is you see BN as a potential valuable asset, and I don't. So my questions to you:
1) What about it makes it constitute a valuable asset? My perspective is the subscription base is too narrow, no appeal to advertisers etc. Genuinely interested in why you differ from this? The BT scenario represents a 'lifeline' but surely more on the basis of someone having more money than sense (which of course can happen!), rather than BT rationally believing that spending big on BN will somehow propel them significantly forward in their bid to get traction in a very competitive marketplace. Again, I can't see why they would spend big on BN given the other investment opportunities open to them and their warchest.
2) In terms of those low investment options, what do you see them as? The reason I ask is that I see it as the law of diminishing returns i.e. any boxing fan 'hardcore' enough to want a dedicated subscription channel is almost certainly already on board, so the only 'win' in investing in a TUF-style show, for example, would be in being able to entice a more general fan, and I can't think of a single investment option where the return in terms of number of new subscriptions, would amount to more than the cost of investment - it's just too much of a niche proposition.

In summary, of course I'm aware you can change a business model - Intel was a perfect example of that in the 1980s - but equally some of the time you are simply better off cutting your losses and accepting the venture was a bold move but the wrong one, rather than throwing good money after bad. Warren clearly doesn't understand a lot of the modern world - PR, social media, content creation etc, but from a business perspective he's been Britain's best ever promoter. He's better off getting out of the content game and going back to the landscape he understands and excels at.
Would welcome your thoughts...

I stopped reading after the first part, but as to obtain to my families business senses in relation to your assertion that my father was some blithering business noob, my folks own a plantation in sri lanka, a farm in the UK and along with a couple of other businesses are cash millionaires.

The rest of your post i assume is you trying to demonstrate you know something about business to someone who already understands business and has various qualifications in that field. I've gotten into long boring arguments with people on this forum before which usually just end in them throwing a strop and resorting to saying things like - "please enlighten me", which is the c*nts way of saying "i cant think of anything sensible to say so i'll try belittling him and hope that makes me look clever instead". I'll save my time and read people who interest me's posts instead.

But rest assured you spent your time researching google at a loss because i can assure you i did not read that post.

Finn wrote:^^Thats very true but they dont need to purchase the channel in its current format, its likely to have assets... advertising agreements etc all worth money.

Deserter wrote: I'm more than satisfied with that response as I think it says it all for everyone to see in terms of your stance.
PS. The father reference was clearly a tongue-in-cheek one continuing the 'father' theme you first introduced, but that clearly went over your head, hence your somewhat bizarre need to assert his business credentials

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:So do some of you people think boxing is going to be "better" now that Mr Warren is having a rough period?

iamasadlittleboy wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:So do some of you people think boxing is going to be "better" now that Mr Warren is having a rough period?

I think Allegedly channel could become better as a result of Warren's downfall. Boxing in general won't really improve or decline with him failing though IMO.

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

iamasadlittleboy wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:So do some of you people think boxing is going to be "better" now that Mr Warren is having a rough period?

I think Allegedly channel could become better as a result of Warren's downfall. Boxing in general won't really improve or decline with him failing though IMO.

Without bothering to go and look this up, i always thought that over the last 25 years or so, when Mr Warren was the dominant force in British boxing, general interest was at its highest. When he had a bad patch, British boxing tended to fade into the background.

bengulnaci1 wrote:Maybe had something to do with being on Terrestial TV. Then SKY.

10 mill+ viewers - During his TV heyday
300,000-500,00 - Peak SKY years.
100,000 - His own channel (I doubt it is 100K, but I'll over estimate, for effect).

Traded in viewers and the sports popularity, for his own interests, specifically money. Boxing will run and run, even after Mr W@rren and I are gone. I think he thought at some point, that he was the sport. If so, big mistake.

bengulnaci1 wrote:I was only pointing out that the 'peak' for British boxing, as you point out, was when W@rren was on ITV. he then moved to SKY and now his own channel. When he started, the audience was much larger, the sport recieved greater coverage and the masses were far more involved. The diminshment of British boxing is down to him and his pursuit for chasing more money for himself, primarily, and his fighters.

Now his channel is limited to hardcore fans, who have to pay. Joe public wont pay for it, so now he is reliant us. People like you and me, who post on the types of forums. I do not subscribe to his channel, but that is my personal preference.

bengulnaci1 wrote:By 'you and me', I refer to us as 'boxing fans'. I did not mean anything more.