BoxRec

And I made that point earlier that if a Kessler III fight or a Ward, Hopkins etc etc kinda fight came along then he would have to drop the belt because those fights are more worthwhile.

If those fights aren't coming tho, then I think it makes sense to fight your mandatory so you can keep your belt rather than sit around for 9 months without getting a fight. Especially given that his mandatory is actually a fight that has a modicum of interest. If the mandatory was Edwin Rodriguez then it might be a different story but Froch Groves can sell in London.

If you can find the purses so easily can you find the purse Froch got for fighting Mack and Bute as I'm interested to know?

jameswilson wrote:And I made that point earlier that if a Kessler III fight or a Ward, Hopkins etc etc kinda fight came along then he would have to drop the belt because those fights are more worthwhile.

If those fights aren't coming tho, then I think it makes sense to fight your mandatory so you can keep your belt rather than sit around for 9 months without getting a fight. Especially given that his mandatory is actually a fight that has a modicum of interest. If the mandatory was Edwin Rodriguez then it might be a different story but Froch Groves can sell in London.

If you can find the purses so easily can you find the purse Froch got for fighting Mack and Bute as I'm interested to know?

He did say in the US they were published. Those fights were in Nottingham.

Haven't read through the whole thread so im maybe going over old ground but I like this fight, apart from Anderson Groves has looked very good IMO. Styles make fights and I think it would be very competitive and a very good watch.

I think how much Froch is willing to accept as a purse is down to how much he wants to keep his belt. This is a mandatory after all so he if Eddie sees this fight as not PPV worthy then he'll offer Froch what he deems worthy. Froch either agrees or it goes to purse bids and he drops his belt, it's as simple as that.

MachoMan09 wrote:How did promoters make a profit before PPV?

Boxers getting paid less?

MachoMan09 wrote:How did promoters make a profit before PPV?

It's been going on a long time. It was on in the cinemas about forty years ago.

chad wrote:

jameswilson wrote: I'm not a boxing promoter, but I'm quite willing to accept that Eddie Hearn knows how to make a profit on this bill.

SKY Sports are broadcasting a Premiership game and Football League game free to air on the 17th August to showcase SKY Sports and their football coverage. The games will be available to almost ever home in the UK via Freeview, Freesat, SKY and Virgin Media.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013 ... ague-match

Maybe to push SKY's coverage of boxing Froch Vs. Groves could be broadcast 1 month later in the same fashion. The fight would become the most viewed ever via the SKY platform. The reach alone of the fight on that day should push up advertising revenue significantly. What better way for Eddie to showcase 2 of his fighters, Matchroom Sports and SKY's boxing coverage than to make it free to the whole of the UK?

Ha! Sky Sports are crapping it because BT have offered a similar deal for their football. Competition and all that......

Can't see that being a major issue with boxing, to be frank....

I can see why Groves has pushed for this, as Froch isnt going to be around much longer, but the fight comes too early. Froch should go make a fortune beating the tar out of JCC Jr on HBO instead; even dropping one strap he has the WBA one.

MachoMan09 wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:How did promoters make a profit before PPV?

It's been going on a long time. It was on in the cinemas about forty years ago.

That doesn't answer my question, Mickey.

The gate was always the fixation before closed circuit and then PPV.

MachoMan09 wrote:Exactly. Contrary to frequently offered opinion, a profit can be made on gate alone.

not the sort of profit that the fighters/promoters want to make

Gate alone at 02 will bring in nearly 1 million quid .

Thats more than enough for this fight .

Edit : 20,000 £40 tickets is £800,000 .

Not all the tickets are £40 , some will be £60 , £80 , £120 etc etc .

I think £1,000,000 on gate is pretty close to the mark .

It's tight though Macho.
Sky used to be very generous shall we say but considerably reduced their fee per fight during the lead up to the eventual "exclusivity" deal.
Without tv at all it's a nightmare.
At the other end of the scale with ppv it's a doddle.
Wazza once said to me that no Promotional Company would make a profit for a minimum of the first 5 years trading.
I scoffed at the time - but I think he's right.
I shudder to think of Ricky's deficit figure for promoting.

Damian,
That's an average 100 quid per ticket on a crowd of 10,000.
First of all take out VAT.
That will not cover the purse for the headline.
What about the undercard ?
What about all the ancillary costs - arena hire security blah blah blah.

The gate for the 02 or MEN wouldn't cover both purses. There are a 101 deductions to come off that, with everyone having their slice, including the tax man.

The old million dollar gates etc had ridiculously big crowds, you're talking nearly 100,000 people.

Things are different now.

A mandatory would go to purse bids anyway, I think, so anything could happen.

SKY aren't exactly doing huge numbers with regards to PPVs but I guess it brings in enough revenue for them.

If it goes to purse bids it could get a bit weird as I think it's usually a 50/50 ish split, depending on the body whereas a voluntary could end up with a rather derisory offer. It all depends on who wins the bid.

We saw that rather bizarre one the other month for Wlad/Povetkin.

Hearn likes to talk about "life changing money" etc so maybe he thinks it's not a "huge" fight like the Kessler rematch so maybe they would look at something in the ~500k to ~750k mark but let's face it, it's idle speculation.

If they want to PPV it, they will and there's little anyone can/will do about it. Of course we will have the predictable glut of threads, whining and sulking about it but it changes little.

orbtastic wrote:If it goes to purse bids it could get a bit weird as I think it's usually a 50/50 ish split, depending on the body whereas a mandatory could end up with a rather derisory offer. It all depends on who wins the bid.

We saw that rather bizarre one the other month for Wlad/Povetkin.

Hearn likes to talk about "life changing money" etc so maybe he thinks it's not a "huge" fight like the Kessler rematch so maybe they would look at something in the ~500k to ~750k mark but let's face it, it's idle speculation.

If they want to PPV it, they will and there's little anyone can/will do about it. Of course we will have the predictable glut of threads, whining and sulking about it but it changes little.

It's 70-30 in favour of the champion.

Therein lies the problem Macho.
Boxing is no longer a sport it's a business.

orbtastic wrote:If it goes to purse bids it could get a bit weird as I think it's usually a 50/50 ish split, depending on the body whereas a mandatory could end up with a rather derisory offer. It all depends on who wins the bid.

We saw that rather bizarre one the other month for Wlad/Povetkin.

Hearn likes to talk about "life changing money" etc so maybe he thinks it's not a "huge" fight like the Kessler rematch so maybe they would look at something in the ~500k to ~750k mark but let's face it, it's idle speculation.

If they want to PPV it, they will and there's little anyone can/will do about it. Of course we will have the predictable glut of threads, whining and sulking about it but it changes little.

With the IBF I thought it was 75:25 split. That's what the Wlad/Povetkin split is.

mickey1975 wrote:

orbtastic wrote:If it goes to purse bids it could get a bit weird as I think it's usually a 50/50 ish split, depending on the body whereas a mandatory could end up with a rather derisory offer. It all depends on who wins the bid.

We saw that rather bizarre one the other month for Wlad/Povetkin.

Hearn likes to talk about "life changing money" etc so maybe he thinks it's not a "huge" fight like the Kessler rematch so maybe they would look at something in the ~500k to ~750k mark but let's face it, it's idle speculation.

If they want to PPV it, they will and there's little anyone can/will do about it. Of course we will have the predictable glut of threads, whining and sulking about it but it changes little.

It's 70-30 in favour of the champion.

Depends on the belt.

The IBF state it's 75-25.

Parson Cross wrote:Damian,
That's an average 100 quid per ticket on a crowd of 10,000.
First of all take out VAT.
That will not cover the purse for the headline.
What about the undercard ?
What about all the ancillary costs - arena hire security blah blah blah.

But 02 holds 20,000 .

Im not saying it would sell as many tickets as that but its not out the question , if Froch vs Yusef mack did 10,000 then im sure Froch vs Groves would do more .

The main issue here is i think people are hugely over estimating what the purses would be , as is the usual case in boxing .

Id doubt froch would get anymore than £350,000 and Groves maybe £200,000 . Even that might be a bit high .


so they would cover that with around 12,000 ticket sales , yes theres the other costs on top , but with skys payment for it and sponsership etc etc etc , i reckon that would cover the external costs (security , board officials such as refs etc etc ) all thats then left is the undercard , whom will be having to sell tickets anyway .

I honestly believe this wont be PPV nor do i believe it needs to be .

Weve had lesser fights as ppv in the past but in the current climate sky arent so keen , if this was ppv it wouldnt look good on sky who said only the top fights would be ppv .

I wouldnt be surprised if it was PPV but it doesnt need to be and i dont believe it would be .
If its PPV its just for money nothing more , the fight itself doesnt need it , thats my view , take it or leave it .
Ill happilly hold my hands up if it proves to be the case that im wrong .

You are so off target re the purse mate.
Anyway it's not worth an argument - what will be will be.

jameswilson wrote:And I made that point earlier that if a Kessler III fight or a Ward, Hopkins etc etc kinda fight came along then he would have to drop the belt because those fights are more worthwhile.

If those fights aren't coming tho, then I think it makes sense to fight your mandatory so you can keep your belt rather than sit around for 9 months without getting a fight. Especially given that his mandatory is actually a fight that has a modicum of interest. If the mandatory was Edwin Rodriguez then it might be a different story but Froch Groves can sell in London.

If you can find the purses so easily can you find the purse Froch got for fighting Mack and Bute as I'm interested to know?

absolutely

Parson Cross wrote:You are so off target re the purse mate.
Anyway it's not worth an argument - what will be will be.

I dont mean to argue either mate , Not at all .

Boxing purses are always well over exaggerated though .

Chisora was reported as getting 200k for Klitschko , so why would Groves get more when you look at that the heavyweight division is the most lucrative division . Ok maybe that figure was misreported , who knows , but in general you find purses are lower than reported .

Reports also suggested Froch got 300k for the Mack fight , would have to assume if that was the case that mack would have maybe got around the 150k mark .


Like you said , not interested in an arguement as its all only hearsay anyway , but i gues we will wait and see .

Parson Cross wrote:It's tight though Macho.
Sky used to be very generous shall we say but considerably reduced their fee per fight during the lead up to the eventual "exclusivity" deal.
Without tv at all it's a nightmare.
At the other end of the scale with ppv it's a doddle.
Wazza once said to me that no Promotional Company would make a profit for a minimum of the first 5 years trading.
I scoffed at the time - but I think he's right.
I shudder to think of Ricky's deficit figure for promoting.

That probably has something to do with the shit that was being served up on a regular basis on those friday night shows.

I don't see any real reason why any fight in the UK should be reliant on PPV. It's unfair on SKY Sports subscribers having to pay more on top of their normal monthly subscription to watch big fights like Froch Vs. Kessler II.

I think simply putting a fight on SKY Box Office to generate funds is lazy from both SKY and Matchroom Sports.

SKY customers can add SKY Sports 1 to their package for 30 days for £15.00. Virgin customers can add SKY Sports 1 to their package for 30 days for £15.50. If you don't have SKY or Virgin, but have an internet enabled device, you can access all SKY Sports channels for 1 day via Now TV for £10.00. What I'm getting at is Froch Vs. Groves could easily stay on SKY Sports 1, and if the various ways to access SKY Sports was promoted properly people could easily access the fight for about the same price as a SKY Box Office event. With new subscribers taking SKY Sports for the month, or Now TV for 1 day, specifically for this fight all costs should easily be covered.

Even making the fight available in the cinema for £10.00 admission would mean everyone in the UK could access the fight if they wanted too. At the moment SKY Box Office is only available via Virgin and SKY. Let's see if Eddie really is a good promoter. Selling Now TV and 30 day SKY Sports subscriptions to the masses would be a real test instead of milking existing SKY Sports subscribers who love boxing.