BoxRec

Whether you like FW or not, you have to admire the guys tenacity and business acumen! I personally hope he does come back stronger because allegedly has been good for boxing fans and also because competition is obviously good. I look forward to him coming back at Eddie Hearn and the ineviatable ding dong that is going to occur between them as they vie for supremacy! .......http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/boxing ... ds-newsxml

Good read enjoyed that I think warren is far from finished Iv just jumped onto sky my dodgy box lettin me Down all the time and yes I will be gettin allegedly

Very interesting. It's also the first time I've actually seen him say anything genuinley positive about Carl Froch.

There are lots of holes in Dubya's story there, which a proper journalist would have taken apart.

chinny wrote:There are lots of holes in Dubya's story there, which a proper journalist would have taken apart.

Nothing is challenged by Jeff Powell.

I don't care about his smoke and mirrors, I believe Warren is finished.

chinny wrote:There are lots of holes in Dubya's story there, which a proper journalist would have taken apart.

How can you possibly think W*rren is anything but a thriving, successful promoter? He's having an expensive meal in a top London eaterie and is drinking fine wine. What more evidence could you possibly need?

‘The maths aren’t difficult. That gives us revenue of £2 million a month. By any reckoning that gives us a company worth at least £60 million. Who else in British boxing can say that? And it’s going to get bigger.’

Am I being really dense but...how is a £2 million/month revenue leaving the channel at a £60 million valuation?

IF we suggest £2/million a month for 30 months then it merely states it's had a turn over of £60 million, right? Not a valuation. He surely then also needs to look at assets v liabilities, etc before even getting close to a valuation?

*has been years since I studied business*

iamasadlittleboy wrote:

‘The maths aren’t difficult. That gives us revenue of £2 million a month. By any reckoning that gives us a company worth at least £60 million. Who else in British boxing can say that? And it’s going to get bigger.’

Am I being really dense but...how is a £2 million/month revenue leaving the channel at a £60 million valuation?

IF we suggest £2/million a month for 30 months then it merely states it's had a turn over of £60 million, right? Not a valuation. He surely then also needs to look at assets v liabilities, etc before even getting close to a valuation?

*has been years since I studied business*

I work in accountancy and the usual way we agree a business valuation is as a number of times of annual turnover. 2 and 1/2 times in this case is a pretty average way of valuing the business. There are other ways, such as dividend valuation etc, P/E ratio's etc but I think Frank has stuck to the most common way.

iamasadlittleboy wrote:

‘The maths aren’t difficult. That gives us revenue of £2 million a month. By any reckoning that gives us a company worth at least £60 million. Who else in British boxing can say that? And it’s going to get bigger.’

Am I being really dense but...how is a £2 million/month revenue leaving the channel at a £60 million valuation?

IF we suggest £2/million a month for 30 months then it merely states it's had a turn over of £60 million, right? Not a valuation. He surely then also needs to look at assets v liabilities, etc before even getting close to a valuation?

*has been years since I studied business*

This. £2 million a month turnover sounds pretty good, but you wouldn't buy a business for the value of 30 months of its turnover unless you had a strong reason to believe it was going to increase exponentially.

Newport Daz wrote:

iamasadlittleboy wrote:

‘The maths aren’t difficult. That gives us revenue of £2 million a month. By any reckoning that gives us a company worth at least £60 million. Who else in British boxing can say that? And it’s going to get bigger.’

Am I being really dense but...how is a £2 million/month revenue leaving the channel at a £60 million valuation?

IF we suggest £2/million a month for 30 months then it merely states it's had a turn over of £60 million, right? Not a valuation. He surely then also needs to look at assets v liabilities, etc before even getting close to a valuation?

*has been years since I studied business*

I work in accountancy and the usual way we agree a business valuation is as a number of times of annual turnover. 2 and 1/2 times in this case is a pretty average way of valuing the business. There are other ways, such as dividend valuation etc, P/E ratio's etc but I think Frank has stuck to the most common way.

If BN is turning over £1.5-2m a month then someone somewhere is making a lot of cash. Where is the quality that that kind of revenue could afford to bring in. Keeping Lillis and Bunce in pastries can't be that expensive.

Right ok so the next question...so how can a company which is worth £60,000,000 (apparently) only just have started breaking even?

Think he said it had had £18,000,000 investment. Something feels wrong...

iamasadlittleboy wrote:Right ok so the next question...so how can a company which is worth £60,000,000 (apparently) only just have started breaking even?

Think he said it had had £18,000,000 investment. Something feels wrong...

The £60 million is only a hypothetical value - and is at the top end. If we were valueing it we'd value it a 1.2 million(what he actually claims is actual monthly turnover rather than what he hopes for in the future) x 12 x 2.5 which would give £36 million. A big difference. On top of that it's only worth what someone will pay for it. We recently valued a guy's business that he was selling for £250k, he actually got £180k for it.

In Frank's mind he owns a business worth £60 million, what someone will pay for a business that only breaks even at best is something entirely different.

MachoMan09 wrote:

Newport Daz wrote:

iamasadlittleboy wrote:Right ok so the next question...so how can a company which is worth £60,000,000 (apparently) only just have started breaking even?

Think he said it had had £18,000,000 investment. Something feels wrong...

The £60 million is only a hypothetical value - and is at the top end. If we were valueing it we'd value it a 1.2 million(what he actually claims is actual monthly turnover rather than what he hopes for in the future) x 12 x 2.5 which would give £36 million. A big difference. On top of that it's only worth what someone will pay for it. We recently valued a guy's business that he was selling for £250k, he actually got £180k for it.

In Frank's mind he owns a business worth £60 million, what someone will pay for a business that only breaks even at best is something entirely different.

So, in your professional capacity, you recently overvalued a business by nearly 40%. Does that mean that you're inept, or does it mean that the equations you use to value businesses are grossly inaccurate and basically a shot in the dark? It must be one or the other, mustn't it? D

In this instance the owner of the business was desperate to sell and took a much lower value for a quick sale. Much like a house sale - it may be valued by the agent at one price, but the vendor may take much less to get shot. In our company's case we didn't charge any fees for the valuation, it's just part of the service and part of his gerneral annual fee.

To get back to your point, it's standard practise to use an agreed multiple of turnover to get a basic valuation of the business. This in general is just the starting point for negotiation. So yes, you could call it a slightly educated shot in the dark!

So, in your professional capacity, you recently overvalued a business by nearly 40%. Does that mean that you're inept, or does it mean that the equations you use to value businesses are grossly inaccurate and basically a shot in the dark? It must be one or the other, mustn't it? D[/quote]

In this instance the owner of the business was desperate to sell and took a much lower value for a quick sale. Much like a house sale - it may be valued by the agent at one price, but the vendor may take much less to get shot. In our company's case we didn't charge any fees for the valuation, it's just part of the service and part of his gerneral annual fee.

To get back to your point, it's standard practise to use an agreed multiple of turnover to get a basic valuation of the business. This in general is just the starting point for negotiation. So yes, you could call it a slightly educated shot in the dark! [/quote]
You value a business on turnover not the adjusted profit model?

leforge wrote:So, in your professional capacity, you recently overvalued a business by nearly 40%. Does that mean that you're inept, or does it mean that the equations you use to value businesses are grossly inaccurate and basically a shot in the dark? It must be one or the other, mustn't it? D

In this instance the owner of the business was desperate to sell and took a much lower value for a quick sale. Much like a house sale - it may be valued by the agent at one price, but the vendor may take much less to get shot. In our company's case we didn't charge any fees for the valuation, it's just part of the service and part of his gerneral annual fee.

To get back to your point, it's standard practise to use an agreed multiple of turnover to get a basic valuation of the business. This in general is just the starting point for negotiation. So yes, you could call it a slightly educated shot in the dark! [/quote]
You value a business on turnover not the adjusted profit model?[/quote]

I would have though extremely rare a business valued on turnover, almost always on the profits

earsjohn wrote:He's having an expensive meal in a top London eaterie and is drinking fine wine. What more evidence could you possibly need?

Haha I loved that, I can't believe the reporter made so much of it too. Frank must be quite manipulative, but not to a degree that would provoke litigation should someone accuse him of it, obviously.

Manchester Massive wrote:

leforge wrote:So, in your professional capacity, you recently overvalued a business by nearly 40%. Does that mean that you're inept, or does it mean that the equations you use to value businesses are grossly inaccurate and basically a shot in the dark? It must be one or the other, mustn't it? D

In this instance the owner of the business was desperate to sell and took a much lower value for a quick sale. Much like a house sale - it may be valued by the agent at one price, but the vendor may take much less to get shot. In our company's case we didn't charge any fees for the valuation, it's just part of the service and part of his gerneral annual fee.

To get back to your point, it's standard practise to use an agreed multiple of turnover to get a basic valuation of the business. This in general is just the starting point for negotiation. So yes, you could call it a slightly educated shot in the dark!

You value a business on turnover not the adjusted profit model?[/quote]

I would have though extremely rare a business valued on turnover, almost always on the profits[/quote]
I was surprised by that.

leforge wrote:

Manchester Massive wrote:

leforge wrote:So, in your professional capacity, you recently overvalued a business by nearly 40%. Does that mean that you're inept, or does it mean that the equations you use to value businesses are grossly inaccurate and basically a shot in the dark? It must be one or the other, mustn't it? D

In this instance the owner of the business was desperate to sell and took a much lower value for a quick sale. Much like a house sale - it may be valued by the agent at one price, but the vendor may take much less to get shot. In our company's case we didn't charge any fees for the valuation, it's just part of the service and part of his gerneral annual fee.

To get back to your point, it's standard practise to use an agreed multiple of turnover to get a basic valuation of the business. This in general is just the starting point for negotiation. So yes, you could call it a slightly educated shot in the dark!

You value a business on turnover not the adjusted profit model?

I would have though extremely rare a business valued on turnover, almost always on the profits[/quote]
I was surprised by that.[/quote]

It's the approach our director takes and the accountants in his netrworking group, BNI. I was taught that you used a multiple of sustainable profits, before owner remuneration to get a value, but the boss uses the turnover approach.

However, given Franks valuation of £60 million and the fact there are no profits I presumed he'd just used the turnover approach too.

Anyway - apologies if this has bored readers.

It's the approach our director takes and the accountants in his netrworking group, BNI. I was taught that you used a multiple of sustainable profits, before owner remuneration to get a value, but the boss uses the turnover approach.

Anyway - apologies if this has bored readers.[/quote]
I not seen that method used anywhere before. Again a company is only worth what someone is willingly to pay.

MachoMan09 wrote:I was only joshing with Daz. The method he illustrated is commonplace.

If a company is operational and meeting all it's liabilities e.g. debt repayment, salaries, general expenses, etc... a multiple of turnover is a decent way of valuing the business in the first instance, particularly if it doesn't have much in the way of bricks and mortar.

FWIW any assessment of the validity of Franks comments with regard BN and the debt levels at W Promotions should be kept separate. They are different businesses and the debt in the latter has no bearing on the liabilities of the former.

I wonder how much allegedly gets from advertising...not much I don't think. I can't imagine that Aero biscuit or Microforce wet and dry shaver pays a great deal to air their commercials.

milpool wrote:I wonder how much Allegedly channel gets from advertising...not much I don't think. I can't imagine that Aero biscuit or Microforce wet and dry shaver pays a great deal to air their commercials.

If I see that Microforce wet and dry shaver ad one more time my foots going through the telly

iamasadlittleboy wrote:

‘The maths aren’t difficult. That gives us revenue of £2 million a month. By any reckoning that gives us a company worth at least £60 million. Who else in British boxing can say that? And it’s going to get bigger.’

Am I being really dense but...how is a £2 million/month revenue leaving the channel at a £60 million valuation?

IF we suggest £2/million a month for 30 months then it merely states it's had a turn over of £60 million, right? Not a valuation. He surely then also needs to look at assets v liabilities, etc before even getting close to a valuation?

*has been years since I studied business*

I think the bigger issue that everyone is missing is the claimed number of subscribers that are used to generate that revenue figure in the first place. Historically the likes of Boxing News and Boxing Monthly have sold around the 10,000 an issue mark (Boxing News's audited figure for last year is 9,755).
This, therefore, is as good a barometer as any of the number of 'hardcore' fans of boxing in the UK.
Given BN is a similarly niche platform, you'd expect to see some form of correlation in numbers, while making an allowance for 'casual' fans who would have subscribed for the likes of Haye-Chisora, and subsequently enjoyed the channel enough to keep it, or just haven't got round to cancelling to date.
However, FW is claiming to have 1,100% more subscribers/purchasers than the boxing mags, which I find simply implausible.
Do any of us really believe there are really 120,000 people in the UK willing to subscribe to a dedicated boxing channel and that there are further prospective subscribers out there who will come on board over the long-term for the offering that BN is serving up?

Warren is still the best in what he does. If you put aside not paying fighters on time etc. I reckon all things being equal Warren could make you a world champion quicker than Eddie.

He will be back!