BoxRec

Loosing millions cant be good for busyness. They are talking about raising cash but its unclear where the money going to come from. I wonder if its all over for Warren.

http://www.BS.com/allegedly-qu ... ts--100120


Edit:
Klicking onto the link doesnt work because BN changes to allegedly. Here is the link to copy paste, just replace BN with b o x n a t i o n.
BS.com/BN-queensberry-losses-reported-financial-reports--100120

If this one folds, how many insolvent Warren companies does that make it now?

Think this year will be shit or bust for the channel,if the proposed ppv's are successful they fight on.

If they fail they'll fold.

Randomly the story is no longer found...

Guessing the lawyers were contacted

Losses halved from £3.4m in the 12 months to January 2014 to £1.7m in the 14 months to March 2015, expected to reach profitability by March 2017. That's not financial troubles it's a new company improving and making steps forward.

Twitter has been going nearly 10 years, has 300 million regular users and is the 9th most visited site on the internet, but it's never posted an annual profit.

Sky took over a decade and a merger with BSB before it started making money and by then they were over £1bn in debt, at one point they were losing £10m a week.

It's normal for businesses to lose money early on and take time before becoming profitable, allegedly is no different.

Link won't work because of the block on writing allegedly.

http://www.BS.com/allegedly-qu ... ts--100120

Copy and paste then change the 0 to a o before you press enter.

expe wrote:Losses halved from £3.4m in the 12 months to January 2014 to £1.7m in the 14 months to March 2015, expected to reach profitability by March 2017. That's not financial troubles it's a new company improving and making steps forward.

What about increasing balance sheet deficit from £4m to £8m. Diminishing assets, loosing profits, no cash. Maybe they will attract investments and survive but it looks like they are in financial troubles to me.

Think it will be pretty dreadful to be honest if this were to disappear from our screeens, forgetting personalities and past differences with fighters, I love watching boxing and I have been able to watch much more than I ever have since allegedly came into being. Looking at some of Sky's recent offerings as well could you imagine what we would get if it was virtually a monopoly.

The more channels that show boxing the better as far as I am concerned.

Tarkus wrote:

expe wrote:Losses halved from £3.4m in the 12 months to January 2014 to £1.7m in the 14 months to March 2015, expected to reach profitability by March 2017. That's not financial troubles it's a new company improving and making steps forward.

What about increasing balance sheet deficit from £4m to £8m. Diminishing assets, loosing profits, no cash. Maybe they will attract investments and survive but it looks like they are in financial troubles to me.

They're losing money, the deficit will continue to increase until they start to break even.

Assets are more or less meaningless in financial terms in boxing because it's so difficult to put a value on them. Billy Joe Saunders has a long term promotional contract with them, that's an asset that's potentially worth millions, but it's also potentially worth nothing because it all depends on so many different things, what fights can they make, will he win them, will he stay fit?

They never had any profits to lose, same with money, they're not making any so it naturally follows that they'll be short on cash too.

They're expecting to reach profitability within 15 months, they're not out of the woods yet but they were in a far worse position in the past. These accounts are 9 months out of date anyway, they've survived since then and if the pattern has continued, the losses will be reduced again, but we won't find that out for another 12 months.

I think we'd better wait for Eddie to tell us what the figures mean. I'm sure he will have something to say.

expe wrote:Losses halved from £3.4m in the 12 months to January 2014 to £1.7m in the 14 months to March 2015, expected to reach profitability by March 2017. That's not financial troubles it's a new company improving and making steps forward.

Twitter has been going nearly 10 years, has 300 million regular users and is the 9th most visited site on the internet, but it's never posted an annual profit.

Sky took over a decade and a merger with BSB before it started making money and by then they were over £1bn in debt, at one point they were losing £10m a week.

It's normal for businesses to lose money early on and take time before becoming profitable, allegedly is no different.

Link won't work because of the block on writing allegedly.

http://www.BS.com/allegedly

Copy and paste then change the 0 to a o before you press enter.

Don't see the twitter comparison as being remotely valid as it's such a different business model and has benefited from the 'halo' effect of social media in terms of valuation and being seen as an investable proposition (though that's all changing now as well and it's struggling).
The biggest challenge IMO is the pace of change - gone are the days where businesses have years to lose money before becoming profitable - it was normal, but that's not the case in many sectors (admittedly not all), including media. On a related note, TV in general is undergoing a technologically-driven revolution (the same one that music and publishing went through) with on-demand content becoming the norm (netflix etc).
Therefore it's not just a question of whether allegedly can make its current business model eventually move to profitability, it's also about whether the changing business environment means that model may not even be valid in a couple of years...

I don't think this is anything to worry about. FW has more bouncebackability than Alan Partridge.

If the guy from Rainham Steel is still involved then it's even less of a problem. The guy is minted and its a drop in the ocean.

B o x n a t i o n is a brilliant channel, well worth £12 per month.

CharlesListon wrote:B o x n a t i o n is a brilliant channel, well worth £12 per month.

I'd be gutted if it went off air.

I'd pay more if it meant BN staying on the air.

Me too.

JimJim2009 wrote:I think we'd better wait for Eddie to tell us what the figures mean. I'm sure he will have something to say.

Bazza is the accountant

Can not deny missing out on Fury v Klitschko and Mayweather Pac was a massive loss for the channel last year.

what i dont get it is how a company run by someone with such poor history , manages to run up such debts... why do banks etc even allow him to knowing what risks are involved of him winding up

allegedly is the best channel on TV for boxing fans. We would never see 75% of fights they cover if it didn't exist. £12 a month is a steal.

Looking On wrote:what i dont get it is how a company run by someone with such poor history , manages to run up such debts... why do banks etc even allow him to knowing what risks are involved of him winding up

Maybe they have a personal guarantee from the directors?

Tarkus wrote:Loosing millions cant be good for busyness. They are talking about raising cash but its unclear where the money going to come from. I wonder if its all over for Warren.

http://www.BS.com/allegedly


Edit:
Klicking onto the link doesnt work because BN changes to allegedly. Here is the link to copy paste, just replace BN with b o x n a t i o n.
BS.com/BN-queensberry-losses-reported-financial-reports--100120

Bill Ives.

Tarkus wrote:

expe wrote:Losses halved from £3.4m in the 12 months to January 2014 to £1.7m in the 14 months to March 2015, expected to reach profitability by March 2017. That's not financial troubles it's a new company improving and making steps forward.

What about increasing balance sheet deficit from £4m to £8m. Diminishing assets, loosing profits, no cash. Maybe they will attract investments and survive but it looks like they are in financial troubles to me.

Losing.

Deserter wrote:

expe wrote:Losses halved from £3.4m in the 12 months to January 2014 to £1.7m in the 14 months to March 2015, expected to reach profitability by March 2017. That's not financial troubles it's a new company improving and making steps forward.

Twitter has been going nearly 10 years, has 300 million regular users and is the 9th most visited site on the internet, but it's never posted an annual profit.

Sky took over a decade and a merger with BSB before it started making money and by then they were over £1bn in debt, at one point they were losing £10m a week.

It's normal for businesses to lose money early on and take time before becoming profitable, allegedly is no different.

Link won't work because of the block on writing allegedly.

http://www.BS.com/allegedly

Copy and paste then change the 0 to a o before you press enter.

Don't see the twitter comparison as being remotely valid as it's such a different business model and has benefited from the 'halo' effect of social media in terms of valuation and being seen as an investable proposition (though that's all changing now as well and it's struggling).
The biggest challenge IMO is the pace of change - gone are the days where businesses have years to lose money before becoming profitable - it was normal, but that's not the case in many sectors (admittedly not all), including media. On a related note, TV in general is undergoing a technologically-driven revolution (the same one that music and publishing went through) with on-demand content becoming the norm (netflix etc).
Therefore it's not just a question of whether allegedly can make its current business model eventually move to profitability, it's also about whether the changing business environment means that model may not even be valid in a couple of years...

I believe that Bill Ives will continue to fund it for the time being.

Naandrew wrote:Can not deny missing out on Fury v Klitschko and Mayweather Pac was a massive loss for the channel last year.

I disagree. Because the didn't show those two fights, they saved a lot of money and I can't see many people unsubscribing because of it. Certainly not enough people that would have covered the cost of those fights.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Naandrew wrote:Can not deny missing out on Fury v Klitschko and Mayweather Pac was a massive loss for the channel last year.

I disagree. Because the didn't show those two fights, they saved a lot of money and I can't see many people unsubscribing because of it. Certainly not enough people that would have covered the cost of those fights.

But loads would have joined, many of whom would have stayed or forgotten to cancel for a month or two.

mickey1975 wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Naandrew wrote:Can not deny missing out on Fury v Klitschko and Mayweather Pac was a massive loss for the channel last year.

I disagree. Because the didn't show those two fights, they saved a lot of money and I can't see many people unsubscribing because of it. Certainly not enough people that would have covered the cost of those fights.

But loads would have joined, many of whom would have stayed or forgotten to cancel for a month or two.

Enough to cover the cost of the fight? I don't think so, especially when you consider they would have had to bid more than SKY. Just my opinion though.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

CharlesListon wrote:B o x n a t i o n is a brilliant channel, well worth £12 per month.

I'd be gutted if it went off air.

I'd pay more if it meant BN staying on the air.

Ssshhhhh

They can hear you.