Originally Posted by USA Rob
Translates to....I am not able to offer an answer but don't want to look stupid.
No, it means I don't work in broadcasting and, unlike you, don't try to pretend I have the answers to things I only have a superficial knowledge of.
However, my point is basic economic sense if you aren't a complete retard.
*FYI, these figures are fabricated, just to follow in the spirit of Rob's usual posts*
If Kessler fights in Denmark, between ticket sales and TV money, Kessler can make £2m. Froch will get £1m because he isn't the draw, but he'll also get his cut of the Sky licence fee.
Sauerland will sell the fight on Danish PPV and to their German broadcaster, netting a tidy profit for themselves and additional money for Kessler.
That is good business.
If Kessler fights in the UK, he is guaranteed £2m because he is giving up the income he'd generate without Froch and home advantage. He'll also be keeping his Danish PPV I'd expect. Froch wants the same guarantee as Kessler, because his ego demands it. Yet he can't drive the ticket sales or TV money needed to cover his and Kessler's demands. So they stick it on PPV, where Froch has never sold much, and will hope to sell enough to cover costs and maybe make a small profit.
Froch doesn't bring the revenue streams that would make this a sensible economic option and isn't a viable star to drive PPV.
That is bad business.
So I don't need to offer much beyond this, because it's ****ing simple. PPV is bad value for the consumer when it is used to shore up the losses of a fight that the promoter can't afford. It was wrong when Frank did it for Khan, and it's wrong now.
If Froch was a big star and this was a big, meaningful fight - then ok. He's not and this isn't.