PPV for Froch v Kessler - Telegraph!!!!

[JonnyBGoode]

And look what happened to Setanta!

Sometimes if the figures don't add up it's a necessary evil to get fights made. If it was in Denmark maybe the extra ticket sales would mean it's on Sky but to get him over here they need PPV to afford it. It's not compulsory and people don't have to buy it.

I'm getting a ticket to the event anyway as it should be a ******* and its in London!

[GazOC]

Johhny, I don't think Denmark could have matched the UK ticket sales just due to the lack of 20,000+ arenas. I totally agree with your point of "buy it or don't buy it" but its the open arms with which PPVs return is being greeted with that I find a bit strange.

But like you say, buy it of you want to, its not compulsory.

[dftaylor]

Originally Posted by Boxalot

Because it was in a massive arena and sold a student amount of tickets.

It's taken £2million to get Kessler over here and he deserves every penny imo. If it means the fight is on PPV then that's fine with me, whatever it takes to get the fight made. It's one of the best, most even fights that can be made at the moment and it's not like we're paying out for PPV every month like they do in the US. In fact, what was the last PPV? Haye vs Klitschko? 18 months ago now.

Because calzaghe was a genuine star and ticket seller. Froch is not. Kessler also brought ppv money from his homeland. Kessler needs compensated for what he could earn at home. We're being expected to do that for Froch's unrealistic demands. That's wrong.

[ishy]

Originally Posted by Boxalot

Because it was in a massive arena and sold a student amount of tickets.

It's taken £2million to get Kessler over here and he deserves every penny imo. If it means the fight is on PPV then that's fine with me, whatever it takes to get the fight made. It's one of the best, most even fights that can be made at the moment and it's not like we're paying out for PPV every month like they do in the US. In fact, what was the last PPV? Haye vs Klitschko? 18 months ago now.

Exactly, Frank worked out how to make Joe/Kessler work without PPV. He got 30k plus in the Millenium stadium and got HBO on board.

What's happened here is Froch has been demanding a home fight against Kessler. Eddie's worked out he can't make the numbers work without having this on PPV. If Froch was willing to travel to Denmark again then Eddie wouldn't have to fork out all this extra money and finance that through PPV and we might have got the fight on Sky Sports.

That just shows that from a financial point of view the natural venue for this fight is still Denmark. So we could still have had a Froch/Kessler II without PPV. Look at a fighter like Orlando Salido, he beat JuanMa in Puerto Rico. You'd think the rematch would be in the US or Mexico but no, they realised the money was still in Puerto Rico so he went there again and knocked out Lopez again. Salido didn't bleat on about home advantage, he went out again and did his job.

America's a different market and they don't have big PPV's every month or even every other month. The only two fighters that fight exclusively on PPV are Mayweather and Pacquiao. So that's three PPV cards a year. Then last year they also had Martinez/Chavez Jr. So they had just 4 big PPV cards last year.

[GazOC]

The natural place for a fight is usually where it generates the most money. You can blame Froch for demanding a home fight when he's not a massive ticket seller or Kessler for being unwilling to travel instead of making the same fighting 2/3 lesser fighters in Denmark.

...but here we are with a UK fight on PPV so I guess thats the "natural place" :

[dftaylor]

Totally right, ishy. Chavez, mayweather, alvarez and Manny are all money makers - they bring numbers whoever and wherever they fight.

[silly_illy]

i aint paying shit!

[USA Rob]

Originally Posted by dftaylor

I'm surprised you even asked that question. Eddie is the promoter, yes? So it has everything to do with him. Whether others are in the same position is irrelevant, we're talking about this fight.

There's no point promoters complaining about low margins and then setting up fights they can't afford. And there wasn't any real need to make this fight, it means nothing of great significance. It's on ppv because Eddie can't afford to pay his two fighters without it.

Genuine ppv fights make big money from tickets to tv, they don't require one to shore up the other. That's why this isn't ppv.

You only need 130,000 buys for Hearn to take £1mil from the PPV. You think they can get that from regular TV?

[USA Rob]

Originally Posted by ishy

Exactly, Frank worked out how to make Joe/Kessler work without PPV. He got 30k plus in the Millenium stadium and got HBO on board.

What's happened here is Froch has been demanding a home fight against Kessler. Eddie's worked out he can't make the numbers work without having this on PPV. If Froch was willing to travel to Denmark again then Eddie wouldn't have to fork out all this extra money and finance that through PPV and we might have got the fight on Sky Sports.

That just shows that from a financial point of view the natural venue for this fight is still Denmark. So we could still have had a Froch/Kessler II without PPV. Look at a fighter like Orlando Salido, he beat JuanMa in Puerto Rico. You'd think the rematch would be in the US or Mexico but no, they realised the money was still in Puerto Rico so he went there again and knocked out Lopez again. Salido didn't bleat on about home advantage, he went out again and did his job.

America's a different market and they don't have big PPV's every month or even every other month. The only two fighters that fight exclusively on PPV are Mayweather and Pacquiao. So that's three PPV cards a year. Then last year they also had Martinez/Chavez Jr. So they had just 4 big PPV cards last year.

Setanta paid a huge premium for that fight as they were trying to gain subscribers, Sky did the same when they started out and BT will next year.

If Setanta had stuck around I guarentee they would have come out with a PPV model.

Also the fight makes more cash in a UK venue. Bigger arena plus the £ shits all over danish krone.

[dftaylor]

Originally Posted by USA Rob

You only need 130,000 buys for Hearn to take £1mil from the PPV. You think they can get that from regular TV?

You're completely missing the point and, as usual, trying to argue a completely different point that I never mentioned. I never said the fight should be on terrestrial!

The issue is that Hearn NEEDS PPV to stage the fight in the UK, pay Kessler what he deserves (because he'd make that sort of money regardless of who he fights in Denmark) and Froch what he wants (even though he's never made much money at the box office or through PPV in the past).

If the UK was the natural home for the fight, Hearn could have paid Froch his purse from ticket sales and Kessler from Sky's licence fee (and they have paid more than that in the past when it has suited them). But because Froch isn't a big enough ticket seller, PPV is the only way to compensate Kessler and Froch.

Just because it's the only option Eddie now has doesn't mean it's right.

[dftaylor]

Originally Posted by USA Rob

Setanta paid a huge premium for that fight as they were trying to gain subscribers, Sky did the same when they started out and BT will next year.

If Setanta had stuck around I guarentee they would have come out with a PPV model.

Shock horror, the boy who knows nothing about the broadcast industry making up more bullshit.

[Primadonna Kool]

So Carl Froch's biggest fight will only be seen by 1-2 Million people.

"Wouldn't it be better to have more viewers which will attract more sponsors/endorsement deals"

[ishy]

Originally Posted by GazOC

The natural place for a fight is usually where it generates the most money. You can blame Froch for demanding a home fight when he's not a massive ticket seller or Kessler for being unwilling to travel instead of making the same fighting 2/3 lesser fighters in Denmark.

...but here we are with a UK fight on PPV so I guess thats the "natural place" :

Eddie's creating an artificial home for this fight by reintroducing PPV

[ishy]

Originally Posted by USA Rob

Setanta paid a huge premium for that fight as they were trying to gain subscribers, Sky did the same when they started out and BT will next year.

If Setanta had stuck around I guarentee they would have come out with a PPV model.

We don't know that for sure Rob. Setanta were also going to give us Haye/Wlad on their normal channel in 08/09.

And didn't Sky start off with a Bruno PPV?

[dftaylor]

Originally Posted by Primadonna Kool

So Carl Froch's biggest fight will only be seen by 1-2 Million people.

"Wouldn't it be better to have more viewers which will attract more sponsors/endorsement deals"

I'd be surprised if it even gets 1 million without Sky blowing the profits on promotion.