Listened to Buncey's betting podcast yesterday and I've got a question about something Buncey said. He said that Sky got their figures wrong and thought Haye would only sell some PPV's for the Valuev fight, and nowhere near the amount it sold. He then said that this cost Sky a lot of money. Could someone please explain why this is? I'm confused. Cheers.
maybe sky only took a cut of the first X number of PPVs sold, and haye kept the rest. So sky could possibly have got a better deal for themselves if they had predicted the number of PPVs actually sold?
Still sounds like win-win to me though. Do you think when Buncey said 'lost' he meant money they could've had, rather than an actual loss?
Sky's normal arrangement is for them to keep the profits after expenses and the fighters gets a percentage cut - often around 5% at most. This is on top of the broadcast fee - so let's say Amir Khan gets £500,000 from Sky as a signing fee, he also gets 5% of any profits made from the PPV after operating expenses and that £500,000 being recouped. Sky thought the Valuev fight would be a low turnover like the Khan PPVs, but Haye took a lower broadcast fee and instead negotiated something like £5 per PPV after costs. Sky thought they were quids in cause they were almost bound to make a tidy profit - which they did. But, if they had offered a higher broadcast fee and reduced Haye's percentage, they'd have made huge money. Instead, Haye waltzed off with something like £2m due to smart negotiating. Haye and Booth are incredibly smart men.
Ah, that explained it well. Thanks. So it's still a win-win but Sky could've made a lot more than they did. Unless someone knows/thinks differently, I presume that the kind of deal for the Valuev fight is similar to a deal for the Ruiz fight. Just because of all the promoting David Haye did. I look forward to seeing the PPV numbers. My brother works at a Sky call center and he said they couldn't cope with the sheer volume of calls coming in.
