Whyte v Rivas PPV

Tone your "hard nosed businessman" act has been widely exposed as being Walter Mitty tier fraudulent. Your numbers and stats are contrived and your understanding of the politics, dynamics and mechanics of business are deeply flawed. Stop it, it's embarassing.

 

All I'll say in the matter is, don't trust the supposed "official" figures for PPV listed on wiki that Tony likes to wheel out. They're basically made up estimates.

 

If someone could provide alternative figures I'd go with them, but for now it just seems to be conspiracy type oddballs like yourself foaming at the mouth about PPV.

I actually think there are decent people on here but it often comes across as a place for angry little people to sound off about how bitter they are about boxing. Half the threads seem to be people moaning about PPV's.

 

So instead trust what?

Put it this way - the money Hearn and Joshua seem to have suggests they're not doing nothing.

 

Obviously. Charging for anything can be justified if people buy it.
But it's only because people have been conditioned to expect to pay for boxing
It's not as if "Whyte v Rivas" is in bigger demand than a thousand non-PPV fights that have come before.

These PPVs probably don't even need to do big numbers at all to make "business sense", so even if only a small number buy it, Dilian Whyte will be better off on PPV than not.

I don't care it doesn't effect me, but people who paid for their SKY SPORTS package expectng boxing to be included have slowly and surely been shafted.

 

Cracking post

 

You obviously do care.

What's your solution to this by the way? People are happy to pay, the promoters and boxers clearly aren't going to back a deal which leads to them earning less money, every promoter of any size does it and its happened for decades. You might as well save yourself the heartache and just accept it.

I honestly find it weird that here we are, more than two decades on from Tyson McNeeley, and boxing fans are still crying about PPV's on what seems to be a daily basis.

 

Out of interest, why do you bother coming on here (even post ban!) and arguing incessantly with people about the same topics over and over? It can't be that fun.

Clearly some people agree with you and some disagree - that's to be expected in life. I don't really see what you gain coming on here and arguing against people who clearly aren't going to change their minds based on your posts. Why not just let it go?

 

Absolutely ridiculous line of thought, you sound like a shill. It is unacceptable for a Whyte v Rivas fight to be PPV, regardless of what fights were PPV decades ago. Especially when all the slated undercard fights, which could've somewhat justified a PPV, have fallen through. If you genuinely believe we should "just accept it", then you work for Matchroom, are an idiot, or just a weak, weak human.

 

No one's crying. My initial comment was that it's amusing that PPV discussions have arrived where they are, where we debate which second- and third-rate fights may or may add value to an event. When years ago it was simple, the household names in the biggest fights might be PPV.
It was just a comment on the way things have gone.
And, yeah, I find the situation mildly amusing.

You seem to be the weird one here who really cares and cries about it every time someone has anything negative to say about a Matchroom PPV.
It's alright having a dissenting view - (and thank you for stating the obvious time and time again ) - but your position is clearly a one-tracked adamant defence of every Matchroom PPV.

Tyson-McNeeley was a rip-off (because McNeeley was a no-hoper) but it was an exceptional case.
Tyson, probably the biggest draw in boxing history, coming back after 4 years away and prison.
It was a HUGE EVENT. Despite the poor matchmaking it was a logical step to roll out PPV then.
Comparing Mike Tyson's Return to just another Dillian Whyte fight doesn't work. And no one's heard of Oscar Rivas.

Things have changed in the last few years regarding PPVs, nevermind going back 24 years.
People have a right to complain about changes, if they see fit.

 

Again, why is it unacceptable that this is a PPV fight?

It seems on here people utterly dismiss the ideas behind how much a fight will sell, and live in a fantasy land where the best fights only should be PPV. So something like Whyte Chisora should never be PPV despite the fact it would sell ten times the amount that something like Lomachenko Rigondeaux.

 

Ok. What has changed in the last few years that has prompted this influx of people on here moaning about PPV's.

 

So the show probably has a budget of just over £1.5 million. Probably 500K for Whyte, 250K for Rivas, 100K a piece for Allen / Price and the remaining 500K or so for the rest of the undercard. So from ticket sales, TV rights (including advertising) and PPV revenue, the numbers aren't that high. Going off the ticket prices, and it will probably sell out, this fight probably didn't have to be PPV to be profitable for Matchroom. However, because it is, I can see them taking a cool £1 million profit at least.

 

barcelona v liverpool last night would sell far more if it was PPV than any boxing event but football fans arent treated like complete idiots by tv companies (yet).
why is it boxing fans are continually shafted?

 

Why do you think the people who run football don't put football on PPV? Altruism?