Conor McGregor 'won't return to the UFC until April' at the earliest says John Kavanagh

That's not profits, it's revenues and you didn't account for the 50% (until after you were corrected). Thanks for playing.


Talked profits in two separate posts, accounting for the 50% and didn't even take into account the higher bar restaurant rate (after YOU were corrected) or gate/merchandising.

Thanks for playing, it's back to the elementary classroom for you for some reading comprehension and basic arithmetic.



#1

What you aren't accounting for is the difference between a Conor PPV and a Ferguson PPV. No matter what way you slice it 1.5 million buys is creating more net profit for the UFC than a 140,000 buy Tony Ferguson headlined PPV. Your earlier post neglects this as well. Even paying Conor a larger percentage of the pie than Ferguson they still net several times more. Production costs would remain largely stable through both PPVs.

I'll use your numbers here to illuminate this for you. You say they are splitting $35-$40m for a PPV? Well that must be a Conor PPV because nobody else is pulling those kind of numbers (That is quite low as revenue from private purchase PPV alone would put a typical Conor PPV at $90 million even without factoring in closed circuit and streaming). By your count that leaves the UFC with $20-$25million for their end. A Ferguson headlined 140,000 PPV isn't even GROSSING $10 million in PPV money, even including closed circuit, but I will use it. Using your figures that leaves the UFC and Tony to split $5 million. Tony gets a half a million and the UFC pockets $4.5 millon. $4.5 million Ferguson PPV revenue vs. the $20-25 for the Conor PPV (again this is low). It's an easy choice.
 
That's not profits, it's revenues and you didn't account for the 50% (until after you were corrected). Thanks for playing.

And #2.

You are wrong because you fail to address the actual numbers and the huge disparity in profits between a McGregor PPV and anyone else. Large venues still utilize closed circuit and the term is still used to signify the premium paid by those venues that order the PPV when reporting PPV numbers. Do you actually think they pay the same $59.99 fee that you do at home? It's costs 4 figures for a small venue. I know this from experience.

The issue you have with this line of thinking is that even if 50% is taken, that same percentage remains constant and each PPV is reduced by 50%, meaning the percentage increase in revenue of a Conor headlined PPV vs a Ferguson PPV remains constant. Still with me?

The sheer numbers from a Conor PPV of 1.5 million buys vs the Interim Champ Ferguson PPV of 140,000 are astronomical. I broke this down for you earlier but it's obviously a little too complicated for you to understand in a single read. Even with your 50% of PPV buys profit that's $90 million for a Conor PPV even when using a flat $60 price for all broadcasts (which doesn't account the vastly higher price paid at bars/resaurants). Tony is bringing in $8.4 million on 140,000 buys. So $45 million vs. $4.2 million at 50%. We haven't even talked about the gate and merchandising disparity. Conor's last (205) did a $17.7 million gate. Ferguson's last (216) did $678,000. Yes, he did less than a million.

You stated: "If Endeavor/UFC is only concerned about maximizing profits, they wouldn't give 25-50% of their PPV revenues of their "end" (on a single event) to one fighter. It's a balance, not sure why that's so hard for you to understand. When Conor gets too greedy or demanding, don't expect the UFC to just roll over and take it."

They will, in fact, when they could pay Conor a full half their profits and still come out making six times the money (their cut) than if their interim champ headlined.

This has all been done before with Mayweather in boxing. The actual bottom line is simple. There is far more wiggle room to pay Conor and still turn the biggest profit of any headliner in MMA than you understand.

You tipped your hand at "idiot fanbase." I checked your post history and it is almost entirely Conor threads. Not even a hater like yourself can deny the numbers, as much as you try.
 
there is good arguments about the economics, what about the sport perspective?

I think he should ideally defend before April, that's a long wait. I enjoy watching him fight and think he and Ferguson would be a ridiculously good match-up.
 
A McGregor card is a "big event" which they want people to talk about, look forward to, pay shitloads for tickets, attract all the celebrities etc.

If he fights 3-4 times a year then it becomes routine and loses the feeling of big/special event. Celebrities and millionaire attendees are like "well doesn't matter if I miss this one, I can catch the next one in 3 months".

It's the same way that Floyd operated once he became big money. Sucks for fans but it's unrealistic to expect otherwise.
I see what your saying and it is articulate and reasonable. You may be performing satire in that case well done.
Hahaha!
Fanatism.?

Defend the fucking belt. He had the oppurtunity or gifted the oppurtunity in reality, to become champion.

The longer this shit goes on the more it hurts, dare I say "Real" fighters. Fighters with families suffering concussions for fans entertainment and enjoyment. Other fighters who legitimately earned the oppurtunity to fight for the belt.
Too many genetic bottlenecks in history?
No dis to you speaking generally.
 
Talked profits in two separate posts, accounting for the 50% and didn't even take into account the higher bar restaurant rate (after YOU were corrected) or gate/merchandising.

Thanks for playing, it's back to the elementary classroom for you for some reading comprehension and basic arithmetic.



#1

You didn't include the PPV split with the broadcaster until AFTER you learned of it. You cited two examples that were both after the fact and carefully omitted the first example.

You didn't correct me on anything. I know commercial establishments pay more than residential subscribers... as well, I never once claimed they didn't in the first place. That's you assuming things again and trying to make a point out of nothing. So I ask you again... show me where I specifically said both residential and commercial accounts pay the same rates.
 
You didn't include the PPV split with the broadcaster until AFTER you learned of it. You cited two examples that were both after the fact and carefully omitted the first example.

You didn't correct me on anything. I know commercial establishments pay more than residential subscribers... as well, I never once claimed they didn't in the first place. That's you assuming things again and trying to make a point out of nothing. So I ask you again... show me where I specifically said both residential and commercial accounts pay the same rates.

You didn't state it, but you didn't address it either. I, on the other hand, did address the PPV broadcaster fee. Show me specifically where I said that PPV broadcasters do not take a cut of the profits.

You keep tripping over yourself. You said I included only gross, then I cite two separate posts where I subtracted just what you said. Now you are saying what exactly? I never once claimed that PPV broadcasters do not take a cut of the profits. In fact I used gross figures as it still illustrates my point the same as profits. That was proven in the two posts reference profits that I just quoted again because you either forgot about them or couldn't comprehend the math.


So you admit that the numbers, including the costs, show an enormous disparity in a McGregor PPV vs. anyone else? So then how do you justifiy saying "to maximize profits" they should not give into his demands. I have already shown, through verifiable gate and PPV buy numbers, that a Conor PPV makes substantially more PROFIT than a card headlined by any other fighter even with paying McGregor a larger piece of the pie. Address that for me quick and stop dancing around the issue with misdirection.
 
Last edited:
You didn't state it, but you didn't address it either. I, on the other hand, did address the PPV broadcaster fee. Show me specifically where I said that PPV broadcasters do not take a cut of the profits.

You keep tripping over yourself. You said I included only gross, then I cite two separate posts where I subtracted just what you said. Now you are saying what exactly? I never once claimed that PPV broadcasters do not take a cut of the profits. In fact I used gross figures as it still illustrates my point the same as profits. That was proven in the two posts reference profits that I just quoted again because you either forgot about them or couldn't comprehend the math.


So you admit that the numbers, including the costs, show an enormous disparity in a McGregor PPV vs. anyone else? So then how do you justifiy saying "to maximize profits" they should not give into his demands. I have already shown, through verifiable gate and PPV buy numbers, that a Conor PPV makes substantially more PROFIT than a card headlined by any other fighter even with paying McGregor a larger piece of the pie. Address that for me quick and stop dancing around the issue with misdirection.

Listen, I know you don't get it, so I'll keep it as simple as I can for you. I'm not the one dancing around any issue... that's you. Perhaps if your read things properly, you wouldn't be so confused and misinformed.

1. I did not say that residential and commercial accounts pay the same rates.

2. I did not disagree that Conor generates more revenues and profits than any other UFC fighter.

3. I said the UFC was profitable before Conor came around, and they were.

4. I said the UFC will be profitable after Conor no longer fights, and they will.

5. I said IF the UFC's primary concern was maximizing profits, continuing to give Conor more and more money is not the best way to accomplish that. Getting Conor to fight for the same or less money would be MAXIMIZING their profit margin, how complicated is that?

6. If Conor's buy rate doesn't increase (or drops) but the amount of money he demands does increase, then the UFC and Conor will end up at odds. If you don't see that eventuality you must be obtuse. I thought I was pretty clear in saying that.
 
Listen, I know you don't get it, so I'll keep it as simple as I can for you. I'm not the one dancing around any issue... that's you. Perhaps if your read things properly, you wouldn't be so confused and misinformed.

1. I did not say that residential and commercial accounts pay the same rates.

2. I did not disagree that Conor generates more revenues and profits than any other UFC fighter.

3. I said the UFC was profitable before Conor came around, and they were.

4. I said the UFC will be profitable after Conor no longer fights, and they will.

5. I said IF the UFC's primary concern was maximizing profits, continuing to give Conor more and more money is not the best way to accomplish that. Getting Conor to fight for the same or less money would be MAXIMIZING their profit margin, how complicated is that?

6. If Conor's buy rate doesn't increase (or drops) but the amount of money he demands does increase, then the UFC and Conor will end up at odds. If you don't see that eventuality you must be obtuse. I thought I was pretty clear in saying that.

You are the one confused here. Since you like the simple paint by numbers format I will grant you the same courtesy.

1. I did not dispute that PPV broadcasters take part of the revenue.

2. I did not say the gross revenue of an event is synonymous with profits.

3. I stated, and provided verification that Conor headlined events generate the most PROFIT of any fighter on the roster, and it is not even close, even if the UFC were to increase his pay to the 25-50% of the profit mark you pulled out

4. I stated to maximize profits WME needs to have Conor headlining fights. This is indisputably true.

Now to address your comments, one last time since you tried to slip a fast one by there.

"I said IF the UFC's primary concern was maximizing profits, continuing to give Conor more and more money is not the best way to accomplish that. Getting Conor to fight for the same or less money would be MAXIMIZING their profit margin, how complicated is that."

First of all, that's not what you said. What you said was:

If Endeavor/UFC is only concerned about maximizing profits, they wouldn't give 25-50% of their PPV revenues of their "end" (on a single event) to one fighter. It's a balance, not sure why that's so hard for you to understand. When Conor gets too greedy or demanding, don't expect the UFC to just roll over and take it.

In no way shape or form did you state that getting him to fight for the same or less money would be maximizing their profit. To that point though, no shit Sherlock. Of course getting him to fight for the same or less money would increase their end of the take. This is reality, however, and that isn't going to happen and you know it. Your inference was not giving in to his demands and thus not having him fight, not getting him to fight for less.
 
A McGregor card is a "big event" which they want people to talk about, look forward to, pay shitloads for tickets, attract all the celebrities etc.

If he fights 3-4 times a year then it becomes routine and loses the feeling of big/special event. Celebrities and millionaire attendees are like "well doesn't matter if I miss this one, I can catch the next one in 3 months".

It's the same way that Floyd operated once he became big money. Sucks for fans but it's unrealistic to expect otherwise.
I absolutely detest bootlickers who shrug their shoulders like it needs to be this way. This is a reflection of a moronic populace. An intelligent fanbase would boycott the UFC and force them to strip McGregor. But we live in an idiocracy
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,816
Messages
55,309,384
Members
174,732
Latest member
herrsackbauer
Back
Top