- Joined
- Jan 29, 2015
- Messages
- 14,669
- Reaction score
- 1
By Shertard logic, yesso 0 PPV buys if overeem would be on ppv instead of punk?
By Shertard logic, yesso 0 PPV buys if overeem would be on ppv instead of punk?
I am also trying to corroborate what he said, and if the LA times were told, then the official probably spoke to Lance Pugmire, who hasn't said anything about it on twitter yet. And as I said on the first post, since plenty of people clearly haven't read it, if this turns out to be hogwash, I'll delete it myself.I'm looking on the LA Times website & nothing
http://www.latimes.com/sports/
Also - https://twitter.com/latimes
Only thing I can think of is they might be going off of prelim numbers
Brendan Schaub will tell you five contradictory things in 2 minutesBut Brendan Schaub told me it was going to do 700k minimum!
It was a really solid card, so this is surprising.
To the fans who said Punk would add 150k buys to the PPV, what say you now?
It was a really solid card, so this is surprising.
To the fans who said Punk would add 150k buys to the PPV, what say you now?
I am also trying to corroborate what he said, and if the LA times were told, then the official probably spoke to Lance Pugmire, who hasn't said anything about it on twitter yet. And as I said on the first post, since plenty of people clearly haven't read it, if this turns out to be hogwash, I'll delete it myself.
And I guess you didn't read my first post either, saying "Normally, it takes a couple weeks to put these numbers together..."
Found the piece by Pugmire, posted it in the first post.I hear you completely
He usually sources, but a lot of times he never says they are "early" numbers & reports them as final
Funny that he said #224 was not released yet
They were (to me) & posted here
So time travelers aren't allowed to post threads now?!Difference is, that thread was quoting a newsletter that isn't released until tomorrow.
We good, homie. No worries.I hear you completely & read you completely
Nowhere did I slam you man
Found the piece by Pugmire, posted it in the first post.
Sorry to give you a hard time, you usually post good stuff. I just want whittaker to be a draw...I am also trying to corroborate what he said, and if the LA times were told, then the official probably spoke to Lance Pugmire, who hasn't said anything about it on twitter yet. And as I said on the first post, since plenty of people clearly haven't read it, if this turns out to be hogwash, I'll delete it myself.
And I guess you didn't read my first post either, saying "Normally, it takes a couple weeks to put these numbers together..."
I know it's a rumor.
@Only Here for Attachments conned @FrankieNYClol
But it is impossible to have a real tally by Wednesday morning
As we saw by SHO with MayMac, final numbers are not in for months
Meltzer reports early "guesstimates" & that usually occurs later than this
How he gets his numbers:
He gets reports from distributors due to his 30 years of covering these things (WWF)
If enough early distributors come in, he will say an early estimate.
Cable & sat co, release numbers according to their accounting schedules.
That is why even SHO waited for final numbers for about 3 months.
As far as internal UFC.com numbers. Those numbers eventually get released & you can get a good estimate of what a fight did by going by the recent released history.
That is why his numbers are always "about" if not exact.
-
I'm looking on the LA Times website & nothing
http://www.latimes.com/sports/
Also - https://twitter.com/latimes
Only thing I can think of is they might be going off of prelim numbers