Affliction at Madison Square Garden??!!
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 2:19 PM EST
132 comments
Due to the original negative response to this post because of my liberal use of hyperbole I've decided to slim this post down to a shortened and more realistic version of the events as I see it.
In a nutshell - Affliction have solid plans for a third event but have not yet announced their plans because they are hoping that MMA will be legalized in this legislative session of the New York State Legislature.
Because of Golden Boy's pre-existing relationship with Madison Square Garden management and Donald Trump's personal relationship with the CEO and controlling family of the owners of MSG, Affliction stand a good chance at leaping over the UFC and booking the Garden before the UFC does.
If this scenario plays itself out, Affliction would be more likely to garner mainstream media attention and would have to be taken more seriously as a competitor to the UFC.
For my original post (hyperbole included!) read below.
Since Day of Reckoning, it seems that the potential of a third Affliction show moves closer and closer to reality. Recent articles by MMA Payout and other blogs have shown that more and more fans are starting to understand how in the context of their t-shirt business, Affliction can lose 1 or 2 million dollars on a show and yet still keep holding events. Whilst I agree, I think that Affliction also have a master plan for
Following Banned which was held on July 19, 2008, Tom Atencio was pretty quick to announce Affliction's second PPV event would be scheduled for October 11, 2008. Looking back through the archives of BE, I confirmed that the original announcement of Fedor-Arlovski was reported by Kevin Iole on July 24, 2008.
Tom Atencio and his gang knew exactly what they were going to do as soon as Tim Sylvia tapped out.
However interestingly enough, following Fedor's KO over Arlovski, Affliction have been awfully quiet. The main talking point has been the snide remark made by Larry Merchant, which has turned out to be been a blessing in disguise for fans, revealing details of the previously opaque relationship between Golden Boy and Affliction. Most importantly Golden Boy have stuck by Affliction and denied Merchant's remarks. The boxing promoter seems to be committed to their MMA partner.This has led me to the following inference:
I highly doubt that Affliction don't know when they plan to hold their next event. They know.
According to NBC New York the NY State Legislature will vote at some point next week to legalize MMA across the Empire State. Might beating the UFC to Madison Square Garden be Affliction's plan to send their promotion into the stratosphere?!
First of all Golden Boy Promotions probably have an extremely good relationship with the management of the Garden, having held numerous events there including 2007's fight between Shane Mosley and Miguel Cotto and various other significant fights throughout the years. One must imagine that despite Dana White's best efforts, he would be second in line for booking the venue if the other call came from Golden Boy CEO Richard Schaefer.
As should be obvious by now, my theory is that Affliction are hoping that MMA will be legalized in New York soon, which will allow them to jump the gun on the UFC and be the first MMA promotion to host an event at Madison Square Garden. One must figure that Donald Trump, as influential an individual as there is in his home town of New York City, has his eyes and ears inside the workings of the State Legislature and would be able to know in advance of anyone connected to the UFC whether or not the UFC's best efforts at legalizing MMA in New York City were successful. Jsut like Lorenzo Fertitta was instrumental in getting MMA regulated in Nevada, NYC is Trump's turf. New York City is a long way from Las Vegas.
By the way, Madison Square Garden is owned by a company called Cablevision. Aside from being the 5th largest cable company in the US, Cablesvision own the New York Knicks and the New York Rangers. And whilst it's a publicly listed company, Cablevision is substantially owned and controlled by members of the Dolan family, including Chief Executive James Dolan. Who just so happenes to be great friends with another New York City high flying business man. One Donald J. Trump.
Relevant Links
Legalizing MMA in NYC: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/sports/more/New-York-Could-Legalize-MMA-Next-Week.html
Cablevision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cablevision_(US)
Trump and Dolan: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/nyregion/08cablevision.html
Great acting by Tom Atencio ("I want to have fun!"): http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2009/1/28/738827/fiveouncesofpain-com-inter
P.S. If this hold true, Affliction will definitely achieve mass media coverage for their event pitting the 'unbeatable Russian' Fedor against the 'All-American and youngest ever UFC Champion'.
If they add Tito Ortiz to the roster of the fight card, right bang in the middle of the world's media centre - we could be looking at a serious competitor.
And they would get serious props for outwitting Dana White and the UFC. Be careful what you wish for Dana....
The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.
4 recs |
132 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Any other dreams you want to promote?
by Michaelthebox on Jan 28, 2009 2:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
lol - yeh for shinya Aoki to come to the UFC
But I do think this is a very possible strategy for Affliction going ahead. They have all the pieces.
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This must be satire. I figure this is what the initial Affliction business meetings were like.
by Michael Rome on Jan 28, 2009 2:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Interesting
That you can dismiss the possibility so easily. How difficult do you think this would be?
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Considering how far away they are from legalizing MMA in NY...
it is very difficult.
This is well written though man, you raise some valid points but if MMA is finally legalized in NY… I don’t know how Atencio can get MSG before Dana and the boys, even with Trump’s assistance.
by Gunslinger20 on Jan 28, 2009 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
For both Dolan and Trump
Blocking UFC from coming to MSG until after Affliction does an event there wouldn’t be hard. Not when you measure your networth in billions. Remember – the UFC might be a billion dollar business, but in the scheme of Trump’s world…it’s a pretty irrelevent entity.
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Whats he gonna do, pay MSG to block the UFC?
All the connections mean nothing in the world if they don’t help MSG’s checkbook. Therein lies the rub, because the UFC is a huge, huge, huge golden goose for MSG to land. They want the UFC just as much as the UFC wants them.
Affliction is more like a dying chicken coated in tar.
by Michaelthebox on Jan 28, 2009 2:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't go that far
I wouldn’t call Affliction “dying” anymore. Day of Reckoning did some good things for them. Getting MSG before the UFC? Highly doubtful.
by Gunslinger20 on Jan 28, 2009 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I dunno, I still think they’re dying. MMASupremacy’s last fanpost with all the glowing words paints a different picture, but reading between the lines and what they actually say, its mostly doublespeak or promoterspeak. They’re still dying.
Obviously they’re struggling to find a way out, but even if they could magically get into MSG before the UFC, it won’t solve all their fundamental problems. As it is, I strongly doubt they’ll ever have event #3.
by Michaelthebox on Jan 28, 2009 2:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think they probably will
Unless people stop buying t-shirts.
Before DoR i thought no way (I even thought the event would be cancelled) but perhaps buzz about the event and media coverage that Fedor got made me think that maybe Affliction are doing better than we all think.
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 2:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t read what they say. Read between the lines.
They got tons of media coverage and buzz regarding Fedor last time, and they still couldn’t make the numbers work for a non-Fedor show. Considering the massive amounts of money they lose on Fedor shows, they must be setting fire to piles of money without Fedor.
And the t-shirt thing: no. There might be a spike around events, but if that spike translates to an extra 500k of revenue within a two-week period, that still doesn’t make the events anywhere near worth it.
by Michaelthebox on Jan 28, 2009 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How about you give some numbers, and I can laugh at you?
by Michaelthebox on Jan 28, 2009 3:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't have the numbers
And to be honest I doubt that the current events will do anything to boost the t-shirt sales (which is why I never stated that I thought they would).
The whole point is ‘casual fan’. If Affliction can get the casual fan to be aware of its existence then both t-shirt sales and PPV sales will go up.
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 3:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was replying to his statement about the numbers.
There might be a spike around events, but if that spike translates to an extra 500k of revenue within a two-week period, that still doesn’t make the events anywhere near worth it.
Just curious where 500k came from?
by bignerd on Jan 28, 2009 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeh i know you were
I ignored his statement about numbers.
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The whole point is ‘casual fan’. If Affliction can get the casual fan to be aware of its existence then both t-shirt sales and PPV sales will go up.
Oh, I agree with that completely. The issue is getting to the casual fan. Affliction has done a shit job of it so far, and even an MSG show isn’t going to magically do all the work for them. The UFC would go into high gear to counterprogram, crowd the media waves, or whatever else they have to do. And they have to deal with the fact that their breakeven point is still WAY the fuck beyond anything they’re going to draw, MSG or no.
by Michaelthebox on Jan 28, 2009 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the MSG show would outnetwork everything the UFC does
It would be all over the blogs – it would probably even make the national network media news with the “controversy” of MMA reaching the worlds largest media center.
Gimme 1 Round!
by skwirrl on Jan 28, 2009 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Still wouldn’t do the job. They have a HUGE lack to overcome.
by Michaelthebox on Jan 28, 2009 3:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree with:
The UFC would go into high gear to counterprogram, crowd the media waves, or whatever else they have to do.
They know that the UFC is going to try to kill them. They knew this since the first show and counter program. Looks like they’re still trying….
Basically – we disagree only on the point that I think Affliction will survive and have a 3rd show and you think they won’t.
Thats it – all our other arguments are just divided by that point.
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 3:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Technically, I think their third show depends on their ability to get investors.
Beyond that, I disagree with your analysis because, as I said, its very pie-in-the-sky. If you’d presented it as straightforward as possible, with all the possible conflicts and risks and the huge effort it would take to make it, I probably wouldn’t have shot it down so heavily.
by Michaelthebox on Jan 28, 2009 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
shooting down is fine
I could have written an essay on the conflicts, risks etc about this possibility.
But I came up with the idea on the shitter and then just came and did a quick google search on James Dolan and Donald Trump and then wrote the fanpost.
I didn’t set out to write a b-school case study…
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 3:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you disagree
that Affliction has a chance at MSG before the UFC. I think they have a chance.
If I had to put figures I would say it’s under 50% – but the chance is there and with it comes huge opportunity.
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 3:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
One must imagine that despite Dana White’s best efforts, he would be second in line for booking the venue if the other call came from Golden Boy CEO Richard Schaefer.
Thats a little pie-in-the-sky, don’t you think?
I’d say that if they get the investors so they can hold a third show, and if MMA gets legalized in time, the odds of Affliction beating UFC to the door are maybe 35%. However, you seem to think that would be something of a cure-all that would make Affliction a serious competitor. It isn’t.
by Michaelthebox on Jan 28, 2009 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok
I used a little too much hyperbole for your liking. I don’t think it would be a cure-all. It would definitely make everyone treat them more seriously.
Also – it doesn’t have to be the third show. It could be the fourth or fifth. What I was saying is that Affliction are waiting out until the end of this legislative session to see if it gets legalized. If not then they’ll set a date and venue for the next show.
Not sure about the investors part – I think they probably have the money to do the third show anyway.
35% – is a number that I would agree on although we both have to agree that it is an entirely arbitrary number.
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 3:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, then I guess we’re in agreement other than our disagreements.
by Michaelthebox on Jan 28, 2009 3:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The only way Affliction had the casual fans’ attention was due to UFC fighters wearing their shirts.
by iiowyn on Jan 28, 2009 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
So now they need a new way to get the casual fans attention. If they don’t – they’re fuct.
If they do – hey they have a foot in the door.
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How about you give some numbers, and I can laugh at you?
At least you get my point.
by bignerd on Jan 28, 2009 3:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not really. Most of my numbers actually have a backing or some basis for why I think them. As far as I can tell, you don’t have any basis at all for what you think, beyond some very tenuous understanding of business.
by Michaelthebox on Jan 28, 2009 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
one which you never point out
If Dana says it, it must be truth.
“Fedor isn’t a top 5 HW” lulz
Gimme 1 Round!
by skwirrl on Jan 28, 2009 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I understand completely what you’re saying…. they’ll have a 3rd event… it won’t be at MSG but they’ll have one.
There could be huge backlash if Fedor vs Barnett isn’t the main event. Tito vs Babalu does nothing for me.
by Gunslinger20 on Jan 28, 2009 2:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think having a third event really comes down to if they can get the funding to hold five or so more events. They can’t reach breakeven over their next couple events, and I doubt they’re willing to take the risk of losing money over five more events, with no guarantee of making it back. They’ll try and spread the risk out through investors, and if they can’t, they are done.
by Michaelthebox on Jan 28, 2009 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If it's Tito vs Babalu
No one would buy a PPV….PPV sales would be under 10,000….
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Indeed I agree
But do you think if Affliction held the first MMA event at MSG that would prevent UFC from having events there?
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 2:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No...
but considering the people that are fighting to have MMA legalized in NY are wanting to put a good showing as to how NY as a state could benefit from having legalized MMA with the increase in income that it could bring…. I would think they’d want the biggest show on Earth to take that honor.
I think the UFC would get more support and prove a better point to the NY legislators over Affliction.
by Gunslinger20 on Jan 28, 2009 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The people who are getting paid to get MMA legalized in NY are being paid by the UFC, so I’m sure they’ll work it out so that when it gets done the UFC will have the first shot at MSG.
by Phildo on Jan 28, 2009 2:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
MSG is a venue owned privately
Legislators will have no power over who holds what events at MSG.
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 2:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You're right...
but the legislators do have power if MMA gets legalized or not.
by Gunslinger20 on Jan 28, 2009 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeh
But once it’s legalized they hold no power. So unless someone rings up MSG and says “MMA can only be legalized if the UFC gets first shot” then it’s possible that MSG can go to Affliction.
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
That if there are legislators who are pushing to legalize MMA in NY they would prefer the UFC.
But once it’s legalized then it’s all in private hands. Playing Devils advocate – what I propose is obviously unlikely.
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 2:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yea, but the lobbyists you mentioned before will have a say in everything.
In a perfect world, the lobbyists wouldn’t have any say in what happens, but they do.
It’s all tied together. I don’t think Zuffa is going to spend the money their spending to get MMA in NY and then let Affliction walz in and have the first dance at the garden. When it gets done, Everything will be tied up together in a neat little bow,
by Phildo on Jan 28, 2009 5:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it would be really easy,
Consider what cheapskates ZUFFA are and how they are control freaks. Affliction would outbid them. Golden Boy would be willing to work on production control and Trump could call in a favor.
Affliction has a 90% chance of beating UFC to the Garden if they were to legalize – which I think is the only longshot.
Gimme 1 Round!
by skwirrl on Jan 28, 2009 3:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
legalize is a long shot?
I think it’s only a matter of time. If not 2009 then 2010 or 2011 but it will happen.
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 3:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Longshot that its done this year
I didn’t specify. I think the vote to legalize thats coming next week is 25% at best that it gets passed.
Gimme 1 Round!
by skwirrl on Jan 28, 2009 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it isn’t happening this week….it got pulled (or so i’ve been informed)
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
3 pieces
1. Great Champion vs Established American Contender
2. Established relationship with MSG management via Golden Boy Promotions. Don’t know where Richard Schaefer said ‘I booked the Honda Centre’. But that could easily happen for the MSG.
3. One call from Donald Trump to James Dolan….’don’t let UFC book the venue until after Affliction does’.
How difficult is it?
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 2:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem is that you outright ignore all the evidence that Affliction is not run by evil geniuses.
Sure, in theory I could run into Scarlett Johansson on a bus tomorrow and she’ll decide she wants a little Michaelthebox action. . .
But that doesn’t make it likely. All the evidence we have says this is ridiculous pie-in-the-sky dreaming.
by Michaelthebox on Jan 28, 2009 2:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The UFC could counter Trump with a fight card that could make them a hell of a lot more money than Affliction could….. UFC has the roster to pull that off, Affliction doesn’t. Fedor can’t do everything for Affliction.
by Gunslinger20 on Jan 28, 2009 2:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
More importantly, UFC has the history.
by iiowyn on Jan 28, 2009 2:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
But in this scenario – making money isn’t that relevant. Affliction have already shown they will lose money on events. It’s not about the money or PPV buys.
It’s about the publicity.
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But...
The UFC can get the publicity and the big bucks….
by Gunslinger20 on Jan 28, 2009 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t let anyone tell you different, it is ALWAYS about the money.
by iiowyn on Jan 28, 2009 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Considering Affliction will outbid UFC for the venue by a million dollars or more
Yeah its all about the money. The UFC is run by cheapskates that are in a class-action lawsuit because they stiff their employees on overtime and rounded their hours down by dozens in some cases.
Gimme 1 Round!
by skwirrl on Jan 28, 2009 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is true, because the UFC has never shown a willingness to spend money to fuck Affliction in the ass.
Oh wait
by Michaelthebox on Jan 28, 2009 3:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure if Affliction would outbid UFC
Which is why Trump’s connections with MSG are so important.
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 3:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How much does the UFC make vs Affliction?
How much does Affliction pay vs ZUFFA?
Gimme 1 Round!
by skwirrl on Jan 28, 2009 3:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That bigtime event with A. Silva facing James Irvin?
I think you make my point for me there guy
Gimme 1 Round!
by skwirrl on Jan 28, 2009 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They lost a shitload of money on that event. Good job, big guy.
by Michaelthebox on Jan 28, 2009 3:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They had to have a little more sophistication than this. I mean surely. Right? I mean. Surely.
by Michaelthebox on Jan 28, 2009 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just So You Know
NY will not be voting on the MMA Bill next week….it’s been pushed back
http://mma4real.net/
by Tha Realness on Jan 28, 2009 2:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I heard that as well...
The next vote on the issue could be months away, not in time to pull off May, June, or July in MSG.
by Gunslinger20 on Jan 28, 2009 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks
So either way – not in time for UFC 100 to be held there. and not in tiem for Affliction’s 4th event
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
UFC 100 will be in Vegas
The only other place that would make sense to me is in Denver…. have the 100th UFC PPV event be where it all began.
It’ll be in Vegas. Maybe “Ultimate 2009” could be in MSG, I’m sure that MMA will be legal in NY by then.
by Gunslinger20 on Jan 28, 2009 2:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thats what I expect. It makes a lot more sense for the UFC to have the Super Bowl show in Vegas and the New Years show in MSG, just to keep the big shows spread out.
by Michaelthebox on Jan 28, 2009 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And the next vote will be in a committee in the state equivalent of the House of Representatives. This is where it got killed last year. Even if it passes there, it has to go to the whole Assembly (It did sail through there 2 years ago, but it is still something that will take time). Then it has to start the process all over again in the State Senate (where they completely ignored it 2 years ago). Then it has to be signed. Then the athletic commission needs to establish regulations, then the show needs to be booked, and advertised.
The whole process is going to take a while. I find it very hard to believe that it will get out of the Assembly in a week, and even if it does, I doubt we’ll see any actual fights until the end of the year.
by Phildo on Jan 28, 2009 2:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
S02858
Turns out bill S02858 (which is supposed to be the MMA bill) isn’t around anymore. Can’t find it on the NY State Legislature website.
Hope it gets introduced soon.
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 2:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Rec'd
I rec this mainly because it brings up some more good discussions as to why MMA needs to be legalized in NY.
by Gunslinger20 on Jan 28, 2009 2:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Lol
thanks dude…appreciate. Probably not deserved but I love conspiracy theories.
Personally – I spend a lot of time thinking about how Affliction could survive. Not that I particularly want them too….I would prefer if the UFC got a network tv deal and become the sole national MMA org.
But in the short term competition is good for the sport.
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t necessarily support Affliction as an MMA organization, but I enjoyed Day of Reckoning and I’m open to seeing what else they can do.
UFC on network TV? I’ll be shocked to see that happen considering how control hungry both sides of the coin are.
by Gunslinger20 on Jan 28, 2009 2:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
mmalogic suggested a while back that it isn’t possible for top-level MMA to work on network TV as anything other than a loss leader. I don’t know if thats true, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
by Michaelthebox on Jan 28, 2009 2:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Probably true
But it all depends on viewership.
In my media studies class back in high school my teacher told me how David E. Kelly revolutionized TV with Ally McBeal, because it captured an in demand demographic in huge numbers. In 1999 Ally McBeal averaged 13.8 million viewers.
Basically – if the UFC were on network TV it would probably have to hit over 10 million viewers for it to be a cashflow positive show. Unlikely right now considering the CBS event has under 5 million. But in the long term who knows…
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The issue isn’t viewers. Its viewers compared to PPV buys. Doesn’t make sense to put a show on network TV that will get 10 million viewers, if it would have made 1 million buys on PPV.
I don’t know what the crossover point is, but I expect it would have to be 15, 20 times the number of viewers as buys.
by Michaelthebox on Jan 28, 2009 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Long-term thinking
Dana wants a network deal – because he knows that if X event could make more money on PPV – but instead running X event on a network channel could garner 10 million viewers – there’s that many more potential people who will buy event Y in the future….
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 3:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Uh, thats what a loss leader is, dude. It only works for a while, because once everybody has been exposed to MMA, the costs outweigh the returns.
by Michaelthebox on Jan 28, 2009 3:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeh i know – my original point was that 10million plus viewers may make UFC profitable on network TV.
Your counter was – the UFC could make more money on PPV for any given event
My counter was – the UFC would probably choose to run the event on network TV regardless of whether or not it could make more money on PPV due to increased coverage.
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 3:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dude, I said it would be a loss leader, then you disagreed with me by saying it could be profitable. No, you’re saying its a loss leader, but you didn’t understand what loss leader was so you sent this off into a completely different tangent.
by Michaelthebox on Jan 28, 2009 3:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No man
I completely understand what a loss leader is.
Unless you’re saying: Loss Leader = negative opportunity cost (monetarily wise and not counting future revenues)
My def of a Loss Leader = actually making a loss on that single event.
i.e. the network TV event would have a negative opportunity cost but still make a profit in itself.
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
sigh
it isn’t possible for top-level MMA to work on network TV as anything other than a loss leader. I don’t know if thats true, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
I’m not saying it can’t get on Network TV. Just that it might only work on Network TV as a loss leader.
Then you responded “no! The UFC could work on Network TV as a loss leader!”
Uh, yeah. . .
by Michaelthebox on Jan 28, 2009 3:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Lol
not as I understand it. I agreed with you that it may well be true that UFC can only survive on network TV as a loss leader.
However – I also put up figures relating to Ally McBeal that suggests to me that the UFC could indeed make money from a network TV event.
Not so sure where your disagreement is anymore…..
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 3:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok. So I said it would probably only work as a loss leader. You responded “it wouldn’t need to be a loss leader because of this.” I responded “that wouldn’t work because of ____.” You responded “yes it would, because it acts as a loss leader.”
Am I wrong?
by Michaelthebox on Jan 28, 2009 3:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Tell me which statement you agree with
Which is why I stated that your definition of a loss leader was different from mine.
A) If the UFC could get 10 million on network this event would not be a loss leader.
B) If the UFC could get 10 million on network this event would be a loss leader.
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 4:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I can’t give blanket responses to either statement without knowing the costs of the event or the fighter payroll they plan to put on. If they get 10 million viewers with Lesnar vs. Mir, that would be a LOT different than if they get 10 million viewers with Florian vs. Sherk 2.
by Michaelthebox on Jan 28, 2009 4:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the Mosley vs Margarito Fight was a test to see how popular MMA was outside the UFC.
The main thing to look at here is this if the PPV numbers grow from show to show IE: 100k to 125k and they can get a 1.5 million dollar gate in this economy, competing against a golden boy promoted boxing card across town. They can really make a solid pitch for additional financing from Golden Boy or someone like Mark Cuban.
I also think that a lot of the contracts they have signed are two or three fight deals so If they do a third show they’ll be able to reign in there ridiculous payroll and try and keep it closer in line with there gate/ppv estimate. This would also allow them to make better use of the promotion as a marketing device through waisting money on guys like Tim and Linland etc. at there overvalued price. Ive really really enjoyed the first two shows and though they got better from show to show and hope we see a whole lot more.
YAMATO DAMASHII
by R.T. on Jan 28, 2009 9:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It doesn’t sound like MMA will be legalized in NY but the possibility of Golden Boy w/ Trumps connection beating UFC to inaugural event are high (if they are still promoting). It’s who you know and last I checked UFC doesn’t have many friends in NY.
MSG wouldn’t lose any money shuffling the Affliction event first over UFC, arena costs are the same and both would sell out.
UFC lead the lobbying effort and smear campaign against the politicians opposing the legalization. I would expect them to try to have the last laugh and deny UFC the first big event if they are going to lose this battle.
by bignerd on Jan 28, 2009 2:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
my point exactly
It doesn’t sound like MMA will be legalized in NY but the possibility of Golden Boy w/ Trumps connection beating UFC to inaugural event are high (if they are still promoting). It’s who you know and last I checked UFC doesn’t have many friends in NY.
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rec'd
Rainmakers got me all hyped up even though I know it wont happen! Great write up man! I really wish it would happen too.
by xFenixKnightx on Jan 28, 2009 3:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Actually...
Trump and Atencio stated already that they are looking to put on a show in NY at the MSG if it was legalized in time, if not, they will do it in Jersey.
Trump and Atencio are already planning for this, so it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to believe. I am not sure about the timing, etc, since they probably want Tito to be in their next card, but, I believe this is in Afflictions to do list.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Jan 28, 2009 3:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Jersey is home
to the nations largest collection of Affliction wearing, Growing Up Gatti, douchebags anywhere in the universe
Gimme 1 Round!
by skwirrl on Jan 28, 2009 3:22 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Rec’d
I promise: no more drunken posts
by beery_pbr on Jan 28, 2009 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If they did do so….and before the UFC – it could give Affliction a foot in the door….
Think about the fighters…..there would be so many fighters who would sign with Affliction just to do an MSG event.
The venue would sell out for sure….and they’d get huge publicity just from being in NY.
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
can anyone answer me this?
what exactly is Affliction doing right here, right now, to get the sport of mma legalized in the state of NY? nothing, thats what! zuffa has already shown, in an independent study, that they can bring in over $11 million in revenue if they held an event in NY. what has Affliction proved that would help boost NY’S economy. once again nothing! it’s just that simple too me.
by bdw on Jan 28, 2009 5:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why would MSG care about this at all?
by FRANKIE on Jan 28, 2009 6:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
MSG is in NY. they cant have an event there without it being legalized.
by bdw on Jan 28, 2009 6:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The legalization process is completely separate from booking MSG. MMA will be legalized in NY eventually. The question is will Affliction jump ahead of the UFC in the queue due to their well-selected ‘partnerships’.
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 7:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They are not completely separate, there is nothing completely separate when it comes to big companies and politics.
by Phildo on Jan 28, 2009 7:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Because this shit is all tied together. Remember when all of the companies Dick Cheney owned magically ended up with contracts to do stuff involving the war?
It’s going to be the same thing in NY. the UFC is not going to push the legalization thing through without making sure they have their asses covered to be the first one’s in the door with MSG.
by Phildo on Jan 28, 2009 6:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeh - which is why
Affliction’s partnerships with Trump and Golden Boy might be shrewder than we imagined.
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 6:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You aren’t anyone until you can sell out MSG.
It would also be a nice F you, to Dana, that Affliction can sell have an event there before UFC and sell it out.
by Zocalo on Jan 28, 2009 3:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
B.S.
the ufc has proven that they can prosper greatly, without NY. it would be nice to have mma in the garden, but the ufc doesn’t need them. does anyone really believe that if zuffa had the slightest inkling that affliction would get into ny before them that they would continue to fight as hard to get the sport legalized there. the ufc has not gotten to the point of success to where they are at today by being stupid. Affliction can not get into NY without the ufc’s help and the ufc is not much into helping their competitors.
by bdw on Jan 28, 2009 5:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the UFC doesn't need NY
but they would love to have it. At the end of the day I don’t think Dana will fuss too much over it if Affliction did MSG first. He’d throw a couple of f-bombs and recognize that Affliction pulled a quick one on him BUT once legalized, MMA in NYC would be legalized pretty much forever. For the UFC the long term plan of expanding MMA is a pretty important part of their goal. And that goal would be one step further with legalization in NY.
The UFC will not give up on trying to get MMA legalized in NY.
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 6:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you made my point.
they wont give up, but they could easily “postpone” it until Affliction folds, since wer’e playing fantasyland here. Affliction pulling one over on the ufc is just that, fantasy.
by bdw on Jan 29, 2009 12:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If I could
I’d move this over to the main page. I’ve never seen a fanpost hit the 100 mark in comments :)
by xFenixKnightx on Jan 28, 2009 3:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I just started visiting the fan posts not too long ago thats why.
by xFenixKnightx on Jan 28, 2009 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Is someone editing my post??
Who changed the title?
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 3:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I did. Added the event, edited the title. Hope that’s ok. =)
by Nick Thomas on Jan 28, 2009 3:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
lol – not that I have a choice in the matter dude – but yeh obviously it’s ok…. :P
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 3:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
this is dumb
saying that affliction will get some sort of foothold against the ufc if this cinderella story comes true is like saying elitexc will be a contender the ufc will have to watch out for if they get on network tv first.
by nk on Jan 28, 2009 4:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
yeah well its a person’s point of view on the situation and they are sharing it and it sparked quite a discussion…. which is exactly the point, right?
by Gunslinger20 on Jan 28, 2009 5:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i suppose
but i think people are getting ahead of themselves (not all) if affliction makes it to msg first that does not make them any more or less viable then before
by nk on Jan 28, 2009 5:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure about viable
But I definitely think it would be a good coup in their war against the UFC.
It’s definitely a positive move no?
by rainmaker6 on Jan 28, 2009 6:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Huh? O_o
Affliction getting there first would be HUGE and WOULD affect them in a great way. How can you not think so? I mean, we are talking about NY here. There would be a crap ton of press coverage from everyone and there would be a ton of celebs trust me. Especially if its still with GoldenBoy. It would basically put them on the map for good IMO.
by xFenixKnightx on Jan 28, 2009 7:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
NY-MMA Legalizations Insight
Here is a link to John McCarthy interview by Wrestling Observer after DOR where he gets into the politics preventing MMA in NY. He directly states the problem with legalizing the sport in the state has everything to do with political feelings towards Zuffa and not the sport itself. I find his commentary to be 100% on the button in regards to what is really going on.
by bignerd on Jan 28, 2009 7:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Tito v Fedor would be an absolute disgrace of a fight and mark Fedor’s return to fighting freak shows (HMC), underweight competitors (Lindland) and generally anyone who’s not a top 10 heavyweight. Remember, before Big Tim, it had been two full years since Fedor has fought a top 10 HW.
by subo on Jan 28, 2009 8:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I’m not buying this…perhaps I’m in denial but the facts on the surface completely dispute Affliction giving up. T-Shirt sales still FAR exceed the losses per year that Affliction Entertainment endure…by all accounts, the PPV numbers are WAY up over the first event…Affliction now has established some name recognition which could lead to further recognition in the near future and beyond…Idunno, I just don’t buy it.
by bonez2799 on Jan 30, 2009 1:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
you all wasted your time
I live in Albany NY (the capitol) I follow politics closely, there is no way that mma will be legal in NY for a at least a few years. Last time it came up it wasn’t allowed out of commitee. The commitee has the same chair and last time the vote in this bipartisan commitee was unanomous against mma legalization. You understand what I am saying in 2008, every democrat and every republican voted against this despite the same arguments that are being rehashed again this year. I wish this wasn’t true, but you can all save your time in responding to this or other NY mma related posts.
by davewaz on Jan 30, 2009 4:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Also, black people will never be free, women will never be allowed to vote and the UFC will never get legalized in Nevada, California or anywhere else.
The best moments of our history have been when we raised a middle finger to those who said ’you’re wasting your time’.
by subo on Jan 31, 2009 6:54 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I totally understand what happened last time and that the legislation wasn’t allowed out of the committee. But that was due to ignorance on the part of members of the committee.
Hopefully the UFC will put enough money into lobbyists who will convince the legislators to educate themselves.
I think MMA wil definitely be legalized in NY – it’s only a matter of when. Looking at it now – it’s unlikely to happen in 2009.
by rainmaker6 on Feb 1, 2009 3:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
