Floyd vs Pacman; The One & ONLY Press Conference before Fight Week LINK INCLUDED

First topic message reminder :

So I haven't seen anything mentioned about this; but at 8pm GMT Floyd and Manny will go head to head in the only press conference featuring the pair between now and fight week. Both have foregone the usually contracted promotional tour which runs alongside PPV event's.

Do we think anyone will gain an edge at said press conference....will Floyd try to get under the skin of his foe as he has done in the past?

How will the trainers, Roach & Mayweather Sr approach it?

Is it right that the fighters aren't doing a city promotional tour, given the huge nature of the fight and the fact they are supposedly doing it for the fans?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:No you haven't, you've come up with a flimsy excuse as to why they can't hold it elsewhere. BUT using your logic they could make a LOT more money having a stadium fight and beaming it back to certain venues who can then charge a fortune for people to attend as well.

Remember to never say a bad word about a promoter again then, as 'you just can't trust them'

A bigger arena means less exclusivity at which point those willing to spend $35,000 on a ticket are suddenly less willing to spend that money, less tickets means exponentially higher prices and you can't ignore the draw of the casinos.

Again I disagree Hammer, you could sell the Front Rows at extortionate rates and have the back rows at reasonable (depending on what you see as reasonable you could still be charging 200 - 500 for them) Have the casino's showing the fight on big screen etc, it'll still bring in the crowds and so on and so forth.

95% of their fan base overseas??? it's a fallacy that there's no man U fans in manchester, you do realise that don't you.

owen10ozzy wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Mayweather fighting Pacquiao will make massive money regardless of the 'fans', it's a loose term anyway and is an assumption that the target audience is you or I which it is not. Celebrities are still 'fans' and it is they who are the target audience and when that TA has an inflated bank balance you will end up with higher ticket prices, it's common sense.

Hearn and Warren for example are highly unlikely to be putting on a fight of that significance and the success of their cards relies on the every day fans buying tickets, paying for PPV etc. Froch/Groves with a crowd of 80,000 and 1 million PPV buys had an income of approximately £25mil so straight away you can see we're talking about two fights on a completely different level.

You cannot compare an international extravaganza to what was a glorified domestic dust up, the rules are very different and there will be no irony because there is no comparison Owen.

This attitude I don't get....

If anything a fight of this magnitude owes more to the sport than a domestic dust up. If either have a duty to showcase the sport in it's best possible light it's the so called biggest fight of the generation. Yet because it is just that people seem to be off the impression the rule book can be torn up...they can charge what they like...present it how they like because it will sell regardless. That's such a poor attitude to take in my book...and one that in the long term doesn't help the sport at all.

Frazier vs Ali is still spoken about today, not because of the size of the fights but because the way they were presented, the mass audience it received...the way in which it was promoted and the way in which even those who weren't wealthy were able to enjoy the build up and attend the fight.

Away from the talk of legacy of the boxers involved in this match up I don't think it will be spoken about or seen as the spectacle that it should be..and that for me is a sorry state of affairs and explains why boxing has gone to the dogs.

An Scott your talking guff regards ticket prices; it's done at all sporting events worlwide..you sell the premium seats at premium prices...that's where you offset the costs of reduced rates elsewhere. And don't for one second suggest reduced rates is $5000 because it's simply not.

Easy way to put it...500 ringside/close proximity seats sell for 35,000 each...= $17.5 mil already made...

Your telling me that you can't then ensure at least 2000 tickets go on sale at $1000-$1500 quid? Give over! And I will keep saying it till I am blue in the face...you are not going to find a ticket for $1500!! There isn't a chance that even on general sale they are going to go as low as that!

Our education system is going down the pan if that's a serious response.

Wake up then engage your brain and think about this logically then get back to me with a sensible opinion.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

owen10ozzy wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Mayweather fighting Pacquiao will make massive money regardless of the 'fans', it's a loose term anyway and is an assumption that the target audience is you or I which it is not. Celebrities are still 'fans' and it is they who are the target audience and when that TA has an inflated bank balance you will end up with higher ticket prices, it's common sense.

Hearn and Warren for example are highly unlikely to be putting on a fight of that significance and the success of their cards relies on the every day fans buying tickets, paying for PPV etc. Froch/Groves with a crowd of 80,000 and 1 million PPV buys had an income of approximately £25mil so straight away you can see we're talking about two fights on a completely different level.

You cannot compare an international extravaganza to what was a glorified domestic dust up, the rules are very different and there will be no irony because there is no comparison Owen.

This attitude I don't get....

If anything a fight of this magnitude owes more to the sport than a domestic dust up. If either have a duty to showcase the sport in it's best possible light it's the so called biggest fight of the generation. Yet because it is just that people seem to be off the impression the rule book can be torn up...they can charge what they like...present it how they like because it will sell regardless. That's such a poor attitude to take in my book...and one that in the long term doesn't help the sport at all.

Frazier vs Ali is still spoken about today, not because of the size of the fights but because the way they were presented, the mass audience it received...the way in which it was promoted and the way in which even those who weren't wealthy were able to enjoy the build up and attend the fight.

Away from the talk of legacy of the boxers involved in this match up I don't think it will be spoken about or seen as the spectacle that it should be..and that for me is a sorry state of affairs and explains why boxing has gone to the dogs.

An Scott your talking guff regards ticket prices; it's done at all sporting events worlwide..you sell the premium seats at premium prices...that's where you offset the costs of reduced rates elsewhere. And don't for one second suggest reduced rates is $5000 because it's simply not.

Easy way to put it...500 ringside/close proximity seats sell for 35,000 each...= $17.5 mil already made...

Your telling me that you can't then ensure at least 2000 tickets go on sale at $1000-$1500 quid? Give over! And I will keep saying it till I am blue in the face...you are not going to find a ticket for $1500!! There isn't a chance that even on general sale they are going to go as low as that!

Our education system is going down the pan if that's a serious response.

Wake up then engage your brain and think about this logically then get back to me with a sensible opinion.

It's just crazy...

Derbymanc wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:No you haven't, you've come up with a flimsy excuse as to why they can't hold it elsewhere. BUT using your logic they could make a LOT more money having a stadium fight and beaming it back to certain venues who can then charge a fortune for people to attend as well.

Remember to never say a bad word about a promoter again then, as 'you just can't trust them'

A bigger arena means less exclusivity at which point those willing to spend $35,000 on a ticket are suddenly less willing to spend that money, less tickets means exponentially higher prices and you can't ignore the draw of the casinos.

Again I disagree Hammer, you could sell the Front Rows at extortionate rates and have the back rows at reasonable (depending on what you see as reasonable you could still be charging 200 - 500 for them) Have the casino's showing the fight on big screen etc, it'll still bring in the crowds and so on and so forth.

95% of their fan base overseas??? it's a fallacy that there's no man U fans in manchester, you do realise that don't you.

I'm a Manchester United fan, you should do some research into it before making yourself look silly, they have a fanbase of over 300 million people, the population of England is a touch over 50 million, now do the maths.

I'll repeat it for you, it might register this time; exclusivity.

Ah the Casino's of Vegas....where you get a ticket to the fight...if you place a Bankroll of $250,000 on the casino floor during the stay!

I just find it incredible the amount of people who don't see any problem with this but slam things such as TV deal for football & how that marginalises the sport and puts the price onto the fans..or PPV for domestic dust ups (the Clev v Bellew fight got roughly 200,000...not great but still over £3 million banked so he maximised his earnings which is good business according to some)..or wage increases in football, again passed onto fans..

Hammersmith - So your saying that pricing the fight as they have is the only way of making that money and they can't adjust pricing strategy to make it more feasable for fans and still pull in numbers?

2.5 million PPV buys at $100 = $250 million

3 million PPV buys at $75 = $262 million

There's one different pricing strategy which decreases price, allowing more households to buy it thus bringing in more cash...

Just what is it that you think isn't sensible about what I am saying....difficult to have a conversation you see when people just put one line sentences which add nothing to the debate...which is kind of the point of a forum.

Straw men everywhere.

Owen is the expert on price elasticity of demand for boxing PPVs!

And i'm from a family full of the gits so I know what i'm talking about when it comes to the tickets)

Your incapable of accepting that people just don't agree with you and as such end up acting like a child.

How can exculsivity not be kept in a stadium, explain it (if you can of course)

owen10ozzy wrote:Ah the Casino's of Vegas....where you get a ticket to the fight...if you place a Bankroll of $250,000 on the casino floor during the stay!

I just find it incredible the amount of people who don't see any problem with this but slam things such as TV deal for football & how that marginalises the sport and puts the price onto the fans..or PPV for domestic dust ups (the Clev v Bellew fight got roughly 200,000...not great but still over £3 million banked so he maximised his earnings which is good business according to some)..or wage increases in football, again passed onto fans..

Hammersmith - So your saying that pricing the fight as they have is the only way of making that money and they can't adjust pricing strategy to make it more feasable for fans and still pull in numbers?

2.5 million PPV buys at $100 = $250 million

3 million PPV buys at $75 = $262 million


There's one different pricing strategy which decreases price, allowing more households to buy it thus bringing in more cash...

Just what is it that you think isn't sensible about what I am saying....difficult to have a conversation you see when people just put one line sentences which add nothing to the debate...which is kind of the point of a forum.

With all due respect where do you get 2.5 million buys .................and 3 million from....You don't know 500,000 people would buy it for 25 dollars less

Pie in the sky..

Stick to what you know..................Which is very little.

3*75= $225mil not $262mil, it was going so well for you as well wasn't it Owen, don't make passing generalisations either, I for one have never complained about ticket pricing on anything.

It's hard to have a sensible debate with somebody who is so naive that he thinks he has a better idea of making money than someone like Bob Arum, lying cretin that he is, he's been in the business long enough to know exactly how to price something. You should ring him up and give him some advice, i'm sure he'll love the business model you and Derby have come up with.

Makes more sense to me that if you can fill somewhere bigger you'll make more money from it. Supply and demand should tell you that.

Derbymanc wrote:And i'm from a family full of the gits so I know what i'm talking about when it comes to the tickets)

Your incapable of accepting that people just don't agree with you and as such end up acting like a child.

How can exculsivity not be kept in a stadium, explain it (if you can of course)

Exclusivity is dependent on less being more, less tickets means higher prices, this works exponentially on a very steep curve, you can't sell an A list celebrity a ticket for $36,000 when 80,000 other people are in attendance.

I'm incapable of accepting people being wrong and being unable to accept that they are wrong, there is no difference of opinion you are just wrong, if you were right you'd be living out Strongbacks fantasies, you'd be a revolutionary business figure.

Except that if it's held in say somewhere that was double the size, you could cut the ticket prices by a third and still make the money, giving the fight to a wider audience too and for the people that 35k is little to nothing they'd probably still be able to sell it at that price to them as it's pocket change.

You haven't proved anyones wrong Hammer, you have a difference of opinion that's all.

This fight is gonna make a lot of money.... Gotta register TBE, TMT, PacMan, and Money Mayweather trademarks in South Africa yo get my piece of the pie

Scottrf wrote:Straw men everywhere.

Owen is the expert on price elasticity of demand for boxing PPVs!

I love these type of responses during conversations....really adds to the debate/argument.

It's the exact type of response you get from a petulant child when they can't argue with what you say, don't agree with your opinion or just don't have anything of value to input to the discussion!

Truss - Given this is supposed to trump Alvarez vs Mayweather (in fact, shatter if you listen to Arum, Espinoza etc) PPV buys, which did 2.2 million...one would be right in thinking this will do 2 and half million or more.

And regards of whether that exact amount will buy it if cheaper..no i don't but the basic of economics suggest the more people you make a product accessible to in terms of price the more likely they are to buy said product. I'm not sure how that is difficult to comprehend!

Hammersmith - I meant 3.5 ...of course they may not represent what may happen...but all im stating is that it can arguably be done. As I said if the price is more in line to what the majority can afford then of course the likelihood is more will purchase it. The big thing in it is you take a chance on enough people buying it at reduced rate to turn over more than you would at the higher rate.

Clearly it's not a gamble that Arum and co want to take; but if they were as confident about this fight being as big as they claim and it being wanted by the fans as much as they claim then surely it would be a chance you take if you have any interest in furthering the sport at all and not just the back pocket of yourselves and the fighters...who are equally to blame! They're just as bad..lauding the fact it will be highest grossing fight of all time etc whilst conveniently forgetting it will only be that if we the public pay for it. Pacman and Floyd don't need $150 million dollars each! $100 mil would suffice and then we wouldn't be seeing the prices we are. But there we go...greed wins the day again.

Like i said earlier, I'll be sure to point out the irony of posters next time I hear people moaning about footballers wages...champions league ticket prices...skysports prices...boxnation subscription prices etc.

Derbymanc wrote:Except that if it's held in say somewhere that was double the size, you could cut the ticket prices by a third and still make the money, giving the fight to a wider audience too and for the people that 35k is little to nothing they'd probably still be able to sell it at that price to them as it's pocket change.

You haven't proved anyones wrong Hammer, you have a difference of opinion that's all.

You'd think Arum would consider a bigger venue? Oh, he did, and it grossed $6m in the Cowboys stadium. He predicts this will gross $40m in tickets. Add the casino revenue and you tell me where you'd hold it, and how you'd price it to bring it to the masses?

When the fight was first mooted, there was talk of the cowboy's stadium. Without wanting to start questioning the motives, floyd likes to fight in nevada and there aren't any big stadia in las vegas... or nevada as a whole... just a few 30,000 seaters some way from vegas I believe.

On face value they should be able to fill a huge stadium, sell more actual tickets and still get all the other associated revenues. Presumably, a huge fight makes it a big week for the hotels and casinos of vegas and they  sweeten the deal to help keep floyd on his home patch.  I.e the overall pie is bigger in vegas regardless of venue. I say presumably, I don't know sheet 'bout promoting.

owen10ozzy wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Straw men everywhere.

Owen is the expert on price elasticity of demand for boxing PPVs!

I love these type of responses during conversations....really adds to the debate/argument.

It's just the truth. You have no idea of the price elasticity of demand. The guys running this probably do. If they thought they could make more money selling it cheaper, why wouldn't they?

It's a luxury product, which means that demand isn't highly affected by price.

Can you post the links for that so I can have a read Scott, don't understand how it would do so little compared to a much smaller stadium.

Derbymanc wrote:Can you post the links for that so I can have a read Scott, don't understand how it would do so little compared to a much smaller stadium.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2010/06/20100614/SBJ-In-Depth/Boxings-Grand-Stage.aspx
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing/news/story?id=2747601
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/mayweather-pacquiao-ringside-seats-high-rollers-article-1.2126647

Bob Arum at 83, the Mayweather team, Pacquiao and Roach near retirement are all concerned about furthering the sport rather than filling their own pockets. It's comments like that that show why you shouldn't be debating something like this, you are blind to the world and with that i'll leave you and Derby to it.

Think the issue here is whether you believe promoters have one job, that being to maximise the earnings from an event of their fighters. Not arguing that is not their role, it is pretty fundamental to what they do and a failure to do this is likely to limit how long they survive in the game.

However, and maybe this is just the dewy eyed idealist in me surely they also have a role to ensure the continued growth of the sport and in ensuring the sport continues to attract new fans and does not run the risk of alienating the fans it currently has. For me the venue and pricing structure they have chosen achieves the first of these objectives extremely well but falls someway short of achieving the latter objectives.

milkyboy wrote:When the fight was first mooted, there was talk of the cowboy's stadium. Without wanting to start questioning the motives, floyd likes to fight in nevada and there aren't any big stadia in las vegas... or nevada as a whole... just a few 30,000 seaters some way from vegas I believe.

On face value they should be able to fill a huge stadium, sell more actual tickets and still get all the other associated revenues. Presumably, a huge fight makes it a big week for the hotels and casinos of vegas and they  sweeten the deal to help keep floyd on his home patch.  I.e the overall pie is bigger in vegas regardless of venue. I say presumably, I don't know sheet 'bout promoting.

According to Arum, Casinos start thinking about offering tickets to those with a bankroll of over $250k. I think the added casino revenues are pretty high.

Rowley wrote:Think the issue here is whether you believe promoters have one job, that being to maximise the earnings from an event of their fighters. Not arguing that is not their role, it is pretty fundamental to what they do and a failure to do this is likely to limit how long they survive in the game.

However, and maybe this is just the dewy eyed idealist in me surely they also have a role to ensure the continued growth of the sport and in ensuring the sport continues to attract new fans and does not run the risk of alienating the fans it currently has. For me the venue and pricing structure they have chosen achieves the first of these objectives extremely well but falls someway short of achieving the latter objectives.

You have to remember also that it's a one off event....

Rarely in the current climate will you see a fight as big as this....

Spinks v Tyson was horrendously priced lest not forget..

Cheers for that Scott, it does make some interesting reading but I still don't see why for a fight that's billed as the greatest/most anticipated fight of the century couldn't sell more in a stadium that holds more. You can still charge a fortune for the closest seats etc

BUT after reading it you can see why Arum might not want to take that chance.
Think Rowley and Milky have summed it up better than I can anyhoo.

Pass the costs onto the casino in that case...have them structure it so they pass on large amount of cash to those involved for having the fight hosted in Vegas. After all....if the fight was in Dallas...they wouldn't be seeing sod all of the revenue such a fight brings...

I'm sure they probably do do this; however do they contribute enough to ensure the fans aren't priced out...clearly not.

As Rowley stated; clearly it's the dewy eyed idealist in me that hopes and expects such an event to do something for the longevity of the sport rather than the bankroll of the already super rich....and in my eyes nothing wrong with having that view. It's the only thing that gives hope of anything ever changing, regardless of the minute chance of it ever actually doing so.

Don't get me wrong Truss I understand perfectly well the economics behind it, just a little disappointing. Just think this is a bit of a missed opportunity. How great would it be in these ages when we are constantly told boxing is dying to point to a fight in front of a sell out crowd of 100,000 + with an international viewing figure in the billions rather than the millions.

Scottrf wrote:

milkyboy wrote:When the fight was first mooted, there was talk of the cowboy's stadium. Without wanting to start questioning the motives, floyd likes to fight in nevada and there aren't any big stadia in las vegas... or nevada as a whole... just a few 30,000 seaters some way from vegas I believe.

On face value they should be able to fill a huge stadium, sell more actual tickets and still get all the other associated revenues. Presumably, a huge fight makes it a big week for the hotels and casinos of vegas and they  sweeten the deal to help keep floyd on his home patch.  I.e the overall pie is bigger in vegas regardless of venue. I say presumably, I don't know sheet 'bout promoting.

According to Arum, Casinos start thinking about offering tickets to those with a bankroll of over $250k. I think the added casino revenues are pretty high.

Yeh, just read that link. Looks like i guessed right for once.

Derby I think its the captive audience thing about vegas. History tells them, they get a stack more business in fight week, they can afford to give a hefty cut of that away. Hold it in say dallas, the people will come to the fight but will they gamble their life savings away at the same time... and if so, where? It might be good for business in dallas for the weekend but who exactly benefits and who's going to pay the sweetener to say thanks for it.

Rowley wrote:Don't get me wrong Truss I understand perfectly well the economics behind it, just a little disappointing. Just think this is a bit of a missed opportunity. How great would it be in these ages when we are constantly told boxing is dying to point to a fight in front of a sell out crowd of 100,000 + with an international viewing figure in the billions rather than the millions.

That's what I love about you, Jeff. Ever the optimist.

Looks like Arum wanted the fight in a bigger venue!

http://nypost.com/2015/01/30/mayweather-pacquiao-deal-done-in-next-couple-days/

I don't think they allow Xylocaine in Texas though.

Would be interesting to know how much the casino's etc are handing over for this fight as I didn't really consider it would be massive numbers. Like Rowley said though
How great would it be in these ages when we are constantly told boxing is dying to point to a fight in front of a sell out crowd of 100,000 + with an international viewing figure in the billions rather than the millions.
think that would be just amazing and may have been the kickstart to a good/great period for boxing

They reckon Floyd will get around $200m for this. $90k a second. In a round he could buy a couple thousand of the most expensive seats.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Rowley wrote:Don't get me wrong Truss I understand perfectly well the economics behind it, just a little disappointing. Just think this is a bit of a missed opportunity. How great would it be in these ages when we are constantly told boxing is dying to point to a fight in front of a sell out crowd of 100,000 + with an international viewing figure in the billions rather than the millions.

That's what I love about you, Jeff.  Ever the optimist.

I open your PM's in the hope of wit, insight or enlightenment, optimism is pretty much a pre-requisite.

Scottrf wrote:Looks like Arum wanted the fight in a bigger venue!

http://nypost.com/2015/01/30/mayweather-pacquiao-deal-done-in-next-couple-days/

I don't think they allow Xylocaine in Texas though.

don't start that one again scott.

That's uncle Bob... boxing comes first, but if he has to he'll take the money

Scottrf wrote:Looks like Arum wanted the fight in a bigger venue!

http://nypost.com/2015/01/30/mayweather-pacquiao-deal-done-in-next-couple-days/

I don't think they allow Xylocaine in Texas though.

They would if you told them it was an ingredient in BBQ sauce

Rowley wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Rowley wrote:Don't get me wrong Truss I understand perfectly well the economics behind it, just a little disappointing. Just think this is a bit of a missed opportunity. How great would it be in these ages when we are constantly told boxing is dying to point to a fight in front of a sell out crowd of 100,000 + with an international viewing figure in the billions rather than the millions.

That's what I love about you, Jeff.  Ever the optimist.

I open your PM's in the hope of wit, insight or enlightenment, optimism is pretty much a pre-requisite.

Can't lie that little back and forth gave me a good chuckle..cheers chaps.

Any boxing fans on here or just 6th form economists? Jesus wept.

Don't forget the MGM is Floyd's home arena. He's the house fighter, he will have no interest in fighting anywhere else.

What are people over here willing to pay for this fight?
Anyone think it will be the usual ppv price (or close to) or silly money?

I don't think it will be that expensive.....Mayweather and Manny don't transcend....Like Tyson used to....and that will no doubt be reflected...

Don't think posters should worry..

I don't think it will be shocking over here. People forget how much ppv costs for any fight in the states.

I'm going with £24.99. Can we do a 606v2 sweep?

I'm with Milky and Truss. Two foreigners fighting in the middle of the night, doesn't make for £60 PPV.

Neither has the crossover appeal of Tyson. Most casual sport fans probably know Mayweather as the rich guy who sells hats, don't see anyone naming their Rottweilers 'Floyd' either do you?

My wife was already called Jo so I didn't have the chance..

24.99 sounds reasonable. Could go to 30 but no couldn't see it being any more. That's what I'd pay without moaning too much.

I think Warren will put everything into getting this fight. Think he has to really and charge extra that month.

RanjitPatel wrote:24.99 sounds reasonable. Could go to 30 but no couldn't see it being any more. That's what I'd pay without moaning too much.

I think Warren will put everything into getting this fight. Think he has to really and charge extra that month.

Hearing reports Sky will have this on box office. Will be priced at £59.99.

Somehow don't think it's going to be priced that high over here, a fight in the middle of the night not containing a Brit isn't going to get much interest.

£59 converts to $89 which is the American price. It goes to $99 in HD.

If Sky get it I won't be buying no matter what the price.

£25 I think is a reasonable and practical price. I think the initial hype about tickets and prices will cool down in time.

20 quid max, will be on too late etc etc.

Serious question Strongy, why would you not get it through sky?

I don't like Murdock. I see no reason to knowingly give him money.

Not staying up for up it (two kids, no sleep...not good)...will read the reports the following morning and say either "Hurrah, Floyd lost" or "Balls, Floyd won" and, depending on reports of how good the fight was as a visual spectacle, I'll download a copy from a elsewhere and watch it before deleting it.