KrisZ Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Welcome to pro wrestling circa 2001. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Shane McMahon presents Strikeforce? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrisZ Posted March 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Josh Gross reported this. The UFC/Strikeforce split is all about contracts. Once they're fulfilled with Showtime, I'm told a WEC type merger is planned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 Who will play the role of Eric Embry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childs Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 I'm listening to the Observer audio analysis, and I can't believe that Bryan regards this as a long-range plus for the fighters. He should be chained to a wall and forced to study guilded age economics or, hell, the WWF purchase of WCW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditch Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 forced to study guilded age economicsPretty sure ANY economics school will teach that fewer employers = worse for employees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrisZ Posted March 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 It's amazing how out to lunch they can be sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 Yikes, UFC paid well over $40,000,000 for the company. They should have just let Doug DeLuca choke on that investment again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 I'm trying to figure out why UFC paid $40M for it. Is it just to protect a monopoly? In the long term keeping contracts down? I can see the benefits of that. But Strikeforce is sort of stagnating. It wasn't an epic business fail, but their CBS/Showtime stuff hasn't really taken off in terms of making the promotion wildly popular. There is great value in being a monopoly. We see it in the NFL, and all of the major sports where there is just one entity controlling everything. But it's hard to see Strikeforce as the AFL, unless there was fear that a major money mark (say a Roman Abramovich type with money completely out of his ass) financed it *and* the promotion was able to both steal talent and develop it. Perhaps there is fear that was about to happen? The other possibility in normal circumstances would be if the Brothers were thinking about going public, and not wanting to have a viable promotion out there at that time. In other words, having some major high rollers out there see UFC valued at $1B, notice they can buy Strikeforce for $20M to $100M, and the UFC gets a more viable rival that is looking to building the business for a similar IPO. That, at least in the past, doesn't seem viable as the Brothers would need to make all sorts of public filings about the finances of the business, and how the Brothers have leveraged it to the benefit of their other entities, and how little the payouts are relative to the revenue... and sign them under penalty of jail time if they're completely cooked... Given what Snowden and others have written about how the Brothers are more than a bit sleazy in their finances, it doesn't seem likely *that's* how they would want to cash in. If they're going to see pieces (or all) of the company, they'd rather find money marks as opposed to making public filings. So... uh... yeah... interesting to see what the thinking is. On Bryan, it would be interesting to understand why he thought this was good. Is he fantasty re-booking Invasion with images of $$$ in his head? Even before that was shot down (i.e. that UFC is simply going to merge it in once they can), it was pretty obvious that's exactly what UFC would do. They want their brand to be it. UFC = MMA similar to NFL = Pro Football. They don't give a shit about Brand Extension, and they have years of data to show that UFC Sells and Other Brands Don't. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childs Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 UFC is even more monpolistic than the NFL, MLB etc. because at least in those leagues, you have groups of rich owners driving up salaries by competing with one another. You would need a Dana in charge of each fight camp or something to create an equivalent labor market in MMA. I suspect it will take some time for fighters to cease being grateful that UFC pulled them out of the gutter in terms of earning potential. But if the sport continues to thrive, some attempt at labor organization seems like a down-the-line possibility. It will be interesting to see if it ever gains more traction than it has in pro wrestling. Given the current set-up, I can't see the sport following a boxing model and splintering in a million directions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 The official thinking behind the purchase seems to be that it allows them to aggressively expand the number of shows they run, in particular internationally. These guys dream big of making this the biggest sport (monopoly) in the world within the next ten years. This aids them in that (unrealistic) goal. Regarding Bryan, his thinking was pretty clear from listening to the radio show. Strikeforce were overstretched idiots who were in over their heads, while Dana White is a promotional genius with a Midas touch. Think Ric Flair's reaction to WWE buying WCW ten years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dooley Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 I'm trying to figure out why UFC paid $40M for it. Is it just to protect a monopoly? In the long term keeping contracts down? This, plus being able to go further more quickly with continued international expansion plus there was another similarly numbered offer on the table for Strikeforce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Dave said in his radio show today that UFC wants a regular presence in their overseas markets, no down time without live events there, meaning 8-10 shows per year in Australia, the UK, etc. Similar to Shane McMahon's short-lived idea of having full time WWE territories in all their major overseas markets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Does that mean 8-10 cards in the UK + 8-10 cards down under + 8-10 cards in Asia + 8-10 cards in the European continent (in addition to those in the UK)? I really don't think they needed Strikeforce talent to run more shows overseas. They were just *cutting* talent in UFC. There's plenty of other talent out there to grab. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 I'm trying to figure out why UFC paid $40M for it. Is it just to protect a monopoly? In the long term keeping contracts down? This, plus being able to go further more quickly with continued international expansion plus there was another similarly numbered offer on the table for Strikeforce. The offer strikes me as more likely, especially if it was a major money mark level. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Does that mean 8-10 cards in the UK + 8-10 cards down under + 8-10 cards in Asia + 8-10 cards in the European continent (in addition to those in the UK)? I really don't think they needed Strikeforce talent to run more shows overseas. They were just *cutting* talent in UFC. There's plenty of other talent out there to grab. Yes, theoretically it does mean 8-10 cards in each major overseas market. I agree that they didn't need Strikeforce's talent to run more shows overseas, they had too much talent already. But they wouldn't have anywhere to air all those extra shows, as already Spike TV wouldn't pick up all of UFC's PPV prelim shows, forcing them to buy time on Ion to air the ones Spike didn't want to pick up. Zach Arnold is suggesting that the main advantage to buying Strikeforce is the money from their Showtime deal can bankroll UFC's international expansion plans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Let me get this straight... the money from Showtime would fund the expansion. Showtime Money > $40M Current Value I don't think that adds up. Allegedly, there are three years left on the contract. That's interesting because the original contract in 2009 was for 3 years, so it would seem that Strikeforce extended it at some point. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 Will Showtime pull the plug on Strikeforce within six months? Well, that didn't take long for everything to go sour. I'm looking forward to the future finger pointing back and forth between Dana White and Ken Hershman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dooley Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 As much as I like Keith's writing, this was always the plan. People even made a drinking game around Dana's "business as usual" quote. It was always about siphoning Strikeforce talent into the UFC until the Showtime contract ran out or the network got sick about it enough to drop them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 Just because it was always the plan to subsume Strikeforce into UFC, doesn't mean that completely tanking the promotion was a smart thing to do. Given that the likes of Josh Barnett, Antonio Silva, Luke Rockhold, Ronaldo Souza, King Mo, etc are all going to end up in UFC soon enough, you want as many eyeballs as possible watching their fights, so when the merger happens those guys fighting on UFC cards will mean something. We need to see how the FOX deal pans out, but by the sounds of it UFC will be running about the same number of live special for FOX/FX next year that they did for Spike TV and Versus this year. So without the Showtime deal, Zuffa will have to do a massive purge of their roster, and with Bellator likely ending up on Spike TV and Showtime finding replacement MMA programming, we're back to square one. They should have let someone else pay through their nose for the tainted brand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dooley Posted September 16, 2011 Report Share Posted September 16, 2011 Just because it was always the plan to subsume Strikeforce into UFC, doesn't mean that completely tanking the promotion was a smart thing to do. Given that the likes of Josh Barnett, Antonio Silva, Luke Rockhold, Ronaldo Souza, King Mo, etc are all going to end up in UFC soon enough, you want as many eyeballs as possible watching their fights, so when the merger happens those guys fighting on UFC cards will mean something. We need to see how the FOX deal pans out, but by the sounds of it UFC will be running about the same number of live special for FOX/FX next year that they did for Spike TV and Versus this year. So without the Showtime deal, Zuffa will have to do a massive purge of their roster, and with Bellator likely ending up on Spike TV and Showtime finding replacement MMA programming, we're back to square one. They should have let someone else pay through their nose for the tainted brand. Why would they focus more on the Strikeforce card featuring a tournament that may or may not ever conclude when they have 4 cards in 4 weeks on the horizon, two of which feature the promotion's biggest stars? Zuffa bought Strikeforce to get a few key pieces of talent, not to deal with Showtime. It's akin to them buying WFA just to get Rampage and Lyoto. Dana has said repeatedly he doesn't want to deal with Showtime. Since the day they purchased Strikeforce it's all been about waiting out the Showtime deal. This "massive purge" you speak of is going to be lower level guys Zuffa doesn't want around anyway. Are you advocating putting promotional efforts into Strikeforce and Showtime to save the Zuffa employment of Lorenz Larkin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted September 22, 2011 Report Share Posted September 22, 2011 Seems like an odd purchase for UFC. I mean what do they want with two 50-something retired professional wrestlers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomk Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 Zuffa bought Strikeforce to get a few key pieces of talent, not to deal with Showtime. It's akin to them buying WFA just to get Rampage and Lyoto. Dana has said repeatedly he doesn't want to deal with Showtime. Since the day they purchased Strikeforce it's all been about waiting out the Showtime deal. I wish Showtime gave a rat's ass because I imagine with some good ballyhoo you could get a pretty big audience for M1 Monson v Fedor. Anarchist v Russian military in Moscow: a history of anarchism in Russia, history of the repression of anarchism, Monson meets Voina, Fedor and the mayor of Moscow, Zahar Prilepin to write a poetic intro piece on Fedor. It shouldn't be hard to promote that on Tv and sell it as a far bigger deal than actually is.It feels like it wouldn't take alot of money for Showtime to thumb its nose at UFC and promote the M1 show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.