UFC 98 last event on Setanta (Allegedly)

Odats

"Allegedly" Setanta is seeking 100m in funding and might impact on its contract with Zuffa. So 98 is probably going to be the last live event until a new buyer is got for the rights. Hopefully this is not the case.
I think sky is the only realistict contender. Hopefully they don't go down the PPV route but realistically imo UFC will not be in that market in Europe for atleast the next 2 years.
My two cents on this would be in an ideal world.
WEC on Virgin 1(There doing TUF so why not) or Bravo (don't know have bridges been burned with Zuffa since they showed the Tshirt guys event so might be unlikekly. However Strikeforce might be an alternative)
UFC on Sky (But it might upset the boxing fraternity) However, I don't think Sky will give it the same air time as Setanta has.
Hopefully this is the opportunity for ESPN to step in and save Setanta. Plus I think they have a good relationship with UFC and they do a weekly MMA show in the States. I think K Flo hosts it.

Derek Coleman

This is total speculation so lets hope nothing changes. God forbid Sky get it. I'd rather download it. Sky promoted Cage Rage as No Holds Barred!! And it'll go PPV as soon as they get a chance.

Fozzy

I'm not totally sure how it is here, but in the US WWE have been able to prevent any MMA shows airing on the same network as any of their shows if they want. That might possibly affect any UFC deal with Sky

My feeling is that someone will step in to buy Setanta if things do get that bad

rovert

The topic title is slightly misleading.

Anyways I just hope if Setanta does go down the tubes the UFC contract doesnt get tied up in legal claims.

Odats

Changed the topic title. Zuffa knows that in orderto maintain its growth in Europe that it needs main broadcasters to take on the mantle. Sky won't share any of its programming though and WWE could be a stumbling block. Didn't the original TUF used to be on after Raw or Smackdown in the States on Spike and after the success of TUF the WWE pulled its programming from Spike.

Fozzy

Odats wrote: »

Didn't the original TUF used to be on after Raw or Smackdown in the States on Spike and after the success of TUF the WWE pulled its programming from Spike.

WWE gave the OK for Spike to air TUF after Raw, but they started looking at the UFC as competition when a large portion of the Raw viewers were sticking around to watch TUF and the company began to grow

The UFC had nothing to do with WWE leaving Spike though, their contract was up and they got a deal with a bigger network, USA

rovert

Fozzy wrote: »

WWE gave the OK for Spike to air TUF after Raw, but they started looking at the UFC as competition when a large portion of the Raw viewers were sticking around to watch TUF and the company began to grow

Im sure you heard about this too Fozzy but privately Vince McMahon said that was the biggest mistake he has made in a long time. WWE was asleep at the wheel there.

calex71

personally F'd if i care who if any one shows it over here, never watch it live as its on too late and repeats with adds suck.

I've said it before, I wish we had a station like HDnet over here who show the likes of dream, sengoku, k1 max, xfc etc etc etc ,

If they want the sport to grow here they wont go the ppv route for now and i realize though only a small % of us "aquire" events other than ufc so they do actually have a monopoly really and can pretty much name the terms if they wanted, but i think take up would fall a long way off say the hatton fight at the weekend and even a wwe ppv at the moment even though for my money a ufc in terms of number of fights and value for money far out weighs a boxing ppv on so many levels , not to take away from boxing as a sport bit as a product

Maldini2706

It's all speculation. I think the rumours of Setanta's decline are greatly exaggerated at this stage. If Sky did go ahead and get UFC though I doubt the WWE would be a problem. The UFC is probably a bigger draw these days, it certainly will be a hell of a lot bigger in a couple of years.

Fozzy

Maldini2706 wrote: »

If Sky did go ahead and get UFC though I doubt the WWE would be a problem. The UFC is probably a bigger draw these days, it certainly will be a hell of a lot bigger in a couple of years.

WWE is still a lot bigger in the UK based on tv ratings, merchandise and live event demands I would think. Keeping in mind the amount of original programming that WWE provide Sky with each month (something like 40 hours, something that the UFC just can't compete with) and the long standing relationship between them, if WWE can wield any power in keeping the UFC off Sky then I'd say that Sky would side with WWE

Maldini2706

It's all about who'd get more advertising money. At the moment that's WWE, but with Sky behind the UFC, with their well oiled hype machine it'd be huge. Interest in WWE is waning while MMA is just kicking off.

I don't see why WWE would have much leverage with them anyway, it's not like they could threaten them to go elsewhere, where would they go?

calex71

Maldini2706 wrote: »

It's all about who'd get more advertising money. At the moment that's WWE, but with Sky behind the UFC, with their well oiled hype machine it'd be huge. Interest in WWE is waning while MMA is just kicking off.

I don't see why WWE would have much leverage with them anyway, it's not like they could threaten them to go elsewhere, where would they go?

back to channel 4 lmao , remember that stint on there ?. oh the good old days

rovert

Fozzy wrote: »

WWE is still a lot bigger in the UK based on tv ratings, merchandise and live event demands I would think. Keeping in mind the amount of original programming that WWE provide Sky with each month (something like 40 hours, something that the UFC just can't compete with) and the long standing relationship between them, if WWE can wield any power in keeping the UFC off Sky then I'd say that Sky would side with WWE

Add a 22 year or so relationship as well.


There was an interesting news bit in this weeks Wrestling Observer which of sheds new light on where the bargaining power lies nowadays (with the UFC.)

Setanta Sports, the UFC other broadcasting partner in the U.K., which does the live events, has brought in a new management team. An article in the Sunday Times said the company is facing an uncertain future. The expectation is they will lose a lot of subscribers after the 2009-10 soccer season because they will be cutting back on the number of live games. It noted UFC is working with Setanta to reduce contract payments to them as long as Setanta can show UFC it will survive for the long haul. The English Football Association is not as willing to reduce payments, nor is the Scottish Football Association. Setanta was in talks last year to sell to ESPN, but ESPN pulled out of talks when the recession hit. Sky Sports had offered more money than Setanta for a two-year contract with UFC. UFC chose Setanta for positional reasons, both the guarantee all events would air live and also being on an all sports service instead of an entertainment station

UFC seem to be the ones dictating things not the boardcasters. Whether their stance is as a result having knowledge that WWE will try to block them again anyway or that UFC is just such a strong franchise they are totally calling their own shots now is somewhat unclear.

Maldini2706

That's a pretty ****ing brutal decision if they chose Setanta over Sky. I'm sure Sky would have budged on broadcasting all the events live.

Fozzy

Maldini2706 wrote: »

That's a pretty ****ing brutal decision if they chose Setanta over Sky. I'm sure Sky would have budged on broadcasting all the events live.

Apparently not though. Keep in mind all the TUF episodes they'd have to show, as well as the probable lack of a weekly news show that they get on Setanta

Maldini2706

Fozzy wrote: »

Apparently not though. Keep in mind all the TUF episodes they'd have to show, as well as the probable lack of a weekly news show that they get on Setanta

Relatively few people have Setanta though. A far higher amount have Sky Sports and even more have Sky 1 (where you'd imagine TUF would have been shown). The biggest advantage with going with Setanta is that they have made it one of their cornerstone sports. They may not have gotten such a high profile with Sky, but then again it's better to be 5th billing on Sky than 2nd billing on Setanta.

Fozzy

Maldini2706 wrote: »

Relatively few people have Setanta though. A far higher amount have Sky Sports and even more have Sky 1 (where you'd imagine TUF would have been shown).

That was one of the reasons that they went with Setanta though. They wanted to be on a sports channel and not an entertainment channel

Perhaps they would have grown more being on Sky, but I don't think that Setanta has held them back and I wouldn't call it a bad decision to have gone with them

Maldini2706

They're on an entertainment channel in the US and they're now on Virgin 1 in the UK. I think it's an awful decision because they're only exposing themselves to about 5% of the amount of people they would have with Sky. Sky are FAR better at promotion too.

- Less money
- Less viewers
- Worse promotion

Obviously I'm judging it with the benefit of hindsight but I still think it's been poor. They obviously agree to an extent which is why they've shifted TUF to Virgin 1.

rovert

Maldini2706 wrote: »

They're on an entertainment channel in the US and they're now on Virgin 1 in the UK.

They signed on with Spike 4 long years ago when UFC was in a VERY different position than it is now. They are committed to Spike as Spike has been committed to them. Spike has been a tremendous partner for UFC so I don’t see them moving away from that station anytime soon. Virgin isnt a destination station like Bravo was or what Spike and Setanta are at the moment.

Maldini2706 wrote: »

Obviously I'm judging it with the benefit of hindsight but I still think it's been poor. They obviously agree to an extent which is why they've shifted TUF to Virgin 1.

To call it poor is ridiculous Setanta has been a great help in their Europe expansion plans current uncertainties aside. You can play what ifs all you want.

Mossy Monk

Maldini2706 wrote: »

I think it's an awful decision because they're only exposing themselves to about 5% of the amount of people they would have with Sky.

Virgin 1 is available to millions of viewers in the UK on Freeview. They don't have to pay for it.

davmol

Virgin isnt a destination station like Bravo was or what Spike and Setanta are at the moment.



What exactly is a "destination station"?

mikethemouth

Sky dropped Cage rage as there viewership figures were awful.

I only see Sky taking on main events etc. they would do it the service setanta gives ufc with TUF and their chat show.

Sky viewership for wrestling is still strong hence good advertising revenues. they have been showing more boxing as of last 12 months. the UK boxing PPV figures are a huge revenue booster as well. (hatton's pacman fight 1.4m , khan Barrera fight 600k)

I just cant see ufc thriving on Sky as I think they will put bumper events like ufc 100 etc on ppv.

I think if Setanta deal falls through Bravo would be the next best option.

rovert

davmol wrote: »

What exactly is a "destination station"?

A destination station is a station you desire to be on and to stay on for the long term.

Maldini2706

rovert wrote: »

They signed on with Spike 4 long years ago when UFC was in a VERY different position than it is now. They are committed to Spike as Spike has been committed to them. Spike has been a tremendous partner for UFC so I don’t see them moving away from that station anytime soon. Virgin isnt a destination station like Bravo was or what Spike and Setanta are at the moment.

To call it poor is ridiculous Setanta has been a great help in their Europe expansion plans current uncertainties aside. You can play what ifs all you want.

I agree Setanta have gone the extra mile for UFC where Sky might not have, but as I said I still think it's better to be fifth billing on the big show than 2nd billing on the small one. I think if they'd gone with Sky they'd have become much more of a priority before long. As you say though it's all hypothetical.

Mossy Monk wrote: »

Virgin 1 is available to millions of viewers in the UK on Freeview. They don't have to pay for it.

That's my point, they went to Virgin because not enough people would have watched on Setanta and they want to use TUF as promotions for the main shows.

Mossy Monk

Maldini2706 wrote: »

I think if they'd gone with Sky they'd have become much more of a priority before long.

Just like the last time they went to Sky?

Maldini2706 wrote: »

That's my point, they went to Virgin because not enough people would have watched on Setanta and they want to use TUF as promotions for the main shows.

I'd say it was more likely Setanta that offered it to Virgin 1 and not the UFC.

UFC and Setanta have a great relationship and i cant see that chaning in the next few years. There are great people in Setata too that are organising great boxing too.

Mossy Monk

I saw an advert on Setanta last night advertising UFC 99

Fozzy

Lock thread :pac:

rovert

There was a big article about this in the Sunday Business Post which I forgot to read.

^ Pointless post :pac: