UFC 200 Jones vs Cormier 2

King_of_Kingz · 22-04-2016 11:14PM

Yeah as you said it is all just speculation, we can read into it what we like.

I do think that Dana hasn't clashed with someone who has had such an impact on UFC and has such a beloved fan base as Conor before so he can't be as straight down the line as he normally is.

The fact that all the fighters "off the record" are saying that they have no problem with Conor's actions is kind of undermining his stance also.

Swashbuckler · 22-04-2016 11:23PM

King_of_Kingz wrote: »

Yeah as you said it is all just speculation, we can read into it what we like.

I do think that Dana hasn't clashed with someone who has had such an impact on UFC and has such a beloved fan base as Conor before so he can't be as straight down the line as he normally is.

The fact that all the fighters "off the record" are saying that they have no problem with Conor's actions is kind of undermining his stance also.

In all honesty Dana has clashed with pretty much all the top guys over the years - Tito, GSP, Couture and many more. If Dana feels strongly he dont hold back.

newballsplease · 23-04-2016 11:25AM

I suppose the biggest question on everybody's lips surrounding UFC200 is .... will the mods close this thread ?
Interesting few days ahead

Cathy.C · 24-04-2016 10:48AM

newballsplease wrote: »

I suppose the biggest question on everybody's lips surrounding UFC200 is .... will the mods close this thread ?
Interesting few days ahead

Fully expect them to announce this week that Nate has been pulled from UFC 200 as they couldn't find him a fighter that he was happy to fight.

Then on the back of the criticism for that they will announce the fight will go ahead, just not at UFC 200. Hopefully Dublin will be considered.

PM me nudes · 24-04-2016 10:49AM

Cathy.C wrote: »

Fully expect them to announce this week that Nate has been pulled from UFC 200 as they couldn't find him a fighter that he was happy to fight.

Then on the back of the criticism for that they will announce the fight will go ahead, just not at UFC 200. Hopefully Dublin will be considered.

Absolutely no chance

Cathy.C · 24-04-2016 11:52AM

PM me nudes wrote: »

Absolutely no chance

Dana seems convinced that Conor will fight before MSG and Nate says he is not interested in fighting anyone else but Conor. It would give the UFC the chance to say: "Okay, McGregor has an issue will travelling for pressers etc and so this time we'll go to him".

We've had UFC 93, Fight Night 76 and the McGregor v Brandao fight all at the Point and so why not this rematch? McGregor has fought Nate in Nate's home country and so makes perfect sense for the rematch to be in Conor's. So why do you think "absolutely no chance" would that fight be here?

PM me nudes · 24-04-2016 11:56AM

Cathy.C wrote:

We've had UFC 93, Fight Night 76 and the McGregor v Brandao fight all at the Point and so why not this rematch? McGregor has fought Nate in Nate's home country and so makes perfect sense for the rematch to be in Conor's. So why do you think "absolutely no chance" would that fight be here?

Because of the repercussions of having a fight in Ireland on the PPV numbers for the event

J Mysterio · 24-04-2016 11:56AM

Cathy.C wrote: »

Dana seems convinced that Conor will fight before MSG and Nate says he is not interested in fighting anyone else but Conor. It would give the UFC the chance to say: "Okay, McGregor has an issue will travelling for pressers etc and so this time we'll go to him".

We've had UFC 93, Fight Night 76 and the McGregor v Brandao fight all at the Point and so why not this rematch? McGregor has fought Nate in Nate's home country and so makes perfect sense for the rematch to be in Conor's and so why "absolutely no chance" would that fight be here?

I dont think the UFC are minded to do McGregor any favours right now... As if they might move the show to Ireland for him.

callaway92 · 24-04-2016 11:56AM

Cathy.C wrote: »

Dana seems convinced that Conor will fight before MSG and Nate says he is not interested in fighting anyone else but Conor. It would give the UFC the chance to say: "Okay, McGregor has an issue will travelling for pressers etc and so this time we'll go to him".

We've had UFC 93, Fight Night 76 and the McGregor v Brandao fight all at the Point and so why not this rematch? McGregor has fought Nate in Nate's home country and so makes perfect sense for the rematch to be in Conor's. So why do you think "absolutely no chance" would that fight be here?

They would be leaving way too much money on the table by holding what would be the biggest fight of the year in Ireland. Not only is the 3 Arena too small for such a big event but also, would be way less PPV sales, less media coverage etc. The list goes on.

Cathy.C · 24-04-2016 01:43PM

PM me nudes wrote: »

Because of the repercussions of having a fight in Ireland on the PPV numbers for the event

McGregor is the biggest name in UFC right now and I highly doubt if the fight was here it wouldn't do excellent PPV.

In any case, I agree with Helwani that MSG makes much more sense than having McGregor fight before then. Can't understand why he made that comment.

callaway92 · 24-04-2016 01:48PM

Cathy.C wrote: »

McGregor is the biggest name in UFC right now and I highly doubt if the fight was here it wouldn't do excellent PPV.

In any case, I agree with Helwani that MSG makes much more sense than having McGregor fight before then. Can't understand why he made that comment.

Taking time differences into the equation and it would definitely have a large impact. 3pm Saturday EST would more than likely be the time it would be on. Numbers would go down so drastically that they couldn't do it.

I would say the lack of media in Ireland would be more of a reason to not have it here anyway than PPV sales but in the end of the day, they would be dropping millions to have it here.

PM me nudes · 24-04-2016 01:51PM

Cathy.C wrote:

McGregor is the biggest name in UFC right now and I highly doubt if the fight was here it wouldn't do excellent PPV.

Are you for real? Why do you think basically every ppv event has been put on at a time to fit the American schedule? That's the market that dwarfs every other

Cathy.C · 25-04-2016 03:06AM

PM me nudes wrote: »

Are you for real? Why do you think basically every ppv event has been put on at a time to fit the American schedule? That's the market that dwarfs every other

Am I for real?? Are YOU for real more like.

Every PPV event has most certainly not been on American schedule. In 2009 UFC 93 was at The Point and it was a PPV event. It sold 350,000 PPVs in fact. The very same amount that UFC 96 sold two months later (which was held in the USA).

It would hardly be unreasonable therefore to assume that now that we have Conor McGregor, who is a huge name in MMA, the PPV buyrate would be many times what UFC 93 was.

Also consider the fact that Dana White stated that if Conor beat Aldo it was the UFC's intention to have Conor defend the belt in Dublin. Now we know that schedule didn't pan out but the intention was there to have Conor fight in front of a home crowd again in a big fight and that is just precisely what Nate vs McGregor II is.

Now, it may not happen, but Conor fighting here again and it being a PPV event is far from the mad suggestion you bizarrely seem to think it is.

TimRiggins · 25-04-2016 03:17AM

Cathy.C wrote: »

Am I for real?? Are YOU for real more like.

Every PPV event has most certainly not been on American schedule. In 2009 UFC 93 was at The Point and it was a PPV event. It sold 350,000 PPVs in fact. The very same amount that UFC 96 sold two months later (which was held in the USA).

It would hardly be unreasonable therefore to assume that now that we have Conor McGregor, who is a huge name in MMA, the PPV buyrate would be many times what UFC 93 was.

Also consider the fact that Dana White stated that if Conor beat Aldo it was the UFC's intention to have Conor defend the belt in Dublin. Now we know that schedule didn't pan out but the intention was there to have Conor fight in front of a home crowd again in a big fight and that is just precisely what Nate vs McGregor II is.

Now, it may not happen, but Conor fighting here again and it being a PPV event is far from the mad suggestion you bizarrely seem to think it is.

When UFC 93 was on, the did none/very little fight night events. If you look at where the PPV events are, it's rare that they're away from the West Coast of America, and 1/2 in Brazil a year. The venues would all be sorted at this stage so there is zero chance of Conor fighting in Ireland in his next fight.

Dana says a lot of things. The only way the would possibly do a PPV in Ireland is if the gate sales compensate for the PPV loss and that can only happen in Croker (Which is very unlikely to ever happen).

martyos121 · 25-04-2016 05:49AM

No need to change the thread title anymore!

https://twitter.com/thenotoriousmma/status/724474735912968192

Mellor · 25-04-2016 06:25AM

Cathy.C wrote: »

Am I for real?? Are YOU for real more like.

Every PPV event has most certainly not been on American schedule. In 2009 UFC 93 was at The Point and it was a PPV event. It sold 350,000 PPVs in fact. The very same amount that UFC 96 sold two months later (which was held in the USA).

It would hardly be unreasonable therefore to assume that now that we have Conor McGregor, who is a huge name in MMA, the PPV buyrate would be many times what UFC 93 was.

Also consider the fact that Dana White stated that if Conor beat Aldo it was the UFC's intention to have Conor defend the belt in Dublin. Now we know that schedule didn't pan out but the intention was there to have Conor fight in front of a home crowd again in a big fight and that is just precisely what Nate vs McGregor II is.

Now, it may not happen, but Conor fighting here again and it being a PPV event is far from the mad suggestion you bizarrely seem to think it is.

You seem to be just repeating events details from Wikipedia. And missing a lot of the context.

UFC 93 was 7 years ago. The UFC didn't have fight pass, or the fox sports deal. They were also not putting nearly as many events. So they could get away with PPV time variation when there was no other event for the month.
With 40 events a year that's a much harder sell. In the last 3 years there have been very few PPV outside of the usual time slot.

Frank Bullitt · 25-04-2016 06:44AM

Hmmmmmm, ill hold tight until the UFC brass say it is so.

King_of_Kingz · 25-04-2016 09:15AM

I would say that if he is stating it he just wants to beat them to the announcement. He wouldnt want to make himself look like a fool by doing something pre-mature.

Thought there was an interesting quote in this from Kavanagh from an article he wrote yesterday stating that a deal looked dead pretty much https://t.co/aysaqvNXL5

If this is the case you would wonder what kind of negotiations have been taking place at all or if as the author seems to suggest, that this is one big play by the UFC press machine.

I feel duped

martyos121 · 25-04-2016 09:20AM

King_of_Kingz wrote: »

I would say that if he is stating it he just wants to beat them to the announcement. He wouldnt want to make himself look like a fool by doing something pre-mature.

Thought there was an interesting quote in this from Kavanagh from an article he wrote yesterday stating that a deal looked dead pretty much https://t.co/aysaqvNXL5

If this is the case you would wonder what kind of negotiations have been taking place at all or if as the author seems to suggest, that this is one big play by the UFC press machine.

I feel duped

I'm starting to come around to the idea that Conor wasn't actually put back on the card, rather him saying "This is happening, I'm not taking no for an answer"l

This tweet from 2014 definitely goes to show that he wants to be the one calling the shots and making the announcements:

https://twitter.com/thenotoriousmma/status/517552590754947072

That fight never happened of course, and the one he posted this morning is very much along the same lines

I so want it to be true that it's back on, but I'm leaning more towards saying it's dead in the water.

califano · 25-04-2016 09:44AM

Lets imagine Diaz gets injured. Is there anyone they would put him up against?

astonaidan · 25-04-2016 09:51AM

This whole ordeal screams WWE, if he comes in with Vince McMahons theme song it would just be perfect

25-04-2016 09:54AM

astonaidan wrote: »

This whole ordeal screams WWE, if he comes in with Vince McMahons theme song it would just be perfect

indeed, credibility is low here.

Cathy.C · 25-04-2016 01:20PM

Mellor wrote: »

UFC 93 was 7 years ago. The UFC didn't have fight pass, or the fox sports deal. They were also not putting nearly as many events. So they could get away with PPV time variation when there was no other event for the month.

With 40 events a year that's a much harder sell. In the last 3 years there have been very few PPV outside of the usual time slot.

So what? We are talking about Conor McGregor here. Whether it is fighting against Diaz or defending his belt, the fight will do very well on PPV. If UFC 93 could could sell 350,000 PPVs seven years ago, then surely a McGregor topped card with maybe Duffy on it also would sell significantly more.

TimRiggins wrote: »

Dana says a lot of things. The only way the would possibly do a PPV in Ireland is if the gate sales compensate for the PPV loss and that can only happen in Croker (Which is very unlikely to ever happen).

I don't agree there would be that much of PPV loss, that's the point. I think any offset would be easily made up by the increase in PPVs by those based in Europe.

In any case, like I said, I was responding to not just the notion that his next fight wouldn't be here but that no UFC PPV fight would be because of American scheduling and quite frankly I think that is preposterous.

PM me nudes · 25-04-2016 01:28PM

Cathy.C wrote: »

So what? We are talking about Conor McGregor here. Whether it is fighting against Diaz or defending his belt, the fight will do very well on PPV. If UFC 93 could could sell 350,000 PPVs seven years ago, then surely a McGregor topped card with maybe Duffy on it also would sell significantly more.

In any case, like I said, I was responding to not just the notion that his next fight wouldn't be here but that no UFC PPV fight would be because of American scheduling and quite frankly I think that is preposterous.

Oh yes, because having an unranked fighter on a card would really top up PPV numbers :rolleyes::rolleyes:

callaway92 · 25-04-2016 01:35PM

Cathy.C wrote: »

So what? We are talking about Conor McGregor here. Whether it is fighting against Diaz or defending his belt, the fight will do very well on PPV. If UFC 93 could could sell 350,000 PPVs seven years ago, then surely a McGregor topped card with maybe Duffy on it also would sell significantly more.

I don't agree there would be that much of PPV loss, that's the point. I think any offset would be easily made up by the increase in PPVs by those based in Europe.

In any case, like I said, I was responding to not just the notion that his next fight wouldn't be here but that no UFC PPV fight would be because of American scheduling and quite frankly I think that is preposterous.

I don't think you're grasping just how big a difference there would be in holding a PPV in Ireland for a fight of McGregor's magnitude compared to him fighting in the fight capital of the world.

In 2008 (year before UFC 93) there were 5 non PPV UFC events.

In 2015, there was 28 non PPV events. The product has become far more diluted so now the novelty of having to buy an event to get to watch UFC is gone since they have sooooo many events.

The argument that UFC93 sold 350,000 PPVs is irrelevant in 2016.

Cathy.C · 25-04-2016 01:46PM

PM me nudes wrote: »

Oh yes, because having an unranked fighter on a card would really top up PPV numbers :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I never said anything about Duffy selling PPVs. I was merely mentioning that he could be on the card.

Right now, and for at least a long while to come, McGregor (whether it's a fight defending his belt or not) would sell huge PPV numbers here (right now only Jones, Ronda and a few others come close to doing the numbers he does in that regard) . 350,000 was a staggering buy rate seven years back when Conor was just a face in the crowd at The Point that night. But then you did say "every ppv event has been put on at a time to fit the American schedule" so perhaps you weren't aware. Neh bother.

Amazingfun · 25-04-2016 01:48PM

@arielhelwani

Ariel Helwani Retweeted paul UFC guru

Status quo, I'm told. Nothing has changed. Was/is some dialogue and hope but alas ...

Grrrr....

Mellor · 25-04-2016 02:03PM

Cathy.C wrote: »

350,000 was a staggering buy rate seven years back when Conor was just a face in the crowd at The Point that night.

No it wasn't.

UFC91 & 92 did over a million each. UFC94 did 920k. They were staggering but rates.

Mellor · 25-04-2016 02:09PM

Cathy.C wrote: »

So what? We are talking about Conor McGregor here. Whether it is fighting against Diaz or defending his belt, the fight will do very well on PPV. If UFC 93 could could sell 350,000 PPVs seven years ago, then surely a McGregor topped card with maybe Duffy on it also would sell significantly more.

It's not about how many it could sell.
Conor last two events did over 1.2mil buys. They are going to maximise their big draws. If lose 400k buys by having it in Europe it's still a decent buyrate, but it's also $20million in PPV revenue lost. Gate receipts would also drop from $12m to $1m

I don't agree there would be that much of PPV loss, that's the point. I think any offset would be easily made up by the increase in PPVs by those based in Europe.

UFC events aren't PPV in Europe.

Cathy.C · 25-04-2016 02:13PM

callaway92 wrote: »

I don't think you're grasping just how big a difference there would be in holding a PPV in Ireland for a fight of McGregor's magnitude compared to him fighting in the fight capital of the world.

In 2008 (year before UFC 93) there were 5 non PPV UFC events.

In 2015, there was 28 non PPV events. The product has become far more diluted so now the novelty of having to buy an event to get to watch UFC is gone since they have sooooo many events.

The argument that UFC93 sold 350,000 PPVs is irrelevant in 2016.

I don't to drag the thread any further off topic and so I'll just say this..

I get what you're saying about being a different animal now in some ways but I don not buy that it matters as much as you think that does, for many reasons. Sure, 2016 is not 2009 but that is a two sided coin in that MMA/UFC is now a hundred times more popular that it was back then and so the dilution argument doesn't stand up. Here are the UFC PPV numbers. Look how much McGregor's fights have done compared to most others (excluding the obvious of Jones, Ronda etc). There is simply no way that if a huge fight was held here at the 3 that it wouldn't sell equally was well.

Okay, the scheduling argument is not to be totally ignored but if it was held on a Saturday night here I don't see why it wouldn't be a huge Saturday afternoon PPV event in the states. Then there is the increase in European buy rates as the scheduling suits them. There is just no way that there would be that much of a loss. Capacity is a non issue as 15,000 is just 5,000 less than the MGM's capacity and finally I don't believe that Dana is just talking about being intent on seeing Conor fight here in the near future, nor more than Conor was when he said it.

I'll leave ye the last word on it.

Whatever happens, I just want to see the fight, no matter where the damn thing is held but sure, I would also love to see a big McGregor fight here too. Whether that's defending his belt or not I don't care.

UFC 200 Jones vs Cormier 2

Comments