METAL ON METAL Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 Reports coming out of ESPN, that the Fertittas are in advanced talks with several suitors to sell the UFC for somewhere in the range of $3.5-$4 billion. Â The leading contenders are supposedly Dalian Wanda Group, owned by China's richest man (worth $35 billion). Â The timing seems about right as it's just been announced the Fertitta's are buying the Palms casino resort in Vegas for $312m. Â I wonder what this means for the likes of Dana (who would make a pretty penny from his supposed 10% ownership), it's hard to imagine UFC without him there these days but I can't see there being immediate full-blown changes in the short-term. Potentially exciting times ahead though.
Paid Members herbie747 Posted May 11, 2016 Paid Members Posted May 11, 2016 Yeah, just heard about this. FYI, Dana owns 9%. Flash Entertainment own 10%. Fertittas own remainder.
the_mole Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 I doubt it would be a full sale, the same people who own Man City also own 10% of the UFC, they then sold 25% of Man City to a Chinese investment group, which is government backed and that's the same company interested in the UFC Â This will be the only way to crack China, you will be getting a lot of the top trainers moving to China for big bucks and it would probably have some government funding. Â Station Casinos just went public again but the Fertittas still own a controlling share. Â Dana owns 9% at present.
METAL ON METAL Posted May 11, 2016 Author Posted May 11, 2016 They are in talks with several different interested parties, not just that one. For the money mentioned, it's not going to be a small stake - there's been rumours around for years that the Fertittas want to sell up. Â Ed Snowden (who broke the story) said that one of the big negotiation points is whether Dana will still hold his position in the company, as some of the parties would want rid of him.
jimufctna24 Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 As much as I dislike Dana these days, I'm not sure if I would be comfortable with new owners. While there's things about the UFC that I would love to be changed, the facts speak for themselves, only Zuffa have managed to run a successful Worldwide MMA promotion for a long period of time.  Pride didn't last a decade. Elite XC and Affliction only lasted a handful of shows. Strikeforce was generally well run, but it only lasted 5 years as an MMA promotion. Bellator has done well for itself, and has lasted longer than I thought it would, but I have reservations about its future. What's the long-term plan? What does it offer that the UFC doesn't?  No matter what, the UFC is going to be around for many years to come. But if a change in ownership occurs - the new owners best have their ducks in order, and hire the right people. In the wrong hands, MMA could end up in another dark period, or potential financial peril.  Edit: Dana has refuted the story - http://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/mma-ufc/ufc-president-dana-white-denies-espn-report-organization-s-sale
Paid Members Supremo Posted May 11, 2016 Paid Members Posted May 11, 2016 If they sell, I don't trust anyone else to run it as well as Dana, Joe Silva and the Fertittas. They've always been the perfect combination, managing to find the balance between sport and spectacle. Without them I can see it going downhill dramatically.
Paid Members Carbomb Posted May 11, 2016 Paid Members Posted May 11, 2016 I'd put Coker in that list of people one can trust to run an MMA. Strikeforce didn't go out of business, it was bought, but up to that point Coker's management had got them into near-competition with the UFC. Â If anything, it could be argued that Coker's better - he's always had to work with fewer resources and generally less talented rosters, and still got his promotions into No.2 contention against the UFC.
Paid Members lambyUK Posted May 11, 2016 Paid Members Posted May 11, 2016 I would have been excited if say Fox or ESPN decided to buy the company. But a Chinese consortium? If it comes off then I worry for the future of the company.Â
Paid Members herbie747 Posted May 11, 2016 Paid Members Posted May 11, 2016 Meltzer's Breaking Audio on it: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/60352061/051015wobreaking.mp3
icke83 Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 If it was true wouldn't they have preferred to cash in and kept Conor on 200 rather than worrying about principals?
jimufctna24 Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 Strikeforce didn't go out of business, it was bought, but up to that point Coker's management had got them into near-competition with the UFC.  If anything, it could be argued that Coker's better - he's always had to work with fewer resources and generally less talented rosters, and still got his promotions into No.2 contention against the UFC. I love Coker. I'm probably his biggest fan on this forum, but you're overstating his worth slightly.  Strikeforce was always a respectable number 2. While Dana had respect for Coker (at least most of the time), he didn't see him or Strikeforce as much of a threat. It should also be remembered that MMA was in its first boom period when Strikeforce was about. There was more demand for MMA during this period, and with Pride's demise, quite a few fighters to employ. Coker simply knew what to do with these opportunities better than anyone else during this period.  Zuffa had little to work with when he bought the UFC. They were not profitable, there was no market for MMA in America, and thanks to Pride - their talent roster was pretty thin.  Also, Strikeforce was only for sale because Coker's backers advised him to sell up. It's not like the UFC panicked and made an offer. It was an opportune purchase for them.Â
Paid Members lambyUK Posted May 11, 2016 Paid Members Posted May 11, 2016 If it was true wouldn't they have preferred to cash in and kept Conor on 200 rather than worrying about principals? Â Perhaps, but you could also argue the UFC felt that they would have to show potential buyers just who is in charge. Maybe a buyer wouldn't like the idea of a single fighter holding the company to ransom? Â There does seem to a lot a hints over the past couple of years that seem to suggest the Fertitta's are gearing up for a sale. Bringing in the reebok deal attempting to make the company more professional, the TV deal with Fox, and I'd go even as far as Dana's role in the company seemingly being a lot more reduced. He's certainly been far more well behaved recently, no more scrums after press conferences etc etc.Â
Paid Members herbie747 Posted May 11, 2016 Paid Members Posted May 11, 2016 If it was true wouldn't they have preferred to cash in and kept Conor on 200 rather than worrying about principals? Â Not really, because the sale is likely to go through before July, so UFC 200 profits are irrelevant. Everything is based on the 2015 financials.
Paid Members lambyUK Posted May 11, 2016 Paid Members Posted May 11, 2016 I'm playing devils advocate given my response above,but you could also argue a potential buyer would find it more appealing knowing potentially their first show would be a record breaker with Mcgregor headlining. An extra 50m in their pockets.
d-d-d-dAz Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 On the flip side, the UFC owners would have set a terrible precedent before fucking off. Â It's not like any new owners would be looking at a short term purchase, to cash out after 200. Â A more attractive prospect would be knowing that you have Conor as an asset down the line, but that the talent wouldn't be emboldened to try and push back on media commitments further down the line.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.