Thread Tools

Display Modes

Split · 11-28-2008, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philivey2k8

he's cut down the roster from 300 to 180, and is probably going down to 140, claiming "hard economic times" as the reason why.

which is all BS.

most of the fighters he cuts probably make 8 grand a fight, which costs less than a night of drunken house trashing by the TUF cast, who, in the end, are mostly gonna be cut from the UFC anyway!

i personally like some of the roster trimming (bye bye georgie

), but dana's reasons are bullsh*t!

So you agree to the cut, but not the reasons? So why do you care?

If your point was that Dana White is bs, i guess i agree with you then, but not in this case. Its quite obvious, at least for me, that Dana White is not the one taking those decisions. If it was him, there would of been a f*ck somewhere in his statements, or insulting somebody.

I dont understand however how cutting fighters reduces the payroll. So im actually asking here, can somebody explain?

The way i see it, in 1 event, you have a certain amount of fights, and no matter who fights, there is, if there is 7 fights, 14 fighters to pay.

How is it different if you cut a guy that is paid 9K, if you replace him by another that is paid 9K as well? If you cut a guy that is worth more than he should(example, cro cop, etc), then i would somehow understand(which is probably what happened in Werdum.. you can agree or not agree, it was about him being overpaid). Right now he is just cutting fighters that are either not 'worthy' of being in the UFC, or fighters that nobody cares about. I dont understand what it changes.. its not like fighters had salaries by the day right?..

The way i see it, this means UFC fights will have more undercard fights, and less PPV fights.

**Xerxes** · 11-28-2008, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Split

I dont understand however how cutting fighters reduces the payroll. So im actually asking here, can somebody explain?

The way i see it, this means UFC fights will have more undercard fights, and less PPV fights.

You ask a good question and almost provided the answer to it.

The UFC cuts fighters because as long as the economy will be shitty, they'll be having less events. They prefer getting rid of the fighters rather than keeping them on the side with longer layoffs and having to deal with their managers constantly asking and nagging "so when are my fighters going to fight again?" etc. It's better for everybody. Way I see it... What I'm pretty sure about is we'll be having less (PPV) events in the future (that's why they're laying off)

Mysen · 11-28-2008, 03:09 AM

I actually agree with the cuts for the most part and also with a lot of the fighters who are being cut or that are on the block, Bottom line the UFC is top dog and no matter if you were once great and in a slump now, Unless you managed to pull a lot of fans in your time if you lose fights ya gotta go to make way for someone who is gonna produce results. When/if you get your act together or drop your asking price to suit your performance then I am sure some of them will return.

Not to mention the factor of having a smaller pool of fighters creates more of a "Meta game" where as having to many just makes a cluster ****.

Also I think its better for MMA over all that fighters are being cut(Possibly some big names), I think for awhile now the UFC has been securing its monopoly to ensure the staying power of the company but now with the economy being not great and almost all other attempts from competing companies failing they are finally just cutting the loose strings and leveling out. Which in the long run (Using the failed business models of other attempts as what not to do) when the economy picks back up I think we will be seeing at least one company rise and most likely have staying power with a large amount of free agents to pick from...

**The Lone Wolf** · 11-28-2008, 07:47 AM

I dont think it makes great business sense in some respects though. Surely its better to lessen your profits and keep the fighters, rather than release them and have them strengthen your rivals card and organisations? I mean, Affliction could start posing a threat to the UFC if they can find a good business plan

e-thug · 11-28-2008, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Wolf

I dont think it makes great business sense in some respects though. Surely its better to lessen your profits and keep the fighters, rather than release them and have them strengthen your rivals card and organisations? I mean, Affliction could start posing a threat to the UFC if they can find a good business plan

That is a huge if, Affliction has had one "big" card and thats it, until they have a profitable event I dont see them as a threat. With the financial crisis they will struggle.

I agree with the cuts, if the UFC aint gonna use them then they might aswell give them the opportunity to fight elsewhere.