# Matchroom to make 'Major Boxing Announcement'



## Wallet (May 31, 2012)

> *Matchroom Sport to make major boxing announcement - 16/08/2012
> *
> Eddie Hearn hosting media day on August 28
> 
> ...


This was said last week:



> Article Link - http://www.boxingscene.com/?m=show&opt=printable&id=55820#ixzz23i2HtXne
> This is a legal waiver. By copying and using the material from this article, you agree to give full credit to BoxingScene.com or provide a link to the original article.
> 
> Hearn also admitted that he has heard the persistent rumours that Sky Sports have made Matchroom their sole provider of boxing content, although both sides have kept their own counsel when pressed on the issue. Hearn, though, stated that the details of Matchroom's latest T.V. deal with the network will be revealed at their annual summer media day, which is expected to take place soon.
> ...


:think


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

I don't get it..


----------



## Wallet (May 31, 2012)

What's not to get, @Roe?


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

I don't get what they're gonna be announcing.


----------



## Bryn (Jun 2, 2012)

Roe said:


> I don't get what they're gonna be announcing.


That's because they haven't announced it yet.


----------



## Wallet (May 31, 2012)

It's a mystery.



Maybe they've signed Richard Keys...


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

Bryn said:


> That's because they haven't announced it yet.


:lol:



Wallet said:


> It's a mystery.
> 
> Maybe they've signed Richard Keys...


:lol:


----------



## CamR21 (Jun 6, 2012)

They will announce Froch's opponent, their sky deal, Brook undercard (maybe if not before), couple of new signings (maybe Olympian) and Rees' next fight


----------



## tdw (Jun 6, 2012)

Some completely wild speculation on my part but Hearn has hinted that Sky are going to work with another promoter and he wants to be able to deliver more for his fighters. Meanwhile, Golden Boy are talking about signing 1 or 2 British Olympians for their 'Dream Team' and Sky announced earlier in the year a deal with Golden Boy that hasn't really led anywhere.

Doesn't make great sense because Schaefer hasn't spoken highly of Hearn but maybe Golden Boy are looking to make a couple of British stars that they could eventually promote shows around over here and as part of the deal they work closer with Matchroom


----------



## Wallet (May 31, 2012)

tdw said:


> Some completely wild speculation on my part but Hearn has hinted that Sky are going to work with another promoter and he wants to be able to deliver more for his fighters. Meanwhile, Golden Boy are talking about signing 1 or 2 British Olympians for their 'Dream Team' and Sky announced earlier in the year a deal with Golden Boy that hasn't really led anywhere.
> 
> Doesn't make great sense because Schaefer has spoken highly of Hearn but maybe Golden Boy are looking to make a couple of British stars that they could eventually promote shows around over here and as part of the deal they work closer with Matchroom


Seems even more unlikely when you consider that they turned down Groves because of his involvement with Golden Boy.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Eddie: "Wotcha! We've agreed a new deal with Sky. Even less boxing, all supplied by Matchroom, using fighters other promoters developed while doing nothing to help build grass roots boxing. Also, I'm very handsome and painfully self-interested."

Boxing fans: "HE'S DREAMY!"

Unless he's doing something to build the sport's profile beyond the pay-walls of Sky, I couldn't give a fuck.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

tdw said:


> Doesn't make great sense because *Schaefer has spoken highly of Hearn* but maybe Golden Boy are looking to make a couple of British stars that they could eventually promote shows around over here and as part of the deal they work closer with Matchroom


The same Hearn that Schaefer and Oscar had massive words with during Khan-McCloskey? Seems unlikely - any links?


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> Eddie: "Wotcha! We've agreed a new deal with Sky. Even less boxing, all supplied by Matchroom, using fighters other promoters developed while doing nothing to help build grass roots boxing. Also, I'm very handsome and painfully self-interested."
> 
> Boxing fans: "HE'S DREAMY!"
> 
> Unless he's doing something to build the sport's profile beyond the pay-walls of Sky, I couldn't give a fuck.


Calm down dear,your Eddie Hearn hatred is a little unhealthy imo


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

An announcement to announce there's gonna be an announcement? My head hurts


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

Ashedward said:


> Calm down dear,your Eddie Hearn hatred is a little unhealthy imo


Ask his about Degale :yep


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

Vano-irons said:


> Ask his about Degale :yep


His views on Degale are very similar to mine to be fair::yep but his hatred of the savior of our sport is just wrong


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Ashedward said:


> Calm down dear,your Eddie Hearn hatred is a little unhealthy imo


I actually don't hate Eddie, but as with DeGale, I need to be a balance to overly positive fanboys who aren't seeing him for what he is. He's just a promoter, not the saviour of boxing. His efforts have been too narrow to be genuinely mainstream.


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> Eddie: "Wotcha! We've agreed a new deal with Sky. Even less boxing, all supplied by Matchroom, using fighters other promoters developed while doing nothing to help build grass roots boxing. Also, I'm very handsome and painfully self-interested."
> 
> Boxing fans: "HE'S DREAMY!"
> 
> Unless he's doing something to build the sport's profile beyond the pay-walls of Sky, I couldn't give a fuck.


atsch


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> I actually don't hate Eddie, but as with DeGale, I need to be a balance to overly positive fanboys who aren't seeing him for what he is. He's just a promoter, not the saviour of boxing. His efforts have been too narrow to be genuinely mainstream.


I think us boxing fans are just happy with a promoter that delivers what he says and so far he has.He has signed allot of young amaturs and how he brings them on will be interesting.I don`t think anyone thinks he is a savior, they just are happy with the cards he is trying to put on.The last Brook card was stacked the London one coming up is pretty good as is the Belfast one.

I read what he said in an article once about fights in leisure centres which are half empty and look awful on tv and that is what he trying to get rid off and make every fight card an event,which i agree with.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Ashedward said:


> I think us boxing fans are just happy with a promoter that delivers what he says and so far he has.He has signed allot of young amaturs and how he brings them on will be interesting.I don`t think anyone thinks he is a savior, they just are happy with the cards he is trying to put on.The last Brook card was stacked the London one coming up is pretty good as is the Belfast one.
> 
> I read what he said in an article once about fights in leisure centres which are half empty and look awful on tv and that is what he trying to get rid off and make every fight card an event,which i agree with.


I don't think the answer is reducing the amount of boxing on TV and focusing primarily on big shows. It means smaller fighters aren't getting the chance to get exposure unless they're on the undercard of a big fight. That's my issue - it seems a very shallow and reductive way of building the sport. The UFC does a much better job of building new stars because it gives them coverage and sets up the PPVs.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Roe said:


> atsch


Oh get a sense of humour, my tongue's so far in my cheek i'm practically choking myself.


----------



## Scotty (Jun 6, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> Eddie: "Wotcha! We've agreed a new deal with Sky. Even less boxing, all supplied by Matchroom, using fighters other promoters developed while doing nothing to help build grass roots boxing. Also, I'm very handsome and painfully self-interested."
> 
> Boxing fans: "HE'S DREAMY!"
> 
> Unless he's doing something to build the sport's profile beyond the pay-walls of Sky, I couldn't give a fuck.


:lol:


----------



## Scotty (Jun 6, 2012)

Ashedward said:


> His views on Degale are very similar to mine to be fair::yep but his hatred of the savior of our sport is just wrong


Maybe the big announcement is he is signing DeGale:yep


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Mr.Gilfoid said:


> Maybe the big announcement is he is signing DeGale:yep


I would be sad. :-(


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> I don't think the answer is reducing the amount of boxing on TV and focusing primarily on big shows. It means smaller fighters aren't getting the chance to get exposure unless they're on the undercard of a big fight. That's my issue - it seems a very shallow and reductive way of building the sport. The UFC does a much better job of building new stars because it gives them coverage and sets up the PPVs.


I like Hearns approach, but i think it would be nice to have a few dates for the likes of Coldwell and Steve Wood to bid for and show what they can do.It does look like Sky are a closed shop now which is a shame


----------



## Scotty (Jun 6, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> I would be sad. :-(


And posting like a maniac!:yep


----------



## tdw (Jun 6, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> The same Hearn that Schaefer and Oscar had massive words with during Khan-McCloskey? Seems unlikely - any links?


I meant 'hasn't'!!!


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Mr.Gilfoid said:


> And posting like a maniac!:yep


I've really lost interest in posting about DeGale. The loss to Groves and his subsequent performances have given people some perspective on him now, which was why I chose to make him my first ever "hate project". I felt he was distinctly average and I kept reading completely serious posts about his incredible talent - often categorised as "all the talent in the world".

But now that most see him at the appropriate level, there's less sport. I don't think Hearn's a bad thing in the sport, but I'm just waiting to see clear evidence of him being the saviour so many others see him as.

I reject hype entirely - soon as it's there, I feel someone's trying to sell me poor goods.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

tdw said:


> I meant 'hasn't'!!!


Thank goodness, I thought I'd gotten confused.


----------



## Mandanda (Jun 2, 2012)

Wonder what Eddie's got in store for us, Like the Molitor move for Framps. The boy done good on that one!.


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> Oh get a sense of humour


:lol:


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> I don't think the answer is reducing the amount of boxing on TV and focusing primarily on big shows. It means smaller fighters aren't getting the chance to get exposure unless they're on the undercard of a big fight. That's my issue - it seems a very shallow and reductive way of building the sport. The UFC does a much better job of building new stars because it gives them coverage and sets up the PPVs.


so having a 4 fight PPV once a month is the answer then? Genius.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> so having a 4 fight PPV once a month is the answer then? Genius.


I'm not sure what point you're making here. The UFC has grown because it mixes smaller shows on basic cable that build fighters up to feature as PPV guys down the line. Like it or not, it's expertly packaged and a sustainable, profitable business model.

If the point is that Hearn is making top-class fights which draw big audiences, then I accept it. But I don't see how that's helping to build the sport when there's no feed to get fighters exposure other than Prizefighter.


----------



## Bryn (Jun 2, 2012)

You really are a very talented musician.


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> I'm not sure what point you're making here. The UFC has grown because it mixes smaller shows on basic cable that build fighters up to feature as PPV guys down the line. Like it or not, it's expertly packaged and a sustainable, profitable business model.
> 
> If the point is that Hearn is making top-class fights which draw big audiences, then I accept it. But I don't see how that's helping to build the sport when there's no feed to get fighters exposure other than Prizefighter.


The UFC is a profitable business model because they pay the fighters fuck all. Froch & Bute will have been paid more than any UFC fighter last year.

The fighters on the big shows are getting exposure to a big audience. if you put three 6 rounders on ITV4 on a wednesday night how many viewers would in honestly get?

you could argue that its damaging for the product for lower level fights to be seen. some of the boxing we have seen on Box Nation has been horrific and i don't think it would be good for the sport if that was exposed to a larger audience.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> The UFC is a profitable business model because they pay the fighters fuck all. Froch & Bute will have been paid more than any UFC fighter last year.


You could argue the purses in boxing are excessive, but that's irrelevant. The UFC is successful and growing, we agree.



> The fighters on the big shows are getting exposure to a big audience. if you put three 6 rounders on ITV4 on a wednesday night how many viewers would in honestly get?


You've a habit of doing this, Rob - you take a completely extreme example which makes your point look silly. ESPN, back in the 80s with no money and no audience, used low and mid-level boxing to build a franchise. There is space for watching fighters as they come up, it won't drive the numbers that a big fight does, but that's why it's a big fight. Hardcore fans watch regularly and build a name for the best fighters, those fighters step up to become stars. That's how it used to work, along with building them into national attractions.



> you could argue that its damaging for the product for lower level fights to be seen. some of the boxing we have seen on Box Nation has been horrific and i don't think it would be good for the sport if that was exposed to a larger audience.


If they're bad fights, not if they're good. You don't have to show everything, just provide a platform for fighters to grow. The current Sky shows are so few that it doesn't leave a lot of room for those slightly lesser fights, like Crolla-Matthews. It's about matching expectations and leveraging your content.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Bryn said:


> You really are a very talented musician.


If that was to me, thank you. If that was to Rob... then :-(


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> You could argue the purses in boxing are excessive, but that's irrelevant. The UFC is successful and growing, we agree.
> 
> You've a habit of doing this, Rob - you take a completely extreme example which makes your point look silly. ESPN, back in the 80s with no money and no audience, used low and mid-level boxing to build a franchise. There is space for watching fighters as they come up, it won't drive the numbers that a big fight does, but that's why it's a big fight. Hardcore fans watch regularly and build a name for the best fighters, those fighters step up to become stars. That's how it used to work, along with building them into national attractions.
> 
> If they're bad fights, not if they're good. You don't have to show everything, just provide a platform for fighters to grow. The current Sky shows are so few that it doesn't leave a lot of room for those slightly lesser fights, like Crolla-Matthews. It's about matching expectations and leveraging your content.


The UFC has grown but I wouldn't say its growing. Based on what I see in the media and just being around people I think the fascination in the UK at least has slowed down. I still think most British champions are a bigger name than most UFC world champions.

ESPN & Sky Sports are the same thing. Sky show mid - world level boxing every other week. In terms of the lower lever you have Box Nation who have....no money, no audience and are trying to build a franchise with low/mid/world level boxing. It appears at this stage to be failing.

If Eddie Hearn or any other promoter could get there up and coming fighters on a channel like ITV4, Dave on a wednesday night they would jump at the shot, and probably take a loss to gain the exposure. But these channels are not interested. Outside of the hardcore the general sports fan only watches the title fights.

Your making assumptions on what Skys schedule is going to be like when we actually don't know the facts at this stage. To me it looks like Sky were previously doing 40 2 hour (2fight) shows a year. No they are doing 20 3 hour (3fight) shows a year. Its a 25% reduction. 25% of the fights being put on Sky were in my opinion not TV worthy. Fights like Crolla vs Matthews will still get shown, as a co-feature on undercard like Rees vs Matthews was. More viewers watched Rees vs Matthews than Crolla because it was on a big fight card, and you had 6,000 in the arena instead of 2,000.

Hearn has been making fights that people want to see. Some of them, in particular Haye vs Harrison was not favoured by you or I, but it got massive viewers and 20,000 at the MEN. Since then he has kept on delivering. Honestly what was the last poor Matchroom show? Everything thats coming up in the new season I am looking forward to so far.

in terms of building stars. Kell Brook sold 1,500 for his first fight with Hearn in Sheffield. a year later he has 10,000 and half a million watching at home. Theres not a single fighter thats signed with Hearn and hasn't become a bigger name afterwards. We cannot judge how he will handle talent from the ground up yet. In 2-3 years time we can judge. But so far when it comes to Hearn there is far more good than bad, which you cannot say about any other promoter.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Some of them, in particular Haye vs Harrison was not favoured by you or I


Haye vs. Harrison was "not favoured" by you? In the same way the Jews were "not favoured" by Adolf Hitler?


----------



## Casual Benson's Unknown (Jun 5, 2012)

:rofl


----------



## Michael (Jun 8, 2012)

GazOC said:


> Haye vs. Harrison was "not favoured" by you? In the same way the Jews were "not favoured" by Adolf Hitler?


Great comparison :lol:


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

It took ESPN five years before it was profit-making at all, I don't think anyone should throw BN under a bus just yet. The international coverage has been excellent.

My concern with the Sky/Matchroom deal is that it effectively created a monopoly and, in my experience, monopolies are never good for anyone long-term. A reduction is still a reduction, whatever the percentage. Personally, I can't remember a single fight outside of the headline bouts from the recent run, but my head hasn't been into boxing massively this year for a number of reasons. 

If Eddie shows a commitment to cross-promoting, most of my concerns will disappear. But right now I am unconvinced that less product from less promoters will be a long term plan worth holding on to. But I've approached it with an open mind, I just wish people wouldn't canonise Eddie yet - he has a lot to prove (by his own admission).


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Maybes he is going to announce that Ricky Hatton







































Has retired


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> It took ESPN five years before it was profit-making at all, I don't think anyone should throw BN under a bus just yet. The international coverage has been excellent.
> 
> My concern with the Sky/Matchroom deal is that it effectively created a monopoly and, in my experience, monopolies are never good for anyone long-term. A reduction is still a reduction, whatever the percentage. Personally, I can't remember a single fight outside of the headline bouts from the recent run, but my head hasn't been into boxing massively this year for a number of reasons.
> 
> If Eddie shows a commitment to cross-promoting, most of my concerns will disappear. But right now I am unconvinced that less product from less promoters will be a long term plan worth holding on to. But I've approached it with an open mind, I just wish people wouldn't canonise Eddie yet - he has a lot to prove (by his own admission).


Unfortunatley for Box Nation, as well as all other start up companies, we are no in an ecenomic enviroment right now where a business can make a loss for 5 years. Setanta didn't stick around for long. Box Nations margains are much smaller but they still need to turn over a profit. We are already in a situation where allot of boxers associated to that channel are not getting paid.

How is Matchrooms monopoly any different to the UFC's? The UFC are one promoter, and the rest are stuck on obscure networks. All major competation to the UFC has been purchased by the UFC?

As long as Sky Sports have quality control i cannot see how this is not a good thing for boxing.

Matchroom co-promoted with Hennesey for Barker, Murray and Fury. They co-promoted with Dave Coldwell for Bellew vs McIntosh. They wanted to work with.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

GazOC said:


> Haye vs. Harrison was "not favoured" by you? In the same way the Jews were "not favoured" by Adolf Hitler?


:rofl


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

Why does Hearn have to cater for lower-level boxing? That's clearly not his intentions and why should it be.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Roe said:


> Why does Hearn have to cater for lower-level boxing? That's clearly not his intentions and why should it be.


Who said it should?


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> Who said it should?


That seems to be your problem with what he's doing?


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> Who said it should?


thats what I read from your comments as well.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Roe said:


> That seems to be your problem with what he's doing?


Then you've misread. My issue is this perception some have of him as the saviour of boxing. As you've just admitted he has a very specific focus which, to my mind, means he's not focused on growing the sport the way it needs to be, in my opinion.

I don't think he's bad for boxing, but he's not the Messiah.


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

Is he a very naughty boy?


----------



## wrimc (Jun 4, 2012)

Don King put on some great boxing shows.....


----------



## Bryn (Jun 2, 2012)

Roe said:


> Is he a very naughty boy?


:lol:


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Roe said:


> Is he a very naughty boy?


:lol:

I do agree with DF though. Its early days yet and any boxing fan worth his salt should know to retain a healthy degree of doubt about people in this sport.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2012)

GazOC said:


> :lol:
> 
> I do agree with DF though. Its early days yet and any boxing fan worth his salt should know to retain a healthy degree of doubt about people in this sport.


I just don't understand why DF is so down the the monopoly. Sky Sports have worked with multiple promoters for the past 10 years and it hasnt been working. I say giving all the power to one promoter who has shown the ability to make big shows and big fights is worth trying out.


----------



## Gary Barlow (Jun 6, 2012)

I quite like the route Eddie Hearn is taking Boxing, he is kind of doing the UFC format one big card a month or every few weeks which is more exciting than the weekly below par Sky cards served up by Hatton or Maloney Promotions. Honestly all this "nerd fan boy" Boxing talk about supporting the lower levels of the Sport, who cares ?

I want to watch shit low level Boxing i tune into BN once a fortnight to watch 10 boring one sided fights with 50 people at the York Hall. How many of you who moan at Hearn actually go to these small hall cards ? if you don't go you have no right to moan.

The top level of Boxing is very exciting and can bring in crowds but the lower level Boxing almost does enough damage to put people off the Sport.

I want to be entertained so i want quality cards on my tv which are stacked and Hearn is only one providing this, if you want to support a bunch of average journeyman start a fucking BoxAid and donate monthly just keep it off TV. People seem to think they have a right to make money in Sport, simple fact is if your not good enough get a normal job.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2012)

When it comes to the Sky TV Deal situation its as simple as this.

Hearn, Warren, Maloney and Hattons were told 2 years ago that they needed to impress. Warren left, Hatton and Maloney didn't impress. Hearn delivered.

Theres never been loyalty from a promoter to a broardcaster, and like wise it shouldn't be shown back the same way.


----------



## Gary Barlow (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> When it comes to the Sky TV Deal situation its as simple as this.
> 
> Hearn, Warren, Maloney and Hattons were told 2 years ago that they needed to impress. Warren left, Hatton and Maloney didn't impress. Hearn delivered.
> 
> Theres never been loyalty from a promoter to a broardcaster, and like wise it shouldn't be shown back the same way.


None of them delivered at the time, only recently Hearn has put the effort in and has been rewarded. Prizefighter is dog shit though whatever way they dress it up. What i like about SKY is they woke up finally and realised maloney and hatton even warren was sticking n sub standard shit to fill the contract without going the extra mile. now they all been chucked they all crying.

i despise frank maloney, hatton is just useless and warren is just smart.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

i have no problem with Hearn or how his contract with Sky works, they put on some good shows and if I get two quality shows a month then I'm happy to pay the subscription.

Those of you's saying forget supporting the lower levels of the sport are equally as idiotic as those saying Hearn's monopoly is shit because if there is no lower level then there will be fuck all at the higher level either. The sport needs a nice balance of both.

Hearn is still fairly new to promoting though so I wouldn't say he is neglecting the lower levels yet, he needs a bit time to establish his promotion before pushing the youngsters through as well.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> I just don't understand why DF is so down the the monopoly. Sky Sports have worked with multiple promoters for the past 10 years and it hasnt been working. I say giving all the power to one promoter who has shown the ability to make big shows and big fights is worth trying out.


Monopolies never work. Look through history - customers always suffer. We have ample evidence of that.

I don't think it's healthy, basically. However, Eddie isn't his dad and he may prove to be the exception to previous form. But when you have a captive platform it's tempting to turn out crap.

Sky's issues over the last decade are less due to promoters than schizophrenia about their boxing strategy.

I do like that they've focused their output, just not the exact methods.


----------



## Bajingo (May 31, 2012)

Let's see how Hearn manages Khalid Yafai, Martin Ward and any other signings they get. If he can get them regular fights but only put the right ones on TV he'll do well. Nobody watching a Sky show wants to see an Olympian fighting Robin Deakin or an eastern European who will fall over in 30 seconds.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Gary Barlow said:


> None of them delivered at the time, only recently Hearn has put the effort in and has been rewarded. Prizefighter is dog shit though whatever way they dress it up. What i like about SKY is they woke up finally and realised maloney and hatton even warren was sticking n sub standard shit to fill the contract without going the extra mile. now they all been chucked they all crying.
> 
> i despise frank maloney, hatton is just useless and warren is just smart.


Generally agree with this. I just think the tactics could be more considered.

I blame promoters like Frank for being unwilling to work with other promoters.


----------



## Gary Barlow (Jun 6, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> Generally agree with this. I just think the tactics could be more considered.
> 
> I blame promoters like Frank for being unwilling to work with other promoters.


That is why imo Hearn having a monopoly will benefit British boxing, the best of british will face each other if they with the same promoter, as you point out when a fighter is with hearn warren or maloney they will never fight each other. Warren had the best of british for along tme bar degale vs groves they never faced each other. I think under Hearn they would when the time is right.

Warren ruined Boxing making someones 0 become important, when infact if he learnt from degale and groves he would see two of the best of british facing each other and one losing their 0 has no long term affect in reality, and infact ehanced both fighters and the rematch will be even bigger. Again the same with bellew and cleverly.

Fight fans do not care about the 0 when will promoters wake upto this i think Hearn is only one to do so


----------



## Bajingo (May 31, 2012)

The way Maloney has acted with Price is exactly what's wrong with boxing promoters. Matchroom wanted to use him on their shows with Maloney still as his manager and keeping him on Sky but because he felt Sky treated him badly by dropping him he's teamed up with Warren instead, who he was so critical of with the Haye and Chisora fight. He's basically put his own personal shit ahead of doing what's best for Price's career.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> Monopolies never work. Look through history - customers always suffer. We have ample evidence of that.
> 
> I don't think it's healthy, basically. However, Eddie isn't his dad and he may prove to be the exception to previous form. But when you have a captive platform it's tempting to turn out crap.
> 
> ...


Tell me when a Monopoly in sport has been a bad thing?

NFL, NBA, NHL, The Premiership. Could all be classes as monopolies.

Different sports...something closer to home....The UFC which is the example you gave. They control all the talent so are able to put on the best fights. Same as what Mathroom and Sky are trying to achieve.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2012)

chatty said:


> i have no problem with Hearn or how his contract with Sky works, they put on some good shows and if I get two quality shows a month then I'm happy to pay the subscription.
> 
> Those of you's saying forget supporting the lower levels of the sport are equally as idiotic as those saying Hearn's monopoly is shit because if there is no lower level then there will be fuck all at the higher level either. The sport needs a nice balance of both.
> 
> Hearn is still fairly new to promoting though so I wouldn't say he is neglecting the lower levels yet, he needs a bit time to establish his promotion before pushing the youngsters through as well.


I wouls say the lower level of the sport has been flourising for some time and its been the british title and world level thats been lacking. small hall shows run by Steve Woods, Spencer Fearon, Mickey Helliot, Dave Coldwell have been making money for the past few years. Its been the mid level guys like Maloney, Hennsey and Hatton that were given lucrative TV deals that failed to deliver.

To get on TV I do think the fights need to be of a certain standard. If guys like Steve Woods, Spencer Fearon, Mickey Helliot, Dave Coldwell want to get a big fight and put it on Sky Matchroom have shown they are prepared to do so.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2012)

Bajingo said:


> The way Maloney has acted with Price is exactly what's wrong with boxing promoters. Matchroom wanted to use him on their shows with Maloney still as his manager and keeping him on Sky but because he felt Sky treated him badly by dropping him he's teamed up with Warren instead, who he was so critical of with the Haye and Chisora fight. He's basically put his own personal shit ahead of doing what's best for Price's career.


Maloney still would have been promoting him it would have been a co-promotion. He puts Price on a channel with 5% the viewership to make a point.


----------



## Dev Alahan (Jun 13, 2012)

Gary Barlow said:


> None of them delivered at the time, only recently Hearn has put the effort in and has been rewarded. Prizefighter is dog shit though whatever way they dress it up. What i like about SKY is they woke up finally and realised maloney and hatton even warren was sticking n sub standard shit to fill the contract without going the extra mile. now they all been chucked they all crying.
> 
> i despise frank maloney, hatton is just useless and warren is just smart.


Maloney delivered, he delivered brilliant one sided contests which always paid out.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Tell me when a Monopoly in sport has been a bad thing?
> 
> NFL, NBA, NHL, The Premiership. Could all be classes as monopolies.
> 
> Different sports...something closer to home....The UFC which is the example you gave. They control all the talent so are able to put on the best fights. Same as what Mathroom and Sky are trying to achieve.


I'll write a proper reply to this tonight... Using my tablet atm. Those monopolies have not generally been the best for the sports (recent law suits, union disputes, etc). The nhl and nba are supported by strong grassroots college variants that bring players through the ranks.

The premier league is a joke, haemorrhaging money with laughably low standards. Few football fans are content at rising ticket prices and over reliance on tv money.

The ufc is the dominant player in mma but not the only one. That's encouraged it to raise its game.

The fact is there has never been a successful monopoly in boxing. Give me one example where there has been.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

It's hard to knock Hearn all the while he is making decent fights, let's be serious, his cards and matchmaking has been for the most part very good, is he the saviour of boxing? Fuck no, your being very shallow to believe otherwise, he's in the sport to make a pound note just like everybody else, only difference is he has daddy's millions to play with so there isn't as much pressure.


----------



## Gary Barlow (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill said:


> It's hard to knock Hearn all the while he is making decent fights, let's be serious, his cards and matchmaking has been for the most part very good, is he the saviour of boxing? Fuck no, your being very shallow to believe otherwise, *he's in the sport to make a pound note just like everybody else, only difference is he has daddy's millions to play with so there isn't as much pressure.*


Yes and no sane person begrudges him thats how business works, the point is hes making money AND keeping fight fans happy thats why we all stuck to his hairy testicle sack ATM.

Personally if an justice Maloney goes bankrupt and fish eyes gets......but Hearn for now gets a pass. All though his bullshit with the Olympic boxers annoyed me.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> I'll write a proper reply to this tonight... Using my tablet atm. Those monopolies have not generally been the best for the sports (recent law suits, union disputes, etc). The nhl and nba are supported by strong grassroots college variants that bring players through the ranks.
> 
> The premier league is a joke, haemorrhaging money with laughably low standards. Few football fans are content at rising ticket prices and over reliance on tv money.
> 
> ...


You continually contradict yourself DF.

1) So right now boxing fans are happy with the standards? 
2) And theres no grass routes in boxing?
3) Would Matchrooms position in British boxing not be seen as a dominant player rather than the only one? Why don't other promoters raise there game in a bid to compete?
4) Has there ever been an unsuccesful one? Certainly not in the post war era.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

This thread could make very interesting reading if we come back to it in a couple of years.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> You continually contradict yourself DF.
> 
> 1) So right now boxing fans are happy with the standards?
> 2) And theres no grass routes in boxing?
> ...


What contradiction? Don't throw a statement like that out without justification.

1 - you'd have to ask every fan in a few years. Right now we don't know 
2 - you're either being obtuse or just confused. Grass roots boxing receives nowhere near the coverage college basketball does. Stars are built there then transition to the NBA. 
3 - that's not the issue we're discussing. You said monopolies are good, I said they aren't. Matchroom may be that or the dominant player or fall apart. We know nothing at this stage. 
4 - for fans they're always unsuccessful. HBO, ESPN, ABC, NBC, etc all suffered in content terms and fans walked in droves when exclusives were inked. Monopolies are good for the holder, not for anyone else.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

But there's a big difference to those bodies and Matchroom - the NFL, NBA and MLB are governing bodies, not promoters. It's NOT a monopoly because all the teams have voting rights on the leagues' actions. They get a split of the TV money, shared coverage, and a pre-booked schedule. You won't get the Sonics winning their conference and being passed over for the finals just because someone makes more money.

Those aren't really monopolies, but they are pretty corrupt and have come under greater government oversight.



robpalmer135 said:


> Tell me when a Monopoly in sport has been a bad thing?


The MLB was so poorly run that it was losing money in the mid-90s. As the only major baseball outlet, it proposed a major paycut and the players, feeling they shouldn't suffer for others' poor management, went on strike and nearly crippled the sport. The monopoly they held over the industry meant they were trying to force players too suffer the pain while management cleared their own shortfall. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994–95_Major_League_Baseball_strike

One side had way too much power and it led to the US Senate taking action to return the balance of power to the players. But truthfully that's less a flaw of the MLB, more of the owners of it.



> NFL, NBA, NHL, The Premiership. Could all be classes as monopolies.


They aren't monopolies since they're governing bodies. A Monopoly would be Man U owning the governing board and dictating who plays what matches.



> Different sports...something closer to home....The UFC which is the example you gave. They control all the talent so are able to put on the best fights. Same as what Mathroom and Sky are trying to achieve.


You don't know much about UFC it seems. There are plenty of decent-sized competitors. Not everyone wants to fight for Dana White. Plenty of good fights haven't come off due to being on opposing promotions. But UFC's success hasn't come from its dominance, it has come from White's single-minded commitment to building the sport - he promotes plenty of untelevised shows, he has regular lower-level shows on cable, he had a reality TV show on a mass-market channel, he includes his bigger fights on those shows as well to share profile, then he puts big PPVs on where he's built the storylines and the fighters profiles. There were other promotions out there that White worked hard to take over and they're still there nipping at his heels.

The difference between you and I on this topic is I'm waiting to be convinced, whereas you've fallen head over heels for Dreamboat Eddie and his plans. That's cool, but you've been disappointed by people before. I just don't want to see you hurt.


----------



## davez (Jul 16, 2012)

I'm not a big fan of Hearn or Matchroom but it wouldn't surprise me if they were to announce the launch of a new tv channel called "Sky Sports Matchroom".


----------



## Lilo (Jun 4, 2012)

Competition is *always* best for the customer.

The good thing about Eddie is that he knows what the customer wants. Let's just hope that he continues to provide this without getting greedy, which is effectively what it comes down to.

That being said, he is producing high quality shows, promoting fighters well (Froch, Barker, Brook) and is now looking to the future (Yafai, Ward, Cardle and I'm sure one or two Olympians).

He knows that PF is becoming stale and is trying to improve it (international PF and upping the quality).

It seems like he listens and understands what the customer/fans want.

*He is however, not responsible for running British boxing. He is a promoter not a NGB.*


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Time will tell with Eddie, it's early days but the sign's are positive, he should fuck prizefighter off though, I don't like it at all.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> The difference between you and I on this topic is I'm waiting to be convinced, whereas you've fallen head over heels for Dreamboat Eddie and his plans. That's cool, but you've been disappointed by people before. I just don't want to see you hurt.


this is where you delusion comes out with full force. at no point have i claimed hearn to be the saviour of boxing. you yourself have written him off, in this thread and in others which is why everyone has been disagreeing with you. myself and other have mearly stated its time for a change and that based on the last 2 years he has earned his shot and his contract with Sky.

its will only be a monopoly if the other promoters fail to deliver and hearn doing his job well shouldnt effect the others in a negative way. the sport grows the sport. right now its not a monopoly in any way.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Bill said:


> Time will tell with Eddie, it's early days but the sign's are positive, he should fuck prizefighter off though, I don't like it at all.


I'm not bothered now they've moved it from Saturday night. I wasn't impressed when it was on instead of a real boxing card, a least now its on instead of speedway or whatever.


----------



## Michael (Jun 8, 2012)

Fucking hate  Prizefighter, was an interesting concept originally, but they've just milked it for all its worth now. If the fights took place over series of months and were 10 rounders, then I could see it as a legit concept, but unless a fight in PF ends in an early knockout, it just doesn't prove much, IMHO


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> this is where you delusion comes out with full force. at no point have i claimed hearn to be the saviour of boxing.


Rob, seriously, is this how you try to debate with me? In this thread alone you have accused me of contradicting myself and being delusional without a clear example of either. Either discuss like a grown up or go and pester someone else.



> you yourself have written him off, in this thread and in others which is why everyone has been disagreeing with you. myself and other have mearly stated its time for a change and that based on the last 2 years he has earned his shot and his contract with Sky.


I have not written him off at all. Do you have reading comprehension issues? A common trait when you argue is you take extreme positions that bear no resemblance to established facts or, in this case, what I actually said.

Not "everyone" is disagreeing with me either. Re-read the thread and you'll find a few people seeing my point: the one you seem to have missed despite quoting the majority of my posts on this topic. I can only guess you've not read them properly, but for simplicity's sake I will summarise:

* I think Hearn has done some good things so far but I will wait and see before praising him for things he hasn't done
* Matchroom have a monopoly on boxing on Sky and, from reading any modern business history, monopolies are generally bad for customers
* I might be proved wrong and would be glad if I am. Boxing needs a good guy right now, and a young guy like Hearn would be great
* The glaring weakness I see in Eddie's approach is the lack of support at grass roots level

These are all just my opinions. You don't have to agree, you can think I'm dead wrong. It's ok. But I've backed up my rationale and you've, as usual, just made shit up about what I said and whatever flavour you're tasting this week.



> its will only be a monopoly if the other promoters fail to deliver and hearn doing his job well shouldnt effect the others in a negative way.


It's a monopoly if one promoter holds a contract for all the dates - that's pretty much the definition of a monopoly!



> the sport grows the sport.


What does that even mean?



> right now its not a monopoly in any way.


Except for actually being a monopoly.


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2012)

Sky are not the only Broardcaster. Channel 5 & Box Nation. So its not a monopaly he jusy has the best TV deal.


----------



## Jay (May 31, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Sky are not the only Broardcaster. Channel 5 & Box Nation. So its not a monopaly he jusy has the best TV deal.


Do you actually make an effort to spell as many words wrong as you can in a single line of text?


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

GazOC said:


> I'm not bothered now they've moved it from Saturday night. I wasn't impressed when it was on instead of a real boxing card, a least now its on instead of speedway or whatever.


Valid point Gaz, I just can't take to it, you don't get the big fight feel and it's more of a circus than it is boxing imo, the concept at first was appealing but in that format it encourages boxers to abandon skill and fight in a way that would be more suited outside of a pub than in a ring, just my opinion of course.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

The prizefighter internationals have been two of the worst comps imo. The heavyweight division is just too boring for the format. They should stick to the lower weights where the three round format is more exciting .


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

chatty said:


> The prizefighter internationals have been two of the worst comps imo. The heavyweight division is just too boring for the format. They should stick to the lower weights where the three round format is more exciting .


The international one's were shocking and totally agree on the heavyweights, it should in theory be one of the most exciting because 1 punch can change things, sadly it's such a weak division and the talent just isn't there to make it interesting.


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2012)

So on that one hand theres an issue with getting fighters exposure, getting them on TV and giving the lower level fighters a chance. But Prizefighter which does all these things is shit??

On my iphone and lazy.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> So on that one hand theres an issue with getting fighters exposure, getting them on TV and giving the lower level fighters a chance. But Prizefighter which does all these things is shit??
> 
> On my iphone and lazy.


It doe's have it's benefits Rob, I won't deny that, it's just not my cup of tea, It's not the sort of boxing I want to watch.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> So on that one hand theres an issue with getting fighters exposure, getting them on TV and giving the lower level fighters a chance. But Prizefighter which does all these things is shit??
> 
> On my iphone and lazy.


Prizefighter does none of those things. It's a freak show.

They'd be better off broadcasting four six rounders.


----------



## CamR21 (Jun 6, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> Prizefighter does none of those things. It's a freak show.
> 
> They'd be better off broadcasting four six rounders.


It does get fighters exposure who wouldn't usually do so, PF gets very good viewing figures on sky so it is clear that they are going to continue it. I don't like it but people watch it so you can't complain at Hearn or sky for doing it


----------



## leforge (Jun 7, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> Prizefighter does none of those things. It's a freak show.
> 
> They'd be better off broadcasting four six rounders.


Watched by audiences of under 50k is that what you want for the sport?


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> Prizefighter does none of those things. It's a freak show.
> 
> They'd be better off broadcasting four six rounders.


Please explain how prizefighter doesn't do any of this?


----------

