# Stephen Smith Allegedly parts way with Warren



## Mandanda (Jun 2, 2012)

Just seen it retweeted on twitter. Waiting to see it confirmed..


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

Be delighted if he signs with Hearn, regular fights and more exposure.

Warren did get him the Buckland fight though and he is now British champ.

Litigation looms.


----------



## Mandanda (Jun 2, 2012)

The termination comes less than a week after it was announced that Stephen would appear on a December 7th bill alongside Paul and Liam.

Press release is out there just trying to find it..


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

One of hearns new signings then I assume.

Well he is in a great position now after buckland.


----------



## Lazarus (Jun 2, 2012)

Not surprised. It was painfully obvious the Smith's want to jump ship. You'll see Frankie Gavin following along soon too.


----------



## Stunkie (Jun 4, 2013)

Marlow said:


> Be delighted if he signs with Hearn, regular fights and more exposure.
> 
> Warren did get him the Buckland fight though and he is now British champ.
> 
> Litigation looms.


Fear not Eddie has this man on speed dial...


----------



## adamcanavan (Jun 5, 2012)

Not sure this is the best timed move. Warren was doing well by him tbh. I hope Sykes still gets his shot


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

Lazarus said:


> Not surprised. It was painfully obvious the Smith's want to jump ship. You'll see Frankie Gavin following along soon too.


Yeah Callum's exposure has been noticed by the brothers I'm sure.

Liam was very good v ochieng the other week and Paul was in the sky studio for the Liverpool card.they actually were given better exposure on some bodies else's card.

If they go starting with Stephen then let's see some big north west cards with pricey(maybe),murray(maybe),crolla,Callum,Stephen,derry(coldwell) etc


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2013)

have to wonder if Paul & Liam will follow.


----------



## dkos (Jun 2, 2012)

Not great timing is it...


----------



## Lazarus (Jun 2, 2012)

Tbf, I don't even know why Frank invests in them any further. Obviously it's the right thing to do, but when you know these guys are going to fuck you off, then what's the point?


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

Now this is a case where I feel sorry for Warren. Fighters are just fucking him off left, right and center but he's actually only ever done well for The Smiths. They all seem determined though to jump over and join Callum on Sky.


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> have to wonder if Paul & Liam will follow.


I was always baffled by the criticism of Paul Smith, every time I've seen him he's come across really well.

I'd like to see them all on Sky, as a foursome they're very marketable and have a good story.


----------



## Mugshot (Jun 11, 2013)

The only one of Smith's fights that I've seen live was against Buckland... And with that, I conclude... 

Smith is the single greatest fighter of all time.


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

PaulieMc said:


> Now this is a case where I feel sorry for Warren. Fighters are just fucking him off left, right and center but he's actually only ever done well for The Smiths. They all seem determined though to jump over and join Callum on Sky.


Stephen Smith didn't fight for a year, It's a short career, he wants to fight regularly and earn.

Also having Callum and Crolla there is a bonus.


----------



## Lazarus (Jun 2, 2012)

You can't blame the fighters. It's a dog eat dog world, there's no loyalty. Frank probably knows it hence why he hasn't put certain fighters out so much. They all just want to jump on this Matchroom hype train.


----------



## WritingPride (Jun 6, 2012)

Mandanda said:


> Just seen it retweeted on twitter. Waiting to see it confirmed..


http://www.livefight.com/news.php?news_id=3377&y=2013&m=10


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

Marlow said:


> Stephen Smith didn't fight for a year, It's a short career, he wants to fight regularly and earn.
> 
> Also having Callum and Crolla there is a bonus.


Got him a two British fights though, first against Simpson then against Buckland recently. Got to count for something?


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2013)

PaulieMc said:


> Now this is a case where I feel sorry for Warren. Fighters are just fucking him off left, right and center but he's actually only ever done well for The Smiths. They all seem determined though to jump over and join Callum on Sky.


I disagree that he has done well for Stephen Smith. Smith went a full year without fighting when he had a new baby born the only reason he could support his new family was because he won a pretty significant bet on the Olympic boxing. After a year out Frank got him a fight with a journeyman and then a fight with Gary Buckland which at the time many saw as throwing him to the wolves.


----------



## Scorpio78 (Jun 10, 2012)

Wow

Frank got shafted here unless something went on behind the scenes


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2013)

PaulieMc said:


> Got him a two British fights though, first against Simpson then against Buckland recently. Got to count for something?


Not fighting for a year when you have a new born child. Frank didn't show loyalty to Stephen in that time, so why would the loyalty be shown back?


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2013)

_"I've been with W Promotions since I turned pro and during that time have held the British Featherweight and Super-Featherweight titles. Now though the time has come to pursue my career away from W Promotions. As such I'm today announcing the termination of my contract with W Promotions. I would like to thank everyone at W Promotions for the support and guidance they've given me. A special thank you to Dean Powell - like so many other boxers out there I appreciate everything he did for my career."_


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2013)

v Devis Boshiero for the European would be a good fight.


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

PaulieMc said:


> Got him a two British fights though, first against Simpson then against Buckland recently. Got to count for something?


Weigh that up with being inactive for a year.


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Not fighting for a year when you have a new born child. Frank didn't show loyalty to Stephen in that time, so why would the loyalty be shown back?


Not saying he should show loyalty, just feel a bit harsh on Allegedly because this is a big blow. As much as he's a cunt who I'm sure we all enjoy see getting a taste of his own medicine the reality is British Boxing will be much worse off if he goes under and leaves only one main promoter. A monopoly is never good.


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

PaulieMc said:


> Not saying he should show loyalty, just feel a bit harsh on Allegedly because this is a big blow. As much as he's a cunt who I'm sure we all enjoy see getting a taste of his own medicine the reality is British Boxing will be much worse off if he goes under and leaves only one main promoter. *A monopoly is never good*.


Always something that is said often in these discussions but UFC put on stacked cards.


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

Marlow said:


> Always something that is said often in these discussions but UFC put on stacked cards.


UFC is ran by a gang of greedy, corporate cunts who over-charge their loyal fans because they know they have pretty much nowhere else to go if they want to watch the sport. WWE is the same.


----------



## The Genius (Jul 22, 2013)

What has the inactivity got to do with it? He should have left then, not when things have considerably picked up.


----------



## Scorpio78 (Jun 10, 2012)

This probably explains why Eddie has been up joe g gym so much recently
Crolla and now smith

Joe g has also been retweeting anti warren stuff the last few weeks

Obviously the hardcore hearn fanboys are gonna lap this up , rob , Marlow , jack and some times boxing analyst 

He must have been promised a shot at selby 

Add him and price then eddies Liverpool shows just went from the Olympia to the echo level


----------



## Jackukboxing (Aug 13, 2013)

Wonder if Joe Gallagher is influencing these decisions. He's had Smith, Johnson and Quigg inactive recently whilst seeing Crolla and Callum smith box regularly. He has a good relationship with Eddie and maybe wants the rest of his lads there knowing they will be out regularly


----------



## Ishy (Jun 2, 2012)

Going to extreme lengths to avoid Gary Sykes I see.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

Could selby-smith happen again?

Are they going to be at the same weight?


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2013)

PaulieMc said:


> Not saying he should show loyalty, just feel a bit harsh on Allegedly because this is a big blow. As much as he's a cunt who I'm sure we'd all like to see get stoned to death the reality is British Boxing will be a much worse off if he goes under and leaves only one main promoter. A monopoly is never good.


Have said this time and time again. I would rather have a monopoly with one strong promoter doing a good job than have 3-4 promoters doing a bad job with fighters and keeping afloat for the sake of competition.


----------



## Smeg (Jul 25, 2013)

Jackukboxing said:


> Wonder if Joe Gallagher is influencing these decisions. He's had Smith, Johnson and Quigg inactive recently whilst seeing Crolla and Callum smith box regularly. He has a good relationship with Eddie and maybe wants the rest of his lads there knowing they will be out regularly


No doubt, you only need to look at Callum - seeing him out every month, whenever he wants and wants some of that rather than hanging around not knowing if the show's going ahead. Look at how many bills Warren's pulled in the last 12 months.


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2013)

PaulieMc said:


> UFC is ran by a gang of greedy, corporate cunts who over-charge their loyal fans because they know they have pretty much nowhere else to go if they want to watch the sport. WWE is the same.


So how is this different to what already goes on?


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Have said this time and time again. I would rather have a monopoly with one strong promoter doing a good job than have 3-4 promoters doing a bad job with fighters and keeping afloat for the sake of competition.


You're a thick as pig shit Hearn dick-rider though. Variety in anything is vital when it comes to keeping things fresh.


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2013)

PaulieMc said:


> You're a thick as pig shit Hearn dick-rider though. Variety in anything is vital when it comes to keeping things fresh.


You questioning somebody's intelligence is pretty rich!

What variety do you notice between Hearn shows and other boxing shows?


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2013)

smegmaa said:


> No doubt, you only need to look at Callum - seeing him out every month, whenever he wants and wants some of that rather than hanging around not knowing if the show's going ahead. Look at how many bills Warren's pulled in the last 12 months.


You probably had a situation where the younger brother, a novice pro, was out earning his 3 older brothers that hold titles.

I think Smith also had 4-5 shows he was going to box on get pulled in the past 2 years.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

PaulieMc said:


> Now this is a case where I feel sorry for Warren. Fighters are just fucking him off left, right and center but *he's actually only ever done well for The Smiths*. They all seem determined though to jump over and join Callum on Sky.


Yeah, who doesn't love This Charming Man? Warren did well supporting them in their careers.


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> So how is this different to what already goes on?


They have COMPLETE control of the sport of MMA and because it MMA will suffer long-term. WWE and professional wrestling is a good example. In the 1990's wrestling was massive and there were two major companies, WCW and WWE. Both had their own products and their own set of wrestlers. Fans watched both and things were kept fresh, if you didn't like what one of them was doing you'd flip over and watch the other instead. You had a choice.

WCW went out of business, WWE bought all the contracts and became the only promotion. Since then (2001 this happened) buy-rates for WWE have plummeted, interested in it has faded and they now make considerably less money. They still make enough to get by but no way near what they made during the years they had a competitor. The same will likely happen to UFC in a few years and it would also happen to a boxing promotion. Competition is good, even St. Edward says it.


----------



## The Genius (Jul 22, 2013)

Rob thinks Eddie Hearn is doing things that have never been done before.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

smegmaa said:


> No doubt, you only need to look at Callum - seeing him out every month, whenever he wants and wants some of that rather than hanging around not knowing if the show's going ahead. Look at how many bills Warren's pulled in the last 12 months.


I want to see warren and Hearn with similar stables and regular dates,not unlike top rank and Golden boy.
I believe that would bring out better quality and better value for shows in Britain but we have to be realistic and this post above sums it up.

Stephen is a professional boxer and a very good one,a championship level fighter In a brutal business where his next fight could always be his last earner in the sport.
He has to think about himself amd his family first.

It would be a shame if warren lost anymore decent lads though because he has the copperbox deals and the rainham steel input,it seems like we will see more shows from him.

But boxnation loses smith and Gains McDonnell,swings and roundabouts.


----------



## Lazarus (Jun 2, 2012)

Boxers can never be contained by one promoter. It never works. Fighters collide, conflicts arise and it's the promoter who cries. It's building nicely for Matchroom but anything that goes up must come down. If there was a solid foundation below promoters, Frank Warren would have been the Burj Khalifa.


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2013)

PaulieMc said:


> They have COMPLETE control of the sport of MMA and because it MMA will suffer long-term. WWE and professional wrestling is a good example. In the 1990's wrestling was massive and there were two major companies, WCW and WWE. Both had their own products and their own set of wrestlers. Fans watched both and things were kept fresh, if you didn't like what one of them was doing you'd flip over and watch the other instead. You had a choice.
> 
> WCW went out of business, WWE bought all the contracts and became the only promotion. Since then (2001 this happened) buyrates for WWE have plummeted, interested in it has faded and they now make considerably less money. They still make enough to get by but no way near what they made during the years they had a competitor. The same will likely happen to UFC in a few years and it would also happen to a boxing promotion. Competition is good, even you're master says it.


As much as I respect pro wrestling and loved it as a kid and teenager, the comparison is not valid because its not a sport. But you are comparing the sports popularity to a period of time when it was at an absolute peak. Compare the popularity of pro wrestling and the WWE to the 50s,60s & 70s and its still far far more popular than it was then. Also the wrestlers are far better paid than they have ever been before.

UFC took the sport of MMA and brought it to the main stream (simular to WWE) and competition will naturally arise from there over time and will survive if they put out a proper product thats financially responsible. Also what is the issue with the UFC model, don't the best fights get created??

When people mention the monopoly I think they are being narrow minded because boxing is a global sport not just the UK. Outside of the US how many other countries have more than 1 major promoter? I think the competition for Hearn comes from Europe, USA and Asia. If promoters in the UK want to compete with then they need to start delivering for fighters in the same way Hearn has done the past 2 years. People are not jumping ship to him because he seems like a nice guy, its all because of the reputation he has built up his existing fighters.


----------



## The Genius (Jul 22, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> You questioning somebody's intelligence is pretty rich!
> 
> What variety do you notice between Hearn shows and other boxing shows?


Ironically, it was Frank Warren who introduced music, lights , flashy entrances and better production to his shows in the early 80s. There was a huge difference between a Warren show and a Mickey Duff show. Frank was also criticised for his risky matchmaking.

Life goes around-and around


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2013)

The Genius said:


> Rob thinks Eddie Hearn is doing things that have never been done before.


Nope.


----------



## Smeg (Jul 25, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> Yeah, who doesn't love This Charming Man? Warren did well supporting them in their careers.


:lol: You never fail DF


----------



## Lazarus (Jun 2, 2012)

Ishy said:


> Going to extreme lengths to avoid Gary Sykes I see.












:deal


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2013)

The Genius said:


> Ironically, it was Frank Warren who introduced music, lights , flashy entrances and better production to his shows in the early 80s. There was a huge difference between a Warren show and a Mickey Duff show. Frank was also criticised for his risky matchmaking.
> 
> Life goes around-and around


So what is your point?


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> Yeah, who doesn't love This Charming Man? Warren did well supporting them in their careers.


I honestly didn't even know who that guy in the picture was, took me ages to click on. :lol:


----------



## 084 (Jun 5, 2012)

Wonder if Dean Powell had much influence over Warren fighters, i think he was pretty well respected by everyone ho worked with him.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Won't be long before Liam and Paul follow him...

Frankie no fighters :lol:

:eddie


----------



## The Genius (Jul 22, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> So what is your point?


Christ mate, chill out.

In your opinion Hearn's shows are better the everyone else's - with Frank being his main rival. So I pointed out that Frank got the same praise 30 years. Everything being said about Eddie today was said about Frank back then. Now Frank is considered old-fashioned and out of touch, like Mickey Duff was.


----------



## Macca L20 (Jun 3, 2012)

LP said:


> Wonder if Dean Powell had much influence over Warren fighters, i think he was pretty well respected by everyone ho worked with him.


I was thinking this. Why mention Powell in the statement?


----------



## Scorpio78 (Jun 10, 2012)

Paul won't be much of a loss
Liam defo will

Although the best are Callum and stephen


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

Warren has to cut his big stable down to his best 30 or so fighters and then they need to fight 3 or 4 times a year in competitive,progressive fights in front of good crowds for big purses.i know he has a deal with the copperbox but spread further afield for hometown crowds.

No more prospect v journeyman x 6 plus a main event.his fighters need to be supported and moving up the ladder.
I honestly believe a boxer who is active and moving their career along nicely won't care who he fights for or what station.

He still has 6 British champions on his books.not bad for a man down on his luck.
So this would be my stable going forward-
Championship or established fighters-
Dereck chisora
Nathan cleverly
Frankie Gavin
Billy joe Saunders
Paul butler
Paul smith
Liam smith
Martin gethin
Liam Walsh
Joe Murray
Tony conquest
Neil Dawson
Spike o'sullivan
Joe Selkirk
Steve o'meara

Prospects-
Ronnie heffron
Craig Evans
Charlie hoy
Bradley Saunders
Mitchell smith
Bradley skeete
Frank buglioni
Lewis Rees
Jon Thain
Simon vallily
Tom baker


Veterans-
John Murray
Enzo maccarinelli
Ovil Mckenzie
Scott Harrison

A lot of the prospects are at the stage where they are goings to be matched harder or move into title class.
This group of fighters if correctly matched and supported will be very strong in 2/3 years time,but I worry that he will continue his habit of matching easy and cashing in on ticket sellers or poor management and deep shows that should sparkle but drag and have a dull atmosphere.


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Scorpio78 said:


> Paul won't be much of a loss
> Liam defo will
> 
> Although the best are Callum and stephen


Yeah, I like the look of Liam Smith, he's improved dramatically over the last few years. Thought he'd win a close fight against Ochieng but he won convincingly in the end, sound technician.


----------



## Eoghan (Jun 6, 2013)

Mandanda said:


> Just seen it retweeted on twitter. Waiting to see it confirmed..


You mean, Stephen Smith Allegedly Parts Ways with Allegedly?


----------



## CheckHook (Jun 6, 2013)

This is only s pipe dream, not much chance of it happening.... just for the sake of it, say Bellew beats Stevenson, Price strings a few wins together, Hearn signs Smith and Price. Bellew v Stevenson2 / Pascal - Mathews v Mitchel - Smith v Selby - David Price v Mitchel(someone similar) - Crolla v Coyle - Fielding v C or P Smith - Stalker v TBA  You can only dream ey:bbb


----------



## 084 (Jun 5, 2012)

Macca L20 said:


> I was thinking this. Why mention Powell in the statement?


That's what made me think mate, be interesting to see who follows in coming weeks


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2013)

The Genius said:


> Christ mate, chill out.
> 
> In your opinion Hearn's shows are better the everyone else's - with Frank being his main rival. So I pointed out that Frank got the same praise 30 years. Everything being said about Eddie today was said about Frank back then. Now Frank is considered old-fashioned and out of touch, like Mickey Duff was.


So in 30 years time I will be praising the new guy and slating Eddie Hearn. I will slate whoever doesn't deliver for fans and promoters.


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2013)

Powell was very much the middle man between Warren and his fighters and its a big loss to Frank is that respect.

Its worth noting that Smith specifically said he was leaving "W.Promotions Ltd" and not "Queensbury" which is the name of the joint promotion venture with Bill Ives, Frank and his sons.


----------



## The Genius (Jul 22, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> So in 30 years time I will be praising the new guy and slating Eddie Hearn. I will slate whoever doesn't deliver for fans and promoters.


You're extremely hard work. I wasn't having a pop at you in my original reply.

In 30 years you will likely be too out of touch to appreciate what the new guy is doing. Anyway, the original point was about the quality of the shows and I don't think gap is that big. Frank is still putting on some good shows and Eddie has put on some bad shows.

Eddie hasn't changed boxing in this country like Frank did. Frank took on the board and got them to change some of their rules. He made it better for everyone. That's why I admire him so much. What Frank did in the early days was amazing. Eddie hasn't had to fight like Frank did. Or he can't be bothered to fight. With regards to boxing's current state, Eddie seems to accept things are they are.


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2013)

The Genius said:


> You're extremely hard work. I wasn't having a pop at you in my original reply.
> 
> In 30 years you will likely be too out of touch to appreciate what the new guy is doing. Anyway, the original point was about the quality of the shows and I don't think gap is that big. Frank is still putting on some good shows and Eddie has put on some bad shows.
> 
> Eddie hasn't changed boxing in this country like Frank did. Frank took on the board and got them to change some of their rules. He made it better for everyone. That's why I admire him so much. What Frank did in the early days was amazing. Eddie hasn't had to fight like Frank did. Or he can't be bothered to fight. With regards to boxing's current state, Eddie seems to accept things are they are.


You sound very bitter. Warren deserves credit for what he done it the past, nobody doubts this. But right now Hearn is top boy, whether he started at 3rd base of not doesn't really matter to me as a boxing fan. I think he does a good job, consistently puts on good shows and looks after fighters, and I don't think you can say the same thing about Warren right now.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

It's not about supporting Hearn because he's 'Eddie Hearn', or supporting Frank because he's 'Frank Warren'. Who cares about that? Promoters should be judged by what they do in the sport, which is why Hearn deserves praise right now and Warren doesn't. Someone like Coldwell deserves a lot of respect too, because he does the right thing for the sport. If he and Hearn ended up becoming like Maloney and Warren, they'd deserve criticism for it but until then, judge them because of the way they treat the fans, fighters and by the quality of shows they put on.


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2013)

Jack said:


> It's not about supporting Hearn because he's 'Eddie Hearn', or supporting Frank because he's 'Frank Warren'. Who cares about that? Promoters should be judged by what they do in the sport, which is why Hearn deserves praise right now and Warren doesn't. Someone like Coldwell deserves a lot of respect too, because he does the right thing for the sport. If he and Hearn ended up becoming like Maloney and Warren, they'd deserve criticism for it but until then, judge them because of the way they treat the fans, fighters and by the quality of shows they put on.


Yeh this whole "People used to think about Warren this way" is BS.


----------



## Primadonna Kool (Jun 14, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> You sound very bitter. Warren deserves credit for what he done it the past, nobody doubts this. But right now Hearn is top boy, whether he started at 3rd base of not doesn't really matter to me as a boxing fan. I think he does a good job, consistently puts on good shows and looks after fighters, and I don't think you can say the same thing about Warren right now.


When you say Eddie Hearn looks after fighters and Warren does not? How do you work that one out?

Eddie Hearn only bothers or focuses on fighters who are? Clearly on a upward rise. Frank Warren sticks by his fighters through tough times, whether they win and lose! Look at what he done for Paul Smith, Enzo Mac, Chisora of late! And then? You can look back and see what he did for Bruno, and Danny Williams.

Eddie Hearn just becomes mates with people who are winning, and when there not? He's a sales man, he will fuck off.


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2013)

Primadonna Kool said:


> When you say Eddie Hearn looks after fighters and Warren does not? How do you work that one out?
> 
> Eddie Hearn only bothers or focuses on fighters who are? Clearly on a upward rise. Frank Warren sticks by his fighters through tough times, whether they win and lose! Look at what he done for Paul Smith, Enzo Mac, Chisora of late! And then? You can look back and see what he did for Bruno, and Danny Williams.
> 
> Eddie Hearn just becomes mates with people who are winning, and when there not? He's a sales man, he will fuck off.


You think Warren didn't see a ROI from these guys?


----------



## Scorpio78 (Jun 10, 2012)

This May b irrelevant but all of the smiths twitter accounts got the blue ticks yesterday . 
All the main matchroom boxers have this status 

Joe g has tweeted the termination link now as well


----------



## p.townend (May 17, 2013)

Warren always seemed to look after them well. He has done well for Paul smith for sure,I wouldn't think he would follow his brothers.


----------



## Stunkie (Jun 4, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Have said this time and time again. I would rather have a monopoly with one strong promoter doing a good job than have 3-4 promoters doing a bad job with fighters and keeping afloat for the sake of competition.


Monopolies are completely ineffective that is simple economics that's why we have a monopolies commission.



robpalmer135 said:


> As much as I respect pro wrestling and loved it as a kid and teenager, the comparison is not valid because its not a sport. But you are comparing the sports popularity to a period of time when it was at an absolute peak. Compare the popularity of pro wrestling and the WWE to the 50s,60s & 70s and its still far far more popular than it was then. Also the wrestlers are far better paid than they have ever been before.
> 
> UFC took the sport of MMA and brought it to the main stream (simular to WWE) and competition will naturally arise from there over time and will survive if they put out a proper product thats financially responsible. Also what is the issue with the UFC model, don't the best fights get created??
> 
> When people mention the monopoly I think they are being narrow minded because boxing is a global sport not just the UK. Outside of the US how many other countries have more than 1 major promoter? I think the competition for Hearn comes from Europe, USA and Asia. If promoters in the UK want to compete with then they need to start delivering for fighters in the same way Hearn has done the past 2 years. People are not jumping ship to him because he seems like a nice guy, its all because of the reputation he has built up his existing fighters.


Whether WWE is sport or not is immaterial, Eddie ain't running a sport Rob he is running a business. Your own comments about wrestling actually support the belief that monopolies are ineffectual. Wrestling was actually more popular in the decades that you mention when it was with smaller territories before WWWF started monopolising these territories, following the boom of the 80's the WWE was dying on its feet before the WCW arrived. Since the WWE bought them out they have been on a gradual slide for the last decade.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Stunkie said:


> Monopolies are completely ineffective that is simple economics that's why we have a monopolies commission.


There has never, ever been a time when a monopoly has benefited the consumer or, in fact, the industry in question.



> Whether WWE is sport not is immaterial, Eddie ain't running a sport Rob he is running a business. Your own comments about wrestling actually support the belief that monopolies are ineffectual. Wrestling was actually more popular in the decades that you mention when it was with smaller territories before WWWF started monopolising these territories, following the boom of the 80's the WWE was dying on its feet before the WCW arrived. Since the WWE bought them out they have been on a gradual slide for the last decade.


The amount of times WWE has been in dire financial straits is remarkable. Sure McMahon has always pulled through, but it's been close. And you're right - wrestling was seen as a national past-time. The small hall shows that kept the sport alive, built wrestlers careers and gave them a path on the way down have largely evaporated.


----------



## Jack Dempsey (Jun 4, 2013)

Boxing is a business

you dont get what you deserve you get what you negotiate

You want loyalty? buy a dog

Adios


----------



## Jakemilo (Nov 12, 2012)

Just imagine Prizefighter the Heavyweights 10 £14.99 this couldn't happen without ppv


----------



## Lazarus (Jun 2, 2012)

Scorpio78 said:


> *This May b irrelevant but all of the smiths twitter accounts got the blue ticks yesterday .
> All the main matchroom boxers have this status
> *
> Joe g has tweeted the termination link now as well


:rofl COME ON MAN. Seriously?


----------



## Scorpio78 (Jun 10, 2012)

Lazarus said:


> :rofl COME ON MAN. Seriously?


Lol


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2013)

Stunkie said:


> Monopolies are completely ineffective that is simple economics that's why we have a monopolies commission.





dftaylor said:


> There has never, ever been a time when a monopoly has benefited the consumer or, in fact, the industry in question.


I never said I wanted a monopoly. I just said I preferred a to have one good promoter than to have one good promoter and 3-4 bad ones. Also Hearn is nowhere near close to having a monopoly especially when you consider boxing is a global sport. Pretty sure Warren has a period where he was the No.1 promoter and nobody really came close for well over a decade and during that period he has exclusive TV deals with various companies.

If a monopoly commission was to investigate just British boxing specifically they wouldn't even spend 5 minutes reviewing it before putting the case in the bin and they would probably be annoyed at whoever brought it to there attention.



Stunkie said:


> Whether WWE is sport or not is immaterial, Eddie ain't running a sport Rob he is running a business. Your own comments about wrestling actually support the belief that monopolies are ineffectual. Wrestling was actually more popular in the decades that you mention when it was with smaller territories before WWWF started monopolising these territories, following the boom of the 80's the WWE was dying on its feet before the WCW arrived. Since the WWE bought them out they have been on a gradual slide for the last decade.


Can you actually back this up with facts and figures?



dftaylor said:


> The amount of times WWE has been in dire financial straits is remarkable. Sure McMahon has always pulled through, but it's been close. And you're right - wrestling was seen as a national past-time. The small hall shows that kept the sport alive, built wrestlers careers and gave them a path on the way down have largely evaporated.


Really? how many times? I had a uni lecturer that was obsessed with Wrestling and he used to use McMhaon as an example for so much. There were only 3 times I can specifically remember that his company was in serious financial trouble. I wouldn't class that as remarkable for a 40 year career.

But that doesn't mean wrestling is less or more popular. Also theres small hall wrestling shows all over the world every week and most of them benefit from popularity of the WWE.

I actually work with the WWE via my job and I based on seeing some if there royalty statements for wrestlers I question whether you can question the popularity. One T Shirt for a mid card wrestler in a country like Georgia will be generating $100k a month no problem. Its unreal how popular they are.


----------



## Stunkie (Jun 4, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> If a monopoly commission was to investigate just British boxing specifically they wouldn't even spend 5 minutes reviewing it before putting the case in the bin and they would probably be annoyed at whoever brought it to there attention.


Who said anything about the monopolies commission investigating boxing? :lol:



robpalmer135 said:


> Can you actually back this up with facts and figures?


If I could be bothered to go find that info for you then yes I could easily back that up, but because I have a life I shall not be doing so. It is a well known fact and anyone with any knowledge of the wrestling industry knows that, clearly you don't.



robpalmer135 said:


> I actually work with the WWE via my job and I based on seeing some if there royalty statements for wrestlers I question whether you can question the popularity. *One T Shirt for a mid card wrestler in a country like Georgia will be generating $100k a month no problem.* Its unreal how popular they are.


What utter bollocks Rob, however feel free to disprove my theory that you have just made a number up in you head by providing some facts and figures, I know you don't have a life so it should not be too much trouble for you.


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2013)

Stunkie said:


> Who said anything about the monopolies commission investigating boxing? :lol
> 
> If I could be bothered to go find that info for you then yes I could easily back that up, but because I have a life I shall not be doing so. It is a well known fact and anyone with any knowledge of the wrestling industry knows that, clearly you don't.
> 
> What utter bollocks Rob, however feel free to disprove my theory that you have just made a number up in you head by providing some facts and figures, I know you don't have a life so it should not be too much trouble for you.


You were the one that said they have a monopoly commission to stop monopoly. I was stating that Hearn doesn't have a monopoly so its pointless discussing it. Its also worth noting that in true economic terms the WWE does not have a monopoly.

What utter bollocks Stunkie, however feel free to disprove my theory that you have just made up that wrestling is less popular in your head by providing some facts and figures, I know you don't have a life so it should not be too much trouble for you.

How exactly do you expect me to prove this? By the way I meant to say state and not country. It would only take about 4000 t shirts to generate 100k by the way.


----------



## BoltonTerrier (Jun 12, 2013)

Frank has had his response... Surprise Surprise he isnt acknowledging the split...:

http://www.boxingscene.com/stephen-smith-claims-frank-warren-split-denial-issued--70254


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2013)

BoltonTerrier said:


> Frank has had his response... Surprise Surprise he isnt acknowledging the split...:
> 
> http://www.boxingscene.com/stephen-smith-claims-frank-warren-split-denial-issued--70254


He did the same with Bellew, DeGale & Burns. They all ended up boxing elsewhere and only DeGale had to pay out a fee.


----------



## Stunkie (Jun 4, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> You were the one that said they have a monopoly commission to stop monopoly. I was stating that Hearn doesn't have a monopoly so its pointless discussing it. Its also worth noting that in true economic terms the WWE does not have a monopoly.


Would you care to elaborate on this, or are you just trolling now?



robpalmer135 said:


> What utter bollocks Stunkie, however feel free to disprove my theory that you have just made up that wrestling is less popular in your head by providing some facts and figures, I know you don't have a life so it should not be too much trouble for you.


Definitely trolling now



robpalmer135 said:


> *How exactly do you expect me to prove this?* By the way I meant to say state and not country. It would only take about 4000 t shirts to generate 100k by the way.


1) Your Rob Palmer surely a simple request like this should be all in a days work for you 2) A breakdown of monthly merchandise figures including those for individual wrestlers are readily available on-line so feel free to disprove my theory that your talking bollocks.


----------



## tdw (Jun 6, 2012)

I think Rob means WWE aren't strictly a monopoly because 1) there was a perfectly viable other company in WCW that went out of business. That wasn't WWE's fault. They then purchased them because Bischoff couldn't get a TV deal elsewhere and without TV it was worthless to him. 2) TNA (as much of a mess as they are) exists with significant TV. WWE isn't stopping anyone else from running a wrestling company just like Matchroom aren't stopping anyone else promoting boxing


----------



## Stunkie (Jun 4, 2013)

tdw said:


> I think Rob means WWE aren't strictly a monopoly because 1) there was a perfectly viable other company in WCW that went out of business. That wasn't WWE's fault. They then purchased them because Bischoff couldn't get a TV deal elsewhere and without TV it was worthless to him. 2) TNA (as much of a mess as they are) exists with significant TV. WWE isn't stopping anyone else from running a wrestling company just like Matchroom aren't stopping anyone else promoting boxing


Without wishing to continue a debate about WWE in a thread about Stephen Smith, WWE do have a monopoly just because they are not the only players in town does not mean they do not have a monopoly as TNA are in no way a viable alternative and as such if Hearn existed without Warren and only small players such as Coldwell then Hearn would have a monopoly on the British boxing scene.


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2013)

Stunkie said:


> Would you care to elaborate on this, or are you just trolling now?





Stunkie said:


> Without wishing to continue a debate about WWE in a thread about Stephen Smith, WWE do have a monopoly just because they are not the only players in town does not mean they do not have a monopoly as TNA are in no way a viable alternative and as such if Hearn existed without Warren and only small players such as Coldwell then Hearn would have a monopoly on the British boxing scene.


No they don't. You do not understand what a monopoly is. A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity. Even if you are basing this on just the US market, you have TNA, Ring of Honor and a ton of other smaller companies. WWE may have a significant market share, but they are not the only supplier of wrestling to arenas and tv companies so its not a monopoly.



Stunkie said:


> Definitely trolling now


I asked you to provide some facts that Wrestling is less popular then it generally has been. You refused because your to busy living life. Expressing an opinion or stating something without backing it up, and then refusing is pretty much the definition of trolling.



Stunkie said:


> 1) Your Rob Palmer surely a simple request like this should be all in a days work for you 2) A breakdown of monthly merchandise figures including those for individual wrestlers are readily available on-line so feel free to disprove my theory that your talking bollocks.


1) Don't accuse someone of trolling and then troll yourself.
2) Please provide a link to these figures.


----------



## Stunkie (Jun 4, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> No they don't. You do not understand what a monopoly is. A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity. Even if you are basing this on just the US market, you have TNA, Ring of Honor and a ton of other smaller companies. WWE may have a significant market share, but they are not the only supplier of wrestling to arenas and tv companies so its not a monopoly.
> 
> I asked you to provide some facts that Wrestling is less popular then it generally has been. You refused because your to busy living life. Expressing an opinion or stating something without backing it up, and then refusing is pretty much the definition of trolling.
> 
> ...


Rob it is not my fault that you lack knowledge and understanding on this matter, you complain that I will not provide you with evidence yet fail to provide any of your own when asked. Anyone with even a modicum of insight in this field knows what the case is but if you want to believe that WWE has not monopolised the market that's fine you believe what you want, if you want to believe wrestling remains as popular and financially profitable today as it has ever been that's your choice, and if you want to not understand what constituents a monopoly suit yourself mate.

You can lead a horse to water....


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2013)

Stunkie said:


> Rob it is not my fault that you lack knowledge and understanding on this matter, you complain that I will not provide you with evidence yet fail to provide any of your own when asked. Anyone with even a modicum of insight in this field knows what the case is but if you want to believe that WWE has not monopolised the market that's fine you believe what you want, if you want to believe wrestling remains as popular and financially profitable today as it has ever been that's your choice, and if you want to not understand what constituents a monopoly suit yourself mate.
> 
> You can lead a horse to water....


I asked you to to give me an example of how I can validate my statement. What do you want me to show you? I am prepared to back up my statements, you are not even though you claim its so simple to do so. You have said you can prove your point on the internet so surely in the time you have typed your response you could have just gone onto google and found what you were looking for?

I never said this is the most profitable or popular period in wrestling history.

Please explain to me what a monopoly is and why the WWE is one, and why my explanation of why they are not one is false.


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2013)

Stunkie said:


> Without wishing to continue a debate about WWE in a thread about Stephen Smith, WWE do have a monopoly *just because they are not the only players in town does not mean they do not have a monopoly* as TNA are in no way a viable alternative and as such if Hearn existed without Warren and only small players such as Coldwell then Hearn would have a monopoly on the British boxing scene.


Except it does.


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2013)

tdw said:


> I think Rob means WWE aren't strictly a monopoly because 1) there was a perfectly viable other company in WCW that went out of business. That wasn't WWE's fault. They then purchased them because Bischoff couldn't get a TV deal elsewhere and without TV it was worthless to him. 2) TNA (as much of a mess as they are) exists with significant TV. WWE isn't stopping anyone else from running a wrestling company just like Matchroom aren't stopping anyone else promoting boxing


this


----------



## BoltonTerrier (Jun 12, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> I asked you to to give me an example of how I can validate my statement. What do you want me to show you? I am prepared to back up my statements, you are not even though you claim its so simple to do so. You have said you can prove your point on the internet so surely in the time you have typed your response you could have just gone onto google and found what you were looking for?
> 
> I never said this is the most profitable or popular period in wrestling history.
> 
> Please explain to me what a monopoly is and why the WWE is one, and why my explanation of why they are not one is false.


I dont know why im getting involved in this but here goes.. The true definition of a monopoly is a single entity/co. owning all the market. However anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that this also refers to a company that owns almost all of the market. For instance 10 years ago when BT ran 99% of the telephone systems in the UK they were always known as a monopoly when in reality other providers were available. See also Microsoft being regulated by the anti Monopoly commisions a few years ago when they werent the only OS on the market.

By business law a monopoly occurs if a firm has a market share of 25%.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp


----------



## sim_reiss (Jun 6, 2012)

Primadonna Kool said:


> When you say Eddie Hearn looks after fighters and Warren does not? How do you work that one out?
> 
> Eddie Hearn only bothers or focuses on fighters who are? Clearly on a upward rise. Frank Warren sticks by his fighters through tough times, whether they win and lose! Look at what he done for *Paul Smith*, Enzo Mac, Chisora of late! And then? You can look back and see what he did for Bruno, and Danny Williams.
> 
> Eddie Hearn just becomes mates with people who are winning, and when there not? He's a sales man, he will fuck off.


Frank sticks by fighters only when there's a return involved, but so do all promoters so that's not really grounds for praise or criticism. He's done a good job of getting Del Boy focused and dedicated. It's not a skill Edward has displayed yet...

The Paul Smith example is a bit curious though. He fed him to DeGale then Groves, got him one fight in 18 months and defaulted on the purse bid for the Dodson fight? :huh


----------



## sim_reiss (Jun 6, 2012)

Stunkie said:


> Monopolies are completely ineffective that is simple economics that's why we have a monopolies commission.





dftaylor said:


> There has never, ever been a time when a monopoly has benefited the consumer or, in fact, the industry in question.


atsch


----------



## Stunkie (Jun 4, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Except it does.


atsch for the love of god you are the gift that keeps on giving


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2013)

BoltonTerrier said:


> I dont know why im getting involved in this but here goes.. The true definition of a monopoly is a single entity/co. owning all the market. However anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that this also refers to a company that owns almost all of the market. For instance 10 years ago when BT ran 99% of the telephone systems in the UK they were always known as a monopoly when in reality other providers were available. See also Microsoft being regulated by the anti Monopoly commisions a few years ago when they werent the only OS on the market.
> 
> By business law a monopoly occurs if a firm has a market share of 25%.
> 
> http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp


As I said, the agency that looked into Microsoft wouldn't even look twice at the WWE and Matchroom.

Hearn does a better job for fighters, the broadcaster and the fan and thats why he is the top boy right now.


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2013)

Stunkie said:


> atsch for the love of god you are the gift that keeps on giving


Prove that Wrestling is less poplar than it was in the 60s and 70s as you claim. Until then STFU.


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2013)

sim_reiss said:


> Frank sticks by fighters only when there's a return involved, but so do all promoters so that's not really grounds for praise or criticism. He's done a good job of getting Del Boy focused and dedicated. It's not a skill Edward has displayed yet...
> 
> The Paul Smith example is a bit curious though. He fed him to DeGale then Groves, got him one fight in 18 months and defaulted on the purse bid for the Dodson fight? :huh


I would give the credit for getting Del Boy focused to Don Charles and his family....and Del Boy himself.

With Paul Smith, I don't think he was fed to DeGale or Groves. Based on his experience Smith should have won both fights, then he got injured. Paul Smith is just shit...and a dick.


----------



## BoltonTerrier (Jun 12, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> As I said, the agency that looked into Microsoft wouldn't even look twice at the WWE and Matchroom.
> 
> Hearn does a better job for fighters, the broadcaster and the fan and thats why he is the top boy right now.


I dont have a problem with Hearn having a monopoly in the UK. Im a fan of his as a promoter and as a person. Spoke to him on a fair few occasions at shows and hes always been spot on. I was just trying to get Stunkies Monopoly point across..


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2013)

BoltonTerrier said:


> I dont have a problem with Hearn having a monopoly in the UK. Im a fan of his as a promoter and as a person. Spoke to him on a fair few occasions at shows and hes always been spot on. I was just trying to get Stunkies Monopoly point across..


I can see why someone would call WWE a monopoly even though I would personally disagree and everything I have been taught tells me its not. But its not a valid example because its not a sport and I don't think Hearn is close.

I do think boxing is in a better place with him as the dominant force rather than Frank Warren.


----------



## Stunkie (Jun 4, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Prove that Wrestling is less poplar than it was in the 60s and 70s as you claim. Until then STFU.


If you are so desperate to know Rob go research it yourself however that obviously won't happen so just continue stick your head in the sand and believe erroneously what you want, why change the habit of a lifetime.


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2013)

Stunkie said:


> If you are so desperate to know Rob go research it yourself however that obviously won't happen so just continue stick your head in the sand and believe erroneously what you want, why change the habit of a lifetime.


I have done. Aside from some peaks in the late 80s/early 90s and late 90s/ealy 00s wrestling is significantly more popular than in any other era even with just one company dominating.


----------



## Stunkie (Jun 4, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> I have done. Aside from some peaks in the late 80s/early 90s and late 90s/ealy 00s wrestling is significantly more popular than in any other era even with just one company dominating.


That's as ridiculous as saying the Heavyweight division is now stronger than in any other era...


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2013)

Stunkie said:


> That's as ridiculous as saying the Heavyweight division is now stronger than in any other era...


Prove me wrong!


----------



## Scorpio78 (Jun 10, 2012)

Rob before you got married you got back to being a good poster
Now post honeymoon you are back to your worst days at esb


----------



## Stunkie (Jun 4, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Prove me wrong!


Rob you know your wrong, I see that you quickly dropped the monopoly issue then since @BoltonTerrier kindly destroyed your argument I was content for you to continue to look stupid as I am now.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

BoltonTerrier said:


> I dont have a problem with Hearn having a monopoly in the UK. Im a fan of his as a promoter and as a person. Spoke to him on a fair few occasions at shows and hes always been spot on. I was just trying to get Stunkies Monopoly point across..


You you spoke to to Eddie Hearn face to face.

Oh my god,oh my god,is he as fit in real life as he is on sky.


----------



## BoltonTerrier (Jun 12, 2013)

One to watch said:


> You you spoke to to Eddie Hearn face to face.
> 
> Oh my god,oh my god,is he as fit in real life as he is on sky.


Fitter...


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2013)

Scorpio78 said:


> Rob before you got married you got back to being a good poster
> Now post honeymoon you are back to your worst days at esb


how so


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Going back to wrestling in the 1970s and before that, it's unfair to say that it wasn't a monopoly because even though there were a number of different companies, the way the business worked meant that each promoter had a monopoly of his area. There was no national TV, so the fans only had access to one company throughout the year except from one or two NWA shows, which would tour America and the rest of the world. However, aside from those two shows, all the TV and all the live shows would be run by one single promoter, so whilst there wasn't a monopoly on a national level, there was on a state level and that's what really matters because the fans only had access to a product within their own state. A fan living in Florida wouldn't have access to what Stu Hart was putting on in Canada or what was happening in New York, because the TV contracts meant that each state had their own wrestling company and that was it.

Also, when talking about how competition helped wrestling thrive, it wasn't so much about competition itself but the quality of wrestling being put on. There was competition from 1992-1997 yet nobody really cared about wrestling during that period because the product was terrible, so it's not like competition itself makes things interesting. WWF and WCW were neck and neck during that period yet nobody cared because both companies were putting on terrible shows. If the WWE suddenly had a better roster and better writers, the product would become popular overnight because that lack of talent is the reason why it's not drawing big money right now, not because there isn't any competition. Competition helps, yes, but it's not a vital ingredient.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

BoltonTerrier said:


> Fitter...


Thanks.

He actually seems a top bloke,looks after his fighters as has been mentioned and is a great figurehead considering his charm and blarney.

I just don't get the man crush thing that some posters have,but hey it's a big wide world.they can do what they want.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

Oh yeah and wrestling is shit and embarrassing.

I loved it until my brother told me it wasn't real.i looked at it with new eyes like a young boy being told Santa Claus isn't real.

It hurt I admit but then I came to realise it was fucking shit.


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2013)

One to watch said:


> Oh yeah and wrestling is shit and embarrassing.
> 
> I loved it until my brother told me it wasn't real.i looked at it with new eyes like a young boy being told Santa Claus isn't real.
> 
> It hurt I admit but then I came to realise it was fucking shit.


Ninja Turtles isn't real. Still fucking sick.


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2013)

Jack said:


> Going back to wrestling in the 1970s and before that, it's unfair to say that it wasn't a monopoly because even though there were a number of different companies, the way the business worked meant that each promoter had a monopoly of his area. There was no national TV, so the fans only had access to one company throughout the year except from one or two NWA shows, which would tour America and the rest of the world. However, aside from those two shows, all the TV and all the live shows would be run by one single promoter, so whilst there wasn't a monopoly on a national level, there was on a state level and that's what really matters because the fans only had access to a product within their own state. A fan living in Florida wouldn't have access to what Stu Hart was putting on in Canada or what was happening in New York, because the TV contracts meant that each state had their own wrestling company and that was it.
> 
> Also, when talking about how competition helped wrestling thrive, it wasn't so much about competition itself but the quality of wrestling being put on. There was competition from 1992-1997 yet nobody really cared about wrestling during that period because the product was terrible, so it's not like competition itself makes things interesting. WWF and WCW were neck and neck during that period yet nobody cared because both companies were putting on terrible shows. If the WWE suddenly had a better roster and better writers, the product would become popular overnight because that lack of talent is the reason why it's not drawing big money right now, not because there isn't any competition. Competition helps, yes, but it's not a vital ingredient.


The point they are trying to make is that due to lack of competition there is no incentive to improve the product and hire better writers. I accept among young adults wrestling popularity has dropped but its huge among kids and I still think attendances and viewing figures are considerably higher than most periods.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Yeah, wrestling is huge at the moment. It might not be as big as it was from 1998-2000 but it's still a profitable industry. The product might not suit all fans, and it doesn't suit me, but it's clearly very successful, as proven by the profit the company makes each year.


----------



## tdw (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> The point they are trying to make is that due to lack of competition there is no incentive to improve the product and hire better writers. I accept among young adults wrestling popularity has dropped but its huge among kids and I still think attendances and viewing figures are considerably higher than most periods.


I think you're wrong on this mate. You can spin things a lot of different ways but in general WWE numbers are in slight decline over the last few years. IN terms of now compared to 20, 30, 40 years ago, WWE turns over way more money as a global promotion but FAR more people were watching and attending wrestling in the earlier periods. They were just spread out over different promotions. WWE can go and run a market 1-3 times a year whereas back then people could run the same market 1-3 times a month.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

sim_reiss said:


> atsch


Please tell me the times that has been the case, in the long-term, for either the industry or consumers?


----------



## sim_reiss (Jun 6, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> Please tell me the times that has been the case, in the long-term, for either the industry or consumers?


Public utilities is the bread and butter example you'll find in most economics textbooks of an industry with conditions that suit a natural monopoly...


----------



## Jack Dempsey (Jun 4, 2013)

With regards to a monopoly, I can see how in most cases this is deemed a bad thing, presently we dont have it over here (Warren/Hearn) or in America (Arum/Golden Boy) and because of playground level hissy fits the fighters from either stables rarely, if ever, fight each other

So in that respect maybe a monopoly would at least remove this sort of obstacle from stopping us fans seeing the best match ups in the sport? either that or the promoters all learn to get along? whats more likely?


----------



## Stunkie (Jun 4, 2013)

sim_reiss said:


> Public utilities is the bread and butter example you'll find in most economics textbooks of an industry with conditions that suit a natural monopoly...


Give me a free market economy any day of the week.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

sim_reiss said:


> Public utilities is the bread and butter example you'll find in most economics textbooks of an industry with conditions that suit a natural monopoly...


Do you mean public services, like the mail, or things like electricity, water, etc?


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

Jack Dempsey said:


> With regards to a monopoly, I can see how in most cases this is deemed a bad thing, presently we dont have it over here (Warren/Hearn) or in America (Arum/Golden Boy) and because of playground level hissy fits the fighters from either stables rarely, if ever, fight each other
> 
> So in that respect maybe a monopoly would at least remove this sort of obstacle from stopping us fans seeing the best match ups in the sport? either that or the promoters all learn to get along? whats more likely?


This is the main advantage to a monopoly.


----------



## sim_reiss (Jun 6, 2012)

Stunkie said:


> Give me a free market economy any day of the week.


So monopolies are always bad but a free market economy where nothing is done to stop them developing is good?


----------



## sim_reiss (Jun 6, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> Do you mean public services, like the mail, or things like electricity, water, etc?


http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Business_economics/Natural_monopolies.html

This is a straightforward description of what I'm talking about. Obviously it has limited relevance to the issue at hand i.e. British boxing but you made quite an all-encompassing statement which I took issue with...


----------



## Stunkie (Jun 4, 2013)

sim_reiss said:


> So monopolies are always bad but a free market economy where nothing is done to stop them developing is good?


I subscribe to the theory that monopolies are not beneficial however do not agree with the often held criticism that a free market only creates greedy monopolies.


----------



## sim_reiss (Jun 6, 2012)

Stunkie said:


> I subscribe to the theory that monopolies are not beneficial however do not agree with the often held criticism that a free market only creates greedy monopolies.


I'll make this my last post on the subject:

Monopolies are often not beneficial, but not always. Some industries depend on a monopoly structure for existence.

A free market economy doesn't always mean greedy monopolies in every/any industry. However when monopolies do occur in a particular industry/market in a free market economy, it does nothing to prevent/stop them (i.e. regulate). There are plenty of industries where oligopolies/monopolies will occur without regulation. That's the reason we have the competition commission (not the "monopolies commission"). It's not a criticism to agree or disagree with, it is something that has manifested itself in the real world.

In sum. In a free market economy, monopolies will occur in certain industries unnecessarily. So being pro the former and con the latter is illogical.

You don't have a grasp of simple economics. I have suspect you are trolling me in which instance well done because you've managed to get me posting about economics on a Saturday rather than Monday to Friday...

Note: I've re-edited this post to clarify my remarks rather than post again as I said I wouldn't.


----------



## Stunkie (Jun 4, 2013)

sim_reiss said:


> I'll make this my last post on the subject:
> 
> Monopolies are often not beneficial, but not always. Some industries depend on a monopoly structure for existence.
> 
> ...


How am I trolling you? It seems that it is the other way round but I will bite anyway.

You admit that a free market economy does not create monopolies yet complain that it does nothing to stop them? Stop what it does not create? Yet according to you believing in a free market but being against monopolies is not possible?

Don't have a grasp of simple economics? Pot and Kettle.


----------



## sim_reiss (Jun 6, 2012)

Stunkie said:


> Don't have a grasp of simple economics? Pot and Kettle.


Teapot:
BSc Economics University of York
MSc Economics University of Leeds (Postgraduate distinction)

Kettle:
?


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2013)

Stunkie said:


> Give me a free market economy any day of the week.


This. The strongest survive.


----------



## Libertarian (Jun 2, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> Do you mean public services, like the mail, or things like electricity, water, etc?


These are industries that should have always remained under government control.

But no, they sold it all off for a few lousy bob in the name of progress, when all that's happened is that the consumer gets ripped off, and shareholder profits rocket.


----------



## Stunkie (Jun 4, 2013)

sim_reiss said:


> Teapot:
> BSc Economics University of York
> MSc Economics University of Leeds (Postgraduate distinction)
> 
> ...


Thought you had made your last post on the subject? :lol:

Kettle:

BSc Economic and Social History from Glasgow University

I don't have a Masters (I congratulate you on that) but I do have a Nursing degree following a career change. So now that we have played this is your life can I now be aloud to believe in a free market but not monopolies?


----------



## Libertarian (Jun 2, 2012)

Free markets can sometimes create cartels, or if we are being correct, oligopolies.

Look at soap powder for instance. How many brands of it are out there? Loads.

But only two main manufacturers - Proctor & Gamble, and Unilever.

I'm generally in favour of free markets, and less intervention, but the 20 year experiment that has been a free energy market has been an unqualified disaster, as has been the deregulation of the banking sector.

The only rule that should apply is common sense. We often take the piss out of the Americans and their healthcare system that is designed to maximise profit. We've got exactly the same thing, whenever we turn the lights on we are lining the pockets of shareholders, which must be wrong.


----------



## JamieC (Jun 2, 2012)

Farage said:


> Free markets can sometimes create cartels, or if we are being correct, oligopolies.
> 
> Look at soap powder for instance. How many brands of it are out there? Loads.
> 
> ...


Im struggling to match these views with your apparent support for UKIP if im honest mate, Farage is a free marketeer is he not?


----------



## Libertarian (Jun 2, 2012)

He is, and so am I, in most respects.

However, the energy sector is like the health service for me, in the sense that I consider it a basic right of modern society to have cheap, affordable energy.... at the minute it's a fucking con. 

I also disagree with their views on renewable energy too, to an extent. I'm not a fan of wind turbines because they are expensive, inefficient and look fucking awful, but hydro power is something that could be used to great effect across the country, and I'm also quite clued up in respect of heat pumps, ground source, air source and water source.... all of which are affordable and work well. The key to green energy lies in micro generation by individuals rather than wind farms, solar farms and other bollocks like that.

I think Farage is great personally, but Camoron could quite easily silence UKIP by offering a referendum in 2014. I'm honest enough to admit that. By delaying it hes giving them the chance to establish themselves as a genuine force.... and it's gathering real momentum. It's all his own fault, the retarded champagne socialist!


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2013)

Farage said:


> He is, and so am I, in most respects.
> 
> However, the energy sector is like the health service for me, in the sense that I consider it a basic right of modern society to have cheap, affordable energy.... at the minute it's a fucking con.
> 
> ...


Would you class the NHS as cheap?

Yeh my electricity, gas and water bill in the US is about $30 a month and I have my air condition running 24/7. Prices in the UK are ridiculous.

didnt cameron offer a referendum in 2010???


----------

