# Froch v Groves is on!



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

:bbb

"@EddieHearn: It's on people! @Carl_Froch v @StGeorgeGroves is done! Full ticket and venue details in the next fortnight - get ready! #battleofbritain"

So no real announcement for another two weeks..


----------



## Gary Barlow (Jun 6, 2012)

Groves beats Froch


----------



## Wallet (May 31, 2012)

Eddie Hearn ‏@EddieHearn 1m
It's on people! @Carl_Froch v @StGeorgeGroves is done! Full ticket and venue details in the next fortnight - get ready! #battleofbritain


What a pointless announcement.


----------



## kingkodi (Jun 20, 2012)

Roe said:


> :bbb


Any details on date / venue?


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

Froch TKO.

Groves can bang but his chin is suspect. He was knocked down and almost stopped by Kenny Anderson, stunned by Paul Smith and really wobbled by DeGale, none of whom are as heavy handed as Froch. George will want a firefight and it'll be his downfall.


----------



## kingkodi (Jun 20, 2012)

Wallet said:


> Eddie Hearn ‏@EddieHearn 1m
> It's on people! @Carl_Froch v @StGeorgeGroves is done! Full ticket and venue details in the next fortnight - get ready! #battleofbritain
> 
> What a pointless announcement.


Guess not.


----------



## jonnytightlips (Jun 14, 2012)

Both of them on Sky Sports News now. 

War Groves!!!


----------



## kingkodi (Jun 20, 2012)

Gary Barlow said:


> Groves beats Froch


No chance.


----------



## jonnytightlips (Jun 14, 2012)

Froch reckons its on November 23rd.


----------



## Ishy (Jun 2, 2012)

jonnytightlips said:


> Froch reckons its on November 23rd.


Manchester Arena on that date apparently.


----------



## DynamiteDan (Jul 18, 2013)

Froch will stop Groves early


----------



## BHAFC (Jun 6, 2013)

Froch stops Groves


----------



## CamR21 (Jun 6, 2012)

Lack of experience will harm Groves here and his chin is very poor IMO. Once Froch lands Groves is in trouble


----------



## CamR21 (Jun 6, 2012)

Froch just said it will be on PPV! Oh dear:lol:


----------



## Scorpio78 (Jun 10, 2012)

Carl just said it ppv


----------



## Ishy (Jun 2, 2012)

Froch said it's PPV :think

Fancy Groves' chances here.


----------



## WhoDatNation (Jun 10, 2013)

Good banter from Froch, tried to be humble but now full on cocky Froch

On himself: "Top five pound for pound in the world"

On Adam Booth: "A master tactician, as he calls himself"

On PPV: "It's on Pay Per View"


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

:lol: at Froch letting the pay per view thing slip.


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

PPV :lol:


----------



## CamR21 (Jun 6, 2012)

Can't believe so many people are tipping Groves for success


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Any mention of PPV?

Edit just seen. :verysad


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

One off my fucking arse, 3 PPV's in 6 months this will be. Fuck off Matchroom. Not to mention that the Sky Sports fee just went up by an £2 a month. Scam artists.


----------



## Hook! (Jun 8, 2012)

fuck yeahhhhhhh!


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

PPV?
Good job Hearny Bob. Could as well make Crolla vs Burns PPV too.


----------



## WhoDatNation (Jun 10, 2013)

Bill said:


> Any mention of PPV?


:rofl Eddie will be raging, probably the only thing he told Carl was "Don't mention PPV, I'll need a few weeks to sell it yet"

He fucking loves himself

"2 Smooth Booth" :rofl

George Groves: "There is no blueprint"


----------



## Ishy (Jun 2, 2012)

:rofl

Groves: "There's no blueprint to beating me"

Slick and ginger.


----------



## Roy Jones Jr's Jab (Jun 4, 2013)

Feel this has come a little too soon for Groves I still feel he needs another fight at World level.

With that said I wouldn't be too surprised If Groves beat Froch but I expect Froch to win.


----------



## icemax (Jun 5, 2012)

CamR21 said:


> Froch just said it will be on PPV! Oh dear:lol:


I guess Groves must be making multi-million £ purse demands for it to be on PPV....obviously its the only way to get the fight on :deal


----------



## sim_reiss (Jun 6, 2012)

NO blueprint...


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

So like I thought, all that talk of ''It might not be PPV'' from some quarters, it turns out, it is. :lol:


----------



## avo (Jun 4, 2013)

he hasn't mentioned being a warrior yet :think


----------



## CamR21 (Jun 6, 2012)

Eddie "PPV" Hearn :deal


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Bill said:


> Any mention of PPV?
> 
> Edit just seen. :verysad


Its the only way the fight could have been made, mate.


----------



## Hook! (Jun 8, 2012)

Nothing wrong with this being PPV.


----------



## jonnytightlips (Jun 14, 2012)

Groves can beat Froch.


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

As much as I like Groves, I won't be buying this.

Can't support PPV for relatively average fights.


----------



## MarkoRaj (Jul 13, 2013)

What would make an acceptable undercard then. Didn't Hearn say that the only way this could be PPV would be with a stacked card? Interested to see what that looks like. I'd imagine maybe a couple of quarter finals of the lightweight tourney + Bellew in a final final eliminator


----------



## CamR21 (Jun 6, 2012)

icemax said:


> I guess Groves must be making multi-million £ purse demands for it to be on PPV....obviously its the only way to get the fight on :deal


No way the fight can be made without PPV :deal. It's not the fighter that makes PPV its the fight :deal


----------



## Ishy (Jun 2, 2012)

All depends on how Groves' cheeen holds up.


----------



## WhoDatNation (Jun 10, 2013)

This has been quality, Groves has come across really well. 

Best line from Froch overall has been: "You better not move around the ring" :rofl, slick and Ginger should just stay on the ropes and make it easy for Carl.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

GazOC said:


> Its the only way the fight could have been made, mate.


I know but In the words of Robert Palmer, ''it's a superfight'' so we should all be grateful I guess.


----------



## malt vinegar (Jun 5, 2013)

i was more surprised there was talk of it not being on ppv

3 ppvs in 6 months the flood gates have opened hahaha

hearn loves drip feeding the information out announcement after announcement


----------



## BHAFC (Jun 6, 2013)

I can't believe no one has mentioned that warrior statue behind Froch :rofl


----------



## Wallet (May 31, 2012)

Casual Eddie. :deal


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

MarkoRaj said:


> What would make an acceptable undercard then. Didn't Hearn say that the only way this could be PPV would be with a stacked card? Interested to see what that looks like. I'd imagine maybe a couple of quarter finals of the lightweight tourney + Bellew in a final final eliminator


It clashes with the Norway-Italy Under 19s Netball game. Doesn't make financial sense for Hearn to stack the undercard.


----------



## Pecsaetan (Jun 7, 2012)

No doubt Booth & Co will come up with the usual sort of suck the fun out of it tactics.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Bill said:


> I know but In the words of Robert Palmer, ''it's a superfight'' so we should all be grateful I guess.


Anyone who still thinks Hearn is any different from all the other boxing promoters out there wants their heads testing.


----------



## onourway (May 19, 2013)

Froch asking Groves to come and fight is like pissing in the wind.

Groves is going to get his bike back out, the one he used in the DeGale fight.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

GazOC said:


> It clashes with the Norway-Italy Under 19s Netball game. Doesn't make financial sense for Hearn to stack the undercard.


:rofl


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

Seriously: Hearn is getting closer and closer to the New Zealand standard of PPVs.


----------



## kingkodi (Jun 20, 2012)

All I can say is the card better be stacked or this is bollocks. suspect we're going to see Groves in full on bicycle mode in this fight which won't make for an exciting spectacle.


----------



## Lilo (Jun 4, 2012)

I reckon Burns, Quigg or McDonnell will be on the undercard like


----------



## Franco AFC (Jun 6, 2013)

Carl 'Premier League' Froch. George '1st Division' Groves.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

GazOC said:


> Anyone who still thinks Hearn is any different from all the other boxing promoters out there wants their heads testing.


It seems that Eddie has gone out of his way to not only stick two fingers up at his detractors, he's stuck two fingers up at his supporters, he's definitely like every other promoter.


----------



## sim_reiss (Jun 6, 2012)

Fucking hell just realized if it's in Manchester on PPV that probably means Burns-Crolla on the undercard

:rolleyes


----------



## shaunster101 (Jun 3, 2012)

GazOC said:


> Anyone who still thinks Hearn is any different from all the other boxing promoters out there wants their heads testing.


Not true.

Other promoters like their cash in legal tender.

Eddie likes his in pound notes.


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

sim_reiss said:


> Fucking hell just realized if it's in Manchester on PPV that probably means *Burns-Crolla* on the undercard
> 
> :rolleyes


 Certainly worth PPV now...


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

sim_reiss said:


> Fucking hell just realized if it's in Manchester on PPV that probably means Burns-Crolla on the undercard
> 
> :rolleyes


Nah. That'll be it's own pay per view event.


----------



## Earl-Hickey (Jul 26, 2012)

Groves will run all night and try to nick a decision.

I'm expecting it to look a bit like the Dirrell fight, but Groves is nowhere near as slick and will get clipped and taken out around 4-5 after a very boring few early rounds


----------



## The Chemist (Jun 14, 2013)

Untill boxing gets more viewing figures and then sky pay more per show these fights will be on PPV. It needs a good undercard though.


----------



## kingkodi (Jun 20, 2012)

See Groves' already in training


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

sim_reiss said:


> Fucking hell just realized if it's in Manchester on PPV that probably means Burns-Crolla on the undercard
> 
> :rolleyes


Stick Mcdonell vs Ashley Sexton on the undercard and it's a dream night.


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

"Promoter Eddie Hearn says fans can expect an exciting night of boxing with a packed undercard when full details of the fight are released."

There you go then, it's gonna have a packed undercard.


----------



## kingkodi (Jun 20, 2012)

Roe said:


> "Promoter Eddie Hearn says fans can expect an exciting night of boxing with a packed undercard when full details of the fight are released."
> 
> There you go then, it's gonna have a packed undercard.


:think I'm sure Eddie said that if Froch vs Kessler didn't have a stacked card it would be "taking the piss"........


----------



## sim_reiss (Jun 6, 2012)

Roe said:


> "Promoter Eddie Hearn says fans can expect an exciting night of boxing with a packed undercard when full details of the fight are released."
> 
> There you go then, it's gonna have a packed undercard.


What's bigger, packed or stacked?


----------



## Bryn (Jun 2, 2012)

This fight would be getting slated if it was on regular Sky, let alone on PPV.


----------



## shaunster101 (Jun 3, 2012)

This could be a hard sell on PPV after all the casuals have just wasted £15 watching Haye stop Fury in one or two rounds a few weeks earlier.


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

If anyone really hates what's happening then they won't waste their money on this crap. I'm not buying this fight or Haye vs Fury. It likely won't make a difference but at least my conscience or whatever is clear, I'm not supporting these bullshit scam artists.


----------



## BUMPY (Jul 26, 2012)

Who gives a fuck if its PPV or not.

Not seen much of Groves as he literally bores me to death, so I can't really say what I thinks going to happen, Froch to win obv


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

BUMPY said:


> Not seen much of Groves as he literally bores me to death


Literally.


----------



## Bryn (Jun 2, 2012)

BUMPY said:


> Who gives a fuck if its PPV or not.


Lots of people, which you would have realised if you'd have read any of the thread.


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

Is there ANY chance at all of them gettig Stevenson over to fight Bellew? Or is he making silly money fighting in Canada?


----------



## CamelCase (May 21, 2013)

Can't wait to get tickets for this one, pretty sure it will be at the o2.

WR FROCH!!!!


----------



## Stunkie (Jun 4, 2013)

Bill said:


> It seems that Eddie has gone out of his way to not only stick two fingers up at his detractors, he's stuck two fingers up at his supporters, he's definitely like every other promoter.


How can you say that about Eddie with his sharp suits, cheeky smile and gold halo?


----------



## Tywin (Jun 28, 2013)

Just rang up the office to complain. Rob Palmer put the phone down on me, I interrupted his wank.


----------



## BUMPY (Jul 26, 2012)

Bryn said:


> Lots of people, which you would have realised if you'd have read any of the thread.


lol never bother with that.


----------



## BUMPY (Jul 26, 2012)

I hope George Groves takes off that fucking hat of his or i'll turn up at the weigh in knock it off his head myself.


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

Grant said:


> Is there ANY chance at all of them gettig Stevenson over to fight Bellew? Or is he making silly money fighting in Canada?


I'd say it's unlikely he'll come over here at all, let alone for an undercard fight.


----------



## JohnH (May 22, 2013)

Roe said:


> :bbb
> 
> "@EddieHearn: It's on people! @Carl_Froch v @StGeorgeGroves is done! Full ticket and venue details in the next fortnight - get ready! #battleofbritain"
> 
> So no real announcement for another two weeks..


Both on SSN earlier. Going to be PPV by the look of it.


----------



## Stunkie (Jun 4, 2013)

PaulieMc said:


> One off my fucking arse, *3 PPV's in 6 months *this will be. Fuck off Matchroom. Not to mention that the Sky Sports fee just went up by an £2 a month. Scam artists.


But remember Eddie has nothing to do with Haye v Fury so that don't count so we should be directing all our PPV anger at the Dark Lord. :lol:


----------



## JohnAnthony (Jun 6, 2013)

Eddie Hearn "Show me how to make this fight without PPV"

It's a good fight but George Groves is not even close to being a big name in Boxing.

No way is this PPV worthy yet.


----------



## MarkoRaj (Jul 13, 2013)

Can't see me buying this one to be honest. I wouldn't mind PPV if it was the very best and there were still good world level fights on non-PPV throughout the year. What fights have Matchroom put on this year that have been one away from PPV? I can't think of any


----------



## Berliner (Jun 6, 2013)

JohnAnthony said:


> Eddie Hearn "Show me how to make this fight without PPV"
> 
> It's a good fight but George Groves is not even close to being a big name in Boxing.
> 
> No way is this PPV worthy yet.


 Of course it isnt. But Hearn will find a way to sell it. (if it is really PPV wich I cant believe)


----------



## shaunster101 (Jun 3, 2012)

Stunkie said:


> But remember Eddie has nothing to do with Haye v Fury so that don't count so we should be directing all our PPV anger at the Dark Lord. :lol:


Naaaaaaaa. Eddie wouldn't enter into a situation where a fighter's manager and/or trainer was also promoting or co-promoting his events. Ask Barry McGuigan about that.


----------



## Claypole (Jun 3, 2013)

Froch isn't PPV worthy on his own, he needs to be in against another big name or it's just completely taking the piss. 

To those that seem to think this fight couldn't be made if it wasn't PPV, fine, don't make the fight. This is just a fill in fight for Froch, and a payday for Groves.


----------



## JohnH (May 22, 2013)

Claypole said:


> Froch isn't PPV worthy on his own, he needs to be in against another big name or it's just completely taking the piss.
> 
> To those that seem to think this fight couldn't be made if it wasn't PPV, fine, don't make the fight.
> 
> *This is just a fill in fight for Froch, and a payday for Groves.*


My thoughts too.


----------



## Stunkie (Jun 4, 2013)

shaunster101 said:


> Naaaaaaaa. Eddie wouldn't enter into a situation where a fighter's manager and/or trainer was also promoting or co-promoting his events. Ask Barry McGuigan about that.


Of course he would this is saint Eddie "the robin hood of boxing" we are talking about here


----------



## EvianMcGirt (Jun 9, 2013)

Just seen them on SSN. 

Someone buy Groves a bottle of Factor 50, he won't make it through the summer at this rate, his face was redder than Kate Middleton's bedsheets.


----------



## Claypole (Jun 3, 2013)

How about making Groves earn himself a shot at Froch, by beating Bute, or someone of similar credentials? He's only getting this shot because of the domestic angle...


----------



## BUMPY (Jul 26, 2012)

PPV extravaganza arty


----------



## Franco AFC (Jun 6, 2013)

Is this why Groves went to matchroom?


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

To put this on ppv is pure greed.

Kessler had a big purse and Froch wanted to avenge his loss so I understood why Kessler came at a premium and gave Hearn the benefit of the doubt on that one.

The undercard would have to be huge for this and I think the fans definition of what is acceptable and Eddie's are two wildly different things.

Not holding out a great deal of hope at the minute because Barker fights in Aug, Brook, Ryder, Ochieng, Burns and Quigg are scheduled to fight in Sept and Bellew will be due his mando close to that.

At the minute I think we've got;

Froch vs Groves

Crolla vs Mitchell

How on earth will this be "stacked"?


----------



## EvianMcGirt (Jun 9, 2013)

Claypole said:


> How about making Groves earn himself a shot at Froch, by beating Bute, or someone of similar credentials? He's only getting this shot because of the domestic angle...


To be fair, name a better opponent for Froch at 168 outside of Ward or Stieglitz.


----------



## sim_reiss (Jun 6, 2012)

Bryn said:


> This fight would be getting slated if it was on regular Sky, let alone on PPV.


Are you saying that people are never satisfied or that Groves is overmatched?


----------



## Rambo (Jul 13, 2013)

Marlow said:


> To put this on ppv is pure greed.Kessler had a big purse and Froch wanted to avenge his loss so I understood why Kessler came at a premium and gave Hearn the benefit of the doubt on that one.The undercard would have to be huge for this and I think the fans definition of what is acceptable and Eddie's are two wildly different things.Not holding out a great deal of hope at the minute because Barker fights in Aug, Brook, Ryder, Ochieng, Burns and Quigg are scheduled to fight in Sept and Bellew will be due his mando close to that.At the minute I think we've got;Froch vs GrovesCrolla vs MitchellHow on earth will this be "stacked"?


joshua?what about the golden boy fighters too


----------



## Claypole (Jun 3, 2013)

EvianMcGirt said:


> To be fair, name a better opponent for Froch at 168 outside of Ward or Stieglitz.


Sakio Bika.


----------



## Bryn (Jun 2, 2012)

sim_reiss said:


> Are you saying that people are never satisfied or that Groves is overmatched?


A bit of both, really. I think the general perception is that Groves is over-matched (although I don't think so), because of this people wouldn't see this as a PPV fight or even a legitimate fight outside of PPV.

Saying that, people seem to be lapping it up around the office. No one has mentioned Haye-Fury to me at all but I've already had people mention this fight. :conf


----------



## EvianMcGirt (Jun 9, 2013)

Claypole said:


> Sakio Bika.


:conf

Good fighter and would make for a decent fight with Froch but I can't say I feel short changed by him fighting Groves instead.


----------



## Peter Barlow (Jun 4, 2013)

PPV they can shove it up their arse.


----------



## Nyanners :sad5 (Jun 8, 2012)

Fuck Eddie Hearn. Just doing even more damage to the boxing business. Warren might be a paranoid cunt of a dinosaur, but at least he understands the better method Boxnation brings. This is just pure fucking greed.


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

Flash Jab said:


> Fuck Eddie Hearn. Just doing even more damage to the boxing business. Warren might be a paranoid cunt of a dinosaur, but *at least he understands the better method Boxnation brings*. This is just pure fucking greed.


Yeah cos we've had loads of domestic action haven't we.


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

Rambo said:


> joshua?what about the golden boy fighters too


Joshua would have to be in addition to four quality fights on the card, his debut being classed as something worthy of selling a ppv would be laughable.

The only GBP fighters that appear on UK shows are Ogogo and Harry Khan, wouldn't really add much.


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

Oh fucking hell we're gonna get Brian Rose aren't we.


----------



## Nyanners :sad5 (Jun 8, 2012)

Marlow said:


> Yeah cos we've had loads of domestic action haven't we.


The format itself is what I'm talking about, not Warren's lousy matchmaking.


----------



## Marlow (Jan 6, 2013)

Flash Jab said:


> The format itself is what I'm talking about, not Warren's lousy matchmaking.


I wasn't talking about matchmaking I meant volume of domestic shows, which there's been very few of.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

Hmmmmm I never saw this one coming! :think


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

Roe said:


> I'd say it's unlikely he'll come over here at all, let alone for an undercard fight.


It needs something of that magnitude to be viable.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

I don't think one person has defended Hearn or likes what he's doing so far in this thread, has somebody tweeted him it yet? be good for his inflated ego to see that he isn't the golden child that can do what he wants.


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

Bill said:


> I don't think one person has defended Hearn or likes what he's doing so far in this thread, has somebody tweeted him it yet? be good for his inflated ego to see that he isn't the golden child that can do what he wants.


 @Jack @RobPalmer


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Grant said:


> @Jack @RobPalmer


I might be pissing in the wind here but I don't think Rob will defend this, well not to his usual extent at least.

Jack definitely will, he's at art class at the moment drawing a picture of Hearn's ample young buttocks but will be done soon so should be on in due time.


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

Bill said:


> I don't think one person has defended Hearn or likes what he's doing so far in this thread, has somebody tweeted him it yet? be good for his inflated ego to see that he isn't the golden child that can do what he wants.


You realise that Eddie didn't invent pay per view right?


----------



## Grant (Jun 6, 2012)

Roe said:


> You realise that Eddie didn't invent pay per view right?


He reintroduced it though, which is as good as.


----------



## Claypole (Jun 3, 2013)

EvianMcGirt said:


> :conf
> 
> Good fighter and would make for a decent fight with Froch but I can't say I feel short changed by him fighting Groves instead.


I don't have a problem with Froch fighting Groves, but this isn't in the same league as Froch v Kessler. It doesn't even compare with the Bute fight, so to make it PPV is a joke.

People say this has to be PPV or it won't happen, but in reality they just want to make a huge amount of money from a regular fight. The only way to do it is with PPV. This will be just like Groves v Degale, lots of hype, lots of trash talking, and an unremarkable fight.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Roe said:


> You realise that Eddie didn't invent pay per view right?


Of course I know that but as Grant said, he brought it back after being dropped and now the ball is well and truly rolling.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

Bill said:


> I might be pissing in the wind here but I don't think Rob will defend this, well not to his usual extent at least.
> 
> _*Jack definitely will, he's at art class at the moment drawing a picture of Hearn's ample young buttocks but will be done soon so should be on in due time.*_


:lol:

Full frontal Jack? Most muscular?



Roe said:


> You realise that Eddie didn't invent pay per view right?


No but he is pushing it and as far as I'm concerned, thats just as bad as inventing it. Eddie Hearn is a smart guy, he can see what people are thinking on social media. Give me one fan APART from Jack, who encourages PPV? *Nobody* wants it, its already burnt people before. That Froch-Kessler card was a joke, it was basically one fight for £15. He cant repeat this again, people wont have it. Besides Groves-Froch isnt even half the fight of Froch-Kessler. So the card has to really back it up. But us talking about it means fuck all, Eddie Hearn will do whatever he wants at the end of the day. What can we do about it apart from pay or not pay? George Groves is not a PPV fighter. Not a PPV fighter at all....people knew who Mikkel Kessler was. For that reason this fight should be on SS1. But it seems cockhead Carl is making more demands than Mariah Carey. So it'll be on SBO. Or Carl wont accept the fight. Beings as the fight is already signed, it seems it will be on SBO. Whether we like it or not.


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

Bill said:


> I don't think one person has defended Hearn or likes what he's doing so far in this thread, has somebody tweeted him it yet? be good for his inflated ego to see that he isn't the golden child that can do what he wants.


I did mate. Tweeted him this;

*Paul McAllister* ‏@PaulieMc942h
@EddieHearn It's on PPV eh? One off my arse Eddie. Just admit it's coming back permanently.

He hasn't responded as of yet and I'll be surprised if he does. Got a couple retweets as well but a few people I followed who are notoriously pro-Hearn unfollowed and blocked me. The people who are up his arse are unbelievable.


----------



## Rambo (Jul 13, 2013)

For the record


This isn't 100% ppv yet

Wait for the press conference


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

PaulieMc said:


> I did mate. Tweeted him this;
> 
> *Paul McAllister* ‏@PaulieMc942h
> @EddieHearn It's on PPV eh? One off my arse Eddie. Just admit it's coming back permanently.
> ...


Like he's gonna listen to you Paulie! They'll do whatever the fuck they want. If you dont want this, then dont pay for it. Its the only way to tell them in control you dont want PPV. I said this for Froch-Kessler aswell. VOTE WITH YOUR WALLETS!!!

Its pointless coming out with this shit if you're still gonna cough up come fight night. Its real simple.


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

- DC - said:


> Like he's gonna listen to you Paulie! They'll do whatever the fuck they want. If you dont want this, then dont pay for it. Its the only way to tell them in control you dont want PPV. I said this for Froch-Kessler aswell. VOTE WITH YOUR WALLETS!!!Its pointless coming out with this shit if your still gonna cough up come fight night. Its real simple.


Am I fuck coughing up for it Craney, not paying for that crap or Haye vs Fury. Fucking money grabbing nobheads.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

PaulieMc said:


> I did mate. Tweeted him this;
> 
> *Paul McAllister* ‏@PaulieMc942h
> @EddieHearn It's on PPV eh? One off my arse Eddie. Just admit it's coming back permanently.
> ...


:lol: Hearn fans are a notoriously tetchy and loyal bunch and look at anybody that doesn't see Hearn as the second coming of the little baby Jesus as peasants.


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

Bill said:


> :lol: Hearn fans are a notoriously tetchy and loyal bunch and look at anybody that doesn't see Hearn as the second coming of the little baby Jesus as peasants.


There's one lad tweeting saying "Oh my God @EddieHearn, put me out of my suspense. PLEASE tell me who Kell's opponent is, I just can't bear the wait!"

Seriously.

:-(


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

PaulieMc said:


> Am I fuck coughing up for it Craney, not paying for that crap or Haye vs Fury. Fucking money grabbing nobheads.


I hope you stay true to your word then. Its the only way to tell them you dont want PPV.

It was exactly the same for Froch-Kessler. But people still coughed up because "it was Carl Froch" :lol:

That is the problem. Moaning and complaining and still coughing up dont do shit. All they're cared about is the PPV numbers. If they are shit, then it shows them. If they are good, then they are encouraged to do more of it.

Real fucking simple.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

PaulieMc said:


> There's one lad tweeting saying "Oh my God @EddieHearn, put me out of my suspense. PLEASE tell me who Kell's opponent is, I just can't bear the wait!"
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> :-(


:lol: Now you know why I call people zombies.

Its not a problem. Its an epidemic right now. A MASS FUCKING OUTBREAK.


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

I like the fight and will go to this, but it shouldn't be ppv and i will not be defending this for the next 3 months.Bad move by Hearn if this is ppv and he will lose allot of goodwill with this, it would take an amazing undercard to change my mind and burns-Crolla mismatch won't cut it


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Ishy said:


> :rofl
> 
> Groves: "There's no blueprint to beating me"
> 
> Slick and ginger.


:rofl


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

People are actually surprised by this? As we all know Fast Car loves a pound note and if this is promoted right it will do good numbers on PPV.

Be honest, if you were in Eddies shoes you'd do exactly the same thing. Not pleased its on PPV but it's gonna take one hell of an undercard to make me buy this.

:eddie


----------



## knockout artist (Jun 5, 2013)

- DC - said:


> I hope you stay true to your word then. Its the only way to tell them you dont want PPV.
> 
> It was exactly the same for Froch-Kessler. But people still coughed up because "it was Carl Froch" :lol:
> 
> ...


Amen to that, PPV when we are already paying sky sports subscriptions is extortion, Sky and Matchroom do it because as you say despite the complaining, the masses will still order it come fight night. I didn't buy Froch-Kessler 2, won't be buying Haye-Fury nor Froch-Groves.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

I think it's a pretty good fight but the undercard will need to be strong to get many people buying it. Had Groves beaten a Bika or Stieglitz first, there'd be big interest from the general public and I doubt the fight would have needed a strong undercard to sell it but because Groves hasn't had that type of fight yet, it's a tough sell. It's a good main event but the undercard will need to have depth and quality for it to be a success.


----------



## Wickio (Jun 3, 2012)

Jack said:


> I think it's a pretty good fight but the undercard will need to be strong to get many people buying it. Had Groves beaten a Bika or Stieglitz first, there'd be big interest from the general public and I doubt the fight would have needed a strong undercard to sell it but because Groves hasn't had that type of fight yet, it's a tough sell. It's a good main event but the undercard will need to have depth and quality for it to be a success.


I'm not sure a win for Groves over a Bika or Stieglitz would really have improved the interest in this fight all that much for the general public. Other than the fact they could market it as a unification, of course.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

knockout artist said:


> Amen to that, PPV when we are already paying sky sports subscriptions is extortion, Sky and Matchroom do it because as you say despite the complaining, the masses will still order it come fight night. I didn't buy Froch-Kessler 2, won't be buying Haye-Fury nor Froch-Groves.


Sky Sports subscribers should not be made to pay anymore. They already pay top dollar monthly. Ridiculous prices. I feel sorry for those people most of all, that they are asked to pay exactly the same amount as non-subscribers for the same fight. This is the con.

I haven't got a problem with PPV as long as the fights are good and its a solid card. Like the Mayweather-Canelo card for instance. As an event its worth paying for.

The problem is, its the same with the Froch-Kessler II PPV. Awful card, people moaned and complained yet still coughed up come fight night. They aint bothered in the slightest what you say as long as you paid for it. :lol:


----------



## Stunkie (Jun 4, 2013)

PaulieMc said:


> BillC84 tweeted "Oh my God @EddieHearn, put me out of my suspense. PLEASE tell me who Kell's opponent is, I just can't bear the wait!"
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> :-(


Fixed :lol:


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Wickio said:


> I'm not sure a win for Groves over a Bika or Stieglitz would really have improved the interest in this fight all that much for the general public. Other than the fact they could market it as a unification, of course.


Groves hasn't really been in the limelight much since the DeGale fight though. He fought Johnson but that was on BoxNation which only hardcore fans watched, so a good main event fight against Bika or Stieglitz, with a decent undercard, would have really raised his profile with casual fans I think.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

Whoever that kid is who twatted Eddie Hearn, not knowing who Kell Brook's next opponent is must be ruining his life. Not being able to leave the house, go to work/school, withdrawal symptoms, self harm.

It makes me sick to see that there is human beings on this planet so dumbed down like this.


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

Stunkie said:


> Fixed :lol:


Eh? I didn't say BillC84 tweeted anything. Who's that?


----------



## Wickio (Jun 3, 2012)

Jack said:


> Groves hasn't really been in the limelight much since the DeGale fight though. He fought Johnson but that was on BoxNation which only hardcore fans watched, so a good main event fight against Bika or Stieglitz, with a decent undercard, would have really raised his profile with casual fans I think.


That's true enough, he probably didn't capitalise on the DeGale win as much as he could have at the time. He had a good platform to build on after that but just wasn't active enough against a decent level of opposition. A headlining show on Sky Sports probably could have helped, but I think the fight sells on Froch alone now with the profile he has gained as of late. If he fought (and beat) Stieglitz when they were scheduled to fight before, he could have racked up a few wins and made this a really big affair.


----------



## Tywin (Jun 28, 2013)

The person PaulieMc is talking about is a chap named @jameslhickson. A minute ago he tweeted Eddie Hearn again begging to know still. These people are the ones Sky think of when they put bullshit like this together. Retards.


----------



## Peter Barlow (Jun 4, 2013)

Bill said:


> :lol: Hearn fans are a notoriously tetchy and loyal bunch and look at anybody that doesn't see Hearn as the second coming of the little baby Jesus as peasants.


We dont even need twitter, theres enough of these Hearn groupies on here. Like a bunch of little girls praising One Direction.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

PaulieMc said:


> Eh? I didn't say BillC84 tweeted anything. Who's that?


Oh come on man you aint that stupid, tell me you're just being sarcy.


----------



## Stunkie (Jun 4, 2013)

Location: Matchroom Towers
Date: 23/07/2013
Purpose: Froch PPV slip

Eddie: Carl you have fucked here I needed time to smooth this over with those hardcore numpties before we let it out the bag.

Carl: I'm Mr PPV Eddie so its hardly a secret so let them bitch.

Eddie: Its not simple it took me years to sell this New Age crap and if they find out the truth we are all out of pocket.

Carl: I am Carl Maximus Frochimus, Commander of the armies of the north, Father........

Eddie: CARL!! CARL!! Will you give it a rest we need a plan here to get the keyboard warriors back on board here.

Carl: You need to call the Fixer. Oh and Eddie don't say warrior I'v got a copyright on that so it will cost you next time.

Eddie: Oh FFS I was hoping to avoid that cunt.

Carl: Time to take one for Team Froch Eddie.

Eddie: (on phone) Can someone get my Rob Palmer on the phone, we have a job for him.


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Stunkie said:


> Location: Matchroom Towers
> Date: 23/07/2013
> Purpose: Froch PPV slip
> 
> ...


:lol:


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

- DC - said:


> Oh come on man you aint that stupid, tell me you're just being sarcy.


I get you now. 

Mugsy is bang on. It knocks me ill how many people love Hearn unconditionally and think anything he says is gospel truth.

I just can't be arsed with him, his spin or his fanboys who stalk forums, twitter and other places peddling about how wonderful he is and how everything he does is correct or justified. Eddie Hearn in the past 18 months has done some fantastic things for British Boxing, that can't be denied by even his most fervrant hater. He got Sky to invest in the sport again, has made some brilliant match-ups and has helped kickstart the careers of some very talented fighters. What he's doing though will hurt the sport long-term though, people have to realise that. It's happened before. Sky put any old shit on PPV and expect fans to love and pay for it. Knucklehead fans buy into it for a while but eventually even the biggest mong in the world realises they're being ripped off. Therefore they start ringing up and complaining when a PPV fight ends up as a one-sided farce and eventually they just stop paying altogether. That causes Sky to pull the plug, cut back on the boxing budget drastically leaving the sport completely on it's arse. It's happened before numerous times.

Hearn, perhaps even without meaning too, is taking the sport back along that same road. He's going to burn out the engine eventually and the arse will fall out, leaving boxing by the wayside. And when that does happen a few years from now Matchroom will fuck and leave the sport having been largely responsible for getting it in a mess. Again, something that's happened before.


----------



## shaunster101 (Jun 3, 2012)

I find it amusing that people here think they're a consideration when Hearn puts together a PPV card. Say there's a couple of thousand Brits who post on boxing forums in the uk (at the most), that's absolutely fuckall compared to the casual audience for these PPV's. 

The reality is the 'hardcore' fans are a tiny minority that have no voice or influence. We/they are such a small number that there's no real business reason to give a prolonged fuck about. Sure, there's no reason to make 'em your enemy or turn them off, but the big gates and big PPV sales come from engaging the casual sports fan with a bit of an interest in boxing. And as we know, that's less about the quality of the fight/card and more about marketing. 

I assure you, the 'backlash' from boxing forum posters is not a concern when deciding if a fight goes PPV or not. We're not the target audience and we're not big enough in numbers to affect the numbers either positively or negatively enough to become a significant factor in the decision making process.

Boxing is a business, promoters are businessmen and if they have the option to make more or less money for their clients and themselves they'll go for more every time. Let's be real here, no one's sacrificing their pound notes to please some nerds on a forum.


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

shaunster101 said:


> I find it amusing that people here think they're a consideration when Hearn puts together a PPV card. Say there's a couple of thousand Brits who post on boxing forums in the uk (at the most), that's absolutely fuckall compared to the casual audience for these PPV's.
> 
> The reality is the 'hardcore' fans are a tiny minority that have no voice or influence. We/they are such a small number that there's no real business reason to give a prolonged fuck about. Sure, there's no reason to make 'em your enemy or turn them off, but the big gates and big PPV sales come from engaging the casual sports fan with a bit of an interest in boxing. And as we know, that's less about the quality of the fight/card and more about marketing.
> 
> ...


Yes but when greedy promoters fuck everything up and broadcasters and casuals lose interest who is it who's there to pick up the pieces and help keep the sport going? The hardcores, the same in ANY niche sport really. There's been times when promoters and fighters have been kept afloat by making fights for hardcore fans so it's very arrogant and dismissive to label hardcore fans (whether they post on a forum or not) as people who don't make any difference.


----------



## Nyanners :sad5 (Jun 8, 2012)

Stunkie said:


> Location: Matchroom Towers
> Date: 23/07/2013
> Purpose: Froch PPV slip
> 
> ...


Now all I can think of Is Eddie Hearn, Kugan Cassius and Carl Froch doing their own radio show.

"You're an idiot, Carl. Play a record."


----------



## SouthpawSlayer (Jun 13, 2012)

Stunkie said:


> Location: Matchroom Towers
> Date: 23/07/2013
> Purpose: Froch PPV slip
> 
> ...


good one


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

PaulieMc said:


> I get you now.
> 
> Mugsy is bang on. It knocks me ill how many people love Hearn unconditionally and think anything he says is gospel truth.
> 
> I just can't be arsed with him, his spin or his fanboys who stalk forums, twitter and other places peddling about how wonderful he is and how everything he does is correct or justified. Eddie Hearn in the past 18 months has done some fantastic things for British Boxing, that can't be denied by even his most fervrant hater. He got Sky to invest in the sport again, has made some brilliant match-ups and has helped kickstart the careers of some very talented fighters. What he's doing though will hurt the sport long-term though, people have to realise that. It's happened before. Sky put any old shit on PPV and expect fans to love and pay for it. Knucklehead fans buy into it for a while but eventually even the biggest mong in the world realises they're being ripped off. Therefore they start ringing up and complaining when a PPV fight ends up as a one-sided farce and eventually they just stop paying altogether. That causes Sky to pull the plug, cut back on the boxing budget drastically leaving the sport completely on it's arse. It's happened before numerous times.


I think as long as the main events are interesting, there won't ever be a problem with PPV. People are offered a choice of whether to buy a fight or not and if they take that choice, if it delivers, they're going to be happy with it. Good fights headlining a PPV will never be detrimental to the sport but the issue is when certain fighters don't perform. I think that's part of the reason why Sky are backing Froch heavily in their PPV market because he's very rarely in a disappointing fight, unlike someone like Haye, whose performances did hurt the boxing market.

PPV itself doesn't hurt the sport, as history has shown. However, a fight between two elite fighters is not enough, it has to be an entertaining bout. Something like Burns/Vazquez would be a quality fight but it isn't PPV in a million years because it'd be an awful bout to watch, unlike Haye/Fury, Froch/Kessler and maybe Froch/Groves if it is PPV.


----------



## shaunster101 (Jun 3, 2012)

PaulieMc said:


> Yes but when greedy promoters fuck everything up and broadcasters and casuals lose interest who is it who's there to pick up the pieces and help keep the sport going? The hardcores, the same in ANY niche sport really. There's been times when promoters and fighters have been kept afloat by making fights for hardcore fans so it's very arrogant and dismissive to label hardcore fans (whether they post on a forum or not) as people who don't make any difference.


It's not arrogant when it's a fact that, in this particular business model, the biggest cash and biggest margins come from casual fans and the hardcore minority are rendered insignificant. That's not arrogant - it's an observable fact.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it, or that thing can't be done a different way - I'm saying that in this scenario the opinions of fans like us don't really matter.

Not sure how that's arrogant on my behalf, really. I'd rather accept that delude myself that there's much I can do about it.

I actually, perhaps naively, thought this could be a non-PPV fight.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

When Barney Francis decides on a PPV, he's looking at pure numbers. If he thinks a fight will sell, he'll put it on PPV, regardless of what a minority think. If 5,000 hate it but 400,000 pay £15 to see it, who do you think he, as an employee of Sky, is going to pander to? It's not about Froch, Hearn, Adam Smith or anyone else, it's about Sky. They want to make profit on boxing and if that means pissing off a few thousand hardcore fans, they'll do it.

So they should, by the way. If I was in their shoes, I would, but it's also beneficial to boxing fans that Sky invest in the sport. I'd rather they put their all into making money from PPV than not giving a fuck about it again. If Sky announce there'll be more dates soon, the addition of PPV will be a large reason why.


----------



## shaunster101 (Jun 3, 2012)

I'd be interested to see how much PPV profit goes into the budget for future non-PPV fights. I'd have less of a problem if PPV money was one of the key revenue streams for the rest of the boxing we see. It's perhaps a wee bit idealistic bit it'd make PPV easier to stomach.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2013)

shaunster101 said:


> I find it amusing that people here think they're a consideration when Hearn puts together a PPV card. Say there's a couple of thousand Brits who post on boxing forums in the uk (at the most), that's absolutely fuckall compared to the casual audience for these PPV's.
> 
> The reality is the 'hardcore' fans are a tiny minority that have no voice or influence. We/they are such a small number that there's no real business reason to give a prolonged fuck about. Sure, there's no reason to make 'em your enemy or turn them off, but the big gates and big PPV sales come from engaging the casual sports fan with a bit of an interest in boxing. And as we know, that's less about the quality of the fight/card and more about marketing.
> 
> ...


I feel like the hardcore boxing fans value is either completely over played or completely under played, it actually sits somewhere in the middle. Were far more important than some think, and far less important that other things. Why are we important? Because we do dictate public opinion to a degree.


----------



## Lazarus (Jun 2, 2012)

Ok fight, bollocks that it's PPV. Can't be screwed to complain though since I don't have SS channels and won't pay for either Haye-Fury or Froch-Groves.


----------



## Tywin (Jun 28, 2013)

To say hardcore fans don't matter is an abysmal thing for any boxing fan to say.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2013)

shaunster101 said:


> I'd be interested to see how much PPV profit goes into the budget for future non-PPV fights. I'd have less of a problem if PPV money was one of the key revenue streams for the rest of the boxing we see. It's perhaps a wee bit idealistic bit it'd make PPV easier to stomach.


It certainty should be. Look at the Hatton v Mayweather fight and ask why was it such a success? Hatton had been built into a star, and so had Mayweather by fighting on Sky Sports at least 10x prior to his PPV bout with Hatton.

Matchroom are in a position where they can build the next Hatton, but they cannot build the next Mayweather because they don't show any international fights. Kell Brook v Adrian Broner could be a PPV fight if both kept winning but the public won't know who Broner is so it won't generate the same kind of success.

I had this conversation with Hearn and he is aware of it, but just told me there is no budget for US fights.


----------



## Lazarus (Jun 2, 2012)

shaunster101 said:


> I find it amusing that people here think they're a consideration when Hearn puts together a PPV card. Say there's a couple of thousand Brits who post on boxing forums in the uk (at the most), that's absolutely fuckall compared to the casual audience for these PPV's.
> 
> The reality is the 'hardcore' fans are a tiny minority that have no voice or influence. We/they are such a small number that there's no real business reason to give a prolonged fuck about. Sure, there's no reason to make 'em your enemy or turn them off, but the big gates and big PPV sales come from engaging the casual sports fan with a bit of an interest in boxing. And as we know, that's less about the quality of the fight/card and more about marketing.
> 
> ...


Exactly.

I say the same thing all the time. We don't mean shit.


----------



## widdy (Jun 14, 2012)

I'd pay £100 just to see froch smash the ginger prince ,decent fight by boxing standards ,the ginger is pretty good.
BUT it is no where near on par with the 'benn,Eubank,Watson ect days' not even close,froch is up there with them 3 but ginge,not a chance.


----------



## Trippy (Jun 18, 2013)

Box Office for a mandatory opponent?

Different strokes for different folks I guess.


----------



## biglads (Jun 14, 2012)

Trippy said:


> Different strokes for different folks I guess.


Well the world don't move to the beat of just one drum
What might be right for you, may not be right for some :deal


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2013)

Trippy said:


> Box Office for a mandatory opponent?
> 
> Different strokes for different folks I guess.


Why would it being a mandatory make a difference?


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

The reality for me is its a good domestic fight which is credible internationally

I will pay for this and haye-fury and enjoy both 
If I've paid for 3 ppvs this year then that's not my ideal scenario as I already subscribe to the full sky package and boxnation but guess what I'm not going to spend my short life on this earth moaning about whether I should have to pay for a fight I will love to see
I don't earn good money and I have kids but I'm sure I can find £15 to watch the sport I love after all the 3 mentioned ppvs have top quality headliners
Now the undercards that a different story altogether


----------



## Berliner (Jun 6, 2013)

Froch-Groves alone is a shit PPV fight. the udnercard better is very good.


----------



## Threetime (Jun 8, 2012)

Hope Froch wipes him out, and he should...early doors I reckon.

Use to like Groves but he's became a right whiny fucker the last year or so, he comes across as someone who thinks his smarter than he is (hate that). His craic is shite. He's fought nobody to earn this and he will be on his bike from the first bell. Do the honours Carl and humble the ginger cretin.


----------



## Trippy (Jun 18, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Why would it being a mandatory make a difference?


Just remembering what Eddie has been drumming on about, "the fight has to happen" "Froch won't vacate", and "Groves doesn't want to lose his Mandatory position".

It very much sounds like neither fighter has many options.

So it's a bit bemusing how now it has to be PPV.


----------



## Ari Gold Bawse (Jun 4, 2013)

smh at this being ppv. fight isnt lasting long. groves wouldnt beat kessler or bute

hearn is slowly losing my respect.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2013)

Trippy said:


> Just remembering what Eddie has been drumming on about, "the fight has to happen" "Froch won't vacate", and "Groves doesn't want to lose his Mandatory position".
> 
> It very much sounds like neither fighter has many options.
> 
> So it's a bit bemusing how now it has to be PPV.


both have plenty of options. ridiculous statement!


----------



## Hoshi (Aug 21, 2012)

Jees, anything half decent is on ppv now. Last big fight on sky sports was Froch vs Bute.


----------



## SouthpawSlayer (Jun 13, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> It certainty should be. Look at the Hatton v Mayweather fight and ask why was it such a success? Hatton had been built into a star, and so had Mayweather by fighting on Sky Sports at least 10x prior to his PPV bout with Hatton.
> 
> Matchroom are in a position where they can build the next Hatton, but they cannot build the next Mayweather because they don't show any international fights. Kell Brook v Adrian Broner could be a PPV fight if both kept winning but the public won't know who Broner is so it won't generate the same kind of success.
> 
> I had this conversation with Hearn and he is aware of it, but just told me there is no budget for US fights.


you really are pathetic


----------



## Trippy (Jun 18, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> both have plenty of options. ridiculous statement!


What options? Kessler's gone missing since talk of a 3rd fight. Froch won't go to states to fight Ward. Bute's fighting Pascal and probably doesn't want the rematch anyway. JCC Jr's fighting Brian Vera at Middleweight. Golovkin? Maybe but Eddie wants that next year.

As for Groves, he doesn't have a fight bigger than Froch on offer.

So yeah, hardly requires PPV to make the fight.


----------



## Hoshi (Aug 21, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> It certainty should be. Look at the Hatton v Mayweather fight and ask why was it such a success? Hatton had been built into a star, and so had Mayweather by fighting on Sky Sports at least 10x prior to his PPV bout with Hatton.
> 
> Matchroom are in a position where they can build the next Hatton, but they cannot build the next Mayweather because they don't show any international fights. Kell Brook v Adrian Broner could be a PPV fight if both kept winning but the public won't know who Broner is so it won't generate the same kind of success.
> 
> I had this conversation with Hearn and he is aware of it, but just told me there is no budget for US fights.


Glad to know people realise that the International content has to improve to create stars and bigger events. If the budget has gone to Hearn domestically then fine he deserved it but Sky have to show International fights and must keep some of the budget back.

If ppv is going towards buying regular cards from around the world then great, but we all know its lining pockets with nobody interested in investing in the sport.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2013)

SouthpawSlayer said:


> you really are pathetic


whys that?


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2013)

Trippy said:


> What options? Kessler's gone missing since talk of a 3rd fight. Froch won't go to states to fight Ward. Bute's fighting Pascal and probably doesn't want the rematch anyway. JCC Jr's fighting Brian Vera at Middleweight. Golovkin? Maybe but Eddie wants that next year.
> 
> As for Groves, he doesn't have a fight bigger than Froch on offer.
> 
> So yeah, hardly requires PPV to make the fight.


they had plenty of options.


----------



## Gash7 (Jul 12, 2013)

Personally I think the PPV thing is Froch's doing, I don't really think Hearn would want this on PPV


----------



## Trippy (Jun 18, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> they had plenty of options.


Ah, thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Nyanners :sad5 (Jun 8, 2012)

Lazarus said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I say the same thing all the time. We don't mean shit.


Congratulations, you're letting the idiots win. Casual fans aren't a different breed to the hardcore fan, they're just not educated. Fights like these should be put on terrestrial TV to get the sport some actual exposure and give people education (especially when there's already a PPV months before). This fight isn't going to do any good for the sport long term. You've got to look forward. It's a blatant money grab, but when people say the hardcore fan doesn't matter and the casual does, it's a completely defeating way of looking at things.

They're choosing money over exposure, and in the long run that's going to do neither side good. Where's these big fights that are on normal Sky Sports or on ITV? Oh right, they're on Boxnation, because it's better bang for your buck. PPV is a completely selfish model that should be abolished when the network already has a fucking channel (4 of them+ infact) to show the fight to, not to mention people pay money to get the channel anyway. It's money on top of money, and it's not fucking right. If you've got two potential PPV's coming up and nothing else, you put one on normal TV and the other on PPV. You don't drain everybody's money and think it's going to work. This is a bad fucking idea, full stop. You've got Haye/Fury not that far off which is going to be the biggest draw, and Froch will never ascend to that popularity because he's not been properly established to the 'casual fans'. Nobody's staying up at 3am to watch him if they don't know who he is or hasn't been in the limelight. Froch-Kessler was a PPV that drew because of the first fight and the momentum between the two, this fight is doing Froch or the business no favours.

But the fucking money is the most important thing, but it's such a short term way of looking at it. The public's exposure to boxing is absolutely abysmal, you're meant to open the door to the sport of boxing, not put a lock on the fucking door and tell anybody who wants in that it's 15 quid for the key.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Gash7 said:


> Personally I think the PPV thing is Froch's doing, I don't really think Hearn would want this on PPV


And the last PPV was Kesslers fault and the next one was Hayes fault.:hey


----------



## Trippy (Jun 18, 2013)

Flash Jab said:


> Congratulations, you're letting the idiots win. Casual fans aren't a different breed to the hardcore fan, they're just not educated. Fights like these should be put on terrestrial TV to get the sport some actual exposure and give people education (especially when there's already a PPV months before). This fight isn't going to do any good for the sport long term. You've got to look forward. It's a blatant money grab, but when people say the hardcore fan doesn't matter and the casual does, it's a completely defeating way of looking at things.
> 
> They're choosing money over exposure, and in the long run that's going to do neither side good. Where's these big fights that are on normal Sky Sports or on ITV? Oh right, they're on Boxnation, because it's better bang for your buck. PPV is a completely selfish model that should be abolished when the network already has a fucking channel (4 of them+ infact) to show the fight to, not to mention people pay money to get the channel anyway. It's money on top of money, and it's not fucking right. If you've got two potential PPV's coming up and nothing else, you put one on normal TV and the other on PPV. You don't drain everybody's money and think it's going to work. This is a bad fucking idea, full stop. You've got Haye/Fury not that far off which is going to be the biggest draw, and Froch will never ascend to that popularity because he's not been properly established to the 'casual fans'. Nobody's staying up at 3am to watch him if they don't know who he is or hasn't been in the limelight. Froch-Kessler was a PPV that drew because of the first fight and the momentum between the two, this fight is doing Froch or the business no favours.
> 
> But the fucking money is the most important thing, but it's such a short term way of looking at it. The public's exposure to boxing is absolutely abysmal, you're meant to open the door to the sport of boxing, not put a lock on the fucking door and tell anybody who wants in that it's 15 quid for the key.


Top, top post.

A fight of Mayweather v Pacquiao (circa 2010), Muhammed Ali v Joe Frazier/Foreman proportions

They're the stature of events which should be PPV, because they were (or would have been) massive worldwide events that transcend the sport and it's fanbase; hardcore or casual.

A paper belt holder fighting his mandatory just doesn't quite cut that level.


----------



## kingkodi (Jun 20, 2012)

When all's said and done, this is Sky's fault. They should set aside enough ADDITIONAL money to put on some of the bigger fights that they scam their subscribers with as PPV. This is one of the reasons that I don't pay the exorbitant fees they charge to subscribe.


----------



## Gash7 (Jul 12, 2013)

GazOC said:


> And the last PPV was Kesslers fault and the next one was Hayes fault.:hey


It's not a ppv fight and hearn knows it. Diva Froch or Frock :yep


----------



## Ashedward (Jun 2, 2012)

The worst thing that ever happened to Groves is that he was on ppv so early in his career it has made his ego the size of a small planet.Hearn will have to pull of a great undercard to justify this,it looks bad with the comments he has made in the past.


----------



## AndrewFFC (Jun 17, 2012)

Flash Jab said:


> Fuck Eddie Hearn. Just doing even more damage to the boxing business. Warren might be a paranoid cunt of a dinosaur, but at least he understands the better method Boxnation brings. This is just pure fucking greed.


Yes I look back with wonder to the man who brought us such PPV classics as Khan v Salita.

Lets hear it for Frank Warren!


----------



## Nyanners :sad5 (Jun 8, 2012)

AndrewFFC said:


> Yes I look back with wonder to the man who brought us such PPV classics as Khan v Salita.
> 
> Lets hear it for Frank Warren!


Address the actual point you pleb, I'm talking about channel subscription vs. pay per view, not comparing Warren vs. Hearn in "who puts on the best PPV's?"


----------



## Ishy (Jun 2, 2012)

_"I'm not obsessed with having PPV fights. Some people just want to be PPV fighters but if you're a PPV fighter, you might earn a little bit more money but not a lot of people get to watch your fight. If we're going to grow the sport I want to see less PPVs.

All I care about is growing the sport and delivering for fans and the response that we're getting from fans at the moment drives me on to do more and more in the sport."
_
Eddie Hearn, August 2011


----------



## knockout artist (Jun 5, 2013)

- DC - said:


> Sky Sports subscribers should not be made to pay anymore. They already pay top dollar monthly. Ridiculous prices. I feel sorry for those people most of all, that they are asked to pay exactly the same amount as non-subscribers for the same fight. This is the con.
> 
> I haven't got a problem with PPV as long as the fights are good and its a solid card. Like the Mayweather-Canelo card for instance. As an event its worth paying for.
> 
> The problem is, its the same with the Froch-Kessler II PPV. Awful card, people moaned and complained yet still coughed up come fight night. They aint bothered in the slightest what you say as long as you paid for it. :lol:


Agree with you there about Sky Sports charging their subscribers PPV on top.

Mayweather-Canelo is different as whoever broadcasts that card in the UK have to pay a significant amount just for the rights to it, hence it is understandable that they will charge extra to recoup on that, though I remember Boxnation airing Mayweather-Canelo and not charging any extra for it


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

Ishy said:


> _"I'm not obsessed with having PPV fights. Some people just want to be PPV fighters but if you're a PPV fighter, you might earn a little bit more money but not a lot of people get to watch your fight. If we're going to grow the sport I want to see less PPVs.
> 
> All I care about is growing the sport and delivering for fans and the response that we're getting from fans at the moment drives me on to do more and more in the sport."
> _
> Eddie Hearn, August 2011


Hearn is Warren 2.0


----------



## Ishy (Jun 2, 2012)

_"I'm a big believer that we should only do two, three maximum PPV fights per year and those fights should be the likes of Haye/Klitschko or Pacquiao versus Mayweather.....if you can put on a show where you can put three or four title fights in one night that is a good show.* If we've got Carl Froch fighting Andre Ward in America this October or November for the Super Six final and I've got Darren Barker fighting Macklin over here for the world title, Kell Brook fighting one of the belt-holders in his division and Paul McCloskey fighting Prescott then that is a pay-per-view*"_

Eddie Hearn, May 2011


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

@Ishy :clap:


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

Brace yourself Ishy, brace yourself! :hey


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Someone needs to tweet the. Quotes to fast car!


----------



## PaulieMc (Jun 6, 2013)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> Someone needs to tweet the. Quotes to fast car!


He'll just weasel out of it like he does whenever he breaks his word on something. He'll just go,

"People need to understand, I said those comments at a different time. The landscape for PPV and what qualifies as PPV worthy is different now."

No you prick, it's not different. Just you changing the goalposts and showing yourself up as a liar.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

Eddie Hearn = Smoke and mirrors.

This is concrete proof (thanks to Ish) that he is no different from any other promoter. Like I said before time and time again. All his demented cocksuckers can continue sucking his cock, the truth is the truth. It is what it is. We deal with the truth, Bill, Ishy, myself, Batkilt, Mugs, Southpaw and a few others (I apologize for those I've missed out.) 

The other little group of Hearn cocksuckers dont deal with the truth. Oh well! Eddie Hearn used the clever tactic of being against PPV to lure these cocksuckers in and appear "for the fans" and "the savior" typical PR and image management. Eddie Hearn is a PR god when it comes to this sort of thing. Knowing the right things to say in the public eye. Slowly but surely the idea all along was to get PPV back. We are seeing it now. But he realized he had to get fans back onside before doing such a thing. Look at all the cocksuckers on social media, looking up to him as some sort of guru. We saw one of the biggest Eddie Hearn cocksuckers ever earlier, saying the suspense is killing him not knowing Brook's opponent. 

:suicide

Not only is Eddie Hearn smoke and mirrors, he is also a fucking hypocrite and liar....and deep down no different from that little devil of all you cocksuckers, who you love to hate because you are pro-Eddie. Frank Warren.

Yes. Oh yes. I did.

Now you can understand why I dont trust any of these promoters. Nor do I support them like fighters like some of you are doing. Its a dangerous game supporting promoters. As I said months ago. Just because I say this about Eddie Hearn, doesnt mean I am a fan of another promoter and have an agenda. They are all a bunch of sly cunts. End of.


----------



## sim_reiss (Jun 6, 2012)

Flash Jab said:


> Congratulations, you're letting the idiots win. Casual fans aren't a different breed to the hardcore fan, they're just not educated. Fights like these should be put on terrestrial TV to get the sport some actual exposure and give people education (especially when there's already a PPV months before). This fight isn't going to do any good for the sport long term. You've got to look forward. It's a blatant money grab, but when people say the hardcore fan doesn't matter and the casual does, it's a completely defeating way of looking at things.
> 
> They're choosing money over exposure, and in the long run that's going to do neither side good. Where's these big fights that are on normal Sky Sports or on ITV? Oh right, they're on Boxnation, because it's better bang for your buck. PPV is a completely selfish model that should be abolished when the network already has a fucking channel (4 of them+ infact) to show the fight to, not to mention people pay money to get the channel anyway. It's money on top of money, and it's not fucking right. If you've got two potential PPV's coming up and nothing else, you put one on normal TV and the other on PPV. You don't drain everybody's money and think it's going to work. This is a bad fucking idea, full stop. You've got Haye/Fury not that far off which is going to be the biggest draw, and Froch will never ascend to that popularity because he's not been properly established to the 'casual fans'. Nobody's staying up at 3am to watch him if they don't know who he is or hasn't been in the limelight. Froch-Kessler was a PPV that drew because of the first fight and the momentum between the two, this fight is doing Froch or the business no favours.
> 
> But the fucking money is the most important thing, but it's such a short term way of looking at it. The public's exposure to boxing is absolutely abysmal, you're meant to open the door to the sport of boxing, not put a lock on the fucking door and tell anybody who wants in that it's 15 quid for the key.


This would be all well and good if:

1. Any boxer would willingly sacrifice millions in order for his fight to be televised live.

Never mind one boxer, name one sport that does this? The majority of sport televised on terrestrial TV, be it Premier League highlights, The Olympics, The World Cup, The Euros, The Open Golf, Wimbledon, enjoys protected status - meaning it must be televised on terrestrial TV.
Did you know FIFA and UEFA even went to the European Court to try and overturn the compulsory terrestrial televising of their tournament games on the grounds that it 'interfered'' with their ability to sell TV rights at the 'best' price; ''distorted'' competition in a free market; and hindered their ability to exploit their intellectual property rights.

2. A promoter is not obligated to act in the best interests of his clients

If Froch wants PPV and Sky, encouraged by the good business Froch-Kessler did, are happy to do so, Hearn has no influence over whether or not this bout is PPV

3. Terrestrial TV were interested in boxing

They're not, Frank Warren has said it, Eddie Hearn has said it, and Mick Hennessey has experienced it.

4. Sky Sports were a charity

Sky's budget for boxing is subordinate to it's main priorities (Football, F1) and the sport's viewership. If Boxing viewing figures were large enough, there would be no need for PPV. However, they're not and the niche hardcore viewership mean in order for the big events to happen and the million pound purses to be paid, casual fan interest is galvanised and monetised.

Also, it's ironic that you mention boxnation because they have done more damage than any other entity for translating casual fan interest into hardcore followers. Boxnation provides a service exclusively to hardcore fans, which means it does nothing to develop the sport and create new fans. This is the reason I can guarantee you that no boxer on boxnation will ever develop any crossover appeal. The only way a boxer can do that in the current environment is terrestrial exposure (which doesn't exist) or a multi-sports platform like Sky.

5. Growing a sport is incompatible with a PPV model

The PPV model can work. It's been borne out in UFC, WWE and you can also see the economic principles applied in the church of scientology, all of which are enjoying burgeoning popularity. What is rightly pointed out is that the PPV product has to be of a high calibre and that there also has to be good promotion of the sport on the more widely distributed platforms.


----------



## Scorpio78 (Jun 10, 2012)

just hope he don't try and put Joshua debut on ppv


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Ishy said:


> _"I'm not obsessed with having PPV fights. Some people just want to be PPV fighters but if you're a PPV fighter, you might earn a little bit more money but not a lot of people get to watch your fight. If we're going to grow the sport I want to see less PPVs.
> 
> *All I care about is growing the sport and delivering for fans* and the response that we're getting from fans at the moment drives me on to do more and more in the sport."
> _
> Eddie Hearn, August 2011


I remember the exact interview where he prattled this nonsense. He ripped into Warren for creating BoxNation, saying that Matchroom and Sky were trying to "grow" the sport and locking it away behind a pay wall (Eddie, it appears like many, forgets that Sky Sports is behind a pay wall, but I digress) was bad for the sport.

Sadly, Eddie has surrendered to baser urges and the desire for short-term profit over long-term growth. My biggest issue with Groves-DeGale was that Sky allowed Warren to hide it behind PPV when it would have been a massive boost for awareness in the sport and of two prospects who could possibly be stars. Even the contentious decision would have fuelled speculation and interest longer term. The fact that both men have languished in relative obscurity speaks volumes for that approach.

Now Sky is doing the same with this fight. This is the exact sort of fight that should be made available to as many people as possible to build awareness. Even if Groves loses (and he likely will), it would give him such visibility. Well promoted and it could get big numbers on SS1. Instead it will be left to SBO and a much reduced audience.

What this tells us about Hearn's approach is that he is going to lock the biggest fights, the ones the fans really want to see (and this fight), onto PPV. If Brook faces Khan, it'll be on PPV. All of Froch's future fights will be on PPV. I thought th whole point of Eddie controlling all the dates is that the pot of money was there for him to NOT need PPV to put on successful fights.

It's garbage. This isn't a particularly interesting fight outside of the domestic angle. Shame on you, Eddie. It's not that you've lied, it's that you're going to further push the sport into a niche when it needs someone in the mainstream bigging it up.


----------



## Claypole (Jun 3, 2013)

- DC - said:


> Eddie Hearn = Smoke and mirrors.
> 
> This is concrete proof (thanks to Ish) that he is no different from any other promoter. Like I said before time and time again. All his demented cocksuckers can continue sucking his cock, the truth is the truth. It is what it is. We deal with the truth, Bill, Ishy, myself, Batkilt, Mugs, Southpaw and a few others (I apologize for those I've missed out.)
> 
> ...


Well put. Some so called "fight fans" are now more interested in what Eddie Hearn's been Tweeting than the sport itself.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

sim_reiss said:


> 5. Growing a sport is incompatible with a PPV model
> 
> The PPV model can work. It's been borne out in UFC, WWE and you can also see the economic principles applied in the church of scientology, all of which are enjoying burgeoning popularity. What is rightly pointed out is that the PPV product has to be of a high calibre and that there also has to be good promotion of the sport on the more widely distributed platforms.


Everything you posted is very true and worthy of discussion. This point, above all, is key though. Hearn is putting on mediocre quality cards and his best matches are on PPV now. He's not building fighters the way UFC does it, or even WWE.


----------



## bruthead (Jun 20, 2013)

I could deal with one of Haye-Fury or Froch-Groves on PPV but the two so close together is really taking the piss out of Sky Sports subscribers.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> I remember the exact interview where he prattled this nonsense. He ripped into Warren for creating BoxNation, saying that Matchroom and Sky were trying to "grow" the sport and locking it away behind a pay wall (Eddie, it appears like many, forgets that Sky Sports is behind a pay wall, but I digress) was bad for the sport.
> 
> Sadly, Eddie has surrendered to baser urges and the desire for short-term profit over long-term growth. *My biggest issue with Groves-DeGale was that Sky allowed Warren to hide it behind PPV when it would have been a massive boost for awareness in the sport and of two prospects who could possibly be stars. Even the contentious decision would have fuelled speculation and interest longer term. The fact that both men have languished in relative obscurity speaks volumes for that approach.
> 
> ...


The audiences for Channel 5 haven't been anywhere near what terrestrial TV got in the 90s - then again, Channel 5 generally doesn't get great ratings for most of their shows - but fans have tuned in for good fights. One of the points a cousin of mine - he'll watch boxing on TV, and has been to a couple of live shows with me, but he doesn't follow the sport - is that he never knows when boxing is on 5 until he sees a last minute advert, and he's always got the impression they're ready to bin it at the drop of a hat; there's no commitment. And I can sort of see why 5 aren't committed; they've not got the budget, and Fury, their biggest name, was always going to end up on Sky if he developed a big enough following, short of 5 getting enough ratings behind him to turn him into their own PPV draw on Primetime - which was always a long shot.

But if Fury/Chisora was a surprising success a couple of years ago, think of the long-term benefits for the sport if fights like Groves/DeGale had been on terrestrial TV, never mind the Sky Sports subscription package. Even if they only got a few million viewers for the live showing, the controversial decision would have drawn more to the repeats. We'll never see a "golden age" like we had in the 80s/90s in terms of viewership, but if decent fights were on terrestrial TV it'd have long term advantages for the sport as a whole.

I'm not sure if you even call it "terrestrial TV," now that everything is digital....


----------



## Claypole (Jun 3, 2013)

dftaylor said:


> Everything you posted is very true and worthy of discussion. This point, above all, is key though. Hearn is putting on mediocre quality cards and his best matches are on PPV now. He's not building fighters the way UFC does it, or even WWE.


The difference with the UFC is that it's a brand, rather than a sport in its own right. If you don't want to pay the money for a UFC PPV, then there's plenty of other MMA to watch. With boxing, the PPV's are starting to erode the whole sport in this country.

And it's made worse by fans claiming things like "The fight wouldn't be made if it wasn't on PPV"


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Claypole said:


> The difference with the UFC is that it's a brand, rather than a sport in its own right. If you don't want to pay the money for a UFC PPV, then there's plenty of other MMA to watch. With boxing, the PPV's are starting to erode the whole sport in this country.
> 
> And it's made worse by fans claiming things like "The fight wouldn't be made if it wasn't on PPV"


On what platform is MMA easy to watch in this country? BT Sport have snapped up the rights to the UFC in the UK - and if there was a big enough market for it, they'd run PPV events over here. It's not as though the boxing audience is shrinking thanks to subscription TV and PPV while the MMA is becoming a mainstream sport. I don't think it's far off having reached the ceiling of it's popularity, to be honest.

I'm aware you can watch legal streams of MMA online - not the UFC mind, nor Bellator - but you can do that with smaller boxing shows too.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Claypole said:


> The difference with the UFC is that it's a brand, rather than a sport in its own right. If you don't want to pay the money for a UFC PPV, then there's plenty of other MMA to watch. With boxing, the PPV's are starting to erode the whole sport in this country.
> 
> And it's made worse by fans claiming things like "The fight wouldn't be made if it wasn't on PPV"


That's all true. My point was that UFC makes an effort to build its PPV shows with regular cable shows, usually featuring their best fighters here and there. The biggest fights are on PPV, but the storylines build over time and it means that they've built an audience for each big fight (and they also usually focus on entertaining fighters).


----------



## Claypole (Jun 3, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> On what platform is MMA easy to watch in this country?


Ok, maybe not so easy in this country. What I'm getting at is UFC have every right to charge PPV, it's a privately owned company. When boxing matches like Groves v DeGale are PPV, I feel like the whole sport suffers for it.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Claypole said:


> Ok, maybe not so easy in this country. What I'm getting at is UFC have every right to charge PPV, it's a privately owned company. When boxing matches like Groves v DeGale are PPV, I feel like the whole sport suffers for it.


The UFC's PPV numbers are dwindling, and they've never actually confirmed their PPV buy rates; perception is reality, and it's perceived that they do well because guys like Meltzer and Iole say that they do. It's no different to boxing - folk won't keep buying PPV without a reason to, and the UFC's tired "grudge match" formula isn't working. Their move onto network TV might help them wean of PPV more and more, but even they realise that in the long term too many PPVs is going to be bad for business.

And this is why Golden Boy moving into the UK is a bad thing. They've got their hack squad like Dan Rafael spouting out that "PPV is good for boxing," in reference to the British market, and GBP have no real clue about it. They're intent is to build Ogogo into a PPV fighter, and to run Khan PPVs again too. Considering the audience on Sky Sports is already a niche market compared to what boxing used to get, dwindling it even more isn't good for the sport in the long term. I agree with you there.

Look at the number of PPVs HBO was running with in the middle of the last decade; it was ridiculous. They've scaled back now due to many of those PPV main headliners retiring or passing the point of relevancy, but it's helped chase folk away from the sport. They're already paying for HBO, and you then want them to buy a PPV just about every month? It's all well and good some folk saying, "well, just don't buy it then," but it will chase some people away - it will make them think that boxing is just too expensive to follow, and if they can't afford to watch the big fights live then why bother?


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

Eddie Hearn sucked a lot of people in with his first magic trick. By saying he is against PPV. He bloody knew, with the way boxing was after Harrison-Haye, he needed to get the fans back onside! What better way to do it, than to mingle with them on social media?

Eddie has got suckers back onside and is now ramping up PPV again. Fortunately though people are seeing through the magicians trick and are starting to see how it is all done.

If these sort of quotes go mainstream, they will be potentially very poisonous. Eddie Hearn has been getting a fair ride for a while, despite a few critics, I'd say he gets a fair ride. In the media and with the fans. His rapid rise and growth as a promoter, has been fast-tracked somewhat. iFilmLondon have helped no end with this growth and Sky have been behind him as a platform and have been behind nobody else in the process. Which has allowed him to nail signings. Eddie Hearn has overtook promoters like Mick Hennessey who have been in the game a lot longer than Eddie.

If he encourages PPV now, people will say, well you said you wasnt for it when you started out? What now? The fact is there are no excuses to defend it. Forget about the BS "that was then, this is now". As somebody else said, this is changing the goalposts.

I told you all months back that the Froch-Kessler II PPV was potentially gonna change the face of British boxing again if it did the good numbers. People moaned and complained about a shit card, but still coughed up in droves. If you want to blame someone for PPV coming back, I suggest the first place you look is in the mirror!

Now they've brainwashed the public with an over rated fighter, it now means every fight he is involved in is going to be PPV. George Groves is nowhere near PPV material yet, I'm not saying he cant be in the future, but right now he isnt in Froch's league. I'm sure even Eddie Hearn will admit that.

I dont even think a good card backing this would deserve PPV either, especially for such a one sided main event. Its not even a 50/50 fight. Carl Froch has fought at a much higher level. George Groves aint even fought at that level once. For Groves to get this fight he should of at least fought once at this level. They groomed Groves for this, DONT BE FOOLED OTHERWISE!

James DeGale turned down sparring for a reason. He isnt the smartest jack in the box, but he could see what Team Froch were trying to do from a mile of. George Groves however chased after that bone they threw and boy did he fucking chomp on it, chomped on it real good and got put down in the process. All the while Frochy getting a taste and a upperhand over the young lions coming up.

Just the very thought of this being PPV and the fact that they will discuss it. Even if it isnt. The intent is enough.

Laughable fight. 
Laughable PPV.

Forget mandatory... Carl Froch should be fighting Andre Ward, Bernard Hopkins or Nathan Cleverly. If Nathan Cleverly is a nobody to Carl Froch, then how can he be happily fighting George Groves? Ordered "mandatory" my arse! Carl Froch holds _*two belts*_ not one! They planned for this fight from way back.


----------



## shaunster101 (Jun 3, 2012)

Flash Jab said:


> Congratulations, you're letting the idiots win. .


No. That's ridiculous.

Unless you're going to stage a genuine physical mutiny on 'the powers that be' then it's not a case of 'letting' anyone win. It's just a case of accepting reality.



Flash Jab said:


> when people say the hardcore fan doesn't matter and the casual does, it's a completely defeating way of looking at things.
> 
> .


It may seem like a defeatist way of looking at it, but it's just the truth about the business model that Sky operate.


----------



## shaunster101 (Jun 3, 2012)

Trippy said:


> Top, top post.
> 
> A fight of Mayweather v Pacquiao (circa 2010), Muhammed Ali v Joe Frazier/Foreman proportions
> 
> ...


You'd be hard pushed to push too many people who disagree with you. But as long as there is substantial money to be made from a large chunk of people with a passing interest in boxing who are willing to part with their money then fights that don't meet your PPV criteria will continue to be PPV.


----------



## shaunster101 (Jun 3, 2012)

It does seems to me that in a lot of people's eyes you can't:

a) Dislike PPV and see the harm it does to the sport in the long term
b) Accept that there's not a lot that can be done to oppose it by the 'hardcore' fan

In a lot of people's eyes you these two things are mutually exclusive and you can't be a realist who opposes PPV.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

shaunster101 said:


> It does seems to me that in a lot of people's eyes you can't:
> 
> a) Dislike PPV and see the harm it does to the sport in the long term
> b) Accept that there's not a lot that can be done to oppose it by the 'hardcore' fan
> ...


You can apply that to most walks of life though. I'm oppose to most PPVs, but they're not going away any time soon, and if there's something I think is worth the money - or that I just want to see badly enough - I'll pay. But most of the domestic PPVs don't fall into that category for me. If Haye/Fury has a couple of decent fights on the undercard I might buy it, as I like Fury, would like to see Haye get beat (and I'm not suggesting he's shit or owt just because I'm not a fan); I've got an interest in it. I'm a fan of Froch, but don't think Groves is anywhere near ready for this fight, and it really doesn't interest me - so short of putting some genuinely good fights on the undercard, I'm not buying.

I'm sure Used Car Eddie is gutted, I know.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> You can apply that to most walks of life though. I'm oppose to most PPVs, but they're not going away any time soon, and if there's something I think is worth the money - or that I just want to see badly enough - I'll pay. But most of the domestic PPVs don't fall into that category for me. If Haye/Fury has a couple of decent fights on the undercard I might buy it, as I like Fury, would like to see Haye get beat (and I'm not suggesting he's shit or owt just because I'm not a fan); I've got an interest in it. I'm a fan of Froch, but don't think Groves is anywhere near ready for this fight, and it really doesn't interest me - so short of putting some genuinely good fights on the undercard, I'm not buying.
> 
> I'm sure _*Used Car Eddie*_ is gutted, I know.


:rofl :happy


----------



## ShaneTheSherriff (Jul 19, 2013)

Already starting to get pissed off with Froch's bitterness towards Groves over the Kessler sparring!


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2013)

I do think PPV can work but rarley does it provide true value for money.
@Batkilt and others have mentioned that the UFC might not be doing as well as some think because they don't reveal there numbers, but it could also be the case that they want to keep the numbers under wraps so the fighters don't ask for a bigger cut. Froch & Kessler will have made more from there fight than any UFC fighter has made in history.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2013)

Froch getting annoyed at Groves is complete and utter BS. I can understand if they were friends (which I always felt they were tbh) but being from the same country is irrelevant when it comes to boxing.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Ishy said:


> _"I'm not obsessed with having PPV fights. Some people just want to be PPV fighters but if you're a PPV fighter, you might earn a little bit more money but not a lot of people get to watch your fight. If we're going to grow the sport I want to see less PPVs.
> 
> All I care about is growing the sport and delivering for fans and the response that we're getting from fans at the moment drives me on to do more and more in the sport."
> _
> Eddie Hearn, August 2011


The thing is though, PPV is a good way to ensure the sport does grow, so I don't see any contradiction in what Hearn has said and is doing. If putting on PPVs means that boxing will get more funding from Sky, to put on better cards with bigger names, and is given more dates, then that will be beneficial to the sport.

PPV can work and be beneficial for the sport. It's not an inherently bad thing for boxing.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2013)

Jack said:


> The thing is though, PPV is a good way to ensure the sport does grow, so I don't see any contradiction in what Hearn has said and is doing. If putting on PPVs means that boxing will get more funding from Sky, to put on better cards with bigger names, and is given more dates, then that will be beneficial to the sport.
> 
> PPV can work and be beneficial for the sport. It's not an inherently bad thing for boxing.


But what Eddie has done so far with PPV is.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> But what Eddie has done so far with PPV is.


I don't think the Froch/Kessler fight was bad for boxing at all. The exposure it received was excellent and the fight delivered, so I'd say that was a big success. The undercard wasn't great when Bute/Pascal got called off, but it was a night of boxing which would have left everyone happy.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2013)

Jack said:


> I don't think the Froch/Kessler fight was bad for boxing at all. The exposure it received was excellent and the fight delivered, so I'd say that was a big success. The undercard wasn't great when Bute/Pascal got called off, but it was a night of boxing which would have left everyone happy.


Bute v Pascal would not have made it a great night of boxing.

We keep hearing all this BS everytime a big fight is made that "this is great for boxing, gonna get new fans" but what do they actually do to keep those new fans interested in the sport. Fuck all. The Froch v Kessler PPV could have genuinely done some good for the sport, but it did fuck all.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

Jack said:


> I don't think the Froch/Kessler fight was bad for boxing at all. The exposure it received was excellent and the fight delivered, so I'd say that was a big success. The undercard wasn't great when Bute/Pascal got called off, but it was a night of boxing which would have left everyone happy.


Bute/Pascal wasn't on the undercard though - it was on the same HBO presentation, but was scheduled to start after Froch/Kessler had ended. It's a stretch to link that in with the Froch/Kessler undercard.

And I'm not convinced it was good for boxing. Exposure is find and dandy, buy I've yet to read anything which suggests the exposure translated to a big buy rate. People being aware of a fight means nothing if they're not paying for it.


----------



## Claypole (Jun 3, 2013)

Jack said:


> The thing is though, PPV is a good way to ensure the sport does grow, so I don't see any contradiction in what Hearn has said and is doing. If putting on PPVs means that boxing will get more funding from Sky, to put on better cards with bigger names, and is given more dates, then that will be beneficial to the sport.


All PPV has done is make more money for those involved whilst we the fans have to pay even more to watch our sport. PPV has been around for years and I've not seen the sport grow because of it, all I'm seeing at the moment is Eddie Hearn trying to mug us off with a totally wank PPV.

PPV's puts off casual viewers who might subscribe to Sky Sports and feel aggrieved at having to pay out for a fight that isn't exactly top drawer. Overall you end up with more revenue, but less viewers. That's not growth, it's just profit.


----------



## Stunkie (Jun 4, 2013)

Claypole said:


> All PPV has done is make more money for those involved whilst we the fans have to pay even more to watch our sport. PPV has been around for years and I've not seen the sport grow because of it, all I'm seeing at the moment is Eddie Hearn trying to mug us off with a totally wank PPV.
> 
> PPV's puts off casual viewers who might subscribe to Sky Sports and feel aggrieved at having to pay out for a fight that isn't exactly top drawer. Overall you end up with more revenue, but less viewers. That's not growth, it's just profit.


:deal


----------



## Claypole (Jun 3, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Bute v Pascal would not have made it a great night of boxing.
> 
> We keep hearing all this BS everytime a big fight is made that "this is great for boxing, gonna get new fans" but what do they actually do to keep those new fans interested in the sport. Fuck all. The Froch v Kessler PPV could have genuinely done some good for the sport, but it did fuck all.


Good point, these are one off events that have no purpose other than create as much profit as possible, for that particular event. There's no strategy to grow the sport, only bank balances.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> Bute v Pascal would not have made it a great night of boxing.
> 
> We keep hearing all this BS everytime a big fight is made that "this is great for boxing, gonna get new fans" but what do they actually do to keep those new fans interested in the sport. Fuck all. The Froch v Kessler PPV could have genuinely done some good for the sport, but it did fuck all.


That point is pretty much impossible to prove though, and to be fair, I can't prove anything to the contrary. We don't have access to all the TV numbers or ticket sales and even if we did, it's impossible to make comparisons. If boxing gets more dates on Sky, as I think it will, then I'd say that is a direct result of the success of the PPV format.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Claypole said:


> All PPV has done is make more money for those involved whilst we the fans have to pay even more to watch our sport. PPV has been around for years and I've not seen the sport grow because of it, all I'm seeing at the moment is Eddie Hearn trying to mug us off with a totally wank PPV.
> 
> PPV's puts off casual viewers who might subscribe to Sky Sports and feel aggrieved at having to pay out for a fight that isn't exactly top drawer. Overall you end up with more revenue, but less viewers. That's not growth, it's just profit.


You're right with your opening line, PPV is solely designed to make more money for the people involved but that's why it can be a good thing for fans. The more money that Sky make from boxing, the more likely they are to give it funds and TV dates which, as boxing fans, is surely what we want? We all want to see good cards but at the moment, Sky funding is too low to put them on, and the only way Sky will put up more money for purses and for international fights is if they get something out of the sport. Without PPV, Sky don't have an incentive to back the sport because it's not financially attractive. The same reason is why we only have so few boxing dates per year; it doesn't make a profit for Sky, so why would they back it and give us 40 shows a year?

If it's a choice between 4 PPVs and 40 improved regular shows, or 20 regular shows a year, I know which one I think is better for the sport. The more Sky back boxing, the better it is for all boxing fans, even if we do have to put up with additional PPVs.


----------



## Nyanners :sad5 (Jun 8, 2012)

shaunster101 said:


> No. That's ridiculous.
> 
> Unless you're going to stage a genuine physical mutiny on 'the powers that be' then it's not a case of 'letting' anyone win. It's just a case of accepting reality.
> 
> It may seem like a defeatist way of looking at it, but it's just the truth about the business model that Sky operate.


There's still hope for people to be educated about boxing and to question things such as what they're buying. It just takes other people to realise it. The only way this model can succeed is if it's successful. People have already lost faith in boxing as a general demographic, these kind of fights come and go. Even one person not buying the PPV makes a difference, no matter how small.


----------



## Claypole (Jun 3, 2013)

PPV may possibly be good for boxing on Sky, but I've watched loads of great boxing on Boxnation, and not once was it PPV. The PPV shows on Sky have not really stood out as exceptional quality either.

PPV is not a magic formula to bring us more/better boxing on TV. It's just charging us more money for the same thing.


----------



## Smooth (Jun 7, 2013)

I would only order froch vs groves on SBO if it had a stellar undercard, otherwise no chance. Groves is way too unproven at world level.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Claypole said:


> PPV may possibly be good for boxing on Sky, but I've watched loads of great boxing on Boxnation, and not once was it PPV. The PPV shows on Sky have not really stood out as exceptional quality either.
> 
> PPV is not a magic formula to bring us more/better boxing on TV. It's just charging us more money for the same thing.


BoxNation is PPV though. It's a channel rather than a fight and the costs aren't as high, but you're still a subscriber paying for their content.

On a side note, the set up with BoxNation is more unfair than regular PPV, I think, because it's quality isn't guaranteed. You pay £10 a month for...what? BoxNation aren't obligated to show you any major cards abroad or show you any British shows either, so there's no guarantee on what exactly you'll get. Some months it's great and others, it's not. The British content is especially lacking and I doubt many subscribers would say that the channel does enough to promote British talent.


----------



## Scotty (Jun 6, 2012)

I really think Eddie is going to put on a quality card. 
Dan says they are trying to match the date with HBO. GGGs next HBO date is November too. Him v Murray as part of a double header would suffice.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2013)

Scotty said:


> I really think Eddie is going to put on a quality card.
> Dan says they are trying to match the date with HBO. GGGs next HBO date is November too. Him v Murray as part of a double header would suffice.


23rd of november would be Pacquiao v Rios


----------



## Scotty (Jun 6, 2012)

robpalmer135 said:


> 23rd of november would be Pacquiao v Rios


Eddie would prefer the 23rd according to Dan but he'll have to do it on another date to accommodate HBO so that's why the date is not set in concrete yet.


----------



## Lilo (Jun 4, 2012)

Jack said:


> BoxNation is PPV though. It's a channel rather than a fight and the costs aren't as high, but you're still a subscriber paying for their content.
> 
> On a side note, the set up with BoxNation is more unfair than regular PPV, I think, because it's quality isn't guaranteed. You pay £10 a month for...what? BoxNation aren't obligated to show you any major cards abroad or show you any British shows either, so there's no guarantee on what exactly you'll get. Some months it's great and others, it's not. The British content is especially lacking and I doubt many subscribers would say that the channel does enough to promote British talent.


Awful.

In general cards are scheduled a minimum of two months before. You know most of BN's content before the month starts. You dont think there's enough? Unsubscribe.

Regular SKY is PPV too. You then pay an equivalent of 6 weeks extra (BN) for the best fights. They're essentially drug dealers. Give you a 'free' taste of a product, get you hooked then precede to jack the prices up and rape your wallet.


----------



## Claypole (Jun 3, 2013)

Jack said:


> BoxNation is PPV though. It's a channel rather than a fight and the costs aren't as high, but you're still a subscriber paying for their content.


Boxnation is not PPV, same as regular Sky Sports is not PPV. Pay Per View describes a system where you don't pay a subscription, you pay for individual events as and when you want to.

The big difference between Sky and Boxnation is that Sky will charge you money to watch a bit of boxing, then sting you again if you want to watch more. Boxnation don't sting you again as soon as they show anything half decent. Plus if you don't like it, just cancel, your tied into a contract.


----------



## dftaylor (Jun 4, 2012)

Jack said:


> BoxNation is PPV though. It's a channel rather than a fight and the costs aren't as high, but you're still a subscriber paying for their content.
> 
> On a side note, the set up with BoxNation is more unfair than regular PPV, I think, because it's quality isn't guaranteed. You pay £10 a month for...what? BoxNation aren't obligated to show you any major cards abroad or show you any British shows either, so there's no guarantee on what exactly you'll get. Some months it's great and others, it's not. The British content is especially lacking and I doubt many subscribers would say that the channel does enough to promote British talent.


It's not pay per view, unless you categorise all pay services as ppv (and you don't understand the concept).

It's a subscription based platform. PPV relates only to single events.


----------



## Wickio (Jun 3, 2012)

dftaylor said:


> It's not pay per view, unless you categorise all pay services as ppv (and you don't understand the concept).
> 
> It's a subscription based platform. PPV relates only to single events.


I don't understand how there could be any confusion. The name is pretty clear in itself.

Pay *per* view.


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

lol Jack's getting more and more mental with his comments recently.


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

Roe said:


> lol Jack's getting more and more mental with his comments recently.


Eddie Hearn is really shitting on Jack at the moment. I'd cut the fucker loose Jack, he's taking the piss.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

Boxnation is a subscription based channel. Like Sky Sports is for instance, which is under a package. Whereas Boxnation is just one channel. Boxnation is not PPV in terms of Sky Sports Box Office. But really it is ALL PPV but just of varying levels. It is PPV because *you are paying in order to view it* which would come under Pay.Per.View.

It makes me laugh when people consider a fight being on Sky Sports "free"

Next time the bill comes, have a look!


----------



## scrappylinks (Jun 2, 2012)

In many ways ITV is pay per view as well because you still have to pay for your TV to watch it


----------



## Roe (Jun 1, 2012)

- DC - said:


> Boxnation is a subscription based channel. Like Sky Sports is for instance, which is under a package. Whereas Boxnation is just one channel. Boxnation is not PPV in terms of Sky Sports Box Office. But really it is ALL PPV but just of varying levels. It is PPV because *you are paying in order to view it* which would come under Pay.Per.View.
> 
> It makes me laugh when people consider a fight being on Sky Sports "free"
> 
> Next time the bill comes, have a look!


Be quiet or you're going to Gulag.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

scrappylinks said:


> In many ways ITV is pay per view as well because you still have to pay for your TV to watch it


BBC is super PPV because not only do you have to pay for a TV. You are told to pay TV License on top of your digital box.

.....and it all goes straight into the pockets of pedophiles. :lol:

How do you feel TV License payers?


----------



## GazOC (Jun 2, 2012)

- DC - said:


> It makes me laugh when people consider a fight being on Sky Sports "free"


When Boxnation started up people were complaining that they'd have to pay and extra tenner to watch fights that should have been on Sky Sports for free.:-(


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

Roe said:


> Be quiet or you're going to Gulag.


For what?

People were talking about PPV?

Am I not allowed to talk about PPV either?

1 rule for some then?


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

Claypole said:


> Boxnation is not PPV, same as regular Sky Sports is not PPV. Pay Per View describes a system where you don't pay a subscription, you pay for individual events as and when you want to.
> 
> The big difference between Sky and Boxnation is that Sky will charge you money to watch a bit of boxing, then sting you again if you want to watch more. Boxnation don't sting you again as soon as they show anything half decent. Plus if you don't like it, just cancel, your tied into a contract.


Yeah, that's fair enough, I know where you're coming from. I just brought that point up when I misread your line :lol: Essentially, PPV and subscription channels are the same thing, as is Sky Sports, but it's probably fair to differentiate between them.


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

Claypole said:


> Boxnation is not PPV, same as regular Sky Sports is not PPV. Pay Per View describes a system where you don't pay a subscription, you pay for individual events as and when you want to.
> 
> *The big difference between Sky and Boxnation is that Sky will charge you money to watch a bit of boxing, then sting you again if you want to watch more.* Boxnation don't sting you again as soon as they show anything half decent. Plus if you don't like it, just cancel, your tied into a contract.


This!
Seriously I cant believe people are dumb enough to buy this PPV shit. You allready pay a regular fee and when there is a good fight you have to pay extra?

In america they understand what PPV means. There you only have Mayweather/Pac or other truly big fights as PPV event. And on top of that they always have a big undercard.

If america would have the same standard as the UK Lucas M. vs Peterson, Garcia vs Judah, Paulie vs Broner all would be PPV. Luckily they know that only very few fighters are PPV worthy and that PPV needs a big undercard.

Hearn will fail sooner or later if he keeps up with PPVs like Froch vs Groves.:lol:


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Bute v Pascal would not have made it a great night of boxing.
> 
> We keep hearing all this BS everytime a big fight is made that "this is great for boxing, gonna get new fans" but what do they actually do to keep those new fans interested in the sport. Fuck all. The Froch v Kessler PPV could have genuinely done some good for the sport, but it did fuck all.


If you want to do something good for the sport dont put fight like this on PPV or better: Put them on national TV.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

LuckyLuke said:


> In america they understand what PPV means. There you only have Mayweather/Pac or other truly big fights as PPV event. And on top of that they always have a big undercard.


Mayweather/Ortiz, Mayweather/Hatton, Mayweather/Mosley, Pacquiao/Cotto, Pacquiao/Clottey and Pacquiao/Margarito all had poor undercards though. You also have to consider that the Americans are paying £50 for their PPVs whereas over here, we pay £15 so there is much more money to spread around. Assuming a fight over here gets 400,000 PPV buys, which would be a big success, then that's only £6m made before everyone has to take their cut. A 'big success' on American PPV would be 1m buys and if that is the case, they'd have £50m to put on a great main event and load the PPV up with talent.

Would British boxing fans be happier paying £50 for a card if it meant having three excellent fights on it? As in Froch/Golovkin, Burns/Vazquez and Haye/Vitali or something like that? I'm not sure, honestly. I know we all want costs to be low and the quality to be great but I don't think that's feasible, really.

But yeah, if you're going to make comparisons to the American PPV market, you have to consider that Americans are paying over 3 times what we are, so you'd expect much more depth on their cards.


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

Jack said:


> But yeah, if you're going to make comparisons to the American PPV market, you have to consider that Americans are paying over 3 times what we are, so you'd expect much more depth on their cards.


My point was that only truly big fights are on PPV. If we take Hearns standard of PPV and import it to america Paulie vs Broner would have been PPV with a shit undercard. Lucas M vs Peterson would have been PPV with a shit undercard ect.

Yes the UK has not the depth of talent like america. But thats hardly an argument imo. Froch vs a past it Kessler is not PPV. At least not with that undercard. Froch vs Groves is certainly not a PPV fight.

Only because people are dumb enough to buy PPVs like this it doesnt make it right imo. And if Hearn keeps the PPV standard that low he will fail sooner or later.

And dindt Hearn said that he wants the sport to grow ect? Well PPVs like that wont help thats for sure. If he wants the sport to grow he has to put fights like this on without PPV so more people will watch it.

Hearn is no different then Warren,Sauerlands,Golden Boy ect....thats fine but people have to stop acting like he is something differnt. Because he clearly is not.


----------



## Jack (Jul 29, 2012)

LuckyLuke said:


> My point was that only truly big fights are on PPV. If we take Hearns standard of PPV and import it to america Paulie vs Broner would have been PPV with a shit undercard. Lucas M vs Peterson would have been PPV with a shit undercard ect.
> 
> Yes the UK has not the depth of talent like america. But thats hardly an argument imo. Froch vs a past it Kessler is not PPV. At least not with that undercard. Froch vs Groves is certainly not a PPV fight.
> 
> ...


The thing is though, HBO offer their fighters far more than Sky do. In an ideal world, we'd have all these fights on Sky Sports 1 just like they do in America but who is going to pay for it? The money Sky offer to Hearn isn't big enough to put on those sort of fights, never mind the type of money HBO give fighters on their channel. Broner and Malignaggi split a purse of $2.6m to fight on regular HBO but that money is more than what most PPV fights in Britain would make, never mind regular Sky Sports.

The only way for these fights to happen on Sky Sports 1 would be if Hearn put up the money himself but if he did that, he'd lose hundreds of thousands. It's absurd to expect anyone to do that. If someone like Hopkins came over to Britain to fight Froch, Sky would never give Hearn the money to make that fight happen. It'd need to be on PPV because Sky won't invest that sort of money into boxing.

British TV money is far smaller than what ShowTime, HBO, RTL and most other channels show which is why so many fights can't happen over here.


----------



## Lilo (Jun 4, 2012)

There won't be any more PPVs when Haye sparks Fury early and Froch chins Groves in 4.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

Lilo said:


> There won't be any more PPVs when Haye sparks Fury early and Froch chins Groves in 4.


Here's hoping!


----------



## Hook! (Jun 8, 2012)

I couldn't care less if it's PPV or not. I have no problem with buying the occasional PPV.
Most of the people complaining probably don't even have sky sports or box nation, probably just stream anyway.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2013)

Claypole said:


> Boxnation is not PPV, same as regular Sky Sports is not PPV. Pay Per View describes a system where you don't pay a subscription, you pay for individual events as and when you want to.
> 
> The big difference between Sky and Boxnation is that Sky will charge you money to watch a bit of boxing, then sting you again if you want to watch more. Boxnation don't sting you again as soon as they show anything half decent. Plus if you don't like it, just cancel, your tied into a contract.


Yeh you know what else is annoying....all that football, F1, Golf, Tennis, Rugby, Darts that they show. Why not play a bunch of repeats of mis matches all day. Fucking bastards!


----------



## sim_reiss (Jun 6, 2012)

LuckyLuke said:


> This!
> Seriously I cant believe people are dumb enough to buy this PPV shit. You already pay a regular fee and when there is a good fight you have to pay extra?
> 
> In america they understand what PPV means. There you only have Mayweather/Pac or other truly big fights as PPV event. And on top of that they always have a big undercard.
> ...


Firstly, PPV fighters aren't based on talent, they're based on their profile in country X.

Second, I don't understand why people assume the US version is better than the UK. People pay to subscribe to Showtime and HBO AND pay $50 for a PPV.

I thought I'd investigate your claim of "big" US PPV undercards. Below are listed the undercard bouts on recent Mayweather and Pacquiao cards over 10 rounds or more. It's an interesting list:

1. They are nowhere near as good as expected. I would go as far to say they are worse than the televised undercard of a standard Showtime/HBO fight. It seems golden boy and Top Rank adhere to the principle that the undercard is of limited importance to PPV sales. PPV is inherently a casual-orientated product so I'm not surprised.

2. They generally eschew 50-50 bouts in favour of high profile fighters taking on underdog opponents - "showcase" bouts

3. On the positive side, they have however shown a trend of improvement over the past 5 years. Perhaps Garcia-Matthyse is possibly a great sign of things to come.

I'd be interested to see what people make of the list below. How many really good fights can you pick out?

Pacquiao-De La Hoya:
Victor Ortiz TKO2 Jeffrey Resto
Juan Manuel Lopez TKO1 Sergio Manuel Medina

Pacquiao-Hatton:
Humberto Soto TKO9 Benoit Gaudet

Pacquiao-Cotto:
Yuri Foreman UD Daniel Santos
Alfonso Gomez TD6 Jesus Soto-Karass
Julio Cesar Chavez Jr ND Troy Rowland

Pacquiao-Clottey:
Humberto Soto UD David Diaz
Alfonso Gomez RTD6 Jose Luis Castillo
John Duddy SD Michael Medina

Pacquiao-Margarito
Guillermo Rigondeaux SD Ricardo Cordoba
Mike Jones MD Jesus Soto-Karass
Brandon Rios TKO5 Omri Lowther

Pacquiao-Mosley:
Jorge Arce TKO12 Wilfredo Vasquez Jr
Rodel Mayol MD Javier Gallo
Mike Alvarado RTD3 Ray Narh
Kelly Pavlik MD Alfonso Lopez

Pacquiao-Marquez 3:
Bradley TKO8 Joel Casamayor
Juan Carlos Burgos MD Luis Cruz
Mike Alvarado TKO10 Bredis Prescott

Pacquiao-Bradley:
Randall Bailey KO11 Mike Jones
Guillermo Rigondeaux TKO5 Teon Kennedy
Jorge Arce NC2 Jesus M Rojas

Pacquiao-Marquez 4:
Javier Fortuna UD Patrick Hyland
Miguel Vazquez UD Mercito Gesta
Yuorkis Gamboa UD Michael Farenas

Mayweather-De La Hoya:
Rey Bautista UD Sergio Manuel Medina
Rocky Juarez UD Jose Andres Hernandez

Mayweather-Hatton:
Daniel Ponce De Leon UD Vincente Escobedo
Jeff Lacy UD Peter Manfredo Jr
Ednar Cherry TKO6 Wes Ferguson

Mayweather-Marquez:
Chris John UD Rocky Juarez
Michael Katsidis SD Vincente Escobedo
Cornelius Lock TKO5 Orlando Cruz

Mayweather-Mosley:
Saul Alvarez TKO9 Jose Miguel Cotto
Daniel Ponce De Leon UD Cornelius Lock
Said Ouali TKO1 Hector Saldivia
Eloy Perez MD Gilberto Sanchez Leon

Mayweather-Ortiz:
Erik Morales RTD10 Pablo Cesar Cano
Jessie Vargas SD Josesito Lopez
Carson Jones RTD7 Said Ouali

Mayweather-Cotto:
Saul Alvarez UD Shane Mosley
Jessie Vargas UD Steve Forbes
Carlos Quintana TKO6 Deandre Latimore

Mayweather-Guerrero:
Abner Mares TKO9 Daniel Ponce De Leon
J'Leon Love NC Gabriel Rosado
Leo Santa Cruz TKO5 Alexander Munoz


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

Hook! said:


> I couldn't care less if it's PPV or not. I have no problem with buying the occasional PPV.
> Most of the people complaining probably don't even have sky sports or box nation, probably just stream anyway.


Yep 
This is an identical view to mine and the only thing I will add to this thread apart from I would never pay £50 to watch a sporting event at home,I couldn't care less if it was Muhammad Ali v Bruce lee that price is unacceptable


----------



## Claypole (Jun 3, 2013)

robpalmer135 said:


> Yeh you know what else is annoying....all that football, F1, Golf, Tennis, Rugby, Darts that they show. Why not play a bunch of repeats of mis matches all day. Fucking bastards!


I don't care about those other sports, so I actually agree with you, even though you're being sarcastic.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

sim_reiss said:


> Firstly, PPV fighters aren't based on talent, they're based on their profile in country X.
> 
> Second, I don't understand why people assume the US version is better than the UK. People pay to subscribe to Showtime and HBO AND pay $50 for a PPV.
> 
> ...


Interesting post
Alvarado Prescott was a good fight but wasn't a guaranteed cracker
Mares ponce de Leon was a good match up
Love rosado was a 50/50 call
Vargas Lopez
Morales cano
Katsidis Escobedo
Arce Vazquez jnr

I'm clutching at straws really
They are in the majority showcases although showtimes 'the one' is anything but


----------



## Bendy (Jun 4, 2013)

If the undercard is decent I reckon ill head along to this.


----------



## Primadonna Kool (Jun 14, 2012)

Jack said:


> Mayweather/Ortiz, Mayweather/Hatton, Mayweather/Mosley, Pacquiao/Cotto, Pacquiao/Clottey and Pacquiao/Margarito all had poor undercards though. You also have to consider that the Americans are paying £50 for their PPVs whereas over here, we pay £15 so there is much more money to spread around. Assuming a fight over here gets 400,000 PPV buys, which would be a big success, then that's only £6m made before everyone has to take their cut. A 'big success' on American PPV would be 1m buys and if that is the case, they'd have £50m to put on a great main event and load the PPV up with talent.
> 
> Would British boxing fans be happier paying £50 for a card if it meant having three excellent fights on it? As in Froch/Golovkin, Burns/Vazquez and Haye/Vitali or something like that? I'm not sure, honestly. I know we all want costs to be low and the quality to be great but I don't think that's feasible, really.
> 
> But yeah, if you're going to make comparisons to the American PPV market, you have to consider that Americans are paying over 3 times what we are, so you'd expect much more depth on their cards.


Nobody gives a shit about under-cards, nobody in the arena and 90% of people buying the pay per view.


----------



## sasquatch (Jun 4, 2013)

fuck sky , ill get a perfect stream on fullscreen and theres nothing they can do about it, i hope they get zero buys.


----------



## Scotty (Jun 6, 2012)

Stevenson v Bellew on the undercard?


----------



## Claypole (Jun 3, 2013)

Scotty said:


> Stevenson v Bellew on the undercard?


I definitely won't be buying it then...


----------



## sim_reiss (Jun 6, 2012)

*
George Groves gets super-middleweight world title chance against Carl Froch in all-British clash this year*

George Groves will face Carl Froch for the super-middleweight's World Boxing Association and International Boxing Federation titles late in November or early December with Manchester the most likely venue to host the all-British clash.

By Gareth A Davies, Boxing Correspondent

10:00PM BST 23 Jul 2013

It is an early call for Commonwealth champion Groves at world level, but one which the unbeaten fighter is relishing. *The Telegraph Sport understands that the event, likely to be on Sky Sports, could even become a Sky Box Office event if the undercard can be made appealing enough to pay-per-view fans.*

With Froch's stable-mate, David Haye, facing Tyson Fury in a highly anticipated heavyweight clash on Sep 28 creating a clear pathway to a world title challenge for the winner, British boxing faces an autumn of major fights.

The IBF sanctioning body, based in New Jersey, ratified Groves (19-0) as the challenger to Froch (31-2) after Canadian Adonis Stevenson, who would have been the mandatory challenger, moved up to light-heavyweight.

It will be Froch's third defence of the title he took in scintillating style when he demolished unbeaten Lucien Bute in five rounds in Nottingham last year.

And it will be Froch's first defence of the WBA title he added when he beat Mikkel Kessler in a rematch at the O2 Arena in May, with the unbeaten Groves collecting the vacant WBA Inter-Continental title that night with a fifth-round stoppage of Noe Gonzalez Alcoba.

"I'm excited the first defence of both my belts is a big domestic clash," Froch said. "I am a proper fighter and a proper champion and I will always face my mandatory challenger rather than vacate the title."

Froch launched a withering criticism of Groves leading into the Kessler fight after the Londoner had travelled to Denmark as a sparring partner to his rival, labelling the 25-year-old as "disloyal".

"I've known George for a while, I've sparred with him and watched him grow and now he's my mandatory. I will be pouring everything into my preparation for the fight and George will face the very best of me," Froch said on Tuesday.

"It is better this way than a low-key overseas opponent as this fight will relight memories of some of the great all-British clashes and with world titles on the line it's a really huge occasion and one that will grab the attention of British sports fans."

Convention wisdom suggests that Froch's vast experience at world level - this will be his 11th consecutive world title contest - could prove too much for the unbeaten Londoner, who will earn an estimated £500,000 for the fight.

Groves is an intelligent box-fighter who proved in his split points victory over James Degale two years ago that he can stick to the game plan set by trainer Adam Booth. There is every reason to suspect he may be able to outbox, but not outgun the granite-chinned Nottingham man.

Victory, nonetheless, not the payday, would propel Groves into the major money fights in a division replete with major names - including Kessler, world No 1 Andre Ward, and the German Robert Stieglitz, who holds the World Boxing Organisation version of the 12st crown.

Groves said: "This is the biggest fight of my career and being a world champion is something that I dreamed of as a kid. I'm well ranked across all the governing bodies but fighting Carl is the one that I wanted the most.

"He is a big name in the UK and a well-respected champion around the world, and I have a great team around me that can put together the right game plan to beat him and become a world champion and a major force in the super-middleweight division."

Journeyman welterweight boxer Billy Smith, 35, who had been due to box this weekend, has committed suicide. Smith, who had boxed 19 times this year, might have won 13, lost 148, and drawn two of his professional contests, but was widely respected as part of the glue which bound many undercards together.

Smith's twin brother, Ernie, took his own life in January 2010. He had an almost identical record of 13-142-5.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:huh

The bold part reads like it isn't set in stone. Maybe Carl's slip of the tongue was more strategic than we imagined...


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

Interesting. Hearn seeing if he can build a good undercard before labelling it PPV.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

I originally thought this wouldn't be ppv As the fury-haye fight will still be a fresh memory
But if you look at the press the fights already got it wouldn't surprise me at all.
George groves isn't a ppv fighter despite
The degale fight whereas froch is dependant on the opponent obviously.

So honestly is it ppv worthy
Reasons for making a fight ppv
1.extra costs involved in paying for the fight,example being a big 'name' who commands a large purse
2.the fight being unlikely to be made unless it was ppv as the fighters are elite and so their purses are based on a percentage of sales
3.simple-superfight that the promoter knows will sell despite it being behind a pay wall and with the fighters being 'names' it won't be hard to sell

In my opinion this fight fits none of this criteria.im not a Hearn hater,and he has had a good season but one thing I would have to pull him up on is his reluctance to put on a good undercard on froch-Kessler as the champions league final was on.that was criminal in my view,there was a lack of interest or care in the boxing fanatics or the thousands in the venue.

This would be a great and realistic undercard for me

Haye-fury (main event)
Quigg-salinas (world superbantam belt)
Smith-fielding (British supermiddleweight belt)
Ochieng-l smith (British and commenwealth light middle belt)
Galahad-dickens (British superbantam belt)
Rose-purdy (light middle minor belt)
Eubank jnr-Blackwell (eliminator for British middleweight belt)
H fury-kenna

All competitive and Hearn and Hennessay get some good fights on the bill for their fighters who maybe can't headline a show on their own yet.the main thing is the fights all mean something so it's a deep card and
You get intrigue as a hardcore fan
He still puts the prospects out and are available on the red button for any sky sports subscriber


----------



## Crean (May 19, 2013)

PaulieMc said:


> Froch TKO.
> 
> Groves can bang but his chin is suspect. He was knocked down and almost stopped by Kenny Anderson, stunned by Paul Smith and really wobbled by DeGale, none of whom are as heavy handed as Froch. George will want a firefight and it'll be his downfall.


Yep. He might stay out of range for the first few rounds, but by round 5 I see Froch tagging him on the regular and stopping him in and around round 6 or 7


----------



## Franco AFC (Jun 6, 2013)

Eddie is waiting for you guys to pick the undercard for him. He always copies/does what you people say.


----------



## - DC - (Jun 7, 2013)

sasquatch said:


> fuck sky , ill get a perfect stream on fullscreen and theres nothing they can do about it, i hope they get zero buys.


Yep thats the spirit! Tel the world! :happy


----------



## Jim Kelly (Jul 12, 2012)

yeah either throw in a top notch undercard or make it non-ppv.

I can't see it other than froch tko/ko!


----------



## Jim Kelly (Jul 12, 2012)

yeah either throw in a top notch undercard or make it non-ppv.

I can't see it other than froch tko/ko!


----------



## BoxingAnalyst (Jun 4, 2012)

I'd have no problem with the undercard being average if its on normal Sky.

I think Eddies banking on Barker beating Geale then adding Barker-Sturm and making it PPV.

Groves-Froch
Barker-Sturm
Stevenson-Bellew 

Wishful thinking I know.


----------



## SouthpawSlayer (Jun 13, 2012)

unless mike Tyson fights butterbean in a ladder match with dana white as guest referee it aint worthy to be on SBO


----------



## Jim Kelly (Jul 12, 2012)

Hearsn better learn from goldenboy's example..


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

BoxingAnalyst said:


> I'd have no problem with the undercard being average if its on normal Sky.
> 
> I think Eddies banking on Barker beating Geale then adding Barker-Sturm and making it PPV.
> 
> ...


It shouldn't be wishful thinking though, that is on its way to becoming a PPV event, it stands out.


----------



## sim_reiss (Jun 6, 2012)

Hearn: "If it's PPV, the card will have to be *outrageous*"

:eddie Gauntlet, laid down.


----------



## sim_reiss (Jun 6, 2012)

<delete>


----------



## Libertarian (Jun 2, 2012)

He better deliver then.... otherwise I'll have no choice but to join Team Allegedly.

Which would really be heartbreaking for me, all things considered.

Buncey praising him for setting up Froch vs Groves is strange I think..... it's not a fight you'd have to ''deliver''. It's one where the young pup says ''fucking hell, yeah!'' and the old stager like Froch says ''well, fuck it, I'll smash the little gobshite in a marking time fight before taking on another hard fight next''.


----------

