Eddie Hearn - Total And Utter Hypocrite

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Yes but it's not all about you and your Mates.........

1. People are worried about where it's heading........

2. Some families can't afford the extra payout.....Hard times for many.  Cost of living has risen in the last three years for many..

3. Some posters like me haven't got any friends in this Country.....A badge of honor I wear with pride might I say.......Unless you want to invite me round..(Just make sure the fridge is stocked and your Mrs is half naked)

The £15 isn't a problem for me but more fans will miss out.......and that's an unfortunate fact..

owen10ozzy wrote:

catchweight wrote:

owen10ozzy wrote:a) Relatively unproven? What constitutes a proven these days...people are saying it's to early to go in with Froch as he's unproven but who else should he take on to prove himself? Possibly Abraham/Stieglitz ....apart from that who was he supposed to face first Kessler? Ward?! ...he is a former Commonwealth champion...shown he is better than Euro level and beaten the 'other' super middleweight domestically in DeGale...

b) Whilst Hearn and co may very well have been doing their best to sell PPV to Sky for this fight, the ultimate decision still lies with SKY...so if we are looking for someone to blame then why not them?

I don't see anyone moaning about the price of SKY going up by 10% in September alone, due to it's continued battle with BT Sports (mainly over the football rights)

In fact in the years I have had SKYSPORTS it has gone from being £9 month to £22 now! That's a massive price hike, with the vast majority of that supplementing the cost of increasing player wages!

Boxing fans love something to moan about but very often contradict themselves. The simple fact is that due to greed or whatever else you want to throw into the equation it now costs more money than ever to get 2 boxers into the ring...especially two names. Now it's all well and good saying 'Why should we pay £15' or...if Froch won't fight for less than £2 million then drop him...or refuse to put it on PPV but if that happens then the fights stop happening.

Instead we will be sat watching Froch, Haye, Khan, other fighters World Wide....taking on the likes of opposition similar to Cleverly during his title reign. Then you will all be moaning that our young fighters are protected and that our best don't take on the best.

a. Yes Groves is relatively unproven. Few fights, even fewer approaching anything considered top level and little experience. At least Kessler was a proven world level fighter that had attained championship level. I dont have a probem with Groves getting a crack at the title but dont tell me its ppv worthy and fans should be grateful for being asked to fork out extra for it.

b. Boxing fans deserve to have a moan due to the rubbish they are expected to accept and put up with especially in comparison with most other sports.

You say fights will stop happening without ppv. I say they wont. Especially not fights like Froch v Groves. Nonsense that it took ppv to make this fight come off. Its exactly the sort of fight that could have easily been put on Sky Sports 1 and showcased to a big domestic audience instead of milking fans for the extra money. They manage to bring Bute v Froch off without ppv.

Sky may deserve to shoulder some blame in regards to the ppv, especially after dropping ppv after David Haye excellent value for money heavyweight adventure. But you are acting like Hearn is the fans white knight here fighting the fans cause when hes out to milk the maximum he can get away with. This Froch v Groves fight is proof of that if you ever needed it. A fight that is not ppv material, but upgraded to ppv because Hearn can pull it off and fans will pay.

So you genuinely think that Froch v Kessler would have happened without PPV?! Not a chance!! I think you are confusing my points...I am not saying that Froch v Groves should be PPV...what I am saying is that sadly it is a sign of our times that it is. Nothing is going to change that unless the larger percentage of the audience refuse to pay for it...and that will not happen as the casual fan will always tune in when a 'big domestic/international' fight occurs.

I am also saying that whilst it may not be PPV worthy he will do his best to at least ensure the card is stacked, that doesn't change the fact it shouldn't be £15 but it certainly makes it easier for me to part with my £15.

Now whether my money is going towards Hearn expanding the boxing schedule on skysports or just straight into his back pocket I'm not sure..and neither is anyone on here...unless you have access to his companies income & outgoings...yet from what I can see the guy is putting on more and more very good cards and is now bringing fights from International shores back to sky which I can watch. That means I get to see more boxing which in my view is a good thing.

Yes he may have 2 PPV's coming up...but lets look at what we've had:

Froch v Bute
Froch v Ward
Barker v Martinez
Frampton v Martinez
Frampton v Molitor
Brook v Jones

Not all World Class but almost every show he has put on has been stacked with decent fights and had very good value for money. There is no chance that he could put on the vast amount of shows that he has done so far without the use of PPV...it simply is not possible! If it was then the likes of Goldenboy & Arum wouldn't be throwing their fights under PPV as and when they can. The fact is that PPV helps supplement a number of other shows throughout the year which will LOSE money!

Gentleman01 wrote:

owen10ozzy wrote:

Rodney wrote:Jeff, I've subscribed to Sky since Terry Norris fought SRL on the old screensport, Sky sports took all boxing on board and covered it heavily as you know, the last 5 years they've been a disgrace to the fight fans. To their credit, half decent schedule til the end of the year but PPV every other month is unnecessary for those particular fights .

Cheers Rodders

I do agree that given what Hearn has said in the past...to then throw 3 PPV fights on in space of a few months is little devious of him...however my point is that you an do one of two things : Moan and not pay for them...then moan when the fights you want to happen don't... or just face facts its the sign of our times and if you want to watch the boxing pay for it...simple as that really.

I would love to think we as fans can change things but we can't...it would take an enormous number of people to not purchase the PPV for promoters to take notice...and whilst I am sure real boxing fans would be more than happy to do it in an attempt to take the power back...the fact is that PPV is geared towards casual fans and they will purchase it..therefore keeping the vicious cycle going.

All I am saying is that Hearn isn't as bad as others in the past, and he certainly isn't the anti christ he is being made out to be at the moment. Think people forget that 3 years ago SKY had dropped boxing, the domestic scene was suffering and very little fights were happening domestically. They had their fingers burned....Hearn has had to do a fair bit to gain the trust of SKY again and given the job the family has done with Darts, Snooker etc I am willing to back them for the time being to at least see what happens.

Agreed. I would rather see Froch Vs Groves on Box Office, than Froch Vs no-mark and Groves Vs no-mark, both on Sky Sports 1.

catchweight wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:

owen10ozzy wrote:

Rodney wrote:Jeff, I've subscribed to Sky since Terry Norris fought SRL on the old screensport, Sky sports took all boxing on board and covered it heavily as you know, the last 5 years they've been a disgrace to the fight fans. To their credit, half decent schedule til the end of the year but PPV every other month is unnecessary for those particular fights .

Cheers Rodders

I do agree that given what Hearn has said in the past...to then throw 3 PPV fights on in space of a few months is little devious of him...however my point is that you an do one of two things : Moan and not pay for them...then moan when the fights you want to happen don't... or just face facts its the sign of our times and if you want to watch the boxing pay for it...simple as that really.

I would love to think we as fans can change things but we can't...it would take an enormous number of people to not purchase the PPV for promoters to take notice...and whilst I am sure real boxing fans would be more than happy to do it in an attempt to take the power back...the fact is that PPV is geared towards casual fans and they will purchase it..therefore keeping the vicious cycle going.

All I am saying is that Hearn isn't as bad as others in the past, and he certainly isn't the anti christ he is being made out to be at the moment. Think people forget that 3 years ago SKY had dropped boxing, the domestic scene was suffering and very little fights were happening domestically. They had their fingers burned....Hearn has had to do a fair bit to gain the trust of SKY again and given the job the family has done with Darts, Snooker etc I am willing to back them for the time being to at least see what happens.

Agreed. I would rather see Froch Vs Groves on Box Office, than Froch Vs no-mark and Groves Vs no-mark, both on Sky Sports 1.

What about Froch v Groves on Sky Sports 1?

Theres no reason it couldnt be.

Steffan wrote:Its a ripoff for public houses as well really aint it. I know a few of my locals have Sky Sports it and its costs a fortune and for all those fees they pay you then have to pay even extra so your locals can watch a good dometic matchup down the local

Lance wrote:the less people that take an interest in boxing the more they must charge those that do. its a very short term philosophy though. long term they need boxing more accessible and cheaper for it to appeal to a wider market. but why would hearn and froch care about the next generation of fighters when they can make their fortune now.

Seanusarrilius wrote:

catchweight wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:

owen10ozzy wrote:

Rodney wrote:Jeff, I've subscribed to Sky since Terry Norris fought SRL on the old screensport, Sky sports took all boxing on board and covered it heavily as you know, the last 5 years they've been a disgrace to the fight fans. To their credit, half decent schedule til the end of the year but PPV every other month is unnecessary for those particular fights .

Cheers Rodders

I do agree that given what Hearn has said in the past...to then throw 3 PPV fights on in space of a few months is little devious of him...however my point is that you an do one of two things : Moan and not pay for them...then moan when the fights you want to happen don't... or just face facts its the sign of our times and if you want to watch the boxing pay for it...simple as that really.

I would love to think we as fans can change things but we can't...it would take an enormous number of people to not purchase the PPV for promoters to take notice...and whilst I am sure real boxing fans would be more than happy to do it in an attempt to take the power back...the fact is that PPV is geared towards casual fans and they will purchase it..therefore keeping the vicious cycle going.

All I am saying is that Hearn isn't as bad as others in the past, and he certainly isn't the anti christ he is being made out to be at the moment. Think people forget that 3 years ago SKY had dropped boxing, the domestic scene was suffering and very little fights were happening domestically. They had their fingers burned....Hearn has had to do a fair bit to gain the trust of SKY again and given the job the family has done with Darts, Snooker etc I am willing to back them for the time being to at least see what happens.

Agreed. I would rather see Froch Vs Groves on Box Office, than Froch Vs no-mark and Groves Vs no-mark, both on Sky Sports 1.

What about Froch v Groves on Sky Sports 1?

Theres no reason it couldnt be.

If boxing was a bigger sprot, yes. If this was the Benn, Eubank days then networks would be clambering all over for the rights to put these fights on. But the only real channel with commitment to the sport in the UK is Sky. Boxnation are about broke and Ch5 are neither here nor there. Sky will not put up the 2/3 million pounds necessary to make this fight, and Hearn won't shell that out on his own. I agree, if boxing was a bigger sport, no ppv necessary. But this isn't the case.

Really tho, we, real boxing fans, we are the ones that suffer. Armchair fans do not care at all it is boxoffice. They will buy it, watch it, talk about it until the following Wed and forget it