Eddie Hearn - Total And Utter Hypocrite

First topic message reminder :

Turn's out Eddie's been telling porkies.

PPV was only to be for very special occasions and Eddie would not be flooding us with Sky Box Office. Well look at us now a few months on from the Froch v Kessler fight and Eddie has hit the fans with two more PPV's. The second which adds insult to injury as it's Froch v Groves which is in no way a special fight. It's a stay busy, coin as much as you can, walk over fight for Froch.

Here's what Hypocrite Hearn has to say at the time of the Kessler fight:


“That’s important, [Haye’s first fight with Matchroom to be on Sky Sports] especially with our mission because fan perception of what we’re doing is important, we don’t want them to think: ‘Oh, Froch-Kessler’s pay-per-view so that’s how it is going to go now,’ — it isn’t,” answered Hearn when asked if putting Haye on Sky Sports was an indication that the powers-that-be won’t milk the PPV teat dry.

“Froch and Kessler is a freak fight that comes around once in many years, especially in the U.K., so when we signed David's people came out and said it would be another pay-per-view, but it isn’t — what I’m saying is that pay-per-view should be for something very, very special. Haye on normal Sky Sports will do massive numbers, and that’s paramount to what I’m trying to do on Sky.”


I know most of you guys won't care and will just pay the £15 quid but believe me when I say Hearn will suck boxing dry and when it no longer has any juice left he'll kick it to the kerb.

Hearn not following through on his words is becoming a habit.

Fans get treated like rubbish in boxing. In nearly any on sport the best taking on the best is taken for granted and expected. In boxing fans are expected pay through nose for matches that half the time arent even quality. Froch v Groves isnt ppv worthy and would be much better is Sky just stuck it on Sky Sports 1. If Groves isnt happy then let him go elsewhere for a title shot and if Froch doesnt like it let him vacate his title.

Think the problem is Hearn saying it was a one off..................

and the OP's pro-Warren agenda............Has a very complimentary article on Boxnation on his near-present history.......

Which isn't a problem...............But he has an interest in doing Hearn over..

Have no problem personally with Boxnation and the subscribers...Just think it takes great fighters away from the masses.......

I think it was the overseas coverage of world title fights, particularly those involving British and Irish fighters, which was so good in the exclusively terrestrial days. Vividly remember seeing McGuigan-Cruz (plus Bomber Graham-Rabotte on the undercard), Jones-McCrory, Minter-Antuofermo, Hope-Benitez and Benn-Barkley as they happened. Same with all the Tyson fights, Leonard-Hearns, Buchanan-Duran and so many of the contests involving Muhammad Ali.

On the domestic front, there were a lot of midweek world title fights, all of which were required live viewing. My memory stretches back to seeing Foster-Finnegan and Conteh-Ahumada, but you'd get live showings of good European and British title fights as well. Add that to extensive round-ups of action at home and abroad on the weekend and I still regard the terrestrial era as a golden one for boxing fans.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Think the problem is Hearn saying it was a one off..................

and the OP's pro-Warren agenda............Has a very complimentary article on Boxnation on his near-present history.......

Which isn't a problem...............But he has an interest in doing Hearn over..

Have no problem personally with Boxnation and the subscribers...Just think it takes great fighters away from the masses.......

Which is what SKY Sports and, by extension, PPV also does

SKY sports offer all kinds of sports...............and have millions of subscribers.........

Boxnation is Boxing focused and has minute quantities of subscribers...Hence my taking Boxing from the masses etc...

It does Dave but still maintain it is the lesser of two evils, simply because golf fans, football fans, cricket fans and pretty much fans of every other major sport will have a sky subscription and as such will get exposure to boxing. Nobody other than a hardcore boxing fan would ever subscribe to boxnation any more than I would subscribe to golfnation, as such I still maintain the chances of the sport attracting new fans is seriously damaged by the business model.

Allow me to stick my oar in.

Personally, I have no issue with good PPV. Lets evaluate what a good PPV is. To me, that means "big fight" - so this could fall under the category of any British World Champion taking on a ranked contender. Froch/Kessler covered this. You could also argue that 2 British Super Middleweights in Froch and Groves who have previous verbals between them is worthwhile of PPV. Look back and think "would I have paid £15 to watch Eubank and Benn?" You can then be critical of Haye/Fury, however that fight is arguably the biggest the UK has seen for some time. It's likely to have more action than Haye/Harrison and any fight Chisora has been in. Thank social media and the red topped newspapers for that one.

As correctly alluded to, we're begrudging paying £15 towards the purses of the big fights being made. It becomes infinitely less attractive for Haye to box Fury and vice versa if they're getting paid £500,000 each from gate receipts and advertising etc. Fury could just stick with Channel 5, make a comfortable amount then face Klitschko for a career high and retire. Thats what seems to be the cause of the decline of the big heavyweight fights, the fact they're not paid enough to fight each other. Theres been either making a decent amount but with limited coverage, or going to Germany to fight the Klitchkos. If this improves the matchmaking at every level because there is more appeal to the boxer then so be it. £15 is not a lot of money. its less than 50p a day. Don't know about you, but I think its well worth the money.

Sky TV has always been "pay a little more, go on" with everything. Look at its "3D" and HD services. Look at its multiroom and its sports and movies bundle. The fact you have to pay per view of the equivalent of your mates DVD collection in the "Sky Store" - its just what happens. What we can do as consumers is encourage the prices to remain low and for the big fight frequency to remain high. Vote with your boot. If Mayweather Pacquiao is on PPV, buy the crap out of it. If its too much, invite friends and chip in. Go down to the pub. Something. Don't bit the hand that feeds you, unless it starts feeding you fights you don't want to see.

DAVE667 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Think the problem is Hearn saying it was a one off..................

and the OP's pro-Warren agenda............Has a very complimentary article on Boxnation on his near-present history.......

Which isn't a problem...............But he has an interest in doing Hearn over..

Have no problem personally with Boxnation and the subscribers...Just think it takes great fighters away from the masses.......

Which is what SKY Sports and, by extension, PPV also does

How does boxnation take great fighters away from the masses. Sky had no interest in overseas boxing that's why Pacquiaos fights were on Primetime and other fights had been on Premier Sports. Sky got involved in the overseas fights again when Boxnation had success with it. The majority of stuff on Boxnation would never have been on Sky or any other platform in the UK

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:SKY sports offer all kinds of sports...............and have millions of subscribers.........

Boxnation is Boxing focused and has minute quantities of subscribers...Hence my taking Boxing from the masses etc...

But does it get 12 - 16 million viewers for a fight like we used to get in the days of Benn-Eubank etc? no, therefore the argument that it denies the masses to chance to view these fights is still relevant.

Oh and Grandstand and World of Sport along with Midweek Sports Special ALSO used to offer all kinds of sports so SKY aren't doing anything revolutionary

Rowley wrote:It does Dave but still maintain it is the lesser of two evils, simply because golf fans, football fans, cricket fans and pretty much fans of every other major sport will have a sky subscription and as such will get exposure to boxing. Nobody other than a hardcore boxing fan would ever subscribe to boxnation any more than I would subscribe to golfnation, as such I still maintain the chances of the sport attracting new fans is seriously damaged by the business model.

The majority of stuff Boxnation have shown would probably never have been on TV in the UK anyway so that doesn't really add up.

There is an old saying success breeds success.........

If young kids can't get to see the success then what is to stimulate them and get them following through years from now......

You didn't get huge success at cycling over night...exposure to success has made Britain the leading Country.......

Kev wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Think the problem is Hearn saying it was a one off..................

and the OP's pro-Warren agenda............Has a very complimentary article on Boxnation on his near-present history.......

Which isn't a problem...............But he has an interest in doing Hearn over..

Have no problem personally with Boxnation and the subscribers...Just think it takes great fighters away from the masses.......

Which is what SKY Sports and, by extension, PPV also does

How does boxnation take great fighters away from the masses. Sky had no interest in overseas boxing that's why Pacquiaos fights were on Primetime and other fights had been on Premier Sports. Sky got involved in the overseas fights again when Boxnation had success with it. The majority of stuff on Boxnation would never have been on Sky or any other platform in the UK

They were on Sky first were they not? When fights become PPV only the hardcore or those with disposable income will buy them. When they were on "regular" Sky, anyone with even a mild interest in boxing "or insomnia" could watch them

Froch v Groves as PPV is purely down to Froch being deluded.

He suddenly wants £2-3m a fight and described himself yesterday as an 'international superstar'

Hearn said on one of the Kugan Cassius videos that the only way to pay Froch was PPV.

If that is the case....
Drop him.

I refuse to believe this is going to make a profit but the fact they sold out the arena so fast at those ridiculous prices means next time they'll stick another £20-40 on them.

Doesn't matter if it sells out in 20 minutes... As long as they get the cash.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:There is an old saying success breeds success.........

If young kids can't get to see the success then what is to stimulate them and get them following through years from now......

You didn't get huge success at cycling over night...exposure to success has made Britain the leading Country.......

But at least it's on terrestrial TV. When they start making the Olympics PPV let's see how many people take up rowing or whatever sport we end up winning three bronze medals in.

I don't understand how our best boxer, who we need to get behind for him to achieve the level of success we deserve, is deluded.

He's an exciting boxer (goes to the trenches (Hi Dave))

He's unquestionably #2 in his division.

Holds a title.

All three of those to me show that he's PPV worthy but only when he faces opposition that demands it. Groves - demands it. He's ranked highly, he's also British etc. You have to think that we're essentially funding a sport we love by allowing these fights to happen. The minute Cleverly vs Nurse becomes PPV however, I'll be the first to jump in with the vitrol.

That's my point..................

Never said I was a SKY fan but at least it has millions of subscribers and is devoted to the sports fan as opposed to a Boxing channel with sack all subscribers taking the best names away..

DAVE667 wrote:

Kev wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Think the problem is Hearn saying it was a one off..................

and the OP's pro-Warren agenda............Has a very complimentary article on Boxnation on his near-present history.......

Which isn't a problem...............But he has an interest in doing Hearn over..

Have no problem personally with Boxnation and the subscribers...Just think it takes great fighters away from the masses.......

Which is what SKY Sports and, by extension, PPV also does

How does boxnation take great fighters away from the masses. Sky had no interest in overseas boxing that's why Pacquiaos fights were on Primetime and other fights had been on Premier Sports. Sky got involved in the overseas fights again when Boxnation had success with it. The majority of stuff on Boxnation would never have been on Sky or any other platform in the UK

They were on Sky first were they not? When fights become PPV only the hardcore or those with disposable income will buy them. When they were on "regular" Sky, anyone with even a mild interest in boxing "or insomnia" could watch them

They were on Sky and would still have been but they cut their boxing budget and stopped showing overseas fights and they were only ever interested in the big names anyway. Primetime, Boxnation and occasionally premier Sports stepped in and filled the gap. Boxnation put plenty on Sky wouldn't have even if they had never cut their budget.

Kev wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

Kev wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Think the problem is Hearn saying it was a one off..................

and the OP's pro-Warren agenda............Has a very complimentary article on Boxnation on his near-present history.......

Which isn't a problem...............But he has an interest in doing Hearn over..

Have no problem personally with Boxnation and the subscribers...Just think it takes great fighters away from the masses.......

Which is what SKY Sports and, by extension, PPV also does

How does boxnation take great fighters away from the masses. Sky had no interest in overseas boxing that's why Pacquiaos fights were on Primetime and other fights had been on Premier Sports. Sky got involved in the overseas fights again when Boxnation had success with it. The majority of stuff on Boxnation would never have been on Sky or any other platform in the UK

They were on Sky first were they not? When fights become PPV only the hardcore or those with disposable income will buy them. When they were on "regular" Sky, anyone with even a mild interest in boxing "or insomnia" could watch them

They were on Sky and would still have been but they cut their boxing budget and stopped showing overseas fights and they were only ever interested in the big names anyway. Primetime, Boxnation and occasionally premier Sports stepped in and filled the gap. Boxnation put plenty on Sky wouldn't have even if they had never cut their budget.

Because they'd burnt their fingers making everything PP bloody V. No doubt they over estimated their ability to flog a PPV whilst underestimating the tolerance of people to keep shelling out for dross.

rob-glos wrote:Froch v Groves as PPV is purely down to Froch being deluded.

He suddenly wants £2-3m a fight and described himself yesterday as an 'international superstar'

Hearn said on one of the Kugan Cassius videos that the only way to pay Froch was PPV.

Froch needs to stop listening to his own hype. I bet he spends hours in front of the mirror telling himself that he's one of Britain's greatest ever sportsmen, warrior, granite-chinned superstars, reminding himself of the unparalleled conveyor belt of top opponents he's fought over the last few years to cement his legacy as legend of the sport. He's getting extremely repetitive and boring now.

Fair dos for what he has achieved but does he really have to keep banging on about it all the time?

Isn't it up to us, the fans, to decide who we think is great or not?

Kev wrote:

Rowley wrote:It does Dave but still maintain it is the lesser of two evils, simply because golf fans, football fans, cricket fans and pretty much fans of every other major sport will have a sky subscription and as such will get exposure to boxing. Nobody other than a hardcore boxing fan would ever subscribe to boxnation any more than I would subscribe to golfnation, as such I still maintain the chances of the sport attracting new fans is seriously damaged by the business model.

The majority of stuff Boxnation have shown would probably never have been on TV in the UK anyway so that doesn't really add up.

Yes but a proportion would. At the minute boxnation has some boxing. What happens though if the channel succeeds and expands, which is surely the aim of any business and they have exclusivity with K2, Sutherland, Golden Boy, Arum, King and every UK promoter. The sport is pretty much exclusively shut away on a channel nobody outside of the hardcore and already commited fan will buy. Great for the future of the sport and attracting new fans.

STC wrote:

rob-glos wrote:Froch v Groves as PPV is purely down to Froch being deluded.

He suddenly wants £2-3m a fight and described himself yesterday as an 'international superstar'

Hearn said on one of the Kugan Cassius videos that the only way to pay Froch was PPV.

Froch needs to stop listening to his own hype. I bet he spends hours in front of the mirror telling himself that he's one of Britain's greatest ever sportsmen, warrior, granite-chinned superstars, reminding himself of the unparalleled conveyor belt of top opponents he's fought over the last few years to cement his legacy as legend of the sport. He's getting extremely repetitive and boring now.

Fair dos for what he has achieved but does he really have to keep banging on about it all the time?

Isn't it up to us, the fans, to decide who we think is great or not?

Exactly, warriors don't bang on endlessly about being warriors who fight down and dirty in the trenches or on the battlefields or behind enemy lines having drawn a line in the sand in the Arena of combat...and they don't do the hokey cokey on tv either!

DAVE667 wrote:

Kev wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

Kev wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Think the problem is Hearn saying it was a one off..................

and the OP's pro-Warren agenda............Has a very complimentary article on Boxnation on his near-present history.......

Which isn't a problem...............But he has an interest in doing Hearn over..

Have no problem personally with Boxnation and the subscribers...Just think it takes great fighters away from the masses.......

Which is what SKY Sports and, by extension, PPV also does

How does boxnation take great fighters away from the masses. Sky had no interest in overseas boxing that's why Pacquiaos fights were on Primetime and other fights had been on Premier Sports. Sky got involved in the overseas fights again when Boxnation had success with it. The majority of stuff on Boxnation would never have been on Sky or any other platform in the UK

They were on Sky first were they not? When fights become PPV only the hardcore or those with disposable income will buy them. When they were on "regular" Sky, anyone with even a mild interest in boxing "or insomnia" could watch them

They were on Sky and would still have been but they cut their boxing budget and stopped showing overseas fights and they were only ever interested in the big names anyway. Primetime, Boxnation and occasionally premier Sports stepped in and filled the gap. Boxnation put plenty on Sky wouldn't have even if they had never cut their budget.

Because they'd burnt their fingers making everything PP bloody V. No doubt they over estimated their ability to flog a PPV whilst underestimating the tolerance of people to keep shelling out for dross.

It wasn't the overseas fights that damaged PPV in the UK it was some of the cards Warren was allowed to put on PPV with Khan then latterly with the stacked cards. Then Haye v Harrison which was Eddie Hearns first PPV really did the damage.

I just think the marketplace has changed and £15 is very steep for a couple of average fights and prospects beating up journeymen considering I got the Mayweather fight and whatever else Boxnation show in The month of September for only £10.

DAVE667 wrote:

STC wrote:

rob-glos wrote:Froch v Groves as PPV is purely down to Froch being deluded.

He suddenly wants £2-3m a fight and described himself yesterday as an 'international superstar'

Hearn said on one of the Kugan Cassius videos that the only way to pay Froch was PPV.

Froch needs to stop listening to his own hype. I bet he spends hours in front of the mirror telling himself that he's one of Britain's greatest ever sportsmen, warrior, granite-chinned superstars, reminding himself of the unparalleled conveyor belt of top opponents he's fought over the last few years to cement his legacy as legend of the sport. He's getting extremely repetitive and boring now.

Fair dos for what he has achieved but does he really have to keep banging on about it all the time?

Isn't it up to us, the fans, to decide who we think is great or not?

Exactly, warriors don't bang on endlessly about being warriors who fight down and dirty in the trenches or on the battlefields or behind enemy lines having drawn a line in the sand in the Arena of combat...and they don't do the hokey cokey on tv either!

He's an enigma.

And not a paricularly good enigma either. More like an annoying enigma.

Froch v Groves did not have to be ppv. Its exploiting fans. Theres no side excuse that it had to ppv to bring this fight together. Groves is a mandatory. Froch can fight him or vacate.

Hearn is doing what promoters. Try to get the most out of fans. Hes waffling saying Froch wouldnt fight except on ppv. If Sky said the fight was on Sky Sports 1, take it or leave it. Froch and Hearn would have no realistic alternative unless Froch felt like retiring. Of course Hearn wants the fight on ppv. Its more money for him, his fighters and his company.

Rowley wrote:

Kev wrote:

Rowley wrote:It does Dave but still maintain it is the lesser of two evils, simply because golf fans, football fans, cricket fans and pretty much fans of every other major sport will have a sky subscription and as such will get exposure to boxing. Nobody other than a hardcore boxing fan would ever subscribe to boxnation any more than I would subscribe to golfnation, as such I still maintain the chances of the sport attracting new fans is seriously damaged by the business model.

The majority of stuff Boxnation have shown would probably never have been on TV in the UK anyway so that doesn't really add up.

Yes but a proportion would. At the minute boxnation has some boxing. What happens though if the channel succeeds and expands, which is surely the aim of any business and they have exclusivity with K2, Sutherland, Golden Boy, Arum, King and every UK promoter. The sport is pretty much exclusively shut away on a channel nobody outside of the hardcore and already commited fan will buy. Great for the future of the sport and attracting new fans.

So would you rather it wasn't on TV because that was what was going to happen when Sky cut their budget. No overseas fights, a handful of domestic shows and Prizefighter. Sky have invested more into boxing because Boxnation have been successful at something they weren't interested in doing in the first place.

Kev wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

Kev wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

Kev wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Think the problem is Hearn saying it was a one off..................

and the OP's pro-Warren agenda............Has a very complimentary article on Boxnation on his near-present history.......

Which isn't a problem...............But he has an interest in doing Hearn over..

Have no problem personally with Boxnation and the subscribers...Just think it takes great fighters away from the masses.......

Which is what SKY Sports and, by extension, PPV also does

How does boxnation take great fighters away from the masses. Sky had no interest in overseas boxing that's why Pacquiaos fights were on Primetime and other fights had been on Premier Sports. Sky got involved in the overseas fights again when Boxnation had success with it. The majority of stuff on Boxnation would never have been on Sky or any other platform in the UK

They were on Sky first were they not? When fights become PPV only the hardcore or those with disposable income will buy them. When they were on "regular" Sky, anyone with even a mild interest in boxing "or insomnia" could watch them

They were on Sky and would still have been but they cut their boxing budget and stopped showing overseas fights and they were only ever interested in the big names anyway. Primetime, Boxnation and occasionally premier Sports stepped in and filled the gap. Boxnation put plenty on Sky wouldn't have even if they had never cut their budget.

Because they'd burnt their fingers making everything PP bloody V. No doubt they over estimated their ability to flog a PPV whilst underestimating the tolerance of people to keep shelling out for dross.

It wasn't the overseas fights that damaged PPV in the UK it was some of the cards Warren was allowed to put on PPV with Khan then latterly with the stacked cards. Then Haye v Harrison which was Eddie Hearns first PPV really did the damage.

I just think the marketplace has changed and £15 is very steep for a couple of average fights and prospects beating up journeymen considering I got the Mayweather fight and whatever else Boxnation show in The month of September for only £10.

Irrespective of whether it was overseas PPV or not the fact is they couldn't convince enough people to keep paying for it. The problem with PPV boxing is that whilst on paper it might seem a great fight, there are far too many ponderables to consider for the non-hardcore fans who may get a snore-fest, one-sided drubbing or a two round blow out

very good post catchweight.......

Doesn't cost him anymore to stick it on PPv........Or if it does it's minimal.........

Obvious that If you let him get away with Froch-Kessler he would try his luck again.......

Kessler wasn't much of a name over here If we are honest......and he's an average fighter in a garbage age.......

Pick benn, Eubank and Watson to all beat him even at 168..

Would rather the sport got its house in order and promoters and fighters started making the fights people wanted to see, that the governing bodies got rid of 99% of their ridiculous belts or themselves altogether. Am sure if any of these things were to happen think we would discover there is a huge audience for the sport and TV broadcasters would be falling over themselves to show the sport.

Rowley wrote:Would rather the sport got its house in order and promoters and fighters started making the fights people wanted to see, that the governing bodies got rid of 99% of their ridiculous belts or themselves altogether. Am sure if any of these things were to happen think we would discover there is a huge audience for the sport and TV broadcasters would be falling over themselves to show the sport.

I've told you before about this RoWLeY, now just behave yourself.

If the mods don't mind I've uploaded a three month thread for anyone to gaze at about this subject..

Who's paying for Froch-Kessler....May be of interest for someone to read and the remarks back then.

Not very good with links and all that..

catchweight wrote:Froch v Groves did not have to be ppv. Its exploiting fans. Theres no side excuse that it had to ppv to bring this fight together. Groves is a mandatory. Froch can fight him or vacate.

Hearn is doing what promoters. Try to get the most out of fans. Hes waffling saying Froch wouldnt fight except on ppv. If Sky said the fight was on Sky Sports 1, take it or leave it. Froch and Hearn would have no realistic alternative unless Froch felt like retiring. Of course Hearn wants the fight on ppv. Its more money for him, his fighters and his company.

You've just made the point though...if SKY wanted it on Skysports 1....they ultimately have the end say as the broadcasters. Clearly they want the fight on PPV else it wouldn't be on boxoffice would it?! So exactly how is Hearn the bad guy here? You do realise that boxing only had 28 dates this year on the Sky Calender....therefore some fights were always going to be PPV...at least Hearn has delivered one of the biggest rematches out their...and 2 big domestic clashes as his choices for PPV.

owen10ozzy wrote:

catchweight wrote:Froch v Groves did not have to be ppv. Its exploiting fans. Theres no side excuse that it had to ppv to bring this fight together. Groves is a mandatory. Froch can fight him or vacate.

Hearn is doing what promoters. Try to get the most out of fans. Hes waffling saying Froch wouldnt fight except on ppv. If Sky said the fight was on Sky Sports 1, take it or leave it. Froch and Hearn would have no realistic alternative unless Froch felt like retiring. Of course Hearn wants the fight on ppv. Its more money for him, his fighters and his company.

You've just made the point though...if SKY wanted it on Skysports 1....they ultimately have the end say as the broadcasters. Clearly they want the fight on PPV else it wouldn't be on boxoffice would it?! So exactly how is Hearn the bad guy here? You do realise that boxing only had 28 dates this year on the Sky Calender....therefore some fights were always going to be PPV...at least Hearn has delivered one of the biggest rematches out their...and 2 big domestic clashes as his choices for PPV.

Do you work for Hearn? Hearns job is to make as much money for himself and his boxers. Hes going to be busting a gut trying to get Sky to show this on ppv. His job is to sell the idea to Sky and convince them its worth it. Sky would get a far larger audience for the fight if it was on regular Sky. There is no reason for this fight to be ppv other than Hearn and his fighters wants it on ppv and there is an audience willing to fork out for it and make it worthwhile. Hearn sniffed this fight out a while ago and saw it as a nice earner he could stick on ppv.

It doesnt matter what dates are on Skys calender, it doesnt justify this being a ppv fight. Froch v a relatively unproven mandatory challenger who happens to be British.

Eddie Hearn is an arrogant and greedy man

Makes a great YES man for that loathable slimey snake Carl Froch though

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!

Just like with the football the price rises are going to happen, all we can hope is that we get something from it. Such as football, where fans will be able to watch over 154 games this year...supplementing Hearn/SKY with an extra £60 quid a year for PPV fights is far from ideal....however as long as I am getting something from it I won't complain. So far Hearn has continued to increase the boxing coverage in this country...firstly on a domestic level and now seemingly internationally too. If this increases I won't be complaining because at the end of the day I am a boxing fan..and the more boxing I get the happier I will be.

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.

The other alternative Ozzy is Hearn schedules these fights in the middle of the night so he can make up the shortfall in revenue through US TV, having been on these forums some time I can promise you this attracts more than its fair share of moaning. Also as someone who does not like missing out on his sleep would rather pay the money than have to stay up to stupid o'clock to see a fight.

Don't sit on the fence Ozzy, pick a side and go with it.

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.

No need to pick a side sean -

My point is that many people with their hands in the pie are to blame, to just pick out one misses the point entirely and to a large degree is half of the problem with why nothing changes with this sport.

Hearn is doing what any other promoter has done before him and what any human being would do in that situation of business...maximise his revenue. Now whilst he claims to be a man of the people...perhaps that is a stretch to far..but lets not pretend he is completely ripping everyone off. His shows that he has put on so far have been very good quality and he has increased the boxing on regular skysports two fold over the past 24 months.

Everyone is to blame and I have accepted that we are sadly in an era where the power in the hands of the people..or in this case the subscriber is long gone...so we have two choices...either fork out and hope that we get some kind of benefit from the extra charges or don't pay and sit and hope enough people do the same for changes to happen.

I choose to do the former because I have found that whilst the costs have increased I am now seeing more boxing than I have done for a long time. If this changes and I feel I am not getting value for money then I will not feed money into Hearn's pocket.

Other people need to decide what they want more...cheap, accessible boxing which sees underwhelming fights between Britains prospects/Britains best and mediocre European competition....or pay the extra and help ensure the fights between the likes of Froch/Kessler ....Haye/Wlad (it was rubbish but was between arguably the 2 best heavyweights in the world)...our young stars and real competition happen... rather than cherry picked opponents.

I'm sorry if you anyone isn't aware of this....but you will not get the best of both worlds anymore...those days are long gone...get used to it because it won't be changing anytime soon.

owen10ozzy wrote:No need to pick a side sean -

My point is that many people with their hands in the pie are to blame, to just pick out one misses the point entirely and to a large degree is half of the problem with why nothing changes with this sport.

Hearn is doing what any other promoter has done before him and what any human being would do in that situation of business...maximise his revenue. Now whilst he claims to be a man of the people...perhaps that is a stretch to far..but lets not pretend he is completely ripping everyone off. His shows that he has put on so far have been very good quality and he has increased the boxing on regular skysports two fold over the past 24 months.

I think the point is that he has contradicted everything he said less than 6 months ago. Makes him look a bit silly even if it ii just the fact that he hasn't been able to back up his promises.

Must be a Liberal democrat..

seanmichaels wrote:

owen10ozzy wrote:No need to pick a side sean -

My point is that many people with their hands in the pie are to blame, to just pick out one misses the point entirely and to a large degree is half of the problem with why nothing changes with this sport.

Hearn is doing what any other promoter has done before him and what any human being would do in that situation of business...maximise his revenue. Now whilst he claims to be a man of the people...perhaps that is a stretch to far..but lets not pretend he is completely ripping everyone off. His shows that he has put on so far have been very good quality and he has increased the boxing on regular skysports two fold over the past 24 months.

I think the point is that he has contradicted everything he said less than 6 months ago. Makes him look a bit silly even if it ii just the fact that he hasn't been able to back up his promises.

Ah but you forget that most boxing fans have extremely short whassnames..

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!

I don't know why people are complaining about two PPV a year at 15 quid. Get some mates round and it's next to nothing, and it is either that or no fight. Froch v Gorves and Haye v Fury are guarenteed to be entertaining. I understand bemoaning a Harrison v Haye PPV, but not this. We pay minimum of $60 in North America. More if you want it n HD,more if it is Mayweather.

Seanusarrilius wrote:Get some mates round and it's next to nothing

This is 606v2 forum members we are talking about here Sean

Exactly Sean;

In comparison to the yanks we are fortunate. In fact very fortunate...many of their 'B' class names get PPV ranking and the depth in number of fights which are broadcast on the show are pretty poor (correct me if i'm wrong).

I find the article title very ironic...given the Hypocritical nature of boxing fans in general who moan when big fights aren't being made and then moan when they have to stump up the costs for them to happen.

This may well not be PPV worthy, but it's not the only time some people have moaned about a card being put on PPV. Frankly I would rather pay £15 quid for this and see two of our best fight one another and find out whether Groves has what it takes to reach the top...than listen to people moan that he is being fed easy fights for the next few years!

Steffan wrote:

Seanusarrilius wrote:Get some mates round and it's next to nothing

This is 606v2 forum members we are talking about here Sean

haha

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:

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.

owen10ozzy wrote:Exactly Sean;

In comparison to the yanks we are fortunate. In fact very fortunate...many of their 'B' class names get PPV ranking and the depth in number of fights which are broadcast on the show are pretty poor (correct me if i'm wrong).

I find the article title very ironic...given the Hypocritical nature of boxing fans in general who moan when big fights aren't being made and then moan when they have to stump up the costs for them to happen.

This may well not be PPV worthy, but it's not the only time some people have moaned about a card being put on PPV. Frankly I would rather pay £15 quid for this and see two of our best fight one another and find out whether Groves has what it takes to reach the top...than listen to people moan that he is being fed easy fights for the next few years!

This is PPV because people will want to watch it. That is the only criteria that matters for PPV. People have to want to watch it in mass numbers, and already my armchair fan mates are banging on about Groves v Froch like it's Duran v Leonard I. As for us, the lowly, dedicated boxing fans, we shouldn't be too upset if the undercar is stacked, which it should be. Plus, this will be entertaining. Froch is gonna come at Groves all night until he cremas him or loses trying. Entertainment guarentted, maybe a good ol' KO and a decent undercard. Two mates and it is 5 quid each.

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