The Eddie Hearn/ Tony Sins Connection

First topic message reminder :

Apparently it goes like this,  Eddie married into the Sims family, his wifes madden name is Sims, and is business partners with Tonys daughter. It was apparently  Sims who talked Eddie into being a promoter so he could promote Darren Barker.

Below is a direct quote from Billy Nelson who is being very mature and philosophical about Burns leaving him to join Sims:

"It was my idea to have tony there (at Burns last fight) purely as an extra set of eyes, Ricky will be going to Tony to train in London, Tony phoned me like a man and said he'd been asked by Eddie to train him.
I have no issue with this whatsoever and only wish Ricky well, we all move on and get on with it."

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You're conveniently ignoring the most important part of that statement, give it up Strongy you're making yourself look more embarrassing each post.

What important part of the statement did I ignore.

This discussion has moved towards fighters contracts. What's embarrassing about that?

It's an interesting subject that is being talked about by many fans of British boxing.

Rowley wrote:Don't have the energy to read through the whole of the thread but strongy, have you provided any proof or evidence that boxers talking to third parties is against any board rules or laws of the land yet?

According to the BBBofC  standard Form 36 a contract between a boxer and a manager builds in the facility that a fighter can walk away from his contract at any time provided he compensates his former manager to the tune of 25% of his future earning up until the date when the original contract expires.

The 25% penalty rule I assume is included to discourage fighters from jumping around between promoters.

The twist is legal advisors have found a way to circumvent the 25% penalty thus releasing fighters from their contracts scot free.  From what I can read Tony Bellew was the first to do this allowing him to leave Warren and join Matchroom. Bellew argued that Warren preferred Cleverly over him and it was effecting his career.  The fact Bellew got to fight Cleverly didn't derail Bellew breaking free.  Bellew brought legal might to the table and the BBBofC accepted his argument.  The precedent  was set.

So has Eddie broke any rules or not. Is it his fault the BBBoC are weak. As I said many posts ago you seem to assess him against the rules you would like to be in place rather than those that are in place.

Rowley wrote:So has Eddie broke any rules or not. Is it his fault the BBBoC are weak. As I said many posts ago you seem to assess him against the rules you would like to be in place rather than those that are in place.

Eddie has facilitated managers/promoters losing their fighters.  It takes deep pockets to hire the best legal advice.  The BBBofC are failing to uphold the 25% rule because they don't appear to have the administrative/ legal resources to compete with a rich promoter.  I have learned more about boxing contracts in the last few days and my opinion that Hearn is behaving underhandedly has not changed. If the BBBofC had any balls they would be taking fighters to task over walking away from contracts and punishing any promoters that are encouraging fighters to rob their original promoter of the 25% of future earnings they deserve.

The 25% rule is a rule in the contract and should be upheld.  This is what the fighter and manager signed up to.

Strongy, just shut up for Christ sake. Are you D4 in disguise?

Which promoter do you think is squeaky clean then?

Sod it don't reply, just bite that tongue so hard it causes amnesia of your login details here

Izzi wrote:Strongy, just shut up for Christ sake. Are you D4 in disguise?

Which promoter do you think is squeaky clean then?

Sod it don't reply, just bite that tongue so hard it causes amnesia of your login details here

Come back when you have something to say. Talk about irrelevant.

Eddie has facilitated managers/promoters losing their fighters.

Translation = No Eddie hasn't broken the rules and i'm rapidly losing the little standing i had with the knowledgable posters.

Derbymanc wrote:Eddie has facilitated managers/promoters losing their fighters.

Translation = No Eddie hasn't broken the rules and i'm rapidly losing the little standing i had with the knowledgable posters.

A test the media use when checking if what they are writing is defamatory or racist is to change the name of the subject of the article and see how it reads.

If I took out Hearn's name and inserted Warren's nobody would have a problem calling Warren a treacherous sleaze ball.

The only reason why some respected posters are defending Hearn is because they think he is a friend to 606V2. They are on a mission to defend Hearn at every turn.

Hearn is advising fighters how to break their contracts so they can join him.

I've still yet to see anything to indicate that Hearn is doing anything that the vast majority of other promoters in most sporting or entertainment industries wouldn't do themselves.

It seems that you want to hold Hearn to more stringent moral and legal standards than anyone else, because, simply put, you don't like him. If he were to start acting like the choir boy you seemingly want him to be he'd be out of business within a year or two.

Very large conglomerates can occasionally (probably frequently) manipulate legal and regulatory systems so that everything is in their favour. That isn't fair and is probably worth some criticism. But, Eddie Hearn (and Matchroom Sport) are not in that category. If they were up to constant skullduggery then it would be relatively easy for legal and regulatory means to curtail this.

A number of your posts on this thread reveal what your motivation for this discussion really is. You don't like the guy and you enjoy trying to discredit him. You see him as a 'everything-handed-to-him-on-a-plate' daddy's boy. You see him as fake, pretending to be a 'nice guy'. This is essentially a debate based on personal prejudice. Only, you've based your judgements on his public persona/profile without actually ever having met the guy, which is really a bit silly, especially when you graduate from making throwaway comments about 'celebrities' (as most of us do) into lengthy discussions/analyses (as you constantly do). It is very strange behaviour.

I realise that you've backed yourself into a bit of a corner now and want to save some face. That's obviously why you're playing the amateur lawyer. But, it's probably best to hold your hands up and say 'sorry guys, I got a bit silly here'.

Just to reiterate:
- No one is 'fooled' by Eddie Hearn and thinks he's a really nice guy/saviour of British boxing
- Everyone knows, as a boxing promoter, that he's likely to have an unscrupulous nature
- Boxing fans are just enjoying the fact that Hearn has made a few decent/high profile fights recently
- Given that he hasn't done anything particularly bad yet, most boxing fans appear to be content to be generally supportive of his activities

Strongback wrote:

Izzi wrote:Strongy, just shut up for Christ sake. Are you D4 in disguise?

Which promoter do you think is squeaky clean then?

Sod it don't reply, just bite that tongue so hard it causes amnesia of your login details here

Come back when you have something to say.  Talk about irrelevant.

How about you stop your whinging and little personal thing with Hearn then? Haven't been on for a bit due to work, but seems most here think you're irrelevant, a joke and pathetic.

Boxtthis wrote:I've still yet to see anything to indicate that Hearn is doing anything that the vast majority of other promoters in most sporting or entertainment industries wouldn't do themselves.

It seems that you want to hold Hearn to more stringent moral and legal standards than anyone else, because, simply put, you don't like him. If he were to start acting like the choir boy you seemingly want him to be he'd be out of business within a year or two.

Very large conglomerates can occasionally (probably frequently) manipulate legal and regulatory systems so that everything is in their favour. That isn't fair and is probably worth some criticism. But, Eddie Hearn (and Matchroom Sport) are not in that category. If they were up to constant skullduggery then it would be relatively easy for legal and regulatory means to curtail this.

A number of your posts on this thread reveal what your motivation for this discussion really is. You don't like the guy and you enjoy trying to discredit him. You see him as a 'everything-handed-to-him-on-a-plate' daddy's boy. You see him as fake, pretending to be a 'nice guy'. This is essentially a debate based on personal prejudice. Only, you've based your judgements on his public persona/profile without actually ever having met the guy, which is really a bit silly, especially when you graduate from making throwaway comments about 'celebrities' (as most of us do) into lengthy discussions/analyses (as you constantly do). It is very strange behaviour.

I realise that you've backed yourself into a bit of a corner now and want to save some face. That's obviously why you're playing the amateur lawyer. But, it's probably best to hold your hands up and say 'sorry guys, I got a bit silly here'.

Just to reiterate:
- No one is 'fooled' by Eddie Hearn and thinks he's a really nice guy/saviour of British boxing
- Everyone knows, as a boxing promoter, that he's likely to have an unscrupulous nature
- Boxing fans are just enjoying the fact that Hearn has made a few decent/high profile fights recently
- Given that he hasn't done anything particularly bad yet, most boxing fans appear to be content to be generally supportive of his activities

Bring something new to the debate. I have read about what is happening with British fighters leaving their contracts and joining Matchroom. I have added something to the debate. Your post above adds nothing and rings of finger wagging for the sake of it.

And for the record a lot of people bought into Matchrooms PR campaign that Eddie was the savior of British boxing and a nicer more ethical type, to deny this is frankly cods wallop.

Well based on the fact that the last promoter who was in a similarly powerful position as Hearn liquidated one of his companies rather than pay a fighter monies the courts had said he owed him think it would be reasonable to say thus far Eddie is still more ethical.

Rowley wrote:Well based on the fact that the last promoter who was in a similarly powerful position as Hearn liquidated one of his companies rather than pay a fighter monies the courts had said he owed him think it would be reasonable to say thus far Eddie is still more ethical.

Can you remember what happened the last time Matchroom walked out of boxing? It was a mess with a lot of fighters left out in the cold. There are quotes from Eddie saying Matchroom would not be in boxing without the Sky deal, seems kind of precarious.

Not sure how your response relates in any way to what I wrote but hey ho.

Rowley wrote:Not sure how your response relates in any way to what I wrote but hey ho.

Matchroom have history too was my point.

So what, promoters come and go, go back a few years Duff and Astaire ruled the roost, then it was Warren, now it is Hearn, in a few years time it will be someone else. That is not up for debate, all that is debatable is how long Eddie has on top. I don’t much care for any promoter and how they happen to treat each other, because expecting ethic amongst boxing promoters is akin to expecting entrants to the British Grand Prix not to break the speed limit.

What I do care about though is that promoters give fighters the best deal they can and do not rip them off, and they match their fighters in fights I actually want to watch. As far as Eddie is concerned, I thus far have no evidence whatsoever he is doing either of the former and on the whole he tends to do more of the latter than was ever the case with his predecessor, as such I have little cause to hate the bloke.

Strongback wrote:The only reason why some respected posters are defending Hearn is because they think he is a friend to 606V2.  They are on a mission to defend Hearn at every turn.

Can I ask Strongy, where do you get this from?

Not sure when ive given any indication to caring about the sites affiliation to any promoter or company, if anything and Hampo will agree it's quite the opposite.

hampo171 wrote:

Strongback wrote:The only reason why some respected posters are defending Hearn is because they think he is a friend to 606V2.  They are on a mission to defend Hearn at every turn.

Can I ask Strongy, where do you get this from?

I know, everyone knows Hampo is in bed with Coldwell lol (oj)

hampo171 wrote:

Strongback wrote:The only reason why some respected posters are defending Hearn is because they think he is a friend to 606V2.  They are on a mission to defend Hearn at every turn.

Can I ask Strongy, where do you get this from?

It was mentioned on here by members of the admin\mod team that Eddie knew about the site and had facilitated V2 interviewing some of his fighters.

This thread is absolutely hilarious. I have never, since D4 seen such stubbornness. At least D4 was defending a fighter he loved, the opposite is not so artistic, its just sad.

Strongback wrote:

hampo171 wrote:

Strongback wrote:The only reason why some respected posters are defending Hearn is because they think he is a friend to 606V2.  They are on a mission to defend Hearn at every turn.

Can I ask Strongy, where do you get this from?

It was mentioned on here by members of the admin\mod team that Eddie knew about the site and had facilitated V2 interviewing some of his fighters.  

By who and when? Myself and Damien have organised the interviews for the podcast since it restarted, and Adam before that. All we do is ask the fighters social media. If it's the press passes you are referring to, Frank Warren and Dave Coldwell have both given us passes this year as well, and Hatton Promotions have offered us passes for the fight later this month.

hampo171 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

hampo171 wrote:

Strongback wrote:The only reason why some respected posters are defending Hearn is because they think he is a friend to 606V2.  They are on a mission to defend Hearn at every turn.

Can I ask Strongy, where do you get this from?

It was mentioned on here by members of the admin\mod team that Eddie knew about the site and had facilitated V2 interviewing some of his fighters.  

By who and when? Myself and Damien have organised the interviews for the podcast since it restarted, and Adam before that. All we do is ask the fighters social media. If it's the press passes you are referring to, Frank Warren and Dave Coldwell have both given us passes this year as well, and Hatton Promotions have offered us passes for the fight later this month.

My argument has nothing to do with how V2 operates and whether it is covering fights live, my view is you guys put in a llot of effort gratis. I can't remember ever slagging anybody off for covering a live show on a press pass. I have debated with Owen about Hearn alright.

The point I was making is there are one or two who feel they need to stick up for Hearn no matter he does based on Eddie showing an interest in the site.

Strongback wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:I've still yet to see anything to indicate that Hearn is doing anything that the vast majority of other promoters in most sporting or entertainment industries wouldn't do themselves.

It seems that you want to hold Hearn to more stringent moral and legal standards than anyone else, because, simply put, you don't like him. If he were to start acting like the choir boy you seemingly want him to be he'd be out of business within a year or two.

Very large conglomerates can occasionally (probably frequently) manipulate legal and regulatory systems so that everything is in their favour. That isn't fair and is probably worth some criticism. But, Eddie Hearn (and Matchroom Sport) are not in that category. If they were up to constant skullduggery then it would be relatively easy for legal and regulatory means to curtail this.

A number of your posts on this thread reveal what your motivation for this discussion really is. You don't like the guy and you enjoy trying to discredit him. You see him as a 'everything-handed-to-him-on-a-plate' daddy's boy. You see him as fake, pretending to be a 'nice guy'. This is essentially a debate based on personal prejudice. Only, you've based your judgements on his public persona/profile without actually ever having met the guy, which is really a bit silly, especially when you graduate from making throwaway comments about 'celebrities' (as most of us do) into lengthy discussions/analyses (as you constantly do). It is very strange behaviour.

I realise that you've backed yourself into a bit of a corner now and want to save some face. That's obviously why you're playing the amateur lawyer. But, it's probably best to hold your hands up and say 'sorry guys, I got a bit silly here'.

Just to reiterate:
- No one is 'fooled' by Eddie Hearn and thinks he's a really nice guy/saviour of British boxing
- Everyone knows, as a boxing promoter, that he's likely to have an unscrupulous nature
- Boxing fans are just enjoying the fact that Hearn has made a few decent/high profile fights recently
- Given that he hasn't done anything particularly bad yet, most boxing fans appear to be content to be generally supportive of his activities

Bring something new to the debate.  I have read about what is happening with British fighters leaving their contracts and joining Matchroom.  I have added something to the debate.  Your post above adds nothing and rings of finger wagging for the sake of it.  

And for the record a lot of people bought into Matchrooms PR campaign that Eddie was the savior of British boxing and a nicer more ethical type, to deny this is frankly cods wallop.  

No, that's you taking your interpretation and projecting it as other people's opinion. The opinions of others are a lot more subtle than you give them credit for. Just because someone says something nice about Hearn doesn't mean they are 'taken in'. That's a simplistic and childish way to think.

And, what is the point in bringing something new to this 'debate'? It's entire premise is poorly founded, lacking in evidence, and laced with ridiculous personal prejudice. It doesn't need any more new strands of discussion. It needs to be put down. But, you'll no doubt just keep on digging. I hope it's fun for you.

Boxtthis wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:I've still yet to see anything to indicate that Hearn is doing anything that the vast majority of other promoters in most sporting or entertainment industries wouldn't do themselves.

It seems that you want to hold Hearn to more stringent moral and legal standards than anyone else, because, simply put, you don't like him. If he were to start acting like the choir boy you seemingly want him to be he'd be out of business within a year or two.

Very large conglomerates can occasionally (probably frequently) manipulate legal and regulatory systems so that everything is in their favour. That isn't fair and is probably worth some criticism. But, Eddie Hearn (and Matchroom Sport) are not in that category. If they were up to constant skullduggery then it would be relatively easy for legal and regulatory means to curtail this.

A number of your posts on this thread reveal what your motivation for this discussion really is. You don't like the guy and you enjoy trying to discredit him. You see him as a 'everything-handed-to-him-on-a-plate' daddy's boy. You see him as fake, pretending to be a 'nice guy'. This is essentially a debate based on personal prejudice. Only, you've based your judgements on his public persona/profile without actually ever having met the guy, which is really a bit silly, especially when you graduate from making throwaway comments about 'celebrities' (as most of us do) into lengthy discussions/analyses (as you constantly do). It is very strange behaviour.

I realise that you've backed yourself into a bit of a corner now and want to save some face. That's obviously why you're playing the amateur lawyer. But, it's probably best to hold your hands up and say 'sorry guys, I got a bit silly here'.

Just to reiterate:
- No one is 'fooled' by Eddie Hearn and thinks he's a really nice guy/saviour of British boxing
- Everyone knows, as a boxing promoter, that he's likely to have an unscrupulous nature
- Boxing fans are just enjoying the fact that Hearn has made a few decent/high profile fights recently
- Given that he hasn't done anything particularly bad yet, most boxing fans appear to be content to be generally supportive of his activities

Bring something new to the debate.  I have read about what is happening with British fighters leaving their contracts and joining Matchroom.  I have added something to the debate.  Your post above adds nothing and rings of finger wagging for the sake of it.  

And for the record a lot of people bought into Matchrooms PR campaign that Eddie was the savior of British boxing and a nicer more ethical type, to deny this is frankly cods wallop.  

No, that's you taking your interpretation and projecting it as other people's opinion. The opinions of others are a lot more subtle than you give them credit for. Just because someone says something nice about Hearn doesn't mean they are 'taken in'. That's a simplistic and childish way to think.

And, what is the point in bringing something new to this 'debate'? It's entire premise is poorly founded, lacking in evidence, and laced with ridiculous personal prejudice. It doesn't need any more new strands of discussion. It needs to be put down. But, you'll no doubt just keep on digging. I hope it's fun for you.

Premise: Eddie is tapping up fighters
Evidence: Hello
Personal prejudiced: I looked at the contacts and read about the subject. What did you do?

Suspect I would have slightly more sympathy for the tapping up fighters argument if I thought for one second that was the boot on the other foot other promoters would act any differently.

Fact: Eddie is not "tapping up" fighters as it isn't in their contracts that they can't speak to Eddie. They then join him because he offers them a better deal.

Evidence: Promoters failing to sue the through the courts when their fighters eventually join Matchroom.

Fact: Hearn is not revered on this forum any more than any other promoter just because he has a site affiliation. He is respected as giving the British public the better fights out there recently. He's resurrected boxing on Sky by assembling a good stable of fighters. He is not above any other perspective of any other promoter and if he were offering unfair deals, waving emails around when trying to defend his fighters record then we'd be ripping him a new one too.

Evidence: 606v2 forums.

Strongy, I don't see why you persist. I really don't. Did he touch you inappropriately or something?

I'm trying to work out Jabby how many of Strongy's posts are actionable in a court of law....

Hearn must be a nice guy If he reads this section

Strongback wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:I've still yet to see anything to indicate that Hearn is doing anything that the vast majority of other promoters in most sporting or entertainment industries wouldn't do themselves.

It seems that you want to hold Hearn to more stringent moral and legal standards than anyone else, because, simply put, you don't like him. If he were to start acting like the choir boy you seemingly want him to be he'd be out of business within a year or two.

Very large conglomerates can occasionally (probably frequently) manipulate legal and regulatory systems so that everything is in their favour. That isn't fair and is probably worth some criticism. But, Eddie Hearn (and Matchroom Sport) are not in that category. If they were up to constant skullduggery then it would be relatively easy for legal and regulatory means to curtail this.

A number of your posts on this thread reveal what your motivation for this discussion really is. You don't like the guy and you enjoy trying to discredit him. You see him as a 'everything-handed-to-him-on-a-plate' daddy's boy. You see him as fake, pretending to be a 'nice guy'. This is essentially a debate based on personal prejudice. Only, you've based your judgements on his public persona/profile without actually ever having met the guy, which is really a bit silly, especially when you graduate from making throwaway comments about 'celebrities' (as most of us do) into lengthy discussions/analyses (as you constantly do). It is very strange behaviour.

I realise that you've backed yourself into a bit of a corner now and want to save some face. That's obviously why you're playing the amateur lawyer. But, it's probably best to hold your hands up and say 'sorry guys, I got a bit silly here'.

Just to reiterate:
- No one is 'fooled' by Eddie Hearn and thinks he's a really nice guy/saviour of British boxing
- Everyone knows, as a boxing promoter, that he's likely to have an unscrupulous nature
- Boxing fans are just enjoying the fact that Hearn has made a few decent/high profile fights recently
- Given that he hasn't done anything particularly bad yet, most boxing fans appear to be content to be generally supportive of his activities

Bring something new to the debate.  I have read about what is happening with British fighters leaving their contracts and joining Matchroom.  I have added something to the debate.  Your post above adds nothing and rings of finger wagging for the sake of it.  

And for the record a lot of people bought into Matchrooms PR campaign that Eddie was the savior of British boxing and a nicer more ethical type, to deny this is frankly cods wallop.  

No, that's you taking your interpretation and projecting it as other people's opinion. The opinions of others are a lot more subtle than you give them credit for. Just because someone says something nice about Hearn doesn't mean they are 'taken in'. That's a simplistic and childish way to think.

And, what is the point in bringing something new to this 'debate'? It's entire premise is poorly founded, lacking in evidence, and laced with ridiculous personal prejudice. It doesn't need any more new strands of discussion. It needs to be put down. But, you'll no doubt just keep on digging. I hope it's fun for you.

Premise:  Eddie is tapping up fighters
Evidence: Hello
Personal prejudiced: I looked at the contacts and read about the subject. What did you do?

Or another way of looking at it:

Premise: Eddie is undertaking activities that are wholly unremarkable for promoter role within his, and related, industries = not a noteworthy debate

Evidence: Observing the behaviours of promoters and associated roles throughout history

Personal prejudice: Past form on the subject; numerous negative references to (imagined) personal traits of Hearn; seeming refusal to take on board any contrary argument no matter how convincing or how credible the source (e.g. legal observations from a lawyer)

Also, your reading around the subject has been a) selected expressly to fit your interpretation, b) for the most part refuted by what appear to be more convincing arguments = lacking in evidence

I don't need to go reading on the subject to find myself wholly unconvinced by what you're saying. That seems to be the case for every other commentator on here.

Anyway. I'm out. I truly have nothing more to add. Good luck backing yourself further and further into a corner of cringe-worthy embarrassment. I hope you get a kick out of it.

Boxtthis wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:I've still yet to see anything to indicate that Hearn is doing anything that the vast majority of other promoters in most sporting or entertainment industries wouldn't do themselves.

It seems that you want to hold Hearn to more stringent moral and legal standards than anyone else, because, simply put, you don't like him. If he were to start acting like the choir boy you seemingly want him to be he'd be out of business within a year or two.

Very large conglomerates can occasionally (probably frequently) manipulate legal and regulatory systems so that everything is in their favour. That isn't fair and is probably worth some criticism. But, Eddie Hearn (and Matchroom Sport) are not in that category. If they were up to constant skullduggery then it would be relatively easy for legal and regulatory means to curtail this.

A number of your posts on this thread reveal what your motivation for this discussion really is. You don't like the guy and you enjoy trying to discredit him. You see him as a 'everything-handed-to-him-on-a-plate' daddy's boy. You see him as fake, pretending to be a 'nice guy'. This is essentially a debate based on personal prejudice. Only, you've based your judgements on his public persona/profile without actually ever having met the guy, which is really a bit silly, especially when you graduate from making throwaway comments about 'celebrities' (as most of us do) into lengthy discussions/analyses (as you constantly do). It is very strange behaviour.

I realise that you've backed yourself into a bit of a corner now and want to save some face. That's obviously why you're playing the amateur lawyer. But, it's probably best to hold your hands up and say 'sorry guys, I got a bit silly here'.

Just to reiterate:
- No one is 'fooled' by Eddie Hearn and thinks he's a really nice guy/saviour of British boxing
- Everyone knows, as a boxing promoter, that he's likely to have an unscrupulous nature
- Boxing fans are just enjoying the fact that Hearn has made a few decent/high profile fights recently
- Given that he hasn't done anything particularly bad yet, most boxing fans appear to be content to be generally supportive of his activities

Bring something new to the debate.  I have read about what is happening with British fighters leaving their contracts and joining Matchroom.  I have added something to the debate.  Your post above adds nothing and rings of finger wagging for the sake of it.  

And for the record a lot of people bought into Matchrooms PR campaign that Eddie was the savior of British boxing and a nicer more ethical type, to deny this is frankly cods wallop.  

No, that's you taking your interpretation and projecting it as other people's opinion. The opinions of others are a lot more subtle than you give them credit for. Just because someone says something nice about Hearn doesn't mean they are 'taken in'. That's a simplistic and childish way to think.

And, what is the point in bringing something new to this 'debate'? It's entire premise is poorly founded, lacking in evidence, and laced with ridiculous personal prejudice. It doesn't need any more new strands of discussion. It needs to be put down. But, you'll no doubt just keep on digging. I hope it's fun for you.

Premise:  Eddie is tapping up fighters
Evidence: Hello
Personal prejudiced: I looked at the contacts and read about the subject. What did you do?

Or another way of looking at it:

Premise: Eddie is undertaking activities that are wholly unremarkable for promoter role within his, and related, industries = not a noteworthy debate

Evidence: Observing the behaviours of promoters and associated roles throughout history

Personal prejudice: Past form on the subject; numerous negative references to (imagined) personal traits of Hearn; seeming refusal to take on board any contrary argument no matter how convincing or how credible the source (e.g. legal observations from a lawyer)

Also, your reading around the subject has been a) selected expressly to fit your interpretation, b) for the most part refuted by what appear to be more convincing arguments = lacking in evidence

I don't need to go reading on the subject to find myself wholly unconvinced by what you're saying. That seems to be the case for every other commentator on here.

Anyway. I'm out. I truly have nothing more to add. Good luck backing yourself further and further into a corner of cringe-worthy embarrassment. I hope you get a kick out of it.

Superflyweight isn't a sports lawyer and has said he just took a cursory glance at the contract in the last day or two.  He has not commented on the significance of any clauses in the contract.

I have taken my interpretation of the contract largely from the legal adviser who Bellew used to determine his contract with Warren. You haven't got a baldy but yet you go around attempting to castigate me.

In the first 1-2 years Hearn had a love affair with the fans and was lauded for it.  In the last 12 months he has put on some stinkers of cards, carried out some bad match making and encouraged fighters to leave their current contracts in a way that frees them of the obligations of the contract.  

My view is Eddie gets away with it with some people because his PR is so good.  Scrape beyond the good hair and whitened teeth and Eddie is as bad a snake oil salesman as there is.  When Don King or Bob Arum are as underhanded as Hearn is everybody agrees they are scumbags, Eddie gets a free pass.  Remember when Suilaman died? some the comments on here were very crude and low.

Four pages..... FOUR. Unreal.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'm trying to work out Jabby how many of Strongy's posts are actionable in a court of law....

Hearn must be a nice guy If he reads this section

Eddie would have to go after individuals on every British boxing site on the web as this is being discussed everywhere.

Don King is reported to have had people murdered.

Yet to see anything of the sort leveled at Eddie.

#blameeddie

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Don King is reported to have had people murdered.

Yet to see anything of the sort leveled at Eddie.

#blameeddie

I wasn't talking about King's exploits when he was running the numbers more on the boxing side of things.

Ok I have just read this entire thread (nothing better to do this afternoon)....few things stick out to me:

1) Strongback - You have still yet to provide any actual evidence that Hearn is breaking rules & regulations in place

2) You continue to contradict yourself; one minute your saying he doesn't match his fighters well...the next your saying he did well with Froch v Bute...and talking about him setting up a Super-Middle rivalry between British fighters, which again isn't a bad thing as all fight each other and earn massive pay days...whilst avoiding Ward who they would have to travel for and would very likely lose too...something which you would then slam Eddie for doing if he went that route.

3)

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Tbh, reading this thread, the 'oxy' is largely superfluous.....

Superfluous.......just like all your posts.

You're a typical judgmental type willing to jump in if they think they have mass of numbers behind them. You're what's wrong with modern society, the type that is always willing to pile in with the 'I told you so's'.

You haven't met too many people like me and that confuses you, people with opinions that might not always follow the status quo or garbage information that most lap up like a good ole Big Mac.    

This is utter tripe; if anything your what's wrong with society....your someone who forms an opinion which they defend till the hilt despite it being proven wrong just because it garners them attention, you continue to whine on about it without any form of subjective reasoning yet we have to put up with it because society as a whole no longer wishes to upset anyone...even those in the minority!

Superflyweight isn't a sports lawyer and has said he just took a cursory glance at the contract in the last day or two. He has not commented on the significance of any clauses in the contract.

But I am a fairly experienced contracts lawyer and the reason that I haven't commented on the significance of any of the clauses in the standard contracts is that they are fairly insignificant in and of themselves and don't really add to the argument one way or another. However, these are standard form documents only and I would imagine that promoters/managers are using either their own version of these (changed to suit them) or that these standard documents end up being heavily amended on a case by case basis. Without seeing the particular terms of a certain contract, I wouldn;t be prepared to comment on it in any great detail.

In the last 12 months he has put on some stinkers of cards, carried out some bad match making and encouraged fighters to leave their current contracts in a way that frees them of the obligations of the contract.

Mods/Admins - I'd suggest that this comment be removed as it could be deemed to be defamatory.

owen10ozzy wrote:Ok I have just read this entire thread (nothing better to do this afternoon)....few things stick out to me:

1) Strongback - You have still yet to provide any actual evidence that Hearn is breaking rules & regulations in place

2) You continue to contradict yourself; one minute your saying he doesn't match his fighters well...the next your saying he did well with Froch v Bute...and talking about him setting up a Super-Middle rivalry between British fighters, which again isn't a bad thing as all fight each other and earn massive pay days...whilst avoiding Ward who they would have to travel for and would very likely lose too...something which you would then slam Eddie for doing if he went that route.

3)

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Tbh, reading this thread, the 'oxy' is largely superfluous.....

Superfluous.......just like all your posts.

You're a typical judgmental type willing to jump in if they think they have mass of numbers behind them. You're what's wrong with modern society, the type that is always willing to pile in with the 'I told you so's'.

You haven't met too many people like me and that confuses you, people with opinions that might not always follow the status quo or garbage information that most lap up like a good ole Big Mac.    

This is utter tripe; if anything your what's wrong with society....your someone who forms an opinion which they defend till the hilt despite it being proven wrong just because it garners them attention, you continue to whine on about it without any form of subjective reasoning yet we have to put up with it because  society as a whole no longer wishes to upset anyone...even those in the minority!

Where have I been proved wrong. Most people are counter arguing my point without doing their homework.

BTW you are the one who harped on the most about Eddie's ethics.

owen10ozzy wrote:Ok I have just read this entire thread (nothing better to do this afternoon)....few things stick out to me:

1) Strongback - You have still yet to provide any actual evidence that Hearn is breaking rules & regulations in place

2) You continue to contradict yourself; one minute your saying he doesn't match his fighters well...the next your saying he did well with Froch v Bute...and talking about him setting up a Super-Middle rivalry between British fighters, which again isn't a bad thing as all fight each other and earn massive pay days...whilst avoiding Ward who they would have to travel for and would very likely lose too...something which you would then slam Eddie for doing if he went that route.

3)

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Tbh, reading this thread, the 'oxy' is largely superfluous.....

Superfluous.......just like all your posts.

You're a typical judgmental type willing to jump in if they think they have mass of numbers behind them. You're what's wrong with modern society, the type that is always willing to pile in with the 'I told you so's'.

You haven't met too many people like me and that confuses you, people with opinions that might not always follow the status quo or garbage information that most lap up like a good ole Big Mac.    

This is utter tripe; if anything your what's wrong with society....your someone who forms an opinion which they defend till the hilt despite it being proven wrong just because it garners them attention, you continue to whine on about it without any form of subjective reasoning yet we have to put up with it because  society as a whole no longer wishes to upset anyone...even those in the minority!

If you're bored, you could always prep for tonights football podcast

superflyweight wrote:

Superflyweight isn't a sports lawyer and has said he just took a cursory glance at the contract in the last day or two.  He has not commented on the significance of any clauses in the contract.

But I am a fairly experienced contracts lawyer and the reason that I haven't commented on the significance of any of the clauses in the standard contracts is that they are fairly insignificant in and of themselves and don't really add to the argument one way or another.  However, these are standard form documents only and I would imagine that promoters/managers are using either their own version of these (changed to suit them) or that these standard documents end up being heavily amended on a case by case basis.  Without seeing the particular terms of a certain contract, I wouldn;t be prepared to comment on it in any great detail.  

In the last 12 months he has put on some stinkers of cards, carried out some bad match making and encouraged fighters to leave their current contracts in a way that frees them of the obligations of the contract.  

 

Mods/Admins - I'd suggest that this comment be removed as it could be deemed to be defamatory.  

Sports law is a very specialized field and not generally dealt with by high street solicitors,  well according to Tony Bellew's legal adviser anyway.

In terms of deformation I would guess that isn't the only example that could be picked.  I just want to state, as I have tried to do as often as I can throughout the posts , that the views I express are my own and do not reflect the opinions of the 606V2 website.  

As I wrote above this subject is being discussed all over the net.  If defamation rules were to be imposed across British boxing forums would there be one left standing?



The crux of the debate is the 25% compensation fee a fighter must pay his old manager if he walks from his contract. Some contracts I am sure also have exclusivity clauses.

I could do but im pulling night work at the moment Hampo hence my delayed comeback on the podcasts. Will be returning for at least 6 weeks from next week though on both of them.

Strongback - Where have I harped on about them? Think you will find that I merely gave my opinion on him as a promoter and whether himself and the Hearn name in general is good for the sport...in fact I distinctly remember being lambasted for even suggesting he is doing good...a point which many people have now swung round too (though I'll agree with Hammersmith and the like with regards to the lack of undercards on a fair few of his shows)...

owen10ozzy wrote:I could do but im pulling night work at the moment Hampo hence my delayed comeback on the podcasts. Will be returning for at least 6 weeks from next week though on both of them.

Strongback - Where have I harped on about them? Think you will find that I merely gave my opinion on him as a promoter and whether himself and the Hearn name in general is good for the sport...in fact I distinctly remember being lambasted for even suggesting he is doing good...a point which many people have now swung round too (though I'll agree with Hammersmith and the like with regards to the lack of undercards on a fair few of his shows)...

I can remember you writing about the good name the Hearn's have and that they don't stoop to the level of the stereotypical boxing promoter.

Can we say that now?

Sports law is a very specialized field and not generally dealt with by high street solicitors, well according to Tony Bellew's legal adviser anyway.

 
Contract law is contract law and that's all we're talking about here.  Where sports law specializes is when you get in to the rules and regulations which govern certain sports.  
 
Anyway, not that there's anything wrong with High Street solicitors and at the risk of sounding like I'm blowing my own trumpet, I work for a firm that's ranked in the top 15 in the UK and has offices in all parts of the world - we even have speciallist sports lawyers.  The team that I manage have put contracts in place in the last 12 months with a combined value of more than £2 billion.  
 
Humblebrag over.

Strongback wrote:

Sports law is a very specialized field and not generally dealt with by high street solicitors,  well according to Tony Bellew's legal adviser anyway.

Cardio surgery is a very specialised field. However I would listen to my GP's advice on the subject before I would listen to yours.

superflyweight wrote:

Sports law is a very specialized field and not generally dealt with by high street solicitors, well according to Tony Bellew's legal adviser anyway.

 
Contract law is contract law and that's all we're talking about here.  Where sports law specializes is when you get in to the rules and regulations which govern certain sports.  
 
Anyway, not that there's anything wrong with High Street solicitors and at the risk of sounding like I'm blowing my own trumpet, I work for a firm that's ranked in the top 15 in the UK and has offices in all parts of the world - we even have speciallist sports lawyers.  The team that I manage have put contracts in place in the last 12 months with a combined value of more than £2 billion.  
 
Humblebrag over.

B...b....but Strongback spent an hour or two reading media reports on the internet. How can you compete? Do your homework!

I'd like you to show me where I put that;

Think you'll find that I mentioned you'll find very few people who have a bad word to say about the Hearns and how they have done in there time during sports management...i.e. darts, boxing, snooker..

Of course, much like yourself there are always those few in the minority...they tend to be people who haven't benefited from the Hearns...the vast majority involved in all sports whereby a Hearn runs things will tell you that they have revitalised said sports and those competing within it have gone on to reap the rewards...

See Darts for the best example...

I have no idea on how they conduct actual business with regards to contracts etc etc; but as has been mentioned plenty of times already...if he was running rough shed illegally through the promoter game I am sure that someone would have won a court ruling by now.

The fact is that people can see & hear what Hearn brings to the table, it doesn't take a 3rd party (unless you count SKY interviews and actually watching TV with your eyes as 3rd party) to see what a move to the Hearn stable can do for you. Much like the promoters themselves...a fighter has his own self interest at heart, after all they are the ones taking punches to the face...if they feel they would be best served leaving a current promoter and going elsewhere so be it...I won't hold either them or the party with which they move to blame.

Much like everyone on this board...if you received a better offer elsewhere you would take it..for the interests of yourself and your family.

superflyweight wrote:

Sports law is a very specialized field and not generally dealt with by high street solicitors, well according to Tony Bellew's legal adviser anyway.

 
Contract law is contract law and that's all we're talking about here.  Where sports law specializes is when you get in to the rules and regulations which govern certain sports.  
 
Anyway, not that there's anything wrong with High Street solicitors and at the risk of sounding like I'm blowing my own trumpet, I work for a firm that's ranked in the top 15 in the UK and has offices in all parts of the world - we even have speciallist sports lawyers.  The team that I manage have put contracts in place in the last 12 months with a combined value of more than £2 billion.  
 
Humblebrag over.

I think solicitor's specializing in boxing are taking on the role of convincing the board their client should be allowed to leave his contract without compensation. I imagine it is something like what a solicitor in football, such as Michael Kennedy, would do in taking on the extra role of actually negotiating wages, bonus's conditions etc. Kennedy is not an agent but it has been reported that he would be the best agent in Britain if he decided to do so. Many of his clients do not have an agent at all.

I climbed up the corporate ladder at a multinational before deciding to strike out in business for myself.

Rowley wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Sports law is a very specialized field and not generally dealt with by high street solicitors,  well according to Tony Bellew's legal adviser anyway.

Cardio surgery is a very specialised field. However I would listen to my GP's advice on the subject before I would listen to yours.

Would the GP have examined you first or just be speaking in general terms?

owen10ozzy wrote:I'd like you to show me where I put that;

Think you'll find that I mentioned you'll find very few people who have a bad word to say about the Hearns and how they have done in there time during sports management...i.e. darts, boxing, snooker..

Of course, much like yourself there are always those few in the minority...they tend to be people who haven't benefited from the Hearns...the vast majority involved in all sports whereby a Hearn runs things will tell you that they have revitalised said sports and those competing within it have gone on to reap the rewards...

See Darts for the best example...

I have no idea on how they conduct actual business with regards to contracts etc etc; but as has been mentioned plenty of times already...if he was running rough shed illegally through the promoter game I am sure that someone would have won a court ruling by now.

The fact is that people can see & hear what Hearn brings to the table, it doesn't take a 3rd party (unless you count SKY interviews and actually watching TV with your eyes as 3rd party) to see what a move to the Hearn stable can do for you. Much like the promoters themselves...a fighter has his own self interest at heart, after all they are the ones taking punches to the face...if they feel they would be best served leaving a current promoter and going elsewhere so be it...I won't hold either them or the party with which they move to blame.

Much like everyone on this board...if you received a better offer elsewhere you would take it..for the interests of yourself and your family.

Owen that's the nicest post I have received in this thread so far.


I still have to say Barry has peeved off a lot of people in snooker.

So you've read one article on the subject written by somebody who may or may not even be Bellews advisor (why use a pseudonym if you're the real deal) and you think you're an expert on the subject. For somebody who has had so many brilliant jobs and done so well for yourself you have a real bee in your bonnet because Eddie Hearn had help from his dad starting up.

To blow my own trumpet I was a fairly successful rock journalist and while Grindcore is a specialised non generic form i'd wager I know far more about it than the average man on the street.

Since we're all showing off I once won a table tennis tournament at school, and got an acknowledgement in a boxing book. Big time.