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."

Strongback wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

superflyweight wrote:Don't have enough time to post properly today as spending the day looking after my daughter, but will try to post later to again explain why Strongy's argument makes no legal sense whatsoever.

Pretty sure your daughter posting on here would make a welcome change from some of the odure we have to endure

"Odure".  And I'm the one that gets accused of pseudo-intellectualism.

Dave the intellectual is an oxymoron.

Don't use it, haven't had acne for years.

STRONGY's threads remind me of a comment made to a girl at school by one of our teachers.

"You've not proved your argument and merely resorted to repeating yourself. Four times nothing is still nothing. Sadly, no marks for neat handwriting!"

Did you go to school in 1930's Berlin?

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.    

Yep, have never come across someone like you before......oh, wait, this is just what Az has been doing for years...!!

Strongback wrote:
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.    

Nice defense for having a poorly supported and somewhat illogical opinion: "Loads of people disagree with me. I'm a trailblazer!"

Boxtthis wrote:

Strongback wrote:
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.    

Nice defense for having a poorly supported and somewhat illogical opinion: "Loads of people disagree with me. I'm a trailblazer!"

Kids, let me tell you about another so-called wicked guy. He had long hair, and some wild ideas, and he didn't always do what other people thought was right. And that man's name was... I forget. But the point is... I forget that, too... Marge, you know who I'm talking about! He used to drive that blue car.

Boxtthis wrote:

Strongback wrote:
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.    

Nice defense for having a poorly supported and somewhat illogical opinion: "Loads of people disagree with me. I'm a trailblazer!"

So Eddie hasn't been approaching fighters that are under contract to another promoter?

Strongback wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

Strongback wrote:
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.    

Nice defense for having a poorly supported and somewhat illogical opinion: "Loads of people disagree with me. I'm a trailblazer!"

So Eddie hasn't been approaching fighters that are under contract to another promoter?  

Supposing he has.  What contract is he breaching?  What law or regulation is he in violation of?  Would be genuinely interested to know if the BBBoC do have anything in place to prohibit approaches being made to contracted fighters.

Strongback wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

Strongback wrote:
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.    

Nice defense for having a poorly supported and somewhat illogical opinion: "Loads of people disagree with me. I'm a trailblazer!"

So Eddie hasn't been approaching fighters that are under contract to another promoter?  

Did I, or anyone, disagree with this? Nope. Not once.

I actually said a bunch of other stuff about why your arguments are poorly founded. Never got much of a response on that though.

Boxtthis wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

Strongback wrote:
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.    

Nice defense for having a poorly supported and somewhat illogical opinion: "Loads of people disagree with me. I'm a trailblazer!"

So Eddie hasn't been approaching fighters that are under contract to another promoter?  

Did I, or anyone, disagree with this? Nope. Not once.

I actually said a bunch of other stuff about why your arguments are poorly founded. Never got much of a response on that though.

Considering my point is about Eddie tapping up fighters and the fact he is apparently breaking up a good relationship between Burn/Nelson to give his in law a gig I don't see what other argument I didn't respond to.

Strongback wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

Strongback wrote:
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.    

Nice defense for having a poorly supported and somewhat illogical opinion: "Loads of people disagree with me. I'm a trailblazer!"

So Eddie hasn't been approaching fighters that are under contract to another promoter?  

What if they are? What's your point or its relevance?

superfly has already schooled you on the legality point.

Have you never switched jobs? Been approached whilst still 'under contract'? Happens in every facet of life, it's only football where it's an issue and that's only because of a agreement clubs have signed up to, not because of ACTUAL LAW.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

Strongback wrote:
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.    

Nice defense for having a poorly supported and somewhat illogical opinion: "Loads of people disagree with me. I'm a trailblazer!"

So Eddie hasn't been approaching fighters that are under contract to another promoter?  

What if they are? What's your point or its relevance?

superfly has already schooled you on the legality point.

Have you never switched jobs? Been approached whilst still 'under contract'? Happens in every facet of life, it's only football where it's an issue and that's only because of a agreement clubs have signed up to, not because of ACTUAL LAW.

Superflyweight couldn't throw much light on what is happening except to say there must be a breach of contract involved. That's hardly revolutionary.

I've found out how the fighters are doing it. The weakness of the contract and the BBBofC as an administrative organisation are allowing fighters to determine contracts.

The fighter has to make his case for the determination of the contract. Some fairly spurious reasons seem to be accepted. There are others like not paying a fighter on time that are a straight forward breech of contract.

No fighter is handcuffed to a promoter, they can walk away at any time. The penalty is the fighter must pay 25% of his earnings to the old promoter until their contract period is up. What the guys going to Match room are doing is making a case they were unfairly treated and want a new promoter.


Warren has fought a few of these but he lost, I can only imagine the grounds for determination. Hennessy could have inadvertently breached the contract for some minor complaint. It will be interesting to see how DeGale versus Hennessy goes.

Eddie has the Sky money and deeper pockets so he can if he wants to put together a better package for a fighter so in doing so he sets the stage and the fighter acts out the poor boxer done wrong routine.

Strongback wrote:
Eddie has the Sky money and deeper pockets so he can if he wants to put together a better package for a fighter so in doing so he sets the stage and the fighter acts out the poor boxer done wrong routine.

Eddie gets fighters to sign for him by offering them a better deal!!!!! Of all the underhand shameful tactics. I would like to unreservedly and fully withdraw all my previous defences of Eddie. I did not realise he was resorting to such measures. I am absolutely disgusted, I actually feel ashamed to admit I have previously purchased tickets for his shows. Will not be making that mistake again.

So when Hearn is speaking to other promoters' fighters he is essentially doing something that (i) all other decent promoters would do, (ii) isn't illegal or in violation of any rules, and (iii) is mirrored in all walks of life.

I don't think it even qualifies as morally ambiguous,

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Boxtthis wrote:

Strongback wrote:
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.    

Nice defense for having a poorly supported and somewhat illogical opinion: "Loads of people disagree with me. I'm a trailblazer!"

So Eddie hasn't been approaching fighters that are under contract to another promoter?  

What if they are? What's your point or its relevance?

superfly has already schooled you on the legality point.

Have you never switched jobs? Been approached whilst still 'under contract'? Happens in every facet of life, it's only football where it's an issue and that's only because of a agreement clubs have signed up to, not because of ACTUAL LAW.

I've found out how the fighters are doing it. The weakness of the contract and the BBBofC as an administrative organisation are allowing fighters to determine contracts.

Ok, Poirot.

Just as well Hearn got Degale when he did. I think the police were going to declare him legally dead while Hennessy was promoting him. Last sighted 3 years ago in a shopping centre.

Rowley wrote:

Strongback wrote:
Eddie has the Sky money and deeper pockets so he can if he wants to put together a better package for a fighter so in doing so he sets the stage and the fighter acts out the poor boxer done wrong routine.

Eddie gets fighters to sign for him by offering them a better deal!!!!! Of all the underhand shameful tactics. I would like to unreservedly and fully withdraw all my previous defences of Eddie. I did not realise he was resorting to such measures. I am absolutely disgusted, I actually feel ashamed to admit I have previously purchased tickets for his shows. Will not be making that mistake again.

The points is Hearn appears to be tapping fighters up and advising them how to determine their contract. In America this kind of thing doesn't happen boxing, fighters fulfill their contracts.

My impresson having done a bit of reading up yesterday evening is that the BBBofC are a bigger farce than I could ever have had imagined and that's saying something.

As I said before what goes around comes around and there will be a lot of people only too happy to stand on Eddie's head on his way down. The Likes of Hennessy and Hobson who are no threat to Hearn and are essentially small to medium sized promoters don't deserve to have Hearn sniffing around their best fighters.

Personally I try to be fair in reasonable in my dealing and don't see the long term sense in screwing people over. There has to be some rules of engagement and a boxing board that can enforce them.

Last October Dennis Hobson and his solicitor explained what is happening in these scenarios in a much better way than I could:


“We understand that the IBF have vacated Jamie McDonnell’s title as Bantamweight Champion because he failed to comply with a Resolution of the IBF Board of Directors.

“It is sad that Jamie has been stripped of his world title, especially when, in partnership with Dennis Hobson Promotions, he was able to achieve his boxing ambitions and become world champion at the Keepmoat Stadium in Doncaster on May 11, 2013.

“It was a fabulous night for Jamie, for his team, and for British boxing, and we were particularly pleased when Jamie was gracious enough to say that he would not have become world champion without the team at Dennis Hobson Promotions.

“Unfortunately, in recent weeks Jamie has allowed third parties to influence him, to advise him and to make representations on his behalf – without any reference to us. This is in clear contravention of the contractual relationship he has with Dennis Hobson Promotions.

“The consequences of such unauthorised influence, advice and representations by these third parties have obviously, with today’s news, been catastrophic for Jamie.

“No further comment will be made by Dennis Hobson Promotions at this juncture.”

The word of a bitter promoter?

About as reliable as Wikipedia.

catchweight wrote:Just as well Hearn got Degale when he did. I think the police were going to declare him legally dead while Hennessy was promoting him. Last sighted 3 years ago in a shopping centre.

DeGale got a world title shot and fights in front of millions on TV. I'm sure he's complaining he was treated appallingly by Mick.

DeGale will soon run out of promoters if he keeps going the way he is.

I can see it now, as Fat Mick talks to Degale telling him his next great plan for the fight at the shopping centre

"All the big names in fashion will be there" (There's a branch of T K Maxx)
"All the stars of film and music will be there" (There's a branch of HMV)
"This could open lots of doors for you" (Points to the key cutting booth)

Then I can see Eddie bumping into Degale.

"Hey James, how's it going? Still fighting at the shopping centre eh? I'll be there...well I have to take a shirt back in the afternoon but I won't be at the actual fight. Anyway mate, I gotta go, I'm just in the middle of arranging for another of my fighters to get a World title shot. See ya!"

Does that constitute "tapping up" a fighter? To be fair, given how dreadful Hennessey as been, it wouldn't take much more than an offer of a bag of Minstrels in Degale's dressing room to get him to jump promoters.

Strongback wrote:

catchweight wrote:Just as well Hearn got Degale when he did. I think the police were going to declare him legally dead while Hennessy was promoting him. Last sighted 3 years ago in a shopping centre.

DeGale got a world title shot and fights in front of millions on TV.  I'm sure he's complaining he was treated appallingly by Mick.

When did DeGale fight for a title?

Or are you counting 'Silver' and 'International' trinkets now??

TopHat24/7 wrote:The word of a bitter promoter?

About as reliable as Wikipedia.

Well he put these words out in public and to my knowledge has not been sued for slander or libel:

“Unfortunately, in recent weeks Jamie has allowed third parties to influence him, to advise him and to make representations on his behalf – without any reference to us."


Those words are not couched or hidden within legal speak. Hobson is saying quite clearly McDonnell was tapped up. Who did McDonnell sign for again?

If Degale was happy with Hennessy he would have stayed with Hennessy.

You do seem to struggle strongy to differentiate between the law and your personal sense of business ethics.

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:The word of a bitter promoter?

About as reliable as Wikipedia.

Well he put these words out in public and to my knowledge has not been sued for slander or libel:

“Unfortunately, in recent weeks Jamie has allowed third parties to influence him, to advise him and to make representations on his behalf – without any reference to us."


Those words are not couched or hidden within legal speak. Hobson is saying quite clearly McDonnell was tapped up.   Who did McDonnell sign for again?

Words sculpted by his lawyer to ensure he couldn't be sued.

Even you yourself originally stated that the quote came from "Dennis Hobson and his solicitor".

But, again (and again and again and again) - what is wrong with tapping up? You still haven't shown there has been anything done wrong in matters of law. As per Rowley, your over-excited desperation to slate Eddie for every ill in the world is causing you to confuse ACTUAL LAW with your personal sense of business ethics (as applied to one man and one man only).

DAVE667 wrote:I can see it now, as Fat Mick talks to Degale telling him his next great plan for the fight at the shopping centre

"All the big names in fashion will be there" (There's a branch of T K Maxx)
"All the stars of film and music will be there" (There's a branch of HMV)
"This could open lots of doors for you" (Points to the key cutting booth)

Then I can see Eddie bumping into Degale.

"Hey James, how's it going? Still fighting at the shopping centre eh? I'll be there...well I have to take a shirt back in the afternoon but I won't be at the actual fight. Anyway mate, I gotta go, I'm just in the middle of arranging for another of my fighters to get a World title shot. See ya!"

Does that constitute "tapping up" a fighter? To be fair, given how dreadful Hennessey as been, it wouldn't take much more than an offer of a bag of Minstrels in Degale's dressing room to get him to jump promoters.

Dave, Hennessy has gotten DeGale the WBC mandatory position and No.1 in the IBF.  The fights were on C5 so selling out big venues was less of a priority.

DeGale's reasons for splitting may have to bring Big Micks personal hygiene into play or say he didn't like all the gypsy's coming to the fights. And yes it is getting that ridiculous.

3 years to get a talented Olympic gold medalist into mandatory position isnt really much of an achievement.

Degale signed with Hearn and is now supporting the one of the biggest boxing events in Britain in recent times with a shot at the winner in what would likely be a big ppv fight.

Hearn might be a d1ckhead, but he currently runs the biggest game in town.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:The word of a bitter promoter?

About as reliable as Wikipedia.

Well he put these words out in public and to my knowledge has not been sued for slander or libel:

“Unfortunately, in recent weeks Jamie has allowed third parties to influence him, to advise him and to make representations on his behalf – without any reference to us."


Those words are not couched or hidden within legal speak. Hobson is saying quite clearly McDonnell was tapped up.   Who did McDonnell sign for again?

Words sculpted by his lawyer to ensure he couldn't be sued.

Even you yourself originally stated that the quote came from "Dennis Hobson and his solicitor".

But, again (and again and again and again) - what is wrong with tapping up? You still haven't shown there has been anything done wrong in matters of law. As per Rowley, your over-excited desperation to slate Eddie for every ill in the world is causing you to confuse ACTUAL LAW with your personal sense of business ethics (as applied to one man and one man only).

Please don't comment if you are going to behave like a half wit who can't engage his brain.

Hobson's words are direct and not couched. There are no words like "apparently", "possibly", "allegedly" and the like in the sentence I posted. He is making a bold unequivocal statement.

The problem is that the different promoters are no longer playing on a level pitch. As Hearn owns the Sky deal and the money that goes with it he can put the fighters on a good platform and pay them more. If only Man Utd were getting money from Sky what do you think would happen?

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:The word of a bitter promoter?

About as reliable as Wikipedia.

Well he put these words out in public and to my knowledge has not been sued for slander or libel:

“Unfortunately, in recent weeks Jamie has allowed third parties to influence him, to advise him and to make representations on his behalf – without any reference to us."


Those words are not couched or hidden within legal speak. Hobson is saying quite clearly McDonnell was tapped up.   Who did McDonnell sign for again?

Words sculpted by his lawyer to ensure he couldn't be sued.

Even you yourself originally stated that the quote came from "Dennis Hobson and his solicitor".

But, again (and again and again and again) - what is wrong with tapping up? You still haven't shown there has been anything done wrong in matters of law. As per Rowley, your over-excited desperation to slate Eddie for every ill in the world is causing you to confuse ACTUAL LAW with your personal sense of business ethics (as applied to one man and one man only).

Please don't comment if you are going to behave like a half wit who can't engage his brain.

Hobson's words are direct and not couched. There are no words like "apparently", "possibly", "allegedly" and the like in the sentence I posted. He is making a bold unequivocal statement.
The problem is that the different promoters are no longer playing on a level pitch.  As Hearn owns the Sky deal and the money that goes with it he can put the fighters on a good platform and pay them more.  If only Man Utd were getting money from Sky what do you think would happen?

His words make no specific allegations of any wrongdoing. There would't be a case to answer even if someone did bring a claim.

catchweight wrote:3 years to get a talented Olympic gold medalist into mandatory position isnt really much of an achievement.

Degale signed with Hearn and is now supporting the one of the biggest boxing events in Britain in recent times with a shot at the winner in what would likely be a big ppv fight.

Hearn might be a d1ckhead, but he currently runs the biggest game in town.

I don't remember DeGale setting the world on fire since he's turned pro.

Eddie only wants him so he can set up a mini British SMW round robin for the next couple of years. On the showings I have seen of DeGale to date I would expect Froch and Grooves to splatter him which probably fits Hearn's plans nicely. Who will be Eddie's favourite SMW son?

No, a 'bold unequivocal statement' would be "EDDIE HEARN TAPPED UP MY FIGHTER, WHILST STILL LEGALLY CONTRACT TO ONLY FIGHT WHERE AND WHEN I PROMOTE HIM, LIKE HE HAS DONE NUMEROUS OTHER FIGHTERS IN RECENT YEARS SUCH AS XXXXXXXXXX".

What he actually said was "my lad got someone whispering in his ear about what a better job they could do than me and he believed them".

So, basically, you're slating Hearn for doing a better job than anyone else. As you still can't answer the point of law question.

Grow up, kid.

Strongback wrote:
The problem is that the different promoters are no longer playing on a level pitch.  As Hearn owns the Sky deal and the money that goes with it he can put the fighters on a good platform and pay them more.  If only Man Utd were getting money from Sky what do you think would happen?

Well that is business and is the same in all businesses. Manchester United have a far greater revenue than Hull but both are in the same division. Should Manchester United not spend more on transfers to level the playing field? Of course they don't they try to use their greater revenue to their advantage through paying more on transfers and wages, in the belief this will maintain and increase their competitive advantage, why you would expect Hearn to do differently is baffling to me.

You have acknowledged yourself that Hearn will not have his Sky deal forever and I am sure you're right. However surely from a business perspective his best plan currently is to do everything he can to keep the deal for as long as possible. Well surely a talent packed and wide stable of fighters is part and parcel of him trying to do this.

superflyweight wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:The word of a bitter promoter?

About as reliable as Wikipedia.

Well he put these words out in public and to my knowledge has not been sued for slander or libel:

“Unfortunately, in recent weeks Jamie has allowed third parties to influence him, to advise him and to make representations on his behalf – without any reference to us."


Those words are not couched or hidden within legal speak. Hobson is saying quite clearly McDonnell was tapped up.   Who did McDonnell sign for again?

Words sculpted by his lawyer to ensure he couldn't be sued.

Even you yourself originally stated that the quote came from "Dennis Hobson and his solicitor".

But, again (and again and again and again) - what is wrong with tapping up? You still haven't shown there has been anything done wrong in matters of law. As per Rowley, your over-excited desperation to slate Eddie for every ill in the world is causing you to confuse ACTUAL LAW with your personal sense of business ethics (as applied to one man and one man only).

Please don't comment if you are going to behave like a half wit who can't engage his brain.

Hobson's words are direct and not couched.  There are no words like "apparently", "possibly", "allegedly" and the like in the sentence I posted.  He is making a bold unequivocal statement.
The problem is that the different promoters are no longer playing on a level pitch.  As Hearn owns the Sky deal and the money that goes with it he can put the fighters on a good platform and pay them more.  If only Man Utd were getting money from Sky what do you think would happen?

His words make no specific allegations of any wrongdoing.  There would't be a case to answer even if someone did bring a claim.  

Tut, tut, tut. The opining words for a qualified legal professional. Needless to say your expertise will be discredited by some bitter nobody with a massive chip on his shoulder...

superflyweight wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:The word of a bitter promoter?

About as reliable as Wikipedia.

Well he put these words out in public and to my knowledge has not been sued for slander or libel:

“Unfortunately, in recent weeks Jamie has allowed third parties to influence him, to advise him and to make representations on his behalf – without any reference to us."


Those words are not couched or hidden within legal speak. Hobson is saying quite clearly McDonnell was tapped up.   Who did McDonnell sign for again?

Words sculpted by his lawyer to ensure he couldn't be sued.

Even you yourself originally stated that the quote came from "Dennis Hobson and his solicitor".

But, again (and again and again and again) - what is wrong with tapping up? You still haven't shown there has been anything done wrong in matters of law. As per Rowley, your over-excited desperation to slate Eddie for every ill in the world is causing you to confuse ACTUAL LAW with your personal sense of business ethics (as applied to one man and one man only).

Please don't comment if you are going to behave like a half wit who can't engage his brain.

Hobson's words are direct and not couched.  There are no words like "apparently", "possibly", "allegedly" and the like in the sentence I posted.  He is making a bold unequivocal statement.
The problem is that the different promoters are no longer playing on a level pitch.  As Hearn owns the Sky deal and the money that goes with it he can put the fighters on a good platform and pay them more.  If only Man Utd were getting money from Sky what do you think would happen?

His words make no specific allegations of any wrongdoing.  There would't be a case to answer even if someone did bring a claim.  

"third parties to influence him, to advise him and to make representations on his behalf – without any reference to us."

He is pointing the finger right at McDonnell for speaking to third parties. Its unequivocal.

Do you do a lot of conveyancing?

            

As has been said above, you're allowing your own moral viewpoint to get in the way.

Doesn't matter who McDonnell has spoken to and allowed himself to be influenced by, neither McDonnel nor the unnamed third party are prohibited from talking to each other.

Do you do a lot of thinking?

I dont know what you are on about. Its impossible to view Hearns last few years in boxing as anything but a major success. He has signed up 90% of the top British talent, got a near exclusive deal with Sky Sports and his ppv shows have been big hits. Your complaint seems to be he has achieved this without any talent and without being a nice guy. Does it really matter? This is boxing and Hearn is a boxing promoter. I can get arguing that behind it all hes actually a sh1tbag which may or may not be true but trying to spin everything to make him out to being doing a rubbish job doesnt add up at all.

Another reason why it isn't a 'bold unequivocal statement' - he doesn't have the balls to mention Hearn by name.

'Un-named third parties' could be his mates down the pub, or other boxers who're getting a better deal from Matchroom chatting to him down the gym.

Pathetic.

superflyweight wrote:As has been said above, you're allowing your own moral viewpoint to get in the way.  

Doesn't matter who McDonnell has spoken to and allowed himself to be influenced by, neither McDonnel nor the unnamed third party are prohibited from talking to each other.  

Do you do a lot of thinking?  

To my knowledge a third party promoter cannot approach a contracted fighter under the terms of the BBBofC standard contract.

Mick Hennessy also makes reference to this in his press statement:

"We are also extremely concerned about the possible involvement of any other parties in DeGale’s decision to terminate our contract and if necessary we will take the appropriate legal action against any other promoter, broadcaster or sanctioning body that is found to have been involved in this decision.”


This is not as direct a statement as Hobson's. Hobson says a third party was involved in influencing McDonnell to leave him.

'To my knowledge'

Well, there's the issue then........

catchweight wrote:I dont know what you are on about. Its impossible to view Hearns last few years in boxing as anything but a major success. He has signed up 90% of the top British talent, got a near exclusive deal with Sky Sports and his ppv shows have been big hits. Your complaint seems to be he has achieved this without any talent and without being a nice guy. Does it really matter? This is boxing and Hearn is a boxing promoter. I can get arguing that behind it all hes actually a sh1tbag which may or may not be true but trying to spin everything to make him out to being doing a rubbish job doesnt add up at all.

1. Eddie's daddy got and retained the Sky deal due to the ground work he's done with Sky over the years.

2. Eddie has only been in a position to sign up 90% of the fighters because he is fundng this with Sky money. Sky have created a monopoly. As I said what would happen if Sky only made payments to Man Utd and none of the other teams?

3. Hearn's cards do not stand up to scrutiny and in general have been awful. He get's lucky that Grove puts on a performance few expected and that has generated a lot interest. It almost covers up the fact that under card that night was dirt, not to those who look past the Matchroom PR. He sent four fighters abroad last year for title fights and they lost.

4. Eddie without his father would be selling 3 bed semi-d's for a living or something similar.

5. Behind it I think Eddie is as bad as Warren in his behaviour and he will come to be disliked in equal measure.

6.If Warren was pulling the stunts Hearn is people would be up in arms. It's amazing how people can be fooled by a good suit, nice hair and a salesmans line in patter.

TopHat24/7 wrote:'To my knowledge'

Well, there's the issue then........

The issue is you are a twit. Argue the points or go and make yourself look like a clown somewhere else.

Have argued the points perfectly well, and you've failed miserably to counter. Just recounted the same tedious rot ad nausea which is all nothing but idle uninformed 'did 5 mins tinternet research' speculation.

Strongback wrote:

catchweight wrote:I dont know what you are on about. Its impossible to view Hearns last few years in boxing as anything but a major success. He has signed up 90% of the top British talent, got a near exclusive deal with Sky Sports and his ppv shows have been big hits. Your complaint seems to be he has achieved this without any talent and without being a nice guy. Does it really matter? This is boxing and Hearn is a boxing promoter. I can get arguing that behind it all hes actually a sh1tbag which may or may not be true but trying to spin everything to make him out to being doing a rubbish job doesnt add up at all.

1. Eddie's daddy got and retained the Sky deal due to the ground work he's done with Sky over the years.

2. Eddie has only been in a position to sign up 90% of the fighters because he is fundng this with Sky money.  Sky have created a monopoly.  As I said what would happen if Sky only made payments to Man Utd and none of the other teams?

3. Hearn's cards do not stand up to scrutiny and in general have been awful. He get's lucky that Grove puts on a performance few expected and that has generated a lot interest.  It almost covers up the fact that under card that night was dirt, not to those who look past the Matchroom PR. He sent four fighters abroad last year for title fights and they lost.

4. Eddie without his father would be selling 3 bed semi-d's for a living or something similar.

5. Behind it I think Eddie is as bad as Warren in his behaviour and he will come to be disliked in equal measure.

6.If Warren was pulling the stunts Hearn is people would be up in arms.  It's amazing how people can be fooled by a good suit, nice hair and a salesmans line in patter.

Translation: I HAVE A MASSIVE CHIP ON MY SHOULDER ABOUT EDDIE HEARN'S SUCCESS IN OUTPERFORMING ALL OTHER BOXING PROMOTERS DESPITE ONLY DOING THE SAME THING ANYONE ELSE HAS BEEN DOING FOR DECADES.

#blameeddie #someonegivemeacuddle

He sent four fighters abroad last year for title fights and they lost.

He got the fighters a big pay day, that if the fight isn't made they don't get, not sure you can criticise a promoter for getting his fighters world title shots.

Strongback wrote:
4. Eddie without his father would be selling 3 bed semi-d's for a living or something similar.

Think that is the crux of your problem with Eddie. You resent the fact that you think Eddie has had his success gifted to him and has not had to “earn” it, whatever that means. Is reverse snobbery of the worst kind.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Have argued the points perfectly well, and you've failed miserably to counter.  Just recounted the same tedious rot ad nausea which is all nothing but idle uninformed 'did 5 mins tinternet research' speculation.

What I've posted in regard to how to get out of a boxer\ manager contract scott free comes from reading what Tony Bellew's legal representative wrote about how they took their argument against Warren to the BBBofC and won.

hampo171 wrote:

He sent four fighters abroad last year for title fights and they lost.

He got the fighters a big pay day, that if the fight isn't made they don't get, not sure you can criticise a promoter for getting his fighters world title shots.

Yes, but getting winnable title shots at home is so much better. Barker is the only one I've heard of making any real money.

Dawson couldn't get Stevenson to go to the States and he was champ, so what chance did Bellew have of getting him to Liverpool?

Purdy didn't earn his shot and stepped in last minute, Barker got paid well for travelling.

You can't criticise him for getting these shots, it's a stupid and unbalanced argument.

Rowley wrote:

Strongback wrote:
4. Eddie without his father would be selling 3 bed semi-d's for a living or something similar.

Think that is the crux of your problem with Eddie. You resent the fact that you think Eddie has had his success gifted to him and has not had to “earn” it, whatever that means. Is reverse snobbery of the worst kind.

"reverse snobbery of the worst kind"................I know very wealthy people through both work and my parents and I would differentiate between people who inherit wealth and are very capable and people who have inherited wealth and only make money because they are already wealthy. It's much easier to make money when you already have money.

I'm not jealous of anybodies wealth, my family are not short of a few bob and I make a good living. I don't have any expensive hobbies and I care little about owning flashy cars so I certainly don't look at Eddie and wish I could live the lifestyle he does because to all intents and purposes I have everything I ever wanted.

Strongback wrote:

superflyweight wrote:As has been said above, you're allowing your own moral viewpoint to get in the way.  

Doesn't matter who McDonnell has spoken to and allowed himself to be influenced by, neither McDonnel nor the unnamed third party are prohibited from talking to each other.  

Do you do a lot of thinking?  

To my knowledge a third party promoter cannot approach a contracted fighter under the terms of the BBBofC standard contract.

Which standard contract?  From a very quick glance at the standrad contractual documentation available on the BBBoC website I can't see anything which addresses the point.  In any event, it would be very bizarre for a contract between two parties (I.E. a boxer and a promoter) to prohibit a third party (I.E. a rival promoter) from doing anything.  As I've previously said, there's no contractual relationship with the rival promoter.  

Is there a standard BBBoC licence agreement for promoters?  If there is any prohibition on approaching rival fighters then I would expect to see it in that licence.  In which case, breach of that prohibition would be a matter for the BBBoC and not a rival promoter.  There would be nothing that a rival promoter could do other than raise a complaint to the BBBoC.