Hatton/Lazcano 24th May

DavidPayne · Post by **DavidPayne** » 21 Feb 2008, 12:31

Tell me this isn't PPV?

Not that a Laszcano upset is beyond impossible given Hatton's motivations these days.

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 21 Feb 2008, 12:34

I would think it would be PPV, once a fighter goes down the PPV route with Sky I don't recall them going back to regular Skysports after.

John Dillinger · Post by **John Dillinger** » 21 Feb 2008, 12:46

Lenny wrote:It's easy to see why boxing fans are getting turned off Hatton when you read some of his lawyers quotes in that link

Lazcano I believe is fine for a comeback fight, but at a decent time and no PPV. Also is a perfect style for Ricky

Gareth Williams sadly knows sweet fa about the game. He didn't even know what WBA stood for.

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 21 Feb 2008, 13:09

Another predictable set up for Richie Rich, wont be paying for that, and here's hoping PPV sales go through the floor.

dondada · Post by **dondada** » 21 Feb 2008, 13:10

Look, the solicitor's quotes tell you all you need to know:

"In our opinion Junior brings nothing to the table. Unless things change dramatically there is no way he is going to fight Ricky Hatton... A 70-30 split would still represent Witter's biggest pay-day by about 30 times. He can't sell out the Doncaster Dome. What makes him think he is worth that?"

This shows how little titles mean these days, and that's fair enough. But what they mean by 'bring to the table' is...wait for it...money. What a revelation, eh?

All this talk about honour, etc, is complete shite. I'm not making a judgement on Hatton - if he wants to go for the money, there are far easier fights out there than Witter.

But...wait for it...would Ricky make more money from fighting Witter than the likes of Lazcano? Of course he would. Maybe not others who are big in the US though.

oliverfennell · Post by **oliverfennell** » 21 Feb 2008, 13:22

nickd wrote:I would think it would be PPV, once a fighter goes down the PPV route with Sky I don't recall them going back to regular Skysports after.

Danny Williams

oliverfennell · Post by **oliverfennell** » 21 Feb 2008, 13:26

Terry D wrote:PPV over here seems to be directed at casuals as mentioned. Bigger fights have not been PPV over here. The greed angle is fair enough but if Witter, or Calzaghe for that matter, was offered a PPV bout would it be turned down? Not likely.

Hopefully the whole Hatton/Witter saga will end soon enough.

As an aside the WBC mandate a certain purse split in favour of their title holder so to make the 30-70 a reality the WBC title may need to be dropped, or they may need a rule-bending sweetener.

Imagine, Witter has to drop the title to make the split, Hatton says "I'm not fighting him now he doesn't have a title".

DG explodes.

I don't think the sanctioning bodies ENFORCE the purse split if the champ is willing to take less than the customary percentage. Cases in point: Bruno v Tyson and De La Hoya vs any defending champion. The defending champs in those examples knew the challengers were the drawcards but they'd still make a big payday even with the short end of the purse.

Chambers2 · Post by **Chambers2** » 21 Feb 2008, 13:27

states wrote:It's going to be on at a decent hour, apparently:

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/21022008/ ... laims.html

Doesn't look like the fight's ever going to happen judging by that press release, its Lazcano followed by a super feather weight or a lightweight (old habits must die hard)

Ricky Hatton's lawyer has hit back at Junior Witter's latest attempts to secure a domestic light-welterweight super-fight by dismissing the potential showdown as "a waste of time".

Fighting Witter for the WBC Light Welter title in the BIGGEST All-British clash ever is a "waste of time", but fighting some obscure Mexican is a worth while clash

What a fecking joke!!

Williams said: "Ricky has got numerous options to pursue. He is being courted by every big promoter in the US and we have options like Manny Pacquaio, Juan Diaz or a rematch against Floyd Mayweather.

"Why is he going to fight Junior Witter when he can fight any of those guys? In our opinion Junior brings nothing to the table. Unless things change dramatically there is no way he is going to fight Ricky Hatton."

Junior Witter the WBC LightWelterweight champion and No.1 in the division brings nothing to the table, but Juan Lazcano who lost his last fight to someone who Junior sparked clean out is somehow worthy of a clash

How exactly does Lazcano bring more to the table than Witter? or has he been chosen solely because he brings alot less to the ring?

I can see that this Gareth Williams is a bright spark....what a coont!!

To Ricky Hatton, in the words of the Great Suggs of Madness "Bom Bom You're an embarrassment....."

Williams added: "I had a meeting with HBO in New York in early January when they offered a three-fight deal to Ricky. We made it perfectly clear his next fight would be in Britain at a time convenient to the English fans.

Well thank fcuking you for putting the show on "At a time convenient to the British fans", oh well suppose that makes up for Las Vegas ticket fiasco, the poor opponent and for us missing out on the BIGGEST All-British clash.

Keep on hiding and running Ricky....... what a Coont!!!

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 21 Feb 2008, 13:53

Manny Pac? So he wants to be be a bully smaller fighters.

Pac will lose to Marquez anyway.

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 21 Feb 2008, 14:09

oliverfennell wrote:
nickd wrote:I would think it would be PPV, once a fighter goes down the PPV route with Sky I don't recall them going back to regular Skysports after.
Danny Williams

Williams was hardly an established PPV fighter. Hatton is.

states · Post by **states** » 21 Feb 2008, 14:13

You'd hope it won't be PPV. Christ, even De La Hoya's next fight is going to be on regular HBO, isn't it?

Sadly, Hatton vs. Lazcano, or whoever else they find for May will no doubt be PPV. Still, the choice is there. I won't buy it, just like I didn't buy the Urango fight.

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 21 Feb 2008, 14:18

states wrote:You'd hope it won't be PPV. Christ, even De La Hoya's next fight is going to be on regular HBO, isn't it?

Sadly, Hatton vs. Lazcano, or whoever else they find for May will no doubt be PPV. Still, the choice is there. I won't buy it, just like I didn't buy the Urango fight.

It will be regular HBO in the US, but if it's on Sky it will be Box Office. They never miss a chance.

states · Post by **states** » 21 Feb 2008, 14:23

Hmm, don't know about that. DLH-Mayweather was on regular sky sports. I was expecting ppv for that one.

SticknMove · Post by **SticknMove** » 21 Feb 2008, 14:41

"In our opinion Junior brings nothing to the table. Unless things change dramatically there is no way he is going to fight Ricky Hatton...."

I don't suppose there's any chance that Witter could rustle up a full English breakfast to aid negotiations is there? 8)

Poncey · Post by **Poncey** » 21 Feb 2008, 15:00

nickd wrote:
states wrote:You'd hope it won't be PPV. Christ, even De La Hoya's next fight is going to be on regular HBO, isn't it?

Sadly, Hatton vs. Lazcano, or whoever else they find for May will no doubt be PPV. Still, the choice is there. I won't buy it, just like I didn't buy the Urango fight.
It will be regular HBO in the US, but if it's on Sky it will be Box Office. They never miss a chance.

As states mentioned, the DLH fight is on HBO, not HBO PPV. To make things worse, I think HBO only have BAD and WCB and non-PPV brands, so either the fight has to start very late (usually about 10.30pm EST) or they need to get a title involved. But I'm not sure.

Also, HBO PPV already has Barrera booked on the same day.

As a side note, if HBO aren't showing it on PPV SKY can't use the feed to charge the Customer.

states · Post by **states** » 21 Feb 2008, 15:07

Sorry, I should have made myself clearer earlier. I meant that if the King of the PPV's, DLH, can take a break from them in the U.S. once in a while, you'd like to think Hatton can do the same over here.

Poncey · Post by **Poncey** » 21 Feb 2008, 15:41

states wrote:Sorry, I should have made myself clearer earlier. I meant that if the King of the PPV's, DLH, can take a break from them in the U.S. once in a while, you'd like to think Hatton can do the same over here.

Yeah, but IMO his opponent is poorer than Hatton's (Forbes is a Lightweight and DLH is a Light Middle, Welter at best), although Lazcano is still a let down. I'll watch it, but won't go.

Neri · Post by **Neri** » 21 Feb 2008, 15:57

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:
states wrote:Sorry, I should have made myself clearer earlier. I meant that if the King of the PPV's, DLH, can take a break from them in the U.S. once in a while, you'd like to think Hatton can do the same over here.
Yeah, but IMO his opponent is poorer than Hatton's (Forbes is a Lightweight and DLH is a Light Middle, Welter at best), although Lazcano is still a let down. I'll watch it, but won't go.

That's a good point. I'm seriously considering boycotting this if it's PPV, or let Kev get it.

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 21 Feb 2008, 15:59

Terry D wrote: As an aside the WBC mandate a certain purse split in favour of their title holder so to make the 30-70 a reality the WBC title may need to be dropped, or they may need a rule-bending sweetener.
.

Thats just mandatories isnt it, loads of WBC fights have split in favour of the challenger - Tyson-Bruno, Mayweather-Baldomir, Delahoya-BHOPs, etc, etc

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Feb 2008, 17:30

Terry D wrote:
oliverfennell wrote:
Terry D wrote:PPV over here seems to be directed at casuals as mentioned. Bigger fights have not been PPV over here. The greed angle is fair enough but if Witter, or Calzaghe for that matter, was offered a PPV bout would it be turned down? Not likely.

Hopefully the whole Hatton/Witter saga will end soon enough.

As an aside the WBC mandate a certain purse split in favour of their title holder so to make the 30-70 a reality the WBC title may need to be dropped, or they may need a rule-bending sweetener.

Imagine, Witter has to drop the title to make the split, Hatton says "I'm not fighting him now he doesn't have a title".

DG explodes.
I don't think the sanctioning bodies ENFORCE the purse split if the champ is willing to take less than the customary percentage. Cases in point: Bruno v Tyson and De La Hoya vs any defending champion. The defending champs in those examples knew the challengers were the drawcards but they'd still make a big payday even with the short end of the purse.
So why put the stipulation. Is it purely for purse-bids scenarios? Say ODH, as a promoter, went for a WBC fight as #1 contender and won the bids for the fight. Stipulations would suggest 70-30 only for ODH to be able to say "as promoter of this fight, and your opponent I am now making the split 70-30 in my favour. How do you like those apples?"

What is the case then? How much would he have to duke the WBC to make a new ruling?

Purse bids only Terrence, in voluntary defences, the sanctioning body don't stipulate a split, hence challengers being paid 50k, when the champ takes home a few million, as happened with DLH a few years back.

DG. · Post by **DG.** » 21 Feb 2008, 17:35

Terry D wrote:PPV over here seems to be directed at casuals as mentioned. Bigger fights have not been PPV over here. The greed angle is fair enough but if Witter, or Calzaghe for that matter, was offered a PPV bout would it be turned down? Not likely.

Hopefully the whole Hatton/Witter saga will end soon enough.

As an aside the WBC mandate a certain purse split in favour of their title holder so to make the 30-70 a reality the WBC title may need to be dropped, or they may need a rule-bending sweetener.

Imagine, Witter has to drop the title to make the split, Hatton says "I'm not fighting him now he doesn't have a title".

DG explodes.

Tykemania · Post by **Tykemania** » 22 Feb 2008, 02:15

nickd wrote:Man of the people.

Hey, TV execs, his Dad, Promoter and other hangers on are people too you know

ALI · Post by **ALI** » 22 Feb 2008, 03:47

You can bet both your bollocks that it will be on PPV......... he's now riding on the back off the most exposure he has ever had in his career (and ever will have for that matter), so you can be sure that he and his team will be looking to cash in on that.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 22 Feb 2008, 05:51

Terry D wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Terry D wrote: So why put the stipulation. Is it purely for purse-bids scenarios? Say ODH, as a promoter, went for a WBC fight as #1 contender and won the bids for the fight. Stipulations would suggest 70-30 only for ODH to be able to say "as promoter of this fight, and your opponent I am now making the split 70-30 in my favour. How do you like those apples?"

What is the case then? How much would he have to duke the WBC to make a new ruling?
Purse bids only Terrence, in voluntary defences, the sanctioning body don't stipulate a split, hence challengers being paid 50k, when the champ takes home a few million, as happened with DLH a few years back.
Yeah, was speculating about what would happen if ODH was mandated for a title (although he's beyond the point of having to be in contention) and won the purse bids as a promoter, if he'd perhaps find a way to boost his income and not pay the full percentage split. An opponent might allow it to fight ODH for whatever money they get. Perhaps that is a potential problem of self-promoted boxers.

Well, perhaps the promoter could use options as some sort of offset. Offering to pay them more of their purse in their next fight as some sort of options agreement.

I think the purse bids are fairly strict, but it's not that often that there are big money mandatories, so it'snot that relevant. More often than not, the big fights are voluntary defences or unifications.

Poncey · Post by **Poncey** » 22 Feb 2008, 07:00

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Terry D wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote: Purse bids only Terrence, in voluntary defences, the sanctioning body don't stipulate a split, hence challengers being paid 50k, when the champ takes home a few million, as happened with DLH a few years back.
Yeah, was speculating about what would happen if ODH was mandated for a title (although he's beyond the point of having to be in contention) and won the purse bids as a promoter, if he'd perhaps find a way to boost his income and not pay the full percentage split. An opponent might allow it to fight ODH for whatever money they get. Perhaps that is a potential problem of self-promoted boxers.
Well, perhaps the promoter could use options as some sort of offset. Offering to pay them more of their purse in their next fight as some sort of options agreement.

I think the purse bids are fairly strict, but it's not that often that there are big money mandatories, so it'snot that relevant. More often than not, the big fights are voluntary defences or unifications.

Seconds out article indicates Hennessey is willing to allow Hatton the 70%, but he still won't bite. I'm not in "no man's land" on this debate.

The article is hard to understand, as sometimes it has quotes and sometimes just gives opinion. However, this is the nearest we've come to an official line from Team Hatton saying they won't fight Witter:

http://secondsout.com/UK/news.cfm?ccs=228&cs=23866

Quote in question; "Why is he going to fight Junior Witter when he can fight any of those guys? In our opinion Junior brings nothing to the table. Unless things change dramatically there is no way he is going to fight Ricky Hatton."