Whats that all about on the letters page????
Fiction
Fact
Fiction
Fact
Fiction
Fact.
FACT: GROW UP.
Spots Netwonk in the bn
-
DG.
- Heavyweight
Re: Spots Netwonk in the bn
Spunks Waxwork always have a whinge - their in house lawyer is as sharp needle !buzz wrote:Whats that all about on the letters page????
Fiction
Fact
Fiction
Fact
Fiction
Fact.
FACT: GROW UP.
I haven't been posting for a while...what happened to the FW 'invitation only' forum? Not that I was invited. 8)
Sports Network's in-house lawyer Stephen Heath's statement was sent to a forum for public discussion (BN's 'Seconds Out' column) so raising further points in public shouldn't be a problem.
"Fiction - allegedly does not want Ricky Hatton facing Sharmba Mitchell.
Fact - allegedly is happy for Ricky Hatton to face Sharmba Mitchell on the appropriate terms. Sharmba Mitchell is facing Kostya Tszyu in his next fight and we are sure Hatton will face the winner."
The above statement seems to have passed most people by - unless they are simply tired of the issue. It's pointless to go into the vagaries of what 'appropriate terms' might constitute but the latter is a remarkable statement. Sports Network's lawyer has publicly stated that they are SURE Hatton will face the winner of Mitchell-Tszyu.
The major caveat of course being, I assume, that this statement becomes redundant if Mitchell and Tszyu do not fight...which is 90% certain, in my opinion.
It's refreshing that Mr Heath has come into the public domain to address what his employer considers to be inaccuracies.
I encourage others to use this thread to ask questions which will hopefully be addressed. We all know that at least one Sports Network employee reads this forum and the published statement mentions websites.
Many of you are understandably bored. But ask some sensible questions and you never know.
I'll start off. As Mr Heath wishes to address inaccuracies...
Q: Regarding Mr Warren's statement on TV regarding the professional career of Kevin Mitchell's last opponent - was this inaccurate?
I respect the right of Mr Warren to express his opinion on Sports Network shows and its boxers, provided of course those comments are not defamatory.
The problem is that people who pay a subscription to watch Sky Sports may read into these expressions as fact.
Sports Network's in-house lawyer Stephen Heath's statement was sent to a forum for public discussion (BN's 'Seconds Out' column) so raising further points in public shouldn't be a problem.
"Fiction - allegedly does not want Ricky Hatton facing Sharmba Mitchell.
Fact - allegedly is happy for Ricky Hatton to face Sharmba Mitchell on the appropriate terms. Sharmba Mitchell is facing Kostya Tszyu in his next fight and we are sure Hatton will face the winner."
The above statement seems to have passed most people by - unless they are simply tired of the issue. It's pointless to go into the vagaries of what 'appropriate terms' might constitute but the latter is a remarkable statement. Sports Network's lawyer has publicly stated that they are SURE Hatton will face the winner of Mitchell-Tszyu.
The major caveat of course being, I assume, that this statement becomes redundant if Mitchell and Tszyu do not fight...which is 90% certain, in my opinion.
It's refreshing that Mr Heath has come into the public domain to address what his employer considers to be inaccuracies.
I encourage others to use this thread to ask questions which will hopefully be addressed. We all know that at least one Sports Network employee reads this forum and the published statement mentions websites.
Many of you are understandably bored. But ask some sensible questions and you never know.
I'll start off. As Mr Heath wishes to address inaccuracies...
Q: Regarding Mr Warren's statement on TV regarding the professional career of Kevin Mitchell's last opponent - was this inaccurate?
I respect the right of Mr Warren to express his opinion on Sports Network shows and its boxers, provided of course those comments are not defamatory.
The problem is that people who pay a subscription to watch Sky Sports may read into these expressions as fact.
nice post Ian, I think part of the frustration isnt just at SN, its that we never find out the bloody truth about anything, its simply a case of his word against mine as we saw with Pinto then Gary Shaw / Mitchell.
One things is for sure though its pretty poor that two shows firstly didnt have the correct opponent (for whatever reason) and secondly the date was moved, again for whatever reason.
Im not gonna bang on about all that again as Ive probs bored everyone to death with it and most of criticism is born out of dissapointment that Ill miss the show, but I will seriously think twice about purchasing tickets for a hatton event til its signed sealed and delivered and as pinto showed even then there is no gaurentee. It is the publics right whether they decide to support these shows and I for one wont do for some time now, despite the fact I had the best time in April.
Its also the public's right to have a an opinion and as you correctly state in SN case as long as it isnt defammatory in anyway we should also be able to express these concerns and opinions including having an element of humour, as my old man says "sometimes if you dont laugh you wil cry" thats sure how I felt not so long ago when the date was moved.Additonally the public may have seem to be on SN case but this is again the frustration factor, I dont know one boxing fan who doesnt think hatton isnt being undermatched at the moment and for crying out loud Hatton himself has said as much, one question
WHY?
if I could have an answer to that I would be appeased.
Finally it has surprised me that SN are really that bothered by what is written on a message board, perhaps they may be better served securing a decent world title shot for Ricky. We can but hope.
One things is for sure though its pretty poor that two shows firstly didnt have the correct opponent (for whatever reason) and secondly the date was moved, again for whatever reason.
Im not gonna bang on about all that again as Ive probs bored everyone to death with it and most of criticism is born out of dissapointment that Ill miss the show, but I will seriously think twice about purchasing tickets for a hatton event til its signed sealed and delivered and as pinto showed even then there is no gaurentee. It is the publics right whether they decide to support these shows and I for one wont do for some time now, despite the fact I had the best time in April.
Its also the public's right to have a an opinion and as you correctly state in SN case as long as it isnt defammatory in anyway we should also be able to express these concerns and opinions including having an element of humour, as my old man says "sometimes if you dont laugh you wil cry" thats sure how I felt not so long ago when the date was moved.Additonally the public may have seem to be on SN case but this is again the frustration factor, I dont know one boxing fan who doesnt think hatton isnt being undermatched at the moment and for crying out loud Hatton himself has said as much, one question
WHY?
if I could have an answer to that I would be appeased.
Finally it has surprised me that SN are really that bothered by what is written on a message board, perhaps they may be better served securing a decent world title shot for Ricky. We can but hope.
-
Lefthookhappy19
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 968
- Joined: 16 Apr 2004, 19:15
Their are many credible opponents for Ricky to fight, whether it be Gatti, Mayweather, Urkal, Mitchell, N'Dou, Harris, Cotto, WITTER. Now are we to believe that every one of these opponents are afraid to fight Ricky or wanted silly money, I just don't believe that. SN don't have confidence in their man. If they did then the fights would be made but instead we have another mystery South American who hardly anyones seen. Its not like SN is short of cash to make the fights, put some of the money that they have been pulling in from the previous Hatton fights towards a big name. Other promoters can get big names for their fighters, are we to believe that probably the 3rd biggest promoter in the world can't put these fights on if he really wanted them? I think not.
Good idea, Loynesy. That will be interesting. Can you imagine what he looks like behind his letterheaded paper? Mr Bean. Or maybe, Michael Huntley.Loynesy wrote:Heath is a little prick - he is a bully who thinks by adding the words "in-house solicitor" he can add some gravitas to his ramblings.
I will check the law society's website on Monday and make sure he is on the solicitor's roll.
-
steve richards
- Heavyweight
[quote="J"]nice post Ian, I think part of the frustration isnt just at SN, its that we never find out the bloody truth about anything, its simply a case of his word against mine as we saw with Pinto then Gary Shaw / Mitchell.
One things is for sure though its pretty poor that two shows firstly didnt have the correct opponent (for whatever reason) and secondly the date was moved, again for whatever reason.
Im not gonna bang on about all that again as Ive probs bored everyone to death with it and most of criticism is born out of dissapointment that Ill miss the show, but I will seriously think twice about purchasing tickets for a hatton event til its signed sealed and delivered and as pinto showed even then there is no gaurentee. It is the publics right whether they decide to support these shows and I for one wont do for some time now, despite the fact I had the best time in April.
Good call J, I have watched Hatton a few times in Manchester and i have to say the shows are great but and it is a but if Hatton fought a real contender, Dropped the WBU title, IMO he would benefit greatlly, They can't make the fights for a couple of reasons, Money, Govening bodies, as SN are in bed (so to speak) with the WBU, WBO and not fighting for other titles(except Calzaghe, AAA interwhatever just make a name up title) do they SN not get any recognition, Hatton would beat gatti, harris, urkal, Judah, Cotto and zoo now, but Mayweather would murder anyone in the light welter and welter, The fans will start realising and the party could be over in the next 18 months if they don't sort it out
One things is for sure though its pretty poor that two shows firstly didnt have the correct opponent (for whatever reason) and secondly the date was moved, again for whatever reason.
Im not gonna bang on about all that again as Ive probs bored everyone to death with it and most of criticism is born out of dissapointment that Ill miss the show, but I will seriously think twice about purchasing tickets for a hatton event til its signed sealed and delivered and as pinto showed even then there is no gaurentee. It is the publics right whether they decide to support these shows and I for one wont do for some time now, despite the fact I had the best time in April.
Good call J, I have watched Hatton a few times in Manchester and i have to say the shows are great but and it is a but if Hatton fought a real contender, Dropped the WBU title, IMO he would benefit greatlly, They can't make the fights for a couple of reasons, Money, Govening bodies, as SN are in bed (so to speak) with the WBU, WBO and not fighting for other titles(except Calzaghe, AAA interwhatever just make a name up title) do they SN not get any recognition, Hatton would beat gatti, harris, urkal, Judah, Cotto and zoo now, but Mayweather would murder anyone in the light welter and welter, The fans will start realising and the party could be over in the next 18 months if they don't sort it out
Just to follow up on this - I did check with the law society and Heath is on the Roll (amusingly, he has the middle name of Taylor). He lists his specialities as litigation, employment, gambling/liquor licenses and defamation (what a surprise!). No mention of boxing!!Loynesy wrote:Heath is a little prick - he is a bully who thinks by adding the words "in-house solicitor" he can add some gravitas to his ramblings.
I will check the law society's website on Monday and make sure he is on the solicitor's roll.
Cheers, Loynesy. You know, anyone who has a degree of any sort can do a poxy one year course and become a solicitor. It's that simple.Loynesy wrote:Just to follow up on this - I did check with the law society and Heath is on the Roll (amusingly, he has the middle name of Taylor). He lists his specialities as litigation, employment, gambling/liquor licenses and defamation (what a surprise!). No mention of boxing!!Loynesy wrote:Heath is a little prick - he is a bully who thinks by adding the words "in-house solicitor" he can add some gravitas to his ramblings.
I will check the law society's website on Monday and make sure he is on the solicitor's roll.
-
knockout artist
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1482
- Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 13:18
bennie wrote:Cheers, Loynesy. You know, anyone who has a degree of any sort can do a poxy one year course and become a solicitor. It's that simple.Loynesy wrote:Just to follow up on this - I did check with the law society and Heath is on the Roll (amusingly, he has the middle name of Taylor). He lists his specialities as litigation, employment, gambling/liquor licenses and defamation (what a surprise!). No mention of boxing!!Loynesy wrote:Heath is a little prick - he is a bully who thinks by adding the words "in-house solicitor" he can add some gravitas to his ramblings.
I will check the law society's website on Monday and make sure he is on the solicitor's roll.
Batty boy would be a more accurate description.
-
glittermonkey
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2658
- Joined: 28 Feb 2004, 18:03