Mitchell v Ormond is off
Mitchell v Ormond is off
Apparently Mitchell v Ormond is off as Ormond has pulled out. Anthony Crolla couldn't agree terms for Burns.
Mitchell v Crolla would be very nice
Mitchell v Crolla would be very nice
Re: Mitchell v Ormond is off
Can't say its a fight I'm going to miss (Mitchell v Ormond). Difficult to see how they'll get Crolla for Mitchell if there wasn't enough money on the table for Crolla v Burns.Grays_Dan wrote:Apparently Mitchell v Ormond is off as Ormond has pulled out. Anthony Crolla couldn't agree terms for Burns.
Mitchell v Crolla would be very nice
Re: Mitchell v Ormond is off
Do any of the bills hold it.earsjohn wrote:Can't say its a fight I'm going to miss (Mitchell v Ormond). Difficult to see how they'll get Crolla for Mitchell if there wasn't enough money on the table for Crolla v Burns.Grays_Dan wrote:Apparently Mitchell v Ormond is off as Ormond has pulled out. Anthony Crolla couldn't agree terms for Burns.
Mitchell v Crolla would be very nice
Re: Mitchell v Ormond is off
I know it is nature of the beast with boxing that there are pull outs, but these bills on the allegedly channel dont seem to EVER stay together!!!
-
iamasadlittleboy
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1877
- Joined: 01 Mar 2010, 13:05
Re: Mitchell v Ormond is off
When was the last time we had an FW card "as advertised"? Have we actually had one since they went pay? (I'm not counting Selby v Simpson as that was advertised on Sky)
-
DavidPayne
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 6248
- Joined: 11 Mar 2004, 11:00
Re: Mitchell v Ormond is off
Come on guys this has been happening since Robin Hood was in borstal.
Advertise a mega card. Put on a mediocre card. This happens a lot, then one card holds just to keep the faith.
Advertise a mega card. Put on a mediocre card. This happens a lot, then one card holds just to keep the faith.
Re: Mitchell v Ormond is off
iamasadlittleboy wrote:When was the last time we had an FW card "as advertised"? Have we actually had one since they went pay? (I'm not counting Selby v Simpson as that was advertised on Sky)
Burns v Katsidis?
Cleverly v Bellew?
Last two big shows then
Re: Mitchell v Ormond is off
Burns v Katsidis was originally to have Chisora v Olubamiwo on the undercard - neither were on.gobbles wrote:iamasadlittleboy wrote:When was the last time we had an FW card "as advertised"? Have we actually had one since they went pay? (I'm not counting Selby v Simpson as that was advertised on Sky)
Burns v Katsidis?
Cleverly v Bellew?
Last two big shows then
Re: Mitchell v Ormond is off
Thanks for the tip off mate - I was just about to subscribe to BN to watch this.Grays_Dan wrote:Apparently Mitchell v Ormond is off as Ormond has pulled out.
I think I will save my money now !! .......
-
iamasadlittleboy
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1877
- Joined: 01 Mar 2010, 13:05
Re: Mitchell v Ormond is off
So...October 15th?...3 months ago? O_oearsjohn wrote:Burns v Katsidis was originally to have Chisora v Olubamiwo on the undercard - neither were on.gobbles wrote:iamasadlittleboy wrote:When was the last time we had an FW card "as advertised"? Have we actually had one since they went pay? (I'm not counting Selby v Simpson as that was advertised on Sky)
Burns v Katsidis?
Cleverly v Bellew?
Last two big shows then
Re: Mitchell v Ormond is off
I offered Dean Powell my fighter TBC he fed up with TBA getting the fight!
Re: Mitchell v Ormond is off
I was just about to subscribe to BN to watch this.

