macklin opponent announced....
-
TerribleTerry
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 5272
- Joined: 29 Aug 2003, 12:30
-
boxingchat
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1934
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 05:26
-
My T Sharp
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1933
- Joined: 16 May 2004, 13:32
He'll be stood outside with a huge slice of bread, waiting for the Hatton gravy train to derail.KO Atrist wrote:Why dont you post your photo on here, i'll look you up.boxingchat wrote:Believe it or not, I am going to Sheffield, but only because it's local and I was given a free ticket.REAL_DEAL wrote:arent you going to italy say hello to enzo and brian huges from me while your there oh and frank w too
-
John Dillinger
- Heavyweight

It's way too expensive given the lack of a decent undercard. It's a bit rich of Boxing chat to accuse the Hatton's of greed here. Has allegedly FW ever disclosed how much money he made from the shows that Ricky headlined? He's quick to tell everyone how much Ricky made so why not tell us how much he made?
As for Ricky's fights selling out at MEN, not that many did. There were always plenty of tickets available a few days before at knockdown prices if you knew who to ask, it'll be the same on Saturday.
As for Ricky's fights selling out at MEN, not that many did. There were always plenty of tickets available a few days before at knockdown prices if you knew who to ask, it'll be the same on Saturday.
Warren never has revealed how much he made from the Hatton shows, some estimate it at double whatever Ricky was paid, others at £5m for the Tszyu show alone.John Dillinger wrote:It's way too expensive given the lack of a decent undercard. It's a bit rich of Boxing chat to accuse the Hatton's of greed here. Has allegedly FW ever disclosed how much money he made from the shows that Ricky headlined? He's quick to tell everyone how much Ricky made so why not tell us how much he made?
As for Ricky's fights selling out at MEN, not that many did. There were always plenty of tickets available a few days before at knockdown prices if you knew who to ask, it'll be the same on Saturday.
With the dispute over whether or not Ricky is contracted to Warren I looked back at my old SN shares literature and prospectus.
Warren claimed to have Hatton under contract when he floated SN?
Did he? I suppose the court will rule on that?
If he didnt have hatton under contract, and claimed to when floating, isnt that a creation of a false market?
-
MightyWarrior
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 13284
- Joined: 23 Jan 2003, 14:01
-
John Dillinger
- Heavyweight

Did SN claim to have Ricky under contract when they signed the deal with ITV? tut tutKO Atrist wrote:Warren never has revealed how much he made from the Hatton shows, some estimate it at double whatever Ricky was paid, others at £5m for the Tszyu show alone.John Dillinger wrote:It's way too expensive given the lack of a decent undercard. It's a bit rich of Boxing chat to accuse the Hatton's of greed here. Has allegedly FW ever disclosed how much money he made from the shows that Ricky headlined? He's quick to tell everyone how much Ricky made so why not tell us how much he made?
As for Ricky's fights selling out at MEN, not that many did. There were always plenty of tickets available a few days before at knockdown prices if you knew who to ask, it'll be the same on Saturday.
With the dispute over whether or not Ricky is contracted to Warren I looked back at my old SN shares literature and prospectus.
Warren claimed to have Hatton under contract when he floated SN?
Did he? I suppose the court will rule on that?
If he didnt have hatton under contract, and claimed to when floating, isnt that a creation of a false market?
-
My T Sharp
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1933
- Joined: 16 May 2004, 13:32
I think that you are wrong about the floating. Sports Network was a partnership which was bought by an existing AIM listed company, with the owners of the Sports Network partnership i.e. FW receiving shares in the AIM company.KO Atrist wrote:Warren never has revealed how much he made from the Hatton shows, some estimate it at double whatever Ricky was paid, others at £5m for the Tszyu show alone.John Dillinger wrote:It's way too expensive given the lack of a decent undercard. It's a bit rich of Boxing chat to accuse the Hatton's of greed here. Has allegedly FW ever disclosed how much money he made from the shows that Ricky headlined? He's quick to tell everyone how much Ricky made so why not tell us how much he made?
As for Ricky's fights selling out at MEN, not that many did. There were always plenty of tickets available a few days before at knockdown prices if you knew who to ask, it'll be the same on Saturday.
With the dispute over whether or not Ricky is contracted to Warren I looked back at my old SN shares literature and prospectus.
Warren claimed to have Hatton under contract when he floated SN?
Did he? I suppose the court will rule on that?
If he didnt have hatton under contract, and claimed to when floating, isnt that a creation of a false market?
As for the huge profits, Sports Network figures for the six months to June 2005 were made public and should include all Ricky Hatton income. Turnover was £8,824m, Gross Profit £2,003m and Operating Profit before tax and amortisation £652,000. Still not a bad return for six months of promoting.
http://www.companyannouncements.net/cgi ... P8DCE.html
Delve a bit deeper, go back a bit further, look at what company actually does the boxing. Private or public, you find quite a lot of interesting stuff.My T Sharp wrote:I think that you are wrong about the floating. Sports Network was a partnership which was bought by an existing AIM listed company, with the owners of the Sports Network partnership i.e. FW receiving shares in the AIM company.KO Atrist wrote:Warren never has revealed how much he made from the Hatton shows, some estimate it at double whatever Ricky was paid, others at £5m for the Tszyu show alone.John Dillinger wrote:It's way too expensive given the lack of a decent undercard. It's a bit rich of Boxing chat to accuse the Hatton's of greed here. Has allegedly FW ever disclosed how much money he made from the shows that Ricky headlined? He's quick to tell everyone how much Ricky made so why not tell us how much he made?
As for Ricky's fights selling out at MEN, not that many did. There were always plenty of tickets available a few days before at knockdown prices if you knew who to ask, it'll be the same on Saturday.
With the dispute over whether or not Ricky is contracted to Warren I looked back at my old SN shares literature and prospectus.
Warren claimed to have Hatton under contract when he floated SN?
Did he? I suppose the court will rule on that?
If he didnt have hatton under contract, and claimed to when floating, isnt that a creation of a false market?
As for the huge profits, Sports Network figures for the six months to June 2005 were made public and should include all Ricky Hatton income. Turnover was £8,824m, Gross Profit £2,003m and Operating Profit before tax and amortisation £652,000. Still not a bad return for six months of promoting.![]()
http://www.companyannouncements.net/cgi ... P8DCE.html
Members of the general public bought SN stock. Look at the prospectus and historical statements.
-
My T Sharp
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1933
- Joined: 16 May 2004, 13:32
I've had a look and it looks OK to me but I haven't seen the prospectus. Did they do a prospectus when they issued the extra share capital for the 100% purchase of Sports Network?
I don't think the AIM is very well regulated anyway, with the bulk of the shares going to the big institutions no-one gives a damn about the general public share purchasers anyway. 8)
I don't think the AIM is very well regulated anyway, with the bulk of the shares going to the big institutions no-one gives a damn about the general public share purchasers anyway. 8)
AIM has tightened up recently and is trying hard to shed its cowboy image.My T Sharp wrote:I've had a look and it looks OK to me but I haven't seen the prospectus. Did they do a prospectus when they issued the extra share capital for the 100% purchase of Sports Network?
I don't think the AIM is very well regulated anyway, with the bulk of the shares going to the big institutions no-one gives a damn about the general public share purchasers anyway. 8)
Its not nearly as bad as Ofex