Eddie Hearn clarifies the situation

[lefty]

He says that they offered Groves a 75-25 split but now that the IBF have called for an immediate rematch, Groves is only entitled to a 15 % split. This looks like it might be backfiring on Groves http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEJtDMfuY6U

[The_Don1]

He may have offered Groves 25% but what options were associated with that?

Groves takes 15% instead, but it leaves him a free agent with many years of money making potential ahead.

Groves 1 - New Age Promoting 0

[lefty]

He may have offered Groves 25% but what options were associated with that?

Groves takes 15% instead, but it leaves him a free agent with many years of money making potential ahead.

Groves 1 - New Age Promoting 0

If he loses though then he's screwed.

[The_Don1]

He may have offered Groves 25% but what options were associated with that?

Groves takes 15% instead, but it leaves him a free agent with many years of money making potential ahead.

Groves 1 - New Age Promoting 0

If he loses though then he's screwed.

Not necessarily, he's young even he loses (which I don't believe he will) he has plenty of options outside of the great god Hearn.

[80/20]

It would make sense for froch/hearn to try and hold on to as much as possible as they no it could be curtains

[jameswilson]

He may have offered Groves 25% but what options were associated with that?

Groves takes 15% instead, but it leaves him a free agent with many years of money making potential ahead.

Groves 1 - New Age Promoting 0

You can hardly say that being signed up to Matchroom for say 2 or 3 fights after this rematch (lets assume for the sake of this argument that it does happen in the next 90 days) whether he wins or loses is a bad thing. Groves can talk until he is blue in the face about the offers he is getting from the US. The best place for him to be fighting is the UK because he is now one of the bigger names in UK boxing, and even those who don't like Matchroom have to admit in terms of promoting a fighters image and filling big arenas Matchroom do it the best. If he signed for one of the other UK promoters he is gonna be i) defending a WBO title at the Copperbox against Tocker Pudwill or ii) boxing at Glow in Bluewater/Bristol leisure centre/Doncaster dome in a final final final warm up fight to a World title. Attaching no names to those last 2 examples obviously.

[The_Don1]

He may have offered Groves 25% but what options were associated with that?

Groves takes 15% instead, but it leaves him a free agent with many years of money making potential ahead.

Groves 1 - New Age Promoting 0

You can hardly say that being signed up to Matchroom for say 2 or 3 fights after this rematch (lets assume for the sake of this argument that it does happen in the next 90 days) whether he wins or loses is a bad thing. Groves can talk until he is blue in the face about the offers he is getting from the US. The best place for him to be fighting is the UK because he is now one of the bigger names in UK boxing, and even those who don't like Matchroom have to admit in terms of promoting a fighters image and filling big arenas Matchroom do it the best. If he signed for one of the other UK promoters he is gonna be i) defending a WBO title at the Copperbox against Tocker Pudwill or ii) boxing at Glow in Bluewater/Bristol leisure centre/Doncaster dome in a final final final warm up fight to a World title. Attaching no names to those last 2 examples obviously.

Or he could be defending his tile against a genuine opponent like Yusuf Mack?

Matchroom have the backing of sky sports which gives them kudos, along with the backing of their YouTube channel IFilmHearn, but please their undercards are shocking, almost K2 esque, Matchroom are all smoke and mirrors and within 12-18 months the wider public will begin to realise this.

[jameswilson]

He may have offered Groves 25% but what options were associated with that?

Groves takes 15% instead, but it leaves him a free agent with many years of money making potential ahead.

Groves 1 - New Age Promoting 0

You can hardly say that being signed up to Matchroom for say 2 or 3 fights after this rematch (lets assume for the sake of this argument that it does happen in the next 90 days) whether he wins or loses is a bad thing. Groves can talk until he is blue in the face about the offers he is getting from the US. The best place for him to be fighting is the UK because he is now one of the bigger names in UK boxing, and even those who don't like Matchroom have to admit in terms of promoting a fighters image and filling big arenas Matchroom do it the best. If he signed for one of the other UK promoters he is gonna be i) defending a WBO title at the Copperbox against Tocker Pudwill or ii) boxing at Glow in Bluewater/Bristol leisure centre/Doncaster dome in a final final final warm up fight to a World title. Attaching no names to those last 2 examples obviously.

Or he could be defending his tile against a genuine opponent like Yusuf Mack?

Matchroom have the backing of sky sports which gives them kudos, along with the backing of their YouTube channel IFilmHearn, but please their undercards are shocking, almost K2 esque, Matchroom are all smoke and mirrors and within 12-18 months the wider public will begin to realise this.

Yeah Froch has had 1 soft fight since signing for Matchroom so instantly that 1 soft defence over-rides everything in certain berks minds. How many decent World title fights against other top 5 World champs have the World champs from outside Matchroom had in the last 3 years out of interest? Do you now see my point? How are the other undercards and chief supports in your opinion? Oh yeah I remember that amazing Frank Buglioni blood and guts war now! Go on pick out the 3 or so good undercard fights that there have been on other promoters bills and make out like that's what they are all like, see if it convinces me.

[The_Don1]

[/quote]You can hardly say that being signed up to Matchroom for say 2 or 3 fights after this rematch (lets assume for the sake of this argument that it does happen in the next 90 days) whether he wins or loses is a bad thing. Groves can talk until he is blue in the face about the offers he is getting from the US. The best place for him to be fighting is the UK because he is now one of the bigger names in UK boxing, and even those who don't like Matchroom have to admit in terms of promoting a fighters image and filling big arenas Matchroom do it the best. If he signed for one of the other UK promoters he is gonna be i) defending a WBO title at the Copperbox against Tocker Pudwill or ii) boxing at Glow in Bluewater/Bristol leisure centre/Doncaster dome in a final final final warm up fight to a World title. Attaching no names to those last 2 examples obviously.[/quote]

Or he could be defending his tile against a genuine opponent like Yusuf Mack?

Matchroom have the backing of sky sports which gives them kudos, along with the backing of their YouTube channel IFilmHearn, but please their undercards are shocking, almost K2 esque, Matchroom are all smoke and mirrors and within 12-18 months the wider public will begin to realise this.[/quote]

Yeah Froch has had 1 soft fight since signing for Matchroom so instantly that 1 soft defence over-rides everything in certain berks minds. How many decent World title fights against other top 5 World champs have the World champs from outside Matchroom had in the last 3 years out of interest? Do you now see my point? How are the other undercards and chief supports in your opinion? Oh yeah I remember that amazing Frank Buglioni blood and guts war now! Go on pick out the 3 or so good undercard fights that there have been on other promoters bills and make out like that's what they are all like, see if it convinces me.[/quote]

I have no desire to convince you of anything, how about you justify the last few Matchroom undercards if you're such a fan of their work?

[jameswilson]

Froch v Groves aside they are way better than the turd we used to get served up on Sky back when other promoters held the dates.

[The_Don1]

Froch v Groves aside they are way better than the turd we used to get served up on Sky back when other promoters held the dates.

but what about the other Matchroom undercards? James you're a fan - a big fan tell me about the quality of their undercards, speak on it!

[jameswilson]

Froch v Groves aside they are way better than the turd we used to get served up on Sky back when other promoters held the dates.

but what about the other Matchroom undercards? James you're a fan - a big fan tell me about the quality of their undercards, speak on it!

Way better than what we had back when Sky were aligned with other promoters...... Have I not made it clear that I think they put better shows on than what we had say 10 years back in the Calzaghe v Ashira and Hatton v Ray Oliveira days?

[The_Don1]

Froch v Groves aside they are way better than the turd we used to get served up on Sky back when other promoters held the dates.

but what about the other Matchroom undercards? James you're a fan - a big fan tell me about the quality of their undercards, speak on it!

Way better than what we had back when Sky were aligned with other promoters...... Have I not made it clear that I think they put better shows on than what we had say 10 years back in the Calzaghe v Ashira and Hatton v Ray Oliveira days?

You've tried to make that clear, but without any form of justification. I'm willing to hear the argument but I'm seeing is negativity about other promoters rather than positivity about the quality of Matchroom cards within the last 12 months.

[jameswilson]

but what about the other Matchroom undercards? James you're a fan - a big fan tell me about the quality of their undercards, speak on it!

Way better than what we had back when Sky were aligned with other promoters...... Have I not made it clear that I think they put better shows on than what we had say 10 years back in the Calzaghe v Ashira and Hatton v Ray Oliveira days?

You've tried to make that clear, but without any form of justification. I'm willing to hear the argument but I'm seeing is negativity about other promoters rather than positivity about the quality of Matchroom cards within the last 12 months.

For me I judge a card on the quality of the top 3 fights on the bill. I could go and list every chief support (despite being not a barnstormer, Bellew v Chilemba II for example) and other undercard fight (Smith v Dodson in Bolton for example) that I feel were good but with your method of argument of just calling me a bellend or whatever why would I bother? And if I did all you'd do is come along and probably say 'whoaaaa well I liked Billy Joe vs Spike O Sullivan better than that lot!' or words to that effect. And either way I'v put points to you and you just ignore them and are now demanding I answer yours after ignoring mine. I'v posted here for god knows how long now so stubborn people incapable of reasoned debate like yourself aren't high on my agenda on a Friday night.

Go on, come up with a 1 line reply to that and sit back as if it wins it in anyone elses mind other than your own.

[The_Don1]

but what about the other Matchroom undercards? James you're a fan - a big fan tell me about the quality of their undercards, speak on it![/quote]

Way better than what we had back when Sky were aligned with other promoters...... Have I not made it clear that I think they put better shows on than what we had say 10 years back in the Calzaghe v Ashira and Hatton v Ray Oliveira days?[/quote]

You've tried to make that clear, but without any form of justification. I'm willing to hear the argument but I'm seeing is negativity about other promoters rather than positivity about the quality of Matchroom cards within the last 12 months.[/quote]

For me I judge a card on the quality of the top 3 fights on the bill. I could go and list every chief support (despite being not a barnstormer, Bellew v Chilemba II for example) and other undercard fight (Smith v Dodson in Bolton for example) that I feel were good but with your method of argument of just calling me a bellend or whatever why would I bother? And if I did all you'd do is come along and probably say 'whoaaaa well I liked Billy Joe vs Spike O Sullivan better than that lot!' or words to that effect. And either way I'v put points to you and you just ignore them and are now demanding I answer yours after ignoring mine. I'v posted here for god knows how long now so stubborn people incapable of reasoned debate like yourself aren't high on my agenda on a Friday night.

Go on, come up with a 1 line reply to that and sit back as if it wins it in anyone elses mind other than your own.[/quote]

I never called you a bellend or any other insulting words for that matter. I was hoping for a reasoned discussion but if you're unwilling to engage in that despite you posting on here since the 1900s, then that's fine.

[jameswilson]

You called me a twat in another thread and have insinuated that Gomez is in a homosexual relationship with Carl Froch so we will end the discussion that you don't resort to name calling.

And everyone on here can see I'v answered your points by reading my replies to you. You're just choosing to ignore them and keep ignoring each point I put to you.

[The_Don1]

You called me a twat in another thread and have insinuated that Gomez is in a homosexual relationship with Carl Froch so we will end the discussion that you don't resort to name calling.

And everyone on here can see I'v answered your points by reading my replies to you. You're just choosing to ignore them and keep ignoring each point I put to you.

I called you a twat because you insulted me by making this comment "Don is now in the camp of being your average fan just like the majority of this board who has absolutely no insight of links but acting like some kind of forthmost expert on the negotiations that have taken place"

which was entirely unnecessary in the context of a reasoned debate.

As for Gomez, we don't get on he gives me shit and vice versa, nothing new.

Anyhow I don't think a forum 'battle' is worth any of our time anymore, so I'm ending my involvement with this.

[Autobarn]

Froch v Groves aside they are way better than the turd we used to get served up on Sky back when other promoters held the dates.

yes I recall the bad days of about 10 years ago. calzaghe-salem, hatton-mike stewart, maccarinelli-lamontagne - these were the big fights we stayed in for on a Friday night.

[Tomasino]

Froch v Groves aside they are way better than the turd we used to get served up on Sky back when other promoters held the dates.

yes I recall the bad days of about 10 years ago. calzaghe-salem, hatton-mike stewart, maccarinelli-lamontagne - these were the big fights we stayed in for on a Friday night.

I thought Salem gave Calzaghe a bit of a shock. Mike Stewart got hyped up as Hattons key to the big time

[SNG]

Who really cares anymore?

Sort it out and get the fight signed.

[jameswilson]

Froch v Groves aside they are way better than the turd we used to get served up on Sky back when other promoters held the dates.

yes I recall the bad days of about 10 years ago. calzaghe-salem, hatton-mike stewart, maccarinelli-lamontagne - these were the big fights we stayed in for on a Friday night.

I thought Salem gave Calzaghe a bit of a shock. Mike Stewart got hyped up as Hattons key to the big time

A lot of the time guys were brought in who maybe took the WBC/WBA/IBF champ the distance and their credibility was built off of that. Or a guy who had never been stopped was seen as a really good thing, regardless of who they had been fighting. I remember Enzo Mac's interview after he stopped Rich LaMontagne saying words to the effect of 'I deserve a shot at Johnny Nelson, beating this guy convincingly is proof of that.' Looking back this was madness. And these fights were main events, the undercards were usually guys of English title level boxing nobodies and being made out to be on the cusp of greatness.

[stevek3lly]

I have to agree, Eddie needs to start putting more 50/50 fights on his undercards last few shows I have watched the undercard on fast forward and mainly watch the main event. He has so many fighters now not long before they start to move away from him for not getting decent fights.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Matchroom want Groves, but they can't have him.

Being a free agent gives Groves control of his fights.

Good move for Groves even if lost the rematch.

MATCHROOM UNDERCARDS ARE SHIIT.

Eddie sounding more like Frank Warrren everyday!

'He turned down a 75/25 split..and the options to stay and let me rule his every move''

Do you think Warren invented options - I say again, options have been commonplace in negotiations since the dawn of the sport.

Promoters are risking their own livlihoods when they put together a fight featuring one of their top fighters, they want to ameliorate this risk - that's only natural.

People act like promoting is easy, like they just make money hand over fist, but it's a very tricky business. Promoters put their own money up to build up fighters earlier in their career, with a view to making big money when they hit the big time.

Hearns is protecting his own interests, same as Warren, or any other promoter with clout would do. It's not like anyone is holding a gun to Groves' head is it? He can turn down the terms, or turn down the fight, and go his own way if he wishes to.

I think now that the fight will happen anyway, Hearn knows this is a huge fight, I don't think he'll want to risk a purse bid for this one (not sure it even goes to purse bids as this isn't a mandatory fight - but maybe the fact it's a mandated rematch - well, I'm not sure), Hearn, Froch and Groves can all do very nicely indeed out of this. Of course Groves won't make as much as Froch, but it keeps his name up there, and gives him another shot at winning a world title. If Groves wins, then the potential to earn is huge for him going forward, though the division right now isn't exactly red hot.

[JimJim2009]

Options are a way of life and its not fair to single out one particular promoter BUT it doesn't mean they should be approved of in all situations. I understand if you're a fringe contender and the opportunity crops up, that the champ's team will add in rematch clauses or options clauses to protect their position - you haven't got a right to challenge for the title, so it becomes a deal that you take or leave. That is fair enough. If you don't like it, try to climb the rankings and get into the top slot.

What really does infuriate me is when promoters try to slip in options clauses when there is a mandatory situation. It should be illegal. There is nothing to stop a fighter signing any sort of deal if he wants to, but to dangle the deal in front of the fighter, on the understanding that he only gets the title fight on acceptance of signing an options agreement, is plain wrong to me. It robs the fighter of his independence and could cost him a fortune.

I say this as an armchair fan, I don't know all the details. I think its a bit sickening how a world title can change hands in this sport, and the management/promotional team of the old champ have got the new one under contract. As fans we only hear snippets of what goes on, and it puts me off the sport. The stuff about Sturm and his rematch clauses - whilst going out of his way to avoid Golovkin on several occasions - really cheeses me off. And how many Klitschko opponents have just turned up for the payday because they know if they win, they face the brother next, then rematch the other, all on K2 promotions, with your purses agreed way way back before you even beat a Klitschko for the first time. No wonder so many have just rolled over and not really tried. Bunce used to really have a bee in his bonnet about this, until he joined B O X N A T I O N and lost a lot of his independence in terms of observations like that.

I hope Groves is happy with his 15%, and goes ahead without having to sign away his future. He could well work with Eddie in the future, the lack of an iron clad contract may make the promoter work harder and be more generous.

[Tomasino]

James McDonnell. I did not say warren invented options.
I did say Eddie sounds like him " he turned down my offer" when he knows full well the terms and conditions made the deal crap.

You talk about promoting not being easy and people protecting themselves?

Fighting is harder and the fighter needs to protect himself also.

The fighters are the ones stepping into the ring.

I've never seen a poster so far up a boxers arse since BNovelist and Cotto.