Boxingchats Question Time

twenty six · Post by **twenty six** » 25 Jun 2007, 08:40

Do SN believe they have too many contracted fighters, and is it time to sort the wheat from the chaff ?
If yes - how is that best achieved ?
How about a few face offs between SN fighters with a contract up for grabs ?
Double whammy - punters and TV get what they want - decent domestic match ups and SN don't have to sack any boxers.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 25 Jun 2007, 08:41

boxingchat wrote:Or Hong Kong Phooey?

Why have you taken 18 months off James?

This thread is degenerating thanks to Boxing 101 having a pop at you.

Anyway, sausages?

Combination of too little time, my mother being seriously ill for the latter half of last year, and lately, finding it difficult to get back into the swim of things. Would love to get writing again, but so many commitments at the moment and so little free time. I just need to get one under my belt really and then I'll be bubbling again. Really miss reporting on fights, but the thing is, there really aren't that many happen in London really.

Lincolnshire I believe they were, though it's hard to remember precisely.

boxingchat · Post by **boxingchat** » 25 Jun 2007, 08:44

Hatton fought abroad under SN. Home advantage is important and Vegas is just a town like any other although the Judging is often odd.

Fighting in the US is something that is not rocket science. Hatton would have sold more in Manchester than he did on Saturday and the gate would have been higher and the expenses lower. There was no site fee here just a guarantee of gate take.

SN would have taken Hatton to the US unde rthe right terms. He hardley set the world alight in his last fight did he?

twenty six · Post by **twenty six** » 25 Jun 2007, 08:45

Assuming that TV negotiations are at a delicate stage, is that putting SN plans on hold for bills for the new season ?

boxingchat · Post by **boxingchat** » 25 Jun 2007, 08:46

twenty six wrote:Do SN believe they have too many contracted fighters, and is it time to sort the wheat from the chaff ?
If yes - how is that best achieved ?
How about a few face offs between SN fighters with a contract up for grabs ?
Double whammy - punters and TV get what they want - decent domestic match ups and SN don't have to sack any boxers.

Nice thought, but try making it happen! face offs happen when they make sense and the fighters actuially want them.

twenty six · Post by **twenty six** » 25 Jun 2007, 08:49

You could always say that any fighter refusing the match, without valid reason ie a sick note, loses by default and the next in line gets the job.
I note with interest you haven't said yes or no - do SN have too many contracted fighters ?

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 25 Jun 2007, 08:50

Errr, that simply isn't legal, you can't put a loss on a fighters record if he doesn't fight. Or do you mean in tournament terms.

twenty six · Post by **twenty six** » 25 Jun 2007, 08:51

Would SN ever consider working again with Wincobank ?
Is this an obstacle to SN making a punt for Witter and trying to make the Hatton fight happen ?

twenty six · Post by **twenty six** » 25 Jun 2007, 08:53

That's not what I meant James.
I appreciate you can't create a loss outside the ring.
This is about a Promotor getting shut of the wasters who duck match ups without valid reason.
Call it a tournament if you like.

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 25 Jun 2007, 08:57

jamesmcdonnell wrote: And the same said person decided to start screaming down the phone at me, which was, rather surprising whilst I chose my preferred sausages for dinner.

I completely agree James, the LAST thing one needs when choosing ones sausages, is a SN employee calling you a pudendum down the phone. Most off putting!

Chambers2 · Post by **Chambers2** » 25 Jun 2007, 09:26

boxingchat wrote:
Chambers2 wrote:BC, any ideas whats going on with Audley?? Has he hung em up?

No idea, sorry. Don't think he's retired though.

Cheers anyway

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 25 Jun 2007, 09:32

Plus he shops at Sainsbury's.

Chambers2 · Post by **Chambers2** » 25 Jun 2007, 09:36

Loosely speaking what's Maloneys and Warrens relationship like, since FM started promoting???

boxingchat · Post by **boxingchat** » 25 Jun 2007, 09:46

twenty six wrote:Assuming that TV negotiations are at a delicate stage, is that putting SN plans on hold for bills for the new season ?

No, not at all

boxingchat · Post by **boxingchat** » 25 Jun 2007, 09:47

twenty six wrote:You could always say that any fighter refusing the match, without valid reason ie a sick note, loses by default and the next in line gets the job.
I note with interest you haven't said yes or no - do SN have too many contracted fighters ?

I wouldn't know. But the relevance being?

boxingchat · Post by **boxingchat** » 25 Jun 2007, 09:48

MightyWarrior wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote: And the same said person decided to start screaming down the phone at me, which was, rather surprising whilst I chose my preferred sausages for dinner.
I completely agree James, the LAST thing one needs when choosing ones sausages, is a SN employee calling you a pudendum down the phone. Most off putting!

Who was the SN Employee out of interest?

boxingchat · Post by **boxingchat** » 25 Jun 2007, 09:49

Chambers2 wrote:Loosely speaking what's Maloneys and Warrens relationship like, since FM started promoting???

Wasn't aware he had!

boxingchat · Post by **boxingchat** » 25 Jun 2007, 09:51

twenty six wrote:Would SN ever consider working again with Wincobank ?
Is this an obstacle to SN making a punt for Witter and trying to make the Hatton fight happen ?

To my knowledge there is no problem with Wincobank. Wouldn't buy a house there but you get my drift!

Witter made his bed and knows the number. If he wants to make some money and fight M'Baye he can. Awful fight though!

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 25 Jun 2007, 09:53

Boxingchat,

Would you say that Mr Warren has been happy with the NUMBER of Sports Network cards over the last two years. Has this relative change in direction (with the focus on larger bills as oppose to more frequent smaller bills) been considered a success, was this change a Sports Network decision or did ITV have a major imput into it.

Personally, I would prefered more bills on ITV 4 with more leisure centre esque bills - as a opposed to these large bills every blue moon in which half the fights don't get featured. It sort of spoils the momentum.

Do you think that we will see MORE, in terms of number, Sports Network bills when he signs for a new TV company.

Chambers2 · Post by **Chambers2** » 25 Jun 2007, 10:07

boxingchat wrote:
Chambers2 wrote:Loosely speaking what's Maloneys and Warrens relationship like, since FM started promoting???
Wasn't aware he had!

Nuff Said

m1kee50 · Post by **m1kee50** » 25 Jun 2007, 10:35

1. thought you said you were a West Ham fan?
MY SONS ARE SO I HAVE TO SUFFER WHEN I CAN'T GET OUT OF IT.

Ive gone off him now, lol....

beagleboy · Post by **beagleboy** » 25 Jun 2007, 10:58

twenty-six seems to be asking alot of questions
He must be worried Ryan Rhodes is going to get the bullet after losing to Lockett.......
and he's asking BC to sort the wheat from the chaff.......

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 25 Jun 2007, 11:25

boxingchat wrote:
MightyWarrior wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote: And the same said person decided to start screaming down the phone at me, which was, rather surprising whilst I chose my preferred sausages for dinner.
I completely agree James, the LAST thing one needs when choosing ones sausages, is a SN employee calling you a pudendum down the phone. Most off putting!
Who was the SN Employee out of interest?

I suspect you already know, if you don't I shaln't be saying, for fear of some sort of meaty litigation on my part.

twenty six · Post by **twenty six** » 25 Jun 2007, 12:01

No worries on my part perhaps you should ask Mr Rhodes direct.
Beaglboy is not Beagleboys by the way for the uninitiated.
The point I was making had no relevence to any specific fighter but it makes sense to me if you've only x bills, with x fights, you can't keep everyone happy, and SN have the biggest stable.
Why not then make the fighter earn the right to be on ?
Stop turning it political, this is a decent thread.

boxingchat · Post by **boxingchat** » 26 Jun 2007, 06:07

Perhaps 26 is Ryan Rhodes? He has it tatooed all over him does he not?