BoxRec

In answer to an earlier question about why people don't like Warren, I can only provide my personal reasons. I've never met the guy, have no involvement in boxing as anything other than a genuine fight fan (or not, depending on your point of view), so I have no axe to grind.

I don't like the way he presents himself - There was an interview sometime over the last year on Ringside with Warren pulling up to his mansion in his Rolls, sitting behind his desk with a whole load of "look at how great I am" boxing paraphernalia surrounding him as he tries to say there's no money in boxing. Be rich and modest or poor and humble but don't try and play the poor injured party when you are giving it the Loadsamoney treatment.

I don't like his dismissal of the internet. Yes, I'm a keyboard warrior - I sit expressing opinions without having gone through the pain of trying to promote a show or managing a fighters career. But I do pay money to watch boxing and the internet allows me to interact with like-minded people in a way that has never existed before. The internet has done so much for boxing over the past 5-10 years, to summarily dismiss makes him seem a bit of an old fart. He may not like what people say, but the world we live in entitles and enables us to express our opinions. He then sends his moronic lackey on to spout nonsense, generate additional ill-feeling towards FWP and continue to justify the lack of engagement with the 'net.

I don't like his public treatment of fighters. His recent criticism of Frankie Gavin and Kevin Mitchell didn't sit right. Yes Gavin could have handled things better and there are clearly problems behind the scenes for both Frankie and Kevin, but to bawl him out in public just seems a bit snidey. By all means, be angry behind the scenes, but I would have thought a fighter would prefer their promoter to show some support in the national press rather than digging the knife in a little further. By comparison, you would never get Sir Alex Ferguson publicly criticising one of his players for off the pitch activities, even though he probably goes ape at them privately. It comes back to the first point - with Warren it always seems to be about him, whereas for me it is all about the fighters. Which brings me to....

I don't like the manner of the falling out with Joe Calzaghe or, if true, the alleged non-payment of fees for the hire of the Millennium.

earsjohn- good post but in FW's defence RE Mitchell, the fighter clearly let himself/his backers down, probably deserved a rocket, and it probably did him good in the long run

earsjohn wrote:
I don't like his public treatment of fighters. His recent criticism of Frankie Gavin and Kevin Mitchell didn't sit right. Yes Gavin could have handled things better and there are clearly problems behind the scenes for both Frankie and Kevin, but to bawl him out in public just seems a bit snidey. By all means, be angry behind the scenes, but I would have thought a fighter would prefer their promoter to show some support in the national press rather than digging the knife in a little further. By comparison, you would never get Sir Alex Ferguson publicly criticising one of his players for off the pitch activities, even though he probably goes ape at them privately. It comes back to the first point - with Warren it always seems to be about him, whereas for me it is all about the fighters. Which brings me to....

I don't like the manner of the falling out with Joe Calzaghe or, if true, the alleged non-payment of fees for the hire of the Millennium.

This is a good point.

Jack Charlton once said that you should never criticise your players in public. If he was ever questioned about one of them being spotted having a drink (McGrath aside) he'd turn round and say ''yeah, so what, I told him to....'' and then bollock the player in private if he deemed it necessary.

Constrast that to England and their managers making the player read out a pre-prepared statement like the proverbial naughty schoolboy.

People dislike Allegedly for all kinds of reasons, but when he constantly tries to make it all about him (such as the Hatton affair) it gets galling.

Apparently it wasn't Hatton who walked through countless right hand missiles from Tszyu to win the title?

Or shouldn't have wanted to maximise his earnings in America, knowing that a defeat or two and Frank would have dropped him like a stone.

leeds- Martin Johnson took that approach, didn't really work out did it?

i'm not saying a public slagging is always the way to go, but i think there are times and situations where it might be the right approach.

plus, McGrath never pissed Charlton's own money up a wall as Mitchell basically did to FM did by under-preparing for Katsidis.

Counter-puncher wrote:earsjohn- good post but in FW's defence RE Mitchell, the fighter clearly let himself/his backers down, probably deserved a rocket, and it probably did him good in the long run

It's the public nature of the rocket that riles. He needs/needed a kick up the arse, as does Frankie if they are to make the most of their obvious talents, But so publicly? Would it not have been better for Frank to have gone to press with an attitude along the lines of "frankies got a few issues and it's all come to a head and he's not able to fight. We're all disappointed but we (FWP) want the best for Frankie in the long term, so we'll stand by him and help him get the support he needs. In the meantime, I'd ask the public to respect the lads privacy and enjoy the fight that we'll be putting on instead"

earsjohn wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:earsjohn- good post but in FW's defence RE Mitchell, the fighter clearly let himself/his backers down, probably deserved a rocket, and it probably did him good in the long run

It's the public nature of the rocket that riles. He needs/needed a kick up the arse, as does Frankie if they are to make the most of their obvious talents, But so publicly? Would it not have been better for Frank to have gone to press with an attitude along the lines of "frankies got a few issues and it's all come to a head and he's not able to fight. We're all disappointed but we (FWP) want the best for Frankie in the long term, so we'll stand by him and help him get the support he needs. In the meantime, I'd ask the public to respect the lads privacy and enjoy the fight that we'll be putting on instead"

true, however if i had spunked all the money out on getting that venue for Mitchell i may not have been that circumspect, either

anyways we have to stop this, because (1) it is polite constructive debate, it isn't childish diatribe so lets get back to what we're good at, eh? and (2) i refuse to post 3 consecutiv e messages in defence of FW

boxingchat wrote:I find all this a tad childish. Ian McNeilly's problem should be HIS problem and he using his platform as a weapon to vent his petty frustrations which are so biased he should work for the North Koreans. The fact is the people on this forum are supposed to be boxing fans so the very fact that will you or wont you subscribe is even being discussed is almost laughable. Surely the topic it is - will you ADMIT to subscribing or not ADMIT to subscribing - as if you are a boxing fan then surely you want to actually watch Boxing, don't you? The fans on here moan constantly about certain matches not being made and the marquee fights passing them by, but without revenue, from subscriptions, advertising, PPV sales or whatever then this will only get worse as fighters wont fight for nothing, why should they?

The fact is if you want the best fights to happen then what TV needs is your support, the people who turn on to watch it. Simple fact is without it the sport will become marginalised even further and and will eventually die.

McNeilly is supposed to be championing our sport via this website, which is a good website in the main, but his agenda is tiresome and if he were the bigger man he would sort his problems out with the people he has them with directly and not spout his self-opiniated bile to everyone else.

Buncey has forgotten more than McNeilly will ever know so to even compare the two is laughable.

Regardless of who is behind Allegedly Channel it is a Breath of fresh air and is dedicated to the Boxing fan and their money , via subsciptions, will be reinvested into the best content for the fans not reinvested into other programming and sports. You might want to think about that!

ADIOS

You do realise that you are trying to sell a product to people don't you and that you are in competition for their hard earned cash? If i walked into Tesco and one of their staff started spouting off to me saying 'look mate you need food to live, i know it, you know so just give me your money' i'd fornicate off and go round to sainsburys, morrisons, m&s etc.

The highlighted text is absolutely scandalous, do you really think people are going to pretend not to purchase a tv channel?

Counter-puncher wrote:leeds- Martin Johnson took that approach, didn't really work out did it?

i'm not saying a public slagging is always the way to go, but i think there are times and situations where it might be the right approach.

plus, McGrath never pissed Charlton's own money up a wall as Mitchell basically did to FM did by under-preparing for Katsidis.

No, but Johnson wasn't convincing when he said ''rugby player drinks beer... next question'' was he? Charlton usually was, and had a way with the media.

Plus, I guess those days are a bye-gone era, now you can't go anywhere without being caught on camera, or coming across someone willing to sell their story to the paper. It's the sort of thing that a rugby player (who lets face it are generally smarter than footballers) ought to know.

There were other issues going on behind the scenes too I'd imagine, English rugby is a mess from top to bottom.

Obviously Mitchell is a stand-out example and you are right to raise it, I guess he ought to have pulled out but not knowing if the opportunity would come around again allied to the fact that his career had stalled in the previous two years I'm sure that he felt some kind of internal pressure to go ahead and fight.

People will always raise an eyebrow when Frank tries to take the moral high ground. I don't really need to cite examples, I've been banned from here before for doing such a thing

earsjohn wrote:
I don't like the manner of the falling out with Joe Calzaghe .

god, i'd forgotten about that. discount everything i wrote above

LeedsLad wrote:
People will always raise an eyebrow when Frank tries to take the moral high ground. :

Counter-puncher wrote:

earsjohn wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:earsjohn- good post but in FW's defence RE Mitchell, the fighter clearly let himself/his backers down, probably deserved a rocket, and it probably did him good in the long run

It's the public nature of the rocket that riles. He needs/needed a kick up the arse, as does Frankie if they are to make the most of their obvious talents, But so publicly? Would it not have been better for Frank to have gone to press with an attitude along the lines of "frankies got a few issues and it's all come to a head and he's not able to fight. We're all disappointed but we (FWP) want the best for Frankie in the long term, so we'll stand by him and help him get the support he needs. In the meantime, I'd ask the public to respect the lads privacy and enjoy the fight that we'll be putting on instead"

true, however if i had spunked all the money out on getting that venue for Mitchell i may not have been that circumspect, either

anyways we have to stop this, because (1) it is polite constructive debate, it isn't childish diatribe so lets get back to what we're good at, eh? and (2) i refuse to post 3 consecutiv e messages in defence of FW

Indeed - I have to get back to irking Buncey into another insult as having been called a pillock and pompous in recent times, I'm hoping for a 3rd P to complete the set.

I can neither justify or afford a subscription based boxing chnnel that has a limited range of fighters/ competitive fights available.

earsjohn wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:

earsjohn wrote: It's the public nature of the rocket that riles. He needs/needed a kick up the arse, as does Frankie if they are to make the most of their obvious talents, But so publicly? Would it not have been better for Frank to have gone to press with an attitude along the lines of "frankies got a few issues and it's all come to a head and he's not able to fight. We're all disappointed but we (FWP) want the best for Frankie in the long term, so we'll stand by him and help him get the support he needs. In the meantime, I'd ask the public to respect the lads privacy and enjoy the fight that we'll be putting on instead"

true, however if i had spunked all the money out on getting that venue for Mitchell i may not have been that circumspect, either

anyways we have to stop this, because (1) it is polite constructive debate, it isn't childish diatribe so lets get back to what we're good at, eh? and (2) i refuse to post 3 consecutiv e messages in defence of FW

Indeed - I have to get back to irking Buncey into another insult as having been called a pillock and pompous in recent times, I'm hoping for a 3rd P to complete the set.

How about a priviliged pompous pillock for having the understanding to not fall in line on demand?

dbflex wrote:

MightyWarrior wrote:Buncey, fact of the matter is Ian McNeilly easily outranks you as boxing journalist - fact.

Not just because he's obviously a better writer, but mainly because he's allowed to call it as he sees it, and not just how his boss pays him to see it.

The fact that the nutless wonders @ SN head office have banned boxrec speaks volumes, both in terms of how they treat their paying customers, and also their inability to listen to even the slightest criticism as a result of it.

They like their boxing press housetrained, like boxing news.

Boxing News who they banned at least twice in modern memory. Well done.

Really? How modern are we talking, wasn't it Claude 15 years ago ? Be interesting to hear who, and also why.

MightyWarrior wrote:

dbflex wrote:

MightyWarrior wrote:Buncey, fact of the matter is Ian McNeilly easily outranks you as boxing journalist - fact.

Not just because he's obviously a better writer, but mainly because he's allowed to call it as he sees it, and not just how his boss pays him to see it.

The fact that the nutless wonders @ SN head office have banned boxrec speaks volumes, both in terms of how they treat their paying customers, and also their inability to listen to even the slightest criticism as a result of it.

They like their boxing press housetrained, like boxing news.

Boxing News who they banned at least twice in modern memory. Well done.

Really? How modern are we talking, wasn't it Claude 15 years ago ? Be interesting to hear who, and also why.

Wasn't there an issue with a Martin Rogan fight? I remember there was just a snippet with the result but no report of the action or the undercard.

The only thing Bunce has done wrong today is interact with users of this forum in the same style/manner/approach he brings to everything else he does in the sport. I think its pretty funny that he's ripped into people who might not subscribe to allegedly. Okay, he might never get promoted to head of allegedly customer services, but if he was, he'd be a waste. We want him loud mouthed and shooting from the hip. He did make a fair about about boxing forums, ie, coming on to have a row, it is what they are for and surely Steve Bunce, of all people, is entitled to come on and have a ruck ?

Anyway, if allegedly didn't exist would boxing fans want it to ?

Putting aside the promoter, if we just look at what we're getting, as consumers and boxing fans, its pretty good stuff so far.

I do get the impression the channel was launched in a rush, and ahead of schedule. And I have doubts it will succeed, but if the past two months are anything to go buy, I hope my tenner a month helps to keep it going.

(PS:- I can't stand the promoter, but the tenner a month for me is about what I get out of the deal, as a boxing fan)

leforge wrote:I would subscribe if it ever gets to virgin!

I would probably subscribe as well, but it isn't an option at the moment.

Horse wrote:

leforge wrote:I would subscribe if it ever gets to virgin!

I would probably subscribe as well, but it isn't an option at the moment.

Some of the fights have been shit but that the same as sky. I think there been some good fights on there but bills like Mckenzie V Evans, Return of Enzo and Horta v Byrne were not upto much.

Good thread! Out of interest who is fwp's customer relations guy?

Jeff Thomas wrote:Good thread! Out of interest who is fwp's customer relations guy?

TheCobra wrote:

Jeff Thomas wrote:Good thread! Out of interest who is fwp's customer relations guy?

leforge wrote:Some of the fights have been shit but that the same as sky. I think there been some good fights on there but bills like Mckenzie V Evans, Return of Enzo and Horta v Byrne were not upto much.

Some of their bills have been very weak. Would it have cost them a great deal more to give McKenzie or Maccarinelli decent opponents?

If those sort of bills were to become the standard fair then I wouldn't pay for it.

Horse wrote:

leforge wrote:Some of the fights have been shit but that the same as sky. I think there been some good fights on there but bills like Mckenzie V Evans, Return of Enzo and Horta v Byrne were not upto much.

Some of their bills have been very weak. Would it have cost them a great deal more to give McKenzie or Maccarinelli decent opponents?

If those sort of bills were to become the standard fair then I wouldn't pay for it.

Degale/Groves bill the opponents do not look good. Ormond v Johannsson for WBO inter title a good fight be better as chief support fight.

I don't understand the over the top slagging of allegedly. If you don't like it then don't buy it, surely? If the latest flavour of the month (whoever that may be) was behind allegedly and not allegedly then the forum would be loving it. That's an undeniable fact.

Whether or not allegedly has banned BoxRec from his shows, BoxRec should still be objective - (I'm going to be unpopular saying it but) ... being objective is the bedrock of good journalism. BoxRec hasn't got any editorial allegiances to a fighter, promotional company or product so it shouldn't have any against a fighter, promoter, ect either.

When you look at the reality tv-esque style of coverage that Ch5 give boxing then you've got to take your hats off to allegedly for producing such good coverage in the short space of time that they've had. As for the fights, I don't think it's half as bad as some people are making out. As I said earlier in the thread, we've asked for small hall promoters to get TV airtime and allegedly are doing that as well as adding the FWP stable, GoldenBoy and Sauderland stables to their schedule.

Compare that to Sky. September and first week or 2 of October were good and December looks smashing too but there wasn't much at all in between. Why is this forum slating something it doesn't and won't pay for when what it does pay for hasn't really provided lately ether? It all goes back to the anti-allegedly'ness of the forum.

And lets give Buncey some credit for giving as much coverage for British boxing in his work as he can, whereas I saw on Joe Gallagher's Twitter last week (or maybe the one before) that Sky didn't mention John Murray's fight with Rios. Why? Because it isn't on Sky. We should look both ways, not just one.