BoxRec

Glyn Leach wrote:
Every chance Bunce was asked not to go there too. He doesn't own the BBC, might have had no choice.

Whaaaaaaat? I thought Bunce owned the joint and that the BBC stood for Bunces Boxing Channel!

bunce has sold out big time :!:

atleast he assures a nice warm seat at future promotions :!:

Glyn Leach wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:I've just posted on another thread that I'm soooo disappointed the bout and/or the betting aspect didn't get a mention on BBC Radio Five Live's Boxing Hour last night.

It's a proper news story - I thought it would be worth a mention at least. The bout was given the big un by some before hand, you know, 'world title fight between two Brits' and it ended in farcical scenes with a related betting investigation to follow.

Can only speak from my experience with radio the morning after the fight. Racing Post published the story before the fight, it was in the public domain. Talksport knew all about it but wanted to steer clear when I went on, it's called editorial control. Every chance Bunce was asked not to go there too. He doesn't own the BBC, might have had no choice.

Hmmm, that is very interesting. Some researcher/producer from Talk Sport told you NOT to mention any gambling aspect? Jesus, they must be more clued up than almost anyone else working in the industry.

No need to phrase it as 'it's called editorial control'. I'm well aware of that. I wasn't criticising Bunce - I was merely stating my disappointment that what I regard as a proper news story wasn't given a mention, despite it being a matter of fact (i.e. the referral from bookies).

Sky didn't mention it on ringside either. Though Boxing News dismissed the betting angle, at least they mentioned it and hopefully they'll do a bit more on it when they have more time next issue.

Funnily enough, I don't think there's a huge amount to the story, though it needs looking into.

But the treatment of the 'story' is becoming the story...why the silence?

speaking to a geezer from romford today & he recieved a call saying rd3 & went on betfair & the odds crashed down to 2-1

King Geedorah wrote:Maybe he twatted someone who asked if there was a betting scandal!

PS Yes, I am being a bit flippant here. I hope he hasn't been arrested.

x2 lets hope its just speculation and rumours

Eddy wrote:She was, not now (so I'm told). I don't know them to speak too, but I know they had a "tiff"

thought they were married :??

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:I've just posted on another thread that I'm soooo disappointed the bout and/or the betting aspect didn't get a mention on BBC Radio Five Live's Boxing Hour last night.

It's a proper news story - I thought it would be worth a mention at least. The bout was given the big un by some before hand, you know, 'world title fight between two Brits' and it ended in farcical scenes with a related betting investigation to follow.

Can only speak from my experience with radio the morning after the fight. Racing Post published the story before the fight, it was in the public domain. Talksport knew all about it but wanted to steer clear when I went on, it's called editorial control. Every chance Bunce was asked not to go there too. He doesn't own the BBC, might have had no choice.

Hmmm, that is very interesting. Some researcher/producer from Talk Sport told you NOT to mention any gambling aspect? Jesus, they must be more clued up than almost anyone else working in the industry.

No need to phrase it as 'it's called editorial control'. I'm well aware of that. I wasn't criticising Bunce - I was merely stating my disappointment that what I regard as a proper news story wasn't given a mention, despite it being a matter of fact (i.e. the referral from bookies).

Sky didn't mention it on ringside either. Though Boxing News dismissed the betting angle, at least they mentioned it and hopefully they'll do a bit more on it when they have more time next issue.

Funnily enough, I don't think there's a huge amount to the story, though it needs looking into.

But the treatment of the 'story

I was popping at THEM with 'editorial control' la! Euphemysm (sic?) if I ever heard one! THEY mentioned it to me off air, we talked about it, and I was fully expecting the presenters to go down that road when I went on - in fact, that was the only aspect of the fight we talked about. But when I went on, nothing. Odd. Not a formal no-no but I just followed their lead and it didn't happen. Must admit, I was more concerned with squeezing in mentions of Bomber, Curtis W, Purdy and the YouTube development, plus Khan being on Primetime (which they didn't like for reasons we've talked about!). I had a 'positive' head on. I'd have gone there if they wanted to and I told them that off air beforehand - I said there was no risk, I'd just reference the Racing Post article, which I saw on Twitter the evening before, during the Bellew fight and just after you sent me the text about the betting. But they didn't go there on air and TBH I was happy enough with that - given 5 mins to talk boxing, I wanted to push the positive aspects, Mitchell-Murray, rather than tell 2 million (talksport's claim) that 'the sport is shit'. For some reason or other (that Sky link perhaps?) the presenters did too, despite their producer being well up to speed on the betting and my having assured them I'd stick to what was in the public domain, the Racing Post article. Perhaps they didn't trust me to do that, didn't want to take the risk. But evidently, for whatever reason, they decided to swerve the subject.

Gotcha. Aye, always best to talk the sport up when one gets a mainstream chance.

I was even on Radio 5 once defending Mike Tyson's humanity, which takes some doing

Nicky Cooks brother was not arrested for anything to do with Nicky, or his fight or indeed betting. It was for a scrap with someone in the street. Sorry to spoil the conspiracy theory before we at least get on to page 2.

THis whole topic is, dare I say it, farcical!

funso banjo baby wrote:boxing used to be so straight ...oh, for a return of the 50's

boxingchat wrote:Nicky Cooks brother was not arrested for anything to do with Nicky, or his fight or indeed betting. It was for a scrap with someone in the street. Sorry to spoil the conspiracy theory before we at least get on to page 2.

THis whole topic is, dare I say it, farcical!

Were you aware the bookies had stopped taking bets before the fight? Most people here aren't saying it's a black and white case of definite wrong doing, and I certainly don't think Nicky was involved, but the complete avoidance of the subject in most of the media raises suspicions that something isn't quite right. With all the posts on the subject, I'm actually surprised how quiet you have been over the course of the week.

boxingchat wrote:Nicky Cooks brother was not arrested for anything to do with Nicky, or his fight or indeed betting. It was for a scrap with someone in the street. Sorry to spoil the conspiracy theory before we at least get on to page 2.

THis whole topic is, dare I say it, farcical!

Yeah, thanks for the info. Thing is, I've already said twice on here that no way would any arrest be related to gambling.

Doesn't change the FACT though that people in Cook's area were lumping on an early stoppage and he was in trouble after six seconds of a 'world' title fight though, does it?

These things happen, that's boxing, etc, etc

boxingchat wrote:Nicky Cooks brother was not arrested for anything to do with Nicky, or his fight or indeed betting. It was for a scrap with someone in the street. Sorry to spoil the conspiracy theory before we at least get on to page 2.

THis whole topic is, dare I say it, farcical!

Why did someone try to beat up Cook's brother ?

What could have been their motive....... It's not like people just 'start fights' in the street is it.

G0mez wrote:[What could have been their motive....... It's not like people just 'start fights' in the street is it.

are you for real?

GOmez, ...what planet do you live on son?

boxingchat wrote:Nicky Cooks brother was not arrested for anything to do with Nicky, or his fight or indeed betting. It was for a scrap with someone in the street. Sorry to spoil the conspiracy theory before we at least get on to page 2.

THis whole topic is, dare I say it, farcical!

The only thing that's farcical is your avoidance of the betting issue and the staging of that match as a 'world title' bout in the first place. I'm amazed you've got the bare-faced cheek to show yourself on this forum given those two factors.

celerygolf wrote:You've lost me!! What's so funny??

Your joke and punch line about Nicky's brother Darren Cook....

handles wrote:

Eddy wrote:She was, not now (so I'm told). I don't know them to speak too, but I know they had a "tiff"

thought they were married :??

They was until Paul Cook was caught by her wearing her underwear so a source has told me and she couldn't carry on the relationship after discovering some odd perverted ways of his. I'll never be able to look at him the same way again...

Des1 wrote:

handles wrote:

Eddy wrote:She was, not now (so I'm told). I don't know them to speak too, but I know they had a "tiff"

thought they were married :??

They was until Paul Cook was caught by her wearing her underwear so a source has told me and she couldn't carry on the relationship after discovering some odd perverted ways of his. I'll never be able to look at him the same way again...

ahahaha thought there was sumink weird bout him ... so the brother was nicked for fightin in the street lmfao yeah rekon so ... prob the bloke who lost his ouse to the bookies