BoxRec

It's not FW. Someone else from FWP.

Hypocrites.

They are absolutely classless.

Also, I'm trying to think of another sport where 'options' is even common or acceptable?

In this modern day and age, these 'options' seem pretty archaic to me.

I'm sure, to different extents, all promoters do it, I just don't see how they have any place in the modern world.

Fighter A should fight Fighter B, for X amount of money. That should be the end of that, maybe a rematch clause if Rees wins, that's about the furthest I would stretch to. Even then, why should he really? if you win a belt fair and square in the ring, why should you be tied in to a load of rematch options.

The sport of boxing is archaic, until promoters start treating fighters like human beings and not pawns, then this whole situation will just repeat itself and the best fights won't be made.

Who suffers? The fans and the boxers, that's who.

MachoMan09 wrote:

Bronxbull666 wrote:Hippocrates

Predictive text

Where old boxing chat these days!

FWP wrote:

the rock wrote:The money is not the problem, the problem is warren wanting the next 5 options on me I'm a matchroom fighter and that's the way I want to keep it, an I like to get paid simple

Gavin, I think you need to have a word with Matchroom and ask to see the offer in writing!!!

The offer included 3 options, not 5 as you mention.

If Matchroom told you it was 5 their not telling you the truth....

Secondly Gavin, when you were with FW and challenged for made a defence of a World Title, you were paid, despite one of those occasions being a Cardiff promotion, which only sold 400 tickets, losing tens of thousands in the process.

It's quite surprising your stance on this considering FW stood by you through various problems.

Fight fight fight.........oh!

twenty six wrote:He has done !
Read the thread.

really? for the rest of us please can you outline all 5 of them, starting from option 1. A general overview will do,no need to be very specific etc... I'm intreagued to read your response.....

TheCobra wrote:

FWP wrote:

the rock wrote:The money is not the problem, the problem is warren wanting the next 5 options on me I'm a matchroom fighter and that's the way I want to keep it, an I like to get paid simple

Gavin, I think you need to have a word with Matchroom and ask to see the offer in writing!!!

The offer included 3 options, not 5 as you mention.

If Matchroom told you it was 5 their not telling you the truth....

Secondly Gavin, when you were with FW and challenged for made a defence of a World Title, you were paid, despite one of those occasions being a Cardiff promotion, which only sold 400 tickets, losing tens of thousands in the process.

It's quite surprising your stance on this considering FW stood by you through various problems.

FW, you are the crudest man in boxing. None of this 'airing dirty linen in public' stuff does you any favours. No class mate, no class at all.

Burn the witch, burn the witch!

It's better to have the sides of an argument put out, Warren is not the devil, Mr Hearn is not an angel.

I don't really see a huge amount of difference between what FW does with the WBO and what EH does with the IBF? The only real difference is that generally speaking, the IBF belt holders are held in marginally higher regard and the IBF usually mandate a couple of eliminators.

FWP wrote: Secondly Gavin, when you were with FW and challenged for made a defence of a World Title, you were paid, despite one of those occasions being a Cardiff promotion, which only sold 400 tickets, losing tens of thousands in the process.

A fee was presumably agreed with Rees prior to ticket sales. If the promotion lost money, its hardly Gavin's fault, surely that is the promoters concern? FW gave him a big shot, no doubt, but did he expect him to win?

orbtastic wrote:I don't really see a huge amount of difference between what FW does with the WBO and what EH does with the IBF? The only real difference is that generally speaking, the IBF belt holders are held in marginally higher regard and the IBF usually mandate a couple of eliminators.

And they enforce mandatories against guys who have (usually) proved themselves as worthy. The WBO rarely seem to force a fighter to fight a mandatory, and some of the defences they authorise really are shocking.

TheCobra wrote:They are absolutely classless.

Also, I'm trying to think of another sport where 'options' is even common or acceptable?

In this modern day and age, these 'options' seem pretty archaic to me.

I'm sure, to different extents, all promoters do it, I just don't see how they have any place in the modern world.

Fighter A should fight Fighter B, for X amount of money. That should be the end of that, maybe a rematch clause if Rees wins, that's about the furthest I would stretch to. Even then, why should he really? if you win a belt fair and square in the ring, why should you be tied in to a load of rematch options.

The sport of boxing is archaic, until promoters start treating fighters like human beings and not pawns, then this whole situation will just repeat itself and the best fights won't be made.



Who suffers? The fans and the boxers, that's who.

x 2

FWP wrote:

the rock wrote:The money is not the problem, the problem is warren wanting the next 5 options on me I'm a matchroom fighter and that's the way I want to keep it, an I like to get paid simple

Gavin, I think you need to have a word with Matchroom and ask to see the offer in writing!!!

The offer included 3 options, not 5 as you mention.

If Matchroom told you it was 5 their not telling you the truth....

Secondly Gavin, when you were with FW and challenged for made a defence of a World Title, you were paid, despite one of those occasions being a Cardiff promotion, which only sold 400 tickets, losing tens of thousands in the process.

It's quite surprising your stance on this considering FW stood by you through various problems.

Can you please explain why ever that statement is even relevant or worthy of mention??

Surely FWP (or what other company name FW was trading under at the time) was contractually obliged and thus required by law to pay Gavin on completion of his services (eg him fighting on a FWP promotion)?? It is therefore absolutely right, fair and proper that Gavin was paid.

Poor ticket sales is ultimately the responsibility of the promoter, which is confirmed in part (is it not?) by the fighter paying a promotional fee to the relevant promoter. Poor ticket sales raises questions and possible concerns about the professional competence of the promotional outfit.

Just a thought, but perhaps more tickets could have been sold if the event, including the undercard fights, had been of a higher quality and thus better value for money for the prospective paying public. I don't see how Gavin could been responsible for this??

To imply that Gavin should be fortunate for receiving payment from FWP, for him successfully completing his part of the contract, in the face of poor ticket sales is pretty disgusting. This type of attitude perhaps gives an incite into why so many people dislike a particular promoter and the way that he chooses to conduct his business...

orbtastic wrote:I don't really see a huge amount of difference between what FW does with the WBO and what EH does with the IBF? The only real difference is that generally speaking, the IBF belt holders are held in marginally higher regard and the IBF usually mandate a couple of eliminators.

Yes, I've heard this a couple of times now. There is absolutely no comparison whatsoever. I'd have to trawl through all the FW-WBO sh1te to prove this and it would be just too depressing and pointless.

OK, one thing. Tell me ONE 'world' title shot EH has got with the IBF that was a complete bag o'sh1te, in comparison with the other lot.

if Rees was offered 60k.....how do you think Burns would have been on for this fight??..100-120k???

also as the mitchell fight was much bigger surely Burns would have been close to the 200k? or more

I think if anyone is trying to argue the toss over whether the IBF or WBO is superior is getting themselves in a world of trouble. As if they are trying the same thing with Eddie and Bunny.

Eddie's budding relationship with the IBF is in it's very early stages, but it very much mirrors Bunny's early days with the WBO. I've no problem with this (other than that all the world bodies are corrupt, self-interested, unworthy, back stabbers) I can understand why a huge percentage of national bodies and promoters favour one title over another, it's business. The IBF is very strong in Africa and Oz and has had a fair old relationship with Mr King for a few decades.

The same goes for the Bunny/Hearn argument. Many people on here have reasons of gym/fighter/employment biasis towards one or the other. There are very few true neutrals on this forum or any other on this matter.

dondada wrote:

orbtastic wrote:I don't really see a huge amount of difference between what FW does with the WBO and what EH does with the IBF? The only real difference is that generally speaking, the IBF belt holders are held in marginally higher regard and the IBF usually mandate a couple of eliminators.

Yes, I've heard this a couple of times now. There is absolutely no comparison whatsoever. I'd have to trawl through all the FW-WBO sh1te to prove this and it would be just too depressing and pointless.

OK, one thing. Tell me ONE 'world' title shot EH has got with the IBF that was a complete bag o'sh1te, in comparison with the other lot.

I think time will tell.

As it stands right now, infancy stages already - The first defence of Froch's IBF title is a little "undemanding" and the two IBF eliminators this month aren't exactly the sort of fights that if FW were putting them on, people would go "oh that's a good match-up". Ok so you have to jump through IBF hoops to get a title shot, but Malinga doesn't exactly have the best credentials @ 118lbs and neither does Saldivia.

I know the defence will be "oh but the IBF mandated them" well yes, and the same is always true on paper for some of the farcical WBO title fights we've been served up.

liamlion wrote:

FWP wrote:

the rock wrote:The money is not the problem, the problem is warren wanting the next 5 options on me I'm a matchroom fighter and that's the way I want to keep it, an I like to get paid simple

Gavin, I think you need to have a word with Matchroom and ask to see the offer in writing!!!

The offer included 3 options, not 5 as you mention.

If Matchroom told you it was 5 their not telling you the truth....

Secondly Gavin, when you were with FW and challenged for made a defence of a World Title, you were paid, despite one of those occasions being a Cardiff promotion, which only sold 400 tickets, losing tens of thousands in the process.

It's quite surprising your stance on this considering FW stood by you through various problems.

Can you please explain why ever that statement is even relevant or worthy of mention??

Surely FWP (or what other company name FW was trading under at the time) was contractually obliged and thus required by law to pay Gavin on completion of his services (eg him fighting on a FWP promotion)?? It is therefore absolutely right, fair and proper that Gavin was paid.

Poor ticket sales is ultimately the responsibility of the promoter, which is confirmed in part (is it not?) by the fighter paying a promotional fee to the relevant promoter. Poor ticket sales raises questions and possible concerns about the professional competence of the promotional outfit.

Just a thought, but perhaps more tickets could have been sold if the event, including the undercard fights, had been of a higher quality and thus better value for money for the prospective paying public. I don't see how Gavin could been responsible for this??

To imply that Gavin should be fortunate for receiving payment from FWP, for him successfully completing his part of the contract, in the face of poor ticket sales is pretty disgusting. This type of attitude perhaps gives an incite into why so many people dislike a particular promoter and the way that he chooses to conduct his business...

Well said. Its quite ironic that a promoter is on here talking about a promotion not selling well.

To be fair Liamlion, FWP was responding from a dig/hint from Gavin himself that he hasn't been paid always "and I like to be paid simple"

What is slightly more concerning though was FWP post talked about 1 specific time in which Gavin was paid, in a tone that implied it was an amazing charitable deed that he got paid.... in a post that should have been far more simple and said "in the many times you were fighting on a FWP/Sports Network bill you got paid on time".

Thats all FWP needed to say, that fact that he/she didn't say that leaves more questions than answers - and leaves them open to further accusations.

The Dark Destroyer wrote:Would they have got options on Jones? Brook wasn't defending anything, was he?

he's back over to fight lee purdy so maybe they do

They never had options on Kerry Hope. Very amatuerish, and i was told Saint Eddie told Kerry, in no uncertain terms, that it would be in his interests to take the rematch. He then told him he was fighting Barker in September moments after been stopped in that rematch.

mickey1975 wrote:They never had options on Kerry Hope. Very amatuerish, and i was told Saint Eddie told Kerry, in no uncertain terms, that it would be in his interests to take the rematch. He then told him he was fighting Barker in September moments after been stopped in that rematch.

Did Hearn have options on Proska, did they have anything to do with the Golovkin fight?

mickey1975 wrote:They never had options on Kerry Hope. Very amatuerish, and i was told Saint Eddie told Kerry, in no uncertain terms, that it would be in his interests to take the rematch. He then told him he was fighting Barker in September moments after been stopped in that rematch.

Saint Eddy sounds a lovely man.

Final round wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:They never had options on Kerry Hope. Very amatuerish, and i was told Saint Eddie told Kerry, in no uncertain terms, that it would be in his interests to take the rematch. He then told him he was fighting Barker in September moments after been stopped in that rematch.

Did Hearn have options on Proska, did they have anything to do with the Golovkin fight?

Proska is a Matchroom fighter and brings Polish television with him. Barry Hearn himself went to the Golovkin fight.

mickey1975 wrote:

Final round wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:They never had options on Kerry Hope. Very amatuerish, and i was told Saint Eddie told Kerry, in no uncertain terms, that it would be in his interests to take the rematch. He then told him he was fighting Barker in September moments after been stopped in that rematch.

Did Hearn have options on Proska, did they have anything to do with the Golovkin fight?

Proska is a Matchroom fighter and brings Polish television with him. Barry Hearn himself went to the Golovkin fight.

cheers Mickey, if Hope had won do you think would the roles have been reversed? Proska for Barker etc?