BoxRec

wrimc wrote:

MarkMcBurney wrote:Seems a strange thing to attack Eddie and Matchroom for. Raise the issue of Sky not working with other promoters maybe but clearly it's no possible for it to go on a Matchroom show that night, if he's that adamant it is going to be in Doncaster, with a Matchroom show being televised from Glasgow.

I've no doubt if Hobson approached Hearn and was flexible enough to fight in Glasgow then Eddie would jump at the chance of having it on the Burns bill.

Why should he have to have him on an undercard of a Burns title fight? When he can legitimately fill a stadium in Doncaster on his own?

To get the possible TV date and exposure I'd assume

I think what Hobson is complaining about is that to get a show or any of his fighters on Sky, he has to go through Eddie Hearn and not just offer Sky the show straight up.

iamasadlittleboy wrote:

wrimc wrote:

MarkMcBurney wrote:Seems a strange thing to attack Eddie and Matchroom for. Raise the issue of Sky not working with other promoters maybe but clearly it's no possible for it to go on a Matchroom show that night, if he's that adamant it is going to be in Doncaster, with a Matchroom show being televised from Glasgow.

I've no doubt if Hobson approached Hearn and was flexible enough to fight in Glasgow then Eddie would jump at the chance of having it on the Burns bill.

Why should he have to have him on an undercard of a Burns title fight? When he can legitimately fill a stadium in Doncaster on his own?

To get the possible TV date and exposure I'd assume

To fight on an undercard? Miles away from his hometown where he can fill a stadium? Seems nonsensical to me. The point is the rigidity of the deal with matchroom and sky means that the ONLY way that this fight will get on the channel is if he compromises to Matchrooms demands. This is a fight that warrants its own show.

Even if Sky would televise it from another promoter you're missing the point, they (and Matchroom) are committed to a show that night already, and it happens to be a couple of hundred miles north in Glasgow, hence the only way of getting on said show would be to fight in Glasgow.

MarkMcBurney wrote:Even if Sky would televise it from another promoter you're missing the point, they (and Matchroom) are committed to a show that night already, and it happens to be a couple of hundred miles north in Glasgow, hence the only way of getting on said show would be to fight in Glasgow.

But the show in Glasgow was put on only when Matchroom turned down the McDonnell fight. Besides which I'm sure Hobson would have moved the date if Sky were on board

So because Hobson doesn't want to work with Matchroom to get his card on TV, he is going to head to BN where he'll have to work with Mr Warren to get his card on TV?

TV channels like to have their schedule confirmed months in advance, so boxings unreliability and uncertainty (pre-fight) is what turns most TV channels away IMO, along with the varying price for fights. i.e. World title fights/very good opponents will cost a lot more which can price the TV channels out, despite them being the ones who've built the fighter. Who would want to show the first 90% of a film without showing the climax.

There's very little the promoters can do about the above IMO, because........"That's Boxing".

Sky TV (the saviours of boxing) are willing to to-and-fro with the ups and downs of boxing. Having >4 dedicated sports channels makes pullouts and cancellations less of a trauma and Sky are the ones with deep pockets.

If Sky got bored of boxing we'd all be fcuked!!

earsjohn wrote:So because Hobson doesn't want to work with Matchroom to get his card on TV, he is going to head to BN where he'll have to work with Mr Warren to get his card on TV?

How closely did Maloney have to work with Warren for Price's last three fights? Warren may (or may not) get a cut of the TV revenue for the fight - but there is no where I heard "Frank Maloney in association with allegedly" on these cards.

Similarly what about Khan and Golden Boy UK? Not sure Khan Promotions would want to work closely with Warren promotions. What about the international fights

To work on Sky it would seem the Matchroom would have to be the "name" in the promotions (unless they are very nice) and would have a say in terms of TV revenue. It sounds very much like it would have to be "Fight Academy in Association with Matchroom" when the MC delivers his speech.

Not only does that mean Matchroom get a cut in the profits its also pride at stake. The small promoter has done all the work and not the full credit.

Get talking to loaded, Dennis.

orbtastic wrote:I agree filming something and not showing it is a bit pointless, but they would incur additional expenses should they broadcast it, as has been outlined previously - Ok so there's no need to edit it on the fly in a truck but it still needs editing and polishing...then you have the issue of paying the fighters [extra] who are being shown on TV, albeit delayed.

Who produces KO TV on channel 4? They show edited highlights of small hall shows so someone is out there recording.

chad wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... opoly.html

Promoter Dennis Hobson believes that Sky Sports’ refusal to deal with anyone but Matchroom Sport is “crippling” the sport in this country and has described their partnership as “akin to a monopoly”.

“It doesn’t help anybody that only Matchroom Sport have the deal with Sky Sports,” said Hobson. “They should have at least two promoters dealing with them and you should be able to deal with them directly, not be asked to go through Matchroom Sport when you contact them.”

He sounds pretty daft in that article. The Matchroom thing has been going on a while now, it should be no surprise to him. It's not like he has been putting on great shows himself. Does he somehow think that McDonnell deserves the spot over Burns? It's all a bit silly sounding. Just go to allegedly, you won't get 50 folk paying for prime time Dennis.

I think Hobson has a point. Having covered Jamie McDonnell's rapid rise in recent years it's very frustrating that SKY has chosen not to screen his world title challenge. How does that make sense, and why shouldn't McDonnell and SKY subscribers feel more than a little agrieved given that SKY Sports screened his world title eliminator last year? It's a good fight, it's a Brit challenging for the world title, these are the kind of meaningful fights SKY should be bringing us against some of the recent offerings that have been served up. It irritates me that there is seemingly little flexibility for a non-Matchroom bill of sufficient quality to make it onto SKY Sports without the apparent blessing of Eddie Hearn. I'd much rather see Jamie McDonnell on 11 May than Ricky Burns, personally.

I don't believe that Hobson wouldn't be prepared to go through Matchroom, he's just citing this as an irritation and an extra layer of negotiations on top of the ones he has already endured with the IBF, Doncaster Rovers FC, the Mexican challenger and McDonnell's team in order to secure Jamie home advantage. Hobson's worked with many different promoters in the past - Robert Waterman and Frank Maloney plus the promoter whose name escapes me down in Norwich (Shamrock Promotions?).

Given the acrimony caused when Ricky Hatton parted company with Warren and joined Hobson & Waterman's then Fight Academy in 2005 I'd be surprised if McDonnell's challenge winds up on BNation. But people move on and times change. This is another classic example of SKY failing to deliver for their loyal subscribers and is very frustrating.

So Eddie should cancel his show and let Hobson do his thing, is that what your saying?

Shouldn't Hobson swallow his pride and ask to get on Eddies existing show?

I thought McDonnell had moved from Maloney to Hearn a while back?

Tomasino wrote:So Eddie should cancel his show and let Hobson do his thing, is that what your saying?

Shouldn't Hobson swallow his pride and ask to get on Eddies existing show?

Why not do a dual broadcast? A true "stacked" card and that's how it should be now we are down to one show a month. allegedly did it with Price/Flintoff/Vassell last year.

mickey1975 wrote:

Tomasino wrote:So Eddie should cancel his show and let Hobson do his thing, is that what your saying?

Shouldn't Hobson swallow his pride and ask to get on Eddies existing show?

Why not do a dual broadcast? A true "stacked" card and that's how it should be now we are down to one show a month. Allegedly channel did it with Price/Flintoff/Vassell last year.

I can't see that Sky would think it worth the cost of a separate team in Doncaster for, really, one fight.

Why try so hard to get the fight in Doncaster for that date when he can't even get it televised? I can't be the only one to see Dennis has made a bad business decision here. Did he previously have a date, then Eddie put on the Burns show, scuppering him?

Chambers2 wrote:TV channels like to have their schedule confirmed months in advance, so boxings unreliability and uncertainty (pre-fight) is what turns most TV channels away IMO, along with the varying price for fights. i.e. World title fights/very good opponents will cost a lot more which can price the TV channels out, despite them being the ones who've built the fighter. Who would want to show the first 90% of a film without showing the climax.

There's very little the promoters can do about the above IMO, because........"That's Boxing".

Sky TV (the saviours of boxing) are willing to to-and-fro with the ups and downs of boxing. Having >4 dedicated sports channels makes pullouts and cancellations less of a trauma and Sky are the ones with deep pockets.

If Sky got bored of boxing we'd all be fcuked!!

Sky nearly pulled out last year. If boxing does not get more viewers they will.

leforge wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:TV channels like to have their schedule confirmed months in advance, so boxings unreliability and uncertainty (pre-fight) is what turns most TV channels away IMO, along with the varying price for fights. i.e. World title fights/very good opponents will cost a lot more which can price the TV channels out, despite them being the ones who've built the fighter. Who would want to show the first 90% of a film without showing the climax.

There's very little the promoters can do about the above IMO, because........"That's Boxing".

Sky TV (the saviours of boxing) are willing to to-and-fro with the ups and downs of boxing. Having >4 dedicated sports channels makes pullouts and cancellations less of a trauma and Sky are the ones with deep pockets.

If Sky got bored of boxing we'd all be fcuked!!

Sky nearly pulled out last year. If boxing does not get more viewers they will.

That's worryng :(

Chambers2 wrote:

leforge wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:TV channels like to have their schedule confirmed months in advance, so boxings unreliability and uncertainty (pre-fight) is what turns most TV channels away IMO, along with the varying price for fights. i.e. World title fights/very good opponents will cost a lot more which can price the TV channels out, despite them being the ones who've built the fighter. Who would want to show the first 90% of a film without showing the climax.

There's very little the promoters can do about the above IMO, because........"That's Boxing".

Sky TV (the saviours of boxing) are willing to to-and-fro with the ups and downs of boxing. Having >4 dedicated sports channels makes pullouts and cancellations less of a trauma and Sky are the ones with deep pockets.

If Sky got bored of boxing we'd all be fcuked!!

Sky nearly pulled out last year. If boxing does not get more viewers they will.

That's worryng :(

Yes but its true

Chambers2 wrote:

leforge wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:TV channels like to have their schedule confirmed months in advance, so boxings unreliability and uncertainty (pre-fight) is what turns most TV channels away IMO, along with the varying price for fights. i.e. World title fights/very good opponents will cost a lot more which can price the TV channels out, despite them being the ones who've built the fighter. Who would want to show the first 90% of a film without showing the climax.

There's very little the promoters can do about the above IMO, because........"That's Boxing".

Sky TV (the saviours of boxing) are willing to to-and-fro with the ups and downs of boxing. Having >4 dedicated sports channels makes pullouts and cancellations less of a trauma and Sky are the ones with deep pockets.

If Sky got bored of boxing we'd all be fcuked!!

Sky nearly pulled out last year. If boxing does not get more viewers they will.

That's worryng :(

Sadly our sport is just not that popular :(

Is this just publicity.... I thought it was sorted and it was on loaded? Loaded mentioned it recently.

leforge wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:TV channels like to have their schedule confirmed months in advance, so boxings unreliability and uncertainty (pre-fight) is what turns most TV channels away IMO, along with the varying price for fights. i.e. World title fights/very good opponents will cost a lot more which can price the TV channels out, despite them being the ones who've built the fighter. Who would want to show the first 90% of a film without showing the climax.

There's very little the promoters can do about the above IMO, because........"That's Boxing".

Sky TV (the saviours of boxing) are willing to to-and-fro with the ups and downs of boxing. Having >4 dedicated sports channels makes pullouts and cancellations less of a trauma and Sky are the ones with deep pockets.

If Sky got bored of boxing we'd all be fcuked!!

Sky nearly pulled out last year. If boxing does not get more viewers they will.

If that happens then allegedly will be the only thing pulling British boxing and all the slating of Mr Warren will look a little silly.

palooka wrote:

leforge wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:TV channels like to have their schedule confirmed months in advance, so boxings unreliability and uncertainty (pre-fight) is what turns most TV channels away IMO, along with the varying price for fights. i.e. World title fights/very good opponents will cost a lot more which can price the TV channels out, despite them being the ones who've built the fighter. Who would want to show the first 90% of a film without showing the climax.

There's very little the promoters can do about the above IMO, because........"That's Boxing".

Sky TV (the saviours of boxing) are willing to to-and-fro with the ups and downs of boxing. Having >4 dedicated sports channels makes pullouts and cancellations less of a trauma and Sky are the ones with deep pockets.

If Sky got bored of boxing we'd all be fcuked!!

Sky nearly pulled out last year. If boxing does not get more viewers they will.

If that happens then Allegedly channel will be the only thing pulling British boxing and all the slating of Mr Warren will look a little silly.

Will that be still going as well!

I hope so pal.

spudder56 wrote:

Chambers2 wrote: That's worryng :(

Yes but its true

Wouldn't be worrying if it wasn't