BoxRec

chinny wrote:

JimJim2009 wrote:Fwank made a few significant points about his TV channel. Firstly, he said they're running 20,000 subscribers above the break even level, which is tremendous news, given that he also said the subscriber volumes are more stable these days. Secondly, he acknowledged a change of approach over the past year, spending less on domestic shows and spending more on overseas fights. Regardless of what armchair fans may think, the ultimate litmus test of how best to run the channel is a rising, loyal subscriber base - that tells you you're getting it right.

Not true fella. He said 20k above what their internal forecast was, which is a very different thing to break even, and a number which is internal only. It can be and probably still is a loss making forecast.

It's just a bit better than expected.

I took it as that, but fair point he didn't use the words break even point. The info and the way it came out, he seemed very pleased with being 20,000 subscribers over a certain point, and I think he's previously said they were over the break even level of subscribers. He seemed happy enough with it, if they're not making money at this point - with the stellar 2014 line up of major overseas fights - then the channel just isn't viable.

JimJim2009 wrote:

chinny wrote:

JimJim2009 wrote:Fwank made a few significant points about his TV channel. Firstly, he said they're running 20,000 subscribers above the break even level, which is tremendous news, given that he also said the subscriber volumes are more stable these days. Secondly, he acknowledged a change of approach over the past year, spending less on domestic shows and spending more on overseas fights. Regardless of what armchair fans may think, the ultimate litmus test of how best to run the channel is a rising, loyal subscriber base - that tells you you're getting it right.

Not true fella. He said 20k above what their internal forecast was, which is a very different thing to break even, and a number which is internal only. It can be and probably still is a loss making forecast.

It's just a bit better than expected.

I took it as that, but fair point he didn't use the words break even point. The info and the way it came out, he seemed very pleased with being 20,000 subscribers over a certain point, and I think he's previously said they were over the break even level of subscribers. He seemed happy enough with it, if they're not making money at this point - with the stellar 2014 line up of major overseas fights - then the channel just isn't viable.

Did you expect him to look and sound downbeat about it? Come on man.

rio wrote:Completely disagreed with hearn when he said kolorov v cleaverly was the worst match making ever. No eddie these are the fights you have to make for your fighter to be number 1 in the division, something none of your fighters have ever been due to your reluctance to make there types of fights. The fans wanted it and so did the fighters, just cause cleaverly lost does not make it bad match making.

I think he was referring to the fact warren says Eddie keeps sending his fighter abroad and they lose but Eddie was saying I'd rather send them abroad for a world title shot and get paid well than fight at home in a voluntary fight and lose for little money

rio wrote:Completely disagreed with hearn when he said kolorov v cleaverly was the worst match making ever. No eddie these are the fights you have to make for your fighter to be number 1 in the division, something none of your fighters have ever been due to your reluctance to make there types of fights. The fans wanted it and so did the fighters, just cause cleaverly lost does not make it bad match making.

The problem with that match up was Cleverly was moving from championship to champions league level in one move. Fwanky does this often. Builds fighters records and reputations on sand foundations.
Once they face the big dogs, they get eaten alive.

Gradual step up should be the way to go in a perfect world.

rio wrote:Completely disagreed with hearn when he said kolorov v cleaverly was the worst match making ever. No eddie these are the fights you have to make for your fighter to be number 1 in the division, something none of your fighters have ever been due to your reluctance to make there types of fights. The fans wanted it and so did the fighters, just cause cleaverly lost does not make it bad match making.

As some have already you've mentioned, you've missed the point slightly here.

I thought Eddie looked more pissed off with Kugan than with Warren.

black panther wrote:Shots fired?


Fish eyes should be worried. No ginger light-welterweights in sight though.

Fire!!

Warren's made the point that when you invest in fighters and bring them through, you should go the extra yard and get them home advantage when its time for the big fight that could make or break them. Eddie has pointed out that there's been plenty of occasions when Fwank has just let his fighter go aboard, and they get hammered.

It'll be interesting to see if Eddie has a change of heart when fighters he's brought through from scratch have a world title fight coming up. All his top level fighters - since he became a promoter - have been brought on and developed by other promoters, before jumping ship to matchroom. It's easier to toss them all in at the deep end when you've not spent five years carefully steering them to the top.

I just wonder if Fwank is talking himself into a corner (not that he'd care) - Billy Joe Saunders and Frankie Gavin are heading towards world title fights in the next 6-12 months, will Fwank dig deep for them ? It would require big, big investments to get them home advantage for world title fights.

when you think about all the great fights warrens put on and all the great fighters he's brought over here, i doubt in twenty years we will be saying the same for eddie hearn.

meahdem wrote:when you think about all the great fights warrens put on and all the great fighters he's brought over here, i doubt in twenty years we will be saying the same for eddie hearn.

Hearn has been going 3 years and has already put on one of the biggest British fights ever. With just under a million PPV buys. Not a bad start I'd say.

JimJim2009 wrote:Warren's made the point that when you invest in fighters and bring them through, you should go the extra yard and get them home advantage when its time for the big fight that could make or break them. Eddie has pointed out that there's been plenty of occasions when Fwank has just let his fighter go aboard, and they get hammered.

It'll be interesting to see if Eddie has a change of heart when fighters he's brought through from scratch have a world title fight coming up. All his top level fighters - since he became a promoter - have been brought on and developed by other promoters, before jumping ship to matchroom. It's easier to toss them all in at the deep end when you've not spent five years carefully steering them to the top.

I just wonder if Fwank is talking himself into a corner (not that he'd care) - Billy Joe Saunders and Frankie Gavin are heading towards world title fights in the next 6-12 months, will Fwank dig deep for them ? It would require big, big investments to get them home advantage for world title fights.

I think Eddie would obviously prefer to get his fighters a home fight for a title but what sort of world champions decide to go abroad to defend a title unless it is mega money.

What I'm saying is let's say for argument sake u bring up a heavyweight like AJ and let's say he is ready for a title shot right now. Do you think there is any chance at all of getting a klitschko to come to England?
Sometimes it is impossible to get a champion to fight away from home, I don't think Eddie has done anything wrong in having his fighters go abroad and fight for a world title shot at the end of the day we know most of them didn't really have a great chance but they got a big pay day and they would have never got that chance again as they may have got beat by a much lessor fighter and the title fight would have never come again

Wouldn't matter how much he'd have paid to get Andrade over here or Broner or Stevenson or Alexander they'd have beat the Brits they faced. He did break out the bank to get Crawford over, albeit Burns was the champion there.

Corniest videos I've watched in a long time. Both make decent points. Both make dickheads of themselves.

Allegedly is like Victor Meldrew. Eddie's quickly turning into David Brent.

Boxing Prospect wrote:Wouldn't matter how much he'd have paid to get Andrade over here or Broner or Stevenson or Alexander they'd have beat the Brits they faced. He did break out the bank to get Crawford over, albeit Burns was the champion there.

Yep. Rees, Rose, Bellew, Purdy wouldn't have mattered where those fights took place. They were always outclassed. Home advantage could feasibly have made a difference to Burns, so they got their money out.

It's nice and all to dig deep for your fighters, but I can see that it wouldn't have made a difference in the above fights, so why bother.

DMA1987 wrote:

Boxing Prospect wrote:Wouldn't matter how much he'd have paid to get Andrade over here or Broner or Stevenson or Alexander they'd have beat the Brits they faced. He did break out the bank to get Crawford over, albeit Burns was the champion there.

Yep. Rees, Rose, Bellew, Purdy wouldn't have mattered where those fights took place. They were always outclassed. Home advantage could feasibly have made a difference to Burns, so they got their money out.

It's nice and all to dig deep for your fighters, but I can see that it wouldn't have made a difference in the above fights, so why bother.

Hence Fwank letting Lockett and Jennings do exactly the same thing.

mickey1975 wrote:

DMA1987 wrote:

Boxing Prospect wrote:Wouldn't matter how much he'd have paid to get Andrade over here or Broner or Stevenson or Alexander they'd have beat the Brits they faced. He did break out the bank to get Crawford over, albeit Burns was the champion there.

Yep. Rees, Rose, Bellew, Purdy wouldn't have mattered where those fights took place. They were always outclassed. Home advantage could feasibly have made a difference to Burns, so they got their money out.

It's nice and all to dig deep for your fighters, but I can see that it wouldn't have made a difference in the above fights, so why bother.

Hence Fwank letting Lockett and Jennings do exactly the same thing.

Didn't he roll the dice? Take a gamble?

Certainly not with those two. Didn't do too bad for Benn, Bruno, Hatton and Hamed though.

There's an important issue here that a few are missing.
What if Sky are not interested in showing "World" title fights with British fighters that are not seen as the cream of the crop ?
Where would Eddie get backing from to show them if that was the case ?

Parson Cross wrote:There's an important issue here that a few are missing.
What if Sky are not interested in showing "World" title fights with British fighters that are not seen as the cream of the crop ?
Where would Eddie get backing from to show them if that was the case ?

He should roll the dice and start his own channel up...

Chris W 1982 wrote:Corniest videos I've watched in a long time. Both make decent points. Both make dickheads of themselves.

Allegedly is like Victor Meldrew. Eddie's quickly turning into David Brent.

Brilliant