BoxRec

tobyh5 wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote:*Card Subject To Change...

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I think it's a better fight, but that is still unsavory.

The part we all ignore and shouldn't. Morally and legally right are two different things. I guess I am not a multi millionaire as I count doing the right thing as more important than doing the legal thing only.

If enough people would demand their money back the fight may have been cancelled due to lack of revenue. So in this case, I think Hearn did the moral and the legal thing. As others said, "card subject to change."

Tony1244 wrote:

tobyh5 wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote:*Card Subject To Change...

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I think it's a better fight, but that is still unsavory.

The part we all ignore and shouldn't. Morally and legally right are two different things. I guess I am not a multi millionaire as I count doing the right thing as more important than doing the legal thing only.

If enough people would demand their money back the fight may have been cancelled due to lack of revenue. So in this case, I think Hearn did the moral and the legal thing. As others said, "card subject to change."

Or you could argue that if enough people were wanting their money back to cause a cancellation, that it is not a viable fight and so morally it should be refundable, else you are forcing people to keep tickets they do not want.

And *card subject to change is something we have to accept, it is the reluctant part of the sale / purchase relationship between the seller and consumer. Well I like to think that my customers are happy with every part of transactions with me and there is no element forced upon them. Again, this is why I earn 100k and not a million but I can sleep at night and look every one of my customers in the eye and share a pint with them on a Friday.

tobyh5 wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:

tobyh5 wrote:


The part we all ignore and shouldn't. Morally and legally right are two different things. I guess I am not a multi millionaire as I count doing the right thing as more important than doing the legal thing only.

If enough people would demand their money back the fight may have been cancelled due to lack of revenue. So in this case, I think Hearn did the moral and the legal thing. As others said, "card subject to change."

Or you could argue that if enough people were wanting their money back to cause a cancellation, that it is not a viable fight and so morally it should be refundable, else you are forcing people to keep tickets they do not want.

And *card subject to change is something we have to accept, it is the reluctant part of the sale / purchase relationship between the seller and consumer. Well I like to think that my customers are happy with every part of transactions with me and there is no element forced upon them. Again, this is why I earn 100k and not a million but I can sleep at night and look every one of my customers in the eye and share a pint with them on a Friday.

I'm not a very good liar either. Not necessarily because I'm such a great guy, but it makes life too complicated and too controversial. I think most boxing fans would rather have Joshua vs Takam, then no fight at all.

I have no idea what the effect would be if refunds were available. Fans who wanted a refund would be happy, but perhaps a lot of paychecks for people involved in this fight would be smaller, so economics always has more than one side to say the least.

Card subject to change should be interpreted like our second amendment. People try to get over on so much stuff, if the opening bout changed I can see not offering a refund, but when it's the main event there should be no question. If I buy a ticket to see guns n roses and it switches to Metallica they can't just tell me their music is similar.

Taansend wrote:Genuine question here.

If you've bought tickets for the fight online who do you pays fees to? The promoter or a 3rd party?

And if you were to get a refund would you expect the transaction fee back? Because it still happened. Someone mentioned 120 quid in fees (why is it that high?).

I'm just thinking from the business's perspective. They are in the business of making money. If they refund the tickets & fees they still have to pay the people that do all the work for them. They still have to pay their expenses.

I'm not saying no one should ever get a refund. Just that the businesses have to look out for their interests too.

Funnily enough, I think they take it on the chin whereas the official sellers keep the fees.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Card subject to change should be interpreted like our second amendment. People try to get over on so much stuff, if the opening bout changed I can see not offering a refund, but when it's the main event there should be no question. If I buy a ticket to see guns n roses and it switches to Metallica they can't just tell me their music is similar.

If anything they should jack up the price in that instance because Metallica stomps GnR's ass, but I agree with your point

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Card subject to change should be interpreted like our second amendment. People try to get over on so much stuff, if the opening bout changed I can see not offering a refund, but when it's the main event there should be no question. If I buy a ticket to see guns n roses and it switches to Metallica they can't just tell me their music is similar.

If anything they should jack up the price in that instance because Metallica stomps GnR's ass, but I agree with your point

They were 1-1 when I saw them together.

Not offering a refund for changing the Main Event though. I'd never buy a ticket to another Matchroom card again if I lived there. Homie don't play that.

The last big show I went to in Cardiff was an FW promotion and it completely fell apart. From memory, top of the card Liam Williams ended up fighting a late Eastern European replacement due to Patterson pulling out after getting assaulted in the street, BJS was supposed to be fighting Akarov who had visa issues so it got postponed a few weeks, and Chris Eubank Jr pulled out of the Langford fight completely after declaring himself so far above British level that he was too dangerous to box.

Needless to say, no refunds were offered despite all of the above.

Boxerbeetle wrote:The last big show I went to in Cardiff was an FW promotion and it completely fell apart. From memory, top of the card Liam Williams ended up fighting a late Eastern European replacement due to Patterson pulling out after getting assaulted in the street, BJS was supposed to be fighting Akarov who had visa issues so it got postponed a few weeks, and Chris Eubank Jr pulled out of the Langford fight completely after declaring himself so far above British level that he was too dangerous to box.

Needless to say, no refunds were offered despite all of the above.

That's got to be one of the worst recently. I bought a ticket to see kell brook, he pulled out and eubank jr was put at top of bill against an American bouncer. Total crap.

You expect it though with a FW show, its basically a bonus if the card doesn't totally implode.

Boxerbeetle wrote:The last big show I went to in Cardiff was an FW promotion and it completely fell apart. From memory, top of the card Liam Williams ended up fighting a late Eastern European replacement due to Patterson pulling out after getting assaulted in the street, BJS was supposed to be fighting Akarov who had visa issues so it got postponed a few weeks, and Chris Eubank Jr pulled out of the Langford fight completely after declaring himself so far above British level that he was too dangerous to box.

Needless to say, no refunds were offered despite all of the above.

Wow, that's criminal. I'm glad I don't like going to live boxing.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:The last big show I went to in Cardiff was an FW promotion and it completely fell apart. From memory, top of the card Liam Williams ended up fighting a late Eastern European replacement due to Patterson pulling out after getting assaulted in the street, BJS was supposed to be fighting Akarov who had visa issues so it got postponed a few weeks, and Chris Eubank Jr pulled out of the Langford fight completely after declaring himself so far above British level that he was too dangerous to box.

Needless to say, no refunds were offered despite all of the above.

Wow, that's criminal. I'm glad I don't like going to live boxing.

I wouldn't pay to go. Somebody is gonna get me a press pass or I'm just gonna watch on TV

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:The last big show I went to in Cardiff was an FW promotion and it completely fell apart. From memory, top of the card Liam Williams ended up fighting a late Eastern European replacement due to Patterson pulling out after getting assaulted in the street, BJS was supposed to be fighting Akarov who had visa issues so it got postponed a few weeks, and Chris Eubank Jr pulled out of the Langford fight completely after declaring himself so far above British level that he was too dangerous to box.

Needless to say, no refunds were offered despite all of the above.

Wow, that's criminal. I'm glad I don't like going to live boxing.

I wouldn't pay to go. Somebody is gonna get me a press pass or I'm just gonna watch on TV

I could get a press pass for any fight. Still rather watch it on TV. If I'm going I'd rather pay.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: Wow, that's criminal. I'm glad I don't like going to live boxing.

I wouldn't pay to go. Somebody is gonna get me a press pass or I'm just gonna watch on TV

I could get a press pass for any fight. Still rather watch it on TV. If I'm going I'd rather pay.

Why's that? Not the I'd rather watch on TV part you've covered that before, but the "I'd rather pay if I'm going" part.

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
I wouldn't pay to go. Somebody is gonna get me a press pass or I'm just gonna watch on TV

I could get a press pass for any fight. Still rather watch it on TV. If I'm going I'd rather pay.

Why's that? Not the I'd rather watch on TV part you've covered that before, but the "I'd rather pay if I'm going" part.

I stopped blogging because I didn't enjoy it and the only thing better about being there live is the atmosphere. I'd rather drink and cheer than type on my laptop and not show any emotion. I'd be quite fine never going again, though if Errol fights in Dallas I'll go.

Fair enough, and I totally get that

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Card subject to change should be interpreted like our second amendment. People try to get over on so much stuff, if the opening bout changed I can see not offering a refund, but when it's the main event there should be no question. If I buy a ticket to see guns n roses and it switches to Metallica they can't just tell me their music is similar.

If anything they should jack up the price in that instance because Metallica stomps GnR's ass, but I agree with your point

They were 1-1 when I saw them together.

Saad, that Neil Young ticket stub you have in your hand is being replaced (card subject to change) with a Dylan show.

I know you're good to go because Young and Dylan have done a lot of drugs together.