BoxRec

looks like C5 have a good opportunity to snap up a promoter with a massive fan base.

JamesH wrote:

elephant man wrote:Buncey not happy

Steve Bunce ‏ @bigdaddybunce
If Ricky's pals have stabbed him in the back and kicked him off Sky it is a total and utter disgrace.

Steve Bunce ‏ @bigdaddybunce
This is not about Setanta or Allegedly channel it is about doing the right thing. A disgrace by the dogs.

Steve Bunce ‏ @bigdaddybunce
Hatton kept Sky going, kept boxing in the public eye and the people there claim to be his pals! Dogs, I would not be able to sleep tonight.

Steve Bunce ‏ @bigdaddybunce
It's not about coverage - if they have one promoter with 80percent of their dates it is bad thing. It moves closer to a monopoly.

Steve Bunce ‏ @bigdaddybunce
Can it really be true that Ricky Hatton has No Sky dates after Quigg and Munroe. That is a disgrace. Clearly never promised Rupert anything.

If Skys boxing has become so limited, does a subscription only boxing channel keep boxing in the public eye? Does it not move it closer to a monopoly? Was Karpency fighting Cleverly 'the right thing'? Has James De Gale been denied what was promised to him in a contract? Has JC been paid yet? Have all the other lads been squared up financially?

Boxing has its fair share of dogs. My take is simple, call them all for what they are, or shut your mouth.

Well said.

kingfinn wrote:looks like C5 have a good opportunity to snap up a promoter with a massive fan base.

Hatton has been working pretty closely with Matchroom anyway, all SKY have done is seemingly cut out the bullshit behind it it seems... backed what they consider there champion horse almost.

also on C5.... Am i the only 1 that thinks Fat Mick got really lucky with that, i reckon this countrys fascination with the Gypsy population had more to do with that than the product of boxing itself, what with Fury being his Marquee fighter, sooner or later that bubble will burst.

kingfinn wrote:looks like C5 have a good opportunity to snap up a promoter with a massive fan base.

Hatton was a fighter with a massive fan base. No promoter has a massive fan base, it's all about the fights they deliver and the fighters they build.

JamesH wrote:

elephant man wrote:Buncey not happy

Steve Bunce ‏ @bigdaddybunce
If Ricky's pals have stabbed him in the back and kicked him off Sky it is a total and utter disgrace.

Steve Bunce ‏ @bigdaddybunce
This is not about Setanta or Allegedly channel it is about doing the right thing. A disgrace by the dogs.

Steve Bunce ‏ @bigdaddybunce
Hatton kept Sky going, kept boxing in the public eye and the people there claim to be his pals! Dogs, I would not be able to sleep tonight.

Steve Bunce ‏ @bigdaddybunce
It's not about coverage - if they have one promoter with 80percent of their dates it is bad thing. It moves closer to a monopoly.

Steve Bunce ‏ @bigdaddybunce
Can it really be true that Ricky Hatton has No Sky dates after Quigg and Munroe. That is a disgrace. Clearly never promised Rupert anything.

If Skys boxing has become so limited, does a subscription only boxing channel keep boxing in the public eye? Does it not move it closer to a monopoly? Was Karpency fighting Cleverly 'the right thing'? Has James De Gale been denied what was promised to him in a contract? Has JC been paid yet? Have all the other lads been squared up financially?

Boxing has its fair share of dogs. My take is simple, call them all for what they are, or shut your mouth.

bigdaddy owned...adios

Deserter wrote:

kingfinn wrote:looks like C5 have a good opportunity to snap up a promoter with a massive fan base.

Hatton was a fighter with a massive fan base. No promoter has a massive fan base, it's all about the fights they deliver and the fighters they build.

A hell of a lot of casual fans will tune in to a free to air channel just because ricky hattons name is attached to the bouts.

kingfinn wrote:

Deserter wrote:

kingfinn wrote:looks like C5 have a good opportunity to snap up a promoter with a massive fan base.

Hatton was a fighter with a massive fan base. No promoter has a massive fan base, it's all about the fights they deliver and the fighters they build.

A hell of a lot of casual fans will tune in to a free to air channel just because ricky hattons name is attached to the bouts.

I'd beg to differ. And how would you even market that association effectively while trying to build the fighters' profiles in their own right?

Deserter,

I do agree with what your saying, but can also see how having a profile such as Ricky's can add exposure..... but they need a TV company not only to say - go on then Ricky we'll take you on, but actually say.... go on Ricky we'll take you on, and here's a ten's of thousands to sign the names.

It worked for the biggest box office star in the states to be the face of a promotion company, now arguably the market leader. It was also appearing to work for Sugar Ray Leonard, until that business with Joe Messi and a loss of interest from Sugar Ray himself cost him. Sugar Ray seemed to be going somewhere with ESPN's backing - but ultimately, didn't last the course.

I could see some TV campaigns built around Ricky himself.... "the man who delivered in the ring, is now going to deliver the big fights" - with segments from Ricky saying how he's been there done that, knows what the fans want etc.

We are talking minor leagues - but this is really want Spencer Fearon is building at "This is hard knocks" - Spencer is the face and the talker..... Ricky is less marmite than Spencer, good with the camera and much more well known. But its got to be a big first show.

It would at least get C5 a cheap well known pundit.

Deserter wrote:

kingfinn wrote:

Deserter wrote: Hatton was a fighter with a massive fan base. No promoter has a massive fan base, it's all about the fights they deliver and the fighters they build.

A hell of a lot of casual fans will tune in to a free to air channel just because ricky hattons name is attached to the bouts.

I'd beg to differ. And how would you even market that association effectively while trying to build the fighters' profiles in their own right?

You only need name or brand association to sell something most of the time hence the George Foreman Grill and Chris Eubank Jr. Hatton is a brand that gets peoples interest, boxing is the product to be sold as long as the fights are competative the interest is then held. Hatton has some very marketble fighters like Million Dollar Crolla and Matty Hatton C5 is the perfect platform to use to manufacture some new superstars even its its just on the domestic scene.

it's disappointing, i prefer Sky, i think they put on better productions than Box N (give me Jim Watt, McGuigan & Adam smith over big mouth bunce anyday, guys a moron imo, and Richard Keys who clearly knows nothing about boxing).

anyone got a theory on why they pulled the plug? Is it as simple as not getting the ratings or something more sinister?

kingfinn wrote:

Deserter wrote:

kingfinn wrote:
A hell of a lot of casual fans will tune in to a free to air channel just because ricky hattons name is attached to the bouts.

I'd beg to differ. And how would you even market that association effectively while trying to build the fighters' profiles in their own right?

You only need name or brand association to sell something most of the time hence the George Foreman Grill and Chris Eubank Jr. Hatton is a brand that gets peoples interest, boxing is the product to be sold as long as the fights are competative the interest is then held. Hatton has some very marketble fighters like Million Dollar Crolla and Matty Hatton C5 is the perfect platform to use to manufacture some new superstars even its its just on the domestic scene.

That's fine, I just politely disagree and think the examples you've given don't correlate to this scenario. Take pop concerts - do you care about the promoter or the band/performer appearing and does it affect your decision to purchase? I know which one drives ticket sales. Furthermore, HP has already been operating for a few years now and during that period I haven't seen one single person make the case for Hatton's involvement actually making a significant difference to viewing or attendance figures to date. If that's the case, why should it change now, when his 'stock' is lower than it's ever been due to a combination of the addiction stories and the fact he's been out of the public eye apart from those unsavoury incidents, having not stepped in the ring for three years?

Stu, in answer to your earlier point, Oscar's involvement through the Golden Boy vehicle helped him broker TV deals and attract fighters - what it didn't/doesn't do in my opinion is affect viewing figures - the casual fan (or hardcore one for that matter) doesn't make their viewing decision based on the fact Oscar is involved, they make it on the basis of who's fighting and how well those participants have been marketed.

I have to say, and it's pure speculation on my part, but I do also wonder how sensible the decision was to make Ricky CEO of HP in place of Gareth Williams. I understand the desire to give him some structure in his life, but whatever Hatton's merits, I can't imagine him being a credible business operater. Could this in part be behind Sky's decision? He certainly doesn't come across as sharp as Oscar and surely some sort of 'ceremonial/ambassador' position in HP would have played to his strengths more? It could well have sent the wrong message to the market.

It's a tough one to fathom.

Perhaps initially they played ball, to curry favour for a Hatton comeback, when he was still the darling of British boxing. I think as that faded more and more it boiled down to perhaps a mix of personalities and product.

Or possibly the team did nothing wrong at all, and Sky are maybe prompting them to pitch their stable against Matchroom and Maloney's by removing specific dates. So to gain airtime it has to be in co-operation.

Frampton vs Quigg, Price vs Towers, Barker vs Murray, Purdy vs Vassell etc ?

It could work, or it could backfire and see the stable move to another station. Because without the TV dates they wont be able to afford their new fighters to gain much undercard exposure.

Maybe it's a blessing in disguise, and they appear across 456, Eurosport and Ch5 without upsetting anyone.

But in closing, they should have received an allocation in my opinion.

Glyn Leach wrote:

dondada wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:What percentage of Sky customers would cancel their subscription if they completely dropped boxing?

0.8% FACT

If that

I might.

Go to the pub for Froch and Price.

Seems a very strange move, and I think it would be fair to say that Hatton Promotions can count themselves to be stabbed in the back if someone else (!) is subsequently given their own dates. I know it's a business and all that but Hatton gives his boxers contracts for stability for both parties (like most promoters). If the TV companies don't give the promoters contracts with guaranteed dates then I don't think the promoters can be expected to do likewise with their boxers.

However, do we know that anyone else will get dates set in stone or are Sky creating a senario where they basically say to promoters "Provide us with a card worthy of our attention and we will pay you well for it?". If this is so then it may not be such a bad thing, it should encourage better match ups and less avoided fights.

Again in saying that though in the last 12 - 18 months or so we've had Chisora/Sexton II, Bellew/Cleverly, Groves/DeGale, Brook/Hatton, Murray/Mitchell, Sykes/Buckland, Smith/Simpson, McDonnell/Hall with Munro/Quigg to come and potentially Mitchell/Burns. Generally, bar the middleweights, and Price/Fury most big domestic fights are being made.

Finally bare in mind that Hatton will have had a lot of ass kissing from various punters at Sky over the past ten or so years. I'm not saying it was right or wrong but he was their darling for a long while and has now been given little more than weeks to find a new stable for his boxers - NO ONE in the business saw this coming. It's a best ruthless

It's patently obvious his dates have been given to Eddie Hearn, who now has 20 dates to fill in the new season.
They are set in stone - always have been.
However that would not prevent Co Promoted shows, but clearly if Hearn has the TV date then he will want the lion's share of the proceeds.
HP need to get a deal elsewhere.
If they do get a deal then I think we can kiss goodbye to Frampton v Quigg for instance.

Next up - an injury to Quigg or Munroe?....

I see Gareth Williams hawking his new sports law company on twitter with Calzaghe...Refers to him as former CEO of Hatton Promotions...When did that happen? Co-incidence? Amicable?

I definitely smell fish products somewhere

At least two months ago - keep up !
Gareth still acts for HP as a Consultant so I think its fair to say amicable.

Deserter wrote:

kingfinn wrote:

Deserter wrote: I'd beg to differ. And how would you even market that association effectively while trying to build the fighters' profiles in their own right?

You only need name or brand association to sell something most of the time hence the George Foreman Grill and Chris Eubank Jr. Hatton is a brand that gets peoples interest, boxing is the product to be sold as long as the fights are competative the interest is then held. Hatton has some very marketble fighters like Million Dollar Crolla and Matty Hatton C5 is the perfect platform to use to manufacture some new superstars even its its just on the domestic scene.

That's fine, I just politely disagree and think the examples you've given don't correlate to this scenario. Take pop concerts - do you care about the promoter or the band/performer appearing and does it affect your decision to purchase? I know which one drives ticket sales. Furthermore, HP has already been operating for a few years now and during that period I haven't seen one single person make the case for Hatton's involvement actually making a significant difference to viewing or attendance figures to date. If that's the case, why should it change now, when his 'stock' is lower than it's ever been due to a combination of the addiction stories and the fact he's been out of the public eye apart from those unsavoury incidents, having not stepped in the ring for three years?

Stu, in answer to your earlier point, Oscar's involvement through the Golden Boy vehicle helped him broker TV deals and attract fighters - what it didn't/doesn't do in my opinion is affect viewing figures - the casual fan (or hardcore one for that matter) doesn't make their viewing decision based on the fact Oscar is involved, they make it on the basis of who's fighting and how well those participants have been marketed.

I have to say, and it's pure speculation on my part, but I do also wonder how sensible the decision was to make Ricky CEO of HP in place of Gareth Williams. I understand the desire to give him some structure in his life, but whatever Hatton's merits, I can't imagine him being a credible business operater. Could this in part be behind Sky's decision? He certainly doesn't come across as sharp as Oscar and surely some sort of 'ceremonial/ambassador' position in HP would have played to his strengths more? It could well have sent the wrong message to the market.

I would disagree with you still and name simon cowell as an example of a manager / promoter who sells mediocre pop rubbish soely off his own name and influence and tv platform. When simon cowell wasnt involved in the shows he promotes viewing figures dropped and he had to go back.

twenty six wrote:At least two months ago - keep up !
Gareth still acts for HP as a Consultant so I think its fair to say amicable.

slack ain't I!

kingfinn wrote:

Deserter wrote:

kingfinn wrote: You only need name or brand association to sell something most of the time hence the George Foreman Grill and Chris Eubank Jr. Hatton is a brand that gets peoples interest, boxing is the product to be sold as long as the fights are competative the interest is then held. Hatton has some very marketble fighters like Million Dollar Crolla and Matty Hatton C5 is the perfect platform to use to manufacture some new superstars even its its just on the domestic scene.

That's fine, I just politely disagree and think the examples you've given don't correlate to this scenario. Take pop concerts - do you care about the promoter or the band/performer appearing and does it affect your decision to purchase? I know which one drives ticket sales. Furthermore, HP has already been operating for a few years now and during that period I haven't seen one single person make the case for Hatton's involvement actually making a significant difference to viewing or attendance figures to date. If that's the case, why should it change now, when his 'stock' is lower than it's ever been due to a combination of the addiction stories and the fact he's been out of the public eye apart from those unsavoury incidents, having not stepped in the ring for three years?

Stu, in answer to your earlier point, Oscar's involvement through the Golden Boy vehicle helped him broker TV deals and attract fighters - what it didn't/doesn't do in my opinion is affect viewing figures - the casual fan (or hardcore one for that matter) doesn't make their viewing decision based on the fact Oscar is involved, they make it on the basis of who's fighting and how well those participants have been marketed.

I have to say, and it's pure speculation on my part, but I do also wonder how sensible the decision was to make Ricky CEO of HP in place of Gareth Williams. I understand the desire to give him some structure in his life, but whatever Hatton's merits, I can't imagine him being a credible business operater. Could this in part be behind Sky's decision? He certainly doesn't come across as sharp as Oscar and surely some sort of 'ceremonial/ambassador' position in HP would have played to his strengths more? It could well have sent the wrong message to the market.

I would disagree with you still and name simon cowell as an example of a manager / promoter who sells mediocre pop rubbish soely off his own name and influence and tv platform. When simon cowell wasnt involved in the shows he promotes viewing figures dropped and he had to go back.

I think that unfortunately the example you've chosen merely proves my point - no-one buys a CD or a concert ticket because the artist is on Simon Cowell's record label or was signed by him.
You're trying to use the TV example but in the context of X-Factor and BGT, Cowell is an intrinsic, fundamental part of the offering in a way that Hatton never would be with a boxing show. You also haven't addressed my earlier point with regards to the fact that Hatton's involvement to date hasn't shown any tangible uplift in HP's viewing or attendance figures to substantiate your argument.

A Hatton branded promotion would mean big time boxing has come to town in many places you'd think?

Variety is the spice of life. Giving dates to separate promoters is far better, they all have to deliver the goods to stay on top.

So which fighters does HP currently have on their books?

Quigg - would be missed as he goes to European class
Munroe - hasn't had a meaningful fight with HP but will be interesting to see how he does vs Quigg
Crolla - very entertaining but has he found his level??
M Hatton
Rhodes - interesting to see how he does vs Rabchenko
Towers - needs to step up opposition
M.Murray - hasn't built on good performance vs Sturm
J.Murray - not active enough and performances not been great

Any others?

jake the snake wrote:John Murray 's a Warren fighter .

Joe Murray

Deserter wrote:

kingfinn wrote:

Deserter wrote: That's fine, I just politely disagree and think the examples you've given don't correlate to this scenario. Take pop concerts - do you care about the promoter or the band/performer appearing and does it affect your decision to purchase? I know which one drives ticket sales. Furthermore, HP has already been operating for a few years now and during that period I haven't seen one single person make the case for Hatton's involvement actually making a significant difference to viewing or attendance figures to date. If that's the case, why should it change now, when his 'stock' is lower than it's ever been due to a combination of the addiction stories and the fact he's been out of the public eye apart from those unsavoury incidents, having not stepped in the ring for three years?

Stu, in answer to your earlier point, Oscar's involvement through the Golden Boy vehicle helped him broker TV deals and attract fighters - what it didn't/doesn't do in my opinion is affect viewing figures - the casual fan (or hardcore one for that matter) doesn't make their viewing decision based on the fact Oscar is involved, they make it on the basis of who's fighting and how well those participants have been marketed.

I have to say, and it's pure speculation on my part, but I do also wonder how sensible the decision was to make Ricky CEO of HP in place of Gareth Williams. I understand the desire to give him some structure in his life, but whatever Hatton's merits, I can't imagine him being a credible business operater. Could this in part be behind Sky's decision? He certainly doesn't come across as sharp as Oscar and surely some sort of 'ceremonial/ambassador' position in HP would have played to his strengths more? It could well have sent the wrong message to the market.

I would disagree with you still and name simon cowell as an example of a manager / promoter who sells mediocre pop rubbish soely off his own name and influence and tv platform. When simon cowell wasnt involved in the shows he promotes viewing figures dropped and he had to go back.

I think that unfortunately the example you've chosen merely proves my point - no-one buys a CD or a concert ticket because the artist is on Simon Cowell's record label or was signed by him.
You're trying to use the TV example but in the context of X-Factor and BGT, Cowell is an intrinsic, fundamental part of the offering in a way that Hatton never would be with a boxing show. You also haven't addressed my earlier point with regards to the fact that Hatton's involvement to date hasn't shown any tangible uplift in HP's viewing or attendance figures to substantiate your argument.

Respectfully disagree with your points - Would Smith Promotions get the same number of sales as Hatton Promotions if they had identical fighters?

How long were grilling machines about until George Foremans name was attached to them? the sales are incomparible.

Frampton is known because he is linked to barry m's name.