BoxRec

The good news is Boxing News are picking Crolla based on Barroso's lack of pedigree opponents. Come on Ant!

Neil Gee wrote:The good news is Boxing News are picking Crolla based on Barroso's lack of pedigree opponents.

Well now all the Crolla fans can breath easy.

Comes down to Crolla's chin. Crolla will pressure Barroso all night unless the Colombian can put a dent in him and back him off.
Mitchell at his best always seemed to come up short against world class opposition. If the mileage has caught up with Mitchell then Barroso stopping him might be a bit flattering.
I really want to see Crolla/Flanagan so I'm pulling for Crolla.

Neil Gee wrote:The good news is Boxing News are picking Crolla based on Barroso's lack of pedigree opponents. Come on Ant!

Barroso's best win is probably better than any of Crolla's in truth despite the fact that Perez held a belt.

I like Barroso in this fight, but it's real interesting. A draw wouldn't shock me.

I think Barroso wins late on after losing the majority of the rounds. I just think sooner or later Crolla will walk onto one and get sparked. Until then though, I reckon he'll be comfortably ahead on the cards.

crusader wrote:

Neil Gee wrote:The good news is Boxing News are picking Crolla based on Barroso's lack of pedigree opponents.

Well now all the Crolla fans can breath easy.

Yeh. Phew!

lefty wrote:

Neil Gee wrote:The good news is Boxing News are picking Crolla based on Barroso's lack of pedigree opponents. Come on Ant!

Barroso's best win is probably better than any of Crolla's in truth despite the fact that Perez held a belt.

I don't think Perez fancied another 12 hard rounds with Crolla even before the body shot landed. Perez had the skillset but he didn't have a champion's heart.

Crolla does have that heart, however. He's proved that by taking Barroso on when he could have given up the belt and took on a more lucrative all-British fight instead.

i fancy crolla to stop him ,the man is getting better in every fight. think barroso is dangerous ,but any man is with power is dangerous , but Mitchell was finished when they fought made him look better then he was , crolla is solid this man will have to put on a personal best to win

here we go...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clxmKVynrig
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6eL50_yoow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ow0CMlNlkns
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbZQGC0e--w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-ZAQLH_UuE

W@rren is contacting Barney Francis to get the Crolla/Flanagan fight made.
He wants it on Sky Sports Box Office as a co-promotion.
He wants a 50/50 split of everything.
He will pay Flanagans purse.
He wants it at the M.E.N.
He wants no StubHub involvement.
Each promoter gets 4 slots on the undercard.

Can this fight get made?

wesshaw1985 wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-ZAQLH_UuE

W@rren is contacting Barney Francis to get the Crolla/Flanagan fight made.
He wants it on Sky Sports Box Office as a co-promotion.
He wants a 50/50 split of everything.
He will pay Flanagans purse.
He wants it at the M.E.N.
He wants no StubHub involvement.
Each promoter gets 4 slots on the undercard.

Can this fight get made?

He hates Eddie so bad it's slightly worrying

wesshaw1985 wrote:
W@rren is contacting Barney Francis to get the Crolla/Flanagan fight made.
He wants it on Sky Sports Box Office as a co-promotion.
He wants a 50/50 split of everything.
He will pay Flanagans purse.
He wants it at the M.E.N.
He wants no StubHub involvement.
Each promoter gets 4 slots on the undercard.

Can this fight get made?

Eddie Hearn has asked the question on why it can't be Sky PPV promoted solely by Queensbury. A question that should have expe, yourself and the other cheerleaders who were jumping up and down when Frank and George did that interview explaining how with their higher plain intelligence they have managed to work out a way to get round the Matchroom - Sky Sports box office exclusivity situation.

Eddie Hearn's also allegedly been threatened with legal action for speaking with Flanagan's manager.

jameswilson wrote:Eddie Hearn has asked the question on why it can't be Sky PPV promoted solely by Queensbury. A question that should have expe, yourself and the other cheerleaders who were jumping up and down when Frank and George did that interview explaining how with their higher plain intelligence they have managed to work out a way to get round the Matchroom - Sky Sports box office exclusivity situation.

Eddie Hearn's also allegedly been threatened with legal action for speaking with Flanagan's manager.

the truth according to Eddie Hearn...

wesshaw1985 wrote:

jameswilson wrote:Eddie Hearn has asked the question on why it can't be Sky PPV promoted solely by Queensbury. A question that should have expe, yourself and the other cheerleaders who were jumping up and down when Frank and George did that interview explaining how with their higher plain intelligence they have managed to work out a way to get round the Matchroom - Sky Sports box office exclusivity situation.

Eddie Hearn's also allegedly been threatened with legal action for speaking with Flanagan's manager.

the truth according to Eddie Hearn...

So what? You are saying a PPV card from Queensbury has taken place or is going to take place this year?

Or that he is not telling the truth about this business of being threatened with legal action. He has openly said this in an interview. Knowing people as we do I'd say if it isn't true then there will be legal action or a call to withdraw the comment pretty sharpish as, if it is untrue it could be seen as a defamatory remark against Mr Warren's character.

Legal action taken because someone accused someone else of taking legal action, that would be brilliant

jameswilson wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote:

jameswilson wrote:Eddie Hearn has asked the question on why it can't be Sky PPV promoted solely by Queensbury. A question that should have expe, yourself and the other cheerleaders who were jumping up and down when Frank and George did that interview explaining how with their higher plain intelligence they have managed to work out a way to get round the Matchroom - Sky Sports box office exclusivity situation.

Eddie Hearn's also allegedly been threatened with legal action for speaking with Flanagan's manager.

the truth according to Eddie Hearn...

So what? You are saying a PPV card from Queensbury has taken place or is going to take place this year?

Or that he is not telling the truth about this business of being threatened with legal action. He has openly said this in an interview. Knowing people as we do I'd say if it isn't true then there will be legal action or a call to withdraw the comment pretty sharpish as, if it is untrue it could be seen as a defamatory remark against Mr Warren's character.

Warren said last week that the legal letters were going out to Hearn so there's no doubt that's true.

In terms of the PPV situation, Hearn's saying that he can't do it on PPV then because of other things that are planned that he didn't elaborate on. If that's the case then whatever that is must be a bigger sell than Crolla-Flanagan for it to take priority over that fight, in which case as Hearn knows full well, that means Warren can't do it on PPV either because the final decision lies with Sky and they will put whatever is going to sell best on PPV.

expe wrote:

jameswilson wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote: the truth according to Eddie Hearn...

So what? You are saying a PPV card from Queensbury has taken place or is going to take place this year?

Or that he is not telling the truth about this business of being threatened with legal action. He has openly said this in an interview. Knowing people as we do I'd say if it isn't true then there will be legal action or a call to withdraw the comment pretty sharpish as, if it is untrue it could be seen as a defamatory remark against Mr Warren's character.

Warren said last week that the legal letters were going out to Hearn so there's no doubt that's true.

In terms of the PPV situation, Hearn's saying that he can't do it on PPV then because of other things that are planned that he didn't elaborate on. If that's the case then whatever that is must be a bigger sell than Crolla-Flanagan for it to take priority over that fight, in which case as Hearn knows full well, that means Warren can't do it on PPV either because the final decision lies with Sky and they will put whatever is going to sell best on PPV.

So why do an interview in the first place saying words to the effect of 'we've devised this genius system to get PPV without needing that alleged exclusive deal that Eddie Hearn has.' They must know that Matchroom would run 4 or 5 PPV's a year (not the 12 that some muppets were saying would become commonplace.) If additional PPVs on another platform aren't going to be viable because of that then I don't get why you'd come out and say 'we can do a PPV event soon.'

I'v no doubt allegedly could launch a PPV platform. Call it allegedly PPV, I expected when it did come out they would have to use some kind of other system outside of Sky, say like Primetime did (or possibly did.) But if this business of being able to get round Sky Sports PPV is true then it could be a case that they could use that as a platform to launch it. The huge problem I (a muppet who has no involvement in the business of boxing) believe they will have is that other than Saunders v Eubank Jr, they don't have a fight involving a Queensbury fighter that can go PPV. And if that does go PPV I don't see how the money can be generated in any other way than charging everyone a fee. I'm extremely skeptical about this claim that any allegedly PPV fights won't see subscription holders charged. If that is the case, I can't see how it would generate anywhere near the amount of money that Sky Sports PPV generates.

Oh, you two boys

jameswilson wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote:

jameswilson wrote:Eddie Hearn has asked the question on why it can't be Sky PPV promoted solely by Queensbury. A question that should have expe, yourself and the other cheerleaders who were jumping up and down when Frank and George did that interview explaining how with their higher plain intelligence they have managed to work out a way to get round the Matchroom - Sky Sports box office exclusivity situation.

Eddie Hearn's also allegedly been threatened with legal action for speaking with Flanagan's manager.

the truth according to Eddie Hearn...

So what? You are saying a PPV card from Queensbury has taken place or is going to take place this year?

Or that he is not telling the truth about this business of being threatened with legal action. He has openly said this in an interview. Knowing people as we do I'd say if it isn't true then there will be legal action or a call to withdraw the comment pretty sharpish as, if it is untrue it could be seen as a defamatory remark against Mr Warren's character.

Eddie Hearns truth and THE truth are 2 different things, Eddie doesn't tend to lie but he does love to bend the truth.
Your failure to see this only confirms your Eddie/Matchroom fanboy status, congrats.

ps. Did you get any free tickets for the Burns or Bellew event?

wesshaw1985 wrote: Eddie Hearns truth and THE truth are 2 different things, Eddie doesn't tend to lie but he does love to bend the truth.
Your failure to see this only confirms your Eddie/Matchroom fanboy status, congrats.

ps. Did you get any free tickets for the Burns or Bellew event?

Ok so elaborate and tell us exactly where you think the truth lies with those two statements/insinuations that Eddie has made. Eddie has said that he has been threatened with legal action regarding him contacting Steve Wood about Terry Flanagan. And he is insinuating something I suspected straight away that this 'Sky PPV, we can get round Sky Sports PPV business' is a load of hot air. I don't see much scope for middle ground with those two statements.

There never seems to be any middle ground with some people. It's either your a Hearn/Warren fanboy, or a Hearn/Warren hater. My position is hopefully clear, whilst I think the odd Matchroom show here and there are below par, I think they stump up far better shows on average than what someone else did when they had the Sky money. Like I'v said in other threads, I remember the nights of staying in on a Friday and Saturday night and watching Enzo Mac box Rich LaMontagne say afterwards 'right I'm ready to box for the World title now' and then watch an undercard comprising 8 rounders. I remember the horrendously long Hatton WBU reign and the horrendously long Calzaghe WBO reign before we eventually got somewhere. Those two reigns seemed to line up and go on and on. In that time I saw people frozen out, very little transparency or genuine communication with boxing fans and press releases about legal action all over the shop. I just see Matchroom as the lesser of the two based off of what I'v seen when each had the backing of Sky.

jameswilson wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote: Eddie Hearns truth and THE truth are 2 different things, Eddie doesn't tend to lie but he does love to bend the truth.
Your failure to see this only confirms your Eddie/Matchroom fanboy status, congrats.

ps. Did you get any free tickets for the Burns or Bellew event?

Ok so elaborate and tell us exactly where you think the truth lies with those two statements/insinuations that Eddie has made. Eddie has said that he has been threatened with legal action regarding him contacting Steve Wood about Terry Flanagan. And he is insinuating something I suspected straight away that this 'Sky PPV, we can get round Sky Sports PPV business' is a load of hot air. I don't see much scope for middle ground with those two statements.

There never seems to be any middle ground with some people. It's either your a Hearn/Warren fanboy, or a Hearn/Warren hater. My position is hopefully clear, whilst I think the odd Matchroom show here and there are below par, I think they stump up far better shows on average than what someone else did when they had the Sky money. Like I'v said in other threads, I remember the nights of staying in on a Friday and Saturday night and watching Enzo Mac box Rich LaMontagne say afterwards 'right I'm ready to box for the World title now' and then watch an undercard comprising 8 rounders. I remember the horrendously long Hatton WBU reign and the horrendously long Calzaghe WBO reign before we eventually got somewhere. Those two reigns seemed to line up and go on and on. In that time I saw people frozen out, very little transparency or genuine communication with boxing fans and press releases about legal action all over the shop. I just see Matchroom as the lesser of the two based off of what I'v seen when each had the backing of Sky.

Just for those who didn't notice the evolution of Wes's argument there.

Stage 1 - Eddie is lying.

Stage 2 - Eddie is not lying but bending the truth.

Stage 3 - Shit he's not lying, even expe agrees he isn't lying. I'll post an emoticon.

What will stage 4 be? Post a video of some unknown bloke talking?

wesshaw1985 wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-ZAQLH_UuE

W@rren is contacting Barney Francis to get the Crolla/Flanagan fight made.
He wants it on Sky Sports Box Office as a co-promotion.
He wants a 50/50 split of everything.
He will pay Flanagans purse.
He wants it at the M.E.N.
He wants no StubHub involvement.
Each promoter gets 4 slots on the undercard.

Can this fight get made?

I'm not quite sure what W@rren is bringing to the table to warrant a 50/50 split on Sky Sports Box office.

- The platform (Sky Sports Box Office) is exclusively with Hearn
- The A-side fighter in terms of draw is Crolla and, I'd assume, Crolla would need be paid more than Flanagan to reflect this
- Hearn appears to have a contract with Stubhub which he wouldn't be able to use. W@rren criticises Hearn for tickets being sold over the odds on Stubhub but the likelihood is that W@rren promoted shows would be on there if they ever sold out

There's no way, from a business point of view, that Hearn would accept this.