BoxRec

http://hithardnews.com/josh-warrington- ... om-boxing/

"Father of Josh, Sean O’Hagan was seen to be with promoter Frank allegedly last weekend at the Cardiff bill and Warrington’s manager Steve Wood has a good working relationship with Mr Warren who promotes Wood managed WBO lightweight champion Terry Flanagan. Nothing has been confirmed at time of press relating to Josh Warrington’s next move in regards to his promotional team."

chad wrote:http://hithardnews.com/josh-warrington- ... om-boxing/

"Father of Josh, Sean O’Hagan was seen to be with promoter Frank allegedly last weekend at the Cardiff bill and Warrington’s manager Steve Wood has a good working relationship with Mr Warren who promotes Wood managed WBO lightweight champion Terry Flanagan. Nothing has been confirmed at time of press relating to Josh Warrington’s next move in regards to his promotional team."

Isnt Sean, josh's real dad? why different sir names?

Matchroom only signs fighters who can sell stadiums, have an ambition to be international superstars in mega fights and PPV events. If you are domestic level scrub there are other alternatives available for you.

https://youtu.be/zGqqgg-4esI?t=1096

chad wrote:http://hithardnews.com/josh-warrington- ... om-boxing/

"Father of Josh, Sean O’Hagan was seen to be with promoter Frank allegedly last weekend at the Cardiff bill and Warrington’s manager Steve Wood has a good working relationship with Mr Warren who promotes Wood managed WBO lightweight champion Terry Flanagan. Nothing has been confirmed at time of press relating to Josh Warrington’s next move in regards to his promotional team."

broomy7s wrote:As I said in the Tyron Nurse thread, Josh's dad was sat next to Frank ringside at Cardiff. Not a shock at all after seeing that. Matchroom have clearly lost him but too proud to admit that.

Tarkus wrote:Matchroom only signs fighters who can sell stadiums, have an ambition to be international superstars in mega fights and PPV events. If you are domestic level scrub there are other alternatives available for you.

Going to have trouble going forward with that outlook. 23 shows a year on SKY including Box Office. Someone's got to fill the undercard spots. Can't all be elite fighters or guys with mega ambition. Will just cause friction and grind to a hault when the current crop of Eddie's darlings either retire or move elsewhere. £ddi£ H£arn for you.

chad wrote:

Tarkus wrote:Matchroom only signs fighters who can sell stadiums, have an ambition to be international superstars in mega fights and PPV events. If you are domestic level scrub there are other alternatives available for you.

Going to have trouble going forward with that outlook. 23 shows a year on SKY including Box Office. Someone's got to fill the undercard spots. Can't all be elite fighters or guys with mega ambition. Will just cause friction and grind to a hault when the current crop of Eddie's darlings either retire or move elsewhere. £ddi£ H£arn for you.

One born every minute.

Re BT/BN:

If you have BT, you are guaranteed 20 domestic BN shows per year. You don't need a BN subscription to watch these.

BN will broadcast an additional 10 domestic shows which WON'T be on BT. Also all of the Golden Boy/Top Rank stuff will be on BN.

The question remains which shows will appear on standard BT. If it's Frampton Santa Cruz and Saunders Eubank II then it's great for your general sports fan. However, if these fights are going to cost additional PPV money, it'll surely turn a lot off. Sky is way bigger than BT, so you have to encourage more over from that who surely aren't going to want to pay even more for a BN PPV.

Not sure Warren really has the fighters for this either.

Autobarn wrote:Me and my friends were gutted and didn't bother attending the fight that followed, vs the guy who didn't even make weight.


Lot of JW fans are hooligans or boxing ignorant.

His fans were a absolute shambles in Germany.
Smashing everything up.
Sauerlands weren't happy but the British fans in the crossfire were put elsewhere and the younger sauerland was very apologetic.
I explained I was Welsh and the thugs were English lol

dirk2686 wrote:Re BT/BN:

If you have BT, you are guaranteed 20 domestic BN shows per year. You don't need a BN subscription to watch these.

BN will broadcast an additional 10 domestic shows which WON'T be on BT. Also all of the Golden Boy/Top Rank stuff will be on BN.

The question remains which shows will appear on standard BT. If it's Frampton Santa Cruz and Saunders Eubank II then it's great for your general sports fan. However, if these fights are going to cost additional PPV money, it'll surely turn a lot off. Sky is way bigger than BT, so you have to encourage more over from that who surely aren't going to want to pay even more for a BN PPV.

Not sure Warren really has the fighters for this either.

My understand is that if you have the BT Sport Light - I think that's what it is called, where you only have BT Sports 1 - then you will get 20 domestic shows...... BUT if you get the full BT Sports package and currently NOT BN - then you will not only get the 20 domestic shows - BUT also BN the channel will be thrown in for free?? Otherwise why would Warren Jnr tell boxing fans who have full BT Sports to cancel BN???

I don't see any way that Josh Warrington can go any further.

With the encouragement of Eddie and Sky- his fights have been marketed as a jolly up for Leeds hooligans. As a result, he can't fight away from home in the UK as his away following would be too much hassle.

He needs to move up in class now- but when he finally loses- there's a real chance that his fans will tear the arena apart.

All the potential domestic match ups for him bring security nightmares. Imagine his lot in Cardiff or Belfast or the welcome away fans would get at a hyped up Elland Road fight.

He should either emigrate to New Zealand or retire.

stujones wrote:

dirk2686 wrote:Re BT/BN:

If you have BT, you are guaranteed 20 domestic BN shows per year. You don't need a BN subscription to watch these.

BN will broadcast an additional 10 domestic shows which WON'T be on BT. Also all of the Golden Boy/Top Rank stuff will be on BN.

The question remains which shows will appear on standard BT. If it's Frampton Santa Cruz and Saunders Eubank II then it's great for your general sports fan. However, if these fights are going to cost additional PPV money, it'll surely turn a lot off. Sky is way bigger than BT, so you have to encourage more over from that who surely aren't going to want to pay even more for a BN PPV.

Not sure Warren really has the fighters for this either.

My understand is that if you have the BT Sport Light - I think that's what it is called, where you only have BT Sports 1 - then you will get 20 domestic shows...... BUT if you get the full BT Sports package and currently NOT BN - then you will not only get the 20 domestic shows - BUT also BN the channel will be thrown in for free?? Otherwise why would Warren Jnr tell boxing fans who have full BT Sports to cancel BN???

It all depends really on what fights go on standard BT. We know they'll be domestic, but beyond that? Anyone's guess.

Another concern would be who Warren actually has fighting under his banner. The deal is with him as a promoter and not his fighters. Can anyone imagine Joshua v Fury, Haye v Fury or even Brook v Saunders being on any other platform other than Sky?

They wanted to use Warrington as an opponent for Selby, which was refused by the Warrington team.

Not sure how people still don't understand the deal.

- From 2017 BN will be available as part of the BT Sport channel pack for BT Sport customers
- FW will promote 30 shows a year, all of which will be live on BN, 20 will also be shown live on BT Sport
- BN will also show at least 30 international shows a year

Really isn't difficult to get.

Also for whoever said that Sky is way bigger than BT, it isn't. Not only is it not way bigger, it's not bigger at all, there's more BT Sport subscribers than Sky Sports subscribers.

expe wrote:Not sure how people still don't understand the deal.

- From 2017 BN will be available as part of the BT Sport channel pack for BT Sport customers
- FW will promote 30 shows a year, all of which will be live on BN, 20 will also be shown live on BT Sport
- BN will also show at least 30 international shows a year

Really isn't difficult to get.

Also for whoever said that Sky is way bigger than BT, it isn't. Not only is it not way bigger, it's not bigger at all, there's more BT Sport subscribers than Sky Sports subscribers.

It hasn't been explained well at all. I finally understand it having asked around and done my own research, but it's been very poorly communicated.

The primary confusion comes from BT essentially having a two-tier access system to its sports packages - non-BT subscribers (like myself) were unlikely to be aware that BT offer the 'Lite' version for customers who have its broadband, but also a full package which is what you'd have to subscribe to if you also wanted full BN access through BT.

Boxerbeetle wrote:

expe wrote:Not sure how people still don't understand the deal.

- From 2017 BN will be available as part of the BT Sport channel pack for BT Sport customers
- FW will promote 30 shows a year, all of which will be live on BN, 20 will also be shown live on BT Sport
- BN will also show at least 30 international shows a year

Really isn't difficult to get.

Also for whoever said that Sky is way bigger than BT, it isn't. Not only is it not way bigger, it's not bigger at all, there's more BT Sport subscribers than Sky Sports subscribers.

It hasn't been explained well at all. I finally understand it having asked around and done my own research, but it's been very poorly communicated.

The primary confusion comes from BT essentially having a two-tier access system to its sports packages - non-BT subscribers (like myself) were unlikely to be aware that BT offer the 'Lite' version for customers who have its broadband, but also a full package which is what you'd have to subscribe to if you also wanted full BN access through BT.

I can understand that initially but it's been a few weeks now, thought people would have had that answered by now. There's still people in this thread saying that they don't get it because BN are going to lose subscribers as everyone will get it for free through BT Sport instead. It's blindingly obvious that BN will be getting significant sums of money from BT in return for being part of the BT Sport channel pack, far and above what they are getting from subscribers currently.

expe wrote:I can understand that initially but it's been a few weeks now, thought people would have had that answered by now. There's still people in this thread saying that they don't get it because BN are going to lose subscribers as everyone will get it for free through BT Sport instead. It's blindingly obvious that BN will be getting significant sums of money from BT in return for being part of the BT Sport channel pack, far and above what they are getting from subscribers currently.

It's still a bit all over the shop. There was very little clarification as to what was meant by 20 fights being on BT and an additional 10 being on BN, but BN being part of the package.

I understand what BT are trying to do, but if you have Sky it's a costly move to add BT to your package, and there doesn't seem enough to draw people completely away. Ultimately to most BT looks a bit second rate; less Premier League games, Australian cricket rather than English cricket, nothing major in terms of tennis or golf, and lets face it, second-tire domestic boxing if you're a casual fan.

dirk2686 wrote:

expe wrote:I can understand that initially but it's been a few weeks now, thought people would have had that answered by now. There's still people in this thread saying that they don't get it because BN are going to lose subscribers as everyone will get it for free through BT Sport instead. It's blindingly obvious that BN will be getting significant sums of money from BT in return for being part of the BT Sport channel pack, far and above what they are getting from subscribers currently.

It's still a bit all over the shop. There was very little clarification as to what was meant by 20 fights being on BT and an additional 10 being on BN, but BN being part of the package.

I understand what BT are trying to do, but if you have Sky it's a costly move to add BT to your package, and there doesn't seem enough to draw people completely away. Ultimately to most BT looks a bit second rate; less Premier League games, Australian cricket rather than English cricket, nothing major in terms of tennis or golf, and lets face it, second-tire domestic boxing if you're a casual fan.

20 shows will be on BT Sport and BN, another 10 will be exclusive to BN, which will be part of the BT Sport channel pack. Nothing's all over the shop, it was clarified weeks ago.

Clearly they don't look second rate to most if they have more subscribers. Sky have 3x as many Prem games, BT have all the European football, they've got the domestic Rugby Union coverage, no one gives a shit about Tennis, Sky have the golf and domestic cricket for now. Sky are paying a ridiculous amount of money for the Premiership TV rights and BT are using that as an opportunity to pick them off sport by sport.

They haven't shown any boxing yet, so how can you call it second tier?

expe wrote:

dirk2686 wrote:

expe wrote:I can understand that initially but it's been a few weeks now, thought people would have had that answered by now. There's still people in this thread saying that they don't get it because BN are going to lose subscribers as everyone will get it for free through BT Sport instead. It's blindingly obvious that BN will be getting significant sums of money from BT in return for being part of the BT Sport channel pack, far and above what they are getting from subscribers currently.

It's still a bit all over the shop. There was very little clarification as to what was meant by 20 fights being on BT and an additional 10 being on BN, but BN being part of the package.

I understand what BT are trying to do, but if you have Sky it's a costly move to add BT to your package, and there doesn't seem enough to draw people completely away. Ultimately to most BT looks a bit second rate; less Premier League games, Australian cricket rather than English cricket, nothing major in terms of tennis or golf, and lets face it, second-tire domestic boxing if you're a casual fan.

20 shows will be on BT Sport and BN, another 10 will be exclusive to BN, which will be part of the BT Sport channel pack. Nothing's all over the shop, it was clarified weeks ago.

Clearly they don't look second rate to most if they have more subscribers. Sky have 3x as many Prem games, BT have all the European football, they've got the domestic Rugby Union coverage, no one gives a poo about Tennis, Sky have the golf and domestic cricket for now. Sky are paying a ridiculous amount of money for the Premiership TV rights and BT are using that as an opportunity to pick them off sport by sport.

They haven't shown any boxing yet, so how can you call it second tier?

Do BT Sports really have more subscribers than Sky Sports? Or is that including people who get a basic version free with their broadband and therefore don't actually pay for it?

Boxerbeetle wrote:

expe wrote:

dirk2686 wrote:
It's still a bit all over the shop. There was very little clarification as to what was meant by 20 fights being on BT and an additional 10 being on BN, but BN being part of the package.

I understand what BT are trying to do, but if you have Sky it's a costly move to add BT to your package, and there doesn't seem enough to draw people completely away. Ultimately to most BT looks a bit second rate; less Premier League games, Australian cricket rather than English cricket, nothing major in terms of tennis or golf, and lets face it, second-tire domestic boxing if you're a casual fan.

20 shows will be on BT Sport and BN, another 10 will be exclusive to BN, which will be part of the BT Sport channel pack. Nothing's all over the shop, it was clarified weeks ago.

Clearly they don't look second rate to most if they have more subscribers. Sky have 3x as many Prem games, BT have all the European football, they've got the domestic Rugby Union coverage, no one gives a poo about Tennis, Sky have the golf and domestic cricket for now. Sky are paying a ridiculous amount of money for the Premiership TV rights and BT are using that as an opportunity to pick them off sport by sport.

They haven't shown any boxing yet, so how can you call it second tier?

Do BT Sports really have more subscribers than Sky Sports? Or is that including people who get a basic version free with their broadband and therefore don't actually pay for it?

They had 5m last year, as per Chad. Sky had 6m a few years ago and Warren said in an IFL interview last week that they're now down to 4.5m. I don't know whether or not the BT figure includes the broadband customers, but if they've got the channel then they're going to at least get the 20 shows that are on BT Sport and they seem to have thrown a lot of money in Warren's direction, how much remains unclear but it's certainly far more than what they get from subscribers right now, while retaining most of the autonomy that they currently have. In the space of a week he appears to have signed Nurse, Galahad, Warrington and Lowe and I'm sure there'll be more to follow too.

expe wrote:20 shows will be on BT Sport and BN, another 10 will be exclusive to BN, which will be part of the BT Sport channel pack. Nothing's all over the shop, it was clarified weeks ago.

Clearly they don't look second rate to most if they have more subscribers. Sky have 3x as many Prem games, BT have all the European football, they've got the domestic Rugby Union coverage, no one gives a poo about Tennis, Sky have the golf and domestic cricket for now. Sky are paying a ridiculous amount of money for the Premiership TV rights and BT are using that as an opportunity to pick them off sport by sport.

They haven't shown any boxing yet, so how can you call it second tier?

That clarification still isn't that clear to be fair. There is a reason people are confused about it. What will the quality of the 20 shows? If I have BT do I get BN anyway? And therefore what's the difference between them being on one and not the other? Literally just a channel change? If they wanted it clear surely they would have said 'if you have BT Sport - you now have BN.' Easy!

Re. second rate, I think you're overstating the appeal of BT. Sky have a lot more football which is by some distance the biggest issue for most people. They have cricket bar the next middle of the night Ashes. Golf majors. Tennis Grand Slams, (which I'm sure you know a lot of people do give a poo about). F1. England rugby internationals. All the top-end stuff is on it. It's happened before; Setanta was a good channel for people who'll watch any old boxing and a bit of football but you don't pick Sky off with Moto GP and domestic Aussie cricket.

And as for the boxing, your casual fans want the likes of Joshua. They literally don't know who Flanagan is for example, and Saunders is a guy who fights in leisure centres.

Football fans need both channels. Most of my friends have a dodgy box so it's irrelevant. Darts and RL are big on Sky, UFC is massive on BT.

I forgot about UFC. I think it would cost me an extra 6 or 7 quid a month to get the full BT Sports pack with BN, might consider it.

People saying Kell Brook signing? Announced tomorrow.

mickey1975 wrote:People saying Kell Brook signing? Announced tomorrow.

Kell signing with Wazza?

dirk2686 wrote:

expe wrote:20 shows will be on BT Sport and BN, another 10 will be exclusive to BN, which will be part of the BT Sport channel pack. Nothing's all over the shop, it was clarified weeks ago.

Clearly they don't look second rate to most if they have more subscribers. Sky have 3x as many Prem games, BT have all the European football, they've got the domestic Rugby Union coverage, no one gives a poo about Tennis, Sky have the golf and domestic cricket for now. Sky are paying a ridiculous amount of money for the Premiership TV rights and BT are using that as an opportunity to pick them off sport by sport.

They haven't shown any boxing yet, so how can you call it second tier?

That clarification still isn't that clear to be fair. There is a reason people are confused about it. What will the quality of the 20 shows? If I have BT do I get BN anyway? And therefore what's the difference between them being on one and not the other? Literally just a channel change? If they wanted it clear surely they would have said 'if you have BT Sport - you now have BN.' Easy!

Re. second rate, I think you're overstating the appeal of BT. Sky have a lot more football which is by some distance the biggest issue for most people. They have cricket bar the next middle of the night Ashes. Golf majors. Tennis Grand Slams, (which I'm sure you know a lot of people do give a poo about). F1. England rugby internationals. All the top-end stuff is on it. It's happened before; Setanta was a good channel for people who'll watch any old boxing and a bit of football but you don't pick Sky off with Moto GP and domestic Aussie cricket.

And as for the boxing, your casual fans want the likes of Joshua. They literally don't know who Flanagan is for example, and Saunders is a guy who fights in leisure centres.

Some people are never happy. There's going to be loads more boxing on TV and you're being negative about it.