Page 4 of 6

Re: Piers Brosnan portraying Brendan Ingle

Posted: 12 Jan 2026, 07:56
by Coco
Controversial wrote: 12 Jan 2026, 07:33
Ruthless-RKO wrote: 12 Jan 2026, 07:26
Controversial wrote: 12 Jan 2026, 07:14

Yeah I just wondered if it was a proper contract that said he got 25%, I don’t remember there being a court case.
11 year old signing that contract? surely there would have been an adult present. I think it was just something he said verbal.
Yeah legally a minor can’t enter a legal contract without a parent or guardian, can’t imagine he had any kind of contract at that age but I would’ve thought he did when he turned pro. Maybe not though as no court case so kind of suggests even if there was one it probably couldn’t be enforced.
When you turn pro you have to have a manager, and have to sign the BBBoC contract.
It is 25%

Re: Piers Brosnan portraying Brendan Ingle

Posted: 12 Jan 2026, 08:14
by TheLeprechaun
Ruthless-RKO wrote: 12 Jan 2026, 07:25 Golovkin signed a six-fight, $100 million contract with DAZN.

He offered Sanchez a new training compensation schedule. Which he refused.

I mean at that point in Golovkin's career. Did Abel deserve a cut of $10m from that?

I believe Golovkin offered him around $330k per fight, so after the 6-fight deal, he'd have made around £2m.

A lot of big earners have personal negotiations with their trainers, no way they pay them 10%.
Can you imagine Sanchez expecting $25 million from that deal and then acting like a child if GGG refused to pay the $25 mill? It would be seen as completely ridiculous. I don't know why Brendan didn't get more stick from that and told that he was bang out of order.

Re: Piers Brosnan portraying Brendan Ingle

Posted: 12 Jan 2026, 08:25
by Controversial
Coco wrote: 12 Jan 2026, 07:56
Controversial wrote: 12 Jan 2026, 07:33
Ruthless-RKO wrote: 12 Jan 2026, 07:26

11 year old signing that contract? surely there would have been an adult present. I think it was just something he said verbal.
Yeah legally a minor can’t enter a legal contract without a parent or guardian, can’t imagine he had any kind of contract at that age but I would’ve thought he did when he turned pro. Maybe not though as no court case so kind of suggests even if there was one it probably couldn’t be enforced.
When you turn pro you have to have a manager, and have to sign the BBBoC contract.
It is 25%
FW was his manager wasn’t he? So did Ingle only want 25% when he started earning big money and was happy with whatever he was being paid up to then?

Re: Piers Brosnan portraying Brendan Ingle

Posted: 12 Jan 2026, 09:19
by Coco
Controversial wrote: 12 Jan 2026, 08:25
Coco wrote: 12 Jan 2026, 07:56
Controversial wrote: 12 Jan 2026, 07:33

Yeah legally a minor can’t enter a legal contract without a parent or guardian, can’t imagine he had any kind of contract at that age but I would’ve thought he did when he turned pro. Maybe not though as no court case so kind of suggests even if there was one it probably couldn’t be enforced.
When you turn pro you have to have a manager, and have to sign the BBBoC contract.
It is 25%
FW was his manager wasn’t he? So did Ingle only want 25% when he started earning big money and was happy with whatever he was being paid up to then?
FW didn't look after him until a touch later, he was with Hearns before that.
Promotors often don't take a cut, they make their money off the promotion.
I don't know when Ingle stopped officially managing him, and whether he still wanted 25% as a trainer or not

Re: Piers Brosnan portraying Brendan Ingle

Posted: 12 Jan 2026, 11:02
by Ruthless-RKO
When Carl Froch had to explain who he was to Pierce Brosnan

Former super middleweight world champion and current podcaster Carl Froch was among those invited to interview “Prince” Naseem Hamed last week. Growing up in Nottingham, UK, Froch was a huge Hamed fan, and hoped to learn a few bits at the Wincobank Gym on his journey through boxing that ultimately led to Canastota.

“He can’t believe [he made it into the Hall of Fame],” Hamed joked about Froch, who finished his career in 2014 by knocking out George Groves in front of a sold-out Wembley Stadium. “That’s why he's always talking about the Hall of Fame and talking about 80,000 people. He can’t believe it, the guy.”

I’d been speaking to Froch earlier and had told him to ask Hamed what the biggest live crowd he’d fought in front of was.

Naz was well-prepared. “80,000. Tell us another one, mate,” Hamed adds. “But hey, it's a compliment, though. That’s a compliment.”

It was while Froch and I were waiting for our interview slots when something funny occurred. I was in the hallway with Froch and we chatted. At that point, the undisputed star of the Giant cast, Pierce Brosnan, walked down the corridor towards us and extended his hand to myself and the “Cobra”. I was not due to do anything with Brosnan so gladly shook his hand and allowed him on his way. Froch, however, had other ideas.

He reached out and shook Brosnan’s hand. They actually squared up pretty well up against one another, looking at one another across a narrow corridor. Froch, who had told me he had seen Giant in an advanced screening the day before, praised Brosnan and said how much he enjoyed it. I thought that’s where “The Cobra” might leave it. However, Froch entered a slightly surreal fan-boy-realm and then proceeded to say, almost under his breath, “And I thought you were a brilliant Bond,” referring to Brosnan‘s stint as James Bond. Brosnan, though by now somewhat uncomfortable, accepted the praise.

“It’s all good, it’s all good,” he shyly nodded.

Froch was not done. He added, “I’m going to the premier tonight as well. I’m really excited to see [Giant] again.”

By now, I was feeling slightly awkward but thoroughly amused by what I was watching. Brosnan, plotting an escape, again sent his hand my way to say goodbye and motioned to do the same to Froch.

“I’m Piers,” he said.

“Who are you?” he asked Froch.

In fairness, the former world super middleweight champion swallowed it like a Mikkel Kessler right hand, and then rolled back with, “I’m Carl Froch, four-time world champion, International Boxing Hall of Famer and I sold out Wembley Stadium.”

“Oh, that’s very good,” Brosnan replied.

Brosnan made his exit and Froch turned to me and said, “You should’ve been recording that. That would’ve done millions of views.”

Yes, Carl, it would. Yes, it bloody would.

I didn’t record it.

Re: Piers Brosnan portraying Brendan Ingle

Posted: 12 Jan 2026, 11:27
by Coco
I'm surprised Brosnan hadn't heard about 80k at Wembley

Re: Piers Brosnan portraying Brendan Ingle

Posted: 12 Jan 2026, 14:22
by Ruthless-RKO
Coco wrote: 12 Jan 2026, 11:27 I'm surprised Brosnan hadn't heard about 80k at Wembley
Even my mums cat has heard of that..

Re: Piers Brosnan portraying Brendan Ingle

Posted: 12 Jan 2026, 14:46
by Frostieballs
Ruthless-RKO wrote: 12 Jan 2026, 07:26
Controversial wrote: 12 Jan 2026, 07:14
Frostieballs wrote: 12 Jan 2026, 07:00

Even if there was a formal contract, it would come up for renewal at some point and the disagreement would occur then.
Yeah I just wondered if it was a proper contract that said he got 25%, I don’t remember there being a court case.
11 year old signing that contract? surely there would have been an adult present. I think it was just something he said verbal.
I think controversial meant a contract probably signed later in his career.

Re: Piers Brosnan portraying Brendan Ingle

Posted: 12 Jan 2026, 16:22
by TheLeprechaun
Didn't know Brendan fell out with Bomber Graham too. I suspect it was the same reasons?

Re: Piers Brosnan portraying Brendan Ingle

Posted: 12 Jan 2026, 17:47
by Coco
TheLeprechaun wrote: 12 Jan 2026, 16:22 Didn't know Brendan fell out with Bomber Graham too. I suspect it was the same reasons?
It's always money, but then it is hardly only Ingle that this has happened to.

Trainers/ managers lose money on fighters below British title level unless they are journeymen.

And then when more money is generated fighters don't want to pay.

Re: Piers Brosnan portraying Brendan Ingle

Posted: 13 Jan 2026, 13:10
by Ruthless-RKO

Re: Piers Brosnan portraying Brendan Ingle

Posted: 13 Jan 2026, 13:21
by Nightmare Roy
Coco wrote: 12 Jan 2026, 17:47
TheLeprechaun wrote: 12 Jan 2026, 16:22 Didn't know Brendan fell out with Bomber Graham too. I suspect it was the same reasons?
It's always money, but then it is hardly only Ingle that this has happened to.

Trainers/ managers lose money on fighters below British title level unless they are journeymen.

And then when more money is generated fighters don't want to pay.
If you earn £4,000 paying out a grand doesn't seem much, when it's £10,000,000 I'm guessing £2.5m seems excessive.

Re: Piers Brosnan portraying Brendan Ingle

Posted: 13 Jan 2026, 13:23
by TheLeprechaun
Nightmare Roy wrote: 13 Jan 2026, 13:21
Coco wrote: 12 Jan 2026, 17:47
TheLeprechaun wrote: 12 Jan 2026, 16:22 Didn't know Brendan fell out with Bomber Graham too. I suspect it was the same reasons?
It's always money, but then it is hardly only Ingle that this has happened to.

Trainers/ managers lose money on fighters below British title level unless they are journeymen.

And then when more money is generated fighters don't want to pay.
If you earn £4,000 paying out a grand doesn't seem much, when it's £10,000,000 I'm guessing £2.5m seems excessive.
The Ingle fanboys/hangers on will always defend it instead of pulling Brendan up for acting like a child over it.

Re: Piers Brosnan portraying Brendan Ingle

Posted: 13 Jan 2026, 13:28
by Boxerbeetle
TheLeprechaun wrote: 13 Jan 2026, 13:23
Nightmare Roy wrote: 13 Jan 2026, 13:21
Coco wrote: 12 Jan 2026, 17:47

It's always money, but then it is hardly only Ingle that this has happened to.

Trainers/ managers lose money on fighters below British title level unless they are journeymen.

And then when more money is generated fighters don't want to pay.
If you earn £4,000 paying out a grand doesn't seem much, when it's £10,000,000 I'm guessing £2.5m seems excessive.
The Ingle fanboys/hangers on will always defend it instead of pulling Brendan up for acting like a child over it.
Plus when you’re starting out, you’ll need a lot more help and need the benefit of their experience, so 25% is probably fair. But when you’ve reached world level, surely that diminishes a great deal since you’ve been there / done that yourself now, 25% is way too much to justify then.

Re: Piers Brosnan portraying Brendan Ingle

Posted: 13 Jan 2026, 14:30
by veriton
It's all a bit feudal. Imagine if a kid's football coach demanded 25% of a player's wages even when he got in the Premier League.

Re: Piers Brosnan portraying Brendan Ingle

Posted: 13 Jan 2026, 14:41
by Nightmare Roy
I think this is pretty standard once fighters start earning silly .money, GGG offered Sanchez a new deal when he started earning £30m plus a fight, he wouldn't accept so he got a new trainer.

Re: Piers Brosnan portraying Brendan Ingle

Posted: 13 Jan 2026, 16:42
by coneye
Forget the 11 year old bollocks . Kids dont turn pro at 11 and kids dont do contracts .. However trainers who on the weekend spend there hard earned money to drive kids 100 miles to a show spend 4 maybee 5 nights a week for free ,do say things like when your world champ mate i want paying for this . Its throw away lines.

If lads are half decent and want to talk about turning pro ,the talk will always turn to i manage and train you its 25% because thats standard . I do think its probably not gonna end to well when you expect 25% of millions

But from what i read into it money was the excuse not the reason . I.m sure they knew each other well enough to sort out the money. Im thinking it was closer to hme the disrespect Brendon felt ,when the brother got involved

Re: Piers Brosnan portraying Brendan Ingle

Posted: 13 Jan 2026, 16:50
by Controversial
coneye wrote: 13 Jan 2026, 16:42 Forget the 11 year old bollocks . Kids dont turn pro at 11 and kids dont do contracts .. However trainers who on the weekend spend there hard earned money to drive kids 100 miles to a show spend 4 maybee 5 nights a week for free ,do say things like when your world champ mate i want paying for this . Its throw away lines.

If lads are half decent and want to talk about turning pro ,the talk will always turn to i manage and train you its 25% because thats standard . I do think its probably not gonna end to well when you expect 25% of millions

But from what i read into it money was the excuse not the reason . I.m sure they knew each other well enough to sort out the money. Im thinking it was closer to hme the disrespect Brendon felt ,when the brother got involved
Yeah I agree, Nas wasn’t liked and was the money mad one. I think Ingle didn’t appreciate being side lined and treated like he had nothing to do with Nas having success. The money was probably a further kick in the teeth but I don’t think that was the main issue.

Re: Piers Brosnan portraying Brendan Ingle

Posted: 13 Jan 2026, 17:31
by Steveh583
Not defending Naz but just playing devils advocate cos I'm a contrary bugger. you cant hold a grown man to an agreement they made at 11 years old. surely its standard to renegotiate when the millions start to roll in? Also, and this will piss people off a bit....Brendan clearly saw a golden goose. yes he "gave his time for free" to loads of kids, but he wasnt taking them for long walks, or giving them access to the pro game or extra training. One could easily argue he had a vested interest in Naz turning over. Furthermore, Johnny nelson has had a lot to say about loyalty....well I remember Naz insisting he fight on his big card when Johnny was basically a boxing pariah and couldnt draw flies.

Im not sure I actually believe any of that, but Im sure its a nuanced situation.

Re: Piers Brosnan portraying Brendan Ingle

Posted: 13 Jan 2026, 17:32
by Steveh583
TheLeprechaun wrote: 12 Jan 2026, 16:22 Didn't know Brendan fell out with Bomber Graham too. I suspect it was the same reasons?
he was planning to hit herol over the head with an iron bar when he returned to his corner after sparring. seriously. its in the criminally underrated book "On The Ropes".

Re: Piers Brosnan portraying Brendan Ingle

Posted: 13 Jan 2026, 18:23
by Coco
Steveh583 wrote: 13 Jan 2026, 17:31 Not defending Naz but just playing devils advocate cos I'm a contrary bugger. you cant hold a grown man to an agreement they made at 11 years old. surely its standard to renegotiate when the millions start to roll in? Also, and this will piss people off a bit....Brendan clearly saw a golden goose. yes he "gave his time for free" to loads of kids, but he wasnt taking them for long walks, or giving them access to the pro game or extra training. One could easily argue he had a vested interest in Naz turning over. Furthermore, Johnny nelson has had a lot to say about loyalty....well I remember Naz insisting he fight on his big card when Johnny was basically a boxing pariah and couldnt draw flies.

Im not sure I actually believe any of that, but Im sure its a nuanced situation.
The agreement would have been made when he turned pro.

Now I don't know what was agreed when he was champ.

Was he paying a 10% trainers fee, it was John who was training him.

A 25% managers fee?

Or both, at 35%?

I know lower level fighters had told me it was 25% to Brendan, and 10% to John/ Dom

So if their purse was 1k, 250 and 100 quid was taken straight out.

Re: Piers Brosnan portraying Brendan Ingle

Posted: 13 Jan 2026, 20:10
by Frostieballs
coneye wrote: 13 Jan 2026, 16:42 Forget the 11 year old bollocks . Kids dont turn pro at 11 and kids dont do contracts .. However trainers who on the weekend spend there hard earned money to drive kids 100 miles to a show spend 4 maybee 5 nights a week for free ,do say things like when your world champ mate i want paying for this . Its throw away lines.

If lads are half decent and want to talk about turning pro ,the talk will always turn to i manage and train you its 25% because thats standard . I do think its probably not gonna end to well when you expect 25% of millions

But from what i read into it money was the excuse not the reason . I.m sure they knew each other well enough to sort out the money. Im thinking it was closer to hme the disrespect Brendon felt ,when the brother got involved
This sounds about right.

It wasn’t really about money - but the money issue compounded what Brendan saw as contempt/disloyalty.

Re: Piers Brosnan portraying Brendan Ingle

Posted: 13 Jan 2026, 21:35
by jimb0d
I think Brendan deserved the 25%. Is it weird to have that conversation at 11? It's weird to have it with the talent rather than their representatives but it was a different time and also accelerated the development of all these fighters. It's no coincidence the Ingle sons are more cynical and better business wise.

Naz knows deep down staying with Brendan was the best spiritual and sporting move but everything has a price.

Re: Piers Brosnan portraying Brendan Ingle

Posted: 13 Jan 2026, 22:06
by Coco
But who is to say that conversation ever took place?

Re: Piers Brosnan portraying Brendan Ingle

Posted: 14 Jan 2026, 01:19
by TheLeprechaun
I think Brendan would deserve the upper end of what a trainer should get but 25% is far too much when you are into the millions. I doubt Brendan would budge on that 25% and I think he's wrong but I agree with the poster who said that the brother and other hangers on and yes men would have became pretty annoying to deal with. But trainers who have been there from Day 1 should be respected.

Saying that, I thought Manny Steward gave him excellent advice in the corner in the round before he KO'd Ingle by telling him to shoot the left straight down the middle. He came out, did that and got the KO. I think Naz was far too defensively porous to beat the Barreras or Morales anyway. Keep in mind Morales was as close to impossible to knock out in his prime as you can get.

Johnny Nelson may come across authentic to others but I have always got a sleaze ball vibe off him so I take what he says with several grains of salt.