BoxRec

In today's Sun:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... -shot.html

Some 'highlights' for me including:
He believes today's fighters are far fitter than their predecessors
He rightly scolds the BBC for neglecting boxing
He shows a touch of class in naming Calzaghe the greatest fighter he's ever promoted

But can't agree with him on this one:

CH: In your three decades has there been a golden era?
FW: From the moment I signed my deal with Sky in 1995. That's when the likes of Hatton and Calzaghe emerged and became household names.

I have to say that the Sky deal had largely the opposite effect - Calzaghe, Hatton and others would have been household names far quicker if they'd been on terrestrial TV.

Interesting that he lost so much money on his first venture as well - it's hard to begrudge him his success as a businessman given what he's been through and what he's achieved... just wish he didn't show such contempt for his paying customers at times.

MachoMan09 wrote:He probably felt obliged to laud his relationship with SKY, in that paper. Whatever people may think of the fellow, he has had a hugely significant, largely positive influence on British boxing.

Oh, I've no doubt of that - just didn't expect it to be quite so brazen. And also agree with your latter statement when judged in the context of his peers.

The Golden Era he referred to meant Hamed, Benn, Collins, Eubank, Lewis and Bruno all at the top. The deal enabled the likes of Calzaghe and Hatton to be developed. You will recall that ITV only usually showed the main event and therefore building and getting exposure for up and comers was proving difficult, if not impossible.

The Sky deal and the extra air time, porfiling and money enabled a conveyer belt of British talent to to come through. This would not have happened on ITV and the undercard were rarely shown.

I think a bit of editing has missed this point as Hatton didn't turn pro until 97 and Calzaghe was a Duff fighter and struggling to get on TV unless it was on either Warren or Maloney undercards if you recall.

The Sky deal moved British Boxing to a new level and fighters became very rich as a result.

boxingchat wrote:The Golden Era he referred to meant Hamed, Benn, Collins, Eubank, Lewis and Bruno all at the top. The deal enabled the likes of Calzaghe and Hatton to be developed. You will recall that ITV only usually showed the main event and therefore building and getting exposure for up and comers was proving difficult, if not impossible.

The Sky deal and the extra air time, porfiling and money enabled a conveyer belt of British talent to to come through. This would not have happened on ITV and the undercard were rarely shown.

I think a bit of editing has missed this point as Hatton didn't turn pro until 97 and Calzaghe was a Duff fighter and struggling to get on TV unless it was on either Warren or Maloney undercards if you recall.

The Sky deal moved British Boxing to a new level and fighters became very rich as a result.

I think for the reasons you mentioned (undercard fights etc) its made MORE fighters wealthy, but I think there could have been more mega wealthy stars.

Back in the day pre Sky, I would say the biggest names were more famous and richer (possibly through endorsements etc) but now we have more of an even playing field when it comes to those who nobody, other than those who could attend fights live, would have heard of "back in the day".

For example, I'm not sure how many people would even be able to recognise Chris Edwards if he was boxing in the early 90's.

MachoMan09 wrote:He probably felt obliged to laud his relationship with SKY, in that paper. Whatever people may think of the fellow, he has had a hugely significant, largely positive influence on British boxing.

Yep he comes across well in this. W arren is a bit of a tough one to call, he comes across as a good bloke in person. Its just occasionally what he does, and what he writes that puts me off. Can't really work him out. Undeniably though he has been instrumental to British boxing for years.

been the best british promoter.

struggling at the minute though.

needs a new star.

Warren's a true business man in every sense of the word. He will do whatever it takes to keep on the good side of the people that is making him money, ie Sky and will even become friends of old enemies if it means making a profit and fair play to him.

I don't doubt that he doesn't love the sport and how good he's been for British boxing especially for boxers who would not of made the limelight in a different era but at the same time I believe that he always knew that he could make decent money out of boxing even if his first 1 or 2 shows were not profitable. After all it's about building a reputation and then reputation makes yoou the serious cash.

Defining what the golden era is/was is hard to judge as I think it can be judged on many different things. The early to mid 90's was great if you were a big name but not great if you were out of that scene. At the moment there's far more opportunities to have your day in the limelight and I've got to agree Frank has a better stable of boxers now than he had 10 - 15 years ago.(depth wise)

How on earth could he afford to lose that much money on his first show?!

Where was all his money coming from not his solicitors job!

No mention of Tyson then?

MachoMan09 wrote:

F. Warren wrote:I'll always remember film star Minnie Driver asking to see the Lennox Lewis-Franz Botha fight. Some clown in my office gave her two tickets up in the gods. I told him that's Minnie Driver, not a minicab driver. She ended up sharing my seats at ringside.

Boxingchat!?

He may come across well and it's unarguable that he has done a lot of good for a lot of boxers but the whoel Calzaghe situation will always leave a bad taste for me.

MachoMan09 wrote:

earsjohn wrote:He may come across well and it's unarguable that he has done a lot of good for a lot of boxers but the whoel Calzaghe situation will always leave a bad taste for me.

Which situation?

i think he means spunks waxworks becoming no more and mr barren forming his own company as a result.

MachoMan09 wrote:

earsjohn wrote:He may come across well and it's unarguable that he has done a lot of good for a lot of boxers but the whoel Calzaghe situation will always leave a bad taste for me.

Which situation?

A court ruled that Warren owed JC £1.8 million, so Warren put Sports Network into administration to avoid paying him, then carried on as normal under 'allegedly Promotions'. Absolute pudendum.

MachoMan09 wrote:

WestEndRiot wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote: Which situation?

A court ruled that Warren owed JC £1.8 million, so Warren put Sports Network into administration to avoid paying him, then carried on as normal under 'allegedly Promotions'. Absolute pudendum.

Oh, that situation. The court did not rule that Warren owed Joe anything; that's the crucial point that people miss. They ruled against Sports Network. If Sports Network Ltd didn't have the money, where do you people think it should've come from? You can't expect one of the directors to dip into his personal wealth, that's not how business works. I feel for Joe but if the money wasn't there, it wasn't there.

Macho, I expect better of you Just because it's how some businesses operate doesn't mean it's ethical.

Its really ironic how he mentions TV companies... what he did do Calzaghe was low, but IMO (and relating) the thing with Setanta was even lower....

Off course Setanta folding in the UK had nothing to do with the boxing, however, they seemed to actually have the "right idea" when it came to promoting the sport. Sky's improvements this season are still not a patch on Setanta... yet he wormed out of that contract through sheer pettiness.

I know I've probably stated the most libelous thing here with the above post, just be carefull though.

MachoMan09 wrote:Oh, that situation. The court did not rule that Warren owed Joe anything; that's the crucial point that people miss. They ruled against Sports Network. If Sports Network Ltd didn't have the money, where do you people think it should've come from? You can't expect one of the directors to dip into his personal wealth, that's not how business works. I feel for Joe but if the money wasn't there, it wasn't there.

Macho, I expect better of you Just because it's how some businesses operate doesn't mean it's ethical.[/quote]

Maybe not but as I wrote on this subject a few months ago, I personally wound a business up because I was let down and opted to pay my blokes out of my own pocket rather than leave them without. It skinted me and I regret it. The blokes all went off to pastures new, had enough money to pay for their mortgage or latest whoring trip or whatever, but I didn't really get any thanks for it and, as I said, it left me potless. Ethical perhaps, stupid definitely.[/quote]
With the greatest respect, that's not a like-for-like comparison in that your motives for winding your business up were rather different. If a boxer has effectively risked his life in the ring and made you a lot of money in the process, you should at least honour your side of it.

I don't have any time for any promoter.

I don't rate anyone who makes money off of other peoples talent and commitment. Lets not kid ourselves these chaps are in it for anything other than their financial gain.

I hate the fact that Boxing has kidded itself that it needs promoters. Get rid of these leeches and form a proper association. Won't happen in a million years I know but would be fantastic to see.

yiddo14 wrote:I don't have any time for any promoter.

I don't rate anyone who makes money off of other peoples talent and commitment. Lets not kid ourselves these chaps are in it for anything other than their financial gain.

I hate the fact that Boxing has kidded itself that it needs promoters. Get rid of these leeches and form a proper association. Won't happen in a million years I know but would be fantastic to see.

You mean like a 'Fifa' style association with proper rankings, with divisions for fighters to climb up and out of to get to the top? Only the toughest would survive, and boxing would be great for it. Forget the '0' and make boxing a competitive sport again.

yiddo14 wrote:I don't have any time for any promoter.

I don't rate anyone who makes money off of other peoples talent and commitment. Lets not kid ourselves these chaps are in it for anything other than their financial gain.

I hate the fact that Boxing has kidded itself that it needs promoters. Get rid of these leeches and form a proper association. Won't happen in a million years I know but would be fantastic to see.

It should be known mate that frank and his team work very long and very hard hours too mate, he takes big gambles and they don't always pay off either. The guy has single handidly kept boxing alive in this country cos without Hatton and calzaghe the sport would have died in that period it really would have. People will say I'm biased but British boxing is better off because it has Frank and his team...IMHO

BUT, Bomber, at the end of the day he is there to make himself money. No other reason.

The sport would not have died at all IMO. Hatton and Calzaghe didn't make it because of him. They made it because of THEM. They put the hours in and honed their natural talent. Those two would have always reached the top level. ANother misconception is that promoters have too many believe that they get them where they are etc.

Yes Carl, similar to FIFA(but without the corruption! Although to be fair to FIFA, they look like nuns compared to their Boxing counterparts)
Proper rankings, mandatory fights to improve rankings, better protection for fighters etc.

Right now, who's shows do we look forward too most? .........FW.


The Calzaghe episode was very sad for British boxing, and left a bad taste. Bomber, put yourself in Calzaghe's position, think of all those hours, years even, to get that kind of pay-day.....and then not being paid. That is my only beef with Warren. He is by far the best promoter in the UK.

carlbcfc wrote:Right now, who's shows do we look forward too most? .........FW.

Clearly people anticipate Haye and Khan fighting more than any Warren fighter (currently).

Edit: Add Froch to that list.

Warren has to put on competitive matches from here on in just to stay relevant.

MachoMan09 wrote:Yiddo, of course Frank is trying to make money for himself, what's wrong with that? For him to succeed, he has to put on shows that the public buy in to. The fact he's been rolling for 30 years tells you he must be doing something right.

It's easy to hate on people for trying to make a bit of money but think how many people he's employed over the years, how many people he has brought from buttons to gold and the great nights of entertainment we've had as a result.

How on earth would a boxing show happen without promoters?

I agree with all of that, but it shouldn't negate the other less savoury aspects - the mismatches, the appalling customer service, the bizarrely thin-skinned attitude towards any kind of criticism, even when it's constructive etc.
I think what Yiddo is getting at is that Frank will always talk about making boxer x and boxer y lots of money as if it's a purely altruistic gesture on his part, so it's easy for people to gloss over the face that the more money boxer x and boxer y make, the more he ends up with as an individual (hence the vested interest in mismatches/weak opponents etc when he's got a 'cash cow' on his hands).
Where I disagree with Yiddo is that Frank and his team are clearly supremely skilled at moving a fighter in a manner that maximises their earning potential - I don't believe that Hatton would necessarily have reached the top level without him and I certainly don't think his career would have been as prolonged and successful. For me, it was a great example of how it can work for both parties from a business perspective - Frank got a raw commodity with sufficient talent and 'man in the street' appeal and in return he was able to match and market that commodity better than any other promoter could have done. The result? Both parties made a lot of money out of the arrangement.

^^^ excellent post

MachoMan09 wrote:

Deserter wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:
Oh, that situation. The court did not rule that Warren owed Joe anything; that's the crucial point that people miss. They ruled against Sports Network. If Sports Network Ltd didn't have the money, where do you people think it should've come from? You can't expect one of the directors to dip into his personal wealth, that's not how business works. I feel for Joe but if the money wasn't there, it wasn't there.

Macho, I expect better of you Just because it's how some businesses operate doesn't mean it's ethical.

Maybe not but as I wrote on this subject a few months ago, I personally wound a business up because I was let down and opted to pay my blokes out of my own pocket rather than leave them without. It skinted me and I regret it. The blokes all went off to pastures new, had enough money to pay for their mortgage or latest whoring trip or whatever, but I didn't really get any thanks for it and, as I said, it left me potless. Ethical perhaps, stupid definitely.

With respect it does not sound analogous at all. Did the business you wound up have a huge range of assets in the form of world leading products which you transferred to another company overnight and continued to make profits off?

As far as Warren is concerned, there seems little doubt that millions came into his then company for the Hopkins fight. Where that money then went is the mystery.......

I'm not going to comment on the morality of that situation. The legality is I believe still being investigated.

But I have nothing positive to say about Warren.