BoxRec

In light of Frank beating Ricky to the purse bids for Crolla v Limmond, does this show that Frank needs to win a majority of purse bids for his fighters to ensure his fights get shown on allegedly and not sky?

If he loses a few purse bids, will this make it harder for allegedly to be successful?

Thoughts?

Josh1111 wrote:In light of Frank beating Ricky to the purse bids for Crolla v Limmond, does this show that Frank needs to win a majority of purse bids for his fighters to ensure his fights get shown on allegedly and not sky?

If he loses a few purse bids, will this make it harder for allegedly to be successful?

Thoughts?

I think it is going to be interesting. FW cannot afford any of his fighters to be fighting on other promoters cards or Sky, he needs to keep up the level of shows on allegedly and therefore needs as many title fights as possible to do that.

I think it shows he is going to bidding for fights where he promotes no one.

gobbles wrote:I think it shows he is going to bidding for fights where he promotes no one.

Is Limmond not a FW fighter? I think this could be his downfall.

Like Steve said, FW cant afford to lose any purse bids now or allegedly loses fights

does anyone know what the actual purse bids made were?

slapbangwhallop wrote:does anyone know what the actual purse bids made were?

I'm not sure, just mentioned that FW beat Hatton. And on past bids, Hatton tends to try his best to get his fighters home advantage

Josh1111 wrote:

gobbles wrote:I think it shows he is going to bidding for fights where he promotes no one.

Is Limmond not a FW fighter? I think this could be his downfall.

Like Steve said, FW cant afford to lose any purse bids now or allegedly loses fights

Or will we see more FW fighters fighting each other and keep it all in house?

stevek3lly wrote:

Josh1111 wrote:

gobbles wrote:I think it shows he is going to bidding for fights where he promotes no one.

Is Limmond not a FW fighter? I think this could be his downfall.

Like Steve said, FW cant afford to lose any purse bids now or allegedly loses fights

Or will we see more FW fighters fighting each other and keep it all in house?

Does he have enough fighters per weight division for that?

He could slowly avoid the domestic scene and have his fighters fight for more interim titles or intercontinental titles?

The same applies to all the other Promotors to be fair.
They're not going to want their lads on allegedly with a Sky contract to fulfill - and with the chance of extra dates now Mr Warren has moved on.
Could be good for the fighters - upward inflation may hit purse bids leading to more cash in the fighter's pockets.

twenty six wrote:The same applies to all the other Promotors to be fair.
They're not going to want their lads on allegedly with a Sky contract to fulfill - and with the chance of extra dates now Mr Warren has moved on.
Could be good for the fighters - upward inflation may hit purse bids leading to more cash in the fighter's pockets.

You never know, the other 3 main promoters might get their heads together and put a plan in place to stop Warren winning purse bids.

What happened when FW was recently beaten in the purse bids for Barker v Macklin?

Fight never happened.

Could the same happen on occasions like Crolla v Limond?

Look for purse bids to get higher from now on whenever it's a Warren fighter going up against a fighter from another stable.
Matchroom, Maloney and Hatton can afford to lose to each other because the fight still stays on Sky.

But a purse bid loss for FW is not only another promotor getting it, but also his channel losing it.
FW can't really afford to lose any big fights from now on.

Mr McNeily makes a good point.
Securing a purse bid does not guarentee a fight takes place.

twenty six wrote:Mr McNeily makes a good point.
Securing a purse bid does not guarentee a fight takes place.

Yea it is a good point. I do think this new channel will maybe change the way the bidding is carried out over the next 12 months

twenty six wrote:Mr McNeily makes a good point.
Securing a purse bid does not guarentee a fight takes place.

Or guarantee the purse bid winner puts the show on. As we saw with coldwell + haye' if this bidding lark gets out of hand' and people over stretch' Then does the boxer get paid' or does the company go tits up. Be good if the boxers get loads of cash out of promoters wars' the bbbc should should take a 10% deposit lodged with the bid' this would stop games' and could be used to pay the boxer and others who are messed about in the case of default.

hoot wrote:

twenty six wrote:Mr McNeily makes a good point.
Securing a purse bid does not guarentee a fight takes place.

Or guarantee the purse bid winner puts the show on. As we saw with coldwell + haye' if this bidding lark gets out of hand' and people over stretch' Then does the boxer get paid' or does the company go tits up. Be good if the boxers get loads of cash out of promoters wars' the bbbc should should take a 10% deposit lodged with the bid' this would stop games' and could be used to pay the boxer and others who are messed about in the case of default.

They do take 10 per cent