Page 1 of 1

Mitchell v Ormond is off

Posted: 05 Jan 2012, 11:24
by Grays_Dan
Apparently Mitchell v Ormond is off as Ormond has pulled out. Anthony Crolla couldn't agree terms for Burns.

Mitchell v Crolla would be very nice

Re: Mitchell v Ormond is off

Posted: 05 Jan 2012, 11:33
by earsjohn
Grays_Dan wrote:Apparently Mitchell v Ormond is off as Ormond has pulled out. Anthony Crolla couldn't agree terms for Burns.

Mitchell v Crolla would be very nice
Can't say its a fight I'm going to miss (Mitchell v Ormond). Difficult to see how they'll get Crolla for Mitchell if there wasn't enough money on the table for Crolla v Burns.

Re: Mitchell v Ormond is off

Posted: 05 Jan 2012, 11:54
by leforge
earsjohn wrote:
Grays_Dan wrote:Apparently Mitchell v Ormond is off as Ormond has pulled out. Anthony Crolla couldn't agree terms for Burns.

Mitchell v Crolla would be very nice
Can't say its a fight I'm going to miss (Mitchell v Ormond). Difficult to see how they'll get Crolla for Mitchell if there wasn't enough money on the table for Crolla v Burns.
Do any of the bills hold it.

Re: Mitchell v Ormond is off

Posted: 05 Jan 2012, 16:21
by pyenest77
I know it is nature of the beast with boxing that there are pull outs, but these bills on the allegedly channel dont seem to EVER stay together!!!

Re: Mitchell v Ormond is off

Posted: 05 Jan 2012, 21:34
by iamasadlittleboy
When was the last time we had an FW card "as advertised"? Have we actually had one since they went pay? (I'm not counting Selby v Simpson as that was advertised on Sky)

Re: Mitchell v Ormond is off

Posted: 06 Jan 2012, 04:46
by DavidPayne
Come on guys this has been happening since Robin Hood was in borstal.

Advertise a mega card. Put on a mediocre card. This happens a lot, then one card holds just to keep the faith.

Re: Mitchell v Ormond is off

Posted: 06 Jan 2012, 07:07
by gobbles
iamasadlittleboy wrote:When was the last time we had an FW card "as advertised"? Have we actually had one since they went pay? (I'm not counting Selby v Simpson as that was advertised on Sky)

Burns v Katsidis?
Cleverly v Bellew?

Last two big shows then

Re: Mitchell v Ormond is off

Posted: 06 Jan 2012, 07:16
by earsjohn
gobbles wrote:
iamasadlittleboy wrote:When was the last time we had an FW card "as advertised"? Have we actually had one since they went pay? (I'm not counting Selby v Simpson as that was advertised on Sky)

Burns v Katsidis?
Cleverly v Bellew?

Last two big shows then
Burns v Katsidis was originally to have Chisora v Olubamiwo on the undercard - neither were on.

Re: Mitchell v Ormond is off

Posted: 06 Jan 2012, 08:43
by bripez
Grays_Dan wrote:Apparently Mitchell v Ormond is off as Ormond has pulled out.
Thanks for the tip off mate - I was just about to subscribe to BN to watch this.

I think I will save my money now !! ....... :lol:

Re: Mitchell v Ormond is off

Posted: 06 Jan 2012, 17:06
by iamasadlittleboy
earsjohn wrote:
gobbles wrote:
iamasadlittleboy wrote:When was the last time we had an FW card "as advertised"? Have we actually had one since they went pay? (I'm not counting Selby v Simpson as that was advertised on Sky)

Burns v Katsidis?
Cleverly v Bellew?

Last two big shows then
Burns v Katsidis was originally to have Chisora v Olubamiwo on the undercard - neither were on.
So...October 15th?...3 months ago? O_o

Re: Mitchell v Ormond is off

Posted: 06 Jan 2012, 17:08
by leforge
I offered Dean Powell my fighter TBC he fed up with TBA getting the fight!

Re: Mitchell v Ormond is off

Posted: 08 Jan 2012, 22:45
by aanices
I was just about to subscribe to BN to watch this.

Image