Page 1 of 6

Froch-Taylor still not signed

Posted: 17 Feb 2009, 09:59
by nobby_nobbins
There must be a serious problem with this. We were told it would be done in 48 hours about a week ago and have heard nothing since.

Re: Froch-Taylor still not signed

Posted: 17 Feb 2009, 10:13
by jameswilson
Actually I heard in an interview with the bbc that they were sorting out a venue and date out before announcing.

Re: Froch-Taylor still not signed

Posted: 17 Feb 2009, 10:46
by nobby_nobbins
jameswilson wrote:Actually I heard in an interview with the bbc that they were sorting out a venue and date out before announcing.
Thanks James - that's good to hear :D

Re: Froch-Taylor still not signed

Posted: 17 Feb 2009, 11:24
by twenty six
Believe it when I see it.

Re: Froch-Taylor still not signed

Posted: 17 Feb 2009, 12:03
by Twinkle Toes
I read that Meaty Mick is trying to pimp it out to Sky box office or Setanta - Not sure if that is a hold up, but it could be.

Re: Froch-Taylor still not signed

Posted: 17 Feb 2009, 12:06
by gobbles
Twinkle Toes wrote:I read that Meaty Mick is trying to pimp it out to Sky box office or Setanta - Not sure if that is a hold up, but it could be.
Box office would be tricky because of Khan in March and Hatton on May 2. That would be 3 in 7 weeks. Can't see them doing another pay-per-view right in front of Hatton.

Re: Froch-Taylor still not signed

Posted: 17 Feb 2009, 14:28
by nobby_nobbins
I shouldn't really be optimistic. If there's no venue and no date then there's no fight.

Re: Froch-Taylor still not signed

Posted: 17 Feb 2009, 15:18
by Abbo
The only thing that sounds right about this is that ShoBox do have it listed for late April on their schedule.

Re: Froch-Taylor still not signed

Posted: 17 Feb 2009, 15:26
by Spud
Twinkle Toes wrote:I read that Meaty Mick is trying to pimp it out to Sky box office or Setanta - Not sure if that is a hold up, but it could be.
Heard that too - ITV are certainly not going to offer the money that is required - I am willing to bet that Sky and Setanta will play "hard ball" too!!!

Re: Froch-Taylor still not signed

Posted: 17 Feb 2009, 16:14
by Poncey
Spud wrote:
Twinkle Toes wrote:I read that Meaty Mick is trying to pimp it out to Sky box office or Setanta
Heard that too
x3

Setanta would make sense given their good relationship with ITV (sharing the same building, commentators, etc).

Re: Froch-Taylor still not signed

Posted: 17 Feb 2009, 16:15
by Spud
Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:
Spud wrote:
Twinkle Toes wrote:I read that Meaty Mick is trying to pimp it out to Sky box office or Setanta
Heard that too
x3

Setanta would make sense given their good relationship with ITV (sharing the same building, commentators, etc).
It will be at Setanta's price rather than "Meaty Micks"!!!

Re: Froch-Taylor still not signed

Posted: 17 Feb 2009, 16:31
by gobbles
Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:
Spud wrote:
Twinkle Toes wrote:I read that Meaty Mick is trying to pimp it out to Sky box office or Setanta
Heard that too
x3

Setanta would make sense given their good relationship with ITV (sharing the same building, commentators, etc).

Rawling has been stopped from doing Setanta fights

Re: Froch-Taylor still not signed

Posted: 17 Feb 2009, 16:48
by Autobarn
nobby_nobbins wrote:I shouldn't really be optimistic. If there's no venue and no date then there's no fight.
Last weekend's Nate Campbell, Sergio Martinez, etc card didn't have a location till about a month before the fights.

Re: Froch-Taylor still not signed

Posted: 17 Feb 2009, 17:18
by nobby_nobbins
Autobarn wrote:
nobby_nobbins wrote:I shouldn't really be optimistic. If there's no venue and no date then there's no fight.
Last weekend's Nate Campbell, Sergio Martinez, etc card didn't have a location till about a month before the fights.
Thanks for that Autobarn - that's encouraging.

Re: Froch-Taylor still not signed

Posted: 17 Feb 2009, 18:33
by chinny
Autobarn wrote:
nobby_nobbins wrote:I shouldn't really be optimistic. If there's no venue and no date then there's no fight.
Last weekend's Nate Campbell, Sergio Martinez, etc card didn't have a location till about a month before the fights.
No good to me. If I'm going to make the trip out I need more notice to work on the missus. Hope its MSG and hope its confirmed soon.

Re: Froch-Taylor still not signed

Posted: 17 Feb 2009, 19:59
by Dioufy
Hope Sky don't buy it - I will buy the Hatton/Pacquiao card, but Khan/Barrera and, potentially Froch/Taylor can feck right off. I think Sky think that I shit money - I can't pay £40 a month and then pay £15 for all the good fights. fornicating joke.

Re: Froch-Taylor still not signed

Posted: 17 Feb 2009, 20:11
by banjo
Dioufy wrote:Hope Sky don't buy it - I will buy the Hatton/Pacquiao card, but Khan/Barrera and, potentially Froch/Taylor can feck right off. I think Sky think that I shit money - I can't pay £40 a month and then pay £15 for all the good fights. effing joke.
Froch isn't high profile enough to get on PPV it'd be a disaster IMO

Re: Froch-Taylor still not signed

Posted: 18 Feb 2009, 01:17
by Maxime
Because both camps are determine not to fight in their opponent's backyard. This fight will end up in a city/venue where nobody will give a crap about that fight and where ticket sells will be pathetic at best.

Can't believe long time promoters like Dibella and Henessey are this dumb.

Re: Froch-Taylor still not signed

Posted: 18 Feb 2009, 05:51
by Chambers2
Maxime wrote:Because both camps are determine not to fight in their opponent's backyard. This fight will end up in a city/venue where nobody will give a crap about that fight and where ticket sells will be pathetic at best.

Can't believe long time promoters like Dibella and Henessey are this dumb.
How is Carl determined not to fight in his opponents backyard?

Re: Froch-Taylor still not signed

Posted: 18 Feb 2009, 06:21
by Maxime
Chambers2 wrote:
Maxime wrote:Because both camps are determine not to fight in their opponent's backyard. This fight will end up in a city/venue where nobody will give a crap about that fight and where ticket sells will be pathetic at best.

Can't believe long time promoters like Dibella and Henessey are this dumb.
How is Carl determined not to fight in his opponents backyard?
As far as I know Froch team didn't want to fight in Arkansas or any of the neighbor's states like Tennessee where Taylor has fought many times. That's called not wanting to fight in an opponent's backyard in my book.

Instead the fight will take place in NY or Florida. Thousands of miles away from Froch's and Taylor's fans.

This kind of shit makes no sense. The fight should happen where it would generate interest. Either in Froch's or Taylor's hometown. All you need is neutral judges and ref from out of the country.

This is not an high profile fight that will generate interest everywhere in the USA. Nobody gives a shit about that fight other then Froch's and Taylor's fans.

Re: Froch-Taylor still not signed

Posted: 18 Feb 2009, 06:40
by Autobarn
Maxime wrote:
Chambers2 wrote:
Maxime wrote:Because both camps are determine not to fight in their opponent's backyard. This fight will end up in a city/venue where nobody will give a crap about that fight and where ticket sells will be pathetic at best.

Can't believe long time promoters like Dibella and Henessey are this dumb.
How is Carl determined not to fight in his opponents backyard?
As far as I know Froch team didn't want to fight in Arkansas or any of the neighbor's states like Tennessee where Taylor has fought many times. That's called not wanting to fight in an opponent's backyard in my book.

Instead the fight will take place in NY or Florida. Thousands of miles away from Froch's and Taylor's fans.

This kind of shit makes no sense. The fight should happen where it would generate interest. Either in Froch's or Taylor's hometown. All you need is neutral judges and ref from out of the country.

This is not an high profile fight that will generate interest everywhere in the USA. Nobody gives a shit about that fight other then Froch's and Taylor's fans.
you think bute would fight taylor near arkansas? pound out an 8-4 type win and then lose 7-5, 6-5-1, 10-2 on the cards?

Let's say if Froch outworked Taylor and lost a bad decision. Sure ppl would say hey, that froch is pretty good. However he would be without a title and without the next payday, struggling to find future opponents, etc. And his promoter would get absolutely slated from everyone.

Re: Froch-Taylor still not signed

Posted: 18 Feb 2009, 06:50
by Maxime
Autobarn wrote: you think bute would fight taylor near arkansas? pound out an 8-4 type win and then lose 7-5, 6-5-1, 10-2 on the cards?

Let's say if Froch outworked Taylor and lost a bad decision. Sure ppl would say hey, that froch is pretty good. However he would be without a title and without the next payday, struggling to find future opponents, etc. And his promoter would get absolutely slated from everyone.
It's up to the promoter to get neutral judges and a neutral ref. Doesn't matter where the fight take place.

I will always believe it's better to make the fight where the fight matters.

Re: Froch-Taylor still not signed

Posted: 18 Feb 2009, 07:27
by Chambers2
Maxime wrote: As far as I know Froch team didn't want to fight in Arkansas or any of the neighbor's states like Tennessee where Taylor has fought many times.
You may be right, but have you got a source for this info. I've not seen one

Re: Froch-Taylor still not signed

Posted: 18 Feb 2009, 08:10
by Poncey
Chambers2 wrote:
Maxime wrote: As far as I know Froch team didn't want to fight in Arkansas or any of the neighbor's states like Tennessee where Taylor has fought many times.
You may be right, but have you got a source for this info. I've not seen one
Florida or MSG with Barker v Duddy, Fury and Guinn all on the undercard.

Re: Froch-Taylor still not signed

Posted: 18 Feb 2009, 10:49
by jameswilson
Chambers2 wrote:
Maxime wrote: As far as I know Froch team didn't want to fight in Arkansas or any of the neighbor's states like Tennessee where Taylor has fought many times.
You may be right, but have you got a source for this info. I've not seen one
He acts as if he is in the know but in truth he knows sod all more than what we do.