Originally Posted by USA Rob
I wasn't cutting them any slack for those assumptions. They deserve to be criticised but as I have been saying, theres other people to blame.
You can't expect Sky to hold the promoters hands. Hattons only had 6 shows a year in there previous contract and they couldn't deliver. And Sky did put in quality control. When the Hattons ****ed up the Khan vs McCloskey PPV, the fight got dropped as a PPV because the undercard wasn't sufficient quality. This is what I feel ultimately lead to Sky dropping Hatton promotions.
I don't agree with no contracts. You do need a major promoter like Hearn to have a degree of security so that he is able to invest in prospects. If there is none, promoters would only focus on the 3 TV fights so that they can secure the date, and prospects would be left to rot.
I would have given Hearn say 10 dates and then left 10 dates open. If a Promoter continually delivers when they fill the free slots, they can also secure a guaranteed contract.
That's true, promoters do need some security. The no contracts methods works in the US but then they've got plenty of smaller platforms outside of HBO and Showtime to develop their younger fighters on. We just don't have that here, if we did then no contracts would be the way to go for Sky.
There should certainly have been a few slots left open for other promoters though.