Froch v Kessler Broadcasting rights causing problems!!!!

I understand what your saying and put in that context It isn't as simple but there must be ways around it, I can't see how giving one promoter free reign is good for the sport, I'm not saying Hearn is doing a bad job because clearly he isn't, will that last? will he still have the same enthusiasm a year down the line? will the quality and matchmaking start to slip.

In all walks of life you need to be kept on your toes and have competition to bring the best out of you, where's that at sky?

 

I think we've summarised why they've done it already.

In bullet points:

1 Consistency

2 Easier to build a relationship with one promoter from Sky POV

3 Removing the poor quality cards that the others were mostly putting on

4 Getting a better standard of production from their events to look more pro and less amateurish and small hall

5 Get a young and hungry promoter to work with to actually build a platform and a stable of world champions so they can get boxing back to the Hatton days again.

That's why they did it, they had too many dates before and it was getting to the stage that they were showing **** fights and it wasn't working so they've consolidated and gone with the best candidate!

I's not that hard to understand it's just strategy and restructuring of budgets at Sky, it happens all the time with all TV channels they pursue one strategy based on what they want to achieve for their brand and the image of the channel and what will get them more subscribers overall rather than just to hardcore boxing fans that make up a small percentage of Sky Sports viewers.

 

:good

 

I like Hearn quite a lot, so I might be biased in saying this, but I don't sense he'll be happy to just be the biggest promoter in Britain. He already is, in my opinion, and it pleases me that he wants to become even bigger. It's about time we had a promoter who can stand alongside Top Rank, Golden Boy and the other big companies in America. To me, that should be Hearn's competition, not worrying about how many tickets Frank can sell at York Hall, or how many Hennessy can get in a barn in Somerset. Those promoters are on a minor level, Hearn should be thinking bigger.

I see where you're coming from though. A monopoly isn't usually a good thing but I hope - and think - Hearn is aiming for the top of world boxing, not just the British scene. With the kind of support we give fighters over here, there's no reason for our promoters to 'think small', as it were. They should want to be big on a global scale. The best British promoter in the modern era, Frank, has failed in that sense because any time he's had a genuinely big name, like Hatton, Khan or Calzaghe, they've left him to be propelled onto a stage they knew Frank couldn't provide for them. I think Hearn wants to be seen in the same light as Arum and Schaeffer, which is reason for optimism. There's no reason he can't be on their level and it should be his aspiration.

As long as the money is there, I think Hearn will still be interested. Ultimately though, he's a boxing fan, and that's great for us boxing fans.

 

Time will tell with Hearn Jack, I won't deny the early signs are promising and I genuinely hope he continues to build his stable and carries on in the manner he has, Frank W was the same when he started out and muscled in on the old boxing cartel, his old man Barry had enthusiasm, Lets hope Hearn can learn from where they went wrong.

One thing I do want to see from Hearn is how he handles youngsters and Pro's he has from the start, its something I'm yet to see from him, he's doing a good job with Yafai come to think of it but the jurys still out imo.

 

Allot of good points being made for either side of the argument.

One thing I think some of you don't realise is that Sky would have probably pulled put of boxing completley if they didn't back Hearn. So it wasn't a choice of spreading the dates out between 3 promoters or 1, it was a choice of Hearn or nobody.

The lack of international cards is a real dissapointment. I would be shocked if Sky were not able to match the offer from Box Nation for an exclusive with Golden Boy, or at the very least agreeing one with TopRank.

Also, does Hearn have an exclusive contract with Sky Sports? As in he is the only British promoter thats able to have fights on Sky? I find thay hard to beleive. Sky have shown Amir Khan and will show his April 20th card, Hean has no involvment in that. If Haye vs Vitali is made I would be shocked if Sky didn't pick it up, and I would imagine if Haton didn't want a TV deal included for the rest of his fighters they would habe shown it.

The only reason why the quality would slip is of Sky Sports lets it. They never implemented quality control before because they were desperate to get Frank & Barrys fighters on board. Once the stars were gone they never steped up the quality control and thats why we got years of WBU title fights. Then once Frank left to ITV they were stuck with small hall shows from Hennesey & Maloney. Frank came back and fed us **** unless it was PPV, and even then it wasnt up to par. They let Hayemaker rip people off also.

Then they said enough is enough. Told Frank, Hatton, Maloney & Hearn to deliver big shows or lose your contracts. No more PPV and you have 2 years. Sky even backed them with more coverage from SSN and a dedicated magazine show in Ringside. Hatton & Maloney came with the same old ****, Frank ran away because he didnt think he could work without PPV. But even before then we were getting Burns vs TTG.

Hearn was the only one who steped up to the playe. Froch vs Bute, Barker vs Martinez, Brook vs Hatton.

Things may not be perfect but for me its better and you can see progress. It's obvious what they need to do to improve. Hearn is signing 90% of the quality amateurs and matching them well, and picking up most of the free agents.

 

Yeah, I agree, mate :good

Jamie McDonnell was on the Brook/Saldivia undercard and he's not a Matchroom fighter, so either Sky intervened and put him on the card or it was Hearn doing a deal with a promoter to make it happen. I'd guess it's to do with Hearn because I don't think Sky are that hands on.

 

Not sure I buy this Rob. It was an exclusive deal with Hearn or no boxing on Sky? They couldn't have backed Hearn with a non-exclusive contract?

 

Yes. It was Hearn doing a deal with the promoter. Crolla is with the Hattons and Matthews is with Coldwell and the fight is on a Matchroom bill.

 

Is the contract exclusive? Like I said I don't think Hearn is the only promoter Sky will work with.

Sky also need to have some guarentee that there dates will be filled. They have a team of pundits and staff who work on Boxing. They can't have them all on salary ready and waiting to fill dates, and all the promoters go and sign deals with other networks.

 

I think to say it was Hearn or no boxing on Sky is stretching the "Eddie Hearn: Saviour of Boxing" line a little too far.

If Sky want to get their moneys worth out of their pundits then they should get some American fights to work on in addition to Eddies 20 domestic dates.

 

Khan would still be on SKY if it wasn't for Hearn. No way would SKY drop boxing IMO. Which sports have they actually dropped? Ever?

 

Plenty. Ice Hockey, Baseball, Basketball, Snowboarding, Womens Tennis. This list goes on. If a sport doesn't deliver they get rid.

Boxing, apart from Hearn, wasn't delivering a ROI.

 

Well if it wasn't for Hearn's 20 dates what would there be?

 

things will get intresting once the BT sports channels are launched