Johnny Nelson sets record straigt on Naz & Ingle

I was basing this on Yorkshire in the 00’s, not as a visitor but as a member of the team, where ingles and I am. The 90’s would be cheaper

In my response I added there are many variables, obviously. Rent being a big one, or if it’s owned outright. My response is based on reality round here in the gyms I have been a part of, it may be different in other ones. what expenses are you including in your “what does it cost to run a gym?”

As I stated, there’s no possible way to answer such a generic question. But you asked and I answered.

you may feel that way about the government “training” us for life, but one of the things we are discussing is illegal and one is legal. The legal one is part of being a member of this society/citizen in this country.
If it’s that bad people have the freedom to home school or move country and start a fresh, however if they sign a contract at a gym when 7, they can’t leave that, according to some.

 

I only asked the question as you seemed quite certain a gym wouldn't cost a certain amount to run

As a visitor I should have said I wasn't using the facilities lol
I worked opposite and my boss has various dealings with the owners so I was in and out of there often

And 5the only reason one of those scenarios is legal is because the government made our laws lol


Anyhow I think I'm probably leading this thread off track

 

lol. Yes massively.

I am 100% certain boxing gyms up north in the 90’s didn’t cost millions to run. The councils up here run on that amount (joke). I live about 30mins from Sheffield.

Regarding the reasons;
The government give us the freedom to choose public, private or home school. They give us the freedom to leave the country any time we want. Freedom!

in the contracts being suggested, you are holding a vulnerable child with no legal representation, guardian or council, with no opportunity to consider the terms, to sign a contract with no exit and to own shares in his earnings for the remainder of his life.

It’s illegal as that section can amounts to slavery, extortion, grooming amongst a list of many other things and would end up making front page news. I know people can be greedy and dodgy, but not many would follow through with this as their conscience wouldn’t let them. Most gyms are run by good hearts.

 

No one has a problem with naz earning more. Its never been the argument. The ingles went above and beyond any coaches to get naseem into the position to make the money he made. Naseem off the back of the ingles hard work, expertise and relentless committment lead to naz eventually making millions. No one had a problem with the 25 per cent deal. Naz and his family didnt when he was an amatuer being trained and given the time of a pro boxer. They didnt when he turned pro either or when the ingles we,re ferrying him to mansfield for his debut off the back of a professional training camp etc for peanuts. Or the next ten fights for peanuts.....fighting on the undercard....ferrying him down to manchester, wembley, dublin, sunderland. All over the country. Doing pro training camps paying money out their own pocket along the way. Right up until he started making money. Suddenly the deal becomes exploitive.

The real deal was....you put in relentless years of training, expertise and commitment. You give him the time of a professional fighter from young. You pay the costs. You travel around the country setting up the fights. Marketing him. Putting your life and soul into it. Giving him professional training camps and share 25 percent of peanuts. Until we start making money....then we go off to make 50 million off the back of your work and you then get what we give you. Thats the real exploitive deal.

Your friend boxberry,s saying....the gym relied on a cash cow to keep it going. When that cash cow stiffs you and when thats the case....your life as a mentor/teacher becomes more limited. Lets get it right....the ingles are proven experts. Hence why they brought through so many. When you limit that expertise....boxing loses out. The next naseem loses out. In turn coaching became more of a hobby. In a sport that can end in brain damage.

Theres a reason ingle fighters didnt take much damage. Theres a reason mike tyson turned up dodging punches. Because the systems their coaches put in place allowed them to prepare boxers properly for professional boxing careers. Now we have training a couple of sessions a week. With a couple of coaches giving glorified boxercise classes...preparing kids not to get brain damage.

 

Naseem could have left the gym at any point. At 7. At 9. At 11. At 21. When he was making his debut for peanuts. When the ingles we,re putting all their commitment into him...covering his expenses....or when they we,re giving him their expertise and time for free...or putting him through pro training camps for peanuts. He could have left at 23 when he was fighting peter buckley with a 18-25-5 record in cardiff in his 10th fight. No. He was more than happy with the set up. All the way until he started making money.

 

The football agent comparison doesn’t hold water once you actually look at the graft involved. An agent is a middleman who appears only once the talent is visible, looking to take a slice for moving paper. They aren’t the ones in a freezing gym at 6am for ten years basically acting as a second father to the kid and keeping them off the street.

People throw the word ‘exploitation’ around far too easily. In boxing, if the lad doesn’t make it, the trainer has worked for peanuts (or nothing) for years. It’s a massive risk on the coaches part. To then say that it’s ‘predatory’ to take a percentage of the eventual millions - millions that wouldn’t exist without a decade of dedicated schooling - is a bit daft. You can’t compare a vocational life commitment to a corporate transfer fee; they’re entirely different worlds.

 

That’s why I stuck with vocations.
I don’t understand The logic here man.

it’s illegal for a reason to sign contracts like this.

You are arguing for Entitlement!
Naz was free to leave, so was Ingle and Ingle walked. You are accepting Naz had freedom but suggest he shouldn’t because you feel Ingle is entitled to more.

most trainers would be happy to be mentioned as a part of a success like Naz.

I understand poor Ingle put in effort (did other trainers not), that he only made millions off his biggest fighter, but he felt it unfair he was only paid 100x the average salary as he felt ENTITLED to more, but realised quickly he wasn’t DUE what he felt entitled to because he couldn’t get that kid to sign his life over.

I bet your wages are huge if you think getting paid millions in the 90’s is peanuts.

FYI-amateurs aren’t on the 25% deal, they pay the subs to run the gym and for the coaches to take them everywhere. The coaches don’t do it out their own pocket. When you turn up to amateur shows, the promoter gives you your expenses in cash.

If you had lived as a boxer or any individual sportsperson you would understand the systems a bit more. It’s the life we choose. Most people work jobs they hate for 1% of the peanuts Ingle was receiving from Naz.

 

You’re missing the forest for the trees.

When I mentioned peanuts, I was speaking generally about the grind of a trainer. I wasn’t suggesting that Ingle was on the breadline during the world title years. The point being made is that the Ingles fronted the time, expertise, and the literal costs for over a decade when there was zero guarantee of a return.

Calling it entitlement for a contract to be honoured is a joke. It’s about the professional standard that allowed Hamed to become a multi-millionaire in the first place.

If you think that a trainer should just be happy to be mentioned while the fighter walks away with an entire career built on that trainer’s work, then you’re describing a charity and not a professional sport.

Lastly, it’s ironic that you’re questioning my insider knowledge of boxing whilst remaining completely ignorant of the fact that a 25% cut was the 90s industry standard.

 

But the thing is, mate, Brendan didn’t run a normal amateur club. He built a pro/am setup because he knew the outcome he wanted, similar to football academies: home-grown talent coming through his system, with him at the end of it taking 25%. That’s why the agent comparison holds if you’re effectively trainer and manager combined, you’re not just coaching, you’re controlling, with the intention of eventually monetising the pathway from day one.

It happens in every profession or vocation eventually, but outside sport most people are consenting adults, or fresh out of school/uni on an apprenticeship or professional route, when the pathway starts. Once qualified they can leave, switch firms or go it alone thereafter, and most do.

No one disputes Brendan was a brilliant coach and nurtured talent, but at some point when Naz was 7–11 he knew, like D’Amato did with Tyson, and the system starts protecting not just the kid, but their interest in the kid. If all amateur clubs were run as feeder systems to one coach-manager taking 25% and aligned to one promoter, that’s a closed shop and basically a cartel in the making, and it’s probably closer to how parts of boxing operated back in the day than people like to admit.

Plus on the old standard BBBofC contract, fighter contracts used to automatically roll over if they won a title or similar, so there was literally no get-out, although that pre-dates Naz and Brendan.

And to be fair, I actually think how it ended around the McCullough fight, with Ingle getting £75k, was reasonable from both sides. The book was the real catalyst for the split. But by then Naz was already doing what he wanted, and like Tyson during and after D’Amato, if anyone tried to bring order and discipline into camp like Atlas did with Tyson, they’d have been pushed out, because the system had to protect the cash-cow.

 

This is the issue, there is and was no contract. Or else Ingle would have took him to court and got the money.
And there’s no contract as it’s illegal. JUST ENTITLEMENT. As stated by the other guy, Naz and Ingle was free to leave and did as he was not in a legally binding contract. What’s the issue?

No, I said I heard they actually charge more from some friends who fought for them.

Naz was only with him as a pro for about 6years…or do you mean as an amateur? He wasn’t giving free coaching to amateurs as they pay the subs who run the gym.

yes a coach is paid (generously in this instance) for teaching, teachers pass on knowledge and guidance and they generally get paid for that. (not millions like in this instance).
“Those who can Do, those who can’t Teach”


What I’m not understanding here is why does this only apply to Naz?
The fighters full expenses need deducting from their purse, this is one of the bigger expenses. but why does the criticism only go Naz’s way and not to everyone’s favourite boxers?


Why only Naz?
Why not AJ, Fury, Tyson? Guys who ppl adore?

 

Some good points I’m trying to make here, IT WAS INGLE WHO WAS THE CATALYST FOR THE SPLIT, NOT NAZ.

I understand what you are saying about monetisation and investment, however this was the issue as it’s with a child. Therefore it amounts to a form of grooming.

I know several gyms that had amateur and pros, in fact several of ingles fighters used to train with us at times and spar here (when convenient or for specific sparring). The amateurs pay for those gyms.

 

Yup, good line from Smith, and he’d know better than most, especially with him and his brothers. In an individual sport like boxing, the Ferguson line “no one is bigger than the club” doesn’t really hold – the biggest stars outgrow the standard gym set-up and either the gym adapts to you, or you end up building your own set-up, or moving on.