Eddie Hearn attempts to justify the decision to make Nathan Cleverly-Bellew II PPV

Eddie Hearn attempts to justify the decision to make Nathan Cleverly-Tony Bellew II Pay-Per-View

Tris Dixon asks Eddie Hearn to explain why Cleverly-Bellew II is worth it, the future for Josh Warrington, and the latest on Carl Froch

(10, October, 2014)

http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/edd...than-cleverly-tony-bellew-ii-on-pay-per-view/




Cleverly and Bellew. You’ve talked about growing the game. Is this pay-per-view show growing the game?

In an ideal world you’d like the fight to be seen by as many people as possible. We don’t live in an ideal world. To put this fight on, and the card that will be produced on November 22nd, it’s the only way possible to make that happen. We had the option to run the fight with what have been a very thin, thin, thin card to make it happen. This way, I feel fans are getting a huge night, British boxing is getting a huge night and fighters are able to go out, have major fights and progress their careers in the right way.



What makes it pay-per-view?

This is the situation and this is where people are getting confused. It’s not that Bellew-Cleverly is necessarily a pay-per-view fight. In my opinion, this is a pay-per-view night of boxing. There will be six hours of championship boxing, some of the best fighters in Britain, in big fights – and by the way we’ve still got another three fights to announce, that people will be quite pleased with – so it’s just a huge night for British boxing. We have done one pay-per-view card this year, in Carl Froch-George Groves, and this will be number two. The tickets sold out in less than 48 hours, 10,000 tickets in 48 hours. This is a massive night.


Could you not have run it as a loss-leader with an eye on making the cast of this bill even bigger next year?

There’s well over a million pounds worth of purses being paid on the night. The only argument anyone’s got is I could have just done Bellew-Cleverly and a weak card. I wanted to do a major night for British boxing and without trying to sound brutal, if you do not think this card delivers value for money, you will not buy it. I have not promoted a pay-per-view show that has not delivered value for money so far. I am certain this card will. As always, when you make a decision to purchase anything in life, you have to weigh-up whether you’re getting value for money. If you don’t think you will, I’m guessing you won’t buy it. If you think you will, I’m guessing you’ll buy it. If you’re not sure, you’ll probably buy it and if you don’t get value for money then I have to come in for the criticism that comes with it.


What is the response you’ve had via social media and other outlets?

The hardcore [fans] response has not been good. It’s certainly become softer as either a fight or fighter has been added or time has just gone on. It started badly, then it was, ‘I’m not happy, but I’m still gonna buy it – but I’m not happy’, and then you’ve got the casuals – and by the way, the price hasn’t been set yet, and I don’t set the price – so I can’t tell you whether it’s £9.95, £12.95 or say it’s £14.95, a lot of the casuals think, ‘F*** me, it’s only the price of a pizza.’ But people love to moan and at the moment, because we have control of a lot of boxing, people are angry. When I had no control of boxing and was giving it a go, I couldn’t get enough support. That’s just what happens. Ultimately, we came in for a bit of criticism for 24 hours, and like anything it calms down, and as we build the card, I believe people will be more and more pleased and by the time the 22nd comes around I believe it will do good numbers.


Is David Price going to be on the bill?

Quite possibly. It all depends on his hand. But I want to put more focus on quality fights. I don’t just want David Price in a 10-rounder against a Latvian. I don’t think that adds anything. Because that’s what we’re going to get stick for. It’s like Ricky Burns or Brian Rose last Saturday night. So they’re in fights where they’ve had a horrendous run. Rose fought Maciel, got battered, and then fought Andrade and got battered and you give him half a gimme and everyone says ‘This is a disgrace!’ Same with Burns. He’s fought Mitchell, Gonzalez, Beltran, Crawford, Zlaticanan… and he fought a geezer who’s 17-1 and who actually gave him half a decent fight and people are saying, ‘Oh, what’s he gonna learn from that.’ Give him a rest.


Going back to Liverpool, is this the kind of event you’d hoped to put on pay-per-view with Sky?

I think when we moved back into pay-per-view shows the way back in was going to be to put on a great fight. I believe now that boxing is in a completely different place than it was two years ago. I think it’s much more popular, particularly our position in the market has changed considerably, I think we have bigger names, better fighters and fighters with a much bigger profile than we did two years ago and because of the plans we’ve got for next year, I don’t believe this is going to set a model for the way pay-per-view will work in the future. I just think this is an opportunity to make a fantastic domestic fight, make a number of world title fights, and make big fights for other domestic fighters as well in one night. I think next year is more about Froch, it’s more about Brook-Khan, it’s more about Frampton-Quigg, for example. There’s three potential pay-per-views for next year. This is more about timing, there hasn’t been a pay-per-view show since May. It’s not a case of there hasn’t been a pay-per-view so let’s do one regardless. With what we’re going to build on the 22nd, we think it’s going to deliver value for money. Is this the way pay-per-view is going to go? Not really. It’s a case by case scenario. If Froch had boxed in December, or November, you wouldn’t have had this because you would have just had Froch. And what it would have been would be Brook [defending his world title, before he was stabbed] it was going to be Brook against X and Bellew against Cleverly in a double-header. I don’t think that would have had as many moans. No one likes paying, but that’s just life.


One of the arguments is people already pay a lot for Sky?

Yes, but it’s not a boxing channel is it? I appreciate everything that everyone is saying but ultimately like any product in any walk of life you will decide, just before you buy it, whether you should or not. And that decision is based upon whether you’re getting value or not. It’s sold 10,000 tickets in 48 hours, there is demand for this fight, there is demand for this night, and by the time the promotional tour has gone around and Sky have run their programmes, this is going to be a big night. And I’m very confident in it.


What would make it a success from a pay-per-view standpoint?

Forget Froch-Groves 2 numbers, that was a freak, in terms of numbers, we might never see that again. But I think realistically, with the fights that are on the card, and the quality that’s on the card, and the hype that particularly the main fight will get I don’t think it will be too dissimilar to a Froch-Kessler. Who knows, it could catch fire.

 

Good thing they got George Groves vs Denis Douglin instead then...