luke campbell to matchroom

true but at least with WSB he will had a monthly wage with medical insurance.

 

If ppv gets Froch home advantage then so be it.I would of gone to Denmark to watch this fight because i genuinly believe it`s a great fight with two top 15 pound for pound fighters who put on a war last time and will do so again,however you`re opinon is that it`s not a meaningful fight with one of the fighters near shot and that it`s not worth £15 ,we`re never going to find common ground on this.

Hearn should make the undercard as stacked as possible through,but no one should have any complaints about the main event,because i seriously doubt there will a better fight in the uk this year.

 

I do think it's a good fight, just not PPV worthy. If the dates and venue work out, I'll be going in person. Just because I don't think it's an important or especially meaningful fight doesn't mean it won't be fun.

Personally, I don't want to subsidise Froch or any fighter's ego. But my reasons why this isn't PPV are well-established. When you need PPV to pay the bills rather than turn extra profit, your fight doesn't belong on PPV.

 

Fair enough,I disagree but i understand where you're coming from

 

you keep saying this and it makes no sense.

In terms of TV revenue, the fight being in the UK or in Denmark makes literally no difference. If anything its easier for international broadcasters such as HBO to get a team over to London and therefore there more inclined to purchase the fight. Whether the fight was in the UK or Denmark, it would be PPV in the UK, Denmark.

In terms of the venue, and sponsorship, the fight will make significantly more money in the UK. Bigger venue, higher ticket prices, more corporate opportunities, and more revenue from sponsors.

You have never had a big name come to Denmark to face Mikkel Kessler. You have had big names come to the UK to face Carl Froch.

Theres allot of things we don't really know about firstly, how the deal for the fight works, and secondly how many PPV buys a fight needs to generate before it makes more than Sky would have paid for Froch vs Kessler on regular Sky. You made up a figure of £3 based on nothing and then made up how you beleive a contract works based on nothing. So excuse me if I don't take you seriosly when you discuss the financial side of things when it comes to this fight.

Like I said, Hearn is smart, a good promoter and he is good at making money. I can't see him making a big fight that wouldn't turn a profit. Either way it doesn't matter to us. Most of the fans i see on here are happy to pay £15 to watch this fight.

Also you can't get pissed of at Hearn for making a PPV, and then defend Wazza for tucking his fights away on Box Nation.

 

your just making yourself sound even more stupid i know luke iv known him for around ten years i was in sheffiels when he beat maguire and trust me the kids tough enough to be pro

 

I'm playing devil's advocate to a degree here as it seems to be an Eddie love-in most of the time. Frank gets a very raw deal. I feel there's not much between them, their rivalry is healthy to an extent but Frank delivers bigger fights and Eddie has to respond with a slightly better undercard.

Recent PPVs:

Eddie - Khan/McCloskey & Haye/Harrison are the only two he's been involved in, I believe. (Does he get a free pass for these? Would Frank get a free pass if he'd been involved in the two shittest PPVs of the last few years?)

Frank - Magnificent 7 & Groves/Degale, Cleverly/Braehmer were his last two I believe.

'Stacked cards' - What exactly are these great undercards that Eddie has put on? Look at the Burns/Vasquez bill, Chisora will likely be fourth from top! Look at Frank's Xmas bill; BJS was scheduled to be 3rd top. He does put good undercards on but the majority is local ticketsellers which is precisely what Hearn does.

Again the reason why Hearn's are better but certainly not "great" is because he doesn't make as many top notch main events as Frank does. Froch's undercards have been poor because he doesn't need to stack the undercard.

To me they are two peas in a pod.

 

A) I said it was an estimate based on what Haye got for the Valuev fight, which was considered a high deal
B) I asked a colleague who used to work in Sky's marketing department
C) My life is in tatters knowing you don't take me seriously
D) Revenue splits have long been the way I described in boxing. Co-promotion does NOT mean the profits are being split 50-50
E) Remind me what you do for a living that gives you any expertise in this field?

 

I'm with you, Lilo. And, for the record, the Mag7 card is better than ANYTHING Eddie has put on so far.

 

Hearn had nothing to do with the Promotions or undercards for Haye vs Harrison & Khan vs McCloskey.

The Froch vs Bute undercard was a very good for me.

 

Did you think the Mag 7 was PPV worthy?

 

You have exceptionally low standards

 

you go from guessing...

to having a concrete source. which your prepared to discuss on a boxing forum where you use your real name

who after years on this forum and 1000s of discussions, debates and arguments about PPV and the financial side of boxing, you never once cared to mention until now. forgive me if I smell bull****.

If you wanna know what I do PM me.

 

for a regular Sky card it was very good. Hope vs Prozska rematch, Frampton vs the Mexican. Both were good fights.

 

Aside from supplying a main event fighter in each bout? Did he get a cut? Yeah he had nowt to do with it.

http://boxrec.com/show_display.php?show_id=638638

Come on Rob, its poor. The chief support was a mismatch featuring a prospect. No Proksa/Hope either, as I've said he didn't need a good undercard just as VVarren didn't for Haye/Chisora or Burns/Mitchell.