Hearn's justification. Do you agree?

First topic message reminder :

Here is Eddie Hearn explaining to Kugan Cassius why Bellew/Cleverly is on PPV what do you make of his reasoning

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qQJefYeEi7c

Your from down south though Toppy, it's still way more expensive.

Trussy, should have stuck to Wetherspoons, there's 4 now so you could have pretended you were taking the missus to different places

Too much class for Wetherspoons...
Even If he did beat Bruno..

Given my plans tonight, reading this is making my eyes water slightly...... :-S

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Didn't know him long enough to ask him If he was one...

But I did notice his partner drunk pints...

You said he was off his face on acid...

I said he looked like he was off his head....You can be off your head on something and not be an addict..

I said it earlier, I'll say it again; if the lads get paid more because its on ppv then fair enough.

3fingers wrote:I said it earlier, I'll say it again; if the lads get paid more because its on ppv then fair enough.

I see what your saying 3F, boxers have big balls and deserve good pay, but you could apply that mentality to any trade. A guy working in a corner shop on minimum wage might deserve more money but that doesn't mean the owner just puts their prices up to increase his wages... Well, not if they've got any business sense they don't. There is a bigger picture to all this, European fighters being sold to the public at premium rates goes against the grain. If Eddie starts making this the norm I bet he learns a hard lesson along the way. You only have to look at Warren with his last "big" domestic show with Chis and Fury that got cancelled through injury, or so we were told. Eddie can get it wrong too.

Cleverly and Bellew are mates. They have been for several years. Its quite embarrassing watching them go down the worst enemies route for a second time. Especially after they admitted to faking it after the first fight. I guess they and Hearn are banking on boxing fans with short memories.

Lance wrote:Cleverly and Bellew are mates. They have been for several years. Its quite embarrassing watching them go down the worst enemies route for a second time. Especially after they admitted to faking it after the first fight. I guess they and Hearn are banking on boxing fans with short memories.

Can you post a link or 2 to back that up Lance, as far as I was aware then only thing that came out was an 'I respect him as a boxer' stuff that stopped the minute it looked like no rematch was forthcoming.

watch some of the post fight interviews they did after the first fight, they both admit that they got along and will continue to do so.

Gotta disagree with you there Lance.

The pair of them gave grudging respect to each other as Boxers after the first fight. I don't remember either saying they liked the other one, nor that the antics were playacting.

Bellew apologised for letting his family and his kids down too.

It did calm down until clev stated Bellew didn't deserve a rematch (Which led to my all time favourite Bellew rant 'I'll fight him in his garden'

I do think their is genuine dislike between the pair of them but their antics are a bit forced this time round and more cringeworthy than anything.

Lance talking out his backside again I see. Surprised he hasn't shoehorned what a legend/ATG Hoppo is into it somewhere.....

Derbymanc wrote:Gotta disagree with you there Lance.

The pair of them gave grudging respect to each other as Boxers after the first fight. I don't remember either saying they liked the other one, nor that the antics were playacting.

Bellew apologised for letting his family and his kids down too.

It did calm down until clev stated Bellew didn't deserve a rematch (Which led to my all time favourite Bellew rant 'I'll fight him in his garden'

I do think their is genuine dislike between the pair of them but their antics are a bit forced this time round and more cringeworthy than anything.

Have to half agree with Lance here.................Bellew and Clev squared up to eachother first time around and were all hugs after the fight..

Would anybody really be surprised after this fight If they declared undying love to each other..

After all this supposed spat is bringing big money.........Undeserved big money....

'All hugs' again, only you and Lance seem to have imagined this, or that they were remotely chummy either after the fight or since.

They were chummy..........

go on youtube and look up Bellew Cleverly, post fight interviews. They did a whole series of them, for anyone that would listen. Extremely chummy, lots of back slapping. They admit to liking each other

TopHat24/7 wrote:Lance talking out his backside again I see.  Surprised he hasn't shoehorned what a legend/ATG Hoppo is into it somewhere.....

oh dear. still nothing worthwhile to say

Lance wrote:go on youtube and look up Bellew Cleverly, post fight interviews. They did a whole series of them, for anyone that would listen. Extremely chummy, lots of back slapping. They admit to liking each other

I've seen them..............Toppy probably thinks the Wrestling guys are being genuine when they fall out.

It simply isn't a ppv fight. What is riding on it other than the pride of two euro level fighters? Clev is the better of the two, bellew just talks a good game but falls far short of his "bomber" moniker. As alluded to by a previous post...nobody outside of uk cares, and not a great deal in the uk do either. The loser of this (most probably Bellew) where do they go from here? In the first fight both were undefeated, since then both have had crushing ko defeats, are irrelevant in their former division and current ones.

"at least they got each other"

Still my worry is people will buy the ppv

wheelchair1991 wrote:Still my worry is people will buy the ppv

My Poppa gave me some advice years ago Wheelie...Always held me in good stead...

"If you can't do anything about a problem..there is no point in worrying about it !!...........

Good advice.....

Very true trussy

Evening Truss and Lance,

I can't actually Access youtube at the moment but if your right then it is really dissapointing. I'm still not convinced they like each other though

I am convinced though that we're about to see a lot of guff for the camera's to really try and sell this fight. (Honestly that bit about 'stand up to my face' on ringside had me turning it over.)

I like a bit of needle between fighters but detest the making up bit afterwards. Show some respect to your opponent is fine (anyone that steps through the ropes deserves some respect) but giving them massive hugs afterwards is not.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Lance wrote:go on youtube and look up Bellew Cleverly, post fight interviews. They did a whole series of them, for anyone that would listen. Extremely chummy, lots of back slapping. They admit to liking each other

I've seen them..............Toppy probably thinks the Wrestling guys are being genuine when they fall out.

Sniff sniff, I smell bullsh!t.......

I remember when Hulk Hogan hated Macho Man Randy Savage..

Pretty tame compared with the Hogan-Ultimate warrior beef. At least the best matchups always got made.

Gotta side with truss on this one. He's had lots of beefs with randy savages.

Seems to be a homo-erotic tone to your posting lately milkster...

Anything you want to get off your chest ??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Seems to be a homo-erotic tone to your posting lately milkster...

Anything you want to get off your chest ??

I've only been posting for 2 minutes and I've already learnt that the mind of Milky is one I don't want to delve into. If he's got anything to get off his chest he probably needs a wet wipe.

Rowley wrote:Slightly disingenuous argument from Hearn though. He has chosen to stack the undercard. If the cost of the undercard is what is driving this to box office, take a few names off it and keep it free to air.

Sky sports isn't free to air!!!

I don't have a problem with this fight being on pay per view, no one is forcing me to buy it, I don't think it's value for money so I won't buy it, pretty simple. The real villains of the piece are those who pay their sky subs every month like good little consumers, then moan about pay per views, then buy them anyway. If this fight is not pay per view worthy, not enough people will buy it. If it is, they will.

Say it like it is.

I think if you pay a subscription fee to Sky you should be entitled to get fights like Cleverly v Bellew as part of that without being asked to pay additional. I think its disgraceful to put it as a ppv actually. Of course people are complain about it. So what if no one is forcing you to buy it? It shouldnt even be about that.

Hearn is just a greedy sod and there is no justification for this being PPV. Its like buying a monthly train ticket but then the company still makes you pay on Saturdays and Wednesdays

At one stage Bellew v Cleverly was going to be an undercard fight. Now its headlining ppv? Maybe Hearn feels he has consolidated his position enough that he can start abuse it now.

The whole "if you don't like it don't buy it" argument is over simplistic. If consumers have feel they are being exploited or ripped off they are entitled to voice their displeasure, be they boxing fans, drinkers or people buying a pair of trainers. Most boxing fans accept PPV, albeit grudgingly but with the tacit understanding that it exists only as a means for promoters to make the absolute top fights between the cream of the sport. If consumers feel a fight does not fit their understanding of why PPV is necessary or feel it represents the beginning of a very poor model moving forward I am glad they are voicing that, my only hope is come the night of the fight our anger translates into very poor sales.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Seems to be a homo-erotic tone to your posting lately milkster...

Anything you want to get off your chest ??

With jbw absent at the moment trussy, just didn't want you to feel lonely making your regular oyster comments

As ive said many times i will not buy this i hope it bombs completely and teaches Hearn and Sky a fight such as this should never be PPV if this is a success i can only see more PPVs and more frequent at that

Totally agree Wheels. We as fans are ultimately the only ones that can decide whether this continues. I remember there was a similar fuss when Khan Prescott was put on PPV, which was even more ridiculous. That one absolutely bombed, whilst it did not stop Khan's next fight being PPV it did mean Sky propped it up with Manny vs Oscar on the same night. Not an ideal outcome but better than nothing I guess.

I also hope this fight bombs although I still hope Clev knocks the 'bombers' head off

DuransHorse wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Seems to be a homo-erotic tone to your posting lately milkster...

Anything you want to get off your chest ??

I've only been posting for 2 minutes and I've already learnt that the mind of Milky is one I don't want to delve into.  If he's got anything to get off his chest he probably needs a wet wipe.

Only posting for two minutes and has my card marked already. No flies on duranshorse.

To be honest Geoff, while I can sympathise with your view, and probably agree with it. I do agree with the point, and it's possibly an oversimplification, but if it's not a PPV quality fight, then it won't get any buys. If it does... then it was*.

*The bout will be broadcast for free over here, and so I probably can't really sympathise.

Boxnation wouldn't do this

Boxnation have constantly been making that point for the last week haha

Bring back Frank...bring back Frank

Loads of people complain about boxnation but I think it offer a better deal for boxing. Sky will never have an extensive boxing calender. Stuff like Froch v Groves I and Cleverly v Bellew II not to mention David Hayes shambles of a heavyweight stint show what direction it inneviteably goes when given half a chance.

catchweight wrote:Loads of people complain about boxnation but I think it offer a better deal for boxing. Sky will never have an extensive boxing calender. Stuff like Froch v Groves I and Cleverly v Bellew II not to mention David Hayes shambles of a heavyweight stint show what direction it inneviteably goes when given half a chance.

Plus the commentary is better on Boxnation

I think they have 2 PPV's a year planned, one was Froch Groves 2 and this one is no where near the same level unfortunately. I think originally the idea was to have Kell Brook defending his title most probably against Rios, with Cleverly/Bellew on it and then Degale and the rest on there... Sadly without Brook's name on it, it does look a little more empty in the way of exciting fights.

Rowley wrote:The whole "if you don't like it don't buy it" argument is over simplistic. If consumers have feel they are being exploited or ripped off they are entitled to voice their displeasure, be they boxing fans, drinkers or people buying a pair of trainers. Most boxing fans accept PPV, albeit grudgingly but with the tacit understanding that it exists only as a means for promoters to make the absolute top fights between the cream of the sport. If consumers feel a fight does not fit their understanding of why PPV is necessary or feel it represents the beginning of a very poor model moving forward I am glad they are voicing that, my only hope is come the night of the fight our anger translates into very poor sales.

It isn't over simplifying the argument at all, your last half sentence is spot on, and whether we like it or not - and whether we in turn voice our displeasure on the internet or not - is utterly irrelevant. What is relevant to whether a fight is 'ppv worthy' is the sales of the ppv on the night. Nothing else. At least not to anyone who can do anything about it. It doesn't get any more black and white!! You are presented with a very simple choice.
(a) Watch Tony Bellew v Nathan Cleverly, pay £15.
(b) Don't watch Tony Bellew v Nathan Cleverly, save your £15.
The total number of (a) is what determines whether the event was 'ppv worthy' not how many people moan about it on an internet forum. Your only recourse of action if you don't agree with it being a ppv is not to pay. You'll either be right or you'll be wrong depending on how many others do the same.

I could understand the argument more if people were whinging about the level of boxing content they were getting for their monthly sky subscription, as it is less 'price elastic' or whatever you want to call it, but to me that ultimately still comes down to a choice. No one is forcing anyone to pay sky every month.

You make reasonable points Wasp, but I still think fans voicing their displeasure, or whinging if you prefer, has value. Hearn has marketed himself and had great success through making attempts to engage with fans and portray himself as a fan friendly promoter. If this image or desire is even partially genuine he will surely have seen that this fight has definitely damaged that image. Whilst I agree wholeheartedly that the sales figures will ultimately steer any future decisions, if our protestations do anything to give him pause for thought in the future when making similar decisions they will have had value.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph Is for good Men to stay silent "..

Edmund Burke...

Wise words Waspy.. .Not that Rowley is good or anything...