V
Valley Boy Greg
Guest
Anybody listen to the Chris Eubank interview on Radio 2 Tuesday midday. He's showing the full bout on his web site between himself and Michael Watson when Watson sustained brain damage and the debate was on the morals of showing it or not.
He and Watson are splitting all proceeds 50 /50 and there is not any promoter involved so they will share all takings on this so what is wrong with that.
Jeremy Vine leaned very much towards saying it is taking advantage of Watson even though Eubank made it clear that he is in full agreement and benefitting as much as he is.
A few callers had different opinions. All the women thought is shocking - they were probably driving home from the church coffee morning. Most men thought it ok and said good on him.
Me, if i get a spare hour i'll watch it and be pleased that the money is going to the correct place. I remember it well and it was a terriffic fight so why shouldn't they continue to benefit financially from it?
He and Watson are splitting all proceeds 50 /50 and there is not any promoter involved so they will share all takings on this so what is wrong with that.
Jeremy Vine leaned very much towards saying it is taking advantage of Watson even though Eubank made it clear that he is in full agreement and benefitting as much as he is.
A few callers had different opinions. All the women thought is shocking - they were probably driving home from the church coffee morning. Most men thought it ok and said good on him.
Me, if i get a spare hour i'll watch it and be pleased that the money is going to the correct place. I remember it well and it was a terriffic fight so why shouldn't they continue to benefit financially from it?