Sky Tv cutbacks

buzz · Post by **buzz** » 21 May 2004, 08:12

I've heard that Sky are pulling a lot of funding from their boxing budget and that all Sky boxers have to take a pay cut.

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 21 May 2004, 08:17

buzz wrote:I've heard that Sky are pulling a lot of funding from their boxing budget and that all Sky boxers have to take a pay cut.

Boxing always gets the shit end of the stick.

knockout artist · Post by **knockout artist** » 21 May 2004, 08:23

Wonder if the promoters will suffer a share of the cut or pass it all on to the boxers?

Kieran · Post by **Kieran** » 21 May 2004, 08:24

Promotors pay boxers not TV Companies.
If the fighter has a contract including purse sizes then this cutback hits the Promotor first of all.
Inevitably the Promotor can cut down the exposure - but to what end ?
He still needs to put on the fights to fulfil his obligations to the TV Company.
If it's true - and I'm a little cynical that it isn't - then I would be beating down the doors of ITV to get back in the mix.

knockout artist · Post by **knockout artist** » 21 May 2004, 08:36

Kieran wrote:Promotors pay boxers not TV Companies.
If the fighter has a contract including purse sizes then this cutback hits the Promotor first of all.
Inevitably the Promotor can cut down the exposure - but to what end ?
He still needs to put on the fights to fulfil his obligations to the TV Company.
If it's true - and I'm a little cynical that it isn't - then I would be beating down the doors of ITV to get back in the mix.

You dont need to attempt to educate me about boxing promotions.

I know that promoters by the boxings. But they use cash from the TV companies.

The TV company PAY the promoter, who in turn pays the boxer.

If the promoter wants to retain the level of income he is used to the boxer will take all of the hit from the reduced tv money.

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 21 May 2004, 09:05

If Sky pay a fixed amount for a WBU/IBO title fight then surely this means the standard of fights (well, foreign challengers mainly) will plummet even further? Unless the promoters are prepared to absorb the cutbacks themselves.

Twinkle Toes · Post by **Twinkle Toes** » 21 May 2004, 12:29

It makes me wonder if SKY pay more if a title of some sort is on the line?

It may explain why we see so many worthless titles being fought for on SKY. Maybe they have had enough of paying out good dollar for shite fights, and shite belts.

buzz · Post by **buzz** » 21 May 2004, 12:31

I think they do pay more if its a Title fight and even more if there are more Title fights on the same show.

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 21 May 2004, 12:32

I'm sure Sky can charge more to advertise during "world title" fights than they can for British and Area dust ups, even if they are fake world titles.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 21 May 2004, 12:36

If this is true about SKY lets hope ITV or Channel 5 look into showing some live Boxing.

If only once and awhile.

Twinkle Toes · Post by **Twinkle Toes** » 21 May 2004, 12:40

Yeah, that's a good point Kilburn, but two wrongs don't make a right i.e promoters doing SKY over with fake titles, and SKY doing their advertiser's over with inflated 'title fight' advertising opportunity's.

SKY have the ultimate power as far as I am concerned, and it is about time someone with a bit of passion was brought into things over at SKY towers - To shake up the current pap that promoters are allowed to get away with.

TheRiverCityHippy · Post by **TheRiverCityHippy** » 21 May 2004, 13:38

i thought dempsey `sort of` hinted to maloney on last nights ringside that there should be more meaningful tests for fighters instead of their usual diet of stiffs. maloney looked unruffled and said it was a business.
jim watt threw his two bobs worth in (good on yer jim, fight our corner for us!) but fair dues to maloney, he looked like he couldnt give a shit what they said.
maybe even sky are sensing that the public like competition, not forgon conclusions.

and if boxing cant deliver..................plenty of sports can.

buzz · Post by **buzz** » 21 May 2004, 14:17

Maloney did give a shit, Sky are not stupid they know if its money well spent or not.

Even the commentary team are voicing concerns.

I dont think the answer is to pull the funding though, but to demand better match ups.

Lets be honest Sky should be the ones controlling the fights, they should order for example:

Hatton v Witter

Maccarinelli v Nelson

Hare v Khaliq v Barnes

Gomez v Docherty v Arthur

Harrison v Brodie

Williams v Moore v Takaloo

This is just a few that I could mention. All are with promoters who deal with Sky so there should not be a problem.

Sky just need to make a positive stand and say what they want rather than cutting the funding from this sport.

Sky are the ones who are paying the promoters and we are the ones paying Sky.

Sky Tv cutbacks

Sky Tv cutbacks

Re: Sky Tv cutbacks