Sky's attitude to boxing......

[WayoftheCass]

....and for that matter sport in general.
I totally begrudge giving sky PPV money for Hatton-Pac. Its just take, take with them. Prizefighter is steadily going down hill. FFN is either a decent and no more main event followed by a piss poor undercard and they appear to have abandoned big overseas fights. We know that ITV are bargain basement and that BBC offer nothing. But if it wasn't for Setanta then we wouldn't be getting any look in to fights abroad.
Froch-Taylor was their chance to give something back for a change but not a snow flakes chance in hell.
Their renewed monopoly of the EPL could very well kill Setanta stone dead over the next 5 years and if they go then we're back to a near black out.
I mean what is the point in allowing one broadcaster to purchase 5 out of 6 packages? How is that going to alleviate monopolisation? Allowing a maximum of 4 out of 6 made sense as 46 matches is enough for a broadcaster to attract potential subscription but 23 games per season looks virtually unfeasible as a marketing tool. Yet thats whats been allowed to happen and the knock on effect is that all of the sports that Setanta are trying to bankroll are going to suffer. The SPL is already gonna suffer to the tune of £25 million and you can be sure boxing will take a serious kick in the gonads. I was thinking recently that we may look back on this period as a sort of halcyon one for boxing coverage in this country where we get weekly magazines such as Bunce's boxing hour along with the combined coverage of ITV, Setanta and Sky. Indeed if the aforementioned broadcaster gets its way then we may be looking back a lot sooner than I originally thought.
As for Sky's actual programming itself, it may be naive of me but I refuse to believe that there is more potential in Premier League Darts than world class or even high caliber boxing.
Anyway ultimately I just think its completely absurd that we won't get live coverage of one of the UK's leading world champions fighting one of the world's premier fighters, in the champions home country in the year 2009.
Maybe 5 Live will do commentary.

[Finch]

Agree with your sentiments, Sky are pudenda. But ultimately, Froch and Fat Boy Mick are way too greedy. A deal could have been done if Mick didn't have to pay for so many pies.

[DavidPayne]

The difference with Darts are three fold.

1 - Nobody ever gets injured.
2 - The whole world knows Phil Taylor is the best player and world champion.
3 - They only deal with a single promoter.

[Autobarn]

Sky's boxing coverage is pathetic.

Cleverly and Brook mismatches - if we're lucky. All the decent fights saved for the quarterly Khan PPV.

Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish.

[ERIC GUY]

I love it if Sky And Setanta give up Boxing, Means everyone has to come to me for DVDs........
YIPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[jimmy from the green]

Sky and Barry Hearn have done a magicians job with darts! I think any promoter who can consistently get 4/5/6 thousand people in an arena to watch two fat lads throw arrows is a god in my book.

When you think that british title fights live on sky often struggle to sell 1000 tickets, whats darts got that boxing hasnt? Beer in the arena for one, im a boxing fan and dont particulalry like darts, but have to say that it is pissing all over british boxing as a sporting event right now.....

....and for that matter sport in general.
I totally begrudge giving sky PPV money for Hatton-Pac. Its just take, take with them. Prizefighter is steadily going down hill. FFN is either a decent and no more main event followed by a piss poor undercard and they appear to have abandoned big overseas fights. We know that ITV are bargain basement and that BBC offer nothing. But if it wasn't for Setanta then we wouldn't be getting any look in to fights abroad.
Froch-Taylor was their chance to give something back for a change but not a snow flakes chance in hell.
Their renewed monopoly of the EPL could very well kill Setanta stone dead over the next 5 years and if they go then we're back to a near black out.
I mean what is the point in allowing one broadcaster to purchase 5 out of 6 packages? How is that going to alleviate monopolisation? Allowing a maximum of 4 out of 6 made sense as 46 matches is enough for a broadcaster to attract potential subscription but 23 games per season looks virtually unfeasible as a marketing tool. Yet thats whats been allowed to happen and the knock on effect is that all of the sports that Setanta are trying to bankroll are going to suffer. The SPL is already gonna suffer to the tune of £25 million and you can be sure boxing will take a serious kick in the gonads. I was thinking recently that we may look back on this period as a sort of halcyon one for boxing coverage in this country where we get weekly magazines such as Bunce's boxing hour along with the combined coverage of ITV, Setanta and Sky. Indeed if the aforementioned broadcaster gets its way then we may be looking back a lot sooner than I originally thought.
As for Sky's actual programming itself, it may be naive of me but I refuse to believe that there is more potential in Premier League Darts than world class or even high caliber boxing.
Anyway ultimately I just think its completely absurd that we won't get live coverage of one of the UK's leading world champions fighting one of the world's premier fighters, in the champions home country in the year 2009.
Maybe 5 Live will do commentary.

[metropol]

The only thing that i dont like about the sky coverage is that geordie commentator and the fact that you would swear they are coming out to fight apart from that the game is unbelievably exciting at times also the lads look like nice people , same cant be said for all boxers. In general im not the biggest fan skys coverage for any sport they always seem to be promoting the next event

[alexpaterson]

I know any half decent fighter goes on ppv i bet when Clev and Brook fight better fighters it will go on ppv much prefer setanta and ITV

[gobbles]

The difference with Darts are three fold.

1 - Nobody ever gets injured.
2 - The whole world knows Phil Taylor is the best player and world champion.
3 - They only deal with a single promoter.

The main difference with darts is that they can play endless games, while top boxers box 3-4 times per years. Sky, I was reliably informed by someone in the know, are only interested in wallpaper. It's just about filling hours in a TV schedule. Darts does that nice and cheaply.

Also, regarding Froch and Hennessy being greedy, Sky did not make one offer for the Froch fight. They didn't want to put it on pay-per-view because they would not make money and it was a week before Hatton and they do not want to spend any money showing fights on Saturday now.

[hitman_hatton1]

The difference with Darts are three fold.

1 - Nobody ever gets injured.
2 - The whole world knows Phil Taylor is the best player and world champion.
3 - They only deal with a single promoter.

the BDO are out there of course.

but hearn has even built bridges with them for that tournament they do before christmas.

not as it really matters cos everyone knows the PDC is where it's at with taylor, barney etc.

boxing can never offer that weekly top quality product like darts can.

[hitman_hatton1]

The main difference with darts is that they can play endless games, while top boxers box 3-4 times per years. Sky, I was reliably informed by someone in the know, are only interested in wallpaper. It's just about filling hours in a TV schedule. Darts does that nice and cheaply.

Also, regarding Froch and Hennessy being greedy, Sky did not make one offer for the Froch fight. They didn't want to put it on pay-per-view because they would not make money and it was a week before Hatton and they do not want to spend any money showing fights on Saturday now.

yep.

top quality boxing costs more. :>

[Autobarn]

What are you saying, Orson Welles - director of TOUCH OF EVIL and CITIZEN KANE - had no clue about making films?