did froch v direll only do 15,000 on primetime?

Samuel Brooks
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 86
Joined: 27 Jul 2009, 06:52

did froch v direll only do 15,000 on primetime?

Post by Samuel Brooks »

According to Warren's column on his website, iit says that Froch v Direll only did 15,000 buys on Primetime. Is this correct? Does anyone know any more?
15829
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3505
Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 13:26

Re: did froch v direll only do 15,000 on primetime?

Post by 15829 »

must be true ive never known frank to lie :KO:
Maelstrom
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 425
Joined: 30 Nov 2007, 19:05

Re: did froch v direll only do 15,000 on primetime?

Post by Maelstrom »

If it did even that many, I would be extremely surprised. My estimate, as I have said before, would be around 3000.

It wasn't really picked up in the press, didn't feature a household name and was on a marginal channel.
sweetscience
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2816
Joined: 22 Sep 2004, 09:09

Re: did froch v direll only do 15,000 on primetime?

Post by sweetscience »

id be shocked if it were that many

if it was on the normal sky box office i would have bought it....but i couldnt be assed faffin about ringing and setting my phone line up etc
Adamj1987
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5400
Joined: 14 Oct 2008, 16:16

Re: did froch v direll only do 15,000 on primetime?

Post by Adamj1987 »

it wasnt many esspecially with the glitch that people saw it for free so i doubt that it would count them
gobbles
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2682
Joined: 18 Dec 2003, 15:04

Re: did froch v direll only do 15,000 on primetime?

Post by gobbles »

Maelstrom wrote:If it did even that many, I would be extremely surprised. My estimate, as I have said before, would be around 3000.

It wasn't really picked up in the press, didn't feature a household name and was on a marginal channel.


... and at 3am
whiskey
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 11956
Joined: 27 Mar 2007, 14:52

Re: did froch v direll only do 15,000 on primetime?

Post by whiskey »

Didnt someone claim Khan only did 14,000 ?
gemmell
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 645
Joined: 16 Jul 2009, 16:12

Re: did froch v direll only do 15,000 on primetime?

Post by gemmell »

Maelstrom wrote:If it did even that many, I would be extremely surprised. My estimate, as I have said before, would be around 3000.

It wasn't really picked up in the press, didn't feature a household name and was on a marginal channel.
3 thousand :lol: :lol: it would have done atleast 10 thousand in nottingham alone!! i heard it did 23 thousand. which is a success for primetime. warren is an idiot.he tried to claim khan vs kotelnik did 50k+ :lol: :lol: when in reality it did less then 30k :OhYes: and that is with it being advertised EVERYWHERE ON SKY
DG.
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: did froch v direll only do 15,000 on primetime?

Post by DG. »

diggler wrote:must be true ive never known frank to lie :KO:

:OhYes:
whiskey
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 11956
Joined: 27 Mar 2007, 14:52

Re: did froch v direll only do 15,000 on primetime?

Post by whiskey »

I thought primetime had some sort of connection with Queensbury or whatever its called that Warren has some sort of investment in does he not ?

So i cant see why there is a criticism.
rhino222
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6616
Joined: 09 Sep 2005, 09:38

Re: did froch v direll only do 15,000 on primetime?

Post by rhino222 »

plank sporran always mentions everyones viewing figures......apart from his own !!
Andy
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2908
Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 08:57

Re: did froch v direll only do 15,000 on primetime?

Post by Andy »

G0mez wrote:I thought primetime had some sort of connection with Queensbury or whatever its called that Warren has some sort of investment in does he not ?

So i cant see why there is a criticism.
Different company C, the one you are thinking of is spelled Queensberry.
:TU:
leforge
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 7790
Joined: 04 Mar 2005, 12:44

Re: did froch v direll only do 15,000 on primetime?

Post by leforge »

Froch needs to get kessler fight on a proper channel!
gemmell
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 645
Joined: 16 Jul 2009, 16:12

Re: did froch v direll only do 15,000 on primetime?

Post by gemmell »

leforge wrote:Froch needs to get kessler fight on a proper channel!
yeh surely if sky box office make an offer hennessey will go for it. it would do big numbers on box office i think
TerribleTerry
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5272
Joined: 29 Aug 2003, 12:30

Re: did froch v direll only do 15,000 on primetime?

Post by TerribleTerry »

There is a really interesting interview regarding the Primetime Froch 'experiment' with the M.D of Primetime over on the Boxrec news site. If you are interested in this subject, check it out:

http://news.boxrec.com/news/2009/only-1 ... imetime-tv
watson748
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 84
Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 14:21

Re: did froch v direll only do 15,000 on primetime?

Post by watson748 »

TerribleTerry wrote:There is a really interesting interview regarding the Primetime Froch 'experiment' with the M.D of Primetime over on the Boxrec news site. If you are interested in this subject, check it out:

http://news.boxrec.com/news/2009/only-1 ... imetime-tv
sounds encouraging. :TU:
Maelstrom
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 425
Joined: 30 Nov 2007, 19:05

Re: did froch v direll only do 15,000 on primetime?

Post by Maelstrom »

gemmell wrote:
Maelstrom wrote:If it did even that many, I would be extremely surprised. My estimate, as I have said before, would be around 3000.

It wasn't really picked up in the press, didn't feature a household name and was on a marginal channel.
3 thousand :lol: :lol: it would have done atleast 10 thousand in nottingham alone!! i heard it did 23 thousand. which is a success for primetime. warren is an idiot.he tried to claim khan vs kotelnik did 50k+ :lol: :lol: when in reality it did less then 30k :OhYes: and that is with it being advertised EVERYWHERE ON SKY
A truly unbisased opinion there from Froch's number one fan.

I stick to my estimate, but we will never know. I would like to point out, however, that if Nottingham was so mad for the fight, why didn't they sell 10,000+ tickets?
15829
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3505
Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 13:26

Re: did froch v direll only do 15,000 on primetime?

Post by 15829 »

I stick to my estimate, but we will never know. I would like to point out, however, that if Nottingham was so mad for the fight, why didn't they sell 10,000+ tickets?[/quote]


thats probably because the trent doesnt hold that many
hitman_hatton1
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6150
Joined: 26 Nov 2003, 20:57

Re: did froch v direll only do 15,000 on primetime?

Post by hitman_hatton1 »

Ant Evans wrote:Because the arena cannot hold that many.... :-?
tilt. :lol:
gemmell
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 645
Joined: 16 Jul 2009, 16:12

Re: did froch v direll only do 15,000 on primetime?

Post by gemmell »

Maelstrom wrote:
gemmell wrote:
Maelstrom wrote:If it did even that many, I would be extremely surprised. My estimate, as I have said before, would be around 3000.

It wasn't really picked up in the press, didn't feature a household name and was on a marginal channel.
3 thousand :lol: :lol: it would have done atleast 10 thousand in nottingham alone!! i heard it did 23 thousand. which is a success for primetime. warren is an idiot.he tried to claim khan vs kotelnik did 50k+ :lol: :lol: when in reality it did less then 30k :OhYes: and that is with it being advertised EVERYWHERE ON SKY
A truly unbisased opinion there from Froch's number one fan.

I stick to my estimate, but we will never know. I would like to point out, however, that if Nottingham was so mad for the fight, why didn't they sell 10,000+ tickets?
what a knob sack trent fm arena holds 8 thousand. your estimate is based on what? if wazza says it did 15 thousand that means it did more :lol: :OhYes:
Maelstrom
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 425
Joined: 30 Nov 2007, 19:05

Re: did froch v direll only do 15,000 on primetime?

Post by Maelstrom »

I am afraid you are all wrong here. If set out for max capacity It can hold 11,000. Do not believe everything you read.

And do you all believe that every ticket that went on sale got sold? Did any of you go to the fight?

Besides, if they could have sold more, they would have gone to a bigger venue. After all, they have been banging on about the footy ground for long enough.
whiskey
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 11956
Joined: 27 Mar 2007, 14:52

Re: did froch v direll only do 15,000 on primetime?

Post by whiskey »

Maelstrom wrote:I am afraid you are all wrong here. If set out for max capacity It can hold 11,000. Do not believe everything you read.

And do you all believe that every ticket that went on sale got sold? Did any of you go to the fight?

Besides, if they could have sold more, they would have gone to a bigger venue. After all, they have been banging on about the footy ground for long enough.
Im afraid your wrong.

The 11,000 mark is for concerts, not boxing, where a third of the floor is taken by the ring and associated TV coverage teams.

Somehow i dont think a freezing cold october night at 3am in a drafty football ground would have done very well.

Fact is, the full house at the arena was a good result given the fact that Dirrell only brought his immeadiate family with him. Everyone else was there for Froch, as the undercard was a bit of a filler.
Maelstrom
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 425
Joined: 30 Nov 2007, 19:05

Re: did froch v direll only do 15,000 on primetime?

Post by Maelstrom »

G0mez wrote:
Maelstrom wrote:I am afraid you are all wrong here. If set out for max capacity It can hold 11,000. Do not believe everything you read.

And do you all believe that every ticket that went on sale got sold? Did any of you go to the fight?

Besides, if they could have sold more, they would have gone to a bigger venue. After all, they have been banging on about the footy ground for long enough.
Im afraid your wrong.

The 11,000 mark is for concerts, not boxing, where a third of the floor is taken by the ring and associated TV coverage teams.

Somehow i dont think a freezing cold october night at 3am in a drafty football ground would have done very well.

Fact is, the full house at the arena was a good result given the fact that Dirrell only brought his immeadiate family with him. Everyone else was there for Froch, as the undercard was a bit of a filler.
From what I understand, (another promoter has been to the Arena don't forget), that actually isn't so.... but either way I am NOT saying the attendance wasnt impressive. I think it was.

What I am saying is that Gemmels original statement that the fight would have done 10,000 PPV's buy just in Nottingham is wrong - (along with Ant and Hitman Hattons comments) - when you could still by tickets on the door on the night of the fight. There could have been more tickets sold.

Anyway Gomez, being close to the camp, you must know the number of buys?
mickey1975
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 23094
Joined: 02 Mar 2009, 12:54

Re: did froch v direll only do 15,000 on primetime?

Post by mickey1975 »

G0mez wrote:
Maelstrom wrote:I am afraid you are all wrong here. If set out for max capacity It can hold 11,000. Do not believe everything you read.

And do you all believe that every ticket that went on sale got sold? Did any of you go to the fight?

Besides, if they could have sold more, they would have gone to a bigger venue. After all, they have been banging on about the footy ground for long enough.
Im afraid your wrong.

The 11,000 mark is for concerts, not boxing, where a third of the floor is taken by the ring and associated TV coverage teams.

Somehow i dont think a freezing cold october night at 3am in a drafty football ground would have done very well.

Fact is, the full house at the arena was a good result given the fact that Dirrell only brought his immeadiate family with him. Everyone else was there for Froch, as the undercard was a bit of a filler.
A ring is an awful lot smaller than a stage.I have been to concerts and fights at various arenas and the fights have much more space.For instance,all the blocks behind the stage are unusable.That means,at somewhere like the M.E.N,there must be thousands of seats that cant be sold.Hatton-Tsyu did 20,000plus,i would be amazed if any gig has beat that.Surely Ant Evans can clear this up,he generally knows the facts on things like this.
Maelstrom
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 425
Joined: 30 Nov 2007, 19:05

Re: did froch v direll only do 15,000 on primetime?

Post by Maelstrom »

mickey1975 wrote:
G0mez wrote:
Maelstrom wrote:I am afraid you are all wrong here. If set out for max capacity It can hold 11,000. Do not believe everything you read.

And do you all believe that every ticket that went on sale got sold? Did any of you go to the fight?

Besides, if they could have sold more, they would have gone to a bigger venue. After all, they have been banging on about the footy ground for long enough.
Im afraid your wrong.

The 11,000 mark is for concerts, not boxing, where a third of the floor is taken by the ring and associated TV coverage teams.

Somehow i dont think a freezing cold october night at 3am in a drafty football ground would have done very well.

Fact is, the full house at the arena was a good result given the fact that Dirrell only brought his immeadiate family with him. Everyone else was there for Froch, as the undercard was a bit of a filler.
A ring is an awful lot smaller than a stage.I have been to concerts and fights at various arenas and the fights have much more space.For instance,all the blocks behind the stage are unusable.That means,at somewhere like the M.E.N,there must be thousands of seats that cant be sold.Hatton-Tsyu did 20,000plus,i would be amazed if any gig has beat that.Surely Ant Evans can clear this up,he generally knows the facts on things like this.
I think that post is about spot on. As I understand it, a floor plan has been produced in the past by the Arena for boxing that holds more than their advertised 10,000 capacity. I am not saying it was used.
Post Reply