PPV or Not PPV - that is the question.

Dangerous Gee · Post by **Dangerous Gee** » 01 Jul 2010, 17:32

Frannk Warrren has a big card coming up, are you paying for it?

TerribleTerry · Post by **TerribleTerry** » 01 Jul 2010, 17:33

If the card holds up 100% and I wasnt going then yes I would pay.

It is a MONSTER domestic card - only a card of this size, with all title fights being screened, warrants the price tag though IMO.

Dangerous Gee · Post by **Dangerous Gee** » 01 Jul 2010, 17:34

TerribleTerry wrote:If the card holds up 100% and I wasnt going then yes I would pay.

It is a MONSTER domestic card - only a card of this size, with all title fights being screened, warrants the price tag though IMO.

Did you vote?

I am sure people will be watching.

bfchunk · Post by **bfchunk** » 01 Jul 2010, 18:02

I'm OK with paying for this as it's a great card and they say they are showing all the fights.

Not best pleased Sky Sports subscription is up by £3 per month in Sept.

Dangerous Gee · Post by **Dangerous Gee** » 02 Jul 2010, 02:45

bfchunk wrote:I'm OK with paying for this as it's a great card and they say they are showing all the fights.

Not best pleased Sky Sports subscription is up by £3 per month in Sept.

£3.00 more? Not good news!

Do you think every tme Frank does a show will it be PPV?

I hope not!

mickey1975 · Post by **mickey1975** » 02 Jul 2010, 02:57

I dont think the numbers will be that great as none of the boxers are big enough names to attract the casuall fan but i think its a fantastic bill and great value and am suprised if anyone on here felt differently.How anyone who comes on a boxing forum can moan about this card is beyond me.Its what we have been crying out for,excellent matches ALL shown live.And it ends the Barker-Macklin debate!

Dangerous Gee · Post by **Dangerous Gee** » 02 Jul 2010, 03:00

mickey1975 wrote:I dont think the numbers will be that great as none of the boxers are big enough names to attract the casuall fan but i think its a fantastic bill and great value and am suprised if anyone on here felt differently.How anyone who comes on a boxing forum can moan about this card is beyond me.Its what we have been crying out for,excellent matches ALL shown live.And it ends the Barker-Macklin debate!

Its a brilliant card, but is it PPV worthy on top of the money we pay for sky sports already?

Surely we should have these type of fights split on two bills on a regular basis?

mickey1975 · Post by **mickey1975** » 02 Jul 2010, 03:18

Dangerous Gee wrote:
mickey1975 wrote:I dont think the numbers will be that great as none of the boxers are big enough names to attract the casuall fan but i think its a fantastic bill and great value and am suprised if anyone on here felt differently.How anyone who comes on a boxing forum can moan about this card is beyond me.Its what we have been crying out for,excellent matches ALL shown live.And it ends the Barker-Macklin debate!
Its a brilliant card, but is it PPV worthy on top of the money we pay for sky sports already?

Surely we should have these type of fights split on two bills on a regular basis?

Probably,but i will make do with this!

leforge · Post by **leforge** » 02 Jul 2010, 03:20

Burns bill is not ppv.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 02 Jul 2010, 05:10

I heard that Sky had to reduce the subscription of their sports channels..... not sure why but I read on various forums that it was a forced thing.... but apparently if you subcribe only to two of the sports channels.

Alba · Post by **Alba** » 02 Jul 2010, 08:42

if and its a big if all or most of the title fights get shown it will be worth it but know sky they will show prob two fights then the olympians ignorign the other fights etc .

don't call it a comeback · Post by **don't call it a comeback** » 04 Jul 2010, 10:23

none of these fights taken on their own are even arguable ppv contenders.

All Warren has done is lumped together all the quite interesting fights we should be getting for free as part of our sky package - and used to get in the old days - on one bill in an attempt to get some cash in. Good domestic/fringe world level card but as a ppv its a bit of a bad joke in my view.

Its like if Jawaid Khaliq and Arnie Farnell were still fighting we would be stumping up PPV cash for them.

IRLangmaid25 · Post by **IRLangmaid25** » 04 Jul 2010, 11:33

Is it going be on normal Sky Sports or Box Office?

whicker · Post by **whicker** » 04 Jul 2010, 12:03

Unless I'm wrong, I think you need to already have a Sky Sports subscription to get the PPV.

That shouldn't be the case- seems like a double charge. It perhaps should be available to anyone at the price, or Sky Sports subscribers at half price.

As it stands, it's like a "4.99 buffet" where they then charge you extra for the best food.

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 04 Jul 2010, 12:48

not a chance i'll be paying for it.

There are some good match-ups, but no seriously big super-star fights that the PPV was initially brought in for.

This fight card should be the type of show that Sky should be offering as part of the standard sky subscription. Otherwise people won't bother with sky sports at all if the half decent fights are PPV

whicker · Post by **whicker** » 04 Jul 2010, 12:51

tonyevs wrote:
This fight card should be the type of show that Sky should be offering as part of the standard sky subscription.

True.

This sort of sends out the message that if a card has several good competative fights, then it's going on PPV, thus leaving the "regualr" sky shows soley with second rate match ups.

leforge · Post by **leforge** » 04 Jul 2010, 12:53

whicker wrote:
tonyevs wrote:
This fight card should be the type of show that Sky should be offering as part of the standard sky subscription.
True.

This sort of sends out the message that if a card has several good competative fights, then it's going on PPV, thus leaving the "regualr" sky shows soley with second rate match ups.

Warren wants a ppv star. But I don't think there one on this bill!

chiggsy · Post by **chiggsy** » 04 Jul 2010, 13:11

I hope the show is a flop and everyone involved (apart from the fighters) loses money.
Charging 15 quid for what is a gloryfied domestic card is wrong.....but like a prick I will end up paying for it.

whicker · Post by **whicker** » 04 Jul 2010, 13:27

Another point, how much of the card will be shown live on TV?

JimJim2009 · Post by **JimJim2009** » 04 Jul 2010, 14:35

This show is like three or four Friday Night shows rolled into one. The promoter in question doesn't have regular shows anymore, so he's getting most of his names on the same show, and apparently that's enough to justify a PPV charge.

Its not the fans fault that he hasn't had regular shows with Sky, but it appears that he's playing "catch up" after a very inactive first half of 2010, and the Sky viewers have to fork out extra for it. Well, obviously they don't have to but many will part with the cash reluctantly.

As a previous poster has observed, this isn't about a show of such quality that PPV can be justified, its more about the quantity.

Is there is a risk that other promoters could just think, "stuff it, instead of four Friday night sky shows over a two month period, I'll just stick them all on a big show and charge viewers £15 on top of the normal sky sports subscription to see it" ?

I hope allegedly goes bust. There is nothing to stop him paying some big name fighters to appear in the UK and headline this show, to give it a proper "big event" feel. He could do a promotional deal with an overseas promoter and shift a big title fight over here, but instead he is just putting most of his top fighters on a bill, which we know will change a lot over the next two months, and he wants people to pay £15 to watch it. Its greedy and I hope it is a disaster for him.

Like I said, its not the fans fault that he can't get regular Sky slots for his stable

Fatsam · Post by **Fatsam** » 04 Jul 2010, 16:47

bfchunk wrote: Not best pleased Sky Sports subscription is up by £3 per month in Sept.

First i have heard of this, they are having a fornicating laugh, 3quid a month extra when people are losing there jobs, think it's time to cancel.

iwz678 · Post by **iwz678** » 04 Jul 2010, 17:09

If it stays like he's announced it then I'm certain of buying it. I will probably do so anyway but this has to be the biggest UK Boxing card for years.

Bennyblanco · Post by **Bennyblanco** » 04 Jul 2010, 17:17

Says on the sun site that the frankie gavin v woodhouse fight isnt being televised

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... er-18.html

whicker · Post by **whicker** » 04 Jul 2010, 18:36

iwz678 wrote:If it stays like he's announced it then I'm certain of buying it. I will probably do so anyway but this has to be the biggest UK Boxing card for years.

Thing is, how many bouts will make it onto the broadcast?

twenty six · Post by **twenty six** » 05 Jul 2010, 03:31

I dont see that Wazza has an alternative.
It's public knowledge how much the purse bids were to land the Macklin / Barker Rhodes / Konekny fights.
Take a guesstimate of how much the other fights will cost and you'll soon get to a decent number.
Ticket sales wont cover it, and if the figures bandied about that Sky are prepared to pay for TV rights are correct, without some other revenue stream Wazza would lose money.
He's a shrewd business man.
There's No such thing as a free lunch.

PPV or Not PPV - that is the question.

Is it PPV worthy?

PPV or Not PPV - that is the question.

Re: PPV or Not PPV - that is the question.

Re: PPV or Not PPV - that is the question.

Re: PPV or Not PPV - that is the question.

Re: PPV or Not PPV - that is the question.

Re: PPV or Not PPV - that is the question.

Re: PPV or Not PPV - that is the question.

Re: PPV or Not PPV - that is the question.

Re: PPV or Not PPV - that is the question.

Re: PPV or Not PPV - that is the question.

Re: PPV or Not PPV - that is the question.

Re: PPV or Not PPV - that is the question.

Re: PPV or Not PPV - that is the question.

Re: PPV or Not PPV - that is the question.

Re: PPV or Not PPV - that is the question.

Re: PPV or Not PPV - that is the question.

Re: PPV or Not PPV - that is the question.

Re: PPV or Not PPV - that is the question.

Re: PPV or Not PPV - that is the question.

Re: PPV or Not PPV - that is the question.

Re: PPV or Not PPV - that is the question.

Re: PPV or Not PPV - that is the question.

Re: PPV or Not PPV - that is the question.

Re: PPV or Not PPV - that is the question.

Re: PPV or Not PPV - that is the question.