Re: HOW MANY PPVS A YEAR IS TOO MUCH?

Chambers2 · Post by **Chambers2** » 07 Sep 2010, 04:29

[Not my thread]

winkveron · Post by **winkveron** » 07 Sep 2010, 04:51

I would have said 6 if the option was there. Then every other month would be fine if it was a top quality card.

Newport Daz · Post by **Newport Daz** » 07 Sep 2010, 06:14

I pay an arm and a leg for Sky as it is. If it was a special occasion like the Magnificant 7, then maybe. However, Sky charging us for Haye Vs Audley is a disgrace and will not be paying one penny for it. It's a double edged sword this ppv stuff. If we make these events lucrative for Sky and the promoters they are likely to move more of the shows onto ppv. On the other hand you want to watch the big fights, especially in HD.It seems like there's a trend to move us over to the American way of things. It's such a shame Setanta spent most of their money on football and went bust. Personally I think we should boycott Haye Vs Harrison. Hitting Haye and Sky in the pocket is the only way they're going to take notice of us.

Asterix · Post by **Asterix** » 07 Sep 2010, 06:55

It's disgusting that you pay for a monthly subscription with Sky/Virgin, pay for the Pay Per View and THEN still have to watch advertisements. It's financial rape.

There shouldn't be Pay Per Views.

Newport Daz · Post by **Newport Daz** » 07 Sep 2010, 07:20

Asterix wrote:It's disgusting that you pay for a monthly subscription with Sky/Virgin, pay for the Pay Per View and THEN still have to watch advertisements. It's financial rape.

There shouldn't be Pay Per Views.

That's true. At least when HBO are doing a ppv there are no adverts for the American audiences. Adverts after every round or two is real bollocks. I like to see and hear the instructions that the boxers are being given between rounds. When you are paying extra for the priviledge there should be no adverts at all.

Asterix · Post by **Asterix** » 07 Sep 2010, 08:38

Newport Daz wrote:
Asterix wrote:It's disgusting that you pay for a monthly subscription with Sky/Virgin, pay for the Pay Per View and THEN still have to watch advertisements. It's financial rape.

There shouldn't be Pay Per Views.
That's true. At least when HBO are doing a ppv there are no adverts for the American audiences. Adverts after every round or two is real bollocks. I like to see and hear the instructions that the boxers are being given between rounds. When you are paying extra for the priviledge there should be no adverts at all.

Same here. You get much more of a feel for the flow of the fight and the mentality of each team. It all adds to the atmosphere of watching a boxing fight.

exittored · Post by **exittored** » 07 Sep 2010, 08:45

PPV's are terrible for boxing but if there isn't enough money on the table from the networks then the promoters will go the ppv route to make the fights happen.

If SKY PPV include Manny Pacquiao vs. Antonio Margarito, Guillermo Rigondeaux vs. Ricardo Cardoba and Kelly Pavlik then £15 is pretty good value for money for Haye vs Harrison.

TheCobra · Post by **TheCobra** » 07 Sep 2010, 08:56

For me it's not how many, it's the quality of the card. If it's Hatton vs Pacquiao or Mayweather, then I can see the reasoning for PPV. For big world title fights then in theory it is worthwhile. But for anything else i think it's just a big con.

bfchunk · Post by **bfchunk** » 07 Sep 2010, 10:04

We could have three ppvs between now and end of year if Khan-Maidana goes the same way. The worrying trend could be a PPV every 6-8 weeks!

How many is too much?