I'm sick of pay per view!

[mahatma]

i pay 468 a year the for sky sports package, on top of this any time theres a big fight im expected to pay 15 quid, this saturday im expected to pay 15 quid for 7 mediocre fights jumbled together as the magnificent 7.
we the british public are paying extortionately for our tv obviously i pay a licence fee to the beeb as well.In the states the cable is free and you buy events on top which means you choose what you pay for.

[chrisfinch]

You choose what you pay for on sky, nobody expects you to pay £15. You don't have to buy the whole package, and you don't have to buy this, or any PPV. It's a bit shitty all these fights are on different pay channels, but that's how it is and the choice is there for you to buy these fights if you want.

If you don't like it, don't buy. Simple.

[mahatma]

chris i pay for sky principally for the boxing,i dont watch most of the other channels included for 'free' i then think it unreasonable that i have to pay extra money for the big fights.
sky tried this with the football and started asking extra for the season ticket they soon had to stop it when rivalled by setanta and dont do it at all now - one price for coverage of all the premier football that they show, cant see why it cant be the same with the boxing

[oliverfennell]

chris i pay for sky principally for the boxing,i dont watch most of the other channels included for 'free' i then think it unreasonable that i have to pay extra money for the big fights.

Yeah, same here, and that's part of the problem. I barely watch any TV besides sports and movies so Sky was just for the boxing, but there's no way to get JUST the sports channels without everything else. If it was possible to only pay the sports subscription, it would be much more palatable.

[Jeff Thomas]

I'm not tight and £15 isn't a great stretch for me thank God, but like many other ppv I'll be missing this one- that's not to say it's not a good show- I think it's excellent - but it's DOMESTIC boxing and the day we start paying for that is the start of a sorry road. Sky have improved there coverage in the last two weeks but 3 fights in three hours last weekend? Two of them complete non competitive? So I for one out of principle will not be buying- nothing to do with the promoter, broadcaster or fighters.

[lefthook82]

I gave up sky and have not missed it one iota. £600 a year we were paying primarily for Super Sunday/Fight night etc.

Re PPV. Just go to a bar or something. All PPVs in Britain i watch at the sports cafe

[Carbo]

Question: why should people give away their products for free?

If you don't want it, don't buy it, and hopefully, enough people will do the same to make the promoters and TV channels, at worst, change pricing policy, or at best, change their business model to realize that building mass support for the pay off at the end is a better way forward.

But in the meantime, why buy something and then complain? And why shouldn't people get as much money as they possibly can for their work and products?

I'd like Steve Jobs to make the iPhone cheaper, but he doesn't. I'd like to be able to go and watch Newcastle play football for less than 30 quid, but I can't. So I'm faced with a choice: either I think it's worth it, in which case I pay, or I think it isn't worth it, in which case I don't pay.

What I don't do is something so stupid as come to the conclusion that it's not worth it and then pay anyway and complain.

These people understand one thing: money. Take enough of it away, and they'll realize that it might be better to have a larger audience for advertising than a smaller one paying.

[oliverfennell]

I'm not tight and £15 isn't a great stretch for me thank God, but like many other ppv I'll be missing this one- that's not to say it's not a good show- I think it's excellent - but it's DOMESTIC boxing and the day we start paying for that is the start of a sorry road. Sky have improved there coverage in the last two weeks but 3 fights in three hours last weekend? Two of them complete non competitive? So I for one out of principle will not be buying- nothing to do with the promoter, broadcaster or fighters.

Well, you can't exactly blame Sky for how Wlad-Peter turned out. It was a good enough match on paper. Determining VFM can't always be done before the event. Poor "chief support" for Booth, though, agreed.

[tsmithy50]

I thought I was paying 40 quid a month for my sky package but my missus informed me it was nearer 70 (with all the HD) - which is incredible really. When I tried to convince her I wanted the Tyson Fury fight on Premier she wouldn't budge and we clearly saw who wheres the trouser... No discussion saturday i'm just booking it! I've weighed up the pros and cons and bottomline is theres so many fights I'm looking forward to I have to buy it..

[Wake up call]

Question: why should people give away their products for free?

If someone is paying their monthly Sky subscription, they're not getting it for free are they?

[Carbo]

Question: why should people give away their products for free?

If someone is paying their monthly Sky subscription, they're not getting it for free are they?

Eh?

[Wake up call]

You said why should they give products (ie boxing fights) away for free.

Well, if it's on normal Sky, where people have to pay a monthly subsciption for viewing, it isn't free.

I love this bill at the weekend and will buy but I can't say I support PPV cards. They have been a cancer on the sport for the past 15 years and have contributed to a time when the average man in the street no longer follows boxing. Only the hardcore boxing fans will buy this week's bill and that isn't helping the sport in anyway.

[Twinkle Toes]

But in the meantime, why buy something and then complain? And why shouldn't people get as much money as they possibly can for their work and products?

Mate, seriously. I generally agree with your thoughts, but that is an odd thing to say.

I assume you've never bought anything in your life and complained about it afterwards then?

[tsmithy50]

The streams are very poor sometimes, I've missed knock-outs before because it's just decided to switch itself off and for football the streams constantly go. Also the comentary is not always in english. Crickets hard to get and even when you can find a stream it's impossible to watch without having to give your eyes a rest. And theres nothing like sitting in your front room with a beer channel hopping sport with the remote, for me personally I see skysports as money well spent.

[Carbo]

You said why should they give products (ie boxing fights) away for free.

Well, if it's on normal Sky, where people have to pay a monthly subsciption for viewing, it isn't free.

I love this bill at the weekend and will buy but I can't say I support PPV cards. They have been a cancer on the sport for the past 15 years and have contributed to a time when the average man in the street no longer follows boxing. Only the hardcore boxing fans will buy this week's bill and that isn't helping the sport in anyway.

Well, on the latter point you're right. I genuinely believe that PPV at its current extent is not good for the sport. At the top end, it helps raise the huge sums of money necessary to make big fights happen. But at the lower end, this money raising must be played off against a boxer not having a big enough audience for his work, and therefore the lower potential pay off at the end. Further, from a broader scale view, I think boxing is a superb sport, and if more people were shown it, more people would like it, and ultimately that would bring more money into the game.

But that's completely different to the "why should I have to pay for it" argument. The boxer, the promoter and the tv channel own that fight. It's not different to the fact that Apple owns the iPod, or MGM owns the James Bond movies. Given that they own it, and that it's not something that people need to survive, like penicillin or water, they have the right to charge for it what they want.

As a consumer, you have the right to buy that or not. Nobody's forcing you to spend. But equally, there's no "right" to get that for free on ITV or as part of the standard Sky subscription package. But the great thing is, that you, the consumer, not they, the provider, have the ultimate power in this, because the owners of the product make and economic decision on how to package and sell their product, which products to offer and how to make money out of them.

If you stop paying for PPV on everything but genuine superfights, they'll have to rethink.

Personally, I don't have an issue with paying for a fight. It's entertainment for an evening and I enjoy it, and it's not a great deal of money for me. I do however think that in the long term it's going to be bad for the sport.

It just irritates me when I hear "It's a disgrace that you have to pay for this stuff", and "it should be back on ITV free," etc.

[medved]

the problem you face with the boxing is that it's not as regulated in the amount of fights per year and that you dont have all the promoters signed up to it like in the same way the premiership does.

this is always going to cause problems as one promoter wants more for his show that the other does. i dont think there will ever be a solution to this as even if a deal could be sorted with the promoters they would not want their really big fighters to be tied up to this

[ourkid1984]

I don't like the amount of Pay Per Views but I just normally get a few mates around, share the cost of a crate and the Pay per view and have a good night drinking, watching boxing and normally ending up eating kebab or pizza. For a good night of Saturday entertainment I end up only paying about a tenner which is cheaper than watching it in a pub or wasting time and effort trying to find a decent stream online.

I would love all fights (especially British based) to be no extra cost but they're not likely to change after years of making tons of money by doing pay per views.

I do think what Premier has done is great, £6.99 a month for decent fights at home and abroard, like for example they're showing the Mosley-Mora fight plus most of the undercard which in the states would cost $45.

[Dioufy]

I am against all PPV events. I wouldn't even pay for Haye/Klit and Pacquiao/Mayweather if they were on the same bill. I paid £50-a-month for Sky, and to be asked to pay out £15 on top for domestic bouts and one-sided beatdowns, plus more for Setanta, ESPN and now Primetime is asking way too much. I also have another gripe when it comes to SBO; if you pay £15 for a film, or any amount in fact, would you expect to see adverts? I wouldn't, and when I phoned up to complain I was simply told that there was nothing I, or them could do. The next day I cancelled my subscription, and I will never go back.

[bad mamma jamma]

its a rip off, i also pay monthly for sky sports, how dare they charge extra for what is really a domestic bill? dont buy it, strewam it or watch in a bar..if you buy it you are only encouraging them to do it more often..

[tsmithy50]

How about you do what you want and I do what I want.

[Tommy Gunn13]

I wont be paying for the ppv this saturday,no disrespect to any of the fighters,they are all decent fights made but i feel if we pay for this(which none are ppv fighters)i think sky will think they can do it all the time....

[Carbo]

its a rip off, i also pay monthly for sky sports, how dare they charge extra for what is really a domestic bill? dont buy it, strewam it or watch in a bar..if you buy it you are only encouraging them to do it more often..

Yeah, man. How dare they try to make money. How dare they do that.

[bad mamma jamma]

its a rip off, i also pay monthly for sky sports, how dare they charge extra for what is really a domestic bill? dont buy it, strewam it or watch in a bar..if you buy it you are only encouraging them to do it more often..

Yeah, man. How dare they try to make money. How dare they do that.

exactly..thanks for your support

[bad mamma jamma]

its a rip off, i also pay monthly for sky sports, how dare they charge extra for what is really a domestic bill? dont buy it, strewam it or watch in a bar..if you buy it you are only encouraging them to do it more often..

Yeah, man. How dare they try to make money. How dare they do that.

..seriously, have you ever heard of customer service, customer loyaly? sky haven't. its my opinion that they are c@nts for charging someone twice for the same product, which is boxing. please let me lend your tree that money grows from..

[Carbo]

its a rip off, i also pay monthly for sky sports, how dare they charge extra for what is really a domestic bill? dont buy it, strewam it or watch in a bar..if you buy it you are only encouraging them to do it more often..

Yeah, man. How dare they try to make money. How dare they do that.

..seriously, have you ever heard of customer service, customer loyaly? sky haven't. its my opinion that they are c@nts for charging someone twice for the same product, which is boxing. please let me lend your tree that money grows from..

Man, there are all kinds of things I can't afford. I can't afford a luxury apartment near the city centre. I can't afford a new kitchen for my current one. I can't afford a new Jag. I can't afford all types of things. Other things, I could afford, like to eat out every night, but that would mean less money to spend on other things, like buying clothes, and less money to put towards that Jag I'm saving for. But that doesn't make me criticise real estate developers, car manufacturers or Ikea.

Meantime, the product is the TV channels you get for your money. What they show is up to them, and as far as I can tell, they just promise "boxing", not every single fight that bad mamma jamma might conceivably want to see. The other product is each fight, and whether you get that as part of the package or you have to pay for it is up to the fighters and promoters and is down to economic necessity as much as anything.

That said, you're right: Sky are c@nts. So why pay for it?