Why I hate Sky...

[Jon Saxon]

You know I have used this forum for a few years now and I have i may have created one or two topics that were for some reason removed, hence the reason that I dont really post on a regular basis on here, i have spent a wee while drafting this and I'm going to posts this up on another forum that I am a member of that I know will keep it up.

Don't get me wrong I like this place however as of late this forum is turning into a Sky TV love nest and I'm sorry while I like Adam & co I think that maybe "Ya'll musta forgot"
You see no amount of good PR from their employees and or backpedalling from Sky will ever hide the fact that they are 100% scum.

The Super Six should have been on ITV, when it wasnt (and Sky didnt jump on it) was when Sky again failed their subscribers and let the British boxing scene down AGAIN.

"Oh Jon your being a bit harsh, the Sky team of Ed, Adam etc etc seem like really nice guys"
I'm sure they are BUT does anyone remember that initailly you had to subscribe to Sky/Bsb to see Tysons fights, then the scum decided to brieifly put them on the movie channels,(which required an additional subscription) then on sports channels (again more money) then of course lets not forget that we were the first fans to get but fuked with PPV.


The Tories tested the pol tax out on Scotland now thanks to Sky I now what it's like to get royally fucked in the ass twice.
Face it folks Sky fucked over every boxing fan since day one.

So get it right up you Murdoch & Co.

[earsjohn]

You know I have used this forum for a few years now and I have i may have created one or two topics that were for some reason removed, hence the reason that I dont really post on a regular basis on here, i have spent a wee while drafting this and I'm going to posts this up on another forum that I am a member of that I know will keep it up.

Don't get me wrong I like this place however as of late this forum is turning into a Sky TV love nest and I'm sorry while I like Adam & co I think that maybe "Ya'll musta forgot"
You see no amount of good PR from their employees and or backpedalling from Sky will ever hide the fact that they are 100% scum.

The Super Six should have been on ITV, when it wasnt (and Sky didnt jump on it) was when Sky again failed their subscribers and let the British boxing scene down AGAIN.

"Oh Jon your being a bit harsh, the Sky team of Ed, Adam etc etc seem like really nice guys"
I'm sure they are BUT does anyone remember that initailly you had to subscribe to Sky/Bsb to see Tysons fights, then the scum decided to brieifly put them on the movie channels,(which required an additional subscription) then on sports channels (again more money) then of course lets not forget that we were the first fans to get but fuked with PPV.


The Tories tested the pol tax out on Scotland now thanks to Sky I now what it's like to get royally fucked in the ass twice.
Face it folks Sky fucked over every boxing fan since day one.

So get it right up you Murdoch & Co.

Ok...I'll feed the troll.....

You do have something called a choice you know? Sky charge for their services and charge extra for PPVs but it's not a secret and they don't take the money off you without you knowing about it. You have a choice. If you don't like it, don't pay. Simple.

You seem to be under some kind of illusion that subscription and PPV TV are unique to the UK or to the broadcast of boxing. Satellite TV is a phenomenon that has been around 20-25 years or so (on a mass scale) so it's not like it was in the early 80s with a choice of 4 channels. Sky brought more choice, but without public service funding received by terrestiral channels and with infrastructure costs to cover, subscription services were set up.

Then they had to buy rights for sports in order to show them. Previously, TV companies wouldn't pay much to sports bodies as without competition there wasn't any need. Sky entering the market and increasing the amounts going to sports (look at the almost exponentially increasing fees paid for football) has been good for a large majority of sports (professionalism in Rugby Union, quality of Premiership football, PDC darts, the riches now available on the Euro Golf Tour). The problem with boxing is that the money Sky are prepared to pay doesn't go to a governing body, but to individuals (much like Sky paying for only Man Utd or Phil Taylor matches).

Sky pay the most money as they want the best products (they are a profit seeking company after all) and thus the best boxing finds its way to Sky. Some promoters/boxers have preferred to go down the terrestrial route which garners more publicity but also less wonga. Its a balance and one that is the choice of the boxers/promoters.

So, I'm not quite sure how Sky are Scum for seeking to broadcast the best fighters in order to maximise their revenue. The best fighters will attract fight fans that want to watch them, thus increasing subs. It's not an ideal world in which everything we want is free, but then again it never has been. If you want to complain about anyone treating fight fans with contempt it should be the promoters who are only too happy to take the Sky wedge, they are the ones who do have a choice as to where their fighters are broadcast.

[Chambers2]

It's no coincidence that 'Sky Sports' has the same initials as Hitlers personal bodyguard unit




Only joking Sky TV is Greeeeeat, they're the only consistant British broadcaster of boxing, we'd all be fcuked without em

[leforge]

It's no coincidence that 'Sky Sports' has the same initials as Hitlers personal bodyguard unit




Only joking Sky TV is Greeeeeat, they're the only consistant British broadcaster of boxing, we'd all be fcuked without em

Very true but they can still improve more us fights for a start!

[WelshDevil]

You know I have used this forum for a few years now and I have i may have created one or two topics that were for some reason removed, hence the reason that I dont really post on a regular basis on here, i have spent a wee while drafting this and I'm going to posts this up on another forum that I am a member of that I know will keep it up.

Don't get me wrong I like this place however as of late this forum is turning into a Sky TV love nest and I'm sorry while I like Adam & co I think that maybe "Ya'll musta forgot"
You see no amount of good PR from their employees and or backpedalling from Sky will ever hide the fact that they are 100% scum.

The Super Six should have been on ITV, when it wasnt (and Sky didnt jump on it) was when Sky again failed their subscribers and let the British boxing scene down AGAIN.

"Oh Jon your being a bit harsh, the Sky team of Ed, Adam etc etc seem like really nice guys"
I'm sure they are BUT does anyone remember that initailly you had to subscribe to Sky/Bsb to see Tysons fights, then the scum decided to brieifly put them on the movie channels,(which required an additional subscription) then on sports channels (again more money) then of course lets not forget that we were the first fans to get but fuked with PPV.


The Tories tested the pol tax out on Scotland now thanks to Sky I now what it's like to get royally fucked in the ass twice.
Face it folks Sky fucked over every boxing fan since day one.

So get it right up you Murdoch & Co.

Ok...I'll feed the troll.....

You do have something called a choice you know? Sky charge for their services and charge extra for PPVs but it's not a secret and they don't take the money off you without you knowing about it. You have a choice. If you don't like it, don't pay. Simple.

You seem to be under some kind of illusion that subscription and PPV TV are unique to the UK or to the broadcast of boxing. Satellite TV is a phenomenon that has been around 20-25 years or so (on a mass scale) so it's not like it was in the early 80s with a choice of 4 channels. Sky brought more choice, but without public service funding received by terrestiral channels and with infrastructure costs to cover, subscription services were set up.

Then they had to buy rights for sports in order to show them. Previously, TV companies wouldn't pay much to sports bodies as without competition there wasn't any need. Sky entering the market and increasing the amounts going to sports (look at the almost exponentially increasing fees paid for football) has been good for a large majority of sports (professionalism in Rugby Union, quality of Premiership football, PDC darts, the riches now available on the Euro Golf Tour). The problem with boxing is that the money Sky are prepared to pay doesn't go to a governing body, but to individuals (much like Sky paying for only Man Utd or Phil Taylor matches).

Sky pay the most money as they want the best products (they are a profit seeking company after all) and thus the best boxing finds its way to Sky. Some promoters/boxers have preferred to go down the terrestrial route which garners more publicity but also less wonga. Its a balance and one that is the choice of the boxers/promoters.

So, I'm not quite sure how Sky are Scum for seeking to broadcast the best fighters in order to maximise their revenue. The best fighters will attract fight fans that want to watch them, thus increasing subs. It's not an ideal world in which everything we want is free, but then again it never has been. If you want to complain about anyone treating fight fans with contempt it should be the promoters who are only too happy to take the Sky wedge, they are the ones who do have a choice as to where their fighters are broadcast.

To start, I read the original posters topic and don't see how he is being a "Troll". I don't know his posts and maybe he has a history but on this subject he appears to be correct.

I don't understand your defence of Sky TV? Yes they have done some excellent things but did I or you watch the last few Carl Froch fights on that channel? We didn't.

Haye vs Harrison was a mismatch that was sold to the greater British public who got ripped off £15. How do you justify that?

I agree that Sky do a lot of good things for boxing but they are not perfect by along shot and we shouldn't try and present them that way.

[hurlock]

boxing is dying, it trades of it's glorious past & tv companies generally get bent over imo.

[forcefraser]

Without Sky I`d be rduced to watching boxing on a second rate stream on my laptop. No thanks, I`d rather pay.

In the U.S they charge upto $55 for a pay per view, for some of the fights that we have recived for free. They arent perfect, but they aren`t bad either.

I love watching most sports and Sky`s covergae has brought viewing sport to another level. I feel that the 40 a month is worth the money.

In addition to boxing, we get the footy, the ruggers, the tennis, the cricket, the golf, the darts, the snooker, the lesbian cyclists.

On ESPN you get all the yankee stuff, if that`s your mug of pish, plusUFC and the excellent ESPN Classic.

For an extra £7 you get premier sports with some decent boxing, aussie rules, Irish football, aussie rugby league.

For just over £50 a month I get as much sport as I can handle. In Norway where I live, £50 will get you a taxi into town and a pint. It`s a no brainer for me.

Without SKY I`d be reduced to watching two Norwegian muppets dressed in homeknitted jumpers and tight pants, slapping each other with fish in an effort to recreate Monty Python. Believe me, TV over here has a loooooooooong way to go to get anywhere near the likes of SKY.

If you don`t like it, dont pay for it and then there will be no need to winge like a girl.

[ALI]

You know I have used this forum for a few years now and I have i may have created one or two topics that were for some reason removed, hence the reason that I dont really post on a regular basis on here, i have spent a wee while drafting this and I'm going to posts this up on another forum that I am a member of that I know will keep it up.

Don't get me wrong I like this place however as of late this forum is turning into a Sky TV love nest and I'm sorry while I like Adam & co I think that maybe "Ya'll musta forgot"
You see no amount of good PR from their employees and or backpedalling from Sky will ever hide the fact that they are 100% scum.

The Super Six should have been on ITV, when it wasnt (and Sky didnt jump on it) was when Sky again failed their subscribers and let the British boxing scene down AGAIN.

"Oh Jon your being a bit harsh, the Sky team of Ed, Adam etc etc seem like really nice guys"
I'm sure they are BUT does anyone remember that initailly you had to subscribe to Sky/Bsb to see Tysons fights, then the scum decided to brieifly put them on the movie channels,(which required an additional subscription) then on sports channels (again more money) then of course lets not forget that we were the first fans to get but fuked with PPV.


The Tories tested the pol tax out on Scotland now thanks to Sky I now what it's like to get royally fucked in the ass twice.
Face it folks Sky fucked over every boxing fan since day one.

So get it right up you Murdoch & Co.

Post more often man, i enjoyed reading that!

Sky is a total rip off, its not value for money and you'd be a fool to argue otherwise. They are out to squeeze the subscriber at every possible opportunity, if they thought they could earn more total revenue from charging £100 for the family package, or £40 for a PPV event you can bet your arse they would. You could also bet your arse that there would be an army of fcukwits out there argueing that its value for money, regurgitating garbage like 'you dont have to buy it you know!'

Subscription tv companies are the same the world over, they will charge the maximum the market can afford. In America and the UK they can get away with charging astronomical amounts, in less well of countries you can get the exact same, or very similar content, but at a fifth of the price, with everything (PPV, Box Office Films etc) being completely non existent, its all in the package price just like it should be! These countries will follow suit though, its just a matter of time. As soon as they think its time to squeeze their countries citizens, they will!

[Ezzard]

I agree with Mr Saxon

As a kid boxing was on regular TV. We had British Title fights on Saturday afternoons. I remember a bill with Pyatt-Rodney that also showed Duke McKenzie, Michael Watson and Gary Mason. Guys like Floyd Havard were shown. Tony Willis and many others…

ITV and BBC were pushed out by SKY. Guys like McGuigan made boxing massively popular and the next generation were brought up by the terrestrials and SKY took the cream.

Now we are in a situation where boxing is now owned by the subscription channels. I don’t think SKY do a bad job but only the BBC and ITV can make it a mainstream sport again.

Without SKY we'd be watching boxing on regulat TV and Froch would be a household name.

[ALI]

I agree with Mr Saxon

As a kid boxing was on regular TV. We had British Title fights on Saturday afternoons. I remember a bill with Pyatt-Rodney that also showed Duke McKenzie, Michael Watson and Gary Mason. Guys like Floyd Havard were shown. Tony Willis and many others…

ITV and BBC were pushed out by SKY. Guys like McGuigan made boxing massively popular and the next generation were brought up by the terrestrials and SKY took the cream.

Now we are in a situation where boxing is now owned by the subscription channels. I don’t think SKY do a bad job but only the BBC and ITV can make it a mainstream sport again.

Without SKY we'd be watching boxing on regulat TV and Froch would be a household name.

Good points.

They are not the lifeblood of our sport as some might percieve, they are in incurable virus that will eventually kill off boxing altogether.

[whiskey]

Sky's production is very slick and the people who are involved in the boxing department are dedicated.

I've no issue with the vehicle itself, rather the selection of products and their decision making.

Katsidis fought Kevin Mitchell and it drew plenty of viewers in. Then Katsidis fought Marquez and saw nothing.

I remember Morales vs Pacquiao 3 being overlooked too.

Setanta boxing was really bending over to deliver all the great Top Rank fights like pacquiao and pavlik and sky were wilting.

Now they're back in the hot seat things have improved slightly but the fans still feel largely ignored when it boils down to who we actually want to watch.

[earsjohn]

OK, an accusation of trolling is probably harsh but to compare the choice that everyone has to pay or not to pay to watch sport with the real hardships imposed by an unfair poll tax was disingenuous at best.

A number of posters on here seem to think that TV companies exist only to serve the specific needs of boxing fans. They don't. In fact, boxing fans, generally speaking, are low to middle earning working class males that are not particularly attractive to advertisers. Boxing does not have a significant family or female audience (anecdotal evidence besides) and therefore it will be regarded behind the likes of football, rugby, cricket, golf when it comes to scheduling, service to viewers, etc.

It would be great is everything was free but this is both fantasy-land and arguably not in the best interests of the sports (lack of subs=lower revenue received by TV comps=lower payments to promoters=fewer cards/smaller cards). There will come a time in the not-too-distant future when we watch all TV on a pay as you go basis (ie paying only for those programes that you will watch, rather than for hundreds of channels you don't), but in the meantime, Sky probably offer the best intermediate solution.

[charlieb]

No point moaning about PPV ruining the sport, it's out there and it's not going back inside it's box until it's either bone dry or the sport's dead, whichever comes first.

To be fair, Sky Sports is doing a better job right now than they were at the point I stopped being a customer. Moving the schedule back to a saturday's something I didn't expect to see happening any time soon, so that's at least a spike in the downturn.

Seeing the odd Sky bod on these forums is a step forward n'all.

[ed robinson]

Not disappeared! Still logged on about twenty times a day but I've been in America with Khan and Maidana and now stuck in edit suites working on next week's Behind The Ropes show. All I can say is that everyone who works here on our team are mad keen boxing fans and we're all trying as hard as we can.

[NazNaci1]

Without SKY we'd be watching boxing on regulat TV and Froch would be a household name.

When it is all said and done, this is a very valid point.

[bad mamma jamma]

it depends on your economic situation..most of us find it a slog to pay out monthly subs then have to pay again for PPV. Sky have lost enormous credit, amongst real boxing fans anyway, with the Haye v Harrison debacle. It wasnt the main event really (although their hyping up of it was sickening to all of us who knew the reality of it all) but that they didnt show any fckin boxing..how can they only show 2 rounds of a British title fight? to me that is a major p:ss take and anyone who can defend it either has a tree with money growing on it or is a thick cnt.

another problem I have with them is why they show snippets of fight highlights before the break to show what fight is up next..so, no 1 punch KO in the first round then? that is poor and is something they need to get rid of..as well as Dave Clarke.

[StevenB]

Without Sky, boxing in this country would be pretty much dead. I can understand why people are critical of them sometimes, but they are the only ones paying to keep boxing on our screens at the moment. They are a commercial organisation and they are not doing it for charity!!

That said,I believe SKY could (and probably will now that Adam Smith is in charge) do better in two areas.

1) Quality of fights. SKY pay good money to the promoters to put on shows. Unfortunately the quality of some of these shows are dreadful - with walking knockouts from the eastern bloc taking on our best prospects, to the likes of Matthew Hatton taking on absolute tomato cans. Sky should be vetoing these fights - they could do it by just saying 'no, not good enough, we'renot showing it - do better'. We're starting to see Showtime and HBO both refusing to screen certain fights over the in the US and I'd like to see Sky putting pressure on the promoters to ensure that quality shows like 11th Dec, The Magnificent 7 etc are the exception rather the rule. They should be demanding the big fights take place, rather than allowing protected, unbeaten prospects to fight no hopers.

2) Quality of PPVs. If you pay £15 for a PPV, you expect to see boxing. As much as I enjoy Johnny Nelson and Barry McGuigan's passionate punditry, I didn't pay £15 for them to waffle on about what anyone with an ounce of boxing knowledge knew was a complete and utter mismatch. There was an amazing one punch ko on that card early in the evening but there was no time to show it because of all the cack being spoken in the studio. And this is where my first point is relevant again - the Haye Harrison undercard what appalling - Sky should have DEMANDED that a far higher quality undercard was put in place - especially as there was every chance that the main event was going to end early.

But at the end of the day, Sky aren't tricking anyone out of money. The production quality is excellent, the Ringside programme is excellent and I think we should be grateful that they are still committed to boxing in this country because without them we would be on struggle street. But they could be doing better (not showing Marquez Katsidis for example) and I think we should give Smith and co time to prove themselves...

SB

[Ezzard]

The pro-SKY arguments boil down to them making quality TV programmes. This is not in question.

The people who work for SKY work hard. The content is good if not excellent. But SKY are not a paternal figure here. These arguments are a smokescreen.

The core audience of boxing has changed. McGuigan's win over Pedroza was the most watched sporting event of the 1980s. Everybody watched that fight: men, woman and children. It has become a sport that attracts little sponsorship because it has been removed from regular TV.

The people who follow the sport even from their armchairs are decdiated boxing fans or dedicated sports fans. You have to work hard to find any info about boxing.

Compare McGuigan to Hatton. Hatton was popular but the average person didn't know who he was or if they did had never seen him fight.

The fanbase has got smaller since SKY rode into town. The coverage has got worse. You can't argue with these two points.

BUT, SKY is here to stay and by and large they do a good job. But let's not pretend that they didn't hi-jack the sport and reduce it's popularity.

[StevenB]

The pro-SKY arguments boil down to them making quality TV programmes. This is not in question.

The people who work for SKY work hard. The content is good if not excellent. But SKY are not a paternal figure here. These arguments are a smokescreen.

The core audience of boxing has changed. McGuigan's win over Pedroza was the most watched sporting event of the 1980s. Everybody watched that fight: men, woman and children. It has become a sport that attracts little sponsorship because it has been removed from regular TV.

The people who follow the sport even from their armchairs are decdiated boxing fans or dedicated sports fans. You have to work hard to find any info about boxing.

Compare McGuigan to Hatton. Hatton was popular but the average person didn't know who he was or if they did had never seen him fight.

The fanbase has got smaller since SKY rode into town. The coverage has got worse. You can't argue with these two points.

BUT, SKY is here to stay and by and large they do a good job. But let's not pretend that they didn't hi-jack the sport and reduce it's popularity.

I think you are doing Sky a massive disservice saying the coverage has got worse! Based on what?

And it's not Sky's fault that the fanbase has dwindled. It's the BBC and ITV who are answerable on that one...

[junior pepa seed]

This always cracks me up.... Sky show some ok fights but you know what if you want to watch a fight that bad there is always a way to see it, i would say 90% of the fights i watch come from the internet, Good quality not some atari graphic looking stream.
Last weekend i watched.. Froche v Abraham, JMM v Katsidis, Ward v Bika, Berto v Hernandez and they all cost me the price of my monthly broadband bill.. instead of using the net to bitch and moan use it to download fights not on TV.

[ed robinson]

Hey Mark, regarding Marquez / Katsidis yes, I would have loved to see it. I was actually in Vegas for the weigh-in at the MGM Grand and then had to fly out that night, heartbreaking! I can understand why people feel upset that they couldn't see it on any channel but I really don't have anything to do with what fights Sky buy. All I know is that the new head of Sky Sports has publicly stated that he is a fan of boxing. Adam Smith had a lot of options open to him in life and has chosen to work tremendously hard for over fifteen years to get to where he is now - in boxing. He is very passionate about the sport and respects the fans opinions and is willing to listen. I don't think he goes on the forums too much but he knows exactly what they say. Adam has said in Boxing Monthly that he desperately wants to help make the best fights happen. Boxing now has a prime time Saturday slot, Ringside is back and doesn't just cover Sky fights, we're using more varied guests - people who are inpartial like Tris Dixon yesterday. I think 'Behind the Ropes' is a move forward. We have an incredible crop of young fighters coming through in Britain, hand on heart I'm really excited about 11th December, I was amazed by the progress that Khan has made Stateside. Next year there's optimism that Haye v a Klitschko might be made and or Manny v Floyd. People are all entitled to their opinion, mine is that the sport is on the rise again.

[whiskey]

Not disappeared! Still logged on about twenty times a day but I've been in America with Khan and Maidana and now stuck in edit suites working on next week's Behind The Ropes show. All I can say is that everyone who works here on our team are mad keen boxing fans and we're all trying as hard as we can.

Ed,

Giving your employer a good kicking aside for a moment, I have a quick question - what sort of shape did Maidana look like when you saw him ?

Reason being, I can't decide whether to lump my cash on the 1st or 2nd round for Maidana by brutal KO.

Thanks in advance

[ed robinson]

Great, now I'm being asked to hijack a 'Why I Hate Sky' thread by selling our next Pay per View! So here goes the infomercial...

Maidana looked in great shape, it's the second time I've seen him train in Vegas because he was at Barry's boxing gym when I went to see John Ruiz. Maidana tends to blow up in weight between fights, he looked massive at the head to head when the fight was first announced. Shifting too much weight too quickly is the reason his team say he struggled with Corley in Argentina. He obviously hits exceptional hard but isn't blessed with great speed and personally I think Khan stops him impressively.

[GAV]

Sky is a business venture first and foremost. Hence, they are sensibly trying to make as much money as possible. They have shareholders who would be none too impressed if profits started to decline to give the consumer "better value for money" by charging less for its services.

Its not ideal, but it is the reality of the situation.

[Ezzard]

The pro-SKY arguments boil down to them making quality TV programmes. This is not in question.

The people who work for SKY work hard. The content is good if not excellent. But SKY are not a paternal figure here. These arguments are a smokescreen.

The core audience of boxing has changed. McGuigan's win over Pedroza was the most watched sporting event of the 1980s. Everybody watched that fight: men, woman and children. It has become a sport that attracts little sponsorship because it has been removed from regular TV.

The people who follow the sport even from their armchairs are decdiated boxing fans or dedicated sports fans. You have to work hard to find any info about boxing.

Compare McGuigan to Hatton. Hatton was popular but the average person didn't know who he was or if they did had never seen him fight.

The fanbase has got smaller since SKY rode into town. The coverage has got worse. You can't argue with these two points.

BUT, SKY is here to stay and by and large they do a good job. But let's not pretend that they didn't hi-jack the sport and reduce it's popularity.

I think you are doing Sky a massive disservice saying the coverage has got worse! Based on what?

And it's not Sky's fault that the fanbase has dwindled. It's the BBC and ITV who are answerable on that one...

Based on the fact that nobody knows who Carl Froch is. Based on the fact that SKY signed the boxers who had been brought along on ITV and BBC making it almost impossible for them to compete. McGuigan's title fight would have been snatched up. Isn't this what happened with Khan?

The fanbase has dwindled because boxing is not on BBC and ITV and it's not sustainable for those 2 channels to promote rising stars so another company can lap up all the cream.

This is all self-evident. Why would you argue otherwise?

I don't hate SKY. I like their shows. I like the build up. I like the punditry. They do a great job. But to pretend that boxing's decline in the UK is only linked to SKY by coincidence... Come on, you're better than that.