Glyn Leach wrote:Sky certainly seem to be spending a lot of money on themselves since Adam took over — probably inevitable when you give a 'talking head' a big budget to play with. Not only this jaunt to Miami, but they've had eight and nine people 'on mic' at recent live shows, when most networks don't use more than five, and often only three. Perhaps they're trying to find the right blend, they are certainly blooding new presenters, but the impression I'm left with is that they're spending money on themselves that could be spent on the real product, which is boxing.
I'm all for high quality broadcasts, don't get me wrong, but I wonder if there's a fundamental difference in opinion as to what sells boxing best. After Haye-Harrison and it's piss poor undercard and 'talent'-heavy broadcast, Adam stated that he thought bringing 'the big guns' like Lennox and Hatton into the studio, and the silly McGuigan-Nelson video game, was the way to go with that show. I disagree. Personally, I believe good matches sell boxing better than anything else. Surely people tune into a boxing show to watch boxing, not the presenters. Who justifies who? Without the boxing, there'd be no need for the presenters.
Maybe this is a teething period though, a 'growing up in public' of the broadcasts on the way to finding the right balance. The Smith regime is still relatively new, after all. But it's hard to accept the arguments that Sky can't spend more on fights because of existing contractual obligations when you see the amount they're spending on 'talent' at the moment.
Great post! that got me thinking
I hope we're not missing out on good fights, because of the expensive production team. Could Sky have bought the Montiel fight with amount of money it cost to take them on a jolly to Miami?
20k or so (and that might be a conservative estimate) could definitely have helped get better opponents for David Price and Tom Dallas last time out ...
The nine man commentary team is OTT, but I think that Smith really wants to bring in some new faces, the problem is he hasnt the heart to let a couple go to do that. Like Glyn said, it is all about the boxing - that comes first and foremost - hopefully the cards are better this year than what was served up in 2010.
Probably Adam's looking to step into the background but he wants to get everything up and running first - that's what I'm thinking, anyway. If that's what's going on it's not so bad having these relatively huge broadcast teams for a while. Hard to justify longterm though, particularly when so many of them seem to be doing the same job.
I didn't really like this weeks show that much. We have heard Haye talking a million times now. I know as a Sky 'PPV' asset they are trying to build him up, but a whole show to him seemed a bit much and a trip to Miami for what reason I dunno? Nice holiday for the Sky lads though.
Like people have said a lot of things have happened this week in terms of fights being made/cancelled. Surely they could have discussed this and maybe opened up a debate about this as we have done on here.
Glyn Leach wrote:Sky certainly seem to be spending a lot of money on themselves since Adam took over — probably inevitable when you give a 'talking head' a big budget to play with. Not only this jaunt to Miami, but they've had eight and nine people 'on mic' at recent live shows, when most networks don't use more than five, and often only three. Perhaps they're trying to find the right blend, they are certainly blooding new presenters, but the impression I'm left with is that they're spending money on themselves that could be spent on the real product, which is boxing.
I'm all for high quality broadcasts, don't get me wrong, but I wonder if there's a fundamental difference in opinion as to what sells boxing best. After Haye-Harrison and it's piss poor undercard and 'talent'-heavy broadcast, Adam stated that he thought bringing 'the big guns' like Lennox and Hatton into the studio, and the silly McGuigan-Nelson video game, was the way to go with that show. I disagree. Personally, I believe good matches sell boxing better than anything else. Surely people tune into a boxing show to watch boxing, not the presenters. Who justifies who? Without the boxing, there'd be no need for the presenters.
Maybe this is a teething period though, a 'growing up in public' of the broadcasts on the way to finding the right balance. The Smith regime is still relatively new, after all. But it's hard to accept the arguments that Sky can't spend more on fights because of existing contractual obligations when you see the amount they're spending on 'talent' at the moment.
Yeah i was wondering why last week they had three commentators at once in john rawling,jim watt and Bob Mee?Now I know Mee is a very clued up guy when it comes to boxing but he was hardly saying anything so it seemed pointless him being there!
Glyn Leach wrote:Sky certainly seem to be spending a lot of money on themselves since Adam took over — probably inevitable when you give a 'talking head' a big budget to play with. Not only this jaunt to Miami, but they've had eight and nine people 'on mic' at recent live shows, when most networks don't use more than five, and often only three. Perhaps they're trying to find the right blend, they are certainly blooding new presenters, but the impression I'm left with is that they're spending money on themselves that could be spent on the real product, which is boxing.
I'm all for high quality broadcasts, don't get me wrong, but I wonder if there's a fundamental difference in opinion as to what sells boxing best. After Haye-Harrison and it's piss poor undercard and 'talent'-heavy broadcast, Adam stated that he thought bringing 'the big guns' like Lennox and Hatton into the studio, and the silly McGuigan-Nelson video game, was the way to go with that show. I disagree. Personally, I believe good matches sell boxing better than anything else. Surely people tune into a boxing show to watch boxing, not the presenters. Who justifies who? Without the boxing, there'd be no need for the presenters.
Maybe this is a teething period though, a 'growing up in public' of the broadcasts on the way to finding the right balance. The Smith regime is still relatively new, after all. But it's hard to accept the arguments that Sky can't spend more on fights because of existing contractual obligations when you see the amount they're spending on 'talent' at the moment.
Yeah i was wondering why last week they had three commentators at once in john rawling,jim watt and Bob Mee?Now I know Mee is a very clued up guy when it comes to boxing but he was hardly saying anything so it seemed pointless him being there!
Yeh, here we have Bob Mee, silent partner and occasional rule-explainer. Seemed a bit pointless to me also. Either include him more or don't have him!
TheCobra wrote:I didn't really like this weeks show that much. We have heard Haye talking a million times now. I know as a Sky 'PPV' asset they are trying to build him up, but a whole show to him seemed a bit much and a trip to Miami for what reason I dunno? Nice holiday for the Sky lads though.
Like people have said a lot of things have happened this week in terms of fights being made/cancelled. Surely they could have discussed this and maybe opened up a debate about this as we have done on here.
Agreed.
They just need to tell him that it's Klitschko or no TV money.
Haven't been watching it lately, but doesn't sound good.
So, the new boss thinks it's a great idea to fly himself and crew over to Miami, to interview David Haye, who's got absolutely nothing new to say ? How much did that cost ??
And no doubt we'll be told, when asking about great fights like Donaire/Montiel being over looked, that they "haven't the budget." Well that's just f***ing great isn't it.
There are many reasons why Haye/Wlad hasn't been made. And that is the fight people want to see. Adam Smith and Johnny Nelson got nowhere near the answers. Smith's brightest idea was that Haye take less than 50%!?!
Both sides agreed to 50%. What is Smith talking about? Why would they change something they both agreed on?
One, just one, better question would have been -- why don't you, Wlad and Vitali give up your bullshit titles and mandatories and politics? Then you don't have to worry about the WBA or the WBC or Solis or Chagaev or whatever. You can just worry about signing the fight the public wants.
On one hand I really appreciate the product. Because we have fook all boxing magazine shows to watch, so am not going to go all guns blazing on this episode.
I think everyone on here as already summed it up pretty. It was a self-indulgent Miami jolly from what I could tell. Kickin back with the Hayemaker on a beach in Miami really serves no purpose as he's about to have a bum fight.
Sky really want Haye to be their new big box office ticket boy and keep slinging money at him in one form or another.
Interesting how Nelson didn't mention the fact he declared that he wanted to come out of retirement to fight Haye in the wake of his win over Macca did he ??
I've not seen the show yet...but, did Haye ask Smith why SKY refused (according to the Klitschkos and Haye/Booth) to have two pay-per-views in April?
Everybody agrees that the fight was made for April and that SKY said No to two pay-per-views. Boente, Vitali, Wlad, Adam and David are all on record. The Klitschkos admitted that Haye had agreed terms, Haye acknowledged he was sharing his much bigger TV pot right down the middle and then SKY said..."Nah, we got Amir...sorry." The June date was then suggested and Wlad sensibly opted for a warm-up and Haye sensibly said I'm not agreeing to a June 2nd fight if it will not be confirmed until after April 30. The root of this aggro is, surely, SKY saying No to 2 pay-per-views in April. It's not Wlad or David's fault...nobody ask for clarification? Odd.
Did Haye not ask that?
No Haye wouldn't ask Sky anything like that, in the middle of a mutualy beneficial promo piece - plus he wouldn't want them returning the favour by asking a few tough questions of him.
And Sky would just answer, it's bad business to run two PPV's in the same month - it would hurt the boxing office figures for both.
And well done to the plank headed execs at sky who chose a routine Amir Khan mismatch over the super fight of the year. Dumb beyond belief.
IMO haye was pretty honest - they asked why he wasnt prepared to fight for less money or even no money if beating wlad meant so much to him. He gave answer - whats the point of building himself up for a massive payday to fight for less than he can get.
He said openly he has made certain fights to promote himself and make money.
He even said at one point the klitschko head stunt was to build up publicity, and the bad mouthing is a bit of an act.
He was saying how carl froch has shown his metal by getting in the ring with the opponents he has. He didnt even say he was a better boxer than carl which most guys would.
He was very realistic about the fights, he said he doesnt win because he's the best. He wins because he takes away the other fighters advantage ie valuevs size and exploits their weaknesses.
I like the idea of having haye and wlad in the studio or via video link as they suggested.
you could tell from hayes body language & his nutrisionist the way they had there arm's crossed they was clearly not comftable in smith's probing which was completely called for on the fan's behalf.
Not seen the show but i have to agree that whilst it is god to have these special 2 in a row is not a good idea the magazine show needs to be well balanced. It needs a news section a review section a debate and feature. Obviously there is license to mix up the format but the main object of the show is to inform the viewers of upcoming fights and developments in the boxing world and put them into a context of the fights that will be happening on SKY
MightyWarrior wrote:Haven't been watching it lately, but doesn't sound good.
So, the new boss thinks it's a great idea to fly himself and crew over to Miami, to interview David Haye, who's got absolutely nothing new to say ? How much did that cost ??
And no doubt we'll be told, when asking about great fights like Donaire/Montiel being over looked, that they "haven't the budget." Well that's just f***ing great isn't it.
Good point.
The problem with Sky is that they love that whole glossy look, 'everything is great', standing there with their false sh1t-eating grins and repeatedly telling us how 'great' and 'incredible' a fight is whilst serving up repeatedly poor cards, poor-value PPV, bad undercards and missing big fights.
I was hoping Ringside would show some of the undercard from the Crolla-Watson bill, like Colin Lynes- Bradley Pryce. why can`t sky do a show like that midweek, coz on saturday fight night, only 2 or 3 fights get shown. :??
