Team Khan refuse sky sports for Primetime ppv

[Glyn Leach]

So far for Degale v Groves, Cleverly V Braehmer. I know Frankie Gavin fighting I heard one of Walsh is fighing Napa in a Super bantam elimantor. Any others? The 3 fights so far look even. Hopefully there is many more.

Taken fight by fight I don't think they'd be PPV, but bang them all together like this and you've got a stormer of a show, potentially the best in years

[leforge]

So far for Degale v Groves, Cleverly V Braehmer. I know Frankie Gavin fighting I heard one of Walsh is fighing Napa in a Super bantam elimantor. Any others? The 3 fights so far look even. Hopefully there is many more.

Taken fight by fight I don't think they'd be PPV, but bang them all together like this and you've got a stormer of a show, potentially the best in years

As your inthe know who else is likely to be on the bill. Haye fight will sell who ever he fights but other need a big undercard to sell.

[orbtastic]

I'd rather see some depth on these shows. It's usually the same basis I choose which shows to buy tickets for live.

Those of us old enough to remember the days PPV was a new concept will remember sitting through some decent undercards to watch a pretty so-so (or in some cases, dire) main event. DK usually stacked his cards with names but quite often there were some daft mismatches. The old FW PPVs weren't too bad, some done in conjuction with DK.

[exittored]

Farcical but Sky only have themselves and their greed/lack of quality control to blame in my opinion. Remember, the date was announced as PPV even before an opponent had been named. What sort of quality control is that? Then, because McCloskey is a good challenger but not a big enough name, they start relying on the likes of Matthew Macklin and Tyson Fury to bolster the show. I'm sorry, but who the hell are those two at the end of the day? We know them, we appreciate them, but are they PPV material? I say no. And anyway, no one in the TV world sells a PPV on the strength of an undercard fight. It's the main event that's supposed to sell.

So then Sky do the right thing by taking it off PPV because they don't think it will sell and start blaming the promoters for not having found them a good enough undercard, when this is the company that declared the fight PPV without there even being an opponent!! Ridiculous, the card and particularly the OPPONENT should have been settled before it was even made PPV. But that's not how Sky work. They set a PPV date then try to fill it, it seems to me. And on this occasion they couldn't.

So Khan and McCloskey are offered far less than they'd originally been promised, and they've said eff that for a game of soldiers and gone to Primetime to take a punt on the fight selling. I feel sorry for them. It's their right to get the best deal possible and they were promised a good one, you can't blame them. But when it's snatched away from them through no fault of their own, what are they suppose to do? I wouldn't have done it myself, but they might as well take a punt on Primetime. But I don't think the fight will do particularly well on there. And Sky will take Khan back for Bradley, no worries - there's money to be made and they'll want to be part of it. There won't be any longterm damage to the relationship, bet your house on it. Money talks.

The whole thing's a joke but the point it started to go wrong was right at the start, when Sky decided that Khan vs TBA was good enough to charge 15 quid for. Let's hope they've learned from this and it will be the start of a more realistic era in the economic relationship between TV and boxing. The signs for that are good and I think Sky belatedly made the best move under the circumstances, even though they were at fault for all the problems.

Excellent Excellent Excellent post

x4

It's great to have some intelligent perspective on the matter rather then the usual rabid anti-khan BS from the usual suspects. It's feckin hilarious how they're suddenly getting angry that Khan isn't fighting on SKY anymore, are they shareholders in the company...don't buy the fecking PPV if you don't want to and stop moaning about it.

As someone pointed out Team Khan have issued a statement on the matter which i think show's them in a pretty good light, the fact they were willing to take just £100,000 if it was shown on SKY 1 rather then people having to pay an extra £10 to watch it on the obscure SKY 3 is a good thing and lets not forget they tried to get it on ITV.

here is the article

http://www.BS.com/team-khan-on ... ley--37995

[boxingchat]

EddieHearn twitter:

Khan fight announced on Primetime - some of the quotes from the press release make me cringe. In short this is commercial suicide.

And this from the guy who sold the dummy in Audley Harrsion and caused the mess and the PPV backlash. Best to keep quiet as when it comes to credibility you are sadly lacking.

[iwz678]

Braehmer vs Clev will be an interesting match. I think Braehmer will be a bit too good and come away with the win.

what has that got to do with this thread?

Khan promotions though SS3 was obscure, so what the hell is Primetime? People will read about the fight in the papers this week, but they wont have a clue where it's being shown, that shows Khan Promotions are a joke getting it on this channel.

[gobbles]

EddieHearn twitter:

Khan fight announced on Primetime - some of the quotes from the press release make me cringe. In short this is commercial suicide.

And this from the guy who sold the dummy in Audley Harrsion and caused the mess and the PPV backlash. Best to keep quiet as when it comes to credibility you are sadly lacking.

Don't expect Hearn to do anything but blow smoke up Sky's arse. After all, they have darts, poker, fishing, snooker and everything else to sell to Sky.

Maybe Hearn should explain to McCloskey why his role in forcing Haye v Harrison is directly costing McCloskey a lot of money.

[boxingchat]

Farcical but Sky only have themselves and their greed/lack of quality control to blame in my opinion. Remember, the date was announced as PPV even before an opponent had been named. What sort of quality control is that? Then, because McCloskey is a good challenger but not a big enough name, they start relying on the likes of Matthew Macklin and Tyson Fury to bolster the show. I'm sorry, but who the hell are those two at the end of the day? We know them, we appreciate them, but are they PPV material? I say no. And anyway, no one in the TV world sells a PPV on the strength of an undercard fight. It's the main event that's supposed to sell.

So then Sky do the right thing by taking it off PPV because they don't think it will sell and start blaming the promoters for not having found them a good enough undercard, when this is the company that declared the fight PPV without there even being an opponent!! Ridiculous, the card and particularly the OPPONENT should have been settled before it was even made PPV. But that's not how Sky work. They set a PPV date then try to fill it, it seems to me. And on this occasion they couldn't.

So Khan and McCloskey are offered far less than they'd originally been promised, and they've said eff that for a game of soldiers and gone to Primetime to take a punt on the fight selling. I feel sorry for them. It's their right to get the best deal possible and they were promised a good one, you can't blame them. But when it's snatched away from them through no fault of their own, what are they suppose to do? I wouldn't have done it myself, but they might as well take a punt on Primetime. But I don't think the fight will do particularly well on there. And Sky will take Khan back for Bradley, no worries - there's money to be made and they'll want to be part of it. There won't be any longterm damage to the relationship, bet your house on it. Money talks.

The whole thing's a joke but the point it started to go wrong was right at the start, when Sky decided that Khan vs TBA was good enough to charge 15 quid for. Let's hope they've learned from this and it will be the start of a more realistic era in the economic relationship between TV and boxing. The signs for that are good and I think Sky belatedly made the best move under the circumstances, even though they were at fault for all the problems.

Excellent Excellent Excellent post

x4

It's great to have some intelligent perspective on the matter rather then the usual rabid anti-khan BS from the usual suspects. It's feckin hilarious how they're suddenly getting angry that Khan isn't fighting on SKY anymore, are they shareholders in the company...don't buy the fecking PPV if you don't want to and stop moaning about it.

As someone pointed out Team Khan have issued a statement on the matter which i think show's them in a pretty good light, the fact they were willing to take just £100,000 if it was shown on SKY 1 rather then people having to pay an extra £10 to watch it on the obscure SKY 3 is a good thing and lets not forget they tried to get it on ITV.

here is the article

http://www.BS.com/team-khan-on ... ley--37995

And you believed that? £100k wouldn't cover the cost of the undercard let alone all the other costs involved and HBO won't be paying too much. Khan isn't a charity! If he agreed to that it would be his lowest purse ever. Fopr the record, I don't blame Amir for this mess only his team and his poor choice of expertise in his business camp.

[Bomber 1]

It's quite simple, sky should have said it's PPV if it's Prescott but only regular sky if it's anyone who is unproven ie (McCloskey)!! They will not be messed around and have proved this in the past!! I hope now that Amir Khan has severed his ties with sky they give them over to Carl Froch! He's value and I'd pay to see him! Like I would Haye.. I firmly believe that the only way forward is the way Frank does it and has various 50/50 title matches with a strong undercard or it's gotta be top fighter v top fighter.

I rate McCloskey but he is not on Amirs level yet, by putting Prescott in there he'd have had sales as everyone would have just paid because it's the guy who knocked him out!! Revenge sells without a shadow of a doubt..

[whiteboy]

Sky sports 3 is obscure? Compared to Box Office? Or Primetime!

And what does he mean by 'you have to subscribe to sky sports to get sky sports 3....'!!! I would have thought you needed to subscribe to sky sports to get sky sports 1 as well

[earsjohn]

EddieHearn twitter:

Khan fight announced on Primetime - some of the quotes from the press release make me cringe. In short this is commercial suicide.

And this from the guy who sold the dummy in Audley Harrsion and caused the mess and the PPV backlash. Best to keep quiet as when it comes to credibility you are sadly lacking.

Is Eddie really lacking commercial credibility? Haye v Harrison was hyped to the point where normally sensible commentators were seeing a way for Audley to win. The fight was a mismatch to most, but through canny promotion, among other things, the fight sold well and made all parties involved a heap of money.

I don't think the PPV backlash is a direct result of Haye v Harrison, but the result of a more considered view of the economic realities. Sky probably realised that the fight wasn't going to make a sufficient amount of money to cover its costs/purses, so cut its losses. Sky are not a charity and have no direct obligation to fund promoters and fighters who think they are worth more than the market is prepared to pay. This is the second very public example of a fight card being affected by a boxers financial demands in recent weeks (think Mitchell v Murray), so maybe it is simply the case that Sky are sending a message to fighters and promoters that they will not be taken for a financial ride.

[palooka]

It's quite simple, sky should have said it's PPV if it's Prescott but only regular sky if it's anyone who is unproven ie (McCloskey)!! They will not be messed around and have proved this in the past!! I hope now that Amir Khan has severed his ties with sky they give them over to Carl Froch! He's value and I'd pay to see him! Like I would Haye.. I firmly believe that the only way forward is the way Frank does it and has various 50/50 title matches with a strong undercard or it's gotta be top fighter v top fighter.

I rate McCloskey but he is not on Amirs level yet, by putting Prescott in there he'd have had sales as everyone would have just paid because it's the guy who knocked him out!! Revenge sells without a shadow of a doubt..

I agree with that; Carl is a top fighter, seeks out the very best and he really deserves a bigger stage. What a turn up that would be! Does anyone know Adam Smiths' email address? (Please).

[Deserter]

I firmly believe that the only way forward is the way Frank does it and has various 50/50 title matches with a strong undercard or it's gotta be top fighter v top fighter...

Tony, are we talking about the same man who has served up treats like Enzo Vs Bobby Gunn as 'world title' fights??!!

You're right about Froch though

[steve689]

What does this mean for viewers in Ireland (North and South)? Of which there are bound to be a few. There's no Primetime available over here as far as I'm aware

[leforge]

What does this mean for viewers in Ireland (North and South)? Of which there are bound to be a few. There's no Primetime available over here as far as I'm aware

Think it is still on sky channel 480 if you have sky. I

[dondada]

What does this mean for viewers in Ireland (North and South)? Of which there are bound to be a few. There's no Primetime available over here as far as I'm aware

The Primetime chap said if you can get Sky where you are, you can get Primetime.

[Dan Dares]

As far as blame goes, Sky accepted that Khan v McClosky was a PPV fight in the first place, which now makes them look a bit silly, as when the advance sales are dreadful, they decide to pull it and give it all the 'not good enough undercard' stuff. The Sky Sports 3 thing was a bit cheeky too.

But my water says Khan's team are difficult to deal with, and the reluctance of Hatton, Golden Boy, etc to come up with anything much undercard wise is surely down to the amount of 'budget' on offer? Is it Khan Promotions that are in charge of gate receipts as well as sponsorship/tv money? McClosky was originally supposed to be on £250K, which I reckon he would have more than justified PPV and gate money wise. A lot of Irish would buy the fight, and a fair few will be there.

I reckon the Khan camp are being far too greedy, and are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

[Finn]

irony is they stopped haye v wlad happening this month because of this fight being on sky ppv!!!

[stujones]

Sky sports 3 is obscure? Compared to Box Office? Or Primetime!

And what does he mean by 'you have to subscribe to sky sports to get sky sports 3....'!!! I would have thought you needed to subscribe to sky sports to get sky sports 1 as well

You can get a "basic" sports package for around £10 a month - Sky Sports 1 and Sky Sports 2 only (no Sky Sports 3, 4 or News)..... the £40+ a month you pay is for Sky Sports 3, 4 and News..... and most people I know have only got the first two channels and this is the only option (I think) if you are on BT Vision.

So you do need an extra Sky Sports Package to get SS3.

[TheCobra]

Hmmmm, I think Khan's team would have been better taking their medicine and playing the game with Sky for the benefit of his future options.

If they'd still let it be on SS3 Sky would have continued to hype it and build up Khan and presumably show Khan fights in the future.

The problem here seems to be that Khan and his team believe he now deserves to be an undisputed PPV fighter no matter who he fights, I don't think Khan is at that level at all. Maidana was a great matchup and could probably justify PPV, McCloskey just isn't and we've all said it here a million times.

Common sense says if they wanted another PPV payday they HAD to go for the Prescott rematch, just cos of how many of the general public have seen that KO on youtube, it would generate massive interest against someone who has ultimately proved to be basic and limited.

Saying 'if DeGale vs Groves is PPV then so should Khan' is sad too, firstly I don't see that fight as PPV either so 2 wrongs don't make a right, secondly you at least know these days that FW is gona have another 2-3 name fighters on that card who will provoke interest alongside the main fight which has at least been built up great. Khan vs McCloskey just has no angle, no USP, no greater public interest beyond boxing nuts and loyal Irish.

[chinny]

LOL reading back the interview Khan did with BN the week before last!

[earsjohn]

Sky sports 3 is obscure? Compared to Box Office? Or Primetime!

And what does he mean by 'you have to subscribe to sky sports to get sky sports 3....'!!! I would have thought you needed to subscribe to sky sports to get sky sports 1 as well

You can get a "basic" sports package for around £10 a month - Sky Sports 1 and Sky Sports 2 only (no Sky Sports 3, 4 or News)..... the £40+ a month you pay is for Sky Sports 3, 4 and News..... and most people I know have only got the first two channels and this is the only option (I think) if you are on BT Vision.

So you do need an extra Sky Sports Package to get SS3.

Not quite.

Basic Sky, ie without any additional Movies or Sports packages, is £19.50 per month through Sky (BT Vision and Virgin offer different package deals). You can add either SS1 or SS2 for £12.25 each per month or you can add both SS1 and SS2 for a total £20.25 per month. The latter option gives SS3, SS4 and SSN "free". So the additional cost of SS3 is £8 on top of only 1 of SS1 and SS2. There are no options to subscribe to only SS1 and SS2 so the people you know are either telling porkies or do not subscribe to Sky. I know no-one who subscribes to only one of SS1 or SS2.

Source - The Horses Mouth.... http://www.sky.com/quickbuy/build

[stujones]

okay, earsjohn. They offered me both sports channels for a "cut price" when I subscribed in September cause I went "oh thats a bit steep" - in the end I took the lot, cause I had a hunch there would be boxing on SS3! I know loads who have the basic sports and have lost SSN in the summer - I assumed they had SS2 also cause of what I got offered by Sky - they must only have SS1 - which suits them with the footie.

[Bricks]

the problem with primetime is they will do it on the cheap and dont have any sort of standards when it comes to the finished article,ive bought loads of PPV of them but the last time they did was the stieglez fight with orliez and it was terrible in the sens it kept cuttingout to the adverts etc and then there has been some ppv were there missing the sound,i dont have a prb paying for ppv but i expect a better service than primetime can offer

the picture is youtube quality absolutely unacceptable. If primetime are charging 14.99 for any fight it needs to be in hd.

[stujones]

I do wonder if Primetime repeats will just be the HBO feed - with Ortiz vs Berto?