It's a joke that groves vs degale is box office

[orbtastic]

I think the problem is that some people don't want to pay for anything, no matter how reasonable or fair it is.

The current generation have grown up with the internet and you can more or less find anything to download, for free (given you have an internet connection and a PC etc) and some people are totally unwilling to even attend boxing, nevermind pay a PPV fee etc.

Maybe for some, this could be true. Not for me. Most of us have paid for PPV events, such as Mike Tyson fights, in the past, for example.

That was a whole different level. This compared to that is crap, I'm sorry

You want to fund FW and SKY and believe this nonsense that Boxing will die otherwise, then fine, fill your boots and empty your pockets.

Like Jim, I want these ppl to piss off as they have destroyed Boxing, here in UK and I know Boxing wont die, it might change, for the better and we might actually get value for money more often rather than ripped off.

People like Warren and SKY are the reason boxing is now a minority sport, all for the sake of ££££'s. So, lets give them more money for their PPV. Brilliant

C'mon, those Mike Tyson fights were a joke.

I'm not saying this is PPV worthy but it's the nature of the beast now, it's a minority sport, tucked away on subscription channels. If no-one bought the PPV they would soon stop. People justifying their watching illegal streams by saying it's not worth the money are just being silly and really admitting they actually DO want to watch the fight.

Boxing won't end up back in free TV, those days are gone...long gone.

[Dioufy]

I don't understand why the £15 is set in stone. For Haye/Wlad charge £15, and for this, charge half that or even a tenner.

Then I would think about buying it.

[orbtastic]

I don't understand why the £15 is set in stone. For Haye/Wlad charge £15, and for this, charge half that or even a tenner.

Then I would think about buying it.

I agree, but if you look at someof the other channels doing boxing PPV their output/quality is of a lesser standard. The one that did/does the S6 stuff, do they even have a Hd channel for example?

[whicker]

Indeed, why not vary the price?


I'd watch it for £8ish. Friends would be happy to watch it if I paid, but wouldn't chip in.

so, I'm giving this one a miss.

[Camcas]

Indeed, why not vary the price?


I'd watch it for £8ish. Friends would be happy to watch it if I paid, but wouldn't chip in.

so, I'm giving this one a miss.

I think the problem in dropping the price is people will come to expect the lower price for every PPV and feel hard done by when having to pay more than they did for previous PPV

[whicker]

Indeed, why not vary the price?


I'd watch it for £8ish. Friends would be happy to watch it if I paid, but wouldn't chip in.

so, I'm giving this one a miss.

I think the problem in dropping the price is people will come to expect the lower price for every PPV and feel hard done by when having to pay more than they did for previous PPV

Possibly- although people generally seem happy with different ticket prices for different events live.

EG, Haye V Maccarinelli was very pricey, but people seemed happy with that as it was (on paper) such a big fight.

Same principle could maybe work for PPV (although I really don't want to see silly american sky high pricing.)

[Camcas]

Indeed, why not vary the price?


I'd watch it for £8ish. Friends would be happy to watch it if I paid, but wouldn't chip in.

so, I'm giving this one a miss.

I think the problem in dropping the price is people will come to expect the lower price for every PPV and feel hard done by when having to pay more than they did for previous PPV

Possibly- although people generally seem happy with different ticket prices for different events live.

EG, Haye V Maccarinelli was very pricey, but people seemed happy with that as it was (on paper) such a big fight.

Same principle could maybe work for PPV (although I really don't want to see silly american sky high pricing.)

It is worth a shot as i think its a good idea just not sure the general fans would see it that way, but like you say how high would they go for Haye vs Klit for example

[JimJim2009]

This debate is about where our personal limits are - at what point each of us say "nah, £15 is taking the piss".

Some fans have been against PPV from the start, others accept the occasional £15 for a mega event, perhaps a few would happily pay £15 a week... for me its gone past the point of being reasonable, for Sky to charge £15 for a British title fight.

Going back in time, with this policy in mind, Lewis-Mason and Benn-Watson would have been PPV. Both shows were successful, had multi-million viewers on terrestrial TV, and the promoters are still earning and working today. They didn't go bust because neither show was PPV. Perhaps they'd have made more, had they been PPV, but where do you draw the line if you are happy to keep shelling out £15 ? An intercontinental title fight featuring a 24 hour sub fighting two weights above his natural weight division ?

As for the morals of me watching a live stream, jesus christ almighty this is 2011 and being a boxing fan isn't a puritan thing - are fans (sick of £15 charges) expected to lock themselves in a dark room and stand in the corner from 9pm to 11pm on a Sat night ? For what reason, exactly ?

If I don't hand over £15 to Sky, and watch on a live stream, those who disagree seem to be saying "ah, but if everyone did this, what would happen ?". firstly, I WANT EVERYONE TO DO THIS !!!!!!!!! And the answer to that question is, PPV would be knocked on the head or reserved for the special events.

I cast no judgment on Sky but the promoter of this show did something far worse to Joe Calzaghe, financially speaking, over the pay for the Bernard Hopkins fight, than I am doing by not coughing up £15 for a British title fight. Fund him ?! Not likely.

I think the problem is that some people don't want to pay for anything, no matter how reasonable or fair it is.

The current generation have grown up with the internet and you can more or less find anything to download, for free (given you have an internet connection and a PC etc) and some people are totally unwilling to even attend boxing, nevermind pay a PPV fee etc.

I THINK THE PROBLEM IS THAT SOME PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR ANYTHING, NO MATTER HOW REASONABLE OR FAIR IT IS.

That's put a smile on my face at bedtime. Do you have shares in the company promoting this show or something ?? How reasonable or fair was it to not pay Joe Calzaghe for the Bernard Hopkins fight ? Allegedly did that on a point of principle, well on principle I will not pay £15 for a British title fight.

To take this debate in a different direction, I'd be more than happy to support grass roots boxing if small hall shows could get live online coverage for something like a fiver a show. Maybe that is a possible future direction, if greedy promoters and Sky tv (or any broadcaster for that matter) could be bypassed, by offering the show live online. You'd need a production team to film it, but it could be done... my wallet would come out for that :)

[orbtastic]

How many people do you know who don't buy anything - DVDs/films/music/non free TV/sporting events - I know of plenty, they bitch and moan about how much things cost but contribute NOTHING at all to the sport they profess to love - They don't attend live shows, they don't have a SKY sub or buy PPVs, they don't even buy programmes or the other fluff associated with their favourite fighters. Come fight night they're pleading for a free stream. Does that not strike you as odd?

[doctorboxing]

To take this debate in a different direction, I'd be more than happy to support grass roots boxing if small hall shows could get live online coverage for something like a fiver a show. Maybe that is a possible future direction, if greedy promoters and Sky tv (or any broadcaster for that matter) could be bypassed, by offering the show live online. You'd need a production team to film it, but it could be done... my wallet would come out for that :)

A good idea in theory but I doubt there would be enough interest to make it sustainable. If people are having hard time forking out £15 for a world title fight involving a Brit plus a all British grudge match between two undefeated fighters, then I doubt there will be many willing to fork out a fiver to see local small hall shows.

[Glyn Leach]

We are not seen as fans of a sport but as 'revenue streams'.

Spot on

[Jeff Thomas]

I feel NO GUILT about stealing a stream. It's their own fault for pricing themselves out of the market. £15 notes for Groves/DeGale and Clev/Braehmer ISN'T good value for money. Both good fights, but no sensational world-beaters on this bill (in terms of fights). It's the total of opposite of what a PPV should represent. These types of fights are what you pay you Sky Sports subs for.

Jeez.

I agree with this. Nothing personal but I actually would get satisfaction out of watching a stream if I feel someones trying to rip me off. As it happens I usually attend - but no way would I have paid for Khan McCloskey, or Khan Kotelnic.

Boxing fans are suckers -Fact

It happens the world over, and on different platforms- just look at how Fight Night Champion is managed as a product. pay for this, pay for that... Takes the piss.

I'm not tight with my money. £15 isn't a great loss in the big scheme of things providing the value is there- but Groves-Degale is an intriguing clash of domestic boxers. Clevely Brahmer is a top prospect fighting a good champion- but its hardly shiver down the spine stuff is it?

We go through this with every ppv, but until a stand is made nothing will change. In reality even if everyon on boxrec boycotted a show - whats that going to do - lower sales by 1%?? :-(

[orbtastic]

Just out of interest - Does anyone actually have any idea how the people streaming operate?

[orbtastic]

Well, presumably they're a charity and make no money or profits and are funded by somebody?

[orbtastic]

So nobody actually makes any money out of streaming premium content?