WHO ELSE WILL REFUSE TO BUY DEGALE v GROVES AS PPV?

[Andypittcov]

Haha tommy nah mate I don't watch wrestling, the only thing on earth I make an effort to watch is boxing, yeah I'll fill sky's pockets with the ppv and you'll fill your landlords pockets so he can afford to fill Sky's pockets with the ppv.

[Tommy Gunn13]

Haha tommy nah mate I don't watch wrestling, the only thing on earth I make an effort to watch is boxing, yeah I'll fill sky's pockets with the ppv and you'll fill your landlords pockets so he can afford to fill Sky's pockets with the ppv.

We could go back&forth all day with this,u dont agree with my stand but i wont pay for it&neither does he...just gets to me why people pay for it,yes groves-degale is a good scrap&that they hate eachother but 15quid....yes its a cheap night,but come on...

[Tommy Gunn13]

The principle for me, Andy, has nothing to do with my own pocket. My concern is the future of the sport. It is already almost exclusively on pay-tv, which reduces the exposure of the sport when compared to the days when people could sit down and watch it on the BBC or ITV. The increasing number of PPV events reduces the exposure even more and people, youngsters in particular - the future of the sport, are simply not being introduced to boxing.

As the years go by boxing PPV take-up will hover around where it is now until the buyers start dropping dead. This is because the same people who bought the first Sky PPV are, more or less, the same people who will buy Saturday's PPV. Almost all of them fell in love with the sport watching it on terrestrial TV.

Spot on MachoMan

[earsjohn]

My spelling Id rather pay more going down the pub for the fight than buy it from sky out of PRINCIPLE

Yeah what principle? I would imagine your principle is not to pay for something that isn't worth the money? In that case why pay £3 for a shit pint of lager of worse £2.50 for a soft drink.

yes id rather put £15 in my landlords pocket than in skys....only interested in the main fight,nothing else worth watching,unless Cleverley gets a live one which i doubt he will anyhow....you keep filling skys pockets even more!! bet u pay to watch that wrestling shite aswell

It's funny you mention wrestling as it had always baffled me how, once a month, wrestling fans are changed £15 to watch some bit each other with some dacing beefcakes thrown in. But then I watched a show and realised that each and every single time, the product is delivered to the highest possible quality. It's not sport, per se, but from an entertainment point of view wrestling fans know exactly what they are getting and are never let down. I'd imagine they are happy to fork out their £15 each month safe in the knowledge that they are guaranteed 3 hours of entertainment from a formula that has successfully delivered over the last 20 years or so.

The problem boxing has is that the focus seems to be entirely on how much money the various parties involved can make (fighters, promoters, managers, advertisers and TV) and not about delivering what the fans want. it's all a bit me, me, me in boxing. Listening to Warren talk about the difficulties he faces in putting fights on and how us internet warriors haven't got a clue of what really happens in the fight game (all the while sitting in his Rolls-Royce, in the grounds of his country estate).

Its a simple formula - make the fights that fans want to see, earn a reputation for reliability and consistency and the money will surely follow. Rinse every last penny out of meaningless fights and uncompetitive match ups and fans will switch off and your boxers will walk away.

We may not have a clue, but we do pay the money that keeps the likes of Warren in fancy cars and nice houses.

[Andypittcov]

The principle for me, Andy, has nothing to do with my own pocket. My concern is the future of the sport. It is already almost exclusively on pay-tv, which reduces the exposure of the sport when compared to the days when people could sit down and watch it on the BBC or ITV. The increasing number of PPV events reduces the exposure even more and people, youngsters in particular - the future of the sport, are simply not being introduced to boxing.

As the years go by boxing PPV take-up will hover around where it is now until the buyers start dropping dead. This is because the same people who bought the first Sky PPV are, more or less, the same people who will buy Saturday's PPV. Almost all of them fell in love with the sport watching it on terrestrial TV.

I totally understand the points you make. But boxing is a business before a sport and buying a ppv isn't the only way the business expands and the sport diminishes. If I sit at home and pay my £15 to watch a show that isn't worth £15 I really don't see how I'm strengthening the perceived problems anymore than someone who's paying £50 for a ticket to a show that isn't worth £50. Everyone who's arguing that ppv is ruining boxing will still pay for wlad-haye won't they?.

[doctorboxing]

The principle for me, Andy, has nothing to do with my own pocket. My concern is the future of the sport. It is already almost exclusively on pay-tv, which reduces the exposure of the sport when compared to the days when people could sit down and watch it on the BBC or ITV. The increasing number of PPV events reduces the exposure even more and people, youngsters in particular - the future of the sport, are simply not being introduced to boxing.

As the years go by boxing PPV take-up will hover around where it is now until the buyers start dropping dead. This is because the same people who bought the first Sky PPV are, more or less, the same people who will buy Saturday's PPV. Almost all of them fell in love with the sport watching it on terrestrial TV.

I totally understand the points you make. But boxing is a business before a sport and buying a ppv isn't the only way the business expands and the sport diminishes. If I sit at home and pay my £15 to watch a show that isn't worth £15 I really don't see how I'm strengthening the perceived problems anymore than someone who's paying £50 for a ticket to a show that isn't worth £50. Everyone who's arguing that ppv is ruining boxing will still pay for wlad-haye won't they?.

There is a massive difference between an event like Haye v Wlad and a British title fight between DeGale and Groves.

I think PPV as a concept is fine if it is kept to genuinely big events like Haye-Wlad or Hatton-Mayweather etc. I don't mind paying extra for events like that. I do mind paying for a British title fight plus an undercard of uncompetitive bouts.

The same concept does apply to buying tickets to see boxing live imo. I would only pay to go and see a fight/fighter I really want to see, or for a competitive bill.

[Glyn Leach]

The principle for me, Andy, has nothing to do with my own pocket. My concern is the future of the sport. It is already almost exclusively on pay-tv, which reduces the exposure of the sport when compared to the days when people could sit down and watch it on the BBC or ITV. The increasing number of PPV events reduces the exposure even more and people, youngsters in particular - the future of the sport, are simply not being introduced to boxing.

As the years go by boxing PPV take-up will hover around where it is now until the buyers start dropping dead. This is because the same people who bought the first Sky PPV are, more or less, the same people who will buy Saturday's PPV. Almost all of them fell in love with the sport watching it on terrestrial TV.

I totally understand the points you make. But boxing is a business before a sport and buying a ppv isn't the only way the business expands and the sport diminishes. If I sit at home and pay my £15 to watch a show that isn't worth £15 I really don't see how I'm strengthening the perceived problems anymore than someone who's paying £50 for a ticket to a show that isn't worth £50. Everyone who's arguing that ppv is ruining boxing will still pay for wlad-haye won't they?.

Wlad-Haye is probably as genuine a PPV fight as is currently available though Andy, it's the unworthy PPVs that are the problem. As realists we have to accept that there will be PPVs, but they should be dictated by the quality, stature and importance of the fight, not just by the desire of TV companies to nick a few extra quid off us. It's these opportunist PPVs that threaten the sport.

[IRLangmaid25]

I am not buying, I am waiting to see David Haye v Wladmir K. The DeGale-Groves should be a fight on ordinary Sky Sports rather than on Pay Per View unless it was part of a Magnificent 7 style bill, so count me out.

[Glyn Leach]

You're right of course Macho and we've talked about this before — I do have a defeatist attitude when it comes to PPV

[Loftgroov]

No chance.

I was 50/50 before looking at the card (though probably would have in the end), but not just for Groves v DeGale.

It's not about the money either, it's about value - and setting a precedent.

The days of £15 to watch e.g. De La Hoya vs Trinidad or something you could understand, but f**k me, £15 to watch a British title fight with a bit of niggly hype?

If people buy this now Sky will consider they have carte blanche to charge £15 for any old crud in the future, and the free to air boxing on subscription TV will sink to an even lower standard than it already has.

Don't encourage them....or before long the only free boxing on Sky will be a live camera in a Preston pub to watch two drunks swinging at each other.

[stujones]

You're right of course Macho and we've talked about this before — I do have a defeatist attitude when it comes to PPV

unlike you i am not anti-PPV as i understand it's needed in some cases like the Haye-Wlad fight however a British title fight between fighters with less than 30 fights between them is not. Add the Cleverly fight pre-change to bill and still believe it's not, in can take a bill like the MAG 7 which had a lot of 50/50 fights but now we are looking at a bill with just one.

Sky just hyped them as 50:50 - they turned Harrison vs Haye into a 55-45 type of fight at the end of it.

It wasn't 50:50 - that bill started an ugly precedent IMO.

[Heiwa]

I'd pay a tenner for this now, but no more - unless they get a decent viable replacement to fight Clev. Times are tough, Sky need to realise this.