Sky Sports Subscribers

[Deno1986]

No I won't cancel it, without sky we have no boxing, you can't have fights of the year every week but fights should be announced 10 weeks before so that way you know what your getting! The shows should be vetted and approved, I'm not being biased but Franks shows very rarely disappoint IMHO

The fights usually are announced in plenty of time Tony but as you experienced yourself recently with the Cleverly situation, the opponent can change multiple times in the lead up to the fight usually to no fault of anyone.

Regarding the topic, I am keeping my Sky Sports and have no intention of cancelling. We get at least one boxing show a week and a quality magazine programme in Ringside. We have seen a lot more of the Stateside broadcasts recently aswell. Although the PPV malarky is a downside I'm a content customer.

[Josh1111]

No I won't cancel it, without sky we have no boxing, you can't have fights of the year every week but fights should be announced 10 weeks before so that way you know what your getting! The shows should be vetted and approved, I'm not being biased but Franks shows very rarely disappoint IMHO

I would agree about FW if he stopped putting on PPV. He is ruining it by having average bills fighting on PPV.

Haye v Wlad should be paperview, not Degale v Groves.

I wont be cancelling sky, i love my boxing but i also love other sports. I dont just watch boxing

[funso banjo baby]

wake up people

it used to be TOTALLY FREE !

i guess in fairness the quality has much improved since the days when we had to sit through such boring fights from the likes of....

Hagler
Hearns
Ray Leonard
Holmes
Duran
Benitez
Arguello
Tyson
Pryor
............etc etc


Mayweather for a subscription AND a PPV tax AND adverts as well ????????!!!!!!!!!!!!

crikey

[smcb80]

i wasn't aware of boxing on telly then, but were hagler, hearns & leonard fights all on free british tv back then?

sky do a great job for boxing. no other channel would show any of these british title fights. rhodes - alvarez wouldn't have got a look in on another other channel. whereas people in work who don't follow boxing are talking about it today.

am i correct in thinking that there are maybe 2 ppvs every weekend in america? whereas only one a month maybe ( at a stretch) here. barker - martinez, macklin - sturm, froch - johnson fights are all on ordinary sky, well worth it if you ask me. we don't have to pay $55+ for every manny fight, and no doubt mayweather - ortiz will be the same.

and if you want it for less - ring & threaten to leave. they'll give a discount, maybe only a tenner a month but it all adds up.

[THEBUTCH]

Vile mis-matches like Murray v Blackwell add more weight to the thought of cancelling SkySports.

Adam Smith and Johnny Nelson are just a pair of ponces and if this is the future of boxing on SkySports there won't be any alternative but to cancel. I'd rather following Tyson Fury's career and pay for it on Primetime than watch rubbish like Murray v Blackwell.

[fasteddie]

it could be worse,you could be a wrestling fan and have to pay for events that are already mapped out,every main event is ppv. i subscribe to sky for boxing football and for the cartoon channels for my kids i also have the movie channels so for me to ditch the sports i would be saving myself about £5 a month so im sticking with sky.

[doctorboxing]

it could be worse,you could be a wrestling fan and have to pay for events that are already mapped out,every main event is ppv.

I partially agree with this view but on the other hand, wrestling fans pay £15 for a ppv event knowing they will get 3 hours or so of entertainment guaranteed.

For an event like Khan-Prescott, which most fans bought for the main event only, they got 60 seconds.....

[Crazyboy]

Sky is evil !

It also has Game of Thrones on Sky Atlantic and for that reason your honour, there is NO WAY i'm cancelling.

[MightyWarrior]

I just cancelled the sports channels, told them it's because there's no decent boxing on unless it's PPV. They offered it for £5 per month, for 2 months, but still cancelled ( as there's bugger all on for next 2 months anyhow )

[earsjohn]

i wasn't aware of boxing on telly then, but were hagler, hearns & leonard fights all on free british tv back then?

sky do a great job for boxing. no other channel would show any of these british title fights. rhodes - alvarez wouldn't have got a look in on another other channel. whereas people in work who don't follow boxing are talking about it today.

am i correct in thinking that there are maybe 2 ppvs every weekend in america? whereas only one a month maybe ( at a stretch) here. barker - martinez, macklin - sturm, froch - johnson fights are all on ordinary sky, well worth it if you ask me. we don't have to pay $55+ for every manny fight, and no doubt mayweather - ortiz will be the same.

and if you want it for less - ring & threaten to leave. they'll give a discount, maybe only a tenner a month but it all adds up.

Sky have broadcast 1 (one) PPV in 2011 - Groves v DeGale. The perception seems to be there's one a month, but it's actually not that bad. This will increase to 2 (two) when Haye v Klitschko is broadcast.

As for Hagler, hearns, etc being on free TV in the 80s...of course they bloody were, there was no such thing as satellite or PPV (certainly not for the mass market). Boxing was free on TV because that was its only outlet.

Yes there may have been 18m watching boxing in the 80s, but that does not mean that 18m would watch boxing now. Corrie and Eastenders used to regularly draw audiences of 18m+ for every show, 2-3 times a week. Nowadays those exact same shows generate figures of less than 10m. Multi-channel TV has created choice which the public have responded to. There are also more things that people choose to do - Internet, consoles and gaming, DVD's and cinema, etc.

[Crazyboy]

Last part of season 1 tonight

Haha sweet man, a fellow game of throner lol

I'd be lost without it mate, went out and bought the bloody books based on that program!

Anyways, apologies for hyjacking the thread, i love football too much to cancel and theres enough on there an the moment to tide me over till new season.

[stujones]

The SKY boxing team are good guys. I like the shows - just wish there were more of them. I like Ringside too. They do a good job.

Why can't they give us a show that dips into the past? A 60 min doc of Alan Minter, Maurice Hope, Charlie Magri... Or perhaps do a one-off show of British Middleweights etc... These really can't be expensive shows to make and would surely keep boxign subscribers happy.

What does irk me is that when SKY first took it's bite out of boxing ITV were getting 15M+ viewers. Now it's a 'minority sport' that they're not that interested in... I don't believe that the potential market for the sport has changed. I just think the casual fan doesn't get enough exposure to the fighters.

Your gran falls in love with these guys when they're making their way up through the ranks as a humble fighter boxing his way out of poverty, or a cheeky young kid looking to shake up the old order, or as a demonised braggart who bears a grudge, etc...

They did do that about 20 years ago. Eurosport also showed a lot of old bouts from the big hitters in British boxing from the 70s & 80s around the same time.

It is compulsary that an archive show must be presented by the legend that is Dickie Davies.

[THE MESSIAH]

Interesting Poll.

Looks like a lot of people are unhappy or over a barrell.

[Tommy Gunn13]

I moan about some bills&match ups but if it wasnt for Sky there would be no boxing on at all...

[THE MESSIAH]

Interesting Poll.

Looks like a lot of people are unhappy or over a barrell.

Yes. 17% [ 14 ]
No. 47% [ 38 ]
Its good value and I will renew. 15% [ 12 ] x
I am over a barrell so will renew. 21% [ 17 ]

I would beg to differ, it seems slightly in favor of people not being unhappy and TBH the "Over a barrel" opinion is a bit loaded

I would say that is a high %. Combined 38% not really happy would worry me if I were at sky.

Being over a barrell is not really the reason SKY would be looking for if you were to subscribe. That alone tells me if there were a better option then people would leave - add that to the leaving anyway option and its sizeable.

Setanta must have taken a good chunk out of SKY when they screened boxing.

[THE MESSIAH]

Yes. 17% [ 14 ]
No. 47% [ 38 ]
Its good value and I will renew. 15% [ 12 ] x
I am over a barrell so will renew. 21% [ 17 ]

I would beg to differ, it seems slightly in favor of people not being unhappy and TBH the "Over a barrel" opinion is a bit loaded

I would say that is a high %. Combined 38% not really happy would worry me if I were at sky.

Being over a barrell is not really the reason SKY would be looking for if you were to subscribe. That alone tells me if there were a better option then people would leave - add that to the leaving anyway option and its sizeable.

Setanta must have taken a good chunk out of SKY when they screened boxing.

i'm not sure if Setanta would of taken a huge chunk out of Sky as i imagine the majority took it as an extra on top of their Sky package.

Of course people like to moan about everything and Sky like everything else isnt perfect in this modern world how ever they supply a service which i dont think is that bad.
I actually feel over a barrel as a sports fan because if i want to watch sport i have to pay for it when i would prefer it to be on open TV. However Sky cover a lot of sports and imo do a good job doing but what i dont agree with is things like degale-groves on PPV.

I said a good chunk not a HUGE CHUNK. I cancelled SKY and keot setanta.

The only reason I have SKY is fior boxing.

Not sure how much sky sports cost? £25? Add £10.00 for HD and add 6 PPV at £15,00 ( medisore PPV at that) and no way is it value for money.

I used very good streams for SKY BOXING for over a year and may consider doing this again.

It is getting better, but it needs more value for money, in my opinion.

ITS A DISGRACE TO SEE PPV FIGHTERS WHO ARE NOT PPV WORTHY.

WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO? WE MISS A FAIR FEW GOOD FIGHTS IN THE USA.

[chinny]

Every bout should be broadcast in HD, have Ian Darke commentating and be absolutely free. Ad breaks should be outlawed and a camera focussed on the round card girls nipples instead. And lets scrap the license fee while we're at it

Grow up you moaning old bat. Sky are showing lots of UK and international boxing and a proper weekly magazine show. Its the best its been for ages

[THE MESSIAH]

Every bout should be broadcast in HD, have Ian Darke commentating and be absolutely free. Ad breaks should be outlawed and a camera focussed on the round card girls nipples instead. And lets scrap the license fee while we're at it

Grow up you moaning old bat. Sky are showing lots of UK and international boxing and a proper weekly magazine show. Its the best its been for ages

Calm down. It's better? I pay sky £62.00 a month.

And that's before the domestic level ppvs!

[THE MESSIAH]

To big mark. They need to ditch the ppv altogether.

Have vs wlad I can tolerate. But the rest? Why give warren 6 ppvs when he has no ppv fighters? It's daylight robbery. Stream might be the way forward..........again!

[Bricks]

i wasn't aware of boxing on telly then, but were hagler, hearns & leonard fights all on free british tv back then?

sky do a great job for boxing. no other channel would show any of these british title fights. rhodes - alvarez wouldn't have got a look in on another other channel. whereas people in work who don't follow boxing are talking about it today.

am i correct in thinking that there are maybe 2 ppvs every weekend in america? whereas only one a month maybe ( at a stretch) here. barker - martinez, macklin - sturm, froch - johnson fights are all on ordinary sky, well worth it if you ask me. we don't have to pay $55+ for every manny fight, and no doubt mayweather - ortiz will be the same.

and if you want it for less - ring & threaten to leave. they'll give a discount, maybe only a tenner a month but it all adds up.

your damn right hearns leonard and hagler shows were live and free on itv.u didnt have to pay no 15 bucks either.

Back in those days england was a far less populated country with 4 tv channels and the streets were quiet after pub closing time.....but itv didnt advertise it all but they religiously showed entire american bills live on itv 1 in the early hours.

I remember watching gems like the hearns-roldan bill and tyson-spinks bill in the late 80s....the hearns-barkley bill.......leonard-lalonde......i could go on and on

[Bricks]

I moan about some bills&match ups but if it wasnt for Sky there would be no boxing on at all...

bullshit. Someone else would pick it up. Setanta were showing all this stuff free when sky werent interested....so your argument is bs.

[Glyn Leach]

I moan about some bills&match ups but if it wasnt for Sky there would be no boxing on at all...

bullshit. Someone else would pick it up. Setanta were showing all this stuff free when sky werent interested....so your argument is bs.

Setanta wasn't free Mugabi, it was a subscription network, like Premier is today.

[THE MESSIAH]

42% Not happy.

Of the guys who voted NO to cancelling I wonder how many are actually happy?

If you are keeping SKY and voted NO to cancelling is it because you are HAPPY?

[Tommy Gunn13]

I moan about some bills&match ups but if it wasnt for Sky there would be no boxing on at all...

bullshit. Someone else would pick it up. Setanta were showing all this stuff free when sky werent interested....so your argument is bs.

Setanta wasnt free!!
What channel would pick up the Boxing i cant see any doing so...I also watch plenty of darts&footy so i would be f**ked without Sky Sports.....

[THE MESSIAH]

This is about Boxing.

Football and darts are essentially free.

This is whats wrong with SKY. Maybe they should drop some of the International Fishing and International Mystic Hunting psychos and concentrate on getting ALL the boxing.

No wonder UFC is growing. Bioxing is handing them the Combat Crown.