Have sky replaced Khan with Froch?
Have sky replaced Khan with Froch?
Sky always seem to be leaving someone out in the cold. 
Re: Have sky replaced Khan with Froch?
Khan has left himself out in the cold by getting greedy and wanting PPV for a crap fight. When sky pulled his last fight from PPV to normal sky, he spat his dummy out and went to primetime
Re: Have sky replaced Khan with Froch?
Much rather watch Froch than Khan so can't say im really bothered
Re: Have sky replaced Khan with Froch?
Much rather listen to Froch than Khan as well.
Re: Have sky replaced Khan with Froch?
Naughty, Naughty Khan....... Sky signed the fight to be on Sky Box Office - they are the ones that baulked on a deal.Josh1111 wrote:Khan has left himself out in the cold by getting greedy and wanting PPV for a crap fight. When sky pulled his last fight from PPV to normal sky, he spat his dummy out and went to primetime
Re: Have sky replaced Khan with Froch?
Yea i know that but its Khan's fault who he has in his team. Look at the shambles with Ariza, his team sack him but then Khan employs him again.The Dark Destroyer wrote:I doubt he personally made that decision.Josh1111 wrote:Khan has left himself out in the cold by getting greedy and wanting PPV for a crap fight. When sky pulled his last fight from PPV to normal sky, he spat his dummy out and went to primetime
Re: Have sky replaced Khan with Froch?
Clearly however the agreement was made on the proviso that the undercard would be competitive and decent (e.g. a quality control clause). It became apparent in the week leading up to the fight that this wasnt going to be the case and Sky clearly activated the clause in the contract that saw the fight pulled from Box Office.stujones wrote:Naughty, Naughty Khan....... Sky signed the fight to be on Sky Box Office - they are the ones that baulked on a deal.Josh1111 wrote:Khan has left himself out in the cold by getting greedy and wanting PPV for a crap fight. When sky pulled his last fight from PPV to normal sky, he spat his dummy out and went to primetime
I note that Team Khan did not attempt to sue Sky for breach of contract - which clearly implies that in pulling the fight from Box Office, Sky hadnt done anything that wasnt permitted in the contract.
Sky exercised correct and proper judgment.
-
ThereByTheGrace
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 4016
- Joined: 04 Sep 2010, 05:22
Re: Have sky replaced Khan with Froch?
liamlion wrote:Clearly however the agreement was made on the proviso that the undercard would be competitive and decent (e.g. a quality control clause). It became apparent in the week leading up to the fight that this wasnt going to be the case and Sky clearly activated the clause in the contract that saw the fight pulled from Box Office.stujones wrote:Naughty, Naughty Khan....... Sky signed the fight to be on Sky Box Office - they are the ones that baulked on a deal.Josh1111 wrote:Khan has left himself out in the cold by getting greedy and wanting PPV for a crap fight. When sky pulled his last fight from PPV to normal sky, he spat his dummy out and went to primetime
I note that Team Khan did not attempt to sue Sky for breach of contract - which clearly implies that in pulling the fight from Box Office, Sky hadnt done anything that wasnt permitted in the contract.
Sky exercised correct and proper judgment.
Correct - its not like Sky - being happy NOT to take our money!! The set up for the "homecoming" was a farce from the outset - they didnt even have a main event when SBO announced PPV - obviously thought that Khan was fighting a bigger name than they ended up with.
-
Yes We Can
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 2087
- Joined: 29 Sep 2010, 17:16
Re: Have sky replaced Khan with Froch?
Lets be honest, we pay for Sky so we are able to watch all of our top boxers. It shouldnt be one or the other, thats pointless and is an attitude that will continue to leave boxing as a minority sport.
Re: Have sky replaced Khan with Froch?
Agree, but given the choice of seeing one with quality shows or having both but on terrible ppv bills like Khan's ended up as then I'd take the one.funtime wrote:Lets be honest, we pay for Sky so we are able to watch all of our top boxers. It shouldnt be one or the other, thats pointless and is an attitude that will continue to leave boxing as a minority sport.
Re: Have sky replaced Khan with Froch?
Yeah let's be honest,funtime wrote:Lets be honest, we pay for Sky so we are able to watch all of our top boxers. It shouldnt be one or the other, thats pointless and is an attitude that will continue to leave boxing as a minority sport.
The guy was hell bent on charging 'his loyal fans' £15.00 for the fight, even it meant dropping the marquee Sky platform in favour of a PPV channel to do so.
There's your attitude for it being in trouble funtime.
Re: Have sky replaced Khan with Froch?
for the good and benefit of us lot i might add!!!liamlion wrote:Clearly however the agreement was made on the proviso that the undercard would be competitive and decent (e.g. a quality control clause). It became apparent in the week leading up to the fight that this wasnt going to be the case and Sky clearly activated the clause in the contract that saw the fight pulled from Box Office.stujones wrote:Naughty, Naughty Khan....... Sky signed the fight to be on Sky Box Office - they are the ones that baulked on a deal.Josh1111 wrote:Khan has left himself out in the cold by getting greedy and wanting PPV for a crap fight. When sky pulled his last fight from PPV to normal sky, he spat his dummy out and went to primetime
I note that Team Khan did not attempt to sue Sky for breach of contract - which clearly implies that in pulling the fight from Box Office, Sky hadnt done anything that wasnt permitted in the contract.
Sky exercised correct and proper judgment.