Sky losing interest?

carrotcruncher · Post by **carrotcruncher** » 21 Sep 2011, 10:59

I hear your replies, and like the optimism.
But one point
Sky were authors of their own ppv problem by going with Haye-Harrison. Nobody with a brain gave Fraudley an earthly, but because the unwashed bought it on the back of ludicrous 'preview' programmes and a flag waving media, it sold. And they (Sky) made money. Then they draw up the whole ppv scenario on the back of another woeful Have performance v Klit - again appallingly overhyped.
Haye is not the problem in ppv, sky are by putting all their eggs in one rather poor basket. The Haye business was a bad one.
And now .... I reiterate, we miss out on Mayweather, and the next Khan fight. Has Hopkins been signed? I assume not. Has Pacquiao been signed? It would seem not.
I, for one, do not get my rocks off on small hall title fights. Sky is supposed to be the sports channel and they should be putting money at the business, not concentrating on the bread and butter end .... minus Warren, minus Hennessy .. who next?
Anyway, I rest my case. Hope we are still enjoying weekly boxing a year from now. Personally, I doubt it. At least not on Sky.

themadmariner · Post by **themadmariner** » 21 Sep 2011, 11:42

You have to remember first and foremost Sky are a business and they have to make money.

It's ok saying that they aren't signing Mayweather, Hopkins and Pacquiao (Although I believe both Hopkins and Pac-man's last fights were on Sky), but how many people will buy a Sky Subscription or pay Pay Per View to watch those fights live, especially when they take place at 4am.

Sky pay millions of pounds for football becuase it gains monthly subscriptions and therefore cash and profit for BSkyB. Although we all love boxing and enjoy watching big world title fights and are prepared to pay for the priviledge, the average man on the street isn't and this is why Sky don't pay to broadcast it.

It is also worth mentioning that the 'big stars' like Mayweather and Hopkins will have massive TV contracts with the likes of HBO and they will charge Sky inflated prices for the rights to the fights making them even less cost effective to Sky. I think this is a similar problem Sky have with Kahn too due to his deal with Golden Boy Promotions.

The long and the short of it is that despite Sky having a decent committment to boxing and especially domestic boxing they are not going to throw money away just to keep a few thousand die hard boxing fans happy.

carrotcruncher · Post by **carrotcruncher** » 21 Sep 2011, 12:08

themadmariner wrote:You have to remember first and foremost Sky are a business and they have to make money.

It's ok saying that they aren't signing Mayweather, Hopkins and Pacquiao (Although I believe both Hopkins and Pac-man's last fights were on Sky), but how many people will buy a Sky Subscription or pay Pay Per View to watch those fights live, especially when they take place at 4am.

Sky pay millions of pounds for football becuase it gains monthly subscriptions and therefore cash and profit for BSkyB. Although we all love boxing and enjoy watching big world title fights and are prepared to pay for the priviledge, the average man on the street isn't and this is why Sky don't pay to broadcast it.

It is also worth mentioning that the 'big stars' like Mayweather and Hopkins will have massive TV contracts with the likes of HBO and they will charge Sky inflated prices for the rights to the fights making them even less cost effective to Sky. I think this is a similar problem Sky have with Kahn too due to his deal with Golden Boy Promotions.

The long and the short of it is that despite Sky having a decent committment to boxing and especially domestic boxing they are not going to throw money away just to keep a few thousand die hard boxing fans happy.

Correct ... which is why they already have cut back, and are now preparing the ground for more. If I was working there, I would be very worried.

reggaereggae · Post by **reggaereggae** » 18 Oct 2011, 11:06

John 'Carrotcruncher' Rawling - you are very poor at the (admittedly 'new media skill') of posting under a pseudonym on boxing forums....... Some tips:

1. Try to cover up your tracks..... don't post text that is too biased towards your own interests.. Try and make posts a bit objective to at least attempt to 'fool' some of the readers. EG Carrotcruncher described those that had slagged off Rawling as morons....
2. Do not post too much text that only you personally would know - this makes your identity obvious. See - any posts saying about what a great job John Rawling does, and his personal awards (Come one John, do you think anyone else would know or bother to write: "

has won awards from his peers in both radio and television. Apparently he was headhunted by ITV, Setanta and allegedly, and given the job for Sky’s biggest fight of the year."

) (well, okay, maybe John's boyfriend...no surely not???!! lol )

3. Do not make posts whose timings coincide obviously with a change of your own personal xcircumstances. EG : http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... g#p2949946 "

The current Sky team do a great job imho, and we should give credit."

on 8th July 2011; yet: http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... 0#p3026600 and http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=143051 posted in Sept 2011

In conclusion: I kind of understand some people not using their real names on here but if Carrotcruncher is John Rawling then I’ve got to say it’s a bit pathetic slagging off Nick Halling on here and then bigging himself up on eastside boxing.

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » 18 Oct 2011, 11:23

MachoMan09 wrote:
FtmPress wrote:Boxing would be dead in the UK if it was not for SkySports, They are making us promoters make fights that the fan's want to see.
Would it? Was boxing more popular in the pre-Sky Sports days or is it more popular now?

When ITV were in their pomp, notably when Benn and Eubank were fighting, the numbers were huge for boxing - how many million watched those two go at it, and early Naz and Bruno.

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » 18 Oct 2011, 11:24

PS I think Rawling is a bloody awful commentator...though I doubt he'd come on here and slate Sky

danfoster · Post by **danfoster** » 18 Oct 2011, 11:36

how EXCRUICATINGLY embarrassing for Mr Rawling.

if it IS him, those jibes at Sky and Nick Halling have been ruthlessly exposed as insecure, self-interested shit-stirring.

Fr ank wont be impressed, either - he'd never countenance one of his employees behaving like that

SAPFO · Post by **SAPFO** » 18 Oct 2011, 11:51

Lets be honest. Sky will stick to their guns and see how this all pans out, then make their next move. Remember, Sky will always be the most powerful outlet out there. I bet Sky take on allegedly when it all fall apart adding to their already stacked sports channels.

dondada · Post by **dondada** » 18 Oct 2011, 12:57

danfoster wrote:how EXCRUICATINGLY embarrassing for Mr Rawling.

if it IS him, those jibes at Sky and Nick Halling have been ruthlessly exposed as insecure, self-interested shit-stirring.

Fr ank wont be impressed, either - he'd never countenance one of his employees behaving like that

Buncey · Post by **Buncey** » 18 Oct 2011, 13:21

Even if Carrot is Sir John of Rawling is there a mistake in his original post?
I've been down on my knees praising SKY for 15 years (forget attacks on their bias) and I can tell you that kicking 'em is more fun! They not only ignored Kessler/Calzaghe...they ignored Carl Froch last year...I had to call 'em all a shower of shite before they grudgingly mentioned his name. They had another earful when they failed to mention Mayweather's dirty tricks with the scales against Marquez. However, they have kept the sport alive and guess what...it has made Mudrock a bloody fortune! They are not a poxy charity.
They tucked up like a scared rabbit when Setanta had a little roar...judging by the phone calls made by some of their top in-front-of-camera men it looks like they are getting the iron ready to get that white towel out. The rats are looking to jump!

Adios.

PS: John, see you Friday!

IRLangmaid25 · Post by **IRLangmaid25** » 18 Oct 2011, 13:29

Since Adam Smith has taken over as the Head of Boxing at Sky Television I would not be surprised if he has had pressure from upstairs at Sky Television to give them more value for money from Frank Maloney, allegedly and Ricky Hatton whom where the main promoters who had deals with Sky Television. But since Warren has now gone it alone with his television channel allegedly it is going to free up air time for other promoters etc, although the message that is coming from Sky, improve the bills you want us to televise or we won't show so I will not be surprised if it starts forcing promoters to work together. So I do not think they are losing interest they just want more value for money after getting complaints from subscribers (ie us) and companies who advertise on Sky.

ThereByTheGrace · Post by **ThereByTheGrace** » 18 Oct 2011, 13:37

Sky took the Golden era of boxing in this country, charged people to watch PPV and boxing on normal sky at the same time leading to a decline in the sport as people would not pay to watch poorer quality boxing and thus lead to the position we are in now.

Sky lined their own pockets and Boxing in this country in terms of mainstream popularity has never been lower than it is now.

I hope they stick to overpaid English football and Formula 1 and leave boxing alone - no doubt until other channels build up stars and they can start the cherry picking process all over again.

danfoster · Post by **danfoster** » 18 Oct 2011, 15:34

Buncey wrote:Even if Carrot is Sir John of Rawling is there a mistake in his original post?
I've been down on my knees praising SKY for 15 years (forget attacks on their bias) and I can tell you that kicking 'em is more fun! They not only ignored Kessler/Calzaghe...they ignored Carl Froch last year...I had to call 'em all a shower of shite before they grudgingly mentioned his name. They had another earful when they failed to mention Mayweather's dirty tricks with the scales against Marquez. However, they have kept the sport alive and guess what...it has made Mudrock a bloody fortune! They are not a poxy charity.
They tucked up like a scared rabbit when Setanta had a little roar...judging by the phone calls made by some of their top in-front-of-camera men it looks like they are getting the iron ready to get that white towel out. The rats are looking to jump!

Adios.

PS: John, see you Friday!

John?

gasman · Post by **gasman** » 18 Oct 2011, 18:59

Sky may have lost some interest i.e. no Pacman, no Mayweather, no Hopkins - the biggest names in the sport. Personally, I am not that bothered, as I am not interested in Mayweather or Pac until they fight each other and Hopkins is coming to the end of his career. They still showed Barker-Martinez/Lee-Vera and we have Froch-Ward to look forward to. I think Sky have done the right thing in addressing the poor quality control of the PPVs by rejecting Khan-McCloskey as the under card for that was absolutely rubbish. Everyone wanted to see Haye-Klit and I enjoyed that fight, I think there has been a ridiculous over reaction to that fight.

Still I think over the past year, the domestic cards on Sky have been the real highlight, I think Smith has done well in making the promoters make better fights, the previous year was absolutely rubbish matchmaking. So, I am optimistic that this trend will continue and Matchroom give me a lot of hope with the developments they have made with their stable. Prizefighter is going strong and I really enjoy this format, I have found most of them very entertaining.

Ringside has been excellent, I have enjoyed some of the debates on live issues such as poor matchmaking. I hope they host a discussion on the abysmal standard of British officiating, as this is getting more annoying each week. If there is one thing I hate in boxing, even moreso than crap matchmaking, it is when there is total silence or spin put on a truly abysmal scorecard, decision or stoppage.

dondada · Post by **dondada** » 19 Oct 2011, 02:40

Buncey wrote:Even if Carrot is Sir John of Rawling is there a mistake in his original post?
I've been down on my knees praising SKY for 15 years (forget attacks on their bias) and I can tell you that kicking 'em is more fun! They not only ignored Kessler/Calzaghe...they ignored Carl Froch last year...I had to call 'em all a shower of shite before they grudgingly mentioned his name. They had another earful when they failed to mention Mayweather's dirty tricks with the scales against Marquez. However, they have kept the sport alive and guess what...it has made Mudrock a bloody fortune! They are not a poxy charity.
They tucked up like a scared rabbit when Setanta had a little roar...judging by the phone calls made by some of their top in-front-of-camera men it looks like they are getting the iron ready to get that white towel out. The rats are looking to jump!

Adios.

PS: John, see you Friday!

I suspect that there is one, very simple change Sky could make which would change your opinion of them entirely.

Buncey · Post by **Buncey** » 19 Oct 2011, 02:44

My opinion that I think they saved British boxing will remain.
My praise for them will remain.

Adios.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 19 Oct 2011, 03:49

Sky might have tucked up when Setanta came on the scene involving Setanta based fighters.... BUT, Sky did turn up the heat a bit when it came to showcasing boxing - not some much on the domestic scene, but they were showing some nice bills from the states at the time.

It was a great time for Boxing in Britain when Setanta was on.... Its a good time now also, but a far more expensive time. Now we have 5 "non free outlets" (Sky, ESPN - for the FNF, Premier, BN and Primetime) showing the same coverage as 2 non free outlets in those days (Channel 5 were showing the FNF stuff in those days free).

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 19 Oct 2011, 06:21

Sky "saved" British boxing ? By nicking Benn, Eubank, Tyson & co off terrestial TV, charging a fee to watch them & reducing the viewing public by 5 million or so. That's saving british boxing ?

Sky boxing under Adam Smith is now a confirmed disaster. Ringside with it's well paid talking heads, trying to cover up for the fact they're not actually showing any fights

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » 19 Oct 2011, 06:32

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:
Buncey wrote:Even if Carrot is Sir John of Rawling is there a mistake in his original post?
I've been down on my knees praising SKY for 15 years (forget attacks on their bias) and I can tell you that kicking 'em is more fun! They not only ignored Kessler/Calzaghe...they ignored Carl Froch last year...I had to call 'em all a shower of shite before they grudgingly mentioned his name. They had another earful when they failed to mention Mayweather's dirty tricks with the scales against Marquez. However, they have kept the sport alive and guess what...it has made Mudrock a bloody fortune! They are not a poxy charity.
They tucked up like a scared rabbit when Setanta had a little roar...judging by the phone calls made by some of their top in-front-of-camera men it looks like they are getting the iron ready to get that white towel out. The rats are looking to jump!

Adios.

PS: John, see you Friday!
I suspect that there is one, very simple change Sky could make which would change your opinion of them entirely.

:)

Amen brother.....

danfoster · Post by **danfoster** » 19 Oct 2011, 06:40

MightyWarrior wrote:Sky "saved" British boxing ? By nicking Benn, Eubank, Tyson & co off terrestial TV, charging a fee to watch them & reducing the viewing public by 5 million or so. That's saving british boxing ?

Sky boxing under Adam Smith is now a confirmed disaster. Ringside with it's well paid talking heads, trying to cover up for the fact they're not actually showing any fights

John?

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » 19 Oct 2011, 06:40

I think they mean Rawling, mate....

carrotcruncher · Post by **carrotcruncher** » 19 Oct 2011, 06:43

reggaereggae wrote:John 'Carrotcruncher' Rawling - you are very poor at the (admittedly 'new media skill') of posting under a pseudonym on boxing forums....... Some tips:

1. Try to cover up your tracks..... don't post text that is too biased towards your own interests.. Try and make posts a bit objective to at least attempt to 'fool' some of the readers. EG Carrotcruncher described those that had slagged off Rawling as morons....
2. Do not post too much text that only you personally would know - this makes your identity obvious. See - any posts saying about what a great job John Rawling does, and his personal awards (Come one John, do you think anyone else would know or bother to write: "
has won awards from his peers in both radio and television. Apparently he was headhunted by ITV, Setanta and Allegedly channel, and given the job for Sky’s biggest fight of the year."
) (well, okay, maybe John's boyfriend...no surely not???!! lol )
3. Do not make posts whose timings coincide obviously with a change of your own personal xcircumstances. EG : http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... g#p2949946 "
The current Sky team do a great job imho, and we should give credit."
on 8th July 2011; yet: http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... 0#p3026600 and http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=143051 posted in Sept 2011

In conclusion: I kind of understand some people not using their real names on here but if Carrotcruncher is John Rawling then I’ve got to say it’s a bit pathetic slagging off Nick Halling on here and then bigging himself up on eastside boxing.

Total bollocks
Just making a point
ps .. wish I was John Rawling
The points are relevant and I stand by them though

carrotcruncher · Post by **carrotcruncher** » 19 Oct 2011, 06:56

carrotcruncher wrote:
reggaereggae wrote:John 'Carrotcruncher' Rawling - you are very poor at the (admittedly 'new media skill') of posting under a pseudonym on boxing forums....... Some tips:

1. Try to cover up your tracks..... don't post text that is too biased towards your own interests.. Try and make posts a bit objective to at least attempt to 'fool' some of the readers. EG Carrotcruncher described those that had slagged off Rawling as morons....
2. Do not post too much text that only you personally would know - this makes your identity obvious. See - any posts saying about what a great job John Rawling does, and his personal awards (Come one John, do you think anyone else would know or bother to write: "
has won awards from his peers in both radio and television. Apparently he was headhunted by ITV, Setanta and Allegedly channel, and given the job for Sky’s biggest fight of the year."
) (well, okay, maybe John's boyfriend...no surely not???!! lol )
3. Do not make posts whose timings coincide obviously with a change of your own personal xcircumstances. EG : http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... g#p2949946 "
The current Sky team do a great job imho, and we should give credit."
on 8th July 2011; yet: http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... 0#p3026600 and http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=143051 posted in Sept 2011

In conclusion: I kind of understand some people not using their real names on here but if Carrotcruncher is John Rawling then I’ve got to say it’s a bit pathetic slagging off Nick Halling on here and then bigging himself up on eastside boxing.

Total bollocks
Just making a point
ps .. wish I was John Rawling
The points are relevant and I stand by them though

Like everybody else, I can read wiki

Johnny Cucumber · Post by **Johnny Cucumber** » 19 Oct 2011, 07:00

Easy John !!!!

The give away is

"I wish I was John ******* "

You definitely are !!!!!!!!!!

Johnny Cucumber · Post by **Johnny Cucumber** » 19 Oct 2011, 07:01

Easy John !!!!

The give away is

"I wish I was John ******* "

You definitely are !!!!!!!!!!

Sky losing interest?

Re: Sky losing interest?

Re: Sky losing interest?

Re: Sky losing interest?

Re: Sky losing interest?

Re: Sky losing interest?

Re: Sky losing interest?

Re: Sky losing interest?

Re: Sky losing interest?

Re: Sky losing interest?

Re: Sky losing interest?

Re: Sky losing interest?

Re: Sky losing interest?

Re: Sky losing interest?

Re: Sky losing interest?

Re: Sky losing interest?

Re: Sky losing interest?

Re: Sky losing interest?

Re: Sky losing interest?

Re: Sky losing interest?

Re: Sky losing interest?

Re: Sky losing interest?

Re: Sky losing interest?

Re: Sky losing interest?

Re: Sky losing interest?

Re: Sky losing interest?