allegedly is brilliant? (merged)

[earsjohn]

Any idea on whether or not they will do HD?

No plans at present according to their website.

[earsjohn]

I understand why Frank and his team have done this but IMO it's looking short term more than long term especially as promoters like Meaty Mick now have broken onto to open TV and Matchrooms fan friendly/modern approach seems to be paying off.

Unfortunately thats how Allegedly does his business. $$$'s first and foremost, not the sports long term future.

He did it when he took his stable off Terrestial TV (away from the masses), to SKY and now he has done the same, this time to SKY (further reducing the coverage).

It's never been about the masses or making the sport popular, its always been about making $$$. Which is what a good business man does.

That is what Boxing is to him, a business.

And that is surely the reason that none of the guys he takes to the top stay with him once they're there. I'm struggling to think of a single world level fighter in the last 15 years who has seen out their career with Frank. There must be a reason for it.

[earsjohn]

Steve it's great to have you posting on boxrec again or at least a more regular basis, i joined in May 2003 and i always found your posts back then amongst the best and most spot on.

Back on topic, i think what Box notion really have to do to make this channel a success is to get it in as many pubs, nightclubs and casinos as possible. Obviously their subscription fee's will be alot more then £10 a month but a hell of a lot less then paying for premiership football which most places just can't afford nowadays.

I'd say to break even they'd probably need around 25,000 home subscribers plus around 5,000 bar/pub/casinos subscribers which they'd probably want by the end of june 2012, added to that is their income from advertising which must be pretty low at the moment.

That's around £1,000,000 revenue a month to run a tv channel which includes putting on 7 domestic small shows and 1 big one, added to that about 4 international boxing shows.

I guess people had the same fears about premiership football dying when it went exclusively to SKY Sports, although boxing won't be as big it could grow over the years and revive the sport again.

Don't think pubs and bars will pay extra for a boxing channel.

Really? I know lots of pubs that pay for Racing UK

Wildly differing audiences.

Racing is on throughout the daytime so is ideal for pubs in attracting and keeping unemployed gamblers. It's an ideal partnership - pub shows racing, punter has pint whilst betting, wins bet, spends winnings in pub while watching more racing.

Boxing is a friday and saturday night event - pubs don't generally have TVs on for those periods except in the case of live football and, exceptionally, massive sporting events. The US/foreign shows being broadcast post-midnight will hold severely limited appeal as most pubs do not stay open that late while the number of customers willing to stay in a pub until 5 in the morning to watch Donaire v Narvaez is pretty limited.

[Twinkle Toes]

Frank has always maintained that he has his way of bringing fighters along, and he will not change it, because its based around maximum financial gain against the lowest risk.

I think it pays to bear that in mind when assessing if the new channel is going to be worth your money or not - I can already see the crying in 6 months from fans wondering when the next truly competitive fight is going to be made.

[dondada]

Really? I know lots of pubs that pay for Racing UK

Wildly differing audiences.

Racing is on throughout the daytime so is ideal for pubs in attracting and keeping unemployed gamblers. It's an ideal partnership - pub shows racing, punter has pint whilst betting, wins bet, spends winnings in pub while watching more racing.

Boxing is a friday and saturday night event - pubs don't generally have TVs on for those periods except in the case of live football and, exceptionally, massive sporting events. The US/foreign shows being broadcast post-midnight will hold severely limited appeal as most pubs do not stay open that late while the number of customers willing to stay in a pub until 5 in the morning to watch Donaire v Narvaez is pretty limited.

x2

[earsjohn]

I guess people had the same fears about premiership football dying when it went exclusively to SKY Sports, although boxing won't be as big it could grow over the years and revive the sport again.

Hence MOTD, football focus and the Champions League and international arrangements. Sky could afford to make football a completely closed shop but a) they are not allowed and b) it makes sense to whet the appetites of potential future subscribers. Without football's continued terrestrial exposure it wouldn't be anything like as popular as it is now. What's boxing got? Sporadic coverage on C5 and... well, that's it.

Football also has the behemoth that is the World Cup (and the European championships). So every two years there's a month of football on free-to-air TV (both events, along with the FA Cup final are on the list of protected events which must have live terrestrial coverage). Boxing took the paid channel route years ago and doesn't have a single repeatable "event" to capture the publics imagination on an annual (or other) basis.

The way boxing is set up, with matches made by various groups (TV, Commissions, Promoters, Managers) with only a short term financial interest in fighters, means that there is no single body looking to preserve the status of the sport as a whole.

For instance - Sky would probably like allegedly to fail; each alphabet body refuses to recognise the others; FWP and Matchroom would do anything to avoid working with each other, etc. Where, in all of that, are the interests of the sport in general being best served?

[Captain Hook]

Boxing's future in this country should be in the hands of the BBBofC and they should have enough foresight and clout to develop a suitable strategy to halt the decline of boxing and ideally initiate a re-growth. In my view they are far too weak an organisation.

This is a great point. They've got a few quid in the bank (and I understand why) and they need to spend some of it on employing a few full-time people at the top who can give things a (positive) shake up.

Like rugby, cricket etc.....too many old duffers - where's the new breed?

They should be tapping-up recently retired, creditable UK boxers like Thaxton, Hatton, Moore, Calzaghe and co for advice and inviting them to have their say on where the sport should go in the future....

Instead they sit on piles of dosh and react days or weeks after something happens. They anticipate nothing. I agree they should be leading any revival.

[gobbles]

Don't think pubs and bars will pay extra for a boxing channel.

Really? I know lots of pubs that pay for Racing UK

Wildly differing audiences.

Racing is on throughout the daytime so is ideal for pubs in attracting and keeping unemployed gamblers. It's an ideal partnership - pub shows racing, punter has pint whilst betting, wins bet, spends winnings in pub while watching more racing.

Boxing is a friday and saturday night event - pubs don't generally have TVs on for those periods except in the case of live football and, exceptionally, massive sporting events. The US/foreign shows being broadcast post-midnight will hold severely limited appeal as most pubs do not stay open that late while the number of customers willing to stay in a pub until 5 in the morning to watch Donaire v Narvaez is pretty limited.

"Pubs don't generally have TVs on for those periods except in the case of live football"

What utter rubbish. Just about every pub I have been to in recent years has at east some corner with live sport on. They have huge lists of what is on the screens - rugby, football, rugby league, boxing - everything. Are you seriously suggesting that you would struggle to find a pub showing Saturday Fight Night??

What I can't understand on this is why so many people - who supposedly like boxing - refuse to pay an amount like £10 for this. A few months ago, Boxrec was openly promoting deals to get people signed up to Premier Sports, who barely put any boxing on now. £10 is less than I spend a month on Boxing News. I pay for newspapers, I pay for my phone, I pay to go to the cinema, I pay for my dinner. Is it only boxing fans who seem to believe everything should be free.

[earsjohn]

Really? I know lots of pubs that pay for Racing UK

Wildly differing audiences.

Racing is on throughout the daytime so is ideal for pubs in attracting and keeping unemployed gamblers. It's an ideal partnership - pub shows racing, punter has pint whilst betting, wins bet, spends winnings in pub while watching more racing.

Boxing is a friday and saturday night event - pubs don't generally have TVs on for those periods except in the case of live football and, exceptionally, massive sporting events. The US/foreign shows being broadcast post-midnight will hold severely limited appeal as most pubs do not stay open that late while the number of customers willing to stay in a pub until 5 in the morning to watch Donaire v Narvaez is pretty limited.

"Pubs don't generally have TVs on for those periods except in the case of live football"

What utter rubbish. Just about every pub I have been to in recent years has at east some corner with live sport on. They have huge lists of what is on the screens - rugby, football, rugby league, boxing - everything. Are you seriously suggesting that you would struggle to find a pub showing Saturday Fight Night??

What I can't understand on this is why so many people - who supposedly like boxing - refuse to pay an amount like £10 for this. A few months ago, Boxrec was openly promoting deals to get people signed up to Premier Sports, who barely put any boxing on now. £10 is less than I spend a month on Boxing News. I pay for newspapers, I pay for my phone, I pay to go to the cinema, I pay for my dinner. Is it only boxing fans who seem to believe everything should be free.

I wouldn't struggle as I know where to go. But in a town with 17 town centre pubs, only one can be relied upon to be showing saturday fight night. And it would have to be a semi decent bout - I'm fairly certain Vassell v Colomban will be overlooked for a music channel, spanish football or X-factor.

For me it's not the amount, it's the principle. If this is any kind of success, can we expect to see a Matchroom channel and a Hatton Channel? Or will all boxing be shunted out to a single, subscription channel at a higher price than £10? I am a boxing fan, but I watch a whole host of other sports. For the record, I would also recoil at being asked to subscribe to a separate football channel, cricket channel, darts channel, etc.

[stujones]

Yeah but I have been ripped off by Warren's crap and PPV's for a long time. It feels strange having to give this man more money after the various piss poor events he got me to pay for years ago.

It's not Warrens channel, he's just the main promoter at the moment for the fights on the channel but the more the channel grows the more promoters will be brought to the channel.

Also remember Box notion will aslo be showing the best international cards from Goldenboy, Toprank, Dibella entertainment, Main Events, Gary shaw promotions and other promoters plus action from European, Japanese, Mexican and all around the world.

Guaranteed? Hardly. Maybe reword to say...

Box notion will aslo be bidding to show the best international cards from Goldenboy, Toprank, Dibella entertainment, Main Events, Gary shaw promotions.....but in a competitive market place they will need to ensure that they outbid broadcasting rivals including Sky, Prime Time, Premier Sports, ESPN and Channel 5 as most international promoters will go with who pays the most

Indeed, Premier sports are claiming that they have signed a deal with Gary Shaw Promotions.

[dondada]

"Pubs don't generally have TVs on for those periods except in the case of live football"

What utter rubbish. Just about every pub I have been to in recent years has at east some corner with live sport on. They have huge lists of what is on the screens - rugby, football, rugby league, boxing - everything. Are you seriously suggesting that you would struggle to find a pub showing Saturday Fight Night??

What I can't understand on this is why so many people - who supposedly like boxing - refuse to pay an amount like £10 for this. A few months ago, Boxrec was openly promoting deals to get people signed up to Premier Sports, who barely put any boxing on now. £10 is less than I spend a month on Boxing News. I pay for newspapers, I pay for my phone, I pay to go to the cinema, I pay for my dinner. Is it only boxing fans who seem to believe everything should be free.

99% of the time a pub has shown Saturday Fight Night or whatever is because I've been in there and asked them to put it on. And why do they put it on so readily? Because no f**ker is watching the telly at that time of night on a Friday or Saturday in a pub.

As for BoxRec, the site's only income (I believe) is advertising. If someone advertises, then they'll get their stuff promoted, understandably. Though, if it's via the news site, I even temper those.

And another thing. When I signed up for Sky, I was expecting a certain amount of dates from Al Legedly. Why the f*ck should I be expected to pay for them twice?

One might say I've already had the equivalent for free but that isn't the point...I didn't pay for a subscription only channel so that some of the content could then be shown to everyone for nothing.

If the dates are fulfilled, fine. I don't expect stuff for free. What I expect to get is stuff I've already paid for - and not for everyone else to get it gratis.

[gobbles]

"Pubs don't generally have TVs on for those periods except in the case of live football"

What utter rubbish. Just about every pub I have been to in recent years has at east some corner with live sport on. They have huge lists of what is on the screens - rugby, football, rugby league, boxing - everything. Are you seriously suggesting that you would struggle to find a pub showing Saturday Fight Night??

What I can't understand on this is why so many people - who supposedly like boxing - refuse to pay an amount like £10 for this. A few months ago, Boxrec was openly promoting deals to get people signed up to Premier Sports, who barely put any boxing on now. £10 is less than I spend a month on Boxing News. I pay for newspapers, I pay for my phone, I pay to go to the cinema, I pay for my dinner. Is it only boxing fans who seem to believe everything should be free.

99% of the time a pub has shown Saturday Fight Night or whatever is because I've been in there and asked them to put it on. And why do they put it on so readily? Because no f**ker is watching the telly at that time of night on a Friday or Saturday in a pub.

As for BoxRec, the site's only income (I believe) is advertising. If someone advertises, then they'll get their stuff promoted, understandably. Though, if it's via the news site, I even temper those.

And another thing. When I signed up for Sky, I was expecting a certain amount of dates from Al Legedly. Why the f*ck should I be expected to pay for them twice?

One might say I've already had the equivalent for free but that isn't the point...I didn't pay for a subscription only channel so that some of the content could then be shown to everyone for nothing.

If the dates are fulfilled, fine. I don't expect stuff for free. What I expect to get is stuff I've already paid for - and not for everyone else to get it gratis.

Who's the row with then? allegedly or Sky.

Sky business model seems to be to pay peanuts for fights, which means decent fights can't get made, while paying fortunes for other sports. Six months ago Burns v Katsidis would have been PPV costing £15.

And baring in mind Warren has spent much of the last few years with ITV and Setanta, and since then all the better shows have been PPV, did you really expect a certain amount of dates from Warren as part of your Sky subscription?

What was the most recent world title fight in Britain shown by Sky and not on PPV? Burns v Laryea?? That says something about what Sky thinks of boxing fans' subscription money

[stujones]

No chance would Burns vs Katsidis be a PPV. Mitchell vs Kat wasn't, Mitchell vs Murray (Burns vs Cook undercard) wasn't.

[earsjohn]

"Pubs don't generally have TVs on for those periods except in the case of live football"

What utter rubbish. Just about every pub I have been to in recent years has at east some corner with live sport on. They have huge lists of what is on the screens - rugby, football, rugby league, boxing - everything. Are you seriously suggesting that you would struggle to find a pub showing Saturday Fight Night??

What I can't understand on this is why so many people - who supposedly like boxing - refuse to pay an amount like £10 for this. A few months ago, Boxrec was openly promoting deals to get people signed up to Premier Sports, who barely put any boxing on now. £10 is less than I spend a month on Boxing News. I pay for newspapers, I pay for my phone, I pay to go to the cinema, I pay for my dinner. Is it only boxing fans who seem to believe everything should be free.

99% of the time a pub has shown Saturday Fight Night or whatever is because I've been in there and asked them to put it on. And why do they put it on so readily? Because no f**ker is watching the telly at that time of night on a Friday or Saturday in a pub.

As for BoxRec, the site's only income (I believe) is advertising. If someone advertises, then they'll get their stuff promoted, understandably. Though, if it's via the news site, I even temper those.

And another thing. When I signed up for Sky, I was expecting a certain amount of dates from Al Legedly. Why the f*ck should I be expected to pay for them twice?

One might say I've already had the equivalent for free but that isn't the point...I didn't pay for a subscription only channel so that some of the content could then be shown to everyone for nothing.

If the dates are fulfilled, fine. I don't expect stuff for free. What I expect to get is stuff I've already paid for - and not for everyone else to get it gratis.

Who's the row with then? Allegedly channel or Sky.

Sky business model seems to be to pay peanuts for fights, which means decent fights can't get made, while paying fortunes for other sports. Six months ago Burns v Katsidis would have been PPV costing £15.

And baring in mind Warren has spent much of the last few years with ITV and Setanta, and since then all the better shows have been PPV, did you really expect a certain amount of dates from Warren as part of your Sky subscription?

What was the most recent world title fight in Britain shown by Sky and not on PPV? Burns v Laryea?? That says something about what Sky thinks of boxing fans' subscription money

Was it not Burns v Cook? And who should take more responsibility for that? Sky or the man who made the fight, Mr F Warren?

I believe the actual timeline was UK title fight between 12 fight novices is pushed to PPV; Sky declare no more PPVs; Burns, Cleverly and Mitchell v Murray is broadcast on free to air sky much to Mr Warrens apparent financial disatisfaction; Warren takes his whole stable to a new subscription based TV channel somehow avoiding penalties for appearing not to fulfil contractual obligations to Sky.

Are you telling me that Sky would have turned down Cleverly v Bellew or Burns v Katsidis?

[dondada]

"Pubs don't generally have TVs on for those periods except in the case of live football"

What utter rubbish. Just about every pub I have been to in recent years has at east some corner with live sport on. They have huge lists of what is on the screens - rugby, football, rugby league, boxing - everything. Are you seriously suggesting that you would struggle to find a pub showing Saturday Fight Night??

What I can't understand on this is why so many people - who supposedly like boxing - refuse to pay an amount like £10 for this. A few months ago, Boxrec was openly promoting deals to get people signed up to Premier Sports, who barely put any boxing on now. £10 is less than I spend a month on Boxing News. I pay for newspapers, I pay for my phone, I pay to go to the cinema, I pay for my dinner. Is it only boxing fans who seem to believe everything should be free.

99% of the time a pub has shown Saturday Fight Night or whatever is because I've been in there and asked them to put it on. And why do they put it on so readily? Because no f**ker is watching the telly at that time of night on a Friday or Saturday in a pub.

As for BoxRec, the site's only income (I believe) is advertising. If someone advertises, then they'll get their stuff promoted, understandably. Though, if it's via the news site, I even temper those.

And another thing. When I signed up for Sky, I was expecting a certain amount of dates from Al Legedly. Why the f*ck should I be expected to pay for them twice?

One might say I've already had the equivalent for free but that isn't the point...I didn't pay for a subscription only channel so that some of the content could then be shown to everyone for nothing.

If the dates are fulfilled, fine. I don't expect stuff for free. What I expect to get is stuff I've already paid for - and not for everyone else to get it gratis.

Who's the row with then? Allegedly channel or Sky.

Sky business model seems to be to pay peanuts for fights, which means decent fights can't get made, while paying fortunes for other sports. Six months ago Burns v Katsidis would have been PPV costing £15.

And baring in mind Warren has spent much of the last few years with ITV and Setanta, and since then all the better shows have been PPV, did you really expect a certain amount of dates from Warren as part of your Sky subscription?

What was the most recent world title fight in Britain shown by Sky and not on PPV? Burns v Laryea?? That says something about what Sky thinks of boxing fans' subscription money

Oh aye, I agree with a lot of your points. But yes, the Sky contracts had been done with the promoters when I changed to Sky, so I did expect it. Not that I was expecting much, tbh.

[gobbles]

99% of the time a pub has shown Saturday Fight Night or whatever is because I've been in there and asked them to put it on. And why do they put it on so readily? Because no f**ker is watching the telly at that time of night on a Friday or Saturday in a pub.

As for BoxRec, the site's only income (I believe) is advertising. If someone advertises, then they'll get their stuff promoted, understandably. Though, if it's via the news site, I even temper those.

And another thing. When I signed up for Sky, I was expecting a certain amount of dates from Al Legedly. Why the f*ck should I be expected to pay for them twice?

One might say I've already had the equivalent for free but that isn't the point...I didn't pay for a subscription only channel so that some of the content could then be shown to everyone for nothing.

If the dates are fulfilled, fine. I don't expect stuff for free. What I expect to get is stuff I've already paid for - and not for everyone else to get it gratis.

Who's the row with then? Allegedly channel or Sky.

Sky business model seems to be to pay peanuts for fights, which means decent fights can't get made, while paying fortunes for other sports. Six months ago Burns v Katsidis would have been PPV costing £15.

And baring in mind Warren has spent much of the last few years with ITV and Setanta, and since then all the better shows have been PPV, did you really expect a certain amount of dates from Warren as part of your Sky subscription?

What was the most recent world title fight in Britain shown by Sky and not on PPV? Burns v Laryea?? That says something about what Sky thinks of boxing fans' subscription money

Was it not Burns v Cook? And who should take more responsibility for that? Sky or the man who made the fight, Mr F Warren?

I believe the actual timeline was UK title fight between 12 fight novices is pushed to PPV; Sky declare no more PPVs; Burns, Cleverly and Mitchell v Murray is broadcast on free to air sky much to Mr Warrens apparent financial disatisfaction; Warren takes his whole stable to a new subscription based TV channel somehow avoiding penalties for appearing not to fulfil contractual obligations to Sky.

Are you telling me that Sky would have turned down Cleverly v Bellew or Burns v Katsidis?

They wouldn't have turned them down, but what would they have paid for them? For instance if Sky offer £40,000 for a Comm title fight and say £60,000 for a world title fight, what incentive is there for the promoter to put on a world title fight when it makes them more likely to lose money.

The fact the promoters are under contract, implies that their money is already agreed. So what is the incentive for a promoter to bid for a decent fight or offer the sort of money that would get name opponents over to Britain?

Katsidis was the best name that had come to Britain in some time (probably since he came last year). For all of Matchroom and Sky's boasts about Kell Brooke, for instance, the biggest name he has faced is a washed up Lovemore N'dou.

[earsjohn]

Who's the row with then? Allegedly channel or Sky.

Sky business model seems to be to pay peanuts for fights, which means decent fights can't get made, while paying fortunes for other sports. Six months ago Burns v Katsidis would have been PPV costing £15.

And baring in mind Warren has spent much of the last few years with ITV and Setanta, and since then all the better shows have been PPV, did you really expect a certain amount of dates from Warren as part of your Sky subscription?

What was the most recent world title fight in Britain shown by Sky and not on PPV? Burns v Laryea?? That says something about what Sky thinks of boxing fans' subscription money

Was it not Burns v Cook? And who should take more responsibility for that? Sky or the man who made the fight, Mr F Warren?

I believe the actual timeline was UK title fight between 12 fight novices is pushed to PPV; Sky declare no more PPVs; Burns, Cleverly and Mitchell v Murray is broadcast on free to air sky much to Mr Warrens apparent financial disatisfaction; Warren takes his whole stable to a new subscription based TV channel somehow avoiding penalties for appearing not to fulfil contractual obligations to Sky.

Are you telling me that Sky would have turned down Cleverly v Bellew or Burns v Katsidis?

They wouldn't have turned them down, but what would they have paid for them? For instance if Sky offer £40,000 for a Comm title fight and say £60,000 for a world title fight, what incentive is there for the promoter to put on a world title fight when it makes them more likely to lose money.

The fact the promoters are under contract, implies that their money is already agreed. So what is the incentive for a promoter to bid for a decent fight or offer the sort of money that would get name opponents over to Britain?

Katsidis was the best name that had come to Britain in some time (probably since he came last year). For all of Matchroom and Sky's boasts about Kell Brooke, for instance, the biggest name he has faced is a washed up Lovemore N'dou.

I'd take a washed up Lovemore N'Dou over a hapless Philip Kotey any day.

And I know too little about the finances of boxing agreements in place between TV companies and promoters to even know where to begin with disputing the numbers you quote.

What is without doubt is that the Sky output has improved dramatically over the last 12 months or so (compared with the previous 3 years or so) - fights have been made and, domestically at least, the best are fighting the best. Mitchell v Murray, McDonnell v Hall, Buckland v Sykes, Fury v Chisora (on Five), Groves v Degale are all fights that were attractive on paper and were made. If this improvement is stalled by the splintering of boxing and the promoters working in silos, it can only be to the detriment of us fans.

[gobbles]

Was it not Burns v Cook? And who should take more responsibility for that? Sky or the man who made the fight, Mr F Warren?

I believe the actual timeline was UK title fight between 12 fight novices is pushed to PPV; Sky declare no more PPVs; Burns, Cleverly and Mitchell v Murray is broadcast on free to air sky much to Mr Warrens apparent financial disatisfaction; Warren takes his whole stable to a new subscription based TV channel somehow avoiding penalties for appearing not to fulfil contractual obligations to Sky.

Are you telling me that Sky would have turned down Cleverly v Bellew or Burns v Katsidis?

They wouldn't have turned them down, but what would they have paid for them? For instance if Sky offer £40,000 for a Comm title fight and say £60,000 for a world title fight, what incentive is there for the promoter to put on a world title fight when it makes them more likely to lose money.

The fact the promoters are under contract, implies that their money is already agreed. So what is the incentive for a promoter to bid for a decent fight or offer the sort of money that would get name opponents over to Britain?

Katsidis was the best name that had come to Britain in some time (probably since he came last year). For all of Matchroom and Sky's boasts about Kell Brooke, for instance, the biggest name he has faced is a washed up Lovemore N'dou.

I'd take a washed up Lovemore N'Dou over a hapless Philip Kotey any day.

And I know too little about the finances of boxing agreements in place between TV companies and promoters to even know where to begin with disputing the numbers you quote.

What is without doubt is that the Sky output has improved dramatically over the last 12 months or so (compared with the previous 3 years or so) - fights have been made and, domestically at least, the best are fighting the best. Mitchell v Murray, McDonnell v Hall, Buckland v Sykes, Fury v Chisora (on Five), Groves v Degale are all fights that were attractive on paper and were made. If this improvement is stalled by the splintering of boxing and the promoters working in silos, it can only be to the detriment of us fans.

I talk world title fights, you talk McDonnell-Hall. What's the wide interest in that? Or Buckland-Sykes for that matter? Groves-Degale was obviously PPV. And the question isn't Kotey or N'dou. If Brook deserves the hype, they're both crap fights.

The bottom line is - if Sky paid for fights what it did 5 years ago, allegedly wouldn't happen. They have exploited a monopoly by dropping fees to promoters. Some have no choice, others, like Matchroom, are married to Sky through other sports, Warren is trying something else.

[orbtastic]

Groves/DeGale wasn't "obviously" PPV, but it was pitched to us that the fight wouldn't/couldn't happen without PPV as the money wouldn't be there. From memory it was a pretty poor card all in all.

The question here is whether the tail was wagging the dog or not - That SKY have subsequently stopped their PPV model is due to some degree to this.

[gobbles]

Groves/DeGale wasn't "obviously" PPV, but it was pitched to us that the fight wouldn't/couldn't happen without PPV as the money wouldn't be there. From memory it was a pretty poor card all in all.

The question here is whether the tail was wagging the dog or not - That SKY have subsequently stopped their PPV model is due to some degree to this.

Eh? It was PPV. So why big up Sky's coverage of best versus best with a fight that wouldn't happen now because it was only made on PPV?

Do you believe a TV fee of £60-£80,000 could have made that fight? No, neither do I.

[orbtastic]

Groves/DeGale wasn't "obviously" PPV, but it was pitched to us that the fight wouldn't/couldn't happen without PPV as the money wouldn't be there. From memory it was a pretty poor card all in all.

The question here is whether the tail was wagging the dog or not - That SKY have subsequently stopped their PPV model is due to some degree to this.

Eh? It was PPV. So why big up Sky's coverage of best versus best with a fight that wouldn't happen now because it was only made on PPV?

Do you believe a TV fee of £60-£80,000 could have made that fight? No, neither do I.

It was PPV but who forced their hand?

So you're saying that a company like SKY and a promoter like FW can't come up with more than 80k without the aid of PPV? Do me a favour.

[Josh1111]

Do you not think FW made a big mistake signing the olympians on such high contracts before they'd even fought a professional fight?

What happened to the days where the young up and coming lads had to fight in small halls earning pennies until they earned the right to fight on bigger shows for more money?

The rumours are FW gave Khan & De Gale over £1m just to sign with him, couple that with the other olympians he has signed, thats alot of money paid out before a fight has even happened.

[orbtastic]

It's just indicitive of the game at large. Sorry, sport. I started to talk in football cliches there.

Boxers are fast tracked and anyone with an ounce of potential is lauded before they even get to area level and they have unrealistic expectations both of themselves and their potential worth.

The availablity of "world" titles and somewhat lax attitude to ranking also helps.

Who is at fault? The promoter? The boxer? The public? The TV company?

We're all at fault to a certain degree.

If FW didn't sign them, then another promoter would have [probably for less, but still]. Let's not kid ourselves that they wouldn't be fighting for titles of one description or another if they'd signed with a different promoter.

[Dioufy]

If I had a spare tenner mooching about a month, I'd rather pay my TV license than give the fish monger any of my

[broomy7s]

I've really enjoyed it so far, it's gonna be good for any of warren's prospects getting to fight regulary.

I can't help think tho that they are starting the subscription at the worst possible time over a period when people struggle with money and boxing shows quiet down.

I'll be subscribing eventually but there is nothing in december to warrant £10 at the moment.