Will you be subscribing to allegedly?

[Jeff Thomas]

No. For the same reason that I do not subscribe to Sky, I firmly believe that marginalising the sport will lead to a continued decline in both active participation and overall standard of performance.

[fizzjambo]

Easy yes

Bye, bye Premier sports who bar Shobox and what was a pretty ordinary (though hyped to the max) Hardknocks show have dropped their boxing output big style, hello allegedly.

It's £2.50 a week, if your a boxing nut most will swing it (there will be a good few here who will claim to not subscribe but do so anyway or the minute a decent fight is made).

I expect much of the UK fights to be B level bills but the volume is good, prospects are getting good exposure with regular action and the International fights are good.

Sky hasn't bothered it's arse with non-UK fights unless one of their two K-brothers are jabbing some outgunned cruiser to death. Not good enough.

Conquest vs Toks was a poor fight, but Wlad vs Mormeck will be just the same except Adam Smith will be drooling all over the shop.

[leforge]

Easy yes

Bye, bye Premier sports who bar Shobox and what was a pretty ordinary (though hyped to the max) Hardknocks show have dropped their boxing output big style, hello Allegedly channel.

It's £2.50 a week, if your a boxing nut most will swing it (there will be a good few here who will claim to not subscribe but do so anyway or the minute a decent fight is made).

I expect much of the UK fights to be B level bills but the volume is good, prospects are getting good exposure with regular action and the International fights are good.

Sky hasn't bothered it's arse with non-UK fights unless one of their two K-brothers are jabbing some outgunned cruiser to death. Not good enough.

Conquest vs Toks was a poor fight, but Wlad vs Mormeck will be just the same except Adam Smith will be drooling all over the shop.

But apart from people on forums I cant see many casual fans subscribing this will be the problem!

[TerribleTerry]

Will the first month on virgin be free Boxingchat?

If so I will watch it evaluate whether I should stump up when it goes subscription only. If not, you don't miss what you have never had...

[rhino222]

at the moment i remain undecided and confused!!

i use btvision so if it comes to that platform then i will think about it, i would also consider paying for online access providing the stream is reliable (at the moment allegedly stream does not work!!...and no its not the fault of my i3 processor!!!) and the subscription is below that of a sky subscription. i personally think that £5 per 1/12 is a decent fee for a decent stream.

what do you think mr FW, and what are you doing for virgin and bt vision viewers!!!!.....???

[Spiker]

What sky channel is this on??
Missed it somewhere.

[rhino222]

What sky channel is this on??
Missed it somewhere.

456 free until nov 30

[Dan Dares]

does anyone know - are they asking for £120 up front or will you be able to buy it by the month?

[leforge]

does anyone know - are they asking for £120 up front or will you be able to buy it by the month?

That won't be the case!

[dondada]

No.

another closet subscriber. You can sit in the wardrobe and peep at it with Eddie Hearn then write both about what you didnt see!

Pathetic excuse for a boxing writer.

If you don't like me, I'm doing a good job.

[Jeff Thomas]

No.

another closet subscriber. You can sit in the wardrobe and peep at it with Eddie Hearn then write both about what you didnt see!

Pathetic excuse for a boxing writer.

If you don't like me, I'm doing a good job.

[Buncey]

No, if he doesn't like you perhaps he thinks that you are doing a terrible job. It's not, let's be honest a proper job. Denying a channel that has so far screened about one hundred fights and calling yourself a boxing writer is just garbage, trust me. I've been on missions, crusades and believed I was right. I have been banned, sued, in court and lied to over taking boxing stances that mattered. That was all before the internet allowed people to hide behind a name and take swipes. You are just being a complete fool.

Adios.

[Dan Dares]

No, if he doesn't like you perhaps he thinks that you are doing a terrible job. It's not, let's be honest a proper job. Denying a channel that has so far screened about one hundred fights and calling yourself a boxing writer is just garbage, trust me. I've been on missions, crusades and believed I was right. I have been banned, sued, in court and lied to over taking boxing stances that mattered. That was all before the internet allowed people to hide behind a name and take swipes. You are just being a complete fool.

Adios.

It's always I've done this, I've done that with you, isn't it.

I don't mind reading the odd column of yours, sometimes even listen to your radio show, but you're doing an awful job on TV, trust me. They should have hired a yank.

[fizzjambo]

Have to agree with Mr Bunce, though he certainly has vested interests in this!

Lets be honest guys, what are we asking for here? I'd imagine that we would all like to see as much boxing as possible screened on TV in the UK. However broadcasters have shown very little interest in boxing for the past 15 years or so, bar Sky who to be fair do a reasonable job.

However is it healthly that they are the only show in town with no competition, irrespective of how good a job they are doing? Are we really saying that on a night like the 3rd of December we are happy that we would most likely have to miss out on one of Mares/Agbeko or Cotto/Margarito II cards? Is Sky's 2 hours of domestic boxing per week really enough for you, especially given the talent pool we have at the moment. Their crazed rational of promising each of the four main promoters a set ratio of dates helped to cause many fighters to become dreadfully inactive, if the face didn't fit then kiss goodbye to any meaningful fights (Haskins, Norton, Olusugun, etc).

allegedly is a good thing, though with plenty flaws. Positives? Divisions like the cruiserweights are reactivated in the country, prospects get regular shows, the number of shows shown on TV in this country per week has at least doubled, we get to see international fights we wouldn't have see otherwise. It costs less than £2.50 a week for god's sake. Negatives? It costs more money, some of the fights have been dross a valid concern that different promoters fighters will be kept away from each other for fear of fighting on a rival channel.

Lets be honest, some people on a boxing forum are whining about a channel dedicated to boxing for which the have to pay a maximum of £1.25 per card (of good length) per month. Don't get me wrong, I'd love boxing to be given good coverage on free to air TV but it ain't gonna happen folks, TV exec's at ITV, Five, BBC, etc care about personailities, not the sport. Once Fury gets beaten Five will toddle of into the sunset, I'd put my 'I love Steve Bunce T-shirt on it'!

[Crease]

No.

[Jeff Thomas]

Have to agree with Mr Bunce, though he certainly has vested interests in this!

Lets be honest guys, what are we asking for here? I'd imagine that we would all like to see as much boxing as possible screened on TV in the UK. However broadcasters have shown very little interest in boxing for the past 15 years or so, bar Sky who to be fair do a reasonable job.

However is it healthly that they are the only show in town with no competition, irrespective of how good a job they are doing? Are we really saying that on a night like the 3rd of December we are happy that we would most likely have to miss out on one of Mares/Agbeko or Cotto/Margarito II cards? Is Sky's 2 hours of domestic boxing per week really enough for you, especially given the talent pool we have at the moment. Their crazed rational of promising each of the four main promoters a set ratio of dates helped to cause many fighters to become dreadfully inactive, if the face didn't fit then kiss goodbye to any meaningful fights (Haskins, Norton, Olusugun, etc).

Allegedly channel is a good thing, though with plenty flaws. Positives? Divisions like the cruiserweights are reactivated in the country, prospects get regular shows, the number of shows shown on TV in this country per week has at least doubled, we get to see international fights we wouldn't have see otherwise. It costs less than £2.50 a week for god's sake. Negatives? It costs more money, some of the fights have been dross a valid concern that different promoters fighters will be kept away from each other for fear of fighting on a rival channel.

Lets be honest, some people on a boxing forum are whining about a channel dedicated to boxing for which the have to pay a maximum of £1.25 per card (of good length) per month. Don't get me wrong, I'd love boxing to be given good coverage on free to air TV but it ain't gonna happen folks, TV exec's at ITV, Five, BBC, etc care about personailities, not the sport. Once Fury gets beaten Five will toddle of into the sunset, I'd put my 'I love Steve Bunce T-shirt on it'!

Good post I agree with this- but long term the sport suffers and also the quality of the bills has already started dropping. A promoter who insisted on PPV's for Khan, Groves Vs Degale and a load of domestic boxing matches isn't going to be concerened long term with value for money surely?

[dondada]

another closet subscriber. You can sit in the wardrobe and peep at it with Eddie Hearn then write both about what you didnt see!

Pathetic excuse for a boxing writer.

If you don't like me, I'm doing a good job.

The Gilf must be a genius then.

You're just lacking a bit of inside info mate. Boxing Chat's firm aren't entirely representative.

[dondada]

No, if he doesn't like you perhaps he thinks that you are doing a terrible job. It's not, let's be honest a proper job. Denying a channel that has so far screened about one hundred fights and calling yourself a boxing writer is just garbage, trust me. I've been on missions, crusades and believed I was right. I have been banned, sued, in court and lied to over taking boxing stances that mattered. That was all before the internet allowed people to hide behind a name and take swipes. You are just being a complete fool.

Adios.

No, it's not a proper job. I've got a proper job. This is a part-time one. If I wanted it to be a proper job, I would make it happen.

Of course he thinks I'm doing a terrible job - because I won't do what they want. I remember having a long conversation with a then Sports Network rep and it was like talking to the wall. Outraged at some negative coverage they had been given, I pointed out that, actually, the overwhelming majority of the coverage they had been given was favourable. "Yes, but we would expect that." F**k right off.

Hide behind a name? It's MY f**king name! I'm not hiding - and I'm not hard to find. You'll find me at shows now and again, though not those arranged by one of your current paymasters, as I've been banned by them (with one exception) since early 2005.

Despite this, we still cover the shows as best we can, either from telly or by someone mental enough to buy a ticket. This is more than the channel deserves from BoxRec - and if you want to find out why this is the case, ask Boxing Chat - he was overheard at Liverpool bragging about his boss' current stance with regards to this site.

When Boxing Chat explains the above, you might want to reconsider calling me a fool.

[jabnmove]

does anyone know - are they asking for £120 up front or will you be able to buy it by the month?

That won't be the case!

You can sign up for 6 months and recieve 1 month for free (pay for 5 and get 6) or sign up month by month and go through the normal cancellation procedure of other subscriptions channels, such as Setanta, ESPN and Sky Sports (according to the guys I had a chat with at allegedly).

[Buncey]

Fool is not the right word. Young fighters read this and I would prefer not to use the right word. I doubt that you could get a living out of this game, I really do. It would be nice to see you at a show.

Adios.

[Captain Hook]

No, if he doesn't like you perhaps he thinks that you are doing a terrible job. It's not, let's be honest a proper job. Denying a channel that has so far screened about one hundred fights and calling yourself a boxing writer is just garbage, trust me. I've been on missions, crusades and believed I was right. I have been banned, sued, in court and lied to over taking boxing stances that mattered. That was all before the internet allowed people to hide behind a name and take swipes. You are just being a complete fool.

Adios.

We got back onto the subject of you pretty quickly then Steve!

Ian does a lot for boxing through Boxrec, but you don't hear him blowing his own trumpet.

[dondada]

Fool is not the right word. Young fighters read this and I would prefer not to use the right word. I doubt that you could get a living out of this game, I really do. It would be nice to see you at a show.

Adios.

I'm not personally supporting your latest project for entirely justifiable reasons. Once you find out why, as suggested, you might change your opinion - not that I give a monkey's.

Despite BoxRec News being banned, we're still covering the bills. What more do you want?

You're right on one count - it's incredibly hard making a living out of the game - particularly so for a freelancer, like yourself. It's why so many of them end up doing whatever is necessary to pay the bills - and I completely understand that.

Fortunately, I don't want to make a living from this - I'm happy with my present lot.

I don't go to as many shows as I used to, for all sorts of reasons...I should be going to two this week, mind.

[GlobalBox]

Yes I will because I love my boxing and I like to watch as much as I can, been doing it for over 40 years so not going to stop now. However, I have to say organisation wise it seems a bit naff to be honest, a friend of mine was thinking of subscribing but goes on holiday tomorrow and has heard nothing about subscribing at all yet, so he is away for two weeks which includes the cut off date of Nov 30th, thereby he can't get any fights recorded whilst he is away because he won't of subscribed because he don't know how to subscribe.

He now says to me oh bollocks I think I'll leave it as it seems a bit "mickey mouse"

9 Days away from encryption and bugger all known about how to do it, its this lack of care about punters that goes a long way to pissing people off to be honest. The website allegedly leaves a lot to be desired as well, its rarely updated, timings and fights are often wrong and suchlike, new ventures you would have thought would be really on the ball, there not and its a fact.

I don't envisage it lasting too long there just wont be enough subscribers despite the flag waving.

I will join the ride for as long as it lasts and then expect to see it all back on Sky for free by this time next year.

[Glyn Leach]

I will join the ride for as long as it lasts and then expect to see it all back on SKY FOR FREE by this time next year.

Know what I mean?

[earsjohn]

I find it alarming that official (Bunce) and unofficial (Boxingchat) representatives from a new, subscription based service would come onto a forum containing one of the largest online communities of UK boxing fans and act in such an insulting and condescending manner towards the people that are needed in order to make allegedly work.

As consumers in a buyers market it is our choice when we make a purchase. allegedly is asking us to commit at least £50 for 6 months boxing. At the moment, the schedule consists of one attractive, albeit overnight card and a couple of Londoners fighting unnamed opponents on the Echo card. These are supported by Povetkin against a journeyman and Stephen Ormond v Carl Johanson (sic!).

Call me daft (or in Bunceys case, pompous), but when making a financial commitment, I like to know what I'm getting for my money. Purely citing the last 3 months as an indication of whats coming over the next 6 months doesn't work as we all know Boxing doesn't work like that. An injury to Cleverly, Ricky Burns being matched with Alex Arthur and Sky outbidding for future Golden Boy cards and all of a sudden my subscription doesn't look so worthwhile.

So, allegedly and your various representatives, you have heard what we, the willing-to-pay-public, want from you (openness, transparency, information, consistency and, dare I say it, respect). As a potential service provider, are you willing to co-operate? Until then, it's not for me.