earsjohn wrote:Taken from Allegedly channel website:
"Q: Can I get Allegedly Channel on multi-room?
A: Yes, Simply follow our subscription process for all viewing card numbers that you would like activated to Allegedly Channel & take out a new subscription for each card."
Huh? So, in order to be able to watch Allegedly channel on my 2 TVs I need 2 separate subscriptions? Shambolic. And to mention this now AFTER I have registered and paid? I pay one multiroom fee to watch my entire sky package on either of my Sky+ boxes, yet I'm restricted to watching Allegedly channel through only one box?
I got a response from Allegedly channel:
Hi John,
Thanks for contacting Allegedly channel.
The FAQ information has been available since the website changed to advertise that subscription was possible. The rules regarding multiroom subcriptions have never changed. We have always asked customers to follow our subscription process for all viewing card numbers that you would like activated to Allegedly channel and take out a new subscription for each card.
Cancellations within the minimum term of 6 months are not permitted. Should you wish to cancel after the minimum term, you will need to end your payment agreement through PayWizard. You can cancel at anytime on after 28/04/12.
Thanks
Allegedly channel.
Now as much as I dispute that the FAQ information hasn't changed (it mentioned that it had changed in light of queries received as a result of people having trouble trying to subscribe, so by implication it must have been updated), I am unable to prove it thus I am locked into a contract.
Just thought I'd share for any others who foolishly assume that one subscription would be sufficient to watch within your sky multiroom arrangement.
I wouldnt necessarily have thought you are bound by that contract. If you want out of a standard form consumer contract it is often possible to achieve.
Equally, you could politely ask them to offer you a reduced rate on the second subscription. I'm sure they'll be keen to please subscribers as much as possible as obviously they are in this for the long haul and want to build a happy customer base.
danfoster wrote:Mate, I can't think of any circumstances whereby I'd end up threatening and offering out Ian McNeilly. I've seen the man in action and i value my own personal safely too highly ...
Yeah, if you're a kebab or a pint, you're going down.
earsjohn wrote:Taken from Allegedly channel website:
"Q: Can I get Allegedly Channel on multi-room?
A: Yes, Simply follow our subscription process for all viewing card numbers that you would like activated to Allegedly Channel & take out a new subscription for each card."
Huh? So, in order to be able to watch Allegedly channel on my 2 TVs I need 2 separate subscriptions? Shambolic. And to mention this now AFTER I have registered and paid? I pay one multiroom fee to watch my entire sky package on either of my Sky+ boxes, yet I'm restricted to watching Allegedly channel through only one box?
I got a response from Allegedly channel:
Hi John,
Thanks for contacting Allegedly channel.
The FAQ information has been available since the website changed to advertise that subscription was possible. The rules regarding multiroom subcriptions have never changed. We have always asked customers to follow our subscription process for all viewing card numbers that you would like activated to Allegedly channel and take out a new subscription for each card.
Cancellations within the minimum term of 6 months are not permitted. Should you wish to cancel after the minimum term, you will need to end your payment agreement through PayWizard. You can cancel at anytime on after 28/04/12.
Thanks
Allegedly channel.
Now as much as I dispute that the FAQ information hasn't changed (it mentioned that it had changed in light of queries received as a result of people having trouble trying to subscribe, so by implication it must have been updated), I am unable to prove it thus I am locked into a contract.
Just thought I'd share for any others who foolishly assume that one subscription would be sufficient to watch within your sky multiroom arrangement.
I wouldnt necessarily have thought you are bound by that contract. If you want out of a standard form consumer contract it is often possible to achieve.
Equally, you could politely ask them to offer you a reduced rate on the second subscription. I'm sure they'll be keen to please subscribers as much as possible as obviously they are in this for the long haul and want to build a happy customer base.
We'll see where my reply gets me. I don't understand why it should be an issue though - I can currently watch every other sky channel I'm subscribed to through either box.
earsjohn wrote:
I got a response from Allegedly channel:
Hi John,
Thanks for contacting Allegedly channel.
The FAQ information has been available since the website changed to advertise that subscription was possible. The rules regarding multiroom subcriptions have never changed. We have always asked customers to follow our subscription process for all viewing card numbers that you would like activated to Allegedly channel and take out a new subscription for each card.
Cancellations within the minimum term of 6 months are not permitted. Should you wish to cancel after the minimum term, you will need to end your payment agreement through PayWizard. You can cancel at anytime on after 28/04/12.
Thanks
Allegedly channel.
Now as much as I dispute that the FAQ information hasn't changed (it mentioned that it had changed in light of queries received as a result of people having trouble trying to subscribe, so by implication it must have been updated), I am unable to prove it thus I am locked into a contract.
Just thought I'd share for any others who foolishly assume that one subscription would be sufficient to watch within your sky multiroom arrangement.
I wouldnt necessarily have thought you are bound by that contract. If you want out of a standard form consumer contract it is often possible to achieve.
Equally, you could politely ask them to offer you a reduced rate on the second subscription. I'm sure they'll be keen to please subscribers as much as possible as obviously they are in this for the long haul and want to build a happy customer base.
We'll see where my reply gets me. I don't understand why it should be an issue though - I can currently watch every other sky channel I'm subscribed to through either box.
I'm sure they will be amenable - it seems a strange policy and as we know, they want to build a good relationship with customers - there's no way they are in this for a quick buck
Cardiff-Lad1 wrote:Just taken the plunge and subscribed to it with Virgin. I asked them about the 6 months contract and they advised its just a 30 day notice period of cancellation and no minumum term. Great news for Virgin customers!
themadmariner wrote:Anybody know what fights are coming up on Allegedly Channel after this weekends show?
Can't seem to find any links to it, which is odd considering they are trying to get people signed up
There's the Echo card on 9th December with James DeGale and BJ Saunders then Stephen Ormond v Carl Johanneson. Warren said on the Bunce show that he was looking at Kev Mitchell in an 10 rounder in Feb, Burns in a defence in March and then pair the two later on. He also wants to bring Haye - Klitschko to BN.
themadmariner wrote:Anybody know what fights are coming up on Allegedly Channel after this weekends show?
Can't seem to find any links to it, which is odd considering they are trying to get people signed up
There's the Echo card on 9th December with James DeGale and BJ Saunders then Stephen Ormond v Carl Johanneson. Warren said on the Bunce show that he was looking at Kev Mitchell in an 10 rounder in Feb, Burns in a defence in March and then pair the two later on. He also wants to bring Haye - Klitschko to BN.
I'm not surprised - the channel needs a real big event to get the wider public aware of its existence.
themadmariner wrote:Anybody know what fights are coming up on Allegedly Channel after this weekends show?
Can't seem to find any links to it, which is odd considering they are trying to get people signed up
There's the Echo card on 9th December with James DeGale and BJ Saunders then Stephen Ormond v Carl Johanneson. Warren said on the Bunce show that he was looking at Kev Mitchell in an 10 rounder in Feb, Burns in a defence in March and then pair the two later on. He also wants to bring Haye - Klitschko to BN.
I'm not surprised - the channel needs a real big event to get the wider public aware of its existence.
March is a long time away though.
They'd have to pay a lot of money to take it away from Sky/Box Office. Unless they have some silent Abramovich type with some very deep pockets, I can't see how they'd afford the fight.
'It would be nice to see you at a show.' is not clearly threatening for me.It sounds like it may involve a hot chocolate and a bit of a catch up.
Something like this would be better 'It would be nice to see you on your own down a dark alley with no CCTV' that spells it out nicely no ambiguity involved.
themadmariner wrote:He also wants to bring Haye - Klitschko to BN.
I'm sure he does, but BN wont get it for peanuts and I don't think the channel's financial bollocks are all that big. Besides, Sky, and Haye, owe us this one, surely?
themadmariner wrote:Sky don't do PPV anymore remember so maybe Allegedly Channel would be prepared to offer more money
I always thought the Sky "No more PPV" policy was a reaction to the lack of PPV value fights rather than some moral policy. As soon as a fight big enough to sell on PPV gets made, expect to see the policy swiftly discarded - there's a few that fit into this category - Haye v Vitali, Floyd v Pac, Khan v Floyd/Pac.
themadmariner wrote:Anybody know what fights are coming up on Allegedly Channel after this weekends show?
Can't seem to find any links to it, which is odd considering they are trying to get people signed up
There's the Echo card on 9th December with James DeGale and BJ Saunders then Stephen Ormond v Carl Johanneson. Warren said on the Bunce show that he was looking at Kev Mitchell in an 10 rounder in Feb, Burns in a defence in March and then pair the two later on. He also wants to bring Haye - Klitschko to BN.
I'm not surprised - the channel needs a real big event to get the wider public aware of its existence.
March is a long time away though.
March is a long way away and I think we need to know what fights they are planning on showing. Everything seems very last minute with the way they are announcing things. Can't say I'm impressed with their organisation so far
themadmariner wrote:Sky don't do PPV anymore remember so maybe Allegedly Channel would be prepared to offer more money
I always thought the Sky "No more PPV" policy was a reaction to the lack of PPV value fights rather than some moral policy. As soon as a fight big enough to sell on PPV gets made, expect to see the policy swiftly discarded - there's a few that fit into this category - Haye v Vitali, Floyd v Pac, Khan v Floyd/Pac.
They have re-signed Kahn, but are putting him on non PPV and fights don't get much bigger than Ward v Froch at the minute and that hasn't made PPV either so maybe they are sticking to this one. Especially if they are trying to take some of the viewers away from BN
themadmariner wrote:Sky don't do PPV anymore remember so maybe Allegedly Channel would be prepared to offer more money
I always thought the Sky "No more PPV" policy was a reaction to the lack of PPV value fights rather than some moral policy. As soon as a fight big enough to sell on PPV gets made, expect to see the policy swiftly discarded - there's a few that fit into this category - Haye v Vitali, Floyd v Pac, Khan v Floyd/Pac.
They have re-signed Kahn, but are putting him on non PPV and fights don't get much bigger than Ward v Froch at the minute and that hasn't made PPV either so maybe they are sticking to this one. Especially if they are trying to take some of the viewers away from BN
Ward - Froch is big for us boxing nerds, but Froch doesn't have a huge profile and Andre Ward could walk round his hometown without getting recognised. Khan is back with Sky because his PrimeTime PPV fights sold poorly. There's a difference between no-PPVs and reserving PPV's for the biggest fights, ie, the way it always should have been. Isn't a big part of the reason old fish-face has set up his own subscription channel a result of sky saying no more domestic level PPVs? (eg, Cleverly v Murat, Groves v DeGale)?
Froch had the TV rights to himself and the Super Six in the UK. He didn't hold Sky to ransom in any shape or form and thus the PPV platform was not required to recoup any monies.
He was happy just to see the fight promoted by the channel in the proper manner to the masses and distributed in HD. He is earning plenty of dough from the American TV giant to worry about gleening as much out of British viewers too on top like some others.
I've subscribed. For better or worse, time will tell and other cliches of that nature...
I'm not sure what the Pacquiao-Marquez III PPV cost, I'm assuming £10-£15? If I'm paying for a PPV then the undercard better be damned good, which it often isn't but anyway I'm working off the logic of: £10 a month for this channel should bring home some decent shows including the German and American stuff. Primetime PPV's cost a tenner for one card so hopefully the quantity will shine through with a bit of quality in the long run. If you're paying a tenner for one show and the show is shit then that's that but over a month there's a chance the next one might make up for it
I'll give it a go and see what happens but at least I'm out now. Ooh I'm glad I confessed
danfoster wrote:Mate, I can't think of any circumstances whereby I'd end up threatening and offering out Ian McNeilly. I've seen the man in action and i value my own personal safely too highly ...
earsjohn wrote:Taken from Allegedly channel website:
"Q: Can I get Allegedly Channel on multi-room?
A: Yes, Simply follow our subscription process for all viewing card numbers that you would like activated to Allegedly Channel & take out a new subscription for each card."
Huh? So, in order to be able to watch Allegedly channel on my 2 TVs I need 2 separate subscriptions? Shambolic. And to mention this now AFTER I have registered and paid? I pay one multiroom fee to watch my entire sky package on either of my Sky+ boxes, yet I'm restricted to watching Allegedly channel through only one box?
I got a response from Allegedly channel:
Hi John,
Thanks for contacting Allegedly channel.
The FAQ information has been available since the website changed to advertise that subscription was possible. The rules regarding multiroom subcriptions have never changed. We have always asked customers to follow our subscription process for all viewing card numbers that you would like activated to Allegedly channel and take out a new subscription for each card.
Cancellations within the minimum term of 6 months are not permitted. Should you wish to cancel after the minimum term, you will need to end your payment agreement through PayWizard. You can cancel at anytime on after 28/04/12.
Thanks
Allegedly channel.
Now as much as I dispute that the FAQ information hasn't changed (it mentioned that it had changed in light of queries received as a result of people having trouble trying to subscribe, so by implication it must have been updated), I am unable to prove it thus I am locked into a contract.
Just thought I'd share for any others who foolishly assume that one subscription would be sufficient to watch within your sky multiroom arrangement.
When I haad multiroom, only Sky channels or free ones worked on both TVs. I could only watch Setanta on one TV and likewise Racing UK.
I probably will give in and subscribe but I'd feel better about it if they improved the picture quality. If they offered it in HD, people would be less tempted to seek out some dodgy feed.
