allegedly Financial state of affairs

[split_decision]

http://news.boxrec.com/news/2012/boxnat ... s-released

Now I'm no business genius but I have to guess that seeing the words "negative", "loss" & "unpaid" in a financial statement cant be good.

[JLP]

I don't know how things look today (28 Dec 12) but it's worth bearing in mind that the data used in that article was from January 2012. The channel only launched in late September 2011 and you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs i.e. establishing a television station from scratch is a speculative and expensive endeavour that takes time to pay off. It should, therefore, come as no surprise that over the course of fewer than four months a lot more had been paid out than had come in. Looking at figures 12, 24 and 36 months on (assuming there are some) will tell us more about the feasibility, sustainability and profitability of the business.

[chad]

As JLP highlighted "The bottom line of abbreviated accounts covering the period up to January 31st 2012." The channel had only been up and running as a subscription service for 8 weeks, 5 weeks of which showed no boxing due to the Christmas break.

At the press conference to announce allegedly inception, it was stated that allegedly would need just under 100,000 subscribers to break even. Whilst it's very difficult to find details of current subscription figures, it was reported that Haye Vs. Chisora and Price Vs. Harrison both drew well over 100,000 subscribers.

allegedly can now be watched via online subscription and is likely to migrate to BT Vision in the summer. allegedly HD is muted by July. This makes the channel more available and appealing than ever. All they need now is for allegedly to improve the quality of his shows, and to stop Primetime snatching showcase events featuring the likes of Mayweather and Pacman.

[dondada]

As JLP highlighted "The bottom line of abbreviated accounts covering the period up to January 31st 2012." it was reported that Haye Vs. Chisora and Price Vs. Harrison both drew well over 100,000 subscribers.

That's the thing when reporting on financials. They're often out of date, esp when filed beyond initial deadlines. This is the most up to date info available, filed on 17th Dec and published on 20th. If you could post links to the reports you mention I'd appreciate that.

[Final round]

http://news.boxrec.com/news/2012/Allegedly channel

Now I'm no business genius but I have to guess that seeing the words "negative", "loss" & "unpaid" in a financial statement cant be good.

It comes up page not found? ??

[ThereByTheGrace]

It will get a lot worse for him before it gets better. He said that Broner is exclusively on that channel but with him fighting Rees on Sky Sports then this must be null and void?

[dondada]

http://news.boxrec.com/news/2012/Allegedly channel

Now I'm no business genius but I have to guess that seeing the words "negative", "loss" & "unpaid" in a financial statement cant be good.

It comes up page not found? ??

Just go to the news site and scroll down on the home page.

[thatllbeme]

i dont think the broner or goldenboy shows were ever stated as exclusive to allegedly but they do have a deal with goldenboy for some of their shows

[chad]

If you could post links to the reports you mention I'd appreciate that.

I've tried to find the source I read originally but I've not been able to find it, as of yet.

This is an interesting interview with Tris Dixon and Frank allegedly from a couple of months back.

http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/BNTV.asp?VideoID=217

At 10 mins 45 seconds allegedly suggests allegedly have around 200,000 subscribers. He also mentions at around the 6 min mark that allegedly are 100% ahead of their target for subscribers. Their original target was around 100,000 subscribers. It all depends how much you trust allegedly and what he says. The next set of figures from allegedly will be very interesting.

The Sunday Times recently went with the 200,000 subscriber figures in this article:

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/spo ... 170352.ece

[chad]

It will get a lot worse for him before it gets better. He said that Broner is exclusively on that channel but with him fighting Rees on Sky Sports then this must be null and void?

allegedly have first refusal on Golden Boy shows. Kell Brook Vs. Devon Alexander is another Golden Boy show that will be screened by SKY.

Maybe allegedly don't have first refusal on shows featuring other British promoters fighters, or maybe SKY are giving allegedly a little sweetner to "release" the UK broadcast rights. I did notice on a recent episode of Bunces Boxing Hour that allegedly had some footage from the SKY / Matchroom event featuring Darren Barker Vs. Kerry Hope. I can't remember too many times when SKY have allowed allegedly to use their footage. SKY did also show Kessler Vs. Magee that same night, a fight allegedly usually would have shown as part of their deal with Sauerland.

[JLP]

I think 200,000 subscribers, if true, is a monumental achievement. I did not expect the channel to get anywhere close to that level of interest. 200k equates to approximately 1 in every 120 UK households subscribing - which is a heck of a lot more impressive than it looks at first glance.

[mickey1975]

I would be suprised if it has got that many but the Haye-Chisora fight will have brought in a hell of a lot, many who dont get round to cancelling. Mayweather-Cotto, Price-Harrison and Mitchell-Burns will have done ok, too.

[dondada]

I think 200,000 subscribers, if true, is a monumental achievement. I did not expect the channel to get anywhere close to that level of interest. 200k equates to approximately 1 in every 120 UK households subscribing - which is a heck of a lot more impressive than it looks at first glance.

Well done to them, indeed! I look forward to these enormous figures being substantiated. They might have attracted a lot of subscribers for Haye v Chisora - retaining them is a different matter as any business will know.

The only way one can know the truth of the success, or otherwise, of the business is via the accounts and even then it isn't straightforward.

If they're doing as well as claimed here, the company should shout about its success so I look forward to reading the next set of results which, given their achievements, will presumably be filed on time and given a high profile via PR, etc.

[chad]

Another source suggesting allegedly have 200,000 subscribers:

http://www.streamingmediaglobal.com/Art ... 85556.aspx

"Boxing is fairly heavily pirated, but Klipcorp IP has played an important part in shifting that model," noted Lewinton. "For instance, the new allegedly channel has become the largest non-Sky sports channel on the Sky platform. In the last year it has reached over 200,000 paying subscribers using effective management of online piracy."

allegedly, as a pay TV service, is only 12 months old. The channel is still essentially taking it's first steps. If they are sitting at around 200,000 subscribers, just think where they will be in 12 months time if allegedly HD does launch by the summer, the channel does launch on BT Vision and IF the channel launches on Freeview / Freesat / Top Up-TV. Everyone involved with allegedly keep on suggesting 2013 will be a massive year for the channel. I think there are plans to expand the availability. If the channels launches over multiple providers, surely 400,000 to 600,000 subscribers by this time next year is achievable? SKY and Virgin only reach around 14 million households of the 25 million in the UK. Plenty of potential customers still out there.

[stujones]

Just a question concerning HD. Would the extra costs of filming mean higher costs for the punter? What about those punters without a hd box? Whilst HD is all the rage, I do know people who don't subscribe to skysports hd.

[dondada]

The figures need to be independently verified and, as far as I know, they haven't been. Just repetition of claims. As for their success against streaming, I wouldn't know personally but again that would be a huge achievement. It's certainly possible that they have had 200k different subscribers since setting up. For them to have that many ongoing subscribers is a different kettle and would be amazing. We'll know in a year's time I reckon! They've certainly be screening a lot more than I imagined.

[mickey1975]

To be fair, it is a bargain for us lot. I have subscribed to Sky sports for years and am knocking it on the head next week. I literally only watch the Boxing and can easily do that at my mates, all of whom have it.

[orbtastic]

I've been a SKY sports subscriber since 1996, I think. I'm really close to cancelling my sub as I literally only ever watch the boxing and what they show now doesn't represent value for money in my eyes.

I'm not a huge FW channel fan but am a subscriber. I will probably end up canning the sub to that too. All this well it costs the same as 2 pints line is a bit flawed. When I buy a pint I get to specify exactly what I want to drink rather than just getting any old random pint and distinctly not what I ordered.

[chad]

Just a question concerning HD. Would the extra costs of filming mean higher costs for the punter? What about those punters without a hd box? Whilst HD is all the rage, I do know people who don't subscribe to skysports hd.

I'd imagine allegedly HD would come at an extra cost. Instead of £10.00 per month, allegedly HD could cost around £12.00 per month. The standard definition version of the channel would remain in place for those who can't access HD, or don't want to pay the extra fee.

allegedly Facebook page and Twitter account is full of posts from customers requesting HD. There is also a fair few people suggesting they won't subscribe until the channel is available in HD. Once the channel goes HD, there is the option to show some action in 3D.

I agree with Dondada that it will be interesting to see verified subscription figures.

For me, in their first full year, allegedly have delivered fantastic entertainment and value for money. 65 live shows over 12 months is great. When you take into account the summer and winter "boxing breaks" allegedly have delivered almost 6 fights per month when in season. Well worth £10.00, in my opinion.

[chad]

All this well it costs the same as 2 pints line is a bit flawed. When I buy a pint I get to specify exactly what I want to drink rather than just getting any old random pint and distinctly not what I ordered.

True, but you can only order what is on offer in that particular pub. You may be forced to buy a pint of something you don't usually drink, because they don't stock your favourite tipple, but find you like it and enjoy the night anyway.

allegedly are no different to any subscription channel. SKY, ESPN and Premier Sports only tend to release fixture information about the football, rugby and boxing they cover about 6 to 10 weeks in advance.

[earsjohn]

In the last year it has reached over 200,000 paying subscribers using effective management of online piracy.

That careful choice of wording suggests to me that there have been 200,000 people who have subscribed at one time or another rather than it being the base subscription level. I actually think that the financial success of the company can be pretty easily judged by the quality of fights that FWP put on. If Warren puts on high quality fights on stacked cards on a regular basis than that would suggest that there is the financial means to do so. If cards are sparse, challengers for Warren fighters' titles are of limited quality and whispers of unpaid fighters persist, I would infer that there isn't a great deal of money being made.

[Final round]

Having a subscription channel dedicated to boxing has been a fantastic in a year when Sky have shown what they really think of the sport. I really hope they go from strength to strength in 2013.
I've also enjoyed Channel 5's foray into the sport.

[iamasadlittleboy]

Just a question concerning HD. Would the extra costs of filming mean higher costs for the punter? What about those punters without a hd box? Whilst HD is all the rage, I do know people who don't subscribe to skysports hd.

I'd imagine allegedly HD would come at an extra cost. Instead of £10.00 per month, allegedly HD could cost around £12.00 per month. The standard definition version of the channel would remain in place for those who can't access HD, or don't want to pay the extra fee.

allegedly Facebook page and Twitter account is full of posts from customers requesting HD. There is also a fair few people suggesting they won't subscribe until the channel is available in HD. Once the channel goes HD, there is the option to show some action in 3D.

I agree with Dondada that it will be interesting to see verified subscription figures.

For me, in their first full year, allegedly have delivered fantastic entertainment and value for money. 65 live shows over 12 months is great. When you take into account the summer and winter "boxing breaks" allegedly have delivered almost 6 fights per month when in season. Well worth £10.00, in my opinion.

Winter break? What break? We have 5 world title fights before the year is out, how many of them are allegedly picking up? 65 shows over 12 months is little more than 1 a week, their promise was "2 a week for the price of a pint".

In December we've not really had a break having already had Trout v Cotto (Dec 1), Kameda v Ruiz (Dec 4), Gamboa v Farenas, Fortuna v Hyland, Walters v Prescott, Kessler v Magee, Vazquez v Gesta and Pac v Marquez IV (Dec 8 ), Santa Cruz v Guervara Narvaez v Quijano, Abraham v Bouadla, Donaire v Arce (Dec 15) Lebedev v Santander (Dec 17) and those 5 big fights on Dec 31st.

Don't get me wrong allegedly picked up some of those (and others were taken by other broadcasters), but if I was a subscriber I'd be annoyed that they picked up so few, especially if they were doing as well as they are rumoured to be doing.

[JimJim2009]

In the last year it has reached over 200,000 paying subscribers using effective management of online piracy.

That careful choice of wording suggests to me that there have been 200,000 people who have subscribed at one time or another rather than it being the base subscription level. I actually think that the financial success of the company can be pretty easily judged by the quality of fights that FWP put on. If Warren puts on high quality fights on stacked cards on a regular basis than that would suggest that there is the financial means to do so. If cards are sparse, challengers for Warren fighters' titles are of limited quality and whispers of unpaid fighters persist, I would infer that there isn't a great deal of money being made.

Good points. And the regular production costs involved in the weekly bunce show, and the regular UK shows with around four hours live broadcast per show, will be massive - I don't think boxers' purses is the most expensive thing he's got to cover.

I'm a allegedly subscriber and will be until it goes belly up, but one of the drawbacks from a promoter's point of view has to be that you can only ever give limited exposure to your fighters of maybe 100,000 or 200,000 viewers at best. That just won't be good enough for some olympic medallists I suspect. It is such obscure exposure it makes being on Sky look fantastic, nevermind a few million on channel five.

[chad]

I'm a Allegedly Channel subscriber and will be until it goes belly up, but one of the drawbacks from a promoter's point of view has to be that you can only ever give limited exposure to your fighters of maybe 100,000 or 200,000 viewers at best. That just won't be good enough for some olympic medallists I suspect. It is such obscure exposure it makes being on Sky look fantastic, nevermind a few million on channel five.

I tend to agree however exposure is much more than just being on TV. Two allegedly fights this year really made it into the public consciousness. David Haye Vs. Dereck Chisora and David Price Vs. Audley Harrison. allegedly broadcast the preview shows for both fights free to air. Both fights got live radio coverage from TalkSport and 5 Live respectively. Both fights got massive exposure in The Sun and Nuts magazine. Non boxing fans knew both fights where taking place and to a certain extent knew a little bit about each fighter be it just their name or hometown. Haye Vs. Chisora even made it onto the cinema screens.

Other than the above mentioned fights, and the Hatton comeback, I can't think of too many other British based fights in 2012 that really got the general public talking. Oh almost forgot, even Freddie Flintoff got more exposure than most British fighters this year.