6 months into the deal

[palooka]

I don't want too many more PPV to be honest; I think I pay enough to see some decent bouts and well matched boxing with the SkySports and allegedly subscriptions; in my opinion PV just takes the piss.

[chad]

I don't want too many more PPV to be honest; I think I pay enough to see some decent bouts and well matched boxing with the SkySports and Allegedly channel subscriptions; in my opinion PV just takes the piss.

I couldn't agree more. Boxing is becoming one of the most expensive sports to follow on TV. Some will argue it's football however you don't need SKY or ESPN to see top football action. Some of the best action is free. You get full Premiership highlights each week on Match of the Day, England internationals live on ITV, live Champions League and Europa League games once or twice a week on ITV when games are on, League Cup on BBC, FA Cup on ITV, Scottish Cup Final and Scottish League Cup Final on BBC Scotland, Scotland away internationals on BBC Scotland, the World Cup, European Championships etc.....

[The Enforcer]

We haven't seen a "leisure centre" for most of the 6 months. I feel we've gone from Championship to Premier League.
No cancelled shows that I can think of. Definitely quality over quantity, and actually if you count in terms of hours the coverage probably hasn't reduced that much as we get 3hrs instead of 2.
A bit uncomfortable with the power one promoter has when he's holding all the Sky TV dates, you can see great fighters like Scott Quigg getting frozen out.

Very Good Points.Agree 1 Promoter Will Make Boxing Stale.I Know Eddie Is Doing Well With Building Big Stable And Some Great Fights Have Been Made And Some Are Happening In April And May.If I Was Barney Francis I Would Have Stuck With Hatton,Matchroom And Maloney And Told Them You All Work Together And Make The Big Fights Happen Quigg V Frampton Murray V Barker Etc Or You Aint Getting Sky Money And You Are Out.Look Where Scott Quigg Is Now. Not Good.At The Minute Too Much Swerving Price V Fury Galahad V Dickens And Many Others.Be Interested To See What Happens With Billy Joe Saunders And John Ryder.Billy Joe Wants The Belt For Keeps And Eddie Wants Board To Order Bout.Billy Joe Wont Be Happy If Eddie Wins Purse Bid.Could You See Frank Going On Sky Matchroom.Just Couldnt See It.Could You??????/??

[Tomasino]

I don't want too many more PPV to be honest; I think I pay enough to see some decent bouts and well matched boxing with the SkySports and Allegedly channel subscriptions; in my opinion PV just takes the piss.

Amen! Sky is robbery these days.

[ashedward]

My concern is that any truely big fights on British soil, promoted by Matchroom, will end up on PPV just like Froch Vs. Kessler II. This makes the fight even less accessible / attractive casual fans. Even hardcore fans are turning away from PPV. allegedly revealed Hattons comeback fight a few months ago on Primetime generated less than 100,000 PPV buys.

I understand the concern but Primtime ppv isn`t like Sky ppv when it comes to selling the fight but hopefully Hearn isn`t silly enough to put fights like Murrey-Barker ot Quigg-Framton ppv after Froch-Kessler the only ppv worthy fight would be Khan-Brook(if Brook beats Alexander) and mayby if Groves wins a world title Froch-Groves

I agree that there isn't too many PPV fights out there however if Froch Vs. Kessler II is a success, there will be a hunger for more PPV shows. It would be easier for Matchroom to sell future PPV by doubling up events. For example Burns Vs. Vazquez plus Quigg Vs. Frampton on the same card or Bellew Vs. Dawson plus Groves Vs. Stieglitz on the same card.

You could be right that would be a temptation for them to do that,i hope not through.

[stujones]

It depends on the definition of success. Haye vs Klitchsko and Haye vs Harrison got big PPV figures.... terrible contests = Sky "dumped" PPV.

What if Froch vs Kessler draws record PPV's - but the event (for whatever reason) fails to deliver. E.g. a cut on Kessler - ref stops the fight in the 5th round, or what if the event doesn't sell well but it is a fight of the year canditate.... how are sky going to react?

[JayMc]

Buy an F3 box and have all of the boxing one desires streamed right to you front room.

Sky HD, allegedly, Primetime and Controversial

[maninthemiddle]

Buy an F3 box and have all of the boxing one desires streamed right to you front room.

Sky HD, allegedly, Primetime and Controversial

Please explain - what is an F3 box? How much is it, what connections do you need etc and is the picture quality as good ??

[CharlieW]

Fan of the monopolyand sky/matchroom link up. The shows we where getting before where crap!. Leisure centre shows are not the same as big arena fights and fighters approuching or world title fights are not the same as British title fights. I like the breath of fresh air Matchroom have brought and every show has 2/3 big fights on.

Im also a fan of B**nation. From a boxing fans point of view in britain its buzzing at the moment with a good fight on nearly every weekend.

Keep it coming ! (add on twitter @charlie_whitman)

[DMA1987]

It depends on the definition of success. Haye vs Klitchsko and Haye vs Harrison got big PPV figures.... terrible contests = Sky "dumped" PPV.

What if Froch vs Kessler draws record PPV's - but the event (for whatever reason) fails to deliver. E.g. a cut on Kessler - ref stops the fight in the 5th round, or what if the event doesn't sell well but it is a fight of the year canditate.... how are sky going to react?

If Kessler v Froch doesn't sell well though then it will probably end the PPV format altogether. Can't see them trying again if a banker like that fails.

And how it sells will rule all.

[chad]

Im also a fan of B**nation. From a boxing fans point of view in britain its buzzing at the moment with a good fight on nearly every weekend.

I agree 100% I subscribe to both SKY Sports and allegedly. When Setanta went bust in 2009 there was a 24 month period when some of the biggest fights on HBO and Showtime didn't get anywhere near British TV. Some of the action on SKY during that period wasn't great either. As a boxing fanatic I'm being treated to some great cards week in, week out. Problem is I'm greedy and want more!

[earsjohn]

I don't want too many more PPV to be honest; I think I pay enough to see some decent bouts and well matched boxing with the SkySports and Allegedly channel subscriptions; in my opinion PV just takes the piss.

I couldn't agree more. Boxing is becoming one of the most expensive sports to follow on TV. Some will argue it's football however you don't need SKY or ESPN to see top football action. Some of the best action is free. You get full Premiership highlights each week on Match of the Day, England internationals live on ITV, live Champions League and Europa League games once or twice a week on ITV when games are on, League Cup on BBC, FA Cup on ITV, Scottish Cup Final and Scottish League Cup Final on BBC Scotland, Scotland away internationals on BBC Scotland, the World Cup, European Championships etc.....

Are you suggesting that Scotland away internationals are Top Football Action?

[earsjohn]

We seem to be in a peculiar situation where fans are demanding more boxing to e shown to a wide an audience as possible while also complaining that certain levels of boxing shouldn't be shown on sky. It's a strange contradiction.

I've said before that I don't see the Matchroom deal as a monopoly, but rather a case of Sky outsourcing their boxing procurement to a third party. This gives the opportunity to all promoters to have their fights broadcast, but by dealing with Eddie rather than Barney/Adam. It's a very typical business model - Tesco don't buy milk direct from farmers, they use wholesalers, middlemen and go-betweens. It reduces their financial risk and administrative burden (notwithstanding horsemeat scandals!). Barney has said before that he spent more time dealing with boxing promoters and their contract requirements than on any other sport. Now they have just one party with which to negotiate.

The McDonnell v Ceja fight is a great example of how this should work for all parties - Hobson goes to Matchroom with the fight and Eddie and Dennis go through the pain of negotiating how to put the fight on Sky, talk finances, timings, etc. In this case, however, it appears that Dennis has spat his dummy because he can't deal directly with the chaps at sky and hasn't attempted to broker a deal with Matchroom to have the fight broadcast (a dual site, double header world title challenge would be a great sell and be beneficial to both cards - the sum being greater than its parts in this case). Instead, it will probably go to BN, where Dennis will have to broker an agreement with the TV channel that just happens to be owned by another promoter. I don't see the difference between dealing with Eddie to get on sky and dealing with frank to get on BN.

[palooka]

We seem to be in a peculiar situation where fans are demanding more boxing to e shown to a wide an audience as possible while also complaining that certain levels of boxing shouldn't be shown on sky. It's a strange contradiction.

I've said before that I don't see the Matchroom deal as a monopoly, but rather a case of Sky outsourcing their boxing procurement to a third party. This gives the opportunity to all promoters to have their fights broadcast, but by dealing with Eddie rather than Barney/Adam. It's a very typical business model - Tesco don't buy milk direct from farmers, they use wholesalers, middlemen and go-betweens. It reduces their financial risk and administrative burden (notwithstanding horsemeat scandals!). Barney has said before that he spent more time dealing with boxing promoters and their contract requirements than on any other sport. Now they have just one party with which to negotiate.

The McDonnell v Ceja fight is a great example of how this should work for all parties - Hobson goes to Matchroom with the fight and Eddie and Dennis go through the pain of negotiating how to put the fight on Sky, talk finances, timings, etc. In this case, however, it appears that Dennis has spat his dummy because he can't deal directly with the chaps at sky and hasn't attempted to broker a deal with Matchroom to have the fight broadcast (a dual site, double header world title challenge would be a great sell and be beneficial to both cards - the sum being greater than its parts in this case). Instead, it will probably go to BN, where Dennis will have to broker an agreement with the TV channel that just happens to be owned by another promoter. I don't see the difference between dealing with Eddie to get on sky and dealing with frank to get on BN.

Could it be that the handsome Mr Hearn is difficult to deal with, maybe more difficult than the less obviously handsome Mr Warren?

[earsjohn]

We seem to be in a peculiar situation where fans are demanding more boxing to e shown to a wide an audience as possible while also complaining that certain levels of boxing shouldn't be shown on sky. It's a strange contradiction.

I've said before that I don't see the Matchroom deal as a monopoly, but rather a case of Sky outsourcing their boxing procurement to a third party. This gives the opportunity to all promoters to have their fights broadcast, but by dealing with Eddie rather than Barney/Adam. It's a very typical business model - Tesco don't buy milk direct from farmers, they use wholesalers, middlemen and go-betweens. It reduces their financial risk and administrative burden (notwithstanding horsemeat scandals!). Barney has said before that he spent more time dealing with boxing promoters and their contract requirements than on any other sport. Now they have just one party with which to negotiate.

The McDonnell v Ceja fight is a great example of how this should work for all parties - Hobson goes to Matchroom with the fight and Eddie and Dennis go through the pain of negotiating how to put the fight on Sky, talk finances, timings, etc. In this case, however, it appears that Dennis has spat his dummy because he can't deal directly with the chaps at sky and hasn't attempted to broker a deal with Matchroom to have the fight broadcast (a dual site, double header world title challenge would be a great sell and be beneficial to both cards - the sum being greater than its parts in this case). Instead, it will probably go to BN, where Dennis will have to broker an agreement with the TV channel that just happens to be owned by another promoter. I don't see the difference between dealing with Eddie to get on sky and dealing with frank to get on BN.

Could it be that the handsome Mr Hearn is difficult to deal with, maybe more difficult than the less obviously handsome Mr Warren?

Anyone that wants more money than you are prepared to stump up to broker a deal can be regarded as difficult to deal with!

[palooka]

That can cut both ways; anyone wanting a bigger slice of the pie when they've done non of the cooking could be seen as difficult too!

[earsjohn]

That can cut both ways; anyone wanting a bigger slice of the pie when they've done non of the cooking could be seen as difficult too!

Indeed.

What was the situation for the likes of Hobson when Sky had their 4 promoter deal? Surely even then he'd have had to deal with another promoter to get on TV? Is this therefore a case that Hobson doesn't want to have to deal with Matchroom rather than only wanting to deal direct with Sky?

[palooka]

I really don't know as I'm an armchair fan and not an expert. Weren't there more shows on SKY though when there were 4 promoters and weren't the other channels showing boxing as well? If Hobson managed to get his boxers shown then someone somewhere showed a bit of lee way.

The Jamie McDonnell bout is a big fight for Doncaster (where I live), if it's not on the television it'd be a shame - Jamie is all action and the Mexican is a big hitter.

All this business where all other managers/promoters come through MatchRoom to get a SKY date is fantastic for the Hearns but may cause real harm to some talented, dedicated and exciting boxers and ultimately harmful to the sport.

[earsjohn]

I really don't know as I'm an armchair fan and not an expert. Weren't there more shows on SKY though when there were 4 promoters and weren't the other channels showing boxing as well? If Hobson managed to get his boxers shown then someone somewhere showed a bit of lee way.

The Jamie McDonnell bout is a big fight for Doncaster (where I live), if it's not on the television it'd be a shame - Jamie is all action and the Mexican is a big hitter.

All this business where all other managers/promoters come through MatchRoom to get a SKY date is fantastic for the Hearns but may cause real harm to some talented, dedicated and exciting boxers and ultimately harmful to the sport.

It's 90% speculation on here though - isn't that the point of forums?!

TV companies have been throwing money at boxing for years with little return - it's not just Sky, but Setanta, ESPN UK, Primetime, C5, ITV have all had a go at broadcasting boxing and all failed to some extent. That tells me that the standard model for televising boxing has been broken for some time. Ask any promoter - they all say the same - making a profit as a promoter is nigh on impossible. I would guess that Sky assessed the landscape and plumped for the outsourced production option, going with a trusted partner who has proven to deliver high ratings on a consistent basis, across other sports. By this approach, Sky have limited their liability in relation to Boxing to a single, contractual fixed fee (ie, whatever the fee paid to Matchroom is). They don't have to worry about pull outs, warring promoters and all the bullsh1t that keeps forums like this abuzz. They pay their money, agree the dates (remember Sky have a fair deal of other regular saturday night sports that are more reliable and pull in decent numbers - darts, speedway, spanish football, rugby league) and let Matchroom do the dirty work.

Like any contractual relationship, the onus will be on the contractor to meet an agreed level of performance - in this case it will be related to subscriber numbers, viewers and advertising revenue - these are the only things that matter to a Television network; the idea that they have a responsibility to the history of the sport is at best naive.

Now take the McDonnell v Ceja fight as an example. Hobson has no choice but to negotiate with Matchroom if he wants the fight on Sky. This negotiation will be on the basis that Matchroom will pay a certain amount for the rights. It will not add to the revenues earned by Matchroom, but a successful, highly viewed night of boxing will boost the aforementioned contract performance measures and provide a basis for an increased fee / more dates in future years. Otherwise, Hobson negotiates with W@rren for BN coverage or with the chaps at Loaded to be watched by an audience of under 10k.

It would be a delightful situation if all fights were able to be shown to the widest audience and everyone involved was to walk home with pockets full of cash, but the sad reality is that those days are past. With the sport in its current state, those involved (Promoters, boxers, TV execs) are going to have to accept a slice of a considerably smaller pie than they have been used to or innovate and come up with a way of delivering the sport that gets fans and advertisers interested.

This is all speculation, and i'm sure 90% is total ball ocks, but it's how I see it and I believe things will get worse before they get better.

[palooka]

Thank you for a considered 'reply'/post. I can go along with the vast majority of what you say and it ceratinly does seem to make real sense - if you happen to be a television executive. I can't imagine what Adam Smiths' job is as head of boxing at SKY - he should be the one negotiating with the different promoters in order to put good shows on. I imagined that was the reason a boxing fan, 'one of us' was put in charge of the boxing output.

I'm also not 100% that TV companies have thrown loads of money at boxing with little in return. If a good bout is on then they get good viewing figures so get good advertising revenue; isn't that how it works? A bout is built and advertised, a little on SKY Sports and the websites and then a Friday/Saturday night slot with a good undercard of competitive bouts - really I could do it and I'm a window cleaner. :(

[earsjohn]

Thank you for a considered 'reply'/post. I can go along with the vast majority of what you say and it ceratinly does seem to make real sense - if you happen to be a television executive. I can't imagine what Adam Smiths' job is as head of boxing at SKY - he should be the one negotiating with the different promoters in order to put good shows on. I imagined that was the reason a boxing fan, 'one of us' was put in charge of the boxing output.

I'm also not 100% that TV companies have thrown loads of money at boxing with little in return. If a good bout is on then they get good viewing figures so get good advertising revenue; isn't that how it works? A bout is built and advertised, a little on SKY Sports and the websites and then a Friday/Saturday night slot with a good undercard of competitive bouts - really I could do it and I'm a window cleaner. :(

Good viewing figures does not always equal good advertising revenue - it is not a simplistic relationship. Some viewers are more attractive to advertisers than others and it appears that boxing doesn't generate the viewers among the most desirable demographics from an advertising pov.

But you're right about the actual promotion of a fight - it needn't be rocket science and it oughtn't take a window cleaner to make the picture clearer!

[palooka]