Frank allegedly to float Media Nation

[chad]

BT has its own sports channels and doesn't need a dedicated channel to hold its hand and guide them through the murky business side of each sport. BT has got the one thing that counts - serious financial clout. With that, they will get what they want, how they want it. Some of the above comments seem to suggest a situation whereby BT would be staggering around in the dark without the guiding hand / expertise of BN. Bollox. And bollox to the idea that a former BN executive is going to do that channel favours either.

When I mentioned Simon Green I wasn't suggesting he'll be doing allegedly any kind of favour. I agree BT have the financial resource to blow allegedly of the water but as long as Simon Green is still attached as a non-executive Director at allegedly it doesn't seem likely that BT would snap up boxing rights and potentially put them out of business.

When BT bought ESPN earlier this year they wanted to take over the existing TV carriage deals ESPN had for the likes of the SPL, the FA Cup and the Europa League. From the BT website:

"BT has bought the companies that own the ESPN and ESPN America channels in the UK and Republic of Ireland. This predominantly comprises the main live UK sports rights owned by ESPN. ESPN is not going off the air. From 1 August 2013, an ESPN-branded channel continues under BT stewardship, bundled with BT Sport."

It's unclear if the sale of ESPN to BT was conditional on the ESPN brand remaining alive, or if ESPN had to remain in place to allow BT to take over the existing TV carriage deals.

As we know allegedly has exclusive TV deals in place with Sauerland Promotions, Golden Boy Promotions, Queensbury Promotions, Hatton Promotions, Khan Promotions, Dennis Hobson Promotions and Cyclone Promotions. If BT bought allegedly it should allow them to take over the current existing TV carriage deals with these promoters. It would also allow them partial to access the back catalog of fights broadcast on the channel so far. allegedly also occupies a decent spot on SKY's EPG which would be favorable to BT Sports should they decide to launch BT Sport 3 in the near future.

Considering the amount of money BT have thrown about, buying allegedly would be chump change. With allegedly TV deals bagged, BT could throw money at the likes of Top Rank, Gary Shaw, Dan Goossen and Lou DiBella to secure exclusive rights to their shows. They could also invest in Frank allegedly to improve the level of British fights shown on the channel. BT already own the rights to ESPN Friday Night Fights. The channel under BT ownership would have the potential to be the envy of TV boxing fans around the world. As we've seen BT don't do anything by halves, and they'll do whatever they can to trump SKY.

When Simon Green was at Setanta Sports they launched Setanta Golf. Setanta where also in charge of 3 non-Setanta branded dedicated sports channels being Rangers TV, Celtic TV and Racing UK which where included as part of the Setanta Sports subscription. There was much speculation that Setanta planned a dedicated boxing channel soon before the company went bust. It's no coincidence that Simon Green was part of the team to launch allegedly. Now he has the chance to have the dedicated boxing channel, that didn't materialise on Setanta, as part of BT's portfolio of channels.

[jackukmma]

Why do people think BT sport would just take the channel on? They could outbid Frank anyway and start there own content if they wanted to. Nothing in it for them taking over or just showing Allegedly channel.

Ask them why they Allegedly channel content. Ask them why they took on the UFC.

All the Allegedly channel buyers move over to BT or £12.00 and get Allegedly channel and other sports thrown in.

How many subscribers do you think allegedly have? Then how many of those do you think don't already have BT Sport? Very minimal numbers. They don't have to buy BN or pay anyone for something they could get themselves. Why wouldn't they just bid for the rights to fights themselves and do it there own way? They would then profit themselves instead of putting money into FW pockets for no reason at all

[chad]

How many subscribers do you think Allegedly channel have? Then how many of those do you think don't already have BT Sport? Very minimal numbers. They don't have to buy BN or pay anyone for something they could get themselves. Why wouldn't they just bid for the rights to fights themselves and do it there own way? They would then profit themselves instead of putting money into FW pockets for no reason at all

The interesting thing is BT and allegedly already seem to have a cosy relationship.

allegedly allowed BT to show Mayweather Vs. Alvarez 24/7 on BT Sports. They have the same arrangement for Pacman Vs. Rios 24/7, with the first episode being shown on BT Sport 1 tomorrow night from 9:30pm. allegedly provide the fight footage for BT Sports Boxing Tonight program with Frank allegedly fighters like Frank Buglioni, Dereck Chisora and Billy Joe Saunders appearing as guests. The whole while BT Sports advertise allegedly before and during the show.

You don't see BT acting this way with any other broadcaster or channel.

[Bard of Boxrec]

Float in the same way as a turd floats?

[expe]

Float in the same way as a turd floats?

He'll be fornicating loaded if it floats like the one I did earlier.

[DMMA]

I don't know why people seem happy with this? Best tenner you could spend, Sky have me over for about eight times that and don't show half the action! It will be a sad day for British boxing if BN goes down the pan.

Spot on!

[chad]

Here is some up to date information on the flotation of Media Nation, and future plans for allegedly.

http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/com ... 63922.html

"allegedly is a growing and successful subscriber TV channel owning and delivering valuable content across the key distribution channels in the UK,” Brooke said.

“We will be launching a new HD channel in the first quarter of 2014 as part of our drive to deliver the best service to our customers,” he added.
“The funds we raise during the IPO [initial public offering] process will be used to increase the number of high quality boxing matches broadcast, launch the HD [high definition] channel, develop international expansion, develop increased Pay Per View capabilities and provide general working capital," Brooke said.

The following link has some really interesting information on allegedly. It's a pretty heavy read but gives a great amount of incite:

http://www.investegate.co.uk/ArticlePri ... 700217221U

[doctorboxing]

The following link has some really interesting information on allegedly. It's a pretty heavy read but gives a great amount of incite:

http://www.investegate.co.uk/ArticlePri ... 700217221U

"The Group's experience has been that its subscriber numbers are volatile and correlated with the frequency of major events, but on a rising trend. The Directors believe boxing fans have become so used to watching major fights on a PPV basis that many subscribe for such events, let their subscription lapse and then re-subscribe when another major fight is broadcast, treating a single month's subscription as a quasi-PPV arrangement. It is therefore the intention of the Board for the Channel to broadcast at least one major fight or programme of matches every month, together with introducing a PPV offering, as the Board believes that these measures will lead to increased revenue from its customer base (people who are registered on the allegedly customer database, principally current and past subscribers) of over 250,000 people, as well as attracting new customers. "

Looks like allegedly will be offering a subscription based service as well as PPV for people who just want to watch one off events.

[earsjohn]

The wording around the subscriber base is interesting....

"has a current active monthly subscriber base of over 100,000 persons"

Normally, TV subscriptions are measured in terms of households. How many households, and therefore £10 monthly subscriptions, are represented by the 100,000 persons?

Also currently have a commercial base of 450 subs - how does that compare with similar channels? It seems low, but then that's based on perception rather than facts.

[keithmoonhangover]

I don't know why people seem happy with this? Best tenner you could spend, Sky have me over for about eight times that and don't show half the action! It will be a sad day for British boxing if BN goes down the pan.

well said that man.

I second that.

[palooka]

The wording around the subscriber base is interesting....

"has a current active monthly subscriber base of over 100,000 persons"

Normally, TV subscriptions are measured in terms of households. How many households, and therefore £10 monthly subscriptions, are represented by the 100,000 persons?

Also currently have a commercial base of 450 subs - how does that compare with similar channels? It seems low, but then that's based on perception rather than facts.

Boxing is a fringe sport and many people choose to watch a stream or find some other way of watching the fights. I'm pretty happy with the channel, I think they've done a good job; I realise that I may be easily pleased and that there are issues that irritate people but it's better for me that the fights get shown than not.

[chad]

The wording around the subscriber base is interesting....

"has a current active monthly subscriber base of over 100,000 persons"

Normally, TV subscriptions are measured in terms of households. How many households, and therefore £10 monthly subscriptions, are represented by the 100,000 persons?

Also currently have a commercial base of 450 subs - how does that compare with similar channels? It seems low, but then that's based on perception rather than facts.

From previous interviews with Frank allegedly and Richard Brookes, allegedly have just over 100,000 unique subscribers. Taking everything into account I'm sure they mean they have 100,000 individuals subscribing to allegedly at £10.00 per month.

In terms of commercial subscription it's difficult to get a clear understanding. What would you compare allegedly too? SKY Sports and BT Sports will have a fairly sizeable commercial customer base based on their Premiership offering. BT Sports had 10,000 commercial customers pretty soon after launch:

http://www.btplc.com/news/articles/show ... db9c2e9%7D

A good measuring stick would be Premier Sports, a fairly niche channel like allegedly, which probably has the same limited appeal. Like allegedly Premier Sports costs around £10.00 per month for residential customers. Unfortunately commercial prices seem to be very secretive, as do figures on commercial subscribers.

What is very interesting is the commercial war behind the scenes. BT are undercutting SKY massively. SKY and allegedly recently agreed a commercial deal:

http://www.matchpint.co.uk/sports-blog/ ... n-deal-472

My understanding is SKY are offering pubs, clubs, hotels and casinos deals which include access to allegedly at an appealing price.

Actually I've just noticed some interesting info in regards to the above link. In their article Matchpint finish by saying:

"Froch v Groves will be televised on Saturday 23rd November via Sky Box Office. Licensees purchasing before 22nd November (today!) can take advantage of Sky’s early-bird offer of £175 ex VAT (normal price £225 ex VAT). allegedly is available exclusively via Sky and is charged at £100 per month. To subscribe to allegedly, or to order Box Office, licensees can call Sky Business on 08448 244 244."

[Crazyboy]

Huntington road? There isn't many left. I'm a taxi driver so know everywhere so it's no great deal to me where you are. You can even come to our show on Thursday. I will see you right.

I know you are pal. Do you do the park behind the black swan routine like the others? Used to see some weird sh*t from my old flat.

Sounds good pal. Where?

Get a room you two. effing hell haha.

Like you and Palooka

[DMA1987]

The following link has some really interesting information on allegedly. It's a pretty heavy read but gives a great amount of incite:

http://www.investegate.co.uk/ArticlePri ... 700217221U

"The Group's experience has been that its subscriber numbers are volatile and correlated with the frequency of major events, but on a rising trend. The Directors believe boxing fans have become so used to watching major fights on a PPV basis that many subscribe for such events, let their subscription lapse and then re-subscribe when another major fight is broadcast, treating a single month's subscription as a quasi-PPV arrangement. It is therefore the intention of the Board for the Channel to broadcast at least one major fight or programme of matches every month, together with introducing a PPV offering, as the Board believes that these measures will lead to increased revenue from its customer base (people who are registered on the Allegedly Channel customer database, principally current and past subscribers) of over 250,000 people, as well as attracting new customers. "

Looks like Allegedly channel will be offering a subscription based service as well as PPV for people who just want to watch one off events.

Are you sure that's what the PPV offering means? Or would it be PPV on top of the subscription?

I'd say the latter seeing as that 'increases revenue from their existing customer base'. How else would they do that?

[chad]

The following link has some really interesting information on allegedly. It's a pretty heavy read but gives a great amount of incite:

http://www.investegate.co.uk/ArticlePri ... 700217221U

"The Group's experience has been that its subscriber numbers are volatile and correlated with the frequency of major events, but on a rising trend. The Directors believe boxing fans have become so used to watching major fights on a PPV basis that many subscribe for such events, let their subscription lapse and then re-subscribe when another major fight is broadcast, treating a single month's subscription as a quasi-PPV arrangement. It is therefore the intention of the Board for the Channel to broadcast at least one major fight or programme of matches every month, together with introducing a PPV offering, as the Board believes that these measures will lead to increased revenue from its customer base (people who are registered on the Allegedly Channel customer database, principally current and past subscribers) of over 250,000 people, as well as attracting new customers. "

Looks like Allegedly channel will be offering a subscription based service as well as PPV for people who just want to watch one off events.

Are you sure that's what the PPV offering means? Or would it be PPV on top of the subscription?

I'd say the latter seeing as that 'increases revenue from their existing customer base'

Frank allegedly mentioned this back in an interview in March. The PPV service It's going to be for the casual fans who want to watch a one off fight, rather than paying the £10.00 registration fee then a full months subscription at a cost of £10.00. The existing customer base they refer to is the 250,000 current and former customers they have on their database.

[JimJim2009]

"The Group's experience has been that its subscriber numbers are volatile and correlated with the frequency of major events, but on a rising trend. The Directors believe boxing fans have become so used to watching major fights on a PPV basis that many subscribe for such events, let their subscription lapse and then re-subscribe when another major fight is broadcast, treating a single month's subscription as a quasi-PPV arrangement. It is therefore the intention of the Board for the Channel to broadcast at least one major fight or programme of matches every month, together with introducing a PPV offering, as the Board believes that these measures will lead to increased revenue from its customer base (people who are registered on the Allegedly Channel customer database, principally current and past subscribers) of over 250,000 people, as well as attracting new customers. "

Looks like Allegedly channel will be offering a subscription based service as well as PPV for people who just want to watch one off events.[/quote]

So they're finding that people subscribe for something major and then cancel. No surprise there, as they haven't consistently delivered on the "two live shows a week" promise from back when the channel launched.

It really isn't rocket science.......... the punters who choose to leave are doing it because they don't see value for money between one mega show and the next.

[earsjohn]

The wording around the subscriber base is interesting....

"has a current active monthly subscriber base of over 100,000 persons"

Normally, TV subscriptions are measured in terms of households. How many households, and therefore £10 monthly subscriptions, are represented by the 100,000 persons?

Also currently have a commercial base of 450 subs - how does that compare with similar channels? It seems low, but then that's based on perception rather than facts.

Boxing is a fringe sport and many people choose to watch a stream or find some other way of watching the fights. I'm pretty happy with the channel, I think they've done a good job; I realise that I may be easily pleased and that there are issues that irritate people but it's better for me that the fights get shown than not.

Absolutely. For the 2.7m of us who are acknowledged boxing followers, the channel is crucial.

My concern with this floatation is that it comes so soon after the £18m cash injection from Mr Rainham Steel. If another £5m is already needed, what will the situation be in 6 months time when this money dries up. They talk a good game, but I simply don't see how their growth plans stack up. If they could put on Haye v Chisora every other month, then it may be viable, but otherwise I just don't see it.

[earsjohn]

The wording around the subscriber base is interesting....

"has a current active monthly subscriber base of over 100,000 persons"

Normally, TV subscriptions are measured in terms of households. How many households, and therefore £10 monthly subscriptions, are represented by the 100,000 persons?

Also currently have a commercial base of 450 subs - how does that compare with similar channels? It seems low, but then that's based on perception rather than facts.

From previous interviews with Frank allegedly and Richard Brookes, allegedly have just over 100,000 unique subscribers. Taking everything into account I'm sure they mean they have 100,000 individuals subscribing to allegedly at £10.00 per month.

I get what you're saying, but in a document like this it wouldn't make sense to downplay your main revenue stream. 100,000 unique subscribers is £1m a month is £12m a year. If that was what is meant, that is what would be said. Remember this is a document that is partially seeking to attract investors. If a financial simpleton like me can pick up on this, I'm sure some red-braced investor will raise at least one quizzical eyebrow.

I take anything I read/hear from boxing promoters with a huge sack of salt, so you'll forgive me for not instantly believing the claims of Mr Warren.

[chad]

The wording around the subscriber base is interesting....

"has a current active monthly subscriber base of over 100,000 persons"

Normally, TV subscriptions are measured in terms of households. How many households, and therefore £10 monthly subscriptions, are represented by the 100,000 persons?

Also currently have a commercial base of 450 subs - how does that compare with similar channels? It seems low, but then that's based on perception rather than facts.

From previous interviews with Frank allegedly and Richard Brookes, allegedly have just over 100,000 unique subscribers. Taking everything into account I'm sure they mean they have 100,000 individuals subscribing to allegedly at £10.00 per month.

I get what you're saying, but in a document like this it wouldn't make sense to downplay your main revenue stream. 100,000 unique subscribers is £1m a month is £12m a year. If that was what is meant, that is what would be said. Remember this is a document that is partially seeking to attract investors. If a financial simpleton like me can pick up on this, I'm sure some red-braced investor will raise at least one quizzical eyebrow.

I take anything I read/hear from boxing promoters with a huge sack of salt, so you'll forgive me for not instantly believing the claims of Mr Warren.

I can understand why you wouldn't believe a promoter.

The intention to float legally has to be accurate. Any attempt to perform slight of hand, in terms of figures, would be deemed fraudulent. To me the information submitted in their document seems to be pretty clear.

"allegedly has steadily built its customer base (people who are registered on the allegedly customer database, principally current and past
subscribers) to over 250,000 people, of which more than 100,000 people are currently subscribing on a monthly basis."

and again later in the paper

"BCM has built a customer base (people who are registered on the allegedly customer database, principally current and past subscribers) of over 250,000 people and has a current active monthly subscriber base of over 100,000 persons."

I can't see any other way of reading those statements.

[earsjohn]

I can understand why you wouldn't believe a promoter.

The intention to float legally has to be accurate. Any attempt to perform slight of hand, in terms of figures, would be deemed fraudulent. To me the information submitted in their document seems to be pretty clear.

"Allegedly Channel has steadily built its customer base (people who are registered on the Allegedly Channel customer database, principally current and past
subscribers) to over 250,000 people, of which more than 100,000 people are currently subscribing on a monthly basis."

and again later in the paper

"BCM has built a customer base (people who are registered on the Allegedly Channel customer database, principally current and past subscribers) of over 250,000 people and has a current active monthly subscriber base of over 100,000 persons."

I can't see any other way of reading those statements.

As I said, I see 100,000 persons as distinct from 100,000 subscribers. If it's subscribers, then it would say subscribers.

[chad]

I can understand why you wouldn't believe a promoter.

The intention to float legally has to be accurate. Any attempt to perform slight of hand, in terms of figures, would be deemed fraudulent. To me the information submitted in their document seems to be pretty clear.

"Allegedly Channel has steadily built its customer base (people who are registered on the Allegedly Channel customer database, principally current and past
subscribers) to over 250,000 people, of which more than 100,000 people are currently subscribing on a monthly basis."

and again later in the paper

"BCM has built a customer base (people who are registered on the Allegedly Channel customer database, principally current and past subscribers) of over 250,000 people and has a current active monthly subscriber base of over 100,000 persons."

I can't see any other way of reading those statements.

As I said, I see 100,000 persons as distinct from 100,000 subscribers. If it's subscribers, then it would say subscribers.

If anything I think they've done it for clarity. I get the sense we aren't going to agree on this

[palooka]

Sounds good pal. Where?[/quote]
Get a room you two. effing hell haha.[/quote]

Like you and Palooka [/quote]

We're just friends, it's not like that, it's just cheaper to share a bed

[saturday_kid]

I don't know why people seem happy with this? Best tenner you could spend, Sky have me over for about eight times that and don't show half the action! It will be a sad day for British boxing if BN goes down the pan.

Well said. Look at what BN has given us this month - compare that what sky offer.

Whatever you think of FW allegedly is excellent value for money for boxing fans.

[BAP1]

BN has shown great international coverage in the UK for £10 you can't go wrong really!

When you put it into perspective it's cost around $65-70 dollars to watch PPV fights in the US (Pacquaio and mayweather)

I'm intrigued to see how this whole BT and Sky thing plays out, might see boxers jumping ship over the next few years.