Sky Box office was not good value for money!

ABA Boxing · Post by **ABA Boxing** » 27 Nov 2005, 12:05

I wanted to watch the Hatton fight, so i payed but i really thought there would have been more action.

2 Live fights and one replay was not worth £15!

How many fights were on that show? Surley even highlights of the others would have been something.

Should have gone out and got pissed!

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 27 Nov 2005, 12:36

This was only the second ever PPV SKY that I DID NOT get and I have had Sky for years and years,

I feel I made the right choice. I had Hatton on Radio 5 and the Nelson card on ITV4 with the sound off instead.

Dirk Kelly · Post by **Dirk Kelly** » 27 Nov 2005, 12:50

I couldn't belive it either, got back from holiday, bought the fight waited for the undercard.......Thompson first up then I thought I was hearing things when the announcer said Hatton is up next, unbelievable but then I thought they will so highlights after, not a chance, £15 for Thompson, Hatton and a taped delayed fight!

I was so disappointed as I was looking foward to seeing Mackin and Ajetovic in action. Certainly think twice next time. Terrible value for money, Sky should be ashamed!

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 27 Nov 2005, 12:54

I can see Sky getting a few emails over this.

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 27 Nov 2005, 12:58

Good idea, what's their e mail address?

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 27 Nov 2005, 13:01

steve689 wrote:Good idea, what's their e mail address?

Go to this page it's their feedback page.

http://home.skysports.com/contactus/

JimmyJamJerusalem · Post by **JimmyJamJerusalem** » 27 Nov 2005, 14:30

Scumbags, it keeps coming up server error when I try and mail em. I totally crumbled, and payed for the fight in the end. Cursed myself too as it was an awful bill as expected

:x

Foggy · Post by **Foggy** » 28 Nov 2005, 08:41

Come on fella's whats £15, (STOP BEING TIGHT)

Achybreaky · Post by **Achybreaky** » 28 Nov 2005, 08:43

Foggy wrote:Come on fella's whats £15, (STOP BEING TIGHT)

You giving out refunds then?

Foggy · Post by **Foggy** » 28 Nov 2005, 08:50

achybreaky wrote:
Foggy wrote:Come on fella's whats £15, (STOP BEING TIGHT)
You giving out refunds then?

I personally don't think £15 is that bad to be honest

Achybreaky · Post by **Achybreaky** » 28 Nov 2005, 09:39

Foggy wrote:
achybreaky wrote:
Foggy wrote:Come on fella's whats £15, (STOP BEING TIGHT)
You giving out refunds then?
I personally don't think £15 is that bad to be honest

Are you an employee of sky? cos that show was a shocker for £15 hope they dont go the same way as the yank stations and charge for any old rubbish.

numpty · Post by **numpty** » 28 Nov 2005, 09:41

I didn't mind shelling out the 15 notes. Was a good night, to much beer consumed though between me and a few buddies....! Wish the Nelson fight was on at a different time though.

THEBUTCH · Post by **THEBUTCH** » 28 Nov 2005, 09:43

Sounds awful value to me, which is exactly why I didn't pay for it.

The thing is, it's not just £15.00 that the punter is forking out. What about the monthy fee?

AND, Sky now seem to routinely edit recorded bouts. i.e show 3 or 4 rounds out of a contest.

ABA Boxing · Post by **ABA Boxing** » 28 Nov 2005, 16:23

Knowone is saying £15 is alot of money, but if you look at all other Boxoffice fights i cant think of any that didnt show more boxing than this show did.

So it was poor value for money IMO

£15 was not good value for what i saw. It does not make me want to pay out for the next Sky Promotion that comes along either.

So a cheap production for Sky this time will cost them in the future!

dondada · Post by **dondada** » 28 Nov 2005, 16:36

I don't think it's bad value for those who don't subscribe to Sky Sports.

For those who pay a monthly fortune to watch the whole kit and caboodle, the concept of these special PPV events are galling.

I already PPV you bastards!

josh fg · Post by **josh fg** » 28 Nov 2005, 17:00

Was good to see the Mayweather fight with it though, as annoying as it is we do get to see the Taylor Hopkins bill for free next week and I would have happily payed for that so it kind of evens its self out in that respect wouldn't you say.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 28 Nov 2005, 17:31

josh fg wrote:Was good to see the Mayweather fight with it though, as annoying as it is we do get to see the Taylor Hopkins bill for free next week and I would have happily payed for that so it kind of evens its self out in that respect wouldn't you say.

Quite right.... Looking forward to Larios vs Vasquez III - it might be edited as the fight isn't live.

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 29 Nov 2005, 09:37

Foggy wrote:
achybreaky wrote:
Foggy wrote:Come on fella's whats £15, (STOP BEING TIGHT)
You giving out refunds then?
I personally don't think £15 is that bad to be honest

I'm getting suspicious about you Foggy, first you defend the Hatton card and now SKY's extortionate PPV show...come on what you up too

I am starting to get wise to SKY, it's like normal TV but instead you have 500 odd channels with fornicate all worth watching on any of them

Foggy · Post by **Foggy** » 29 Nov 2005, 13:25

steve689 wrote:
Foggy wrote:
achybreaky wrote: You giving out refunds then?
I personally don't think £15 is that bad to be honest
I'm getting suspicious about you Foggy, first you defend the Hatton card and now SKY's extortionate PPV show...come on what you up too

I am starting to get wise to SKY, it's like normal TV but instead you have 500 odd channels with fornicate all worth watching on any of them

Just trying to bring abit of positive energy to the forum board

DK2112 · Post by **DK2112** » 04 Dec 2005, 19:46

Well I for one am glad I didn't buy this on PPV and spent the money on 7 pints of beer in town instead. Shocking line up, looks like it lived up to it.

rhino222 · Post by **rhino222** » 04 Dec 2005, 20:15

i dont think it was to expensive but in reality it was one of the worst PPV cards we have seen. i like it when we see a few british bouts then cross the atlantic and see a big american match up.

not sure whose fault it is, FA's or Sky.......

Sky have the final word i guess but FA need to broaden their stable to provide better undercard action at a reasonable championship level.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 04 Dec 2005, 20:20

rhino222 wrote:i dont think it was to expensive but in reality it was one of the worst PPV cards we have seen. i like it when we see a few british bouts then cross the atlantic and see a big american match up.

not sure whose fault it is, FA's or Sky.......

Sky have the final word i guess but FA need to broaden their stable to provide better undercard action at a reasonable championship level.

Good point, buck does lie in the end with Sky but as you say the depth of the FA stable isn't really good enough to stage a decent PPV event. Having said that, Sky could have done a better job of showing more of the FA bill. The US saw Macklin in its entirety and highlights of Matthew Hatton - and I'm not sure but I thought I read that the website who has some involvement with broadcasting the PPV events to the US is actually showing the entire bill.

Not that it was a great undercard or anything.

Having said that.... I believe Hatton is now a free agent again, so it might not have been the best idea for FA financially to sign up a load of decent fighters just for one PPV card.