rhino222 wrote:me too, i paid for a few ppvs and realised i was paying to watch adverts. now i have bt vision and my android boxes. i do not miss a punch on any show, i get the lot.
How complicated was it to get the android boxes set up?
I'm sick of paying Virgin 83 quid a month.
I'm paying them about that and that's SINCE I've cancelled my Sky Sports. Was going to have it back on for Frampton but I'm getting used to paying that and not nearly £120!! Not sure what to do to be honest.
I'm out of contract at the mo, I phoned up, but the best they offered me was 72 quid a month, I don't see how I can justify it, the only thing is, I know it's always aggro when you swap suppliers, delays in getting an engineer out, and therefore no service, and I'm not sure I can tolerate it.
Yeah, mine is without sky sports too. Virgin are expensive.
I'd genuinely pay for the HBO or Showtime PPVs. If there was a way to enable UK residents to buy the American version of the PPV I would do it in a heartbeat. I don't think any of us have a problem paying for a good quality event and a professionally done broadcast. Especially one where we get to see and hear what happens between rounds. They understand how crucial it is to see/hear the between rounds - they actually pay INTERPRETERS. You know you're going to get to hear what goes on in Framptons corner and get a translation of what they are saying to Santa Cruz on showtime.
While the American viewers get that we will be pissed off at smith's pathetic commentary and watching an audi add.
rhino222 wrote:me too, i paid for a few ppvs and realised i was paying to watch adverts. now i have bt vision and my android boxes. i do not miss a punch on any show, i get the lot.
How complicated was it to get the android boxes set up?
I'm sick of paying Virgin 83 quid a month.
I'm paying them about that and that's SINCE I've cancelled my Sky Sports. Was going to have it back on for Frampton but I'm getting used to paying that and not nearly £120!! Not sure what to do to be honest.
I pay for what I consider to be a pretty comprehensive sky package. Box sets. Movies and sports along with my broadband and I'm paying less than £80 (I'm not including allegedly and bt sport in this) I've no idea what you get extra for £120.
Last edited by jameswilson on 17 Jan 2017, 18:54, edited 1 time in total.
So they fired tourette-growler Adam Smith, his grass acolyte Ed Robinson (why do you think that despite his awful presenting skills he would get promoted?) and peanut butter-mouthed Johnny Nelson?
Robinson thinks putting on a robotic voice is good presenting. Absolute mug. I remember watching him doing some round up on ringside with a mate and she couldn't stop laughing at how terrible he was. She was genuinely curious about what journalism school he graduated from. That was my turn to laugh.
Ed Robinson knows his boxing. Some people are better than others in front of the cameras or on the mic, but few at Sky can rival Ed for boxing knowledge in my opinion. And that includes Spencer X with his pointless facts.
TheLeprechaun wrote:I'd genuinely pay for the HBO or Showtime PPVs. If there was a way to enable UK residents to buy the American version of the PPV I would do it in a heartbeat. I don't think any of us have a problem paying for a good quality event and a professionally done broadcast. Especially one where we get to see and hear what happens between rounds. They understand how crucial it is to see/hear the between rounds - they actually pay INTERPRETERS. You know you're going to get to hear what goes on in Framptons corner and get a translation of what they are saying to Santa Cruz on showtime.
While the American viewers get that we will be pissed off at smith's pathetic commentary and watching an audi add.
Forget hearing what goes on in between rounds, at this rate I'd be happy just with seeing what goes on. Half the time they go to ad breaks. And when they do show it they talk over it so nobody hears any bad language.
Was about 4.30 am during the DeGale fight and they apologised for the language, meanwhile the two boxers were beating the shite out of each other in the ring and Chunky was getting teeth flying into the front now. Who watches that but sees their arse when a trainer swears?
TheLeprechaun wrote:He may know his boxing but he is p*ss poor as a presenter.
Maybe so. But if I had the choice between a good presenter who didn't know anything about the sport or a boxing man that isn't a natural presenter, I'd go with the latter. There are very few that can combine both. In fact I can't really think of any.
So they fired tourette-growler Adam Smith, his grass acolyte Ed Robinson (why do you think that despite his awful presenting skills he would get promoted?) and peanut butter-mouthed Johnny Nelson?
Robinson thinks putting on a robotic voice is good presenting. Absolute mug. I remember watching him doing some round up on ringside with a mate and she couldn't stop laughing at how terrible he was. She was genuinely curious about what journalism school he graduated from. That was my turn to laugh.
Did you then joke that he probably went to the something like the University of Bristol or Sheffield and isn't an Oxbridge graduate?
So they fired tourette-growler Adam Smith, his grass acolyte Ed Robinson (why do you think that despite his awful presenting skills he would get promoted?) and peanut butter-mouthed Johnny Nelson?
Robinson thinks putting on a robotic voice is good presenting. Absolute mug. I remember watching him doing some round up on ringside with a mate and she couldn't stop laughing at how terrible he was. She was genuinely curious about what journalism school he graduated from. That was my turn to laugh.
Did you then joke that he probably went to the something like the University of Bristol or Sheffield and isn't an Oxbridge graduate?
The thought of him going to any kind of journalism school was laughable. He's literally the worst presenter I've ever seen.
