BoxRec

earsjohn wrote:If you happen to be one of the lucky 100 that watches only Boxing on sky and then complains about spending £££s each month for a limited service, can you not appreciate that while you might only be wishing to pay for the boxing, Sky do deliver to you a whole host of programming that 99% of the viewing public would have some interest in?

Of course.

My point is that the PPV model should be reserved for really big nights of boxing. The Liverpool card wasn't one of these and should have been part of a regular subscriber's package.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

earsjohn wrote:If you happen to be one of the lucky 100 that watches only Boxing on sky and then complains about spending £££s each month for a limited service, can you not appreciate that while you might only be wishing to pay for the boxing, Sky do deliver to you a whole host of programming that 99% of the viewing public would have some interest in?

Of course.

My point is that the PPV model should be reserved for really big nights of boxing. The Liverpool card wasn't one of these and should have been part of a regular subscriber's package.

Ah OK - I agree with that. Taken on its own, the Liverpool card was actually pretty ropey (don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed all the action, but there were no stand out fights other than Degale v Smith), but £15 for Brook, Liam Smith, Cleverly, Macklin, Bellew, Degale and Smith followed by Guzman, Ortiz and Khan v Maidana - 9 hours of boxing in all - is not too shabby. Would £15 for Khan and the Liverpool bill for free have been better? It makes no odds to me as I'd have bought the Khan fight regardless, but I'd be surprised if there were too many people who'd have watched the Liverpool card for free and then not paid for the Khan fight.

PPV is never going to be ideal to us punters, but its a reality and it's here to stay. And we are so much better off than our yankee cousins - $50 for a HBO card pretty much once a month - I can't remember off the top of my head but there were maybe 5 (Mag 7, Haye v Harrison, Haye v Ruiz, Khan v Maidana, Khan v Malignaggi?) Sky PPVs in 2010 (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). I guess it just feels bad because there've been 3 in a relatively short period.

Khan v malinaggi was on itv

Bennyblanco wrote:Khan v malinaggi was on itv

Really? I don't recall that - I though ITV quit boxing last year. If not Khan - Malignaggi, was the Mitchell-Katsidis card (the same night as Khan) on SBO?

earsjohn wrote:I'd be surprised if there were too many people who'd have watched the Liverpool card for free and then not paid for the Khan fight.

Well, this is where we'll have to part company. Basically, a 'big night' of boxing was built up and normal subscribers couldn't get any of the vibe unless they shelled out - again.

These normal subscribers - with the caveats you've suggested accepted - are currently the biggest supporters of boxing in the UK. Times are very hard mate, as you know. Further, some people for many reasons can't do a 5am finish as they have work or other commitments. I think some would have watched the UK action and either listened to the radio or caught up with the action later. In retrospect, given the Khan fight, that might have been a mistake...but I think normal subscribers should have been given that option and they weren't.

Some of this argument would have been redundant had the Liverpool card been as good as initially suggested.

followed by Guzman, Ortiz

eh!??!

i didnt know they were on....crashed after the bomber fight and then just watched khan in the morning and switched off after the interviews.

f**k it.

dekker88 wrote:

followed by Guzman, Ortiz

eh!??!

i didnt know they were on....crashed after the bomber fight and then just watched khan in the morning and switched off after the interviews.

f**k it.

Guzman fight was gash while Ortiz was his usual self, flattering to deceive. The draw was harsh on Peterson, i felt.

Was pleased that Sky plugged the gaps with boxing rather than excessive chat through the night - a nice balance between preview, action and analysis throughout. There weren't any large gaps and I seem to recall they even showed highlights of Big Larry and at least one other between the Bellew fight and the Guzman fight. It was a great night for Sky+ as we started watching at about 9, so were able to forward through the boring bits and timed it so that we caught up with the card at the time of the Khan fight!

One thing that doesn't seem to have been remarked on is Larry Merchants interview with Khan post fight. One question "Do you feel you have proved you have a chin?" or some such and on to Maidana. An English speaking champ following one of the most entertaining fights of 2010 and he gets one question? Peculiar.

earsjohn wrote:

Bennyblanco wrote:Khan v malinaggi was on itv

Really? I don't recall that - I though ITV quit boxing last year. If not Khan - Malignaggi, was the Mitchell-Katsidis card (the same night as Khan) on SBO?

Yeah 100% it was on itv

stujones wrote:I'm not so sure Jeff, if you want to "blame" anyone - why not those who do not subscribe to SS but still buy PPV's - believing the hype. It might surprise people how many non "sports" fans will just pay for the PPV.

hmmm i'd be really intrested to see figures- it doesn't half take the mick though

I know a fair few "fans" who also watched the boxing on ITV/BBC quite religiously but were not into it in a big way enough to buy SS. They had Sky but didn't subscribe to the sports package... they would buy the SBO of the British names they'd followed on ITV/BBC - so all of Khan's PPV's (and two of them were pretty shocking in terms of domestic undercards).

Some other fighters have gone into the mainstream without being on domestic TV -like Hatton, they would buy his fights also. I don't think they would buy, say Morales vs Barrera unless I really preached to them about it.

Off course Sky started the PPV with the "dream" fight from the marketers point of view. Bruno vs Tyson.

stujones wrote:I know a fair few "fans" who also watched the boxing on ITV/BBC quite religiously but were not into it in a big way enough to buy SS. They had Sky but didn't subscribe to the sports package... they would buy the SBO of the British names they'd followed on ITV/BBC - so all of Khan's PPV's (and two of them were pretty shocking in terms of domestic undercards).

Some other fighters have gone into the mainstream without being on domestic TV -like Hatton, they would buy his fights also. I don't think they would buy, say Morales vs Barrera unless I really preached to them about it.

Off course Sky started the PPV with the "dream" fight from the marketers point of view. Bruno vs Tyson.

They sure did and if anyone can ever point me in the direction of the advert with the theatrical music in the background that hooked me i'd greatly appreciate it.

The fact is if these shows were not on PPV they simply wouldn't take place at all as Sky will simply not pay the fees needed to stage them on non BO channels. PPV is needed to, in some way ensure and it's by no means guaranteed, that elite level fighters receive what they demand to perform. Footballers and other Sportsman are earning more than ever so Why should Boxers in the toughest game of all take massive pay cuts to subsidise the likes of Rooney, Terry and co who always fail to deliver when needed?

Big gates and PPV revenue are the only way Promoters can conceivably deliver big nights and top matches, without this income even the smallest of shows are not sustainable in this era of cuts. The fact is all other televised sports have received increased TV revenue but Boxing's cash is being slashed to an all time low to subsidise the cost of Football and the like.

Sky's subscriptions have gone up yet they are paying less tha ever, which is why many of the big fights just aren't happening on fight night shows anymore.

Not that can blame Sky really because at least they are showing Boxing but, with no competition or interest from BBC (The biggest PPV Network in the world I might add and n o one is moaning at that!) or indeed ITV who for years enjoyed massive viewing figures from Boxing then Sky are the only players in town and of course will set the market and buy as cheap as they can. They are a business too after all. ITV is a joke, the money they are making and saving from hour upon hour of Simons Cowells reality shite is scandalous and that's why there is no longer any quality TV shows being made. In the 90's Boxing delivered ratings on a par with Corrie at it's best and attracted new advertisers too.

It's a sad fact but a lot of the big fights that the fans crave cannot be made if the money is simply not there. It's a matter of finance, Boxers want to be paid and most think they are recession proof and I don't think it's any big secret that all of the TV Promoters have made horrendous losses for some time. If they are losing hand ofver fist what chance have the others got.

PPV is the only chance the fans have of watching the big fights take plce and for them to even be made. Without the support of the fans at the venue and on PPV then the sport is going to suffer further and I fear may disappear from our screens altogether.

Promoters are in business too and cannot keep making losses and delivering big fights just to satisy TV companies and fighters demands without any chance of a profit or even a break even.

Personnally, after the rip off of the Haye V Harrison card I thouight Saturday's show was superb value for money for the fans and it's just a shame that the 700k who alledgedy tuned in to Sky's overhyped Haye V Harrsion pantomine don't tune in to watch real fighters ply their trade then maybe a turn around will come sooner rather than later.

One question is, if the Haye fight made so much money for Sky which it must have then why hasn't it been reinvested into Boxing budget?

boxingchat wrote:The fact is if these shows were not on PPV they simply wouldn't take place at all as Sky will simply not pay the fees needed to stage them on non BO channels. PPV is needed to, in some way ensure and it's by no means guaranteed, that elite level fighters receive what they demand to perform. Footballers and other Sportsman are earning more than ever so Why should Boxers in the toughest game of all take massive pay cuts to subsidise the likes of Rooney, Terry and co who always fail to deliver when needed?

Big gates and PPV revenue are the only way Promoters can conceivably deliver big nights and top matches, without this income even the smallest of shows are not sustainable in this era of cuts. The fact is all other televised sports have received increased TV revenue but Boxing's cash is being slashed to an all time low to subsidise the cost of Football and the like.

Sky's subscriptions have gone up yet they are paying less tha ever, which is why many of the big fights just aren't happening on fight night shows anymore.

Not that can blame Sky really because at least they are showing Boxing but, with no competition or interest from BBC (The biggest PPV Network in the world I might add and n o one is moaning at that!) or indeed ITV who for years enjoyed massive viewing figures from Boxing then Sky are the only players in town and of course will set the market and buy as cheap as they can. They are a business too after all. ITV is a joke, the money they are making and saving from hour upon hour of Simons Cowells reality shite is scandalous and that's why there is no longer any quality TV shows being made. In the 90's Boxing delivered ratings on a par with Corrie at it's best and attracted new advertisers too.

It's a sad fact but a lot of the big fights that the fans crave cannot be made if the money is simply not there. It's a matter of finance, Boxers want to be paid and most think they are recession proof and I don't think it's any big secret that all of the TV Promoters have made horrendous losses for some time. If they are losing hand ofver fist what chance have the others got.

PPV is the only chance the fans have of watching the big fights take plce and for them to even be made. Without the support of the fans at the venue and on PPV then the sport is going to suffer further and I fear may disappear from our screens altogether.

Promoters are in business too and cannot keep making losses and delivering big fights just to satisy TV companies and fighters demands without any chance of a profit or even a break even.

Personnally, after the rip off of the Haye V Harrison card I thouight Saturday's show was superb value for money for the fans and it's just a shame that the 700k who alledgedy tuned in to Sky's overhyped Haye V Harrsion pantomine don't tune in to watch real fighters ply their trade then maybe a turn around will come sooner rather than later.

One question is, if the Haye fight made so much money for Sky which it must have then why hasn't it been reinvested into Boxing budget?

Good post and excellent final question, over to you Adam Smith and Ed Robinson..............

Thanks for the insights boxingchat

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:If they want to make the Yankee bit PPV, fine.

The British part of it should go to regular subscribers as part of their package. They're already paying through the nose and shouldn't have to fork out extra for what is, other than the main event, not attractive fare.

Spot on!

Chambers2 wrote:

boxingchat wrote:The fact is if these shows were not on PPV they simply wouldn't take place at all as Sky will simply not pay the fees needed to stage them on non BO channels. PPV is needed to, in some way ensure and it's by no means guaranteed, that elite level fighters receive what they demand to perform. Footballers and other Sportsman are earning more than ever so Why should Boxers in the toughest game of all take massive pay cuts to subsidise the likes of Rooney, Terry and co who always fail to deliver when needed?

Big gates and PPV revenue are the only way Promoters can conceivably deliver big nights and top matches, without this income even the smallest of shows are not sustainable in this era of cuts. The fact is all other televised sports have received increased TV revenue but Boxing's cash is being slashed to an all time low to subsidise the cost of Football and the like.

Sky's subscriptions have gone up yet they are paying less tha ever, which is why many of the big fights just aren't happening on fight night shows anymore.

Not that can blame Sky really because at least they are showing Boxing but, with no competition or interest from BBC (The biggest PPV Network in the world I might add and n o one is moaning at that!) or indeed ITV who for years enjoyed massive viewing figures from Boxing then Sky are the only players in town and of course will set the market and buy as cheap as they can. They are a business too after all. ITV is a joke, the money they are making and saving from hour upon hour of Simons Cowells reality shite is scandalous and that's why there is no longer any quality TV shows being made. In the 90's Boxing delivered ratings on a par with Corrie at it's best and attracted new advertisers too.

It's a sad fact but a lot of the big fights that the fans crave cannot be made if the money is simply not there. It's a matter of finance, Boxers want to be paid and most think they are recession proof and I don't think it's any big secret that all of the TV Promoters have made horrendous losses for some time. If they are losing hand ofver fist what chance have the others got.

PPV is the only chance the fans have of watching the big fights take plce and for them to even be made. Without the support of the fans at the venue and on PPV then the sport is going to suffer further and I fear may disappear from our screens altogether.

Promoters are in business too and cannot keep making losses and delivering big fights just to satisy TV companies and fighters demands without any chance of a profit or even a break even.

Personnally, after the rip off of the Haye V Harrison card I thouight Saturday's show was superb value for money for the fans and it's just a shame that the 700k who alledgedy tuned in to Sky's overhyped Haye V Harrsion pantomine don't tune in to watch real fighters ply their trade then maybe a turn around will come sooner rather than later.

One question is, if the Haye fight made so much money for Sky which it must have then why hasn't it been reinvested into Boxing budget?

Good post and excellent final question, over to you Adam Smith and Ed Robinson..............

Good post. I think Boxing will largely disappear from our screens. It is not good enough in the main to justify PPV. If it cannot survive withouty PPV then I see it going back to the 1950's where there is little or no TV and only the real fan goes to watch.

MachoMan09 wrote:Think back to some of FW's shows back in the early 2000s, mate. Massive chockablock cards on Sky Sports 1 - not PPV. The fighters were making good money, the promoter was doing well and the fans were happy. Why the change of tack?

True. The two "Full Monty" shows were stronger than this, as was the 2007 one featuring Skelton-Sprott 2, Khan-Limond, Pryce-Small and Lueveno-Cook.

However, Saturday's format was hardly new. People are arguing whether or not the UK portion was PPV worthy (on its own, I'd say not), but for me it's more a case of whether Khan is PPV worthy.

For the US-based PPVs, it's almost always been a case of having a UK support leg as part of the SBO package.

Were any of the UK warm-ups before Lewis' and Naz's fights better than last Saturday's Liverpool show? How about the UK leg of the Hatton-Mayweather broadcast?

I think very few would disagree that Naz, Lewis and Hatton were acceptable as PPV, and therefore there weren't any complaints about the UK leg of their PPVs.

oliverfennell wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:Think back to some of FW's shows back in the early 2000s, mate. Massive chockablock cards on Sky Sports 1 - not PPV. The fighters were making good money, the promoter was doing well and the fans were happy. Why the change of tack?

True. The two "Full Monty" shows were stronger than this, as was the 2007 one featuring Skelton-Sprott 2, Khan-Limond, Pryce-Small and Lueveno-Cook.

At least one of the full montys were a PPV. Khan vs Limond was on ITV.

oliverfennell wrote:However, Saturday's format was hardly new. People are arguing whether or not the UK portion was PPV worthy (on its own, I'd say not), but for me it's more a case of whether Khan is PPV worthy.

For the US-based PPVs, it's almost always been a case of having a UK support leg as part of the SBO package.

Were any of the UK warm-ups before Lewis' and Naz's fights better than last Saturday's Liverpool show? How about the UK leg of the Hatton-Mayweather broadcast?

I think very few would disagree that Naz, Lewis and Hatton were acceptable as PPV, and therefore there weren't any complaints about the UK leg of their PPVs.

Well, maybe there should be a system whereby subscribers get the UK leg (whatever it is, unless huge in quality/event terms) for nothing but a PPV buyer gets it thrown in? Or loyal subscribers get a PPV at for a tenner instead of £15? The loyalty just doesn't seem to be rewarded.

oliverfennell wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:Think back to some of FW's shows back in the early 2000s, mate. Massive chockablock cards on Sky Sports 1 - not PPV. The fighters were making good money, the promoter was doing well and the fans were happy. Why the change of tack?

True. The two "Full Monty" shows were stronger than this, as was the 2007 one featuring Skelton-Sprott 2, Khan-Limond, Pryce-Small and Lueveno-Cook.

yup

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:However, Saturday's format was hardly new. People are arguing whether or not the UK portion was PPV worthy (on its own, I'd say not), but for me it's more a case of whether Khan is PPV worthy.

For the US-based PPVs, it's almost always been a case of having a UK support leg as part of the SBO package.

Were any of the UK warm-ups before Lewis' and Naz's fights better than last Saturday's Liverpool show? How about the UK leg of the Hatton-Mayweather broadcast?

I think very few would disagree that Naz, Lewis and Hatton were acceptable as PPV, and therefore there weren't any complaints about the UK leg of their PPVs.

Well, maybe there should be a system whereby subscribers get the UK leg (whatever it is, unless huge in quality/event terms) for nothing but a PPV buyer gets it thrown in? Or loyal subscribers get a PPV at for a tenner instead of £15? The loyalty just doesn't seem to be rewarded.

I'm afraid I cannot see it changing. Not sure what you mean by the first suggestion "gets it thrown in" - the UK leg of a PPV? That doesn't sound particularly fair to a PPV subscriber who would get the UK leg anyway for nothing. Cannot see that idea getting nods of approval at executive meetings. A big sell point with Sky in hyping PPV is the amount of hours of "boxing" they show. So I cannot see it changing really.

However, your loyality packages sounds a very interesting insentive. Primetime seem to be doing that (although not clearly stated). Maybe they could do 3 price deals.... SBO without SS = £15. Option 2 "Subscribe to Sky Sports and get this event for just £10" (I can just imagine a voice over man saying that). Option 3 - if PPV's a bundled close together - 2 PPV's for £20 (or £15 for SS subscribers).

stujones wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Well, maybe there should be a system whereby subscribers get the UK leg (whatever it is, unless huge in quality/event terms) for nothing but a PPV buyer gets it thrown in? Or loyal subscribers get a PPV at for a tenner instead of £15? The loyalty just doesn't seem to be rewarded.

I'm afraid I cannot see it changing. Not sure what you mean by the first suggestion "gets it thrown in" - the UK leg of a PPV? That doesn't sound particularly fair to a PPV subscriber who would get the UK leg anyway for nothing. Cannot see that idea getting nods of approval at executive meetings. A big sell point with Sky in hyping PPV is the amount of hours of "boxing" they show. So I cannot see it changing really.

However, your loyality packages sounds a very interesting insentive. Primetime seem to be doing that (although not clearly stated). Maybe they could do 3 price deals.... SBO without SS = £15. Option 2 "Subscribe to Sky Sports and get this event for just £10" (I can just imagine a voice over man saying that). Option 3 - if PPV's a bundled close together - 2 PPV's for £20 (or £15 for SS subscribers).

Yes, my suggestion is quite straightforward - you've got it in the second paragraph.

Sky Sports Subscribers might get the Yankee bit for a tenner, for really big nights of boxing. They get the UK bit as part of their package. This provides some boxing for them on a big night for no extra with an option to chip in for more. Non-subscribers, buying the one-off PPV get the lot for £15. Or more, even.

I do see Sky do PPV deals for the WWF. So obviously its not impossible to do.

Not with the Loyal Sky Sports Subscribers, but with PPV buyers (buy 2 PPV's get the third free).

It would be a starting point - but it might also be the starting point to more PPV.