BoxRec

stujones wrote:

dewipowell wrote:
I've haven't said that BoxRec news isn't objective, I didn't single that out at all. I should have been clearer. I think the BoxRec news editor perusing a personal issue with a promoter on the BoxRec forum isn't objective. And my comment about them being under the same banner meant that the forum and the news site may be on different domain names but they're both BoxRec sites.

As for my work for Nathan's website, I think there's a difference between journalism and PR but I also think that I've always been as objective as I can be. I have to represent Nathan but it's never been anywhere near going over the balance, check my 'Rise and Rivalry of Tony Bellew' piece, or my interview with Bellew or the fight report of Clev-Bellew.

And whatever I've written about Welsh boxing has been objective (in my opinion, anyway!), you can see the Welsh Dragons series I did for Boxing News' website through the summer and judge for yourself.

There's 3 articles on SecondsOut that I've done this weekend, feel free to have a butchers but one's about a Welsh boxer so you'll obviously have to miss that

I aint sure how a simple "NO" comes under the banner of pursuing a personal issue.

It's not just a simple ''NO'' though, there's been lots references to and comments it before. The knowledge that Ian has an issue with FWP is enough, isn't it? Because if it hasn't been pursued then how would we know about it at all?

dewipowell wrote:

stujones wrote:

dewipowell wrote:
I've haven't said that BoxRec news isn't objective, I didn't single that out at all. I should have been clearer. I think the BoxRec news editor perusing a personal issue with a promoter on the BoxRec forum isn't objective. And my comment about them being under the same banner meant that the forum and the news site may be on different domain names but they're both BoxRec sites.

As for my work for Nathan's website, I think there's a difference between journalism and PR but I also think that I've always been as objective as I can be. I have to represent Nathan but it's never been anywhere near going over the balance, check my 'Rise and Rivalry of Tony Bellew' piece, or my interview with Bellew or the fight report of Clev-Bellew.

And whatever I've written about Welsh boxing has been objective (in my opinion, anyway!), you can see the Welsh Dragons series I did for Boxing News' website through the summer and judge for yourself.

There's 3 articles on SecondsOut that I've done this weekend, feel free to have a butchers but one's about a Welsh boxer so you'll obviously have to miss that

I aint sure how a simple "NO" comes under the banner of pursuing a personal issue.

It's not just a simple ''NO'' though, there's been lots references to and comments it before. The knowledge that Ian has an issue with FWP is enough, isn't it? Because if it hasn't been pursued then how would we know about it at all?

What are you on about? He posted 'no'. It is his decision. What he posts on a forum and what he writes about are two entirely different things and I think Stu has articulated really well - what I feel is a complete over reaction to any views that Ian has on this new channel. Hopefully, Ian and the promoter in question can patch things up and move on.

As for the question by the thread starter. Yes, I will definitely be subscribing to the channel, a dedicated boxing channel is as good as it gets for me - I am loving the coverage every weekend and it is great to see the return of Bunceys Boxing Hour. I hope that they have more content during the week, rather than repeats - more documentaries or a show with various boxing pundits discussing the past and present fights, fighters and the state of the game.

dewipowell wrote:

Dan Dares wrote:

dewipowell wrote: It's all under the same banner though isn't it? Just because they're on different domains doesn't mean that they have no relation to each other.

Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that BoxRec News isn't objective?

As you progress in your fledgling career in journalism, if indeed that is the career you choose, you'll realise the real significance of objectivity, rather than spewing out the textbook definition of it.

When people get paid to do press, all objectivity goes out of the window, and its all about arse-licking and pound notes. Ask Buncey.

I'll illustrate further - I wouldn't fancy reading anything you wrote about Cleverly, or Wales. Anything else you write about, I'll gladly have a butchers.

I've haven't said that BoxRec news isn't objective, I didn't single that out at all. I should have been clearer. I think the BoxRec news editor perusing a personal issue with a promoter on the BoxRec forum isn't objective. And my comment about them being under the same banner meant that the forum and the news site may be on different domain names but they're both BoxRec sites.

As for my work for Nathan's website, I think there's a difference between journalism and PR but I also think that I've always been as objective as I can be. I have to represent Nathan but it's never been anywhere near going over the balance, check my 'Rise and Rivalry of Tony Bellew' piece, or my interview with Bellew or the fight report of Clev-Bellew.

And whatever I've written about Welsh boxing has been objective (in my opinion, anyway!), you can see the Welsh Dragons series I did for Boxing News' website through the summer and judge for yourself.

There's 3 articles on SecondsOut that I've done this weekend, feel free to have a butchers but one's about a Welsh boxer so you'll obviously have to miss that

The news site and the forum are completely different things. You didn't make a distinction. Poor journalism.

I wouldn't want to read an article, let alone a fight report, written by someone on the payroll. No matter how unobjective you might think it is, it ain't. If your doing PR, fine, but if your passing it off as journalism, it ain't.

And you mean pursue, not peruse. F'kin unbelievable the amount of people get that one wrong. I'll give the Welsh stuff a butchers, cheers.

Dan Dares wrote:

dewipowell wrote:

Dan Dares wrote: Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that BoxRec News isn't objective?

As you progress in your fledgling career in journalism, if indeed that is the career you choose, you'll realise the real significance of objectivity, rather than spewing out the textbook definition of it.

When people get paid to do press, all objectivity goes out of the window, and its all about arse-licking and pound notes. Ask Buncey.

I'll illustrate further - I wouldn't fancy reading anything you wrote about Cleverly, or Wales. Anything else you write about, I'll gladly have a butchers.

I've haven't said that BoxRec news isn't objective, I didn't single that out at all. I should have been clearer. I think the BoxRec news editor perusing a personal issue with a promoter on the BoxRec forum isn't objective. And my comment about them being under the same banner meant that the forum and the news site may be on different domain names but they're both BoxRec sites.

As for my work for Nathan's website, I think there's a difference between journalism and PR but I also think that I've always been as objective as I can be. I have to represent Nathan but it's never been anywhere near going over the balance, check my 'Rise and Rivalry of Tony Bellew' piece, or my interview with Bellew or the fight report of Clev-Bellew.

And whatever I've written about Welsh boxing has been objective (in my opinion, anyway!), you can see the Welsh Dragons series I did for Boxing News' website through the summer and judge for yourself.

There's 3 articles on SecondsOut that I've done this weekend, feel free to have a butchers but one's about a Welsh boxer so you'll obviously have to miss that

The news site and the forum are completely different things. You didn't make a distinction. Poor journalism.

I wouldn't want to read an article, let alone a fight report, written by someone on the payroll (1). No matter how unobjective you might think it is, it ain't. If your doing PR, fine, but if your passing it off as journalism, it ain't (2).

And you mean pursue, not peruse (3). F'kin unbelievable the amount of people get that one wrong. I'll give the Welsh stuff a butchers, cheers.

1 - I'm on no payroll. Nathan's brother asked me to be involved and the family and team are good people who've done a lot for me so I gladly helped them back.
2 - I've CLEARLY states that what I do for Nathan isn't journalism when I said: "I think there's a difference between journalism and PR..."
3 - Aren't we all human?

dewipowell wrote:

Dan Dares wrote:

dewipowell wrote: I've haven't said that BoxRec news isn't objective, I didn't single that out at all. I should have been clearer. I think the BoxRec news editor perusing a personal issue with a promoter on the BoxRec forum isn't objective. And my comment about them being under the same banner meant that the forum and the news site may be on different domain names but they're both BoxRec sites.

As for my work for Nathan's website, I think there's a difference between journalism and PR but I also think that I've always been as objective as I can be. I have to represent Nathan but it's never been anywhere near going over the balance, check my 'Rise and Rivalry of Tony Bellew' piece, or my interview with Bellew or the fight report of Clev-Bellew.

And whatever I've written about Welsh boxing has been objective (in my opinion, anyway!), you can see the Welsh Dragons series I did for Boxing News' website through the summer and judge for yourself.

There's 3 articles on SecondsOut that I've done this weekend, feel free to have a butchers but one's about a Welsh boxer so you'll obviously have to miss that

The news site and the forum are completely different things. You didn't make a distinction. Poor journalism.

I wouldn't want to read an article, let alone a fight report, written by someone on the payroll (1). No matter how unobjective you might think it is, it ain't. If your doing PR, fine, but if your passing it off as journalism, it ain't (2).

And you mean pursue, not peruse (3). F'kin unbelievable the amount of people get that one wrong. I'll give the Welsh stuff a butchers, cheers.

1 - I'm on no payroll. Nathan's brother asked me to be involved and the family and team are good people who've done a lot for me so I gladly helped them back.
2 - I've CLEARLY states that what I do for Nathan isn't journalism when I said: "I think there's a difference between journalism and PR..."
3 - Aren't we all human?

I mean stated, not states. Thought I'd point that up before you point out another typo as a relevant point.

They should be paying you, your doing a cracking job.

gasman wrote:

dewipowell wrote:

stujones wrote: I aint sure how a simple "NO" comes under the banner of pursuing a personal issue.

It's not just a simple ''NO'' though, there's been lots references to and comments it before. The knowledge that Ian has an issue with FWP is enough, isn't it? Because if it hasn't been pursued then how would we know about it at all?

What are you on about? He posted 'no'. It is his decision. What he posts on a forum and what he writes about are two entirely different things and I think Stu has articulated really well - what I feel is a complete over reaction to any views that Ian has on this new channel. Hopefully, Ian and the promoter in question can patch things up and move on.

As for the question by the thread starter. Yes, I will definitely be subscribing to the channel, a dedicated boxing channel is as good as it gets for me - I am loving the coverage every weekend and it is great to see the return of Bunceys Boxing Hour. I hope that they have more content during the week, rather than repeats - more documentaries or a show with various boxing pundits discussing the past and present fights, fighters and the state of the game.

It's absolutely Ian's decision what he chooses to write on the forum and whether he does or doesn't subscribe to allegedly. However the pressing issue seems to be, why would the editor of one of the UK's most used online boxing news resources not subscribe to the UK's only dedicated fight channel?

Surely this can't be based on anything other than a prejudice towards the channel's owners?

Otherwise you would think as a journalist he would gladly lap up the opportunity for this additional resource to provide additional content to write about in BoxRec News.

Essentially this rather short sighted dismissal is like a TV critic saying that they won't subscribe and watch/review anything on Sky because they don't like Rupert Murdoch. This would obviously never happen as Sky generates such a substantial amount of television content, in the same way allegedly will in relation to boxing

As we have all seen unfortunately there isn't that much boxing on other platforms; so as a boxing journalist, who has limited content to use from elsewhere because of this lack of televised boxing, there is absolutely no way you could continue to operate to the best of your ability without using a channel which puts out a significant chunk of this country's boxing coverage.

It's short sighted and unfair of Ian, to his readers, to not comprehensively make use of all possible resources available to report on all goings on in the sport to the best of his ability, based on what is an easily solvable personal discrepancy.

I also hope this issue with the promoter in question can be talked about in the near future.

Also your idea for the panel show of boxing pundits sounds like great idea, a Jimmy Hill's Sunday supplement for boxing would work tremendously well, with Colin Hart, Buncey and maybe even some influential internet writers.....

dewipowell wrote:I mean stated, not states. Thought I'd point that up before you point out another typo as a relevant point.

Why didn't you edit your post instead?

dewipowell wrote:

Dan Dares wrote:

dewipowell wrote: I've haven't said that BoxRec news isn't objective, I didn't single that out at all. I should have been clearer. I think the BoxRec news editor perusing a personal issue with a promoter on the BoxRec forum isn't objective. And my comment about them being under the same banner meant that the forum and the news site may be on different domain names but they're both BoxRec sites.

As for my work for Nathan's website, I think there's a difference between journalism and PR but I also think that I've always been as objective as I can be. I have to represent Nathan but it's never been anywhere near going over the balance, check my 'Rise and Rivalry of Tony Bellew' piece, or my interview with Bellew or the fight report of Clev-Bellew.

And whatever I've written about Welsh boxing has been objective (in my opinion, anyway!), you can see the Welsh Dragons series I did for Boxing News' website through the summer and judge for yourself.

There's 3 articles on SecondsOut that I've done this weekend, feel free to have a butchers but one's about a Welsh boxer so you'll obviously have to miss that

The news site and the forum are completely different things. You didn't make a distinction. Poor journalism.

I wouldn't want to read an article, let alone a fight report, written by someone on the payroll (1). No matter how unobjective you might think it is, it ain't. If your doing PR, fine, but if your passing it off as journalism, it ain't (2).

And you mean pursue, not peruse (3). F'kin unbelievable the amount of people get that one wrong. I'll give the Welsh stuff a butchers, cheers.

1 - I'm on no payroll. Nathan's brother asked me to be involved and the family and team are good people who've done a lot for me so I gladly helped them back.
2 - I've CLEARLY states that what I do for Nathan isn't journalism when I said: "I think there's a difference between journalism and PR..."
3 - Aren't we all human?

Dewi, sorry, but as someone who's been in the publishing industry for more than 15 years including various editorial roles, I have to say you're completely wrong regarding the stance you've taken in this thread.
To try and put it into context for you, every newspaper, from The Times through to a weekly regional, will tend to have an opinion column or equivalent (such as an editor's letter). In terms of accepted best practice, the key is simply being transparent about what constitutes news (objective) and what constitutes opinion (subjective).
With regards to that criteria, Ian has been perfectly in line - there's no inference of subjectivity in Boxrec News' reporting, while a forum by its very nature is subjective. Furthermore, Ian has been transparent that his personal views have been influenced by his dealings with the people in question.
Consequently there's simply no case to answer here.

[quote="jabnmove"]Essentially this rather short sighted dismissal is like a TV critic saying that they won't subscribe and watch/review anything on Sky because they don't like Rupert Murdoch. This would obviously never happen as Sky generates such a substantial amount of television content, in the same way Allegedly channel will in relation to boxing

As we have all seen unfortunately there isn't that much boxing on other platforms; so as a boxing journalist, who has limited content to use from elsewhere because of this lack of televised boxing, there is absolutely no way you could continue to operate to the best of your ability without using a channel which puts out a significant chunk of this country's boxing coverage.

It's short sighted and unfair of Ian, to his readers, to not comprehensively make use of all possible resources available to report on all goings on in the sport to the best of his ability, based on what is an easily solvable personal discrepancy.[quote]

Good spin, but a clearly flawed analogy. Ian is an editor, so has a team of writers at his disposal who are still able to cover the relevant fights, so there is no issue regarding being 'unfair' to readers as he's still fully resourced to ensure coverage regardless of his personal decision.
I also assume that by 'easily solvable' in this context you mean that in future he simply has to refrain from impartial reporting that could involve any criticism of a certain promoter? Based on precedent I suspect that is the only way it could in any way, shape or form be regarded as 'easily solvable'.
Unfortunately, while Mr Warren is clearly an extremely talented businessman, his company's activities in terms of both PR and customer service have been absolutely contrary to best practice on so many occasions over the years and this thread is further proof of that fact.
Anyone who stages 'world' title fights such as Enzo vs Bobby Gunn and who has situations where so many fights fall through that the real card frequently bears no resemblence to the advertised one has to expect their fair share of criticism. More savvy companies engage with dissatisfied customers to discover what they could do better and are transparent in their communications, but unfortunately over the years the perception I and many others have is of an opposite approach whereby any feedback that doesn't constitute 'cheerleading' is ignored at best and at worst treated with contempt, or even abuse on occasion.
Final point from me, but from where I'm standing the whole allegedly business model is fundamentally flawed and I just can't see how it's sustainable. I just don't think there's a large enough base of potential consumers or any potential for the type of ad revenue that would make this venture viable. Failure to generate sufficient subscriptions will obviously have a knock-on impact on the ability to invest in 'home' shows and buy in overseas fights, and as the quality correspondingly degrades, so those who have signed up will start to depart, thus creating a vicious circle that will ultimately lead to its demise.
Despite what I've written above with regards to the company, I'd take no particular pleasure in this happening as it's a brave venture, but as others have already touched on, the failure to give any clarity on things such as scheduling over the medium- to long-term doesn't exactly help matters. Not many people in this world are prepared to pay for something when they're not even being properly told what they're buying.

What is it with Allegedly and constant threats of libel action?

It's pathetic.

Every issue in this thread seems to be about communication.

Jeff Thomas wrote:Every issue in this thread seems to be about communication.

Jeff, that's essentially because the company in question hasn't grasped fully that communication is a two-way process, not just one way.

King Geedorah wrote:

Jeff Thomas wrote:...

.....

Sorry?

MachoMan09 wrote:

Jeff Thomas wrote:This thing about being neutral as a journo is not at all true; what makes Steve bunce a decent writer is his sometimes horribly biased opinions! I like those articles- but we won't be seeing them anymore by the looks of it! I don't blame him either-

In my opinion, Buncey is the ultimate conformist. He has this reputation as a bit of a wildcard, with those who know no better, but he's anything but. As I see it, If you're paying him, he'll write whatever you want him to write/say whatever you want him to say. That's why he'll never go short of work; even when television boxing has died - assuming it dies before he does - he'll find another outlet. You'll never go down as a great man with that approach but you'll stay fat, clothed and housed, which is all that really matters.

Well said

He'll sit with whoever is paying him and bray from there...

The channel's representatives come on here (rarely, when it suits them), speak to posters with disdain and then expect us to contribute our hard-earned wages purely because we love the sport.

They need a MASSIVE PR/marketing injection.

We are men and women with families, and mortgages and bills to pay, not thick yobs deliberating whether to sit through mediocre undercards and the odd competitive fight because it's "only a tenner a month"

This thread and their responses have probably lost them dozens of subscribers. Well done.

stujones wrote:I think a key point to this debate (thread of the year anyone?) has been where in any part of this has Ian used his "power" as Boxrec News editor to even attempt to influence anyone.

The OP asks the question - "will you be subscribing to the channel" - IAN'S reply was a simple "no". Its his answer, there is no "I don't expect any of you to do the same". - He just gave his own opinion - it wasn't hardly an attempt to control the masses into following him. He simply answered the question.

What about the several other authors on this and previous threads that have said no. Why was it Ian's one word, own opinion, response that got the criticism.

There are still impartial reports on here, there are still reports about the channel on this forum. There are still round by rounds etc. Yeah, Buncey got on his high horse cause Ian cited a PR from the completely free Daily Telegraph coverage of the world amateur champions and not promote that it was also on Allegedly channel. However, did Ian tamper with the thread when Buncey responded? Did Ian delete any comments from Allegedly channel staff - no he didn't. So he is not using his power to PROMOTE his "agenda" - just stating his personal views on whether he is subcribing, people here put 2 and 2 together and claimed it was a personal agenda.

When this site starts being moderated against the channel is when I will agree there will be an agenda is in action. I did note on a recent show, after there was a disagreement on here about some Allegedly channel content - that boxrec didn't get a mention when Buncey said "I've been trawling through all the sites" - Eastside, Doghouse etc were mentioned - not here.

...Ian got the criticism because they despise the fact he is liked, and knows his stuff....and does it for the love of the game, and is passionate about boxing. He does a remarkable job and I have a lot of respect for him.

Many of us do....

Personally, I've paid hundreds of pounds to go all over the north west and Wales covering amateur and professional fights and just to chat with boxers for an interview for Boxrec or the Daily Post (I get paid £20 for my DP column and often spend more than that on fuel to get the interview)

I do it because I love it, as many of you guys do.

It's not about the tenner a month, it's about respect. They treat boxing fans like absolute morons.

I agree with Jeff, they are light years behind the UFC in terms of PR.

Yes I will be subscribing, I think the fights have been very good, the coverage also very good, I like the bunce boxing hour, I would like live weigh-ins for the big fights though, and I'm sure there's going to be big fights coming up next year or people will simply just cancel.
So for me so far so good

Suggestion: If so many people are that bothered by the question of Ian's objectivity on the forum, how about Ian's posts having one of those "the views of so and so in no way reflect blah de blah" lines at the bottom of his posts, that way there can be no question of crossover? Must be easy for some techno head to sort out. Ian?

I’d be genuinely interested to know if anyone from allegedly could please answer the following?

1. When is the channel being encrypted? Is it November 30? Is it me or has there been no mention of the encryption date recently? I seem to recall it was mentioned live on air a fortnight ago during the Halifax show but don’t recall seeing anything since?

2. Why isn’t a more concerted effort being made to advise potential subscribers as to the encryption date and provide a clearer idea as to the scheduling for at least the next 1-3 months? Was it mentioned on Steve Bunce’s boxing hour (personally, I didn’t see it). If not, why not?

3. During the day (up til 2pm) allegedly is ‘off air’ with just the allegedly logo left on screen. Wouldn’t it make sense to advertise the encryption date and advise people how they go about subscribing / forthcoming schedule? It needs to be as straightforward as possible and at present it’s confusing.

4. Can you subscribe on a month by month basis or do you have to pay for 6 months in full? I’ve got a wife and 3 kids and I’d like to budget accordingly with Christmas fast approaching.

5. I registered via email to receive more information ages ago but have heard nothing since. Do you plan on issuing a weekly newsletter informing people of upcoming fights, how to subscribe and (as an idea) holding a weekly competition to win tickets?

6. Saturday’s Top Rank show between Chavez & Mandfredo Jr contained only the feed. There was no studio analysis back in the UK with the likes of Andy Kerr, Steve Lillis etc (unless I missed it). Is this going to the exception rather than the norm?

7. Is Paul Dempsey still joining the channel? The current allegedly team are doing very well but Dempsey is a consummate professional and I was looking forward to seeing him back on UK screens.

8. And, finally, I’d genuinely be interested in understanding why the allegedly team think the channel is in the best interests of the long term future of the sport in Britain? I’ve heard a lot about why we should subscribe, hey we’re boxing fans blah blah blah, but putting aside my need for a weekly ‘fix’ I fail to understand how British boxing could possibly thrive under this scenario in the long-term.

I’m not trying to be disparaging to anyone at allegedly, however I just can’t fathom why moving the sport to a subscription-based minority channel is going to raise the sport’s profile, maintain existing and attract younger viewers to boxing, make it viable for more big-domestic and world fights to take place? When I was younger, financially naive and still a student I used to think that a Boxing Channel would be the bees-knees. However now older and wiser, with a degree of commercial acumen behind me with a family and kids, I’m much more sceptical about the merits of such a venture like this.

I’m all for hearing a different perspective which would help me to formulate an alternative opinion. I’d much rather engage in a healthy, positive debate instead of entering a tit-for-tat slanging match which does no one any good.

Will look forward to hearing the response.

Thank you and best wishes,
Ben

King Geedorah wrote:I'll give it a bash. If they stop showing live stuff or start showing Australian fight shows then I'll turn it in.

Aussie shows in themselves are OK - without the commentary!

Ben Carey wrote:I’d be genuinely interested to know if anyone from Allegedly channel could please answer the following?

1. When is the channel being encrypted? Is it November 30? Is it me or has there been no mention of the encryption date recently? I seem to recall it was mentioned live on air a fortnight ago during the Halifax show but don’t recall seeing anything since?

2. Why isn’t a more concerted effort being made to advise potential subscribers as to the encryption date and provide a clearer idea as to the scheduling for at least the next 1-3 months? Was it mentioned on Steve Bunce’s boxing hour (personally, I didn’t see it). If not, why not?

3. During the day (up til 2pm) Allegedly channel is ‘off air’ with just the Allegedly channel logo left on screen. Wouldn’t it make sense to advertise the encryption date and advise people how they go about subscribing / forthcoming schedule? It needs to be as straightforward as possible and at present it’s confusing.

4. Can you subscribe on a month by month basis or do you have to pay for 6 months in full? I’ve got a wife and 3 kids and I’d like to budget accordingly with Christmas fast approaching.

5. I registered via email to receive more information ages ago but have heard nothing since. Do you plan on issuing a weekly newsletter informing people of upcoming fights, how to subscribe and (as an idea) holding a weekly competition to win tickets?

6. Saturday’s Top Rank show between Chavez & Mandfredo Jr contained only the feed. There was no studio analysis back in the UK with the likes of Andy Kerr, Steve Lillis etc (unless I missed it). Is this going to the exception rather than the norm?

7. Is Paul Dempsey still joining the channel? The current Allegedly channel team are doing very well but Dempsey is a consummate professional and I was looking forward to seeing him back on UK screens.

8. And, finally, I’d genuinely be interested in understanding why the Allegedly channel team think the channel is in the best interests of the long term future of the sport in Britain? I’ve heard a lot about why we should subscribe, hey we’re boxing fans blah blah blah, but putting aside my need for a weekly ‘fix’ I fail to understand how British boxing could possibly thrive under this scenario in the long-term.

I’m not trying to be disparaging to anyone at Allegedly channel, however I just can’t fathom why moving the sport to a subscription-based minority channel is going to raise the sport’s profile, maintain existing and attract younger viewers to boxing, make it viable for more big-domestic and world fights to take place? When I was younger, financially naive and still a student I used to think that a Boxing Channel would be the bees-knees. However now older and wiser, with a degree of commercial acumen behind me with a family and kids, I’m much more sceptical about the merits of such a venture like this.

I’m all for hearing a different perspective which would help me to formulate an alternative opinion. I’d much rather engage in a healthy, positive debate instead of entering a tit-for-tat slanging match which does no one any good.

Will look forward to hearing the response.

Thank you and best wishes,
Ben

To be fair there have been two posts from the BN team and they've both been sniping...

I hope you get answers to these questions as it's not much to ask and the answers would (hopefully) be informative for anyone unsure of whether to subscribe.

Over to you.....

Is it group hug time yet ?

Glyn Leach wrote:Suggestion: If so many people are that bothered by the question of Ian's objectivity on the forum, how about Ian's posts having one of those "the views of so and so in no way reflect blah de blah" lines at the bottom of his posts, that way there can be no question of crossover? Must be easy for some techno head to sort out. Ian?

What's the point? If people are too retarded to tell the difference, that's their look out.

I've been umm-ing and ahh-ing about subscribing but having been stung by Warren's mismatched cards before, I honestly don't think he can resist the temptation of putting complete mismatches on once he has a subscriber base locked into a contract.

The lovely way his representatives treat potential customers on here has also helped make up my mind.

Where the fornicate do you get those pictures from, Gomez son? I worry about you sometimes.

A thread of varied opinions.

I would have no problem whatsoever paying a tenner a month for genuine boxing content. That said, the allegedly website looks frozen in time, with no real guidance as to when it becomes encrypted, and if (or when) it does, what they will show.

And Steve, to berate Ian, when you wrote today in the Independent, what you did, of blurring the lines between objective reporting, and subjective criticism was blurred at best. "That's fact".