BoxRec

They're involved but they've been told it won't be held against them unless they do anything to advertise the show in any way, which includes branding I imagine. I don't know where Matchroom stand in all this. Obviously as their fighter is in the main event, they have an obligation to promote the show. But an article in next month's BM states that an incredible 17% of all Sky Sports programming is provided by Matchroom, so it's hard to imagine Sky trying to give it the biggie with them.

Glyn Leach wrote:They're involved but they've been told it won't be held against them unless they do anything to advertise the show in any way, which includes branding I imagine. I don't know where Matchroom stand in all this. Obviously as their fighter is in the main event, they have an obligation to promote the show. But an article in next month's BM states that an incredible 17% of all Sky Sports programming is provided by Matchroom, so it's hard to imagine Sky trying to give it the biggie with them.

Or visa versa. Eddie Hearn's comments earlier in the week showe his unquestioning loyalty to Sky above everyone else. I wonder if he will show up at the press conference?

gobbles wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:They're involved but they've been told it won't be held against them unless they do anything to advertise the show in any way, which includes branding I imagine. I don't know where Matchroom stand in all this. Obviously as their fighter is in the main event, they have an obligation to promote the show. But an article in next month's BM states that an incredible 17% of all Sky Sports programming is provided by Matchroom, so it's hard to imagine Sky trying to give it the biggie with them.

Or visa versa. Eddie Hearn's comments earlier in the week showe his unquestioning loyalty to Sky above everyone else. I wonder if he will show up at the press conference?

I think Eddie and Barry can do what the hell they like Gobbles, Sky would be effed without the snooker, darts, fishing shows etc that Matchroom produce. But people tend not to bite the hand that feeds them — in public, at least.

A number of things:

1) It was never really a pay per view show to begin with.

2) I can appreciate why Khan would be aggrevied -it's a massive pay cut

3)The Khans have not handled it proffessionally and have thrown their toys out of the pram. They should swallow it, voice their dissaproval behind closed doors and then get on with the show, and presumably on to bigger pay days in the near future.

4) It will be interesting to see how all this is resolved.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

yid14 wrote:It's pay-per-view here in N.Z and the programme starts about 7am (8pm GMT) what time is Khan due on does anybody know? Cheers.

10pm our time.

Cheers

Is Khan an attraction in the US? Despite all the hype he couldn't fill up the 5,000 seat smaller MSG for Malignaggi (which was not a good fight to watch, either) and the Maidana fight in Vegas didn't attract much of a crowd either.

He can't sell out the MEN either unless he's fighting a God like Barrera, is Khan really an attraction anywhere? He's a name, certainly, but no one seems to find him all that compelling ala Bruno, Benn, Eubank, McGuigan et al.

though everyone in the country has heard of khan, it's funny that he's not a massive draw - certainly not PPV worthy. is it the amateurish style? the lack of personality / inarticulate persona? or the fact that this flashy package is being sold as a major attraction before he's ready for the really big stage.

his win over maidana doesn't look so hot, with an old morales almost upsetting maidana. khan turned his back in round 10 of that fight, as if to say he'd had enough. and it could've been a draw.

gobbles wrote:

danfoster wrote:

gobbles wrote: Gobbles - do you think sky should have agreed to run this fight PPV?

If they wanted to switch it to normal Sky, they should have made a better offer. Or maybe they should just have dropped the price from £15 to a fiver. They moved the goalposts on the Khans and then tried to blame them..

Dropping the price would have been a good compromise, not thought of that. I'm still not persuaded, though, that the real blame here lies anywhere other than with the Khan's. That proposed undercard was an absolute joke in the context of a PPV event with a weak (mediocre at best) headliner. People are saying it's down to Haye-Harrison fiasco and that may be so, but that should simply have made the Khan's all the more aware of the NECESSITY of delivering a quality show.

The contract with Sky clearly WAS conditional as the broadcaster has quite demonstrably exercised an option to walk away. I still say that they are entitled to do that given the circs and if more money was invested in the undercard by those that were trying to get themselves the fattest possible bottom line then they wouldnt have ended up where they are.

I feel that by penny-pinching they've made an absolute set of fools of themselves and lost a fortune. I wonder why GBP have not provided more assistance, a point raised by Boxingchat earlier. Khan sr and co have looked very out of their depth here.

Just to shed light:

Primetime are doing the whole production themselves.

They have a TV truck, sat link and commentator team and crew all onboard for this. It is not a 'HBO feed' - they are feeding HBO.

G0mez wrote:Just to shed light:

Primetime are doing the whole production themselves.

They have a TV truck, sat link and commentator team and crew all onboard for this. It is not a 'HBO feed' - they are feeding HBO.

Will it be Skeletor Gomez? calling McCloskey McCuskey?

G0mez wrote:Just to shed light:

Primetime are doing the whole production themselves.

They have a TV truck, sat link and commentator team and crew all onboard for this. It is not a 'HBO feed' - they are feeding HBO.

Well they'll have to pull a massive rabbit out of a hat here due to the picture quality being sub-standard at the moment.

This may not bother most but at 15 quid we all should have an option of HD. I'm sure HBO will.

I'm kind of surprised Khan got as much attention as he did on Ringside tonight, and I see he's being mentioned on SSN.

Given that Froch never gets a mention because he's not a Sky fighter (I know Khan has previously been a Sky fighter, but all the same), and Sky are presumably pissed off with Khan, I'm surprised they bothered to give him the time of day now.

Amir Khan will lose £1.5m over WBA title debacle, says rival's manager
Jamie Jackson; # guardian.co.uk, Thursday 14 April 2011 19.06 BST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/ap ... -mccloskey

The promotion of Amir Khan's World Boxing Association light-
welterweight defence against Paul McCloskey has been called a
"shambles" by Eddie Hearn. The challenger's promoter said that the
debacle has "probably killed Khan's credibility in the UK" and cost the
champion around £1.5m.

Hearn also claimed that the Northern Irishman would bank more than
Khan from the fight, in Manchester on Saturday due to a fiasco which
has involved the three promotion companies working for the 24-year-
old Englishman: Khan Promotions, Hatton Promotions and Golden Boy,
Oscar De La Hoya's US-based company.

smoothmoves wrote:I'm usually a man of very few words on this forum, because I generally find it it difficult to express myself with a keyboard and computer screen. But, here goes:

Amir Khan is a money grabbing prick, and I hope he falls flat on his face. Hopefully Sky wont touch him with a barge pole after this. I dont know who he thinks he is, he has barely fought anyone who I would consider world class (Maidana is pretty much it). So why all this talk of best p4p? He needs to comfortably put away guys like Mosely, Judah, Berto, Brook, Jones and dare I say it, even Mckloskey before any talk of p4p best is uttered. He is in danger of becoming delusioned and believing all the hype from the "team" around him.

So too sum up - Amir Khan = delusioned muppet

"Team Khan" = Wankers

Hope everyone can understand my ramblings!

embarrassing for boxing.

no wonder it's dropped off the radar as a mainstream sport.