BoxRec

So George Groves in a fight that he's 1/100 in makes it PPV worthy? This is not WWE wrestling mate, if you want good guys v bad guys go get a foam hand.[/quote]


There you go! I said the show the way it is has to be Ppv and then you said this 5hit

Hahahah what a plonka

righthook wrote:So George Groves in a fight that he's 1/100 in makes it PPV worthy? This is not WWE wrestling mate, if you want good guys v bad guys go get a foam hand.

There you go! I said the show the way it is has to be Ppv and then you said this 5hit

Hahahah what a plonka[/quote]

I have replied since then if you look back. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

This show can not be made without PPV, is what you're claiming. PPV was announced before the undercard was made for a start, so, like I said, Sky have fooled the like of you in to thinking its a spectacular show only achievable by PPV money.




Which it isn't. You muppet

Excuse any grammar or spelling errors, I'm on my phone.

DazDiCanio wrote:

righthook wrote:So George Groves in a fight that he's 1/100 in makes it PPV worthy? This is not WWE wrestling mate, if you want good guys v bad guys go get a foam hand.

There you go! I said the show the way it is has to be Ppv and then you said this 5hit

Hahahah what a plonka

I have replied since then if you look back. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

This show can not be made with PPV, is what you're claiming. PPV was announced before the undercard was made for a start, so, like I said, Sky have fooled the like of you in to thinking its a spectacular show only achievable by PPV money.




Which it isn't. You muppet[/quote]

The show was always going to be made Ppv in eddies mind! He new what he was trying to do by putting a load of his fighters on the one card. Eddie didn't once come out and say bellew v cleverly is Ppv then say oh by the way I migt do a big card with it. He has said from day one he was putting on a mega show in his own words

Again more useless dross coming out your brain dead mouth

Are you 2 fellas arguing about the same point? Im confused,is this PPV a good or bad thing again

handsofstone wrote:Are you 2 fellas arguing about the same point? Im confused,is this PPV a good or bad thing again

Hahaha I don't think he knows himself.

It's a bad thing Deffo but as the card is it had to be made Ppv

I think both of you are going around in circles here. We all agree here with you Righthook that the show shouldnt be PPV. The headliners are both maybe slightly past domestic level & certainly neither Pacman or Mayweather.
I think what a lot of the argument is over is that the "stacked" undercard is actually relevant when its a one sided load of dogshit 80/20 fights at best.
I personally watch boxing to see 2 evenly matched lads fight each other I know that happens very rarely these days but I can honestly say that as a fan I couldnt really care less about this bill but cannot wait for the allegedly bill the week after!

righthook wrote:

handsofstone wrote:The fact of the matter is ,its on PPV and its not PPV worthy,If Fast Car has over paid the fighters that should come out of his own pocket

Nobodies too arsed about this rematch either and the undercards mainly walkovers,there are no world title fights

I pay for Bnation and Fwank doesnt need to fleece me out extra money to justify paying for the Chisora/Fury show where there are all pretty much 50/50 fights

Some good points mate but again people forget they pay £12 a month every month which is the same as eddie having a Ppv every single month. Like iv said sky give eddie next to nothing for his shows so that's why he has made it Ppv.

I could guarentee u that if every single sky sports subscriber gave eddie £12 a month for boxing he would put on 50 times better shows than what he puts on at the moment but the fact is he works on a budget so when he does do a big show or I should say when he puts all his stars on the one show he needs to make it Ppv to work

Hows it the same exactly?

Some good points mate but again people forget they pay £12 a month every month which is the same as eddie having a Ppv every single month. Like iv said sky give eddie next to nothing for his shows so that's why he has made it Ppv.

Not quite as I would be getting a few more bills on BN & (£16.95-£12) would also give me £4.95 to have a takeway with 1 night of boxing.

It seems there are 2 major points that are being argued here:

1) It's not PPV worthy - which everyone agrees
2) The card can only be made by being PPV

The view by the large majority on point 2 is that they don't care about the main event or any of the undercard enough to buy it and so it should not have been made. Hearn could chuck as many of his fighters on a card as he wants in 80/20 matches and state with 100% truth that the card needs PPV income to provide the financial support. It doesn't mean that it is a good idea as there is no passing interest by casual fans

If Bellew v Cleverly was support to a genuine PPV then i think there would be a lot more goodwill towards the fight.

This show/discussion aside, there is actually a broader discussion amongst all of this.

Boxing fans (both casual and hardcore) have broader horizons lately thanks to social media.

No longer are they mind-controlled by television channel PR , they are a lot more informed in 2014.

The days of "names" selling pay-per-view are not as lucrative as they were 5-10 years ago. Back then people tuned in to see their guy win, and had little knowledge of the visitor and whether he'd be up to the task. Hatton and Joe had some popular nights against largely unheralded opponents that perhaps might not float nowadays.

Twitter, facebook, boxrec records, dozens upon dozens of historical fight videos on youtube, tons of boxing websites now afford casuals plenty of research and opinion - that previously didn't exist.

I'd say that under 40's spend more time online than they do watching television nowadays. So the voice of internet speaks much louder than a television advert. When people generally do watch tv it's for a specific show or film they have probably recorded and not got around to viewing yet. So the power of advertising is often not as effective as it once was.

Going back to the discussion again, I know they have a metric for recording PPV sales but I have seen a worrying amount of a lot of people actually cancelling Sky Sports and even the full Sky package as a result of this card. Not putting all the blame at this PPV's feet, but it seems like it's just the final straw for something so expensive overall that is of little value.

The word "business" is getting bandied around a lot as justification for Sky doing this. But surely a person who spends £1,000 a year on his sky subs walking is far far more important than trying to wring out another £17 from him? and that's not just this show, but even the movies worth actually watching are all locked in the Sky Store which you have shell out for aswell? despite paying handsomely for Sky Movies anyway.

These subscribers spend that annually and have done for years. That one subscriber leaving is equivalent to 59 pay-per-views that Sky previously had in the bank. Now if a thousand people took the same stance, that's nearly 60,000 pay per views of cash exiting Sky's pockets. That's re-occruing revenue leaving, not one-off payments, so the impact could be even higher for not satisfying those customers.

Sure, some might pick up the PPV with the money they have saved but it pales in significance to their monthly subs. Given the millions of subscribers, I'd hazard a guess of a mix of sky sports subscribers and full sky subscribers that have been nudged by this PPV into leaving, could be anything like 10,000.

Let's take a conservative guess and say their annual spend is circa £500 each with Sky in subs - then that's £5m in lost revenue. That's 294,117 pay per view sales. But it could 20,000 leaving or more ?

By the same token, Virgin offering faster broadband, more channels every quarter for the subscribers same subs. Netflix / Amazon Prime etc and are all picking up the big American series shows (and they are less than a tenner a month). The uptake of new sky installs by younger people is dropping like a stone and Sky's approach here proves they are slightly out of fashion now. In an era where people are giving more, Sky are doing the reverse and are trying to take more from their customers - and many are becoming ex-customers as a result.

Whomever does market analysis for sky are doing an horrendous job in my opinion. My observations will wash over most readers here, but 24 months from now will see big cracks appearing (if not sooner). Just like when Nokia lead the mobile world 7 years ago, now they don't even exist anymore. Sky hit saturation a few years ago and now people are loathe to pay such huge sums when they can get a slighter poorer service but for just 10% of the price via online providers. As smart TVs and broadband speeds up even faster, the decline in cable/satellite monopolies will crumble rapidly.

righthook wrote:

handsofstone wrote:Are you 2 fellas arguing about the same point? Im confused,is this PPV a good or bad thing again

Hahaha I don't think he knows himself.

It's a bad thing Deffo but as the card is it had to be made Ppv

Not true. Just simply not true. You, like Eddie, think that because AJ and GG are on the show it has to be PPV. Absolute nonsense.

Why is Groves even on this card?

Hearn doing a turn for Kalle to get something back?

Why is this card not PPV? http://boxrec.com/show_display.php?show_id=694468

Bellew
Clev
C Smith
S Smith
AJ
Agogo
Rocky
Campbell

@Gomez, I found your last post very interesting. If you don't mind me asking, what do you do for a living?

G0mez wrote:This show/discussion aside, there is actually a broader discussion amongst all of this.

Boxing fans (both casual and hardcore) have broader horizons lately thanks to social media.

No longer are they mind-controlled by television channel PR , they are a lot more informed in 2014.

The days of "names" selling pay-per-view are not as lucrative as they were 5-10 years ago. Back then people tuned in to see their guy win, and had little knowledge of the visitor and whether he'd be up to the task. Hatton and Joe had some popular nights against largely unheralded opponents that perhaps might not float nowadays.

Twitter, facebook, boxrec records, dozens upon dozens of historical fight videos on youtube, tons of boxing websites now afford casuals plenty of research and opinion - that previously didn't exist.

I'd say that under 40's spend more time online than they do watching television nowadays. So the voice of internet speaks much louder than a television advert. When people generally do watch tv it's for a specific show or film they have probably recorded and not got around to viewing yet. So the power of advertising is often not as effective as it once was.

Going back to the discussion again, I know they have a metric for recording PPV sales but I have seen a worrying amount of a lot of people actually cancelling Sky Sports and even the full Sky package as a result of this card. Not putting all the blame at this PPV's feet, but it seems like it's just the final straw for something so expensive overall that is of little value.

The word "business" is getting bandied around a lot as justification for Sky doing this. But surely a person who spends £1,000 a year on his sky subs walking is far far more important than trying to wring out another £17 from him? and that's not just this show, but even the movies worth actually watching are all locked in the Sky Store which you have shell out for aswell? despite paying handsomely for Sky Movies anyway.

These subscribers spend that annually and have done for years. That one subscriber leaving is equivalent to 59 pay-per-views that Sky previously had in the bank. Now if a thousand people took the same stance, that's nearly 60,000 pay per views of cash exiting Sky's pockets. That's re-occruing revenue leaving, not one-off payments, so the impact could be even higher for not satisfying those customers.

Sure, some might pick up the PPV with the money they have saved but it pales in significance to their monthly subs. Given the millions of subscribers, I'd hazard a guess of a mix of sky sports subscribers and full sky subscribers that have been nudged by this PPV into leaving, could be anything like 10,000.

Let's take a conservative guess and say their annual spend is circa £500 each with Sky in subs - then that's £5m in lost revenue. That's 294,117 pay per view sales. But it could 20,000 leaving or more ?

By the same token, Virgin offering faster broadband, more channels every quarter for the subscribers same subs. Netflix / Amazon Prime etc and are all picking up the big American series shows (and they are less than a tenner a month). The uptake of new sky installs by younger people is dropping like a stone and Sky's approach here proves they are slightly out of fashion now. In an era where people are giving more, Sky are doing the reverse and are trying to take more from their customers - and many are becoming ex-customers as a result.

Whomever does market analysis for sky are doing an horrendous job in my opinion. My observations will wash over most readers here, but 24 months from now will see big cracks appearing (if not sooner). Just like when Nokia lead the mobile world 7 years ago, now they don't even exist anymore. Sky hit saturation a few years ago and now people are loathe to pay such huge sums when they can get a slighter poorer service but for just 10% of the price via online providers. As smart TVs and broadband speeds up even faster, the decline in cable/satellite monopolies will crumble rapidly.

Great post & the reference to Nokia is so true. With all the competition you would think Sky would be upping their gamr to keep customers not fleece them.

DazDiCanio wrote:Why is this card not PPV? http://boxrec.com/show_display.php?show_id=694468

Bellew
Clev
C Smith
S Smith
AJ
Agogo
Rocky
Campbell

Maybe we look at PPV differently but surely its about who those listed are fighting? Yeah it helps that they are on the card but if they are in meaningless fights so what?

As for Gomezs' post agree very good points. I'm surprised at Sky being willing to risk this sort of alienation of a group of sports fans when they know their hold on football (presumably the premium viewing sport on tv?) has gone. They must be mad. If anything they should be trying to build themselves as THE home of sports for every other sport out there they can get hold of and tying them into long contracts before BT etc get there first.

mfc_se15 wrote:

DazDiCanio wrote:Why is this card not PPV? http://boxrec.com/show_display.php?show_id=694468

Bellew
Clev
C Smith
S Smith
AJ
Agogo
Rocky
Campbell

Maybe we look at PPV differently but surely its about who those listed are fighting? Yeah it helps that they are on the card but if they are in meaningless fights so what?

As for Gomezs' post agree very good points. I'm surprised at Sky being willing to risk this sort of alienation of a group of sports fans when they know their hold on football (presumably the premium viewing sport on tv?) has gone. They must be mad. If anything they should be trying to build themselves as THE home of sports for every other sport out there they can get hold of and tying them into long contracts before BT etc get there first.

Ok, mate, i agree with that 100%. Show me the PPV fights on the 22nd card.

GOmez is a good poster but he's wasting his time on here; he should be putting some funny pictures up.

DazDiCanio wrote:Why is this card not PPV? http://boxrec.com/show_display.php?show_id=694468

Bellew
Clev
C Smith
S Smith
AJ
Agogo
Rocky
Campbell

First off not a bad post because there are a few of his stars on this show u put up,
But come on mate there is a big difference in shows.

1. On the card you showed there is not 1 fight less than a 80-20

2. The main event in the 22nd is a good match and one allot of casuals and hardcore fans want to see.

3. Degale and smith are in a close fight on paper almost 50-50.

4. There are 2 worlds titles on the line on this show

5. The names on the 22nd are allot bigger than the ones on that bill u put up.

Like I say I know what your trying to say. There have been shows where allot of good names have been on the same card but the card u put up didn't have a single close fight. Not to mention no world title on the line,
Again I am not defending this being Ppv I am mearly showing you there is a huge difference in the bill u put up.

righthook wrote:

DazDiCanio wrote:Why is this card not PPV? http://boxrec.com/show_display.php?show_id=694468

Bellew
Clev
C Smith
S Smith
AJ
Agogo
Rocky
Campbell

First off not a bad post because there are a few of his stars on this show u put up,
But come on mate there is a big difference in shows.

1. On the card you showed there is not 1 fight less than a 80-20

2. The main event in the 22nd is a good match and one allot of casuals and hardcore fans want to see.

3. Degale and smith are in a close fight on paper almost 50-50.

4. There are 2 worlds titles on the line on this show

5. The names on the 22nd are allot bigger than the ones on that bill u put up.

Like I say I know what your trying to say. There have been shows where allot of good names have been on the same card but the card u put up didn't have a single close fight. Not to mention no world title on the line,
Again I am not defending this being Ppv I am mearly showing you there is a huge difference in the bill u put up.

Two world titles on the line? When are them fights being announced?

righthook wrote:
3. Degale and smith are in a close fight on paper almost 50-50.

No they're not.

righthook wrote:
4. There are 2 worlds titles on the line on this show

Ah, that lovely organisation the WBA, who currently have 37 "world champions".


Put a quid on the A side all winning and you get a hefty £1.41p
http://i.imgur.com/hrpXien.jpg


Do the same for the no-hopers on this 'stacked' card
http://i.imgur.com/naeqsAW.jpg

Wow, thanks for the glowing credit.

Quigg/Smith and Groves don't need to fight in November and DeGale is only on it as an old promoter trick of putting possible opponents on the same cards to build a future fight for the casuals who've never heard of them

BTW 50-50 fights, come on. Not even almost.

Degale has a very tough fight and it is a good fight as I said almost 50/50 as Good as a 50/50 as your going to get without a title on the line,

And Callum again is is another good fight, the best of his career so far again not quiet 50/50 but as good as u will get without a title on the line, can u name me one even remotely close fight in the example u gave ???

So again, it's who is fighting rather than who they're fighting lol