BoxRec

twenty six wrote:I dont see that Wazza has an alternative.
It's public knowledge how much the purse bids were to land the Macklin / Barker Rhodes / Konekny fights.
Take a guesstimate of how much the other fights will cost and you'll soon get to a decent number.
Ticket sales wont cover it, and if the figures bandied about that Sky are prepared to pay for TV rights are correct, without some other revenue stream Wazza would lose money.
He's a shrewd business man.
There's No such thing as a free lunch.

Fair play for going for this massive show,likes of degale on 100 k the fight costs will be high

Fatsam wrote:

bfchunk wrote: Not best pleased Sky Sports subscription is up by £3 per month in Sept.

First i have heard of this, they are having a effing laugh, 3quid a month extra when people are losing there jobs, think it's time to cancel.

I'm not sure this is accurate - it was reported on the news last week that the price to wholesalers was going up by £3, hence that the like of BT are losing money on Sky's sports packages, but I don't think there was any suggestion of their retail price rising in synch.

I wouldn't pay for a FW show, ever.

I dont understand why everyone is getting to hot under the collar about this bill.

It is a very, very solid, substantial bill with some good competitive match-ups.

However, only in the context of the flimsy, shallow, foregone conclusion undercards of recent years does it glow in the way everyone appears to be in awe of.

And I've seen this outstanding cards pencilled in before.....they rarely look the same come fight night.

Why is this a PPV event, I pay, what £250 a year to watch boxing and the odd Nottingham Forest match.

Isn't that investment enough?

Now if Pacman v Mayweather or Haye v Vitaly Klitschko etc are PPV, as one off seminal events, fine. But PPV shouldn't be the norm for domestic led events featuring good British pro's in regional title fights, eliminators or learning contests? So fkking what if the Olympians are on the bill - we used to moan at Harrison and say he should be learning away from the spotlight and all say bah in unison when we're offered 3-0 professionals against Latvian farm hands and Polish Gin salesman. Woop wooh. I want to see their development, but they should be a freebie bonus, we should be doing them a service by watching as they learn.

The snake is already out of the bag on this - when 937 people bought Amir Khan on PPV - but come on have some resolve, you're all cheap hookers when offered a solid bill.

DavidPayne wrote:I dont understand why everyone is getting to hot under the collar about this bill.

It is a very, very solid, substantial bill with some good competitive match-ups.

However, only in the context of the flimsy, shallow, foregone conclusion undercards of recent years does it glow in the way everyone appears to be in awe of.

And I've seen this outstanding cards pencilled in before.....they rarely look the same come fight night.

Why is this a PPV event, I pay, what £250 a year to watch boxing and the odd Nottingham Forest match.

Isn't that investment enough?

Now if Pacman v Mayweather or Haye v Vitaly Klitschko etc are PPV, as one off seminal events, fine. But PPV shouldn't be the norm for domestic led events featuring good British pro's in regional title fights, eliminators or learning contests? So fkking what if the Olympians are on the bill - we used to moan at Harrison and say he should be learning away from the spotlight and all say bah in unison when we're offered 3-0 professionals against Latvian farm hands and Polish Gin salesman. Woop wooh. I want to see their development, but they should be a freebie bonus, we should be doing them a service by watching as they learn.

The snake is already out of the bag on this - when 937 people bought Amir Khan on PPV - but come on have some resolve, you're all cheap hookers when offered a solid bill.

I totally agree .. I think ... do you mean you will be buying the PPV? .. or not??

I wont.

I like Ryan Rhodes, I like Michael Jennings, I like Frankie Gavin...but PPV, do me a favour.

DavidPayne wrote:However, only in the context of the flimsy, shallow, foregone conclusion undercards of recent years does it glow in the way everyone appears to be in awe of.

And I've seen this outstanding cards pencilled in before.....they rarely look the same come fight night.

Exactly, (to both points.)

Macklin V Barker will be a great domestic fight, and a worthy headliner.

And the undercard is well stacked.

But allowing for a typical cancellation/fall out maybe half the stated bouts will go ahead. Some might stay on with the home fighter v a weaker opponent.

Whatever, anyway. The good thing about PPV is that you don't have to decide in advance, unlike buying a ticket.

I'm going to wait until the last minute to decide whether or not to buy it. As other people have said, FW regularly announces competitive fights weeks in advance of a show to sell tickets and then by fight night half of the fights have fallen over and new fights been announced with ridiculously weaker opponents. The best example I can think of here is the Calzaghe v Manfredo bill where when the tickets went on sale Warren said that the chief support would be David Haye v Enzo Maccarinelli. On that basis I paid £300 for a ticket and weeks later we ended up with Enzo facing Bobby Gunn!!

The above combined with the inevitable injuries and other reasons for pull-outs will likely mean that the actual bill looks very different from what has been announced here.

tonyevs wrote: This fight card should be the type of show that Sky should be offering as part of the standard sky subscription. Otherwise people won't bother with sky sports at all if the half decent fights are PPV

Yep, I agree with this. Sky subscription is bloody expensive as it is.

Deno1986 wrote:

tonyevs wrote: This fight card should be the type of show that Sky should be offering as part of the standard sky subscription. Otherwise people won't bother with sky sports at all if the half decent fights are PPV

Yep, I agree with this. Sky subscription is bloody expensive as it is.

This is "the rub."

Sky offers a specialist sports service, which isn't free. Part of that should be top events as well as specialist sports.

i'm gonna be there so no but it would be no anyway as i dont have sky but its a card worthy of ppv

What will be interesting is seeing how the public respond to a mega-card - virtually all other PPV's have been sold based on a single mega-fight .

Fans of the sport, specifically, sure- it's great. But the more casually fans , wil they go for lots of decent fights? Or do people prefere a single "big one."

I've bought PPVs with freinds before, and they haven't cared about the undercard bouts at all.

whicker wrote:What will be interesting is seeing how the public respond to a mega-card - virtually all other PPV's have been sold based on a single mega-fight .

Fans of the sport, specifically, sure- it's great. But the more casually fans , wil they go for lots of decent fights? Or do people prefere a single "big one."

I've bought PPVs with freinds before, and they haven't cared about the undercard bouts at all.

I asked a few non regular boxing fans last night, once I confirmed that neither Haye, Khan nor Hatton was on the bill they said 'no chance' to the ppv.

Unfortunately not one of them had any interest in and most had no knowledge of Brook, Jennings, Sexton, Chisora, Macklin, Barker, Cleverly, Rhodes.. They knew De Gale from the gold medal but wouldnt be paying to see him yet, regardless of opponent - and he is a local fighter.

JamesH wrote:

whicker wrote:What will be interesting is seeing how the public respond to a mega-card - virtually all other PPV's have been sold based on a single mega-fight .

Fans of the sport, specifically, sure- it's great. But the more casually fans , wil they go for lots of decent fights? Or do people prefere a single "big one."

I've bought PPVs with freinds before, and they haven't cared about the undercard bouts at all.

I asked a few non regular boxing fans last night, once I confirmed that neither Haye, Khan nor Hatton was on the bill they said 'no chance' to the ppv.

Unfortunately not one of them had any interest in and most had no knowledge of Brook, Jennings, Sexton, Chisora, Macklin, Barker, Cleverly, Rhodes.. They knew De Gale from the gold medal but wouldnt be paying to see him yet, regardless of opponent - and he is a local fighter.

Yeah, thats the question - will the "combined" draw of seven fighters who are not very well known outside boxing get people to buy a PPV in the same way a single well know fighter would?

whicker wrote:

JamesH wrote:

whicker wrote:What will be interesting is seeing how the public respond to a mega-card - virtually all other PPV's have been sold based on a single mega-fight .

Fans of the sport, specifically, sure- it's great. But the more casually fans , wil they go for lots of decent fights? Or do people prefere a single "big one."

I've bought PPVs with freinds before, and they haven't cared about the undercard bouts at all.

I asked a few non regular boxing fans last night, once I confirmed that neither Haye, Khan nor Hatton was on the bill they said 'no chance' to the ppv.

Unfortunately not one of them had any interest in and most had no knowledge of Brook, Jennings, Sexton, Chisora, Macklin, Barker, Cleverly, Rhodes.. They knew De Gale from the gold medal but wouldnt be paying to see him yet, regardless of opponent - and he is a local fighter.

Yeah, thats the question - will the "combined" draw of seven fighters who are not very well known outside boxing get people to buy a PPV in the same way a single well know fighter would?

Unfortunately no

Definete PPV!

Tykemania wrote:

Fatsam wrote:

bfchunk wrote: Not best pleased Sky Sports subscription is up by £3 per month in Sept.

First i have heard of this, they are having a effing laugh, 3quid a month extra when people are losing there jobs, think it's time to cancel.

I'm not sure this is accurate - it was reported on the news last week that the price to wholesalers was going up by £3, hence that the like of BT are losing money on Sky's sports packages, but I don't think there was any suggestion of their retail price rising in synch.

It is going up. I received an e-mail from Sky today telling me my subscription is going up by £2.50. Then it will also be going up on Jan 4th when VAT is raised.