BoxRec

orbtastic wrote:Am I being bent over and royally reamed by SKY already by paying £58 a month to watch about 6 hours a month worth of sport absolute max? Yes.

Is this bill worth 15 quid PPV? Yes

Will I end up paying £400 watching this live? Probably

Are most of the fights 50/50? No, of course not.

I agree, but there are legal ways to get Sky sports much cheaper now.

mickey1975 wrote:I agree FFN has been crap in the last couple of years but things are looking good for the future with the move to saturdays and the first couple of non ppv shows(Mollitor-Booth,Martinez-Burns,Simpson-Smith) and the return of Ringside.I will happily pay the subscription for that.

Will the saturday shows be like they used to be, starting at about 8pm then running until 11ish or will it be FFN but on a saturday? Though my main gripe is the quality of the boxing shown on Sky as well as the show it's self, the amount of times I've seen borefests(ok these can't be helped, a cracker on paper can end up boring you to tears), premature stoppages and utterly disgraceful mismatches is untrue and it pains me to say it but boxing takes up less of my time than it used to ok maybe having kids has had a little to do with that as well but rather than watch a live fight I'll just wait until it's replayed or maybe not watch it at all.

orbtastic wrote:Am I being bent over and royally reamed by SKY already by paying £58 a month to watch about 6 hours a month worth of sport absolute max? Yes.

Is this bill worth 15 quid PPV? Yes

Will I end up paying £400 watching this live? Probably

Are most of the fights 50/50? No, of course not.

Have you got the full package?

Just that I only pay about £25 a month but we don't have the movie channels and stuff like that, just have sports and documentary channels.

I think its now available on freeview (top up TV) and BT Vision much cheaper.

Thats only Sky Sports 1 and 2 - but it is extremely rare to get boxing on Sky Sports 3.

banjo wrote:

orbtastic wrote:Am I being bent over and royally reamed by SKY already by paying £58 a month to watch about 6 hours a month worth of sport absolute max? Yes.

Is this bill worth 15 quid PPV? Yes

Will I end up paying £400 watching this live? Probably

Are most of the fights 50/50? No, of course not.

Have you got the full package?

Just that I only pay about £25 a month but we don't have the movie channels and stuff like that, just have sports and documentary channels.

Yeah, HD with all the channels. To be fair, the movies is just another 7 quid I think, if that. The sports thing gets me, I literally only watch boxing, don't care about any of the other sports they show.

The problem is I've been a subscriber since '97, these offers only seem to be open to new customers. It's a pain.

Can you buy the box office event without a Sky subscription? I'd be happy to pay £15 just can't really justify a monthly Sky subs at the minute since boxing is literally the only thing I would use it for.

PS I 'm not using this to justify getting a stream, it's a genuine question. I paid to watch Froch vs Kessler online and was happy to do so.

I'm going to this night for sure, what a card. I've already got ticket and hotel. Booked up at a Travelodge with a mate, a twin room £25 each and ticket £50. £75 for room and ticket, cant go wrong really.

Coming from Norwich, so a 2-3 hour drive return is about £20 each on petrol, then some beer money - £20

So all in all, one of the best nights in boxing for a long time, all in with accommodation about £120. Bargain really.

sg1985 wrote:

J-C wrote:Can you buy the box office event without a Sky subscription? I'd be happy to pay £15 just can't really justify a monthly Sky subs at the minute since boxing is literally the only thing I would use it for.

PS I 'm not using this to justify getting a stream, it's a genuine question. I paid to watch Froch vs Kessler online and was happy to do so.

You can through Virgin, I'm not sure about BT or any others.

Ta mate.

Carlos-Wigan wrote: Why do people use free streams? Because they don't want to pay twice for a product they have already paid for!

I'm sure a lot of people use streams instead of buying Sky too.

What contribution do they have to boxing?

£F all.

I think thats Smigga's point.

I will defo be paying PPV, don`t agree with PPV in principle, but this is a quality card. pity the BBC or ITV don`t show some live boxing, I don`t watch half the crap they show, but pay my licence fee. Please boys support our boxers, I think FW should be applauded for putting on a great night of Boxing, lets hope for more, don`t forget 4th sept in glasgow also live on sky, not PPV.

whicker wrote:

Carlos-Wigan wrote: Why do people use free streams? Because they don't want to pay twice for a product they have already paid for!

I'm sure a lot of people use streams instead of buying Sky too.

What contribution do they have to boxing?

£F all.

I think thats Smigga's point.

Who knows in regards to your first point? I don't know, you don't know and how do you know Paul Smith's biggest critic doesn't pay out for every subscription and PPV going - would that make his opinion have more weight if he did?

Anyone who has an interest contributes to boxing and thats it! The day people lose interest then you could have the boxers doing a fan dance after 12 rounds but their wages will be going down the pan and thats that! Again - ask any crown green bowler about the need for public exposure.

Now PPV is hurting the likes of Paul Smith. Name me the last time you saw a boxer on a tv advert or being interviewed on a programme like 'the one show' or was on something like 'have I got news for you' becuse being known gets more exposure and puts more money in your pocket. Even though Frank Bruno was on shows like 'Wogan' and was on TV adverts, a lot of other fighters did well out of advertising, sponsorship (not being sponsored by the local takeaway either) apperances like opening supermarkets and fetes - this wasn't just world champions by the way - Dave 'Boy' Green had high media exposure as did a lot of fighters who fought on terrestial TV - fine - its not like that anymore - but for fighters to defend PPV is ridiculous because the less people see you - the less opportunities there are to make the real money which is in media apperances and sponsorship. And thats how the likes of Dave 'Boy' Green ended up buying a factory and becoming a multi-millionaire. Even though he didn't become a world champion.

sg1985 wrote:I don't mind paying the £15, but I'm not subscribed to Sky Sports. I can book it through events on Virgin. People shouldn't be paying for Sky Sports and have to pay for a ppv, Sky Sports is ppv.

Well said.

They know the model works in America, so they do PPV here.

I dont swallow that it involves more production money than covering a premiership game.

Carlos-Wigan wrote:

whicker wrote:

Carlos-Wigan wrote: Why do people use free streams? Because they don't want to pay twice for a product they have already paid for!

I'm sure a lot of people use streams instead of buying Sky too.

What contribution do they have to boxing?

£F all.

I think thats Smigga's point.

Who knows in regards to your first point? I don't know, you don't know and how do you know Paul Smith's biggest critic doesn't pay out for every subscription and PPV going - would that make his opinion have more weight if he did?

Anyone who has an interest contributes to boxing and thats it! The day people lose interest then you could have the boxers doing a fan dance after 12 rounds but their wages will be going down the pan and thats that! Again - ask any crown green bowler about the need for public exposure.

Now PPV is hurting the likes of Paul Smith. Name me the last time you saw a boxer on a tv advert or being interviewed on a programme like 'the one show' or was on something like 'have I got news for you' becuse being known gets more exposure and puts more money in your pocket. Even though Frank Bruno was on shows like 'Wogan' and was on TV adverts, a lot of other fighters did well out of advertising, sponsorship (not being sponsored by the local takeaway either) apperances like opening supermarkets and fetes - this wasn't just world champions by the way - Dave 'Boy' Green had high media exposure as did a lot of fighters who fought on terrestial TV - fine - its not like that anymore - but for fighters to defend PPV is ridiculous because the less people see you - the less opportunities there are to make the real money which is in media apperances and sponsorship. And thats how the likes of Dave 'Boy' Green ended up buying a factory and becoming a multi-millionaire. Even though he didn't become a world champion.

Nobody said PPV is hurting me, my point is taken out of context as I thought it might.
I'm getting at the small minority who use the line of "I pay your wages" regardless of if they criticise me or not. My biggest critic could shell out grands for boxing shows or never go to one full stop, they're still entitled to their opinion.
It's the hypocritical few who attach themselves to the real boxing fans' coattails saying they pay fighter's wages when in reality they don't.

Smigga wrote:Nobody said PPV is hurting me, my point is taken out of context as I thought it might.
I'm getting at the small minority who use the line of "I pay your wages" regardless of if they criticise me or not. My biggest critic could shell out grands for boxing shows or never go to one full stop, they're still entitled to their opinion.
It's the hypocritical few who attach themselves to the real boxing fans' coattails saying they pay fighter's wages when in reality they don't.

I'm the one who is saying PPV is hurting your career because it is! Having all your fights and being on a specialist subscription channel is stopping you earning real money and getting you known by the public at large. It hasn't just hurt you, it has hurt the likes of Joe Calazghe and Ricky Hatton more - these are two boxers who should have been on the back of every cornflake box in the land and on every chatshow going but we never ever saw them really in relation to what they achieved - its a shame. You have a lot going for you as in regards attracting the casual fan and getting them to take interest in you which in turn would make you a lot of money - but it can never happen if you are tucked away on a PPV thats within an expensive subscription deal - thats all I am saying.

Smigga wrote:That's what pisses me off sometimes and is a sour point for me on these forums.
The same people asking for streams are the same people that use the line of "I pay your wages" when in reality they don't go the fights and never pay for tv subscription or ppv!

Streams are great for ex-pats living abroad or holidaying but top fights should be payed for. What's £15. Save £1 a week from when the show is announced!

Again this doesn't apply to everyone, just a few before the forum warriors start DD

good point, its a mint bill lets hope it stays like that

orbtastic wrote: Will I end up paying £400 watching this live? Probably

the tickets weren't that expensive mate- or are you thinking about the bar tab at the Prince afterwards?

Counter-puncher wrote:

orbtastic wrote: Will I end up paying £400 watching this live? Probably

the tickets weren't that expensive mate- or are you thinking about the bar tab at the Prince afterwards?

You know what I'm like when I start drinking.