BoxRec

Kevin Bennett vs Graham Earl. How can you say that this was bad and not good value. It was a great fight for the british title it was never sold as a great ppv is was the only way we could get it on the air at that time and was not on sky we did this with a small tv company as we could get no over tv to take it and i believe it was only £4.99 or maybe £5.99 plus there was a few good fights on the undercard. So if you were a boxing fan and could not get to york hall that hot sunday night i think this was quite good value. Just to let you all know it did not make any money and later was showing on channel 5.

stujones wrote:The thing that annoyed me most about the Bennett vs Earl bill is, if memory serves me correct, the Maloneys were promising to show the whole card for the price. They ended up just showing Oakey getting robbed by Haymer and the Tyson vs McBride fight. Really annoyed me as I'd paid for Tyson vs McBride before.

It was quite shabby, remember those videos Eugine was putting up on his site advertising that you could watch it on the net for something like 3 quid... or 8 quid Setanta... then about 2 days before the fight "umm... sorry, the online thing is a no go now".

Sorry just saw this one it was £8 still not bad at todays market and we did do a deal with the tv company to show most of the card but we are in the hands of the tv company once they go on air and it was them that pull the internet idea and changed what they showed. We were told after the cost of live air time did not match up to the buys this did around 3235 buys i know it cost the tv and our selfs quite a bit to put it on the air but you have to gamble and take chances sometime.
But what i find hard to understand is no one makes you buy ppv is your choice thats the beauty of it and yes you are intitle to your say and have a moan but you cant blame the TV company if a fighter does not live up to his shouting how many times have you watch a game of football and said this is the one and is be so bad you turn it off everytime i watch England.

Chambers2 wrote:

dbf wrote:The magnificent seven should never have been a pay per view. Good card but not ppv worthy. PPV should only be reserved for mega fights.

Without PPV money the Magnificent 7 wouldn't have happened. I liked the format of having half a dozen competitive fights round the British and European scene, IMO it was nice to have a change from the traditional setup of a good main event and decent support

Agree with this. Seven well-matched fights, even if none of them involved a huge name, is decent value for money.

Of course it could be argued that any one of those fights was a Friday/Saturday Fight Night main event at best, but to have them all on one night, rather than spread out over separate shows over the course of, say, two or three months, is what made it special.

FtmPress wrote:Kevin Bennett vs Graham Earl. How can you say that this was bad and not good value. It was a great fight for the british title it was never sold as a great ppv is was the only way we could get it on the air at that time and was not on sky we did this with a small tv company as we could get no over tv to take it and i believe it was only £4.99 or maybe £5.99 plus there was a few good fights on the undercard. So if you were a boxing fan and could not get to york hall that hot sunday night i think this was quite good value. Just to let you all know it did not make any money and later was showing on channel 5.

Nobody's saying it was a bad fight or card, just that it was not something that was bigger/better than a usual "free" televised bill.

FtmPress wrote:But what i find hard to understand is no one makes you buy ppv is your choice thats the beauty of it and yes you are intitle to your say and have a moan.

Well, there's the point I made. Of course it's the buyer's choice, but as I said earlier, the act of buying doesn't disqualify the buyer from commenting afterwards. If you go to the cinema but the film was crap, you can still say the film was crap even though it was entirely your choice to buy a ticket. Same deal here.

So nobody is saying there should be no PPV; we've all accepted it's here to stay. But as with any entertainment medium, there will be good and bad examples of it, so all we're doing is highlighting the bad ones.

oliverfennell wrote:

FtmPress wrote:But what i find hard to understand is no one makes you buy ppv is your choice thats the beauty of it and yes you are intitle to your say and have a moan.

Well, there's the point I made. Of course it's the buyer's choice, but as I said earlier, the act of buying doesn't disqualify the buyer from commenting afterwards. If you go to the cinema but the film was crap, you can still say the film was crap even though it was entirely your choice to buy a ticket. Same deal here.

So nobody is saying there should be no PPV; we've all accepted it's here to stay. But as with any entertainment medium, there will be good and bad examples of it, so all we're doing is highlighting the bad ones.

But with a trip to the movies, if you go to watch a film that all the critics and all the reviews say is cack and it stars people who have consistently been in crap films, do you really have a right to bitch about it and accuse the cinema and the film company and the movie stars of robbing you blind?

earsjohn wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

FtmPress wrote:But what i find hard to understand is no one makes you buy ppv is your choice thats the beauty of it and yes you are intitle to your say and have a moan.

Well, there's the point I made. Of course it's the buyer's choice, but as I said earlier, the act of buying doesn't disqualify the buyer from commenting afterwards. If you go to the cinema but the film was crap, you can still say the film was crap even though it was entirely your choice to buy a ticket. Same deal here.

So nobody is saying there should be no PPV; we've all accepted it's here to stay. But as with any entertainment medium, there will be good and bad examples of it, so all we're doing is highlighting the bad ones.

But with a trip to the movies, if you go to watch a film that all the critics and all the reviews say is cack and it stars people who have consistently been in crap films, do you really have a right to bitch about it and accuse the cinema and the film company and the movie stars of robbing you blind?

Good question. You might feel aggrieved if all you knew of the movie was from the trailer, which made it look awesome, which can compare with those who buy a boxing PPV based on the Sky hype. Of course Sky is just doing its job there, though.

But let's say, regardless of the artistic merits of the movie, when you buy a cinema ticket, you expect to see around 90-120 minutes of film. What if you then got 30 minutes for the same price? My main bone of contention with last Saturday is not the quality of the main event, but that Sky offered the grand total of two fights in the package.

They should have stuck a heavyweight prizefighter on the undercard

oliverfennell wrote:

earsjohn wrote:

oliverfennell wrote: Well, there's the point I made. Of course it's the buyer's choice, but as I said earlier, the act of buying doesn't disqualify the buyer from commenting afterwards. If you go to the cinema but the film was crap, you can still say the film was crap even though it was entirely your choice to buy a ticket. Same deal here.

So nobody is saying there should be no PPV; we've all accepted it's here to stay. But as with any entertainment medium, there will be good and bad examples of it, so all we're doing is highlighting the bad ones.

But with a trip to the movies, if you go to watch a film that all the critics and all the reviews say is cack and it stars people who have consistently been in crap films, do you really have a right to bitch about it and accuse the cinema and the film company and the movie stars of robbing you blind?

Good question. You might feel aggrieved if all you knew of the movie was from the trailer, which made it look awesome, which can compare with those who buy a boxing PPV based on the Sky hype. Of course Sky is just doing its job there, though.

But let's say, regardless of the artistic merits of the movie, when you buy a cinema ticket, you expect to see around 90-120 minutes of film. What if you then got 30 minutes for the same price? My main bone of contention with last Saturday is not the quality of the main event, but that Sky offered the grand total of two fights in the package.

Well that's fair enough. I can't see anything changing though. The majority of the people who bought the fight, bought it for one fight and wouldn't be able to pick any of the undercard fighters in a 2-man line up! I'd imagine a good deal will have ended happy at seeing a fairly destructive finish and the continuation of a British Heavyweight title reign. As I read somewhere before the fight, the night was not for boxing fans, but for your average man on the street. Are those guys really likely not to buy Haye's next fight on PPV if it features a Klit or an Adamek?

What I'd like to see is the presentation effort Sky put into the night going into more of their shows. The Dec 11th show deserves more than the old fashioned approach, but I fear that the spangly presentation will only be wheeled out for the big fights (so maybe be saved for the Khan fight later that night)

oliverfennell wrote:

FtmPress wrote:Kevin Bennett vs Graham Earl. How can you say that this was bad and not good value. It was a great fight for the british title it was never sold as a great ppv is was the only way we could get it on the air at that time and was not on sky we did this with a small tv company as we could get no over tv to take it and i believe it was only £4.99 or maybe £5.99 plus there was a few good fights on the undercard. So if you were a boxing fan and could not get to york hall that hot sunday night i think this was quite good value. Just to let you all know it did not make any money and later was showing on channel 5.

Nobody's saying it was a bad fight or card, just that it was not something that was bigger/better than a usual "free" televised bill.

I am not disagreeing with you but the point i was making there was no free to air tv who would buy it and we had no other alternative we try a new approach to getting a fight to air and as i said before we did not do to well on the ppv platform but we took a gamble.

FtmPress wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

FtmPress wrote:Kevin Bennett vs Graham Earl. How can you say that this was bad and not good value. It was a great fight for the british title it was never sold as a great ppv is was the only way we could get it on the air at that time and was not on sky we did this with a small tv company as we could get no over tv to take it and i believe it was only £4.99 or maybe £5.99 plus there was a few good fights on the undercard. So if you were a boxing fan and could not get to york hall that hot sunday night i think this was quite good value. Just to let you all know it did not make any money and later was showing on channel 5.

Nobody's saying it was a bad fight or card, just that it was not something that was bigger/better than a usual "free" televised bill.

I am not disagreeing with you but the point i was making there was no free to air tv who would buy it and we had no other alternative we try a new approach to getting a fight to air and as i said before we did not do to well on the ppv platform but we took a gamble.

nothing wrong with that