BoxRec

simon fox wrote:I've got the Sky package; sports, movies, internet and phone and it cost me £85 last month; when it's a PPV it goes over £100, nearly what it costs for gas and over the Council Tax payment.

Thats some outlay when you put it that way...

Tommy Gunn13 wrote:

simon fox wrote:I've got the Sky package; sports, movies, internet and phone and it cost me £85 last month; when it's a PPV it goes over £100, nearly what it costs for gas and over the Council Tax payment.

Thats some outlay when you put it that way...

It is Tommy; don't get me wrong, if we didn't enjoy it we'd get shut. I only get the sports for the boxing in any case. PPV is fair enough if it's two superstar fighters squaring off. A British and Commonwealth scrap is not PPV material. Amir Khan is getting better and better and is world class but IMO is not PPV quality. Khan v Bradley would be worth paying for though; with respect Khan v McCloskey should be seen as been paid for in the SKY Sports subscription.

I'm not sure how every PPV costs £15; some are for top class boxers, some PPV are for heavyweight clashes and now it is mooted or proposed for prospects (in world terms).

There ought to be a sliding scale of prices - only the vesy best cards should cost and extra £15 on top of subscription; decent match ups £7.50 etc.

Still, I'll probably end up shelling out, but £15 for a domestic bout + beer = a costly night in

simon fox wrote:

Tommy Gunn13 wrote:

simon fox wrote:I've got the Sky package; sports, movies, internet and phone and it cost me £85 last month; when it's a PPV it goes over £100, nearly what it costs for gas and over the Council Tax payment.

Thats some outlay when you put it that way...

It is Tommy; don't get me wrong, if we didn't enjoy it we'd get shut. I only get the sports for the boxing in any case. PPV is fair enough if it's two superstar fighters squaring off. A British and Commonwealth scrap is not PPV material. Amir Khan is getting better and better and is world class but IMO is not PPV quality. Khan v Bradley would be worth paying for though; with respect Khan v McCloskey should be seen as been paid for in the SKY Sports subscription.

I'm not sure how every PPV costs £15; some are for top class boxers, some PPV are for heavyweight clashes and now it is mooted or proposed for prospects (in world terms).

There ought to be a sliding scale of prices - only the vesy best cards should cost and extra £15 on top of subscription; decent match ups £7.50 etc.

Still, I'll probably end up shelling out, but £15 for a domestic bout + beer = a costly night in

Grab yourself a 15 pack of carlsberg export from asda for £8 and make it a bit cheaper

simon fox wrote:

Tommy Gunn13 wrote:

simon fox wrote:I've got the Sky package; sports, movies, internet and phone and it cost me £85 last month; when it's a PPV it goes over £100, nearly what it costs for gas and over the Council Tax payment.

Thats some outlay when you put it that way...

It is Tommy; don't get me wrong, if we didn't enjoy it we'd get shut. I only get the sports for the boxing in any case. PPV is fair enough if it's two superstar fighters squaring off. A British and Commonwealth scrap is not PPV material. Amir Khan is getting better and better and is world class but IMO is not PPV quality. Khan v Bradley would be worth paying for though; with respect Khan v McCloskey should be seen as been paid for in the SKY Sports subscription.

I'm not sure how every PPV costs £15; some are for top class boxers, some PPV are for heavyweight clashes and now it is mooted or proposed for prospects (in world terms).

There ought to be a sliding scale of prices - only the vesy best cards should cost and extra £15 on top of subscription; decent match ups £7.50 etc.

Still, I'll probably end up shelling out, but £15 for a domestic bout + beer = a costly night in

Totally agree with you Simon...Id pay for Khan-Bradley with a couple of 50/50 good bouts..i wont pay for Khan-McCloskey not with the undercard that has been mentioned....I want to see the Degale-Groves bill,but like ive said i wont pay for what i believe is not PPV worthy...il go out&watch it down my local,prob be a more expensive night but its the principal of the matter...

freddydoesdallas wrote:

simon fox wrote:

Tommy Gunn13 wrote: Thats some outlay when you put it that way...

It is Tommy; don't get me wrong, if we didn't enjoy it we'd get shut. I only get the sports for the boxing in any case. PPV is fair enough if it's two superstar fighters squaring off. A British and Commonwealth scrap is not PPV material. Amir Khan is getting better and better and is world class but IMO is not PPV quality. Khan v Bradley would be worth paying for though; with respect Khan v McCloskey should be seen as been paid for in the SKY Sports subscription.

I'm not sure how every PPV costs £15; some are for top class boxers, some PPV are for heavyweight clashes and now it is mooted or proposed for prospects (in world terms).

There ought to be a sliding scale of prices - only the vesy best cards should cost and extra £15 on top of subscription; decent match ups £7.50 etc.

Still, I'll probably end up shelling out, but £15 for a domestic bout + beer = a costly night in

Grab yourself a 15 pack of carlsberg export from asda for £8 and make it a bit cheaper

I'm such a man though I'd need 5 of those crates

simon fox wrote:I've got the Sky package; sports, movies, internet and phone and it cost me £85 last month; when it's a PPV it goes over £100, nearly what it costs for gas and over the Council Tax payment.

I know the feeling mate. I have a basic Sky package and it's £30+ a month, but when I get PPV it's up to nearly £50! For one night's 'entertainment'

Greedy sods.

Autobarn wrote:obviously this is what it takes for good matchups to be made, given the risks the fighters are taking.

is it worth forking out YET MORE money for, though?

Yeah but what happened to the glory, people used to want to get famous and rich now they just want to get richer.

Autobarn wrote:obviously this is what it takes for good matchups to be made

If you mean the purse bid, then thats a fair point. We all know boxing politics coupled with Sky schedules makes it difficult to secure dates, venues etc, but f we go back a little bit, there was a lot of jostling about with 'PPV' dates between hayemaker, allegedly, khan etc etc. Cleverley v Brahmer was rescheduled etc. 'Sky have this PPV slot available on this date, and this date etc and this PPV slot etc Kahn, Haye, Klit, Chisora, blah, blah, blah. Allegedly probably thought he might get Klitscho v Chisora on this bill, or there would be a fight other than Cleverley v Braehmer to justify it (Froch v Johnson) or whatever. There might have even been a hayemaker plan to put the DeGale v Groves on the Klit v Haye bill for all we know, but that's speculation. They all seemed to be battling against themselves.

If that bill goes out at 15 sheets, and there isn't another world title fight involving a brit the menu, or at least a couple more very good matchups, then it's my humble opinion that, Sky, Allegedly, and indeed Hayemaker are:

1.Neglecting to consider joe public's current economic forecast, and;
2.Taking the fVcking piss out of boxing fans wholesale.

FW already ramping up the promotion. Big advert in the Metro this morning, with the focus being on DeGale Groves.

There's always scope for Cleverly's fight being delayed again and it still being a PPV.

Camcas wrote:

kingfinn wrote:

Camcas wrote:This is more of a PPV than Khan McCloskey

Im not buying that one thats for sure, that should be on normal sky sports. Whats on the undercard?

Macklin but thats about it really

Apparently not anymore

Samuel Brooks wrote:

Camcas wrote:

kingfinn wrote: Im not buying that one thats for sure, that should be on normal sky sports. Whats on the undercard?

Macklin but thats about it really

Apparently not anymore

Kidding me? Firstly the only interesting undercard fight is cancelled, then the next best name?

I've bought some shite PPV's over the years, but the upcoming Khan-McCloskey one is taking the piss. It was a struggle to justify buying it when Crolla-Rees was chief support (really looking forward to that one), but now that's gone I might skip my first PPV in years.

I'm a BIG Khan fan, but £15 for him vs McCloskey is taking the piss IMO (it smacks of fleecing)

Chambers2 wrote:I've bought some shite PPV's over the years, but the upcoming Khan-McCloskey one is taking the piss. It was a struggle to justify buying it when Crolla-Rees was chief support (really looking forward to that one), but now that's gone I might skip my first PPV in years.

I'm a BIG Khan fan, but £15 for him vs McCloskey is taking the piss IMO (it smacks of fleecing)

To be fair, it's got to be better than khan v salita

Khan McCloskey has to be one of worst PPV i can remember

Khan/Fagan and Khan/Salita were both PPV weren't they, on the back of those this sounds like a bargain

We go through carbon copy threads every time there is a PPV!

People often forget Khan v Fagan was paired with Pac v DLH

chinny wrote:We go through carbon copy threads every time there is a PPV!

People often forget Khan v Fagan was paired with Pac v DLH

I'd forgotten!

Final round wrote:Khan/Fagan and Khan/Salita were both PPV weren't they, on the back of those this sounds like a bargain

Ok, Khan-Fagan also had DeLaHoya v Pacman as part of the package. That was a massive event in its own right.

Khan-Salita had Kevin Mitchell v Breidis Prescott as chief support plus the one-siders from DeGale et al. I agree, it should never have been a PPV but the Khan-Mcloskey card is the worst PPV offering we have had for some time!

On the Khan PPV:

The 'main event' (note the use of scare-quotes) is a mismatch, and the undercard now looks very, very poor: none of this is in any way PPV-worthy.

The only reason I'm adding my voice to what has gone before is that I know Ed Robinson and perhaps other Sky movers and shakers read this, and our posts may give them an idea of how boxing fans are feeling.

Although our feelings should be very obvious, given the 'fights' on offer.

I said in a previous thread a month or two ago that the only way I'd pay for this would be if the undercard was good. It isn't, and so I won't.

I've no interest in this card now and have made plans to be somewhere i won't be able to watch it. Told the wife not to buy me the tickets for my birthday either