Schaefer threatens GoldenBoy boycott of Sky Sports over Khan

[Glyn Leach]

You'd think so, wouldn't you. Big one for Sky to miss out on. I'm more worried about Rhodes-Alvarez though - one week away, scheduled for Sky, that one will be the first test of Dicky Boy's resolve. I'll be absolutely gutted if that gets pulled.

Allegedly GBP aren't promoting Ortiz v Mayeather. It will be Floyd Mayweather Promotions first event.

That interesting not a joint promotion?

If GBP drive past a show they'll stick their name on it. They're the pissing dog of boxing promotion. 'My tree, my tree, my tree.'

[stujones]

I can see what alot of posters are saying in applauding Sky quality control - problem I have with it IN THIS CONTEXT - is Khan vs Judah/Bradley are both quality fights. I don't see this as quality control, I see this as Sky "dumping" Khan. Its not as if we see the likes of Sergio Martinez or the Super Bantam tournament on Sky. I just think it is another US based fighter now no longer being shown on Sky -despite some good fights being lined up.

IMO GBP do not need Sky, they sell their fights globally, BSKYB is relatively small cheese for GBP. Obviously they do not make a fortune out of the deal they get from Sky -thats why it is very rare for Sky to show these fights on PPV (cause they are not paying a shit load for them) thats why they could afford to give Malignaggi vs Khan for Free to ITV. Plus they will get some UK TV outlet to sign a deal, even if it means a slight loss compared to what SKy pay.

[Emmseegee]

Khan hasnt had any fights to date that i would class as PPV worthy.
In hindsight id have paid £20 for the Maidana fight but not really before hand.

PPV bills should only be for the top 5 P4P fighters and even at that it should still have strong undercards including Domestic 50-50's like degale v groves etc.

Boxing is a shambles when it comes to this and khan appears to have let himself down with how his team have dealt with things.

[Superheavy]

The undercard on the last Khan bill was poor, but I imagine Sky would still have made money out of the PPV on it. So I see it as Sky taking a stand against Khan in the interests of quality control and also making a statement that they won't be pushed around by the likes of Team Khan (who by the way are doing their lad no favours). I fully support this approach and hope Sky follow it through across the board.

Although Allegedly sometimes takes the mickey with his prospects v bums, TBAs and what not, I think he understands what's needed for a PPV event and at least tries to deliver strength in depth, eg the Magnificant 7 bill, although a pattern has started to emerge of his bills falling apart at the last minute. Sky should watch out for this on future shows and be ready to switch things to non-PPV, even at late notice, if the card doesn't justify it. There should be a mechanism in Sky's contracts with promoters that allows for this - this kind of provision would force promoters' hands a bit more and would lead to more match ups like Price v Dallas (albeit this was in the non-PPV context), where the promoter takes a risk to keep the card together.

[stujones]

The undercard on the last Khan bill was poor, but I imagine Sky would still have made money out of the PPV on it. So I see it as Sky taking a stand against Khan in the interests of quality control and also making a statement that they won't be pushed around by the likes of Team Khan (who by the way are doing their lad no favours). I fully support this approach and hope Sky follow it through across the board.

Although Allegedly sometimes takes the mickey with his prospects v bums, TBAs and what not, I think he understands what's needed for a PPV event and at least tries to deliver strength in depth, eg the Magnificant 7 bill, although a pattern has started to emerge of his bills falling apart at the last minute. Sky should watch out for this on future shows and be ready to switch things to non-PPV, even at late notice, if the card doesn't justify it. There should be a mechanism in Sky's contracts with promoters that allows for this - this kind of provision would force promoters' hands a bit more and would lead to more match ups like Price v Dallas (albeit this was in the non-PPV context), where the promoter takes a risk to keep the card together.

We've just had Degale vs Groves headlining a PPV, we've also had intercontinental title fights headling PPV's.... so I'm not sure I agree with your second paragraph.

[black panther]

I don't see this as quality control, I see this as Sky "dumping" Khan.

That's how I see it. This fight should be on Sky.

[gobbles]

Sky made Khan the fall guy for all the outrage that followed Haye v Harrison, end of.

Obviously, the Khans had nothing to do with Haye v Klitschko. The irony is that the real guilty parties in all of that - Hayemaker, Sky and Sky's new favourite promoter, Eddie Hearn are the ones who are coining it in.

Any news on that Haye-Klitschko undercard? Ola Afolabl v Terry Dunstan and Ashley Sexton v TBA anyone? Sure there's no money around for a decent undercard fight, or is everyone too busy lining Hayemaker's pockets.

Khan should be on Sky.

[Superheavy]

The undercard on the last Khan bill was poor, but I imagine Sky would still have made money out of the PPV on it. So I see it as Sky taking a stand against Khan in the interests of quality control and also making a statement that they won't be pushed around by the likes of Team Khan (who by the way are doing their lad no favours). I fully support this approach and hope Sky follow it through across the board.

Although Allegedly sometimes takes the mickey with his prospects v bums, TBAs and what not, I think he understands what's needed for a PPV event and at least tries to deliver strength in depth, eg the Magnificant 7 bill, although a pattern has started to emerge of his bills falling apart at the last minute. Sky should watch out for this on future shows and be ready to switch things to non-PPV, even at late notice, if the card doesn't justify it. There should be a mechanism in Sky's contracts with promoters that allows for this - this kind of provision would force promoters' hands a bit more and would lead to more match ups like Price v Dallas (albeit this was in the non-PPV context), where the promoter takes a risk to keep the card together.

We've just had Degale vs Groves headlining a PPV, we've also had intercontinental title fights headling PPV's.... so I'm not sure I agree with your second paragraph.

Re Degale v Groves: the main event was meant to be a competitive world title fight. Cleverly alone doesn't have PPV credentials, but the combination of that fight plus Degale v Groves just about got it over the line for me. The Cleverly fight falling through should have triggered a move to non-PPV, with allegedly taking the hit.

[Tommy Gunn13]

Sky made Khan the fall guy for all the outrage that followed Haye v Harrison, end of.

Obviously, the Khans had nothing to do with Haye v Klitschko. The irony is that the real guilty parties in all of that - Hayemaker, Sky and Sky's new favourite promoter, Eddie Hearn are the ones who are coining it in.

Any news on that Haye-Klitschko undercard? Ola Afolabl v Terry Dunstan and Ashley Sexton v TBA anyone? Sure there's no money around for a decent undercard fight, or is everyone too busy lining Hayemaker's pockets.

Khan should be on Sky.

Sexton is having a rematch with Robinson who he boxed recently...pretty shit undercard,but the main event is the one...

[earsjohn]

I can see what alot of posters are saying in applauding Sky quality control - problem I have with it IN THIS CONTEXT - is Khan vs Judah/Bradley are both quality fights. I don't see this as quality control, I see this as Sky "dumping" Khan. Its not as if we see the likes of Sergio Martinez or the Super Bantam tournament on Sky. I just think it is another US based fighter now no longer being shown on Sky -despite some good fights being lined up.

IMO GBP do not need Sky, they sell their fights globally, BSKYB is relatively small cheese for GBP. Obviously they do not make a fortune out of the deal they get from Sky -thats why it is very rare for Sky to show these fights on PPV (cause they are not paying a shit load for them) thats why they could afford to give Malignaggi vs Khan for Free to ITV. Plus they will get some UK TV outlet to sign a deal, even if it means a slight loss compared to what SKy pay.

So you don't think that GBP will want to maximise their earnings in the UK when we're talking about a UK world champion and former olympic silver medallist who has a huge profile among casuals and the non-boxing public? If the rights are available, GBP will let them go to the highest bidder. If Prime Time outbid sky, use PPV and fail to cover their costs, will GBP care? No. If Five outbid Sky....oh wait a minute, Five have never outbid Sky for a single item of sporting coverage in their 15 year existence. Sky will make a bid based on what they think the fight is worth - the most important factor is that it will be in Vegas at 4am UK time. If that is the highest bid and it meets with the GBP valuation of the rights, it'll go to sky.

Some of the complaints about Sky in this case seem to be a smokescreen disguising the fact that Khan - Judah is going out at 4am (and not a more reasonable 2am, say), will not be available in HD and will cost £15.

[johnswan1]

Oh dear... just read this elsewhere. Perhaps he should have stayed with Frank!

"I don't know if it's me, or if they don't enjoy my boxing style, but when I was with [former promoter] allegedly they showed my fights with [Dmitri] Salita and [Oisin] Fagan, and they were nobodies," said the reigning World Boxing Association beltholder.

[Glyn Leach]

Says it all, really.

[Chambers2]

If Team Khan had put on a semi-respectable undercard there wouldn't have been an issue. I'm glad Sky made a stand as the bill wasn't PPV worthy

[Tommy Gunn13]

If Team Khan had put on a semi-respectable undercard there wouldn't have been an issue. I'm glad Sky made a stand as the bill wasn't PPV worthy

X2... The undercard to Klit-Haye isnt all that,but the main event is prob one of the biggest fights in the game...

[stujones]

If Team Khan had put on a semi-respectable undercard there wouldn't have been an issue. I'm glad Sky made a stand as the bill wasn't PPV worthy

All true, don't get me wrong. However, team GBP/Khan/Hatton (whoever you want to say) - approached Sky with the name McCloskey and sky accepted it. They didn't go... "oh hang on, we'll accept it only if you promise us a good undercard". We didn't see the most recent PPV being promoted as Clev vs Brahmer and Degale vs TBA when it was first announced.

There was the rumour that Tyson Fury was going to be on the undercard. There is no way that Tyson Fury vs whoever was tabled to Sky when it was first announced because Fury had a fight against an undefeated puncher before hand.

I think it is a case of two wrongs.... I think sky were wrong to accept it as a PPV in the first case and I also think it is a bit wrong for Sky to go back on their agreement.

[stujones]

I can see what alot of posters are saying in applauding Sky quality control - problem I have with it IN THIS CONTEXT - is Khan vs Judah/Bradley are both quality fights. I don't see this as quality control, I see this as Sky "dumping" Khan. Its not as if we see the likes of Sergio Martinez or the Super Bantam tournament on Sky. I just think it is another US based fighter now no longer being shown on Sky -despite some good fights being lined up.

IMO GBP do not need Sky, they sell their fights globally, BSKYB is relatively small cheese for GBP. Obviously they do not make a fortune out of the deal they get from Sky -thats why it is very rare for Sky to show these fights on PPV (cause they are not paying a shit load for them) thats why they could afford to give Malignaggi vs Khan for Free to ITV. Plus they will get some UK TV outlet to sign a deal, even if it means a slight loss compared to what SKy pay.

So you don't think that GBP will want to maximise their earnings in the UK when we're talking about a UK world champion and former olympic silver medallist who has a huge profile among casuals and the non-boxing public? If the rights are available, GBP will let them go to the highest bidder. If Prime Time outbid sky, use PPV and fail to cover their costs, will GBP care? No. If Five outbid Sky....oh wait a minute, Five have never outbid Sky for a single item of sporting coverage in their 15 year existence. Sky will make a bid based on what they think the fight is worth - the most important factor is that it will be in Vegas at 4am UK time. If that is the highest bid and it meets with the GBP valuation of the rights, it'll go to sky.

Some of the complaints about Sky in this case seem to be a smokescreen disguising the fact that Khan - Judah is going out at 4am (and not a more reasonable 2am, say), will not be available in HD and will cost £15.

In theory you are very correct, but I'm not sure we see this the same way.

Essentially, from how I read the article, despite the promising that all future shows will go to Primetime after the McCloskey fiasco - they offered Sky the chance to table a bid for the Judah fight.... and for whatever reason Sky were outbidded (maybe Sky didn't put in a bid).

You raise an important point about the time issue, very correct - but Khan vs Judah is a quality fight - thats my arguement. Now, maybe Sky could have worked with the Hattons (as an example) to generate a UK leg of the PPV.... E.g. Watson vs Purdy 2.... plus the undercard from the states. There is also a quality Heavyweight title fight going on in the UK that needs TV that day.

My other points were mainly a response to the view that GPB need Sky... no they don't. How many live GBP a year to Sky show these days. We get Pacquiao and thats essentially it - and I don't think they pay that much for Pacquiao, thats why he isn't PPV - unless he is fighting Oscar or Ricky.

[LeedsLad]

I don't think Khan generates enough buys to fund a good quality UK leg and make the money that he/his backers feels he deserves at the moment.

There seems to be a great disparity between what Sky reckon he'll shift, the criteria they want for a PPV now and what they went.

Something has got to give.

I was as critical as anyone for Sky accepting some pretty soft Khan fights as PPV, but at least they had good undercards..... Haye vs Harrison was the last straw I think for them and now the rules have changed.

It's a different beast to HBO, who do what Oscar tells them.

[allahsnackbar]

Sky caused this entire situation by putting Khan on PPV vs Prescott/Fagan/Salita//Barrera.

Absolutely ridiculous fights for PPV.

Then they refuse McCloskey, who was probably a more interesting fight than the above. Boxers are egomaniacs and Khan simply can't actually understand why Sky did put those fights on PPV but not the McCloskey one. If Sky are going to take the stance they are taking now, they have to be consistant from here on out. No garbage on PPV. With streams around these days, they would want to be putting value up on PPV. Anybody can go online and find a good stream to their PPV without difficulty so they would want to be putting on quality to get people paying.

And LOSE THE ADDS BETWEEN ROUNDS ON PPVS FFS!!

[keithmoonhangover]

It's just words. I really can't see Golden Boy taking, say, Floyd v Ortiz to an obscure, non-HD PPV platform over skys offering. It'll come down to $$$ at the end of it and if Prime Time can outbid Sky and turn a profit on a Floyd fight at 4am then I will eat Tyson Fury's used undercrackers.

Please, I've just eaten me dinner. D :(

[jtourettes]

Sky made Khan the fall guy for all the outrage that followed Haye v Harrison, end of.

Obviously, the Khans had nothing to do with Haye v Klitschko. The irony is that the real guilty parties in all of that - Hayemaker, Sky and Sky's new favourite promoter, Eddie Hearn are the ones who are coining it in.

Any news on that Haye-Klitschko undercard? Ola Afolabl v Terry Dunstan and Ashley Sexton v TBA anyone? Sure there's no money around for a decent undercard fight, or is everyone too busy lining Hayemaker's pockets.

Khan should be on Sky.

So what if they have? The fact remains that Khan is not now, nor has he ever been, a big PPV star. If Sky want to finally exercise a bit of quality control I'm all for it. You're almost sounding like Khan and his manager on twitter, basically saying Sky have shown rubbish PPV's before so they should again.

[jizzle]

Sky pay the money they think they'll be able to get back from broadcasting the event.

If it makes sense, they'll do the deal. If not, they won't.

Ever notice how Hearn doesn't give any trouble, he knows how to play the game.

The trouble comes when you have managers/promoters who don't understand basic economics or the art of negotiation. For reference see Khan's Manager Asif and Hennessey.

[Chambers2]

If Team Khan had put on a semi-respectable undercard there wouldn't have been an issue. I'm glad Sky made a stand as the bill wasn't PPV worthy

All true, don't get me wrong. However, team GBP/Khan/Hatton (whoever you want to say) - approached Sky with the name McCloskey and sky accepted it. They didn't go... "oh hang on, we'll accept it only if you promise us a good undercard". We didn't see the most recent PPV being promoted as Clev vs Brahmer and Degale vs TBA when it was first announced.

There was the rumour that Tyson Fury was going to be on the undercard. There is no way that Tyson Fury vs whoever was tabled to Sky when it was first announced because Fury had a fight against an undefeated puncher before hand.

I think it is a case of two wrongs.... I think sky were wrong to accept it as a PPV in the first case and I also think it is a bit wrong for Sky to go back on their agreement.

Yeah I agree, Sky have to shoulder some of the blame for the fiasco. Sky need to have clearly defined requirements/standards (regarding undercard, late replacements etc.) at the time they accept the fight. Did Sky accept the fight prior to Haye-Harrison taking place? as that may have moved goalposts

IMO it was debatable whether Khan Vs McCloskey should've been a PPV fight, so it needed backing up with a good support bout at least. There would've been no problems at all at they done that. Lets hope Sky have learnt the lessons

[stujones]

Sky made Khan the fall guy for all the outrage that followed Haye v Harrison, end of.

Obviously, the Khans had nothing to do with Haye v Klitschko. The irony is that the real guilty parties in all of that - Hayemaker, Sky and Sky's new favourite promoter, Eddie Hearn are the ones who are coining it in.

Any news on that Haye-Klitschko undercard? Ola Afolabl v Terry Dunstan and Ashley Sexton v TBA anyone? Sure there's no money around for a decent undercard fight, or is everyone too busy lining Hayemaker's pockets.

Khan should be on Sky.

So what if they have? The fact remains that Khan is not now, nor has he ever been, a big PPV star. If Sky want to finally exercise a bit of quality control I'm all for it. You're almost sounding like Khan and his manager on twitter, basically saying Sky have shown rubbish PPV's before so they should again.

Anymore of a PPV star than Degale, Groves or Cleverly?

Its not a case of quality control though as these fights being tabled are quality fights. If Khan is not a PPV star in his own right then the ball is in Sky's court... they either try and generate a profile (via it being on Sky Sports) or they say "it will never happen, and lets not bother" but lets not blame it on a lack of quality.... Apparently Bradley was offered in the UK and Sky rejected it.

If Primetime feel Khan is worth the gamble and prepared to outbid Sky and place on PPV - then that is their decision and business plan. Two very different business plans maybe, but no essential right and wrong. GBP and Khan simply want the most money for these fights... Sky don't think its is worth it.... but it not a case of quality control - these are unification fights.

Its simply saying to me that Sky are not prepared to pay loads and loads for boxing.... You might think that it is something to be applauded - I personally am worried. I can see exactly what team Khan are thinking.... Sky are now rejecting top quality opponents for Amir. Yes, it might be because he is not a PPV fighter - but is Degale etc?

[stujones]

If Team Khan had put on a semi-respectable undercard there wouldn't have been an issue. I'm glad Sky made a stand as the bill wasn't PPV worthy

All true, don't get me wrong. However, team GBP/Khan/Hatton (whoever you want to say) - approached Sky with the name McCloskey and sky accepted it. They didn't go... "oh hang on, we'll accept it only if you promise us a good undercard". We didn't see the most recent PPV being promoted as Clev vs Brahmer and Degale vs TBA when it was first announced.

There was the rumour that Tyson Fury was going to be on the undercard. There is no way that Tyson Fury vs whoever was tabled to Sky when it was first announced because Fury had a fight against an undefeated puncher before hand.

I think it is a case of two wrongs.... I think sky were wrong to accept it as a PPV in the first case and I also think it is a bit wrong for Sky to go back on their agreement.

Yeah I agree, Sky have to shoulder some of the blame for the fiasco. Sky need to have clearly defined requirements/standards (regarding undercard, late replacements etc.) at the time they accept the fight. Did Sky accept the fight prior to Haye-Harrison taking place? as that may have moved goalposts

IMO it was debatable whether Khan Vs McCloskey should've been a PPV fight, so it needed backing up with a good support bout at least. There would've been no problems at all at they done that. Lets hope Sky have learnt the lessons

Agree, but they should have had the undercard set in stone before signing the agreement. A good post on Harrison vs Haye - although I partially disagree at the end of the day Sky are interested in viewing figures and I think that one did very well.... they went out that one smiling.

[jtourettes]

Anymore of a PPV star than Degale, Groves or Cleverly?

Its not a case of quality control though as these fights being tabled are quality fights. If Khan is not a PPV star in his own right then the ball is in Sky's court... they either try and generate a profile (via it being on Sky Sports) or they say "it will never happen, and lets not bother" but lets not blame it on a lack of quality.... Apparently Bradley was offered in the UK and Sky rejected it.

If Primetime feel Khan is worth the gamble and prepared to outbid Sky and place on PPV - then that is their decision and business plan. Two very different business plans maybe, but no essential right and wrong. GBP and Khan simply want the most money for these fights... Sky don't think its is worth it.... but it not a case of quality control - these are unification fights.

Its simply saying to me that Sky are not prepared to pay loads and loads for boxing.... You might think that it is something to be applauded - I personally am worried. I can see exactly what team Khan are thinking.... Sky are now rejecting top quality opponents for Amir. Yes, it might be because he is not a PPV fighter - but is Degale etc?

Sorry, should've gone into more detail. The quality control was aimed at the McCloskey fiasco and I also meant to say that Sky aren't prepared to over pay for fighters or stick fights on PPV that won't make them money. I don't think Degale/Cleverly double bill should've been a PPV but I can see more justifcation for it than the Khan bill, given the hype and covergae it received.

I'm not particularly worried if they're rejecting someone who has been a proven flop at PPV level. Apart from that I basically agree with a lot of what you said