Page 2 of 3

Re: Allegedly Channel

Posted: 06 Jan 2012, 05:42
by twenty six
That's it, Orb.
Once BN starts showing its own excellent bills then Allegedly will own the rights.

Re: Allegedly Channel

Posted: 06 Jan 2012, 05:46
by dbf
stujones wrote:
Dirk Kelly wrote:Who actually owns the rights to all those Sports Network fights with Naz, Joe C etc?

Is it Frank or would it have been his promotional company, Sports Network and when this went into administration did someone buy them?

Stupid question but I take it boxers don't get a royalty every time one of their old fights is shown like actors do? Wonder if boxers will try for this in the future when channels will be showing old fights in a continous reel.
Its a good question, it seems a complex issue. Even though boxing on TV ends with a copyright to the Broadcaster, it doesn't seem to be that easy. I remember Sportnetwork withdrawing a lot of youtube versions of old ITV "big fight" clips (even for those clips that played the fantastic theme tune) - it stated the rights were owned by SportsNetwork.

However, don't really see any "thanks to" credit when ITV chose to repeat or show clips from old boxing shows.

Allegedly channel has shown a fair amount of repeat from the Sport Network archive (early Khan fights etc).
Out of interest are the repeats of old SN shows on BN with the original ITV commentary etc? On FW's website he used to show recent fights but with different commentary which made it quite dull.

BN really need to capatilise on their USP - they are a dedicated boxing channel! This is a chance to have tonnes of exclusive interviews with boxers, trainers, fans etc. Short documentaries, fly on the wall, boxers in focus etc.

Re: Allegedly Channel

Posted: 06 Jan 2012, 06:03
by orbtastic
twenty six wrote:That's it, Orb.
Once BN starts showing its own excellent bills then Allegedly will own the rights.
I've no idea how the contract stacks up, but one thing's for certain - FW doesn't own the rights to rebroadcast what SKY broadcast, they alone broadcast that. That's why his youtube channel has their own in-house commentary.

Obviously he "owns" the content that SKY (for example) broadcast so I imagine somewhere deep in their contracts he has the "rights" to that.

I remember re-watching Skelton/Rogan on CH456 in the early days before it was common knowledge that it was a FW channel and I genuinely cannot remember if it had the original SKY commentary on it. I think I would say not, but don't quote me.

Re: Allegedly Channel

Posted: 06 Jan 2012, 07:36
by stujones
They show Sky fights (Khan vs Fagin etc) with the original Sky commentary team.

They show ITV fights (Khan vs St Claire, Mac vs Braithwaite etc) with the original ITV team I would imagine (well its Rawling and McKenzie - I guess they could over dub).

Mmmm..... not saying anything, but definately Khan vs Fagin end credits (on its original broadcast) says copyright BSkyB on it.

Re: Allegedly Channel

Posted: 06 Jan 2012, 08:03
by orbtastic
Exact same scenario with Matchroom/Barry Hearn and ITV and ProBox back in the early 90s etc.

Re: Allegedly Channel

Posted: 06 Jan 2012, 08:32
by stujones
orbtastic wrote:Exact same scenario with Matchroom/Barry Hearn and ITV and ProBox back in the early 90s etc.
Sorry, care to expand? Wasn't Probox a "Matchroom" product? I didn't watch probox at the time as we only had terrestial - but I have seen Probox repeats and at the end it says copyright Matchroom. It seems to be produced by Matchroom team.

I don't think these highlights that were on allegedly are produced by allegedly themselves.

Re: Allegedly Channel

Posted: 06 Jan 2012, 08:38
by orbtastic
ProBox would show fights that ITV previously broadcast.

I don't doubt that CH456 have showed verbatim SKY shows but they are all relatively recent so that may be something in his last contract with them, as he probably already had one eye on going ahead with that. It would also explain why older Sp*rts Netw*rk shows haven't been shown on BN as people are suggesting should be done.

Like I said - check out his YouTube channel, it's all got SN team commentary on it, plus all the interviews etc from the girl who works for them.

Re: Allegedly Channel

Posted: 06 Jan 2012, 09:00
by stujones
orbtastic wrote:ProBox would show fights that ITV previously broadcast.

I don't doubt that CH456 have showed verbatim SKY shows but they are all relatively recent so that may be something in his last contract with them, as he probably already had one eye on going ahead with that. It would also explain why older Sp*rts Netw*rk shows haven't been shown on BN as people are suggesting should be done.

Like I said - check out his YouTube channel, it's all got SN team commentary on it, plus all the interviews etc from the girl who works for them.
But they have been albeit more sporadically and not exactly from the Eubank era. Braithwaite vs Maccarinelli was a SN show and on ITV.

Re: Allegedly Channel

Posted: 06 Jan 2012, 09:02
by orbtastic
Like I say, no idea what his contracts say.

I can't actually remember who the ITV commentary team were at the time but Rawling/Duke sounds about right.

I don't think I'm either disagreeing or agreeing.

As several people have said already, it will be a rights issue.

Re: Allegedly Channel

Posted: 06 Jan 2012, 09:42
by Josh1111
Tommy Gunn13 wrote:
Josh1111 wrote:
jessi wrote:It's only the 6th of January, give it a chance, there's gone be loads of live shows in the next few months :TU:
But they promised 2 a week which they have failed to deliver
Did you really believe they were going to put 2 on a week :oo
Nooooooooooooo, hence why i never signed up to the channel

Re: Allegedly Channel

Posted: 06 Jan 2012, 09:55
by jtourettes
If Only BoxingChat had been online recently, I'm sure he would've answered these questions.

Re: Allegedly Channel

Posted: 06 Jan 2012, 23:34
by jessi
Josh1111 wrote:
jessi wrote:It's only the 6th of January, give it a chance, there's gone be loads of live shows in the next few months :TU:
But they promised 2 a week which they have failed to deliver
I didn't expect anything between Xmas and say the 21st of January anyway, I'm confident they will have two live shows again soon, I know some of the fights are not what everyone's hoped for but I'm giving it a chance until may.

Re: Allegedly Channel

Posted: 07 Jan 2012, 02:21
by Deserter
jtourettes wrote:If Only BoxingChat had been online recently, I'm sure he would've answered these questions.
:lol: :lol:

Re: Allegedly Channel

Posted: 07 Jan 2012, 04:18
by leforge
jessi wrote:
Josh1111 wrote:
jessi wrote:It's only the 6th of January, give it a chance, there's gone be loads of live shows in the next few months :TU:
But they promised 2 a week which they have failed to deliver
I didn't expect anything between Xmas and say the 21st of January anyway, I'm confident they will have two live shows again soon, I know some of the fights are not what everyone's hoped for but I'm giving it a chance until may.
The quality if the uk shows in next few months is very poor!

Re: Allegedly Channel

Posted: 07 Jan 2012, 05:53
by steve689
There was talk at the start that they were going to be screening MMA and getting hold of De La Hoya's video archives or something, if I remember correctly. Even some old documentaries would spice things up a bit, or small hall show footage. Many small hall shows are filmed by independent cameras. I remember at a Hyland show in Dublin a couple of years ago they were selling the DVDs of their previous show at the door on a table for 5 euro, so the footage is available and I'm sure an agreement could be made that would suit all parties. Possibly...

Re: Allegedly Channel

Posted: 07 Jan 2012, 06:04
by Finn
jessi wrote:It's only the 6th of January, give it a chance, there's gone be loads of live shows in the next few months :TU:
Then why start the subscriptions in november and have no fights for 2 or 3 months? surely thats a con job.

Re: Allegedly Channel

Posted: 07 Jan 2012, 06:06
by Finn
dbf wrote:
stujones wrote:
Dirk Kelly wrote:Who actually owns the rights to all those Sports Network fights with Naz, Joe C etc?

Is it Frank or would it have been his promotional company, Sports Network and when this went into administration did someone buy them?

Stupid question but I take it boxers don't get a royalty every time one of their old fights is shown like actors do? Wonder if boxers will try for this in the future when channels will be showing old fights in a continous reel.
Its a good question, it seems a complex issue. Even though boxing on TV ends with a copyright to the Broadcaster, it doesn't seem to be that easy. I remember Sportnetwork withdrawing a lot of youtube versions of old ITV "big fight" clips (even for those clips that played the fantastic theme tune) - it stated the rights were owned by SportsNetwork.

However, don't really see any "thanks to" credit when ITV chose to repeat or show clips from old boxing shows.

Allegedly channel has shown a fair amount of repeat from the Sport Network archive (early Khan fights etc).
Out of interest are the repeats of old SN shows on BN with the original ITV commentary etc? On FW's website he used to show recent fights but with different commentary which made it quite dull.

BN really need to capatilise on their USP - they are a dedicated boxing channel! This is a chance to have tonnes of exclusive interviews with boxers, trainers, fans etc. Short documentaries, fly on the wall, boxers in focus etc.
Bingo! that is what people were expecting instead its repeats of fights from the last 3 months and no live boxing.

It would be so easy to do as well, they dont have to do anything big budget just get some interviews like jayne couch does (or just hire jayne couch); boxers with their hair down having a laugh, the type of non staged interviews you dont get on the normal sports channels. Get a few sparring sessions on tape and some docs on the training process. Do some day in the life of Billy Joe saunders, Heffron, chisora etc docs its so easy to do yet its not done.

Re: Allegedly Channel

Posted: 07 Jan 2012, 06:08
by Lightsoot
In the very early days the only place you could watch Matchroom's bills was on SCREENSPORT in the late 80s / early 90s, which later got gobbled by Eurosport.

Some of the Eubank fights were broadcast simultaneously by Screensport / Eurosport & ITV. Trust me, I'm old enough to remember. I used to love watching these shows with my Dad on a Tuesday night.

Re: Allegedly Channel

Posted: 07 Jan 2012, 09:05
by oliverfennell
DavidPayne wrote:If you put your head in a lions mouth and you look like a gullible Gazelle....
....you're a real boxing fan.

Re: Allegedly Channel

Posted: 07 Jan 2012, 09:38
by ThereByTheGrace
Its the ultimate catch 22; allegedly can only attract top class opponents if the channel picks up subscribers. Fans are not willing to pay money for sub par fights so we're just stuck with it until the channel ceases to exist and allegedly goes back to Sky with his tail between his legs!

Re: Allegedly Channel

Posted: 07 Jan 2012, 09:53
by jessi
kingfinn wrote:
jessi wrote:It's only the 6th of January, give it a chance, there's gone be loads of live shows in the next few months :TU:
Then why start the subscriptions in november and have no fights for 2 or 3 months? surely thats a con job.
i thought that too, i wanted to watch cleverly v bomber so had to do it, im looking forward to chisora v vitali and gavins return in the next couple of months, like i said before im going to give it till may and revaluate.

Re: Allegedly Channel

Posted: 07 Jan 2012, 10:15
by leforge
jessi wrote:
kingfinn wrote:
jessi wrote:It's only the 6th of January, give it a chance, there's gone be loads of live shows in the next few months :TU:
Then why start the subscriptions in november and have no fights for 2 or 3 months? surely thats a con job.
i thought that too, i wanted to watch cleverly v bomber so had to do it, im looking forward to chisora v vitali and gavins return in the next couple of months, like i said before im going to give it till may and revaluate.
Chisora v Vitali going to be a one sided beating. Povetkin v Huck on 25th is there best show. I imagine Gavin might fight the guy who beat Dean Byrne.

Re: Allegedly Channel

Posted: 07 Jan 2012, 11:59
by Finn
jessi wrote:
kingfinn wrote:
jessi wrote:It's only the 6th of January, give it a chance, there's gone be loads of live shows in the next few months :TU:
Then why start the subscriptions in november and have no fights for 2 or 3 months? surely thats a con job.
i thought that too, i wanted to watch cleverly v bomber so had to do it, im looking forward to chisora v vitali and gavins return in the next couple of months, like i said before im going to give it till may and revaluate.
clev v bomber was on when the channel was free, which makes the whole situation even worst.

Re: Allegedly Channel

Posted: 07 Jan 2012, 12:13
by jessi
leforge wrote:
jessi wrote:
kingfinn wrote: Then why start the subscriptions in november and have no fights for 2 or 3 months? surely thats a con job.
i thought that too, i wanted to watch cleverly v bomber so had to do it, im looking forward to chisora v vitali and gavins return in the next couple of months, like i said before im going to give it till may and revaluate.
Chisora v Vitali going to be a one sided beating. Povetkin v Huck on 25th is there best show. I imagine Gavin might fight the guy who beat Dean Byrne.
I think chisora will surprise a few people, huck v povetkin should be good, so will gavin against the Frenchman, there you go, 2012 is up and running

Re: Allegedly Channel

Posted: 07 Jan 2012, 12:15
by jessi
kingfinn wrote:
jessi wrote:
kingfinn wrote: Then why start the subscriptions in november and have no fights for 2 or 3 months? surely thats a con job.
i thought that too, i wanted to watch cleverly v bomber so had to do it, im looking forward to chisora v vitali and gavins return in the next couple of months, like i said before im going to give it till may and revaluate.
clev v bomber was on when the channel was free, which makes the whole situation even worst.
So it was, ok so I don't have much for my argument, I still think £10 per month isn't too bad, of course £5 per month would be better but would they get more than double the subscribers ?