BoxRec

reggaereggae wrote:

MarkMcBurney wrote:A lot of absolute bollocks being spoken on here. I for one enjoy Tris' work, but I accept that is subjective. What I can not comprehend are the personal attacks on him. I've been fortunate enough to meet him several times, each time when he's been on his way home after a long trip - he lives in Wiltshire - and has happily stopped to talk boxing with me, after doing so all day, when I'm certain he'd rather be at home with his family than talking work with a cabbie. He even checked that I'd managed to get tickets for Froch v Kessler 2.

Tris is a top man and deserves all the success he gets.

I have never met Tris, so there is no personalised animosity. However I have bought BN every week for 25 years, so I have, I believe, every right to make a critical judgment on its editorship.

As i said, Tris has done a very good job at managing the magazine, modernising it whilst keeping its trade feel. I just don't like his style of writing. He may well be the nicest guy in the world but this is irrelevant to writing content.

I still buy BN every week, even though my interest in boxing is on the wane. That's all I can say.

If you'd said that originally, no-one would have thought anything of it. But instead you said Tris was a "terrible writer" and "spineless", which is very different (and unfair imo).

Boxerbeetle wrote:

reggaereggae wrote: I have never met Tris, so there is no personalised animosity. However I have bought BN every week for 25 years, so I have, I believe, every right to make a critical judgment on its editorship.

As i said, Tris has done a very good job at managing the magazine, modernising it whilst keeping its trade feel. I just don't like his style of writing. He may well be the nicest guy in the world but this is irrelevant to writing content.

I still buy BN every week, even though my interest in boxing is on the wane. That's all I can say.

If you'd said that originally, no-one would have thought anything of it. But instead you said Tris was a "terrible writer" and "spineless", which is very different (and unfair imo).

Fair enough, that was too harsh, i apologise. I hope that BN will take serious issue against the PPV. It's a bloody disgrace and I'm fairly sure Glyn Leach would've been furious, as we all should.

BN is a trade paper, for the core boxing fan and so I hope they take a stand against this disgusting rip off.

reggaereggae wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:

reggaereggae wrote: I have never met Tris, so there is no personalised animosity. However I have bought BN every week for 25 years, so I have, I believe, every right to make a critical judgment on its editorship.

As i said, Tris has done a very good job at managing the magazine, modernising it whilst keeping its trade feel. I just don't like his style of writing. He may well be the nicest guy in the world but this is irrelevant to writing content.

I still buy BN every week, even though my interest in boxing is on the wane. That's all I can say.

If you'd said that originally, no-one would have thought anything of it. But instead you said Tris was a "terrible writer" and "spineless", which is very different (and unfair imo).

Fair enough, that was too harsh, i apologise. I hope that BN will take serious issue against the PPV. It's a bloody disgrace and I'm fairly sure Glyn Leach would've been furious, as we all should.

BN is a trade paper, for the core boxing fan and so I hope they take a stand against this disgusting rip off.

Yeah I agree 100% mate, I expect there will be some acknowledgement of the rip off in the next issue. And I'm absolutely positive BM will be very critical of it. No harm done, but let's try to keep the criticism aimed at the correct targets - Hearn & Sky!

Boxerbeetle wrote:
Yeah I agree 100% mate, I expect there will be some acknowledgement of the rip off in the next issue. And I'm absolutely positive BM will be very critical of it. No harm done, but let's try to keep the criticism aimed at the correct targets - Hearn & Sky!

Lets hope so. I have paid PPV in the past for big fights, if that revenue is needed to make a good fight than so be it (though I hate the concept.)

I can't believe the revenue is needed for this fight. It's an interesting British fight, that is all. Neither are 'stars' and the public is hardly clamouring for the fight. I can't believe either deserves more than £80 k for this fight.

I blame SKY way more than Eddie Hearn. Hearn just wants to make The most money for himself and the fighters. I think SKY marketing department look at the PPV market and realise boxing fans are a hardcore group of fans who are obsessed with their sport.

But a small enough group to be taken the piss out of without any real 'mainstream' media outcry. SKY have also looked at the US model of boxing fans paying up to $80 for a fight and generally the UK follows the USA after a few years.

I'm not predicting the death of boxing as this has been predicted for years, but to me it doesn't seem sustainable in this model.

I really feel I don't know anyone who will pay for this and I know a lot of boxing fans.

reggaereggae wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:
Yeah I agree 100% mate, I expect there will be some acknowledgement of the rip off in the next issue. And I'm absolutely positive BM will be very critical of it. No harm done, but let's try to keep the criticism aimed at the correct targets - Hearn & Sky!

Lets hope so. I have paid PPV in the past for big fights, if that revenue is needed to make a good fight than so be it (though I hate the concept.)

I can't believe the revenue is needed for this fight. It's an interesting British fight, that is all. Neither are 'stars' and the public is hardly clamouring for the fight. I can't believe either deserves more than £80 k for this fight.

I blame SKY way more than Eddie Hearn. Hearn just wants to make The most money for himself and the fighters. I think SKY marketing department look at the PPV market and realise boxing fans are a hardcore group of fans who are obsessed with their sport.

But a small enough group to be taken the piss out of without any real 'mainstream' media outcry. SKY have also looked at the US model of boxing fans paying up to $80 for a fight and generally the UK follows the USA after a few years.

I'm not predicting the death of boxing as this has been predicted for years, but to me it doesn't seem sustainable in this model.

I really feel I don't know anyone who will pay for this and I know a lot of boxing fans.

This fight wouldnt be on PPV if it wasnt for Hearn and the fighters. It was Eddie's choice to have it on PPV. He said it in one of his most recent interviews. So he could put on a 'stacked' card.

I've only come across 1 person so far who's said he's definitely buying it - that was on a Cardiff City messageboard & the guy said he just wanted to watch Cleverly smash up Bellew, but he didn't even know they'd fought before! That's the kind of person Sky/Matchroom will be hoping buys the PPV & will try to target them accordingly. Surely they knew what the reaction would be from the hardcore fans, but we make up a small fraction of the audience, it's always casual buyers who account for big PPV numbers.

@Boxerbeetle......think you are right with that last comment.

But I wonder where Sky's head is actually at with this decision? That's the really interesting thing for me, because they're not daft and they clearly feel it is saleable.

Can ony suppose it offers the advantages of being broadcastable at a decent time and they were encouraged by Froch-Groves 2 in terms of what a big, domestic dust-up between two charismatic Brits can deliver. So more of the same domestic dramas for the punters and let's brush over the fact that it is not a world title felt and actually involves two guys rebuilding their careers?

Terry Dooley wrote:I'm buying it. I don't watch streams.

Well that's your choice. But I think you're nuts to pay 15 quid or whatever for this if you're already paying SKY sports yearly.

Streams are shit, usually poor and that's understood. But by not paying, it's not like I'm missing Hagler-Hearns.

I will just follow the boxrec Round by Round

Terry Dooley wrote:I'm buying it. I don't watch streams.

Terry, you have paid positions in the 'industry' and may get expenses for it and good luck to you

To a normal/garden boxing fan it is not a PPV bout, it's not worth an extra 15 quid. I don't stream either but can wait a week for the replay.

PPVs are to Terry what cocaine is to Stephen Fry. True story.

Doesn't any event have a chance of attracting casual interest? Is this the criteria for a PPV and/or should it be? (I won't be paying for this one).

"A fool and his money..."[/quote]

Sky have lost the exclusive rights to the Champions League from next season. A bidding war starts soon after for the Premiership, when its likely they'll , for the first time , have a serious challenger in the shape of BT. I would guess they took in around £10 - 15 million from the Groves v Froch fight, not a bad lift. I would guess that they'll be 'stock piling they're money' ready for the battle with BT.
Any method of bringing in extra will be attempted. As suggested previously they wouldn't risk alienating golf or football viewers by charging PPV for those events, but they think they can take a risk with the boxing public on occasion. For this show I would think they wouldn't exceed 100,000 buys but £1.5 million still helps.
Pubs will buy it on the night, and good luck to them,but not for me. Unless its a total disaster this will continue until the Premiership issue is settled. Future Brook and Khan fights will be PPV and obviously Froch. This is only the start of a new trend - but only in relation to boxing.

dbflex wrote:

dalcumly wrote:Did Eddie Hearn not advertise the Froch v Groves fight ??? If they haven't advertised for some time then I apologise for suggesting otherwise. What this would suggest is that you will have nothing else to consider in next weeks' edition if you choose to comment on the PPV issue.
By the way did you happen to catch Talksport last night when even Nathan Cleverley said he didn't think the bill was worthy of PPV.

I really do think this is pure greed and I feel strongly that OUR Boxing News, and I do consider it 'belongs' to us, the fans, should comment.

Did you realise that the Ryder Cup at the weekend was the third most popular sports programme ever worldwide, and provided you subscribed to to SKY you didn't need to pay anything extra, but SKY and Eddie Hearn think we should pay extra for Bellew v Cleverley.

They have not for some time, that is correct. I did not catch Talksport. And even if they did advertise that would have no impact upon our coverage. If you read this week's you will find criticism of Frank W despite allegedly being an advertiser. As for next week, Tris is back in the hotseat and we will see how we cover the story.

It wasn't really criticism at all though Danny. You gave a summary of events which mostly revealed allegedly's explanations but you saw no reason to highlight any further questions that they threw up. The issue of allegedly - in possession of the facts and thus able to control the situation - happily taking fans money through what amounts to false advertising was largely swept under the carpet.
A few years ago I remember you writing "Boxing News evoking the spirit of Harry Mullan."

http://www.boxingnewsmagazine.com/view- ... BlogID=490

I'm sorry to say but it really isn't the case.

Cholo_cws wrote:

dbflex wrote:

dalcumly wrote:Did Eddie Hearn not advertise the Froch v Groves fight ??? If they haven't advertised for some time then I apologise for suggesting otherwise. What this would suggest is that you will have nothing else to consider in next weeks' edition if you choose to comment on the PPV issue.
By the way did you happen to catch Talksport last night when even Nathan Cleverley said he didn't think the bill was worthy of PPV.

I really do think this is pure greed and I feel strongly that OUR Boxing News, and I do consider it 'belongs' to us, the fans, should comment.

Did you realise that the Ryder Cup at the weekend was the third most popular sports programme ever worldwide, and provided you subscribed to to SKY you didn't need to pay anything extra, but SKY and Eddie Hearn think we should pay extra for Bellew v Cleverley.

They have not for some time, that is correct. I did not catch Talksport. And even if they did advertise that would have no impact upon our coverage. If you read this week's you will find criticism of Frank W despite allegedly being an advertiser. As for next week, Tris is back in the hotseat and we will see how we cover the story.

It wasn't really criticism at all though Danny. You gave a summary of events which mostly revealed allegedly's explanations but you saw no reason to highlight any further questions that they threw up. The issue of allegedly - in possession of the facts and thus able to control the situation - happily taking fans money through what amounts to false advertising was largely swept under the carpet.
A few years ago I remember you writing "Boxing News evoking the spirit of Harry Mullan."

http://www.boxingnewsmagazine.com/view- ... BlogID=490

I'm sorry to say but it really isn't the case.

I'm sorry too, that you feel that way. We do have a duty to report the salient facts as well as our own analysis. I can only say I feel I did what I could in the space I was afforded.

Well I just bought Boxing News and am very, very disappointed with Tris' Editor's letter. Totally spineless. There is no actual condemnation of the PPV, just loads of fence sitting And rhetorical questions.

The only condemnation appears in Dixon's very small 'villain of the week' sound bite. Well, if he's against it why doesn't he rant against it in his editor's letter?

He is meant to stand up for the boxing fan as the only trade Boxing weekly.... Glyn Leach would've absolutely rubbished the card.

There is no analysis of boxing fans being increasingly fleeced with PPV cards, about what this card might lead to in terms of future PPV cards, no talk about how the boxing fan pays so much to watch his sport.

Pathetic, pathetic piece of Editorship. Seems like Tris is in Eddie's pocket. He should be ashamed of himself.

There are some on BoxRec who will buy the PPV so they pretty much agree with it. Tris Dixon may agree with the card being PPV - that is having a difference of opinion and is not disgusting.

I don't think the bout between Nathan and Tony is worthy of PPV status, I think I pay enough in Sky Sports and B allegedly payments to watch a bout like this.

I haven't read of anyone on boxrec who've said they will buy it.

palooka wrote:There are some on BoxRec who will buy the PPV so they pretty much agree with it. Tris Dixon may agree with the card being PPV - that is having a difference of opinion and is not disgusting.

I don't think the bout between Nathan and Tony is worthy of PPV status, I think I pay enough in Sky Sports and B allegedly payments to watch a bout like this.

It is an interesting debate but a strange one. If someone feels a product is not good enough to buy or pay extra for, dont pay it. There is no compulsion going on. As I understand it (I dont have either) allegedly and sky sports are non contract options which means people can stop at any time if they are not happy with the service.

I dont get BN that often anymore but Dixon always strikes me as someone who writes as he sees.

Broomhall wrote:

palooka wrote:There are some on BoxRec who will buy the PPV so they pretty much agree with it. Tris Dixon may agree with the card being PPV - that is having a difference of opinion and is not disgusting.

I don't think the bout between Nathan and Tony is worthy of PPV status, I think I pay enough in Sky Sports and B allegedly payments to watch a bout like this.

It is an interesting debate but a strange one. If someone feels a product is not good enough to buy or pay extra for, dont pay it. There is no compulsion going on. As I understand it (I dont have either) allegedly and sky sports are non contract options which means people can stop at any time if they are not happy with the service.

I dont get BN that often anymore but Dixon always strikes me as someone who writes as he sees.

I don't agree. I see Dixon as being someone who deliberately avoids controversy.

As to the argument that people who want to see it can buy it, those who don't want to, dont have to, really??! So under that logic every show should be PPV. The bigger issue at hand is the boxing fan being ripped off - he buys sky to watch boxing, pays his subs (about £200 a year? I don't know I don't subscribe) then he's asked to pay an extra £15 for any half decent fight.

How many PPV fights have actually presented real value? It's highway robbery.

reggaereggae wrote:

Broomhall wrote:

palooka wrote:There are some on BoxRec who will buy the PPV so they pretty much agree with it. Tris Dixon may agree with the card being PPV - that is having a difference of opinion and is not disgusting.

I don't think the bout between Nathan and Tony is worthy of PPV status, I think I pay enough in Sky Sports and B allegedly payments to watch a bout like this.

It is an interesting debate but a strange one. If someone feels a product is not good enough to buy or pay extra for, dont pay it. There is no compulsion going on. As I understand it (I dont have either) allegedly and sky sports are non contract options which means people can stop at any time if they are not happy with the service.

I dont get BN that often anymore but Dixon always strikes me as someone who writes as he sees.

I don't agree. I see Dixon as being someone who deliberately avoids controversy.

As to the argument that people who want to see it can buy it, those who don't want to, dont have to, really??! So under that logic every show should be PPV. The bigger issue at hand is the boxing fan being ripped off - he buys sky to watch boxing, pays his subs (about £200 a year? I don't know I don't subscribe) then he's asked to pay an extra £15 for any half decent fight.

How many PPV fights have actually presented real value? It's highway robbery.

Then dont pay it. Robbery is where someone takes something from you without your permission. If you subscribe to Sky that is your decision. I dont see any robbery involved. It isnt great value, but it is a business not a charity and there is nothing in the small print that says which fights will and which fights wont be PPV. The only way any company learns is of people dont pay. If subscribers dont like it, walk.

@reggaereggae

Agree and disagree with you on that last point.

Agreed on the Sky comment......lots of people paying a subscription to watch some boxing on Sky and at that price you should be expecting to see anything other than the huge blockbusters as part of that package. It is fundamentally wrong to position Bellew v Clev as anything other than a decent, domestic cruiserweight match-up with two guys trying to re-establish their world class credentials. It is not acceptable and actually fairly cynical.

Not sure about the Tris Dixon comments.....Tris himself might not personally be the most angry or hard-hitting writer, but as the editor his job is more subtle and he has the overall responsiblity for setting the editorial tone and allowing his team and commentators to voice an opinion. And he does allow guys like Bob Mee the freedom to really get stuck into some subjects and cause a stink. Mee has put the WBC on the spot multiple times and the WBO judge in the Abraham v Smith fight got absolutely ripped into as well. I think Tris is a good editor who gets the balance pretty much right.

reggaereggae wrote:

Broomhall wrote:

palooka wrote:There are some on BoxRec who will buy the PPV so they pretty much agree with it. Tris Dixon may agree with the card being PPV - that is having a difference of opinion and is not disgusting.

I don't think the bout between Nathan and Tony is worthy of PPV status, I think I pay enough in Sky Sports and B allegedly payments to watch a bout like this.

It is an interesting debate but a strange one. If someone feels a product is not good enough to buy or pay extra for, dont pay it. There is no compulsion going on. As I understand it (I dont have either) allegedly and sky sports are non contract options which means people can stop at any time if they are not happy with the service.

I dont get BN that often anymore but Dixon always strikes me as someone who writes as he sees.

I don't agree. I see Dixon as being someone who deliberately avoids controversy.

As to the argument that people who want to see it can buy it, those who don't want to, dont have to, really??! So under that logic every show should be PPV. The bigger issue at hand is the boxing fan being ripped off - he buys sky to watch boxing, pays his subs (about £200 a year? I don't know I don't subscribe) then he's asked to pay an extra £15 for any half decent fight.

How many PPV fights have actually presented real value? It's highway robbery.

£200 per year subs for a package including Sky Sports! Are you living in the early nineties? Try £700 including the TV licence - and over £800 if you get BN too.

Sklar wrote:
£200 per year subs for a package including Sky Sports! Are you living in the early nineties? Try £700 including the TV licence - and over £800 if you get BN too.

I think he meant the subs just for Sky Sports - I think it's £20 per mth for SS, so he's in the right ballpark.
£200 a year for the whole Sky package would be superb - I'd have no qualms about PPV if that was the case!

Terry Dooley wrote:

Sklar wrote:
£200 per year subs for a package including Sky Sports! Are you living in the early nineties? Try £700 including the TV licence - and over £800 if you get BN too.

People still pay for a TV Licence? Why?!

Because those empty vans and threatening letters are as scary as an Ebola infected Rottweiler.