BoxRec

Marlo Stanfield wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:

Marlo Stanfield wrote:It's £20, I'm not a pikey so will be paying for it

I'm sure we can all stretch to £20, the price isn't really the point.

I've spent £20 on far worse things than 6 hours of boxing. Don't really see why people make such a big deal over it

We can;t all be Baltimore drug kingpins, (or on the Matchroom payroll in your case).

The point is if you already pay a Sk subscription then why should you pay again? Everyone knows Sky have been paying over the odds for the Premier League since finding competition in BT. They need ways to subsidies that big spend and boxing fans are the mugs.

For his subcscription the boxing fan gets to watch Johnny Nelsons ringside show for 1 hour on a Thursday then gets the pleasure of forking out £16.95 whenever Anthony Joshua graces a Matchroom card.

Simply Tell Rip-off Eddie's Arse to Mug-off.

Yes it's "only" £20. But what the hell do I pay £100 a month for and £12 for allegedly?

As stated multiple times in this thread, it's the principle. I mean, it's Frankie effin' Gavin! You're paying PPV for that? Seriously?

I was stupid enough to pay for the Bellow Clev fight and promised myself I wont cave this time!
Sky and Matchroom are taking pizz now! Should be building the sport up, putting on great shows in order to attract new fans to the sport.
Noticed someone mention wrestlemania - good point! least there fans know what they are paying for!

The sad truth is that if Sky plug it enough the average punter will buy it. Eddie knows the clued up boxing fans won't buy it, but he doesn't care about them because he knows that their are enough sheep out there to follow sky sports and buy into these rubbish events.

This will backfire one day. Eddie is enjoying his moment in the sun, but things will hit a wall eventually, it is inevitable. Who really thought Warren would lose his stranglehold on the sport in the UK 10 years ago? Times change, and Eddie's time will pass.

Boxing doesn't need PPV to make certain fights, a fight is what it is worth and if two relative unknowns demand PPV cash tell them to be realistic and make themselves into PPV worthy fighters.

So whos decision is it to make shows on sky PPV?

Eddie? Adam? Barney?

Matchroom / Sky have clearly been itching to put on a PPV event. They can't make Brook v Khan or Frampton v Quigg so they now have the "stacked card" concept, a few regular Saturday night shows crammed onto 1 show and made PPV. PPV for Gavin, who lost to Bundu and beat Woodhouse on a split decision and can't be arsed to fight in the correct weight category - if you buy it expect loads more dross on PPV, if this flops they may bin the "stacked card" concept.

dbf wrote:The sad truth is that if Sky plug it enough the average punter will buy it. Eddie knows the clued up boxing fans won't buy it, but he doesn't care about them because he knows that their are enough sheep out there to follow sky sports and buy into these rubbish events.

This will backfire one day. Eddie is enjoying his moment in the sun, but things will hit a wall eventually, it is inevitable. Who really thought Warren would lose his stranglehold on the sport in the UK 10 years ago? Times change, and Eddie's time will pass.

The thing is, any of the new viewers watching boxing, the sports blood, get used to watching the mis-matches and just thinks 'well, boxing is one big favourite beating the little guy with no chance. What is the point?'. They lose interest before it even starts as fans because it appears so one sided - I could point to the perception that boxing is a fixed sport here. Any fight 50/50 gets put over on PPV.

Think about any average household in the UK on a Saturday night, how can the dad or any other family member that may be a boxing fan, put the card on live this Saturday night from Leeds and expect anyone to be interested? People want entertainment.

Matchroom, at least having to share the boxing content on Sky, will be the best thing to happen to the sport for quite a good few years.

Not a chance, didn't buy Belew Clev, the first PPV for years I haven't bought & will either continue with that principle or consider cancelling Sky Sports & buying the PPV's

I subscribe to BN & only have Sky Sports for boxing so I'm not paying extra outside of something like Mayweather Pac

Just watched an interview with FW on IFLTV and he was spot on about match room's PPVS and having too many of them, it's worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU5U2JlEJME

The real shame here will be that if numbers go down due to the Bellew PPV, Eddie will probably put it down to Brook not being a draw rather than his card.

That being said I'll buy it. Everyone's getting a bit excited here, but compare this card to the last PPV and it's a substantial improvement. It's a great card, and if not PPV worthy, it's probably not far off.

I get everyone shitting themselves about what all this PPV stuff means for boxing (which is the real issue here), but I'd be more inclined to worry if this card was at the same level as the Bellew one.

closer wrote:Just watched an interview with FW on IFLTV and he was spot on about match room's PPVS and having too many of them, it's worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU5U2JlEJME

Let's not re-write history & portray FW as some sort of benevolent saint just yet - he collaborated with Sky to put on quite a few truly terrible PPVs; some of the early Khan PPVs make the Brook/Gavin card look absolutely amazing. Promoters are all as bad as each other (well, the big-time ones are anyway).

DMA1987 wrote:That being said I'll buy it. Everyone's getting a bit excited here, but compare this card to the last PPV and it's a substantial improvement. It's a great card, and if not PPV worthy, it's probably not far off.

I get everyone shitting themselves about what all this PPV stuff means for boxing (which is the real issue here), but I'd be more inclined to worry if this card was at the same level as the Bellew one.

There's a solid bit of irony right there!

If you are fed shite for a long time and then given the leftovers of someone elses steak & chips, you might think that you're being treated but in reality you are still being treated like shit

It's a good card, so I've got tickets instead.

Not paying PPV for this, but it'll be a decent night out.

DMA1987 wrote:The real shame here will be that if numbers go down due to the Bellew PPV, Eddie will probably put it down to Brook not being a draw rather than his card.

Kell looks to be drawing loads to his fights, he's done really well - the Gavin bout will be a showcase for him really, Kell looks like a strong light middle come fight time and though Gavin is a lot stronger and tougher than he looks he's going to be in deep water. I'd like to watch the bout but I'm not stretching go PPV, there has to be some marker to what a PPV bout or show should be - I like Kevin Mitchell, he's a good fighter but he's not PPV material.

palooka wrote:

DMA1987 wrote:The real shame here will be that if numbers go down due to the Bellew PPV, Eddie will probably put it down to Brook not being a draw rather than his card.

Kell looks to be drawing loads to his fights, he's done really well - the Gavin bout will be a showcase for him really, Kell looks like a strong light middle come fight time and though Gavin is a lot stronger and tougher than he looks he's going to be in deep water. I'd like to watch the bout but I'm not stretching go PPV, there has to be some marker to what a PPV bout or show should be - I like Kevin Mitchell, he's a good fighter but he's not PPV material.

This sums it up perfectly.

I am pleased that Kell is being kept busy, but for me this is not a pay-per-view event. Two of the 3 headline fights are foregone conclusions: Brook by stoppage, and Joshua by stoppage.

The Mitchel fight is intriguing, but not mouth-watering like Mayweather-Pacquaio is or Tyson –Holyfield was. I will watch the fights down the pub, but wouldn’t buy it, and didn’t buy (or watch) the Bellow-Cleverly rematch, which sounded like a damp squid of an event.

Last year we had Froch-Groves for free, which sold out the O2. This year we are getting Brook and Joshua in dead cert fights on Pay-Per-View a couple of weeks after another pay-per-view, which I think it pretty shabby treatment.

Has the cost of the arena’s gone up that much that these shows are working on such tight margins that pay-per-view is the only answer? I don’t accept that. I feel a bit like Ian Hislop when he was asked whether the Daily Mail should be banned or not, and he replied “ don’t ban it, don’t ban it, don’t buy it”.

big lennox wrote:

palooka wrote:

DMA1987 wrote:The real shame here will be that if numbers go down due to the Bellew PPV, Eddie will probably put it down to Brook not being a draw rather than his card.

Kell looks to be drawing loads to his fights, he's done really well - the Gavin bout will be a showcase for him really, Kell looks like a strong light middle come fight time and though Gavin is a lot stronger and tougher than he looks he's going to be in deep water. I'd like to watch the bout but I'm not stretching go PPV, there has to be some marker to what a PPV bout or show should be - I like Kevin Mitchell, he's a good fighter but he's not PPV material.

This sums it up perfectly.

I am pleased that Kell is being kept busy, but for me this is not a pay-per-view event. Two of the 3 headline fights are foregone conclusions: Brook by stoppage, and Joshua by stoppage.

The Mitchel fight is intriguing, but not mouth-watering like Mayweather-Pacquaio is or Tyson –Holyfield was. I will watch the fights down the pub, but wouldn’t buy it, and didn’t buy (or watch) the Bellow-Cleverly rematch, which sounded like a damp squid of an event.

Last year we had Froch-Groves for free, which sold out the O2. This year we are getting Brook and Joshua in dead cert fights on Pay-Per-View a couple of weeks after another pay-per-view, which I think it pretty shabby treatment.

Has the cost of the arena’s gone up that much that these shows are working on such tight margins that pay-per-view is the only answer? I don’t accept that. I feel a bit like Ian Hislop when he was asked whether the Daily Mail should be banned or not, and he replied “ don’t ban it, don’t ban it, don’t buy it”.

Froch-Groves was PPV mate, both fights were.

The first one wasn't, if I recall correctly? I thought that Froch-Kessler II was pay per view, as was Forch-Groves II, but not Froch-Groves 1.

big lennox wrote:The first one wasn't, if I recall correctly? I thought that Froch-Kessler II was pay per view, as was Forch-Groves II, but not Froch-Groves 1.

I'm sure it was mate to be fair....sky box office

Crazyboy wrote:

big lennox wrote:The first one wasn't, if I recall correctly? I thought that Froch-Kessler II was pay per view, as was Forch-Groves II, but not Froch-Groves 1.

I'm sure it was mate to be fair....sky box office

Trust me it was - I clearly remember tweeting Sky Sports in a rage asking for my PPV money back after the early stoppage

Boxerbeetle wrote:

Crazyboy wrote:

big lennox wrote:The first one wasn't, if I recall correctly? I thought that Froch-Kessler II was pay per view, as was Forch-Groves II, but not Froch-Groves 1.

I'm sure it was mate to be fair....sky box office

Trust me it was - I clearly remember tweeting Sky Sports in a rage asking for my PPV money back after the early stoppage

It was PPV...and also in Manchester.

You are absoltuely right. Just googled it, and saw some quotes from Groves winding Froch up saying that he was not pay per view worthy etc.

There seems to be a lot of pay-per-views creeping in. Extra jam.

I'm sure it was mate to be fair....sky box office[/quote]

Trust me it was - I clearly remember tweeting Sky Sports in a rage asking for my PPV money back after the early stoppage [/quote]
It was PPV...and also in Manchester.[/quote]

Good to have some pedants on the forum

big lennox wrote:Good to have some pedants on the forum

A bit harsh, considering no-one mentioned you saying 'damp squid'