BoxRec

Posted: **28 May 2007, 13:20**

Stu,
You've answered the question yourself.
Good Promotion - good fights.
Many of the attractive fights we all crave for will never come off because invariably the yearned for opponents are attached to different Promotional outlets, thus attached to different TV deals.
If they did - bingo for the fans, for the ratings, for the revenue, for the boxers.
Sadly, no guarentees for the Promotors !

Posted: **28 May 2007, 13:32**

Sky can afford them all, they can afford whatever they f***** want, they charge people a fortune and show 45 crap films, bowling instead of boxing and even have a f**** SUMO TV channel,......

Why not give us a bloody Boxing TV channel.....twats..

Posted: **28 May 2007, 13:34**

that's my rant of the day...

Well done for giving us DLH v Mayweather, but we're getting decent fights once every few months when even once a fortnight would be fair...

Paul Dempsey can't even afford a haircut for God's sake....

Posted: **28 May 2007, 13:58**

Captain Hook wrote:Paul Dempsey can't even afford a haircut for God's sake....

Thats why he left for Setanta

Posted: **28 May 2007, 14:03**

Captain Hook wrote:Sky can afford them all, they can afford whatever they f***** want.

No they can't, I personally know a commentator who works on the boxing team for sky and he told me when they first started off they were showing loads of cards UK and from abroad and it nearly crippled the whole company because of the costs involved in televising a live show, even the Boxing Golds they broadcast cost a lot of money to show, that is why they are now more selective.

Posted: **28 May 2007, 14:17**

twenty six wrote:Then you're a mug.

Very constructive.

Posted: **28 May 2007, 15:01**

,,,,,,,,, but factual.

Posted: **28 May 2007, 15:08**

Captain Hook is such an avid follower, he still thinks Dempsey's on board

Hagler is bang on the money.
Why can't you get it ?
Sky boxing audiences are piss poor, and certain elements of the product cost fortunes.
It's a fuckin business, not a charity to boxing buffs - and I'm one !
Sky cannot afford whatever they want because every product has an optimum price based on a profitable return.
Football may cost a fortune, but it makes a profit.
Boxing costs a fortune and SOMETIMES makes a profit.

Posted: **28 May 2007, 16:17**

twenty six wrote:Stu,
You've answered the question yourself.
Good Promotion - good fights.
Many of the attractive fights we all crave for will never come off because invariably the yearned for opponents are attached to different Promotional outlets, thus attached to different TV deals.
If they did - bingo for the fans, for the ratings, for the revenue, for the boxers.
Sadly, no guarentees for the Promotors !

Fair comment, but when a good fight/good bill does come out (such as Cotto vs Judah) then why doesn't the TV companies (e.g. Sky) go for it.

I know they are both stateside fighters but its a cracking fight that is doing good PPV buys already in the states (according to Fightnews). Now I would much rather see this than Taylor vs Spinks, and I am sure many agree.

The problem you mentioned does happen, but also it happens when fighters do belong to the same stable.... why no Earl vs Khan for instance.

Posted: **29 May 2007, 08:52**

I think it spoke volumes when during a sddebate on here some time ago a poster reeled off some sporitng magazines that receive more "sells" than the premier Uk boxing ones. From memory the boxing mag came off second best to a whole host of second tier sports such as fishing.
Ive no doubt that at the start of each financial year a nominated person provides an estimate of how much they'd like for the year to buy boxing promotions, a sky finance officer then provides someone with a figure of how much they can speand during the 12months on boxing (probably less than was requested?). I suspect the nominated person then sets about budgeting for the year. Ive no doubt he can come back and request some more cash for one off matches, but I dont think the set up would be for someone to simply ask for money each time a fight gets announced.

Posted: **29 May 2007, 10:41**

stujones wrote: Now I would much rather see this than Taylor vs Spinks, and I am sure many agree.

Your quite right, but I bet that HBO want twice as much maybe more for Cotto-Judah than Taylor-Spinks

Posted: **30 May 2007, 04:07**

tis a sad day when sky give more air time to DARTS than they do boxing.

Posted: **30 May 2007, 04:15**

pm wrote:tis a sad day when sky give more air time to DARTS than they do boxing.

Again its down to cost, its a business they are running you know.

Posted: **30 May 2007, 05:33**

Hagler2002 wrote:its a business they are running you know.

Really? Thanks for clearing that up.

Posted: **30 May 2007, 05:43**

pm wrote:
Hagler2002 wrote:its a business they are running you know.
Really? Thanks for clearing that up.

Well why make the statement DARTS gets more coverage if you already understood it was down to financial reasons that boxing does not receive more air time

Posted: **30 May 2007, 06:12**

All I was saying Hagler is that it reflects poorly on boxing that promoters have priced themselves out the market to such an extent that other sports such as darts now receive more mainstream coverage.

Posted: **30 May 2007, 07:12**

pm wrote:All I was saying Hagler is that it reflects poorly on boxing that promoters have priced themselves out the market to such an extent that other sports such as darts now receive more mainstream coverage.

I understand what your saying, darts is starting to become a huge sport in the UK and the status and money involved with the game is starting to go up and up, you watch it won't be long before Barry Hearn starts upping the anti.

Posted: **30 May 2007, 13:29**

twenty six wrote:I don't work for Sky.
In fact the many posters who know me will be pissing themselves with such a suggestion.
As for the suggestion of Silkov that I don't like the debate - on what basis ?
What are you going to do if ITV ditch boxing ? Accuse them of not being on the side of fans ?
Business is business.
I maintain that Sky haven't done too bad since - 1/ reducing significantly the budget for boxing.
2/ Ditching certain Promotors and seeking to go for quality rather than quantity with more emphasis on bigger fights from abroad.
OK maybe they've failed in some people's eyes but if you'd have asked two years ago if you would be able to watch PBF V DLH live without a PPV fee you'd have been laughed at.
Sadly boxing is now a minority sport and as such Sporting budgets for TV Companies no longer include a significant slice for our sport.
Be thankful we're seeing anything !

Bollocks mate!... I pay for Sky so that I can watch the boxing, why should I be 'thankful' for it??..... and the old chesnut of saying its now 'a minority sport' is a cop out as its largely down to the behavior of promotors and broadcasters that boxing has declined in popularity... the way to gain popularity for a sport is to publicise it and show it at its best... this is something that SKY failed to do dismally for years!!... and showing one off fights like PBF vs DLH will not undo the damage... why not show fighters such as Cotto, Margarito etc... even delayed by a week if need be... why not show some of the recent heavyweight title fights???..... SKY may have improved since the departure of Warren but they still have much room for improvement and its simply foolish to say we should simply be thankful for what we have!...

Posted: **30 May 2007, 14:49**

Overall, I don't think they do too badly. Would I like to see more boxing on sky? Of course I would. But you cannot realistically expect them to show every single major fight. The demand just isn't there to justify the outlay.

Posted: **31 May 2007, 23:03**

[quote="twenty six"]
How much do you think it costs Sky to get the rights to these fights ?
They CANNOT AFFORD them all.
The element of choice still exists - switch off and don't pay if you don't like.

WRONG! SKY can clearly afford to show big fights on a delayed show at a fraction of the cost of airing a live broadcast.

The 'element of choice, switch off if offended' phrase is mainly used when pornographic,violent or similiar programs are aired. In this argument we want to see more boxing broadcasts alongside other sports so why switch off?

Posted: **01 Jun 2007, 07:51**

immbo,
It's not just about cost, it's about return.
No business does a deal to make a loss.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Sky would do as you suggest, if there was money to be made.
You have to come to terms with the fact that the viewing figures on Sky for boxing are abysmal.
If abysmal, adverts in the breaks can't be sold.
No adverts, no revenue.
Don't then preach on about your subscription - tht's not just for boxing.

Posted: **01 Jun 2007, 08:27**

problem with sky is they show something and then change their mind. their committment to german and japanese boxing in the past has bene little more than one off. we've followed cotto from being prospect, contender and WBO champ. but when he moves up to the next level he is dropped. the only constant in world boxing coverage has been jermain taylor and he's been awful. if you look forward to a taylor fight you regret it afterward.

Posted: **01 Jun 2007, 08:41**

Autobarn wrote:if you look forward to a taylor fight you regret it afterward.

i'm still having nightmares about the spinks fight.

it's disappointing they've stopped showing the cotto fights.

cotto generally always delivers an exciting fight.

Posted: **01 Jun 2007, 08:46**

Hagler2002 wrote: I understand what your saying, darts is starting to become a huge sport in the UK and the status and money involved with the game is starting to go up and up, you watch it won't be long before Barry Hearn starts upping the anti.

And Hearn has just taken darts over to ITV

BoxRec

P1ssed off with Sky again