BoxRec

........ so anyway, if everyone on here could just sign a six month contract and pay upfront before Monday's winding up order hearing, it'd be greatly appreciated by you know who

MachoMan09 wrote:

earsjohn wrote:The likes of iTunes and other MP3 stores have proven that it's possible to charge for a product that can be found illegally and still make money.

Have they? I don't believe iTunes is profitable. People may try and claim that it is but I am very doubtful and there is very little data out there to suggest otherwise. iTunes was designed to be a loss leader, I don't see that that has changed.

Profitable is probably the wrong word. What apple have proven is that you are able to sell music, while its still very easy to obtain for free via other, less legal, means.

Given a choice, the vast majority of people would choose to pay a small fee to get something they want rather than obtaining illegally.

earsjohn wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:

earsjohn wrote:The likes of iTunes and other MP3 stores have proven that it's possible to charge for a product that can be found illegally and still make money.

Have they? I don't believe iTunes is profitable. People may try and claim that it is but I am very doubtful and there is very little data out there to suggest otherwise. iTunes was designed to be a loss leader, I don't see that that has changed.

Profitable is probably the wrong word. What apple have proven is that you are able to sell music, while its still very easy to obtain for free via other, less legal, means.

Given a choice, the vast majority of people would choose to pay a small fee to get something they want rather than obtaining illegally.

I'd say its in profit by now. It sells 75 per cent of online music. At the beginning, where concessions were made to get the labels agreement with it, it probably did lose money. But that's the other way round now. iTunes pretty much dominates music sales.

MachoMan09 wrote:

Dan Dares wrote:It sells 75 per cent of online music.

It sells 75 per cent of on-line music that is actually paid for. An awful lot is sourced using alternative means. Surely only those folks who are either barely computer literate or more pious that the late John Paul II use iTunes?

I don't buy much music these days (the new stuff all seems to be shite) but when i do, i get it through iTunes. People use it on impulse. It's on their phones etc.

I used to love the Russian allofmp3 site personally. Much wider catalogue. It usually worked out about a quid an album, and you could download CD quality wavs rather than the shitty 128 or 160kpbs files.

But it got too difficult getting the tokens after all the credit card companies blew them out, and the US gov got involved (and probably apple). It looked like it might cause world war three at some point. I think it still exists in some guise.

earsjohn wrote:

allahsnackbar wrote:Some posters have hinted that they will watch illegal streams instead of subscribing.

I think, with the availability of streams and even pay sites that offer good quality streams for a lot less than what warren is charging, this channel will struggle. I would estimate that a lot of posters will be watching streams rather than paying. the problem for BN is that it's pretty impossible to stop illegal streaming.

The likes of iTunes and other MP3 stores have proven that it's possible to charge for a product that can be found illegally and still make money. The public are generally law abiding and will willingly pay over 'stealing'. There is a balance, however, and the comments on this thread alone suggest that the costs of the service are not in line with the service to be provided. Hence people will justify the use of a stream or other means to watch the fights.

Its a good point.

If BN was to get a very high quality stream going, i could see a lot of people signing up for that rather than looking for illegal streams. However, in tough economic times, its easy to see why hardcore fans would turn to streams. the bottom line is, most hardcore boxing fans have an intense dislike of waren and this is due to several reasons and has built up over a very long time so the issue of trust is a big one

Very few of us hardcores are going to feel guilty about streaming his channel

Do we know if Virgin are going to be showing the fights 'Live' this weekend from BN?

ScottDetonator wrote:Do we know if Virgin are going to be showing the fights 'Live' this weekend from BN?

Nope! Starts 30th November!

£10 = 3 pints of Stella or Export down the pub it's not a bank breaker I'd be prepared to cancel Sky Sports if allegedly really goes for it.
I cancelled Premier a couple of weeks ago and want to subscribe to this channel but I don't want to sign up for a year.
Has this been clarified yet.

Well as its been pointed out, fans are being asked to 'trust' someone / company, who has, in the past, shown a complete lack of customer focus and disrespect to the paying customer. And I won't even start on the implications and direction it has taken British Boxing in....

Sign up for 6 months and you can cancel with 30 days notice (or is it within the 1st month?). How confident are people that, given you sign up and then cancel, for whatever reason, this entity will actually return your money or return it in good time? Especially if subs and cancellations come in the shed loads?

I won't touch this, but that's me. If there is something I want to watch, I will do via other means and no I don't feel any guilt for this entity.

leforge wrote:

ScottDetonator wrote:Do we know if Virgin are going to be showing the fights 'Live' this weekend from BN?

Nope! Starts 30th November!

And they aren't showing them as streams either. Not exactly trying to draw in the Virgin customers are they! Seems strange that they are showing the channel on Sky but not Virgin this weekend.

Some of the comments here are MENTAL! When I signed up to Premier Sports the small print tied me in over a longer duration, as did SKY as do many other channels.

But better, we are complaining that we don't know what boxing will be on allegedly come March, April or May? Have a look at the boxrec schedule? How many chuffing fights are listed past January? It's like some of you have been popping pills!

What international cards have allegedly missed out on that you wanted them to screen since they've been on air?

Have they ever had less than two cards a week?

Have they often had more?

No one can have any issue with those who won't sign up because a) they can't afford it, b)they resent paying for boxing on TV, c)they don't like boxing or d) they are happy with the amount of boxing output they get from other providers.

But some of the bleating on this thread is pathetic! Yes I'd like to see improvments to the channel but I'd imagine evryone working on it is flying by the seat of their pants at the moment and I'd expect things to settle down and improve once they start getting some cash in the door. They can only make the fights over here they can afford and they won't know that till the money starts coming in, it is clearly being run at a loss at present to get off the ground.

That said, as a major supporter of the channel on here, I, and I suspect a few others, will be mighty pissed off if the drop below two fights a week from mid December till mid January. I don't car if it's a traditional quiet season, I'm paying my tenner and I want some boxing!!!! Don King's bill on the 31st, Taylor's comeback on the 30th, etc, etc better be making a showing

fizzjambo wrote:Some of the comments here are MENTAL! When I signed up to Premier Sports the small print tied me in over a longer duration, as did SKY as do many other channels.

But better, we are complaining that we don't know what boxing will be on Allegedly channel come March, April or May? Have a look at the boxrec schedule? How many chuffing fights are listed past January? It's like some of you have been popping pills!

What international cards have Allegedly channel missed out on that you wanted them to screen since they've been on air?

Have they ever had less than two cards a week?

Have they often had more?

No one can have any issue with those who won't sign up because a) they can't afford it, b)they resent paying for boxing on TV, c)they don't like boxing or d) they are happy with the amount of boxing output they get from other providers.

But some of the bleating on this thread is pathetic! Yes I'd like to see improvments to the channel but I'd imagine evryone working on it is flying by the seat of their pants at the moment and I'd expect things to settle down and improve once they start getting some cash in the door. They can only make the fights over here they can afford and they won't know that till the money starts coming in, it is clearly being run at a loss at present to get off the ground.

That said, as a major supporter of the channel on here, I, and I suspect a few others, will be mighty pissed off if the drop below two fights a week from mid December till mid January. I don't car if it's a traditional quiet season, I'm paying my tenner and I want some boxing!!!! Don King's bill on the 31st, Taylor's comeback on the 30th, etc, etc better be making a showing

+1

MachoMan09 wrote:

earsjohn wrote:The likes of iTunes and other MP3 stores have proven that it's possible to charge for a product that can be found illegally and still make money.

Have they? I don't believe iTunes is profitable. .

It is for me.

Daft question but if Haye fights Vitali what are the chances of FW, who already has a shoe in with hayemaker, landing the fight on allegedly? How many subscriptions would that gain? in theory even if people cancelled straight after the fight they would have to pay the month in hand so FW would pocket £20 from each anyway.

Vitali and Wladimir have they foot in Sky - I guess it will be where can make the most money.... I assume it will be a K2 promotion, so I give sky the edge.

Fizzjambo - I don't think anyone can deny that since its been on air, allegedly has shown some excellent international content - but for me, in December Sky has the much better international schedule - Super 6, Khan, Klitchsko, Sturm etc etc. Premier sports will be showing the Mares vs Agbeko rematch live.

I would like one of the broadcasters to show Green vs Wlodarczyk - its a cracking bill with Chris John defending his title also.

fizzjambo wrote:Some of the comments here are MENTAL! When I signed up to Premier Sports the small print tied me in over a longer duration, as did SKY as do many other channels.

But better, we are complaining that we don't know what boxing will be on Allegedly channel come March, April or May? Have a look at the boxrec schedule? How many chuffing fights are listed past January? It's like some of you have been popping pills!

What international cards have Allegedly channel missed out on that you wanted them to screen since they've been on air?

Have they ever had less than two cards a week?

Have they often had more?

No one can have any issue with those who won't sign up because a) they can't afford it, b)they resent paying for boxing on TV, c)they don't like boxing or d) they are happy with the amount of boxing output they get from other providers.

But some of the bleating on this thread is pathetic! Yes I'd like to see improvments to the channel but I'd imagine evryone working on it is flying by the seat of their pants at the moment and I'd expect things to settle down and improve once they start getting some cash in the door. They can only make the fights over here they can afford and they won't know that till the money starts coming in, it is clearly being run at a loss at present to get off the ground.

That said, as a major supporter of the channel on here, I, and I suspect a few others, will be mighty pissed off if the drop below two fights a week from mid December till mid January. I don't car if it's a traditional quiet season, I'm paying my tenner and I want some boxing!!!! Don King's bill on the 31st, Taylor's comeback on the 30th, etc, etc better be making a showing

But Premier Sports and Sky are not solely boxing channels. They provide a wide variety of content, almost all of which, boxing aside, is guaranteed. Football, Rugby, Speedway, even poker are subject to seasons and confirmed events months in advance. When you sign up for those channels, you know 90% of what you will get over the next 6 months. With a channel focusing solely on Boxing, you are at the mercy of the Promoters whim, as well as injuries, contractual balls-ups and poor quality fights.

Your point about cash in the door is interesting. Are you suggesting that future output is entirely dependent on the amount of subs they gain? In which case, simple economics must dictate that even in the unlikely scenario they get anything close to 100k paying £10 a month, there simply isn't enough money to continue funding two high quality shows a week without someone taking a hit. Are you willing to risk paying £10 but being part of a small group of subscribers only able to fund the likes of Williams v Norton rather than Burns v Katsidis as standard?

Then you contradict yourself. You start saying that people should stop bleating and they can only make fights they can afford and then you demand that they put on boxing over xmas, when clearly there isn't scope for the events. You may wait until you have paid your money and nothing is delivered before you are pissed off, but I, like many others I imagine, would prefer to see some kind of guaranteed quality BEFORE committing financially. As I've said all along, it's not about what they have already delivered, it's about what they will deliver that matters to me.

kingfinn wrote:Daft question but if Haye fights Vitali what are the chances of FW, who already has a shoe in with hayemaker, landing the fight on Allegedly Channel? How many subscriptions would that gain? in theory even if people cancelled straight after the fight they would have to pay the month in hand so FW would pocket £20 from each anyway.

How will allegedly be able to fund these fight? Certainly wont be through subscribers I can imagine sky will get it.

earsjohn wrote:

fizzjambo wrote:Some of the comments here are MENTAL! When I signed up to Premier Sports the small print tied me in over a longer duration, as did SKY as do many other channels.

But better, we are complaining that we don't know what boxing will be on Allegedly channel come March, April or May? Have a look at the boxrec schedule? How many chuffing fights are listed past January? It's like some of you have been popping pills!

What international cards have Allegedly channel missed out on that you wanted them to screen since they've been on air?

Have they ever had less than two cards a week?

Have they often had more?

No one can have any issue with those who won't sign up because a) they can't afford it, b)they resent paying for boxing on TV, c)they don't like boxing or d) they are happy with the amount of boxing output they get from other providers.

But some of the bleating on this thread is pathetic! Yes I'd like to see improvments to the channel but I'd imagine evryone working on it is flying by the seat of their pants at the moment and I'd expect things to settle down and improve once they start getting some cash in the door. They can only make the fights over here they can afford and they won't know that till the money starts coming in, it is clearly being run at a loss at present to get off the ground.

That said, as a major supporter of the channel on here, I, and I suspect a few others, will be mighty pissed off if the drop below two fights a week from mid December till mid January. I don't car if it's a traditional quiet season, I'm paying my tenner and I want some boxing!!!! Don King's bill on the 31st, Taylor's comeback on the 30th, etc, etc better be making a showing

But Premier Sports and Sky are not solely boxing channels. They provide a wide variety of content, almost all of which, boxing aside, is guaranteed. Football, Rugby, Speedway, even poker are subject to seasons and confirmed events months in advance. When you sign up for those channels, you know 90% of what you will get over the next 6 months. With a channel focusing solely on Boxing, you are at the mercy of the Promoters whim, as well as injuries, contractual balls-ups and poor quality fights.

Your point about cash in the door is interesting. Are you suggesting that future output is entirely dependent on the amount of subs they gain? In which case, simple economics must dictate that even in the unlikely scenario they get anything close to 100k paying £10 a month, there simply isn't enough money to continue funding two high quality shows a week without someone taking a hit. Are you willing to risk paying £10 but being part of a small group of subscribers only able to fund the likes of Williams v Norton rather than Burns v Katsidis as standard?

Then you contradict yourself. You start saying that people should stop bleating and they can only make fights they can afford and then you demand that they put on boxing over xmas, when clearly there isn't scope for the events. You may wait until you have paid your money and nothing is delivered before you are pissed off, but I, like many others I imagine, would prefer to see some kind of guaranteed quality BEFORE committing financially. As I've said all along, it's not about what they have already delivered, it's about what they will deliver that matters to me.

I got Premier Sports for its boxing. This has become a huge letdown. Much of their sport is a letdown. Reruns of Australian rugby league, some ice hockey, gaelic sports in the summer, non-league football.
I find it amazing that anyone considers this worth £7.99 per month, but doesn't consider Cotto-Margarito worth a tenner on its own.
Premier Sports big offer this month is Odlanier Solis's comeback fight in Turkey. Big deal.
It's also worth also pointing out that Sky have shown a Saturday night fight just ONCE in November and that featured Denton Vassell in a Commonwealth title fight. And I pay more than £60 per month for Sky.

Edit: Seems Solis isn't even fighting. So the Premier Sports boxing offering for the month is Erkan Teper and Oleksiy Mazikin and Selcuk Aydin v Jo Jo Dan. That it woeful.

gobbles wrote:

earsjohn wrote:

fizzjambo wrote:Some of the comments here are MENTAL! When I signed up to Premier Sports the small print tied me in over a longer duration, as did SKY as do many other channels.

But better, we are complaining that we don't know what boxing will be on Allegedly channel come March, April or May? Have a look at the boxrec schedule? How many chuffing fights are listed past January? It's like some of you have been popping pills!

What international cards have Allegedly channel missed out on that you wanted them to screen since they've been on air?

Have they ever had less than two cards a week?

Have they often had more?

No one can have any issue with those who won't sign up because a) they can't afford it, b)they resent paying for boxing on TV, c)they don't like boxing or d) they are happy with the amount of boxing output they get from other providers.

But some of the bleating on this thread is pathetic! Yes I'd like to see improvments to the channel but I'd imagine evryone working on it is flying by the seat of their pants at the moment and I'd expect things to settle down and improve once they start getting some cash in the door. They can only make the fights over here they can afford and they won't know that till the money starts coming in, it is clearly being run at a loss at present to get off the ground.

That said, as a major supporter of the channel on here, I, and I suspect a few others, will be mighty pissed off if the drop below two fights a week from mid December till mid January. I don't car if it's a traditional quiet season, I'm paying my tenner and I want some boxing!!!! Don King's bill on the 31st, Taylor's comeback on the 30th, etc, etc better be making a showing

But Premier Sports and Sky are not solely boxing channels. They provide a wide variety of content, almost all of which, boxing aside, is guaranteed. Football, Rugby, Speedway, even poker are subject to seasons and confirmed events months in advance. When you sign up for those channels, you know 90% of what you will get over the next 6 months. With a channel focusing solely on Boxing, you are at the mercy of the Promoters whim, as well as injuries, contractual balls-ups and poor quality fights.

Your point about cash in the door is interesting. Are you suggesting that future output is entirely dependent on the amount of subs they gain? In which case, simple economics must dictate that even in the unlikely scenario they get anything close to 100k paying £10 a month, there simply isn't enough money to continue funding two high quality shows a week without someone taking a hit. Are you willing to risk paying £10 but being part of a small group of subscribers only able to fund the likes of Williams v Norton rather than Burns v Katsidis as standard?

Then you contradict yourself. You start saying that people should stop bleating and they can only make fights they can afford and then you demand that they put on boxing over xmas, when clearly there isn't scope for the events. You may wait until you have paid your money and nothing is delivered before you are pissed off, but I, like many others I imagine, would prefer to see some kind of guaranteed quality BEFORE committing financially. As I've said all along, it's not about what they have already delivered, it's about what they will deliver that matters to me.

I got Premier Sports for its boxing. This has become a huge letdown. Much of their sport is a letdown. Reruns of Australian rugby league, some ice hockey, gaelic sports in the summer, non-league football.
I find it amazing that anyone considers this worth £7.99 per month, but doesn't consider Cotto-Margarito worth a tenner on its own.
Premier Sports big offer this month is Odlanier Solis's comeback fight in Turkey. Big deal.
It's also worth also pointing out that Sky have shown a Saturday night fight just ONCE in November and that featured Denton Vassell in a Commonwealth title fight. And I pay more than £60 per month for Sky.

Hasn't the Solis fight been canned because of some licensing issues or some such? http://www.BS.com/odlanier-sol ... ues--46351

I don't get Premier sports because I don't think it's worth it. Cotto - Margarito is not worth £10 on its own as it is not in HD and is an overnight fight. PPV for me needs to fulfill a certain number of criteria - UK Primetime with at least one fight of genuine interest or US Primetime with a UK fighter in a genuine competitive fight or a 2 P4P types in a fight for the ages type of fight. Given I'll be able to source the entire Cotto-Margarito card in a better quality than broadcast on allegedly as soon as I wake up on 4th December means I won't lose too much sleep over it. If, of course, I have decided not to subscribe (my mind is not made up).

I think its an indictment of our sheep society that people get pulled into paying twice for something which most of the time isnt worth paying once for!. So for me the answer to this topic is a resounding nooooooooo!!!. I might miss the odd decent fight but I will avoid a shower of the kind of fights which are ruining boxing, and at same time will also avoid the shower of drivvell which usually motors from bunceys mouth!... a win win for me I think!.

gobbles wrote:
Edit: Seems Solis isn't even fighting. So the Premier Sports boxing offering for the month is Erkan Teper and Oleksiy Mazikin and Selcuk Aydin v Jo Jo Dan. That it woeful.

You're forgetting Anthony Dirrell v Renan St Juste (which tops James DeGale v Guerrero) and Abner Mares v Joseph Agbeko II (which, if anything like the first fight, probably tops Cotto v Margarito)

£7.99 all of a sudden looks cheap!

Its also not 7.99 a month if you sign up for 12 months. Its £80 for 12 months with Premier these days.

Although, their boxing seems to have gone down the pan recently. No more world series of boxing, the Hard knock shows are pretty sporadic and I am dissapointed with the way they promoted the arrival of shobox - its only the Gary Shaw promoted Shobox shows they have the rights to - not how they originally announced it. They also stated they would have access to Gary Shaws massive back catalogue - aint seen any classic fight yet.

However, their PR is very effective - they geniunally seem to listen to the fans. They get bombarded with insults on FB.... and suggestions of withdrawals.... Mr Premiersports doesn't start questioning if these are true sports fans.

Your point about cash in the door is interesting. Are you suggesting that future output is entirely dependent on the amount of subs they gain? In which case, simple economics must dictate that even in the unlikely scenario they get anything close to 100k paying £10 a month, there simply isn't enough money to continue funding two high quality shows a week without someone taking a hit. Are you willing to risk paying £10 but being part of a small group of subscribers only able to fund the likes of Williams v Norton rather than Burns v Katsidis as standard?

What are you talking about? What they have produced already has been funded by live ticket sales at the gate, advertisers (which will be very little) and that's it! Of course future output is dependent on subs!!!! Where the ruddy hell else are they going to get money to fund UK shows? Sky are known to pay around £80,000 for a UK show. Frank waved goodbye to this when jumped ship so iot's got to come from somewhere else.

The way I see it is simple. If you want this thing to fall on it's arse then you must accept that what you are going to get is Sky's weekly shows (which I like by the way) and little else. Hence a month like November for Sky with Price's injury, Hatton's 'world' title shot falling through, etc and you get hardly anything. Plus since every fighter is on Sky and given they only show one show a week (and far far far too much Prizefighter) prospects like Groves, Degale, Gavin, Price, etc will fight 3 times tops a year - NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Channel 5 are in it becuse Fury is good for advertising as he attracts a non-boxing audience with his excellent self publicity. Problem here though. He likes a pie, can be reckless as hell and is an (exciting) accident waiting to happen. If he loses badly in a fight Channel 5 will drop the whole project in a shot.

The Premier Sports vs 456 is a no brainer. I liked Premier Sports at first but their output is now very poor. The only reason they got Mares/Agbeko II is due to 456 already having booked Cotto/Margarito II, it is appaling that Sky did not get either of the above, beyond poor. Instead they are giving us Wlad vs Mormeck . If you like your mismatches then tuck in lads, Adam Smith is with the K's for the long run (if he can stop drooling all over them for 5 minutes)

I think you need to have two healthy competitors in the boxing TV market in the UK to keep good fighters busy enough and to keep things competitive. 456's existance has already forced Sky to wave an olive branch at team Khan. THIS IS A GOOD THING!!!!!!!

earsjohn wrote:

gobbles wrote:
Edit: Seems Solis isn't even fighting. So the Premier Sports boxing offering for the month is Erkan Teper and Oleksiy Mazikin and Selcuk Aydin v Jo Jo Dan. That it woeful.

You're forgetting Anthony Dirrell v Renan St Juste (which tops James DeGale v Guerrero) and Abner Mares v Joseph Agbeko II (which, if anything like the first fight, probably tops Cotto v Margarito)

£7.99 all of a sudden looks cheap!

Anthony Dirrell v Renan St Juste doesn't top anything and you can x 10 that for the start time. The idea that Dirrell's untested little bother against a 39-year-old who has never beaten anyone is a bigger attraction than a British Olympic gold medallist shows you just have it in for allegedly. I look forward to the endless debate on this forum about Dirrell v St Juste and Mares v Agbeko.

fizzjambo wrote:Your point about cash in the door is interesting. Are you suggesting that future output is entirely dependent on the amount of subs they gain? In which case, simple economics must dictate that even in the unlikely scenario they get anything close to 100k paying £10 a month, there simply isn't enough money to continue funding two high quality shows a week without someone taking a hit. Are you willing to risk paying £10 but being part of a small group of subscribers only able to fund the likes of Williams v Norton rather than Burns v Katsidis as standard?

What are you talking about? What they have produced already has been funded by live ticket sales at the gate, advertisers (which will be very little) and that's it! Of course future output is dependent on subs!!!! Where the ruddy hell else are they going to get money to fund UK shows? Sky are known to pay around £80,000 for a UK show. Frank waved goodbye to this when jumped ship so iot's got to come from somewhere else.

The way I see it is simple. If you want this thing to fall on it's arse then you must accept that what you are going to get is Sky's weekly shows (which I like by the way) and little else. Hence a month like November for Sky with Price's injury, Hatton's 'world' title shot falling through, etc and you get hardly anything. Plus since every fighter is on Sky and given they only show one show a week (and far far far too much Prizefighter) prospects like Groves, Degale, Gavin, Price, etc will fight 3 times tops a year - NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Channel 5 are in it becuse Fury is good for advertising as he attracts a non-boxing audience with his excellent self publicity. Problem here though. He likes a pie, can be reckless as hell and is an (exciting) accident waiting to happen. If he loses badly in a fight Channel 5 will drop the whole project in a shot.

The Premier Sports vs 456 is a no brainer. I liked Premier Sports at first but their output is now very poor. The only reason they got Mares/Agbeko II is due to 456 already having booked Cotto/Margarito II, it is appaling that Sky did not get either of the above, beyond poor. Instead they are giving us Wlad vs Mormeck . If you like your mismatches then tuck in lads, Adam Smith is with the K's for the long run (if he can stop drooling all over them for 5 minutes)

I think you need to have two healthy competitors in the boxing TV market in the UK to keep good fighters busy enough and to keep things competitive. 456's existance has already forced Sky to wave an olive branch at team Khan. THIS IS A GOOD THING!!!!!!!

How do you know allegedly Promotions are not paid a licence fee for putting on the show its a different company to allegedly.

Also FWP would made a loss on Wembley show as there was only 6000 they going to need money from TV to help put the shows on.

Judging from boxing viewers on Sky and Setanta being poor this channel is up against from word go.