BoxRec

leforge wrote:

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 Channel.

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.

fizzjambo wrote:

leforge wrote:

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 Channel.

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.

That's what I'm saying. At the moment 456 is a loss making business and that will affect everyone involved. Of course it will be a difficult venture to get going but I have read on here numerous times folk complaining about the lack of good overseas cards on UK TV, or the lack of small hall shows on TV here. If this goes bust then those same punters can't whinge as this is the only model where this level of boxing output on TV can be achieved

gobbles wrote:

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 channel. I look forward to the endless debate on this forum about Dirrell v St Juste and Mares v Agbeko.

fizzjambo wrote: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)

King Geedorah wrote:

doctorboxing wrote:

fizzjambo wrote: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)

Wlad will attract FAR more viewers to the channel than Mares/Agbeko 2. That is ultimately what SKy and any other channel are interested in....... subscribers and viewers.

Also, the comparisons in this thread between a SKY package at £60 a month and Allegedly channel at £10 are ridiculous. Of all my household watches on TV, boxing makes up a small percentage...... certainly not even close to 1/6th. If people pay for a £60 SKY package just to watch boxing then fair enough but I seriously doubt there is anyone that does that. I also sincerely doubt that there are many paying for SKY sports SOLELY to watch the boxing.

It looks like Allegedly channel will have its work cut out attracting boxing fans to their channel, never mind the general public.

I watch some football but the overall product isn’t great. The league hasn’t been truly competitive since, well ever and I’m starting to enjoy the pre-match show more than matches themselves. I watch the occasional tennis match, male not female, if I wanted to watch bull dykes hammering balls I’d download some S & M porn, and skip everything else.

If Sky ditched boxing I’d cancel Sky Sports. I think the broadcaster is heading for a PPV on demand service anyway.

King Geedorah wrote:

doctorboxing wrote:

fizzjambo wrote: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)

Wlad will attract FAR more viewers to the channel than Mares/Agbeko 2. That is ultimately what SKy and any other channel are interested in....... subscribers and viewers.

Also, the comparisons in this thread between a SKY package at £60 a month and Allegedly channel at £10 are ridiculous. Of all my household watches on TV, boxing makes up a small percentage...... certainly not even close to 1/6th. If people pay for a £60 SKY package just to watch boxing then fair enough but I seriously doubt there is anyone that does that. I also sincerely doubt that there are many paying for SKY sports SOLELY to watch the boxing.

It looks like Allegedly channel will have its work cut out attracting boxing fans to their channel, never mind the general public.

I watch some football but the overall product isn’t great. The league hasn’t been truly competitive since, well ever and I’m starting to enjoy the pre-match show more than matches themselves. I watch the occasional tennis match, male not female, if I wanted to watch bull dykes hammering balls I’d download some S & M porn, and skip everything else.

If Sky ditched boxing I’d cancel Sky Sports. I think the broadcaster is heading for a PPV on demand service anyway.

fizzjambo wrote:Plus I've got Sky because of the boxing, I'll watch a bit of cricket, rugby and football as well but if they binned their boxing I'd cancel my subs.

Boxing makes up at least 30-40% of the TV I watch. I'd rather watch Wlad then some reality TV nonsense.

fizzjambo wrote:Fatcity69 - your comment is typical of the garbage put forth on this subject. You come across as the kind of crazed lunatic who seems to think the moment you set up your £10 a month DD then Frankie boy and his chums will bin all fights from the schedule, show endless re-runs of Khan vs Salitia, possibly with 'Eye of the Tiger' playing over ther commentry and email you pictures of them all covorting on some beach in St. Lucia with your hard earned Tenner attending to the BBQ in the background!!!

If what they start showing is not up to scratch, and try and read this very, very slowly YOU WILL CANCEL YOUR SUBSCRIPTION AND THEY WILL GO BUST.

They are not running some ruddy hedgefund here! If the standard drops so will consumer levels.

But no you'd rather put forward the argument that you won't sign up because then, and only then, will they pull your pants down and run off into the distance. The great thing about your argument is there is nothing anyone can fault with it apart from it's moronic stupidity. It's based on no facts, with no sources or anything remotely convincing.

At least you've backed up your one sentence argument with a few smilies, three in fact. Now who can argue with that..........

fizzjambo wrote: The great thing about your argument is there is nothing anyone can fault with it apart from it's moronic stupidity. It's based on no facts, with no sources or anything remotely convincing.

King Geedorah wrote:Gobbles is right, Premier Sport has been crap. I'm thinking of ditching them but I keep forgetting that I subscribe so never make the call!

JimJim2009 wrote:Anyway, if Allegedly Channel didn't exist would boxing fans want it to ?

earsjohn wrote:There's a number of things going on at the moment that are making me reluctant.

- FWP is facing a winding up order. IF FWP is wound up, what happens?
- FWP had a contract with Sky that is still ongoing, yet since joining up with Allegedly channel, there have been no FWP sky shows despite the initial insistence that the Sky contract will be fulfilled.
- FWP is run by a man who has run an ultimately unsuccessful boxing promotion business in Sports Network that was liquidated leaving creditors, including Boxers, unpaid.
- Simple economics dictates that the channel has been running at a loss (or with a massive subsidy) while free-to-air. Will the subs for the first couple of months be used to pay debts already incurred, rather than pay for future content?
- Xmas and New Year are quiet times in boxing - there is simply not going to be any shows that are going to be available to be shown.
- The website states that the minimum commitment is 6 months. Why no month to month contract like ESPN, Premier, Setanta?
- Amir Khans next fight is on Sky, so it would appear that GBP are happy to deal with Sky and will not necessarily be exclusive to Allegedly channel. They will seek the best bang for their buck which is likely to be Sky under the financially restrictive times that BN have coming up.
- BN do not have a HD output.
- BN have arsed up the ending of 2 overnight fights. What is their committed solution to this not happening again?

oliverfennell wrote:

JimJim2009 wrote:Anyway, if Allegedly Channel didn't exist would boxing fans want it to ?

I'd say we did alright without it until autumn 2011.

Deserter wrote:Well the deafening sound of silence from those in Mr Warren's camp in the wake of valid questions and concerns is extremely telling... and I inlude a certain dinosaur in that number as well...

greenyox3 wrote:Is it just me or can we no longer watch online via the website?