BoxRec

G0mez wrote:Well anyone that recorded Crolla vs Limond will be unhappy to know that the recording ended at 11pm prompt.

...And the fight was only at round 10 at that point.

Watched it live, as I've done for every allegedly show. Would advise fans to let the recording span an extra hour on top of the advertised end of program time, as they don't really bother about keeping to any kind of cut off point with their broadcasts, which personally I don't mind but if fans are taping it, this must be infruriating.....

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

- BN have arsed up the ending of 2 overnight fights. What is their committed solution to this not happening again?

Well done allegedly. Last domestic card before encryption and my recording ends before the conclusion of the fight. It's barely understandable for overseas fights but for a domestic card its amateurish.

earsjohn wrote:

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

- BN have arsed up the ending of 2 overnight fights. What is their committed solution to this not happening again?

Well done Allegedly channel. Last domestic card before encryption and my recording ends before the conclusion of the fight. It's barely understandable for overseas fights but for a domestic card its amateurish.

Noooo, not AGAIN!!!

JimJim2009 wrote:

G0mez wrote:Well anyone that recorded Crolla vs Limond will be unhappy to know that the recording ended at 11pm prompt.

...And the fight was only at round 10 at that point.

Watched it live, as I've done for every Allegedly Channel show. Would advise fans to let the recording span an extra hour on top of the advertised end of program time, as they don't really bother about keeping to any kind of cut off point with their broadcasts, which personally I don't mind but if fans are taping it, this must be infruriating.....

For overnight fights I always set Sky Plus to record the programme after too, just to be safe (should have done this last night as my recording ended halfway through Crolla-Limond Round 12, fuming). Problem with allegedly is it doesn't run 24 hours so there's no programme to record after an overnighter

leforge wrote:The January schedule at the moment is:

January 13th Williams V COnquest, Sexton V Larry

There no big fights from the USA in that month. So what do you reckon they fill 2 more UK dates with and rest of month.

I expect the UK dates to be like this in Jan/ Feb January 13th bill above is confirmed.

Liam Walsh Super feather Commonwealth defence
Enzo Mac v Mckenzie Light heavy Commonwealth
Cleverly World title WBO light heavyweight defence
Degale v sanavia EBU Super middle defence
Bellew British light heavyweight defence
George Groves British/Commonwealth Supermiddle defence
Cox Commonwealth light middle defence

Anyone else think of potential fights. I think Burns will fight in March.

for this to be the third time that a recording has finished before the end of the main event is shocking. really really puts you off buying it, and i was keen on it the few weeks after launch.

it astounds me that millionaire businessmen can still f**k things so royally when it comes to making more money for themselves.

it's such an amateur operation that i doubt they know how to encrypt a channel. it will probably still be free to view after next weekend given they've managed to make a balls of nearly everything so far.

Glyn Leach wrote:

JimJim2009 wrote:

G0mez wrote:Well anyone that recorded Crolla vs Limond will be unhappy to know that the recording ended at 11pm prompt.

...And the fight was only at round 10 at that point.

Watched it live, as I've done for every Allegedly Channel show. Would advise fans to let the recording span an extra hour on top of the advertised end of program time, as they don't really bother about keeping to any kind of cut off point with their broadcasts, which personally I don't mind but if fans are taping it, this must be infruriating.....

For overnight fights I always set Sky Plus to record the programme after too, just to be safe (should have done this last night as my recording ended halfway through Crolla-Limond Round 12, fuming). Problem with Allegedly channel is it doesn't run 24 hours so there's no programme to record after an overnighter

The easy Sky+ recording system you pay for isn't at fault Glyn, you really should have set the time manually to make sure that you caught the whole event. I believe it involves taking the top off and re-routing a few wires, wiggling chips and the like.

Final round wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:

JimJim2009 wrote:
Watched it live, as I've done for every Allegedly Channel show. Would advise fans to let the recording span an extra hour on top of the advertised end of program time, as they don't really bother about keeping to any kind of cut off point with their broadcasts, which personally I don't mind but if fans are taping it, this must be infruriating.....

For overnight fights I always set Sky Plus to record the programme after too, just to be safe (should have done this last night as my recording ended halfway through Crolla-Limond Round 12, fuming). Problem with Allegedly channel is it doesn't run 24 hours so there's no programme to record after an overnighter

The easy Sky+ recording system you pay for isn't at fault Glyn, you really should have set the time manually to make sure that you caught the whole event. I believe it involves taking the top off and re-routing a few wires, wiggling chips and the like.

Excuse me? I 'really should have' dismantled the box and started fornicating around with things I know fornicate all about - and I'm sure I'm not the only one - probably against the advice of the manufacturers and negating my guarantee if I fornicate it up? Perhaps I COULD have done that but I REALLY SHOULDN'T have to take those risks. This is a frequent problem with allegedly recordings according to viewers ón here and on Twitter and allegedly REALLY SHOULD sort it out.

Glyn Leach wrote:

Final round wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote: For overnight fights I always set Sky Plus to record the programme after too, just to be safe (should have done this last night as my recording ended halfway through Crolla-Limond Round 12, fuming). Problem with Allegedly channel is it doesn't run 24 hours so there's no programme to record after an overnighter

The easy Sky+ recording system you pay for isn't at fault Glyn, you really should have set the time manually to make sure that you caught the whole event. I believe it involves taking the top off and re-routing a few wires, wiggling chips and the like.

Excuse me? I 'really should have' dismantled the box and started effing around with things I know eff all about - and I'm sure I'm not the only one - probably against the advice of the manufacturers and negating my guarantee if I eff it up? Perhaps I COULD have done that but I REALLY SHOULDN'T have to take those risks. This is a frequent problem with Allegedly channel recordings according to viewers ón here and on Twitter and Allegedly channel REALLY SHOULD sort it out.

To manual record, just click 'Services' and then 'Manual Record' - it then prompts you to select the channel to be recorded and start and end record times. I have started to do this as I have missed the ending of a few US cards in the past few months.

Missed the last 2 rounds of Crolla-Limond from the recording!! How hard can it be to schedule the program to finish after the boxing has actually finished???? Just schedule the program to finish hours after the boxing FFS, I don't give a toss if I've got an extra hour of old boxing on the end of the recording, but I'm right pissed off when I can't see then end of the fight!!

Enjoying the coverage though and I'll be subscribing DD Cintron Vs Canela is a great addition

Chambers2 wrote:Missed the last 2 rounds of Crolla-Limond from the recording!! How hard can it be to schedule the program to finish after the boxing has actually finished???? Just schedule the program to finish hours after the boxing FFS, I don't give a toss if I've got an extra hour of old boxing on the end of the recording, but I'm right pissed off when I can't see then end of the fight!!

Enjoying the coverage though and I'll be subscribing DD Cintron Vs Canela is a great addition

Is Alvarez on tonight? Fantastic. Is Broner on too, because that's an HBO double-header.

I always thought they might get lots of last minute fights from abroad, as promoters look to get some overseas money for fights rather than holding out for a big fee.

gobbles wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:Missed the last 2 rounds of Crolla-Limond from the recording!! How hard can it be to schedule the program to finish after the boxing has actually finished???? Just schedule the program to finish hours after the boxing FFS, I don't give a toss if I've got an extra hour of old boxing on the end of the recording, but I'm right pissed off when I can't see then end of the fight!!

Enjoying the coverage though and I'll be subscribing DD Cintron Vs Canela is a great addition

Is Alvarez on tonight? Fantastic. Is Broner on too, because that's an HBO double-header.

I always thought they might get lots of last minute fights from abroad, as promoters look to get some overseas money for fights rather than holding out for a big fee.

Yeah it's on from 2am

gasman wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:

Final round wrote:
The easy Sky+ recording system you pay for isn't at fault Glyn, you really should have set the time manually to make sure that you caught the whole event. I believe it involves taking the top off and re-routing a few wires, wiggling chips and the like.

Excuse me? I 'really should have' dismantled the box and started effing around with things I know eff all about - and I'm sure I'm not the only one - probably against the advice of the manufacturers and negating my guarantee if I eff it up? Perhaps I COULD have done that but I REALLY SHOULDN'T have to take those risks. This is a frequent problem with Allegedly channel recordings according to viewers ón here and on Twitter and Allegedly channel REALLY SHOULD sort it out.

To manual record, just click 'Services' and then 'Manual Record' - it then prompts you to select the channel to be recorded and start and end record times. I have started to do this as I have missed the ending of a few US cards in the past few months.

But we shouldn't have to. I use my Sky+ box for about 90% of my family's viewing. The only programmes in the last 2 years I have missed the end of are a couple of shows affected by a power cut and now 3 allegedly shows (Hopkins-Dawson, Donaire-Narvaez, Crolla-Limond) . If the cards overran due to some unforeseen circumstance, I could understand, but last night was a FWP card and all bouts broadcast ran to schedule so its not as if the TV company (in which Warren is a chief player) were caught unawares.

There can be no excuse for this and being told to manual record shows is a real cop out.

Glyn Leach wrote:

Final round wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote: For overnight fights I always set Sky Plus to record the programme after too, just to be safe (should have done this last night as my recording ended halfway through Crolla-Limond Round 12, fuming). Problem with Allegedly channel is it doesn't run 24 hours so there's no programme to record after an overnighter

The easy Sky+ recording system you pay for isn't at fault Glyn, you really should have set the time manually to make sure that you caught the whole event. I believe it involves taking the top off and re-routing a few wires, wiggling chips and the like.

Excuse me? I 'really should have' dismantled the box and started effing around with things I know eff all about - and I'm sure I'm not the only one - probably against the advice of the manufacturers and negating my guarantee if I eff it up? Perhaps I COULD have done that but I REALLY SHOULDN'T have to take those risks. This is a frequent problem with Allegedly channel recordings according to viewers ón here and on Twitter and Allegedly channel REALLY SHOULD sort it out.

I was sure I typed that with my tongue in cheek Glyn.

Basically wtf should I have to manually set to record anything when I fork out for Sky so I don't have to set feck all apart from press the red R on a programme I wish to record.

earsjohn wrote:

gasman wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote: Excuse me? I 'really should have' dismantled the box and started effing around with things I know eff all about - and I'm sure I'm not the only one - probably against the advice of the manufacturers and negating my guarantee if I eff it up? Perhaps I COULD have done that but I REALLY SHOULDN'T have to take those risks. This is a frequent problem with Allegedly channel recordings according to viewers ón here and on Twitter and Allegedly channel REALLY SHOULD sort it out.

To manual record, just click 'Services' and then 'Manual Record' - it then prompts you to select the channel to be recorded and start and end record times. I have started to do this as I have missed the ending of a few US cards in the past few months.

But we shouldn't have to. I use my Sky+ box for about 90% of my family's viewing. The only programmes in the last 2 years I have missed the end of are a couple of shows affected by a power cut and now 3 Allegedly channel shows (Hopkins-Dawson, Donaire-Narvaez, Crolla-Limond) . If the cards overran due to some unforeseen circumstance, I could understand, but last night was a FWP card and all bouts broadcast ran to schedule so its not as if the TV company (in which Warren is a chief player) were caught unawares.

There can be no excuse for this and being told to manual record shows is a real cop out.

They seem to have learnt to some extent as the programme tonight is down to end at 6am

JimJim2009 wrote:

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.

Crikey Oliver, its a dedicated boxing channel that people are free to sign up to if they choose, not some evil instrument of social oppression that people cannot avoid or evade !!!!

Yes I know. But my point is that while people may or may not be happy with his and with the future prospects, the fact remains that the lack of a "pure" boxing channel prior to the advent of BN did not harm the British boxing fan, in the same way that the British boxing fan was not harmed by the absence of PPV prior to its advent, or by the absence of sports subscription channels before that.

People who think the greater distribution of the sport across a greater number of subscription outlets and/or PPV models is a good thing because they are under the impression that the big fights won't happen without that revenue are mistaken.

Frank W was still able to put together impressive bills like Mitchell-Murray and its stacked undercard on standard Sky Sports without the extra BN subscription money. Going further back, he managed to put on a huge stadium fight like Bruno-McCall - with Nigel Benn on the undercard - on standard Sky Sports without the extra revenue from PPV. And of course going back further still the likes of Eubank-Benn were on terrestrial TV without the extra revenue from subscription channels.

I understand times and market forces change, but I do just think it's a mistake when people think the extra money they pay as consumers is what accounts for big fights being made. Again - there were big fights before BN. There were big fights before PPV. There were big fights before Sky Sports. Thus, it just seems unneccesary to me, and that is why I said we were doing just fine without BN until autumn 2011.

Can I just move to reassure any fans who missed the last two rounds of the fight they missed possibly THE best two rounds in British boxing this year. I urge you all to buy the DVD.

oliverfennell wrote:

JimJim2009 wrote:

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

Crikey Oliver, its a dedicated boxing channel that people are free to sign up to if they choose, not some evil instrument of social oppression that people cannot avoid or evade !!!!

Yes I know. But my point is that while people may or may not be happy with his and with the future prospects, the fact remains that the lack of a "pure" boxing channel prior to the advent of BN did not harm the British boxing fan, in the same way that the British boxing fan was not harmed by the absence of PPV prior to its advent, or by the absence of sports subscription channels before that.

People who think the greater distribution of the sport across a greater number of subscription outlets and/or PPV models is a good thing because they are under the impression that the big fights won't happen without that revenue are mistaken.

Frank W was still able to put together impressive bills like Mitchell-Murray and its stacked undercard on standard Sky Sports without the extra BN subscription money. Going further back, he managed to put on a huge stadium fight like Bruno-McCall - with Nigel Benn on the undercard - on standard Sky Sports without the extra revenue from PPV. And of course going back further still the likes of Eubank-Benn were on terrestrial TV without the extra revenue from subscription channels.

I understand times and market forces change, but I do just think it's a mistake when people think the extra money they pay as consumers is what accounts for big fights being made. Again - there were big fights before BN. There were big fights before PPV. There were big fights before Sky Sports. Thus, it just seems unneccesary to me, and that is why I said we were doing just fine without BN until autumn 2011.

Excellent points.

[quote="

To manual record, just click 'Services' and then 'Manual Record' - it then prompts you to select the channel to be recorded and start and end record times. I have started to do this as I have missed the ending of a few US cards in the past few months.[/quote]

------------------------

But we shouldn't have to. I use my Sky+ box for about 90% of my family's viewing. The only programmes in the last 2 years I have missed the end of are a couple of shows affected by a power cut and now 3 Allegedly channel shows (Hopkins-Dawson, Donaire-Narvaez, Crolla-Limond) . If the cards overran due to some unforeseen circumstance, I could understand, but last night was a FWP card and all bouts broadcast ran to schedule so its not as if the TV company (in which Warren is a chief player) were caught unawares.

There can be no excuse for this and being told to manual record shows is a real cop out.[/quote]

---—--------------------

My point exactly. If I go into most chip shops and come out with a nice hot bag of chips to eat, I don't see why another one should give me a bag of spuds and expect me to cook them first.

Thanks for advice people but this is something that should be sorted by the provider not the consumer.

oliverfennell wrote:

JimJim2009 wrote:

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

Crikey Oliver, its a dedicated boxing channel that people are free to sign up to if they choose, not some evil instrument of social oppression that people cannot avoid or evade !!!!

Yes I know. But my point is that while people may or may not be happy with his and with the future prospects, the fact remains that the lack of a "pure" boxing channel prior to the advent of BN did not harm the British boxing fan, in the same way that the British boxing fan was not harmed by the absence of PPV prior to its advent, or by the absence of sports subscription channels before that.

People who think the greater distribution of the sport across a greater number of subscription outlets and/or PPV models is a good thing because they are under the impression that the big fights won't happen without that revenue are mistaken.

Frank W was still able to put together impressive bills like Mitchell-Murray and its stacked undercard on standard Sky Sports without the extra BN subscription money. Going further back, he managed to put on a huge stadium fight like Bruno-McCall - with Nigel Benn on the undercard - on standard Sky Sports without the extra revenue from PPV. And of course going back further still the likes of Eubank-Benn were on terrestrial TV without the extra revenue from subscription channels.

I understand times and market forces change, but I do just think it's a mistake when people think the extra money they pay as consumers is what accounts for big fights being made. Again - there were big fights before BN. There were big fights before PPV. There were big fights before Sky Sports. Thus, it just seems unneccesary to me, and that is why I said we were doing just fine without BN until autumn 2011.

We weren't doing OK, because Sky was going down the WWE route of merely using their "free" (to subscribers) shows to build up to and plug PPV.

Mitchell-Murray was the one decent card since the demise of Setanta that was free to air and that was only because it was so close to Haye-Klitschko, while Froch-Johnson was never going to be a PPV fight and Froch agreed a low deal.

So, no, we weren't doing fine. And dreaming to the nineties, doesn't help.

In fact, ask yourself this, without the threat allegedly, would Sky have put together their big December list of fights?

gobbles wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

JimJim2009 wrote: Crikey Oliver, its a dedicated boxing channel that people are free to sign up to if they choose, not some evil instrument of social oppression that people cannot avoid or evade !!!!

Yes I know. But my point is that while people may or may not be happy with his and with the future prospects, the fact remains that the lack of a "pure" boxing channel prior to the advent of BN did not harm the British boxing fan, in the same way that the British boxing fan was not harmed by the absence of PPV prior to its advent, or by the absence of sports subscription channels before that.

People who think the greater distribution of the sport across a greater number of subscription outlets and/or PPV models is a good thing because they are under the impression that the big fights won't happen without that revenue are mistaken.

Frank W was still able to put together impressive bills like Mitchell-Murray and its stacked undercard on standard Sky Sports without the extra BN subscription money. Going further back, he managed to put on a huge stadium fight like Bruno-McCall - with Nigel Benn on the undercard - on standard Sky Sports without the extra revenue from PPV. And of course going back further still the likes of Eubank-Benn were on terrestrial TV without the extra revenue from subscription channels.

I understand times and market forces change, but I do just think it's a mistake when people think the extra money they pay as consumers is what accounts for big fights being made. Again - there were big fights before BN. There were big fights before PPV. There were big fights before Sky Sports. Thus, it just seems unneccesary to me, and that is why I said we were doing just fine without BN until autumn 2011.

We weren't doing OK, because Sky was going down the WWE route of merely using their "free" (to subscribers) shows to build up to and plug PPV.

Mitchell-Murray was the one decent card since the demise of Setanta that was free to air and that was only because it was so close to Haye-Klitschko, while Froch-Johnson was never going to be a PPV fight and Froch agreed a low deal.

So, no, we weren't doing fine. And dreaming to the nineties, doesn't help.

In fact, ask yourself this, without the threat Allegedly channel, would Sky have put together their big December list of fights?

Do you really think Sky Sports, a News International company and part of the biggest media network in the world, feel threatened by allegedly, a nervous start-up who can't manage the simple task of fitting the end of fights into their broadcasts?

The December fights were always going to happen and always going to be on Sky. Marti Murray is a Hatton fighter and Hatton have a contract with Sky. Froch - Ward has been in the making for over 2 years as the Super Six final and is on Sky since Froch joined Matchroom. Khan realised the PPV grass isn't always greener and given the choice of domestic broadcasters, Sky was the only real option (Khan working with Warren is only slightly less believable than Calzaghe working with Warren). Sky have had a long running relationship with the Klitschkos and the Wlad fight will certainly help the build up for any future Haye - Klitschko PPV fight. Arron-Rose, Selby-Simpson and Edwards-Bayaar are all UK title fights that would have been shown on Sky at any stage over the last 5 years.

Interesting that you mention Murray v Mitchell as the only decent card Sky have done in last 3 years or so. That fight, on a saturday in July with no football competition, drew 190,000 viewers. Their best card in years yet less than 200k people wanted to see it.

earsjohn wrote:
Do you really think Sky Sports, a News International company and part of the biggest media network in the world, feel threatened by Allegedly channel, a nervous start-up who can't manage the simple task of fitting the end of fights into their broadcasts?

The December fights were always going to happen and always going to be on Sky. Marti Murray is a Hatton fighter and Hatton have a contract with Sky. Froch - Ward has been in the making for over 2 years as the Super Six final and is on Sky since Froch joined Matchroom. Khan realised the PPV grass isn't always greener and given the choice of domestic broadcasters, Sky was the only real option (Khan working with Warren is only slightly less believable than Calzaghe working with Warren). Sky have had a long running relationship with the Klitschkos and the Wlad fight will certainly help the build up for any future Haye - Klitschko PPV fight. Arron-Rose, Selby-Simpson and Edwards-Bayaar are all UK title fights that would have been shown on Sky at any stage over the last 5 years.

Interesting that you mention Murray v Mitchell as the only decent card Sky have done in last 3 years or so. That fight, on a saturday in July with no football competition, drew 190,000 viewers. Their best card in years yet less than 200k people wanted to see it.

Sky want a monopoly on all its sports. Sky want to crush allegedly. And what allegedly potentially does is drive up the value of the sport, which they want to pay peanuts for.

By the same token, was Setanta a threat? To Sky as a company, no. So why did Sky try so hard to put it out of business?
Answer, because it drove up the cost of their programming by offering an alternative outlet for the product. And any money people were paying to Setanta was potential money they were not paying to Sky.
Sky's new F1 channel is interesting. They proudly say it is free to subscribers, but for how long?? I wouldn't mind that after a year it is being offered for an extra £5 a month and from there onwards and upwards

earsjohn wrote:

gobbles wrote:

oliverfennell wrote: Yes I know. But my point is that while people may or may not be happy with his and with the future prospects, the fact remains that the lack of a "pure" boxing channel prior to the advent of BN did not harm the British boxing fan, in the same way that the British boxing fan was not harmed by the absence of PPV prior to its advent, or by the absence of sports subscription channels before that.

People who think the greater distribution of the sport across a greater number of subscription outlets and/or PPV models is a good thing because they are under the impression that the big fights won't happen without that revenue are mistaken.

Frank W was still able to put together impressive bills like Mitchell-Murray and its stacked undercard on standard Sky Sports without the extra BN subscription money. Going further back, he managed to put on a huge stadium fight like Bruno-McCall - with Nigel Benn on the undercard - on standard Sky Sports without the extra revenue from PPV. And of course going back further still the likes of Eubank-Benn were on terrestrial TV without the extra revenue from subscription channels.

I understand times and market forces change, but I do just think it's a mistake when people think the extra money they pay as consumers is what accounts for big fights being made. Again - there were big fights before BN. There were big fights before PPV. There were big fights before Sky Sports. Thus, it just seems unneccesary to me, and that is why I said we were doing just fine without BN until autumn 2011.

We weren't doing OK, because Sky was going down the WWE route of merely using their "free" (to subscribers) shows to build up to and plug PPV.

Mitchell-Murray was the one decent card since the demise of Setanta that was free to air and that was only because it was so close to Haye-Klitschko, while Froch-Johnson was never going to be a PPV fight and Froch agreed a low deal.

So, no, we weren't doing fine. And dreaming to the nineties, doesn't help.

In fact, ask yourself this, without the threat Allegedly channel, would Sky have put together their big December list of fights?

Do you really think Sky Sports, a News International company and part of the biggest media network in the world, feel threatened by Allegedly channel, a nervous start-up who can't manage the simple task of fitting the end of fights into their broadcasts?

The December fights were always going to happen and always going to be on Sky. Marti Murray is a Hatton fighter and Hatton have a contract with Sky. Froch - Ward has been in the making for over 2 years as the Super Six final and is on Sky since Froch joined Matchroom. Khan realised the PPV grass isn't always greener and given the choice of domestic broadcasters, Sky was the only real option (Khan working with Warren is only slightly less believable than Calzaghe working with Warren). Sky have had a long running relationship with the Klitschkos and the Wlad fight will certainly help the build up for any future Haye - Klitschko PPV fight. Arron-Rose, Selby-Simpson and Edwards-Bayaar are all UK title fights that would have been shown on Sky at any stage over the last 5 years.

Interesting that you mention Murray v Mitchell as the only decent card Sky have done in last 3 years or so. That fight, on a saturday in July with no football competition, drew 190,000 viewers. Their best card in years yet less than 200k people wanted to see it.

allegedly is going to struggle as viewing figures on sky are not high and they include the casual fan as you point out with Murray v Mitchell figures. Setanta boxing figures were not great either. But Warren knows best so it bound to work well!

Warren knows best? He seems to have lost his touch if you ask me- sports network and fwp going under would suggest this.

Frank W was still able to put together impressive bills like Mitchell-Murray and its stacked undercard on standard Sky Sports without the extra BN subscription money. Going further back, he managed to put on a huge stadium fight like Bruno-McCall - with Nigel Benn on the undercard - on standard Sky Sports without the extra revenue from PPV. And of course going back further still the likes of Eubank-Benn were on terrestrial TV without the extra revenue from subscription channels.

I understand times and market forces change, but I do just think it's a mistake when people think the extra money they pay as consumers is what accounts for big fights being made. Again - there were big fights before BN. There were big fights before PPV. There were big fights before Sky Sports. Thus, it just seems unneccesary to me, and that is why I said we were doing just fine without BN until autumn 2011.[/quote]

Fair enough Oliver - well argued