BoxRec

Posted: **02 Mar 2011, 09:34**

Less is more, less is more guys. You have Finbar back now, and still got Watt.... thats all you need. Two best by a mile and work well together.

Jim looks fit and active, let him do both commentating and join up with Barry for Analysis.

Keep, Ed, and Adam for Commentary (Ed with the interviews)... .and have Bob and Spencer Oliver also for Ringside Segments and when there is a big double bill - and maybe PPV's.

Any PPV's involving a specific weight - then try and find commentators that suit that. E.g. Mattew Hatton vs Alvarez (if it was a PPV) then bring in Jamie Moore.

Posted: **02 Mar 2011, 09:38**

Way too much talk, not enough fights. It's painful watching Johnny Nelson shitting his pants in the studio trying to forge a career as presenter and sucking up to guests like Steve Foster.

Sky, show us boxing please. Yet ringside seem to be going a step further away from this by not only missing rounds out, but now they are editing 3 minute rounds into 30 seconds. Crap!

Posted: **02 Mar 2011, 09:42**

I've got no problem with an overseas commentary in general, though I think if a Brit is involved in the fight it is justifiable to send a couple of commentators over — justifiable but not essential, the most important thing is seeing the fight. What I don't like is when British commentators pretend they are ringside when they're actually in a studio in Britain — to me, it's important that whoever commentates should actually be there.

Posted: **02 Mar 2011, 09:54**

Glyn Leach wrote:I've got no problem with an overseas commentary in general, though I think if a Brit is involved in the fight it is justifiable to send a couple of commentators over — justifiable but not essential, the most important thing is seeing the fight. What I don't like is when British commentators pretend they are ringside when they're actually in a studio in Britain — to me, it's important that whoever commentates should actually be there.

Yes 100% they should be there. It is not the same commentating on a TV broadcast at all. I am more than happy with US commentators for a bill and a small studio in the UK for pre and post-fight analysis unless its a massive fight involving a UK fighter.

It's gone beyond a joke now with how many people are becoming regular on-screen players with SKY boxing. One person that is on a lot now which irritates me is Johnny Nelson. I thought Adam Smith was asking David Haye some decent questions in the Miami ringside special and Nelson kept jumping to Haye's defence before he even had a chance to reply! It was infuriating to watch knowing that Nelson was over there getting paid as a journo/presenter but was preventing Smith from doing his job properly.

Posted: **02 Mar 2011, 10:05**

chrisfinch wrote:
bruthead wrote:
chrisfinch wrote: You can't 'buy' the HBO broadcasts, you get given the international feed by the promoters.
So Sky can buy whole television series from HBO for Sky Atlantic...but they can't buy the HBO boxing commentary? Yeah, that makes sense. I'm not saying there aren't obstacles to this...but they are hardly big ones.
Nope, for most television programmes, HBO own the rights to sell them internationally, but not with boxing, they only own the US rights. Sky have absolutely nothing to do with HBO when buying US fights-they are not HBO's to sell, the entire dealings are done through the promoter, and Sky are given a feed by the promoter. For the vast majority of fights this is the international feed, apart from the rare occasions when one isn't available (Shobox for example) and the host feed is sent.

It is exactly the same as any other sport in the world. When foreign countries want to show the Premier League, they buy them from the Premier League, not Sky, and when Sky want to show the Cricket World Cup, they buy them from the ICC, not ESPN Star Sports. Boxing isn't any different, so it surprises me when people assume it is.

Yeah, you need to do two deals. Are you familiar with the word 'initiative'? You do a deal with the promoter to get the rights, and then you do a deal with HBO to get their presentation package. The promoter ain't gonna care if the HBO broadcast also airs in the UK. HBO are gonna be pleased if they can get extra revenue in exchange for doing virtually nothing.

Posted: **02 Mar 2011, 10:08**

bruthead wrote:Yeah, you need to do two deals. Are you familiar with the word 'initiative'? You do a deal with the promoter to get the rights, and then you do a deal with HBO to get their presentation package. The promoter ain't gonna care if the HBO broadcast also airs in the UK. HBO are gonna be pleased if they can get extra revenue in exchange for doing virtually nothing.

They will care if American fans see that we are getting for free what they are paying $50 for. Would think that would impact on the willingness of their market to pay rather than stream for example.

Posted: **02 Mar 2011, 10:16**

Scottrf wrote:
bruthead wrote:Yeah, you need to do two deals. Are you familiar with the word 'initiative'? You do a deal with the promoter to get the rights, and then you do a deal with HBO to get their presentation package. The promoter ain't gonna care if the HBO broadcast also airs in the UK. HBO are gonna be pleased if they can get extra revenue in exchange for doing virtually nothing.
They will care if American fans see that we are getting for free what they are paying $50 for. Would think that would impact on the willingness of their market to pay rather than stream for example.

Haye-Harrison aired on free to air German TV. You could even get the broadcast through your Sky dish if you could be bothered to realign it for German broadcasts. I really don't think that's a big deal. You can get any big fight on the internet for free these days but people still pay US PPV prices. They ain't gonna stop because Sky Sports subscribers in England are watching the same thing for free.

Posted: **02 Mar 2011, 10:18**

I glad this topic has got so many opinions. Sky boxing has not improved under Smith. As main fight on Saturday nights we will have had 4 weeks of Super feathers!

Posted: **02 Mar 2011, 10:23**

bruthead wrote:
chrisfinch wrote:
bruthead wrote: So Sky can buy whole television series from HBO for Sky Atlantic...but they can't buy the HBO boxing commentary? Yeah, that makes sense. I'm not saying there aren't obstacles to this...but they are hardly big ones.
Nope, for most television programmes, HBO own the rights to sell them internationally, but not with boxing, they only own the US rights. Sky have absolutely nothing to do with HBO when buying US fights-they are not HBO's to sell, the entire dealings are done through the promoter, and Sky are given a feed by the promoter. For the vast majority of fights this is the international feed, apart from the rare occasions when one isn't available (Shobox for example) and the host feed is sent.

It is exactly the same as any other sport in the world. When foreign countries want to show the Premier League, they buy them from the Premier League, not Sky, and when Sky want to show the Cricket World Cup, they buy them from the ICC, not ESPN Star Sports. Boxing isn't any different, so it surprises me when people assume it is.
Yeah, you need to do two deals. Are you familiar with the word 'initiative'? You do a deal with the promoter to get the rights, and then you do a deal with HBO to get their presentation package. The promoter ain't gonna care if the HBO broadcast also airs in the UK. HBO are gonna be pleased if they can get extra revenue in exchange for doing virtually nothing.

Why on earth would you pay twice for the same fight-once for the rights, and again for the coverage? That's utterly ridiculous and a waste of money.

Plus you've missed the obvious point that it's not HBO's to sell. Whether they film it or not, whether you've already paid the promoters for the rights, they only own the rights for in the States. The promoter is going to care if HBO are making any money internationally when they shouldn't.

Posted: **02 Mar 2011, 10:23**

I think some people might consider it, and if people could easily rewire their TV's to the German broadcast and knew about it they might have. A lot of people place worth not on what it's worth to them, but percieved value. For example, if Hugo Boss could make a jumper for £50 and priced it in the North of England for £100, people may be willing to pay that. Sell the same jumper to only residents of the South of England for £51 and let the people in the North know that and I bet they would be less willing to pay. That point could be put more eloquently but I think it demonstrates what I'm saying.

Posted: **02 Mar 2011, 10:32**

chrisfinch wrote:
bruthead wrote:
chrisfinch wrote: Nope, for most television programmes, HBO own the rights to sell them internationally, but not with boxing, they only own the US rights. Sky have absolutely nothing to do with HBO when buying US fights-they are not HBO's to sell, the entire dealings are done through the promoter, and Sky are given a feed by the promoter. For the vast majority of fights this is the international feed, apart from the rare occasions when one isn't available (Shobox for example) and the host feed is sent.

It is exactly the same as any other sport in the world. When foreign countries want to show the Premier League, they buy them from the Premier League, not Sky, and when Sky want to show the Cricket World Cup, they buy them from the ICC, not ESPN Star Sports. Boxing isn't any different, so it surprises me when people assume it is.
Yeah, you need to do two deals. Are you familiar with the word 'initiative'? You do a deal with the promoter to get the rights, and then you do a deal with HBO to get their presentation package. The promoter ain't gonna care if the HBO broadcast also airs in the UK. HBO are gonna be pleased if they can get extra revenue in exchange for doing virtually nothing.
Why on earth would you pay twice for the same fight-once for the rights, and again for the coverage? That's utterly ridiculous and a waste of money.

Plus you've missed the obvious point that it's not HBO's to sell. Whether they film it or not, whether you've already paid the promoters for the rights, they only own the rights for in the States. The promoter is going to care if HBO are making any money internationally when they shouldn't.

What are you talking about? Are you actively trying not to understand? Sky already pay twice for the same fight - once for the initial rights and again for the costs of covering it with their broadcast team. The only difference is they would be paying for coverage which has already been made by HBO and therefore it should be cheaper to buy access to it than doing your own transatlantic coverage from scratch.

I said they need to go TWO DEALS. One with the promoter, one with HBO. The promoter sells the broadcast rights, HBO sells its broadcast package. HBO aren't selling the rights to the fight, they are selling rights to their broadcast package of the fight. Really isn't that complex to get your head round.

Posted: **02 Mar 2011, 10:35**

bruthead wrote:
chrisfinch wrote:
bruthead wrote: Yeah, you need to do two deals. Are you familiar with the word 'initiative'? You do a deal with the promoter to get the rights, and then you do a deal with HBO to get their presentation package. The promoter ain't gonna care if the HBO broadcast also airs in the UK. HBO are gonna be pleased if they can get extra revenue in exchange for doing virtually nothing.
Why on earth would you pay twice for the same fight-once for the rights, and again for the coverage? That's utterly ridiculous and a waste of money.

Plus you've missed the obvious point that it's not HBO's to sell. Whether they film it or not, whether you've already paid the promoters for the rights, they only own the rights for in the States. The promoter is going to care if HBO are making any money internationally when they shouldn't.
What are you talking about? Are you actively trying not to understand? Sky already pay twice for the same fight - once for the initial rights and again for the costs of covering it with their broadcast team. The only difference is they would be paying for coverage which has already been made by HBO and therefore it should be cheaper to buy access to it than doing your own transatlantic coverage from scratch.

I said they need to go TWO DEALS. One with the promoter, one with HBO. The promoter sells the broadcast rights, HBO sells its broadcast package. HBO aren't selling the rights to the fight, they are selling rights to their broadcast package of the fight. Really isn't that complex to get your head round.

Whatever, you win. I'm fed up of arguing. But what you propose will never happen.

Posted: **02 Mar 2011, 19:37**

For sky not to show Hatton at this stage would be like patiently sitting through the movie 'Sirens' then switching it off just before Elle Macphereson gets her norks out.

Posted: **02 Mar 2011, 19:39**

chinny wrote:For sky not to show Hatton at this stage would be like patiently sitting through the movie 'Sirens' then switching it off just before Elle Macphereson gets her norks out.

Or watching 'Lost in Translation'.

Posted: **03 Mar 2011, 05:28**

chinny wrote:For sky not to show Hatton at this stage would be like patiently sitting through the movie 'Sirens' then switching it off just before Elle Macphereson gets her norks out.

Post of the day.

Posted: **03 Mar 2011, 05:40**

'Norks' pmsl - like your style Chinny.

Chris Finch, if you're out there. You seem to know the TV business fella, could you put an estimate on the amount that might have to be paid for a fight such as Alvarez-Hatton? Be interesting to know the ballpark figure.

Posted: **03 Mar 2011, 05:58**

Glyn Leach wrote:'Norks' pmsl - like your style Chinny.

Chris Finch, if you're out there. You seem to know the TV business fella, could you put an estimate on the amount that might have to be paid for a fight such as Alvarez-Hatton? Be interesting to know the ballpark figure.

I'll guess $100,000 or less.

Posted: **03 Mar 2011, 05:59**

chinny wrote:For sky not to show Hatton at this stage would be like patiently sitting through the movie 'Sirens' then switching it off just before Elle Macphereson gets her norks out.

Posted: **03 Mar 2011, 06:08**

Sky boxing's new showcase programme is like the opening of a fashionable new restaurant: beautiful setting, 20 waiters and a multi award winning chef; but when you check the menu, you realise it doesn't actually serve any food.

Posted: **03 Mar 2011, 06:08**

I saw it at the cinema. Just 3 of us in there. Terrible.

Posted: **03 Mar 2011, 06:10**

MightyWarrior wrote:Sky boxing's new showcase programme is like the opening of a fashionable new restaurant: beautiful setting, 20 waiters and a multi award winning chef; but when you check the menu, you realise it doesn't actually serve any food.

They do serve food, but you realise you've been looking at the menu from another restaurant and you're sitting in a different restaurant that only serves local food rather than the very best food from around the world.

Posted: **03 Mar 2011, 06:21**

DavidPayne wrote:
Glyn Leach wrote:'Norks' pmsl - like your style Chinny.

Chris Finch, if you're out there. You seem to know the TV business fella, could you put an estimate on the amount that might have to be paid for a fight such as Alvarez-Hatton? Be interesting to know the ballpark figure.
I'll guess $100,000 or less.

I was thinking much less David, maybe 30 grand British (or whatever $50,000 is in pounds these days), but I have no idea really, that's why I'm asking. Be interesting to get an informed view. Particularly if, as Chris seems to imply, a buying TV company would be dealing with the show's promoters rather than HBO. Obviously Hatton Promotions, with whom Sky have a deal, are secondary to Golden Boy in this show, but I'm wondering whether the existing Sky-Hatton and Hatton-GBP relationships (not deals) might have any bearing on the cost of this show for Sky.

Posted: **03 Mar 2011, 07:14**

Eight at ringside, 20,000 pounds worth of flights, no Matthew Hatton...it's time for another: "I love boxing..." line from another suit at SKY. Sorry for pointing out a few facts.
Meanwhile, the bargain budget, no air-miles, no tiny ring, no crying executives, no 'you don't know how hard we work' screams Boxing Hour returns to BBC London 94.9 tonight.

Adios.

Posted: **03 Mar 2011, 07:20**

Do you not find it strange talking about boxing on the BBC? Given they don't show it? I know the BBC is supposed to be this impartial thing that just reports what is going on but it seems odd to me to devote an hour to a sport that they will never show. I've never really thought about it before now.

Posted: **03 Mar 2011, 07:36**

orbtastic wrote:
MightyWarrior wrote:Sky boxing's new showcase programme is like the opening of a fashionable new restaurant: beautiful setting, 20 waiters and a multi award winning chef; but when you check the menu, you realise it doesn't actually serve any food.
They do serve food, but you realise you've been looking at the menu from another restaurant and you're sitting in a different restaurant that only serves local food rather than the very best food from around the world.

good form from both men here

BoxRec

Sky boxing

Re: Sky boxing

Re: Sky boxing

Re: Sky boxing

Re: Sky boxing

Re: Sky boxing

Re: Sky boxing

Re: Sky boxing

Re: Sky boxing

Re: Sky boxing

Re: Sky boxing

Re: Sky boxing

Re: Sky boxing

Re: Sky boxing

Re: Sky boxing

Re: Sky boxing

Re: Sky boxing

Re: Sky boxing

Re: Sky boxing

Re: Sky boxing

Re: Sky boxing

Re: Sky boxing

Re: Sky boxing

Re: Sky boxing

Re: Sky boxing

Re: Sky boxing