BoxRec

A little in this case- he did a lot for Khan

Jeff Thomas wrote:A little in this case- he did a lot for Khan

Warren got a lot more out of it, he got the ITV on the back of signing KHAN as they didn't give a feck about the rest of his stable.

The match is not that appealing, signing up for Primetime even less so.

I would probably have bought the SKY version but only if I had nothing better to do. I definitely won't be picking this one up.

im boycotting it just because its not ppv worthy - i will buy again when its a big fight or a good undercard.

He was starting to win me over but my support for khan has went one step forward ten steps back!

Hope he gets pasted!

I cannot understand this - there was no sign of a "khancott" on Saturday - even though the undercard looked shoddy and it was scheduled to be on SBO.

So why the "he's fecking us over now" - the bill is exactly the same, same cost etc..... is the Khancott really to do with the issues over presentation???? Well..... I have to say on most occasions Primetime give better value than Sky.... starting 30 minutes earlier for kick off.

I will still be purchasing the fight as I have a few mates over to watch it. It's not often we get an Irish lad in a World Title fight against an English opponent so may aswell make the most of it. I don't think I could trust a stream HDMIed up to the TV. In saying that though, it is shocking the way the whole thing has been handled. Amir is being very badly advised by his handlers and family and it's not just on this occasion that this is coming to light.

stujones wrote:I cannot understand this - there was no sign of a "khancott" on Saturday - even though the undercard looked shoddy and it was scheduled to be on SBO.

So why the "he's fecking us over now" - the bill is exactly the same, same cost etc..... is the Khancott really to do with the issues over presentation???? Well..... I have to say on most occasions Primetime give better value than Sky.... starting 30 minutes earlier for kick off.

I think we know the real reason why certain people who post on here don't like Khan!

People seem to forget that only 2 fights ago Khan allowed his fight with Paulie malignaggi to be shown for free on ITV, i've not seen Froch, Haye or any other British boxer do that lately and from the sounds of it Team Khan tried to give the McCloskey fight to them for free again but because they've been screwed over by SKY, ITV already have the slot taken.

Sky are mostly to blame in this matter, if they'd said from the start we don't think the McCloskey fight is PPV worthy then they should have allowed the Khan/Hatton team to find another route including getting it shown on ITV, instead they've suddenly turned it down with barely a week to go before the fight and not allowing Khan to find a good replacement channel in time.

What i don't understand is why people on here are so pissed off that Khan isn't fighting on SKY, it's almost laughable that the same people who complain about SKY crap boxing schedule are suddenly defending them like 'ahhh poor sky, bless them'.

stujones wrote:I cannot understand this - there was no sign of a "khancott" on Saturday - even though the undercard looked shoddy and it was scheduled to be on SBO.

So why the "he's fecking us over now" - the bill is exactly the same, same cost etc..... is the Khancott really to do with the issues over presentation???? Well..... I have to say on most occasions Primetime give better value than Sky.... starting 30 minutes earlier for kick off.

That's wrong. The bill as it is right now was never scheduled to be on Sky Box Office. The bill that included Fury-Rahman was scheduled for Sky Box Office. As soon as that fight fell out of bed, Sky canned the Box Office idea.

Nobody in their right mind would pay for this shite.

Eraserhead wrote:

stujones wrote:I cannot understand this - there was no sign of a "khancott" on Saturday - even though the undercard looked shoddy and it was scheduled to be on SBO.

So why the "he's fecking us over now" - the bill is exactly the same, same cost etc..... is the Khancott really to do with the issues over presentation???? Well..... I have to say on most occasions Primetime give better value than Sky.... starting 30 minutes earlier for kick off.

That's wrong. The bill as it is right now was never scheduled to be on Sky Box Office. The bill that included Fury-Rahman was scheduled for Sky Box Office. As soon as that fight fell out of bed, Sky canned the Box Office idea.

Nobody in their right mind would pay for this shite.

got to agree people were saying they would only pay if there was a good undercard - there isnt. People may just pay for a sky ppv on a whim but most dont ever use prime time , i've never used it, isnt there a signing on fee or something? either way khan v mckloskey is not a ppv fight.

Eraserhead wrote:

stujones wrote:I cannot understand this - there was no sign of a "khancott" on Saturday - even though the undercard looked shoddy and it was scheduled to be on SBO.

So why the "he's fecking us over now" - the bill is exactly the same, same cost etc..... is the Khancott really to do with the issues over presentation???? Well..... I have to say on most occasions Primetime give better value than Sky.... starting 30 minutes earlier for kick off.

That's wrong. The bill as it is right now was never scheduled to be on Sky Box Office. The bill that included Fury-Rahman was scheduled for Sky Box Office. As soon as that fight fell out of bed, Sky canned the Box Office idea.

Nobody in their right mind would pay for this shite.

Total rubbish. Fury-Rahman was a last minute addition, while Crolla-Rees was not on the original card either. The only fights that have fallen off the bill are Macklin v Gevor and Scott Quigg, although Scott Quigg was replaced by Rendall Munroe which most people would say is a step up.

kingfinn wrote:

Eraserhead wrote:

stujones wrote:I cannot understand this - there was no sign of a "khancott" on Saturday - even though the undercard looked shoddy and it was scheduled to be on SBO.

So why the "he's fecking us over now" - the bill is exactly the same, same cost etc..... is the Khancott really to do with the issues over presentation???? Well..... I have to say on most occasions Primetime give better value than Sky.... starting 30 minutes earlier for kick off.

That's wrong. The bill as it is right now was never scheduled to be on Sky Box Office. The bill that included Fury-Rahman was scheduled for Sky Box Office. As soon as that fight fell out of bed, Sky canned the Box Office idea.

Nobody in their right mind would pay for this shite.

got to agree people were saying they would only pay if there was a good undercard - there isnt. People may just pay for a sky ppv on a whim but most dont ever use prime time , i've never used it, isnt there a signing on fee or something? either way khan v mckloskey is not a ppv fight.

I think there is differences in the terminology of not getting the fight and boycotting - there was a "roycott" not so long ago, as a stand against substandard opponent after substandard opponent - there was no mention before the move to primetime of this "boycott" - I think a boycott means not paying on principle - and I feel its because people think Khan is a greedy git. Maybe he is, but I think Sky are out of order for agreeing one thing and turning their back on it.

To those were always going to not purchase this then my post isn't aimed at you - but there was no thread on this before.



Plus - to Erasehead - the fight was announced on PPV well before ANY advertised undercard. Macklin was supposed to be fighting Wright last weekend, Tyson Fury was only discussed this week.

stujones wrote:

kingfinn wrote:

Eraserhead wrote: That's wrong. The bill as it is right now was never scheduled to be on Sky Box Office. The bill that included Fury-Rahman was scheduled for Sky Box Office. As soon as that fight fell out of bed, Sky canned the Box Office idea.

Nobody in their right mind would pay for this shite.

got to agree people were saying they would only pay if there was a good undercard - there isnt. People may just pay for a sky ppv on a whim but most dont ever use prime time , i've never used it, isnt there a signing on fee or something? either way khan v mckloskey is not a ppv fight.

I think there is differences in the terminology of not getting the fight and boycotting - there was a "roycott" not so long ago, as a stand against substandard opponent after substandard opponent - there was no mention before the move to primetime of this "boycott" - I think a boycott means not paying on principle - and I feel its because people think Khan is a greedy git. Maybe he is, but I think Sky are out of order for agreeing one thing and turning their back on it.

To those were always going to not purchase this then my post isn't aimed at you - but there was no thread on this before.



Plus - to Erasehead - the fight was announced on PPV well before ANY advertised undercard. Macklin was supposed to be fighting Wright last weekend, Tyson Fury was only discussed this week.

Stu there was plenty of discussion on the board about ppv not beeing worthy. I thought it would do ok about 100000 buys because of the Irish buying it. Sky should never had agreed to let Khan have ppv without having the undercard sorted at same time main fight annouced.

No boxing card is PPV worthy, can you utter morons not see what has happened to the sport since PPV came in? As always I will be watching an illegal stream, why? Because I'm a rebel. 8)

Can't say I will as I will be having my cheeky £5 bet on McCloskey by Ko. I shall probably watch it live.

PPV is the worst thing that has ever happened to boxing.

By going PPV the powers that be have effectively cashed in on the existing boxing fanbase in an attempt to screw them for more money.

Where are the new fans going to come from if the big fights or big name fighters are always on PPV?

While there is PPV there are few opportunities for this sport to grow and prosper.

Will Khan extend his fanbase by fighting on PPV? No, he is merely cashing in on the fanbase he already has. All this talk of "doing it for the fans" is complete and utter bullshit.

If we had no PPVs at all and boxing was back on Terrestrial TV the big fights would still happen. The fanbase of the sport and it's fighters would grow and so would the advertising revenues that would come with it.

We now have a situation where in the US only the die hards are buying the PPVs and anybody outside of that never get a chance to flick through the TV channels and happen to come across the sport and grow to like it.

This sport cannot continue long term under the PPV business model. It is unnecessary and is just pure greed for short term gain. It is ruining the sport but unfortunately as long as the die hards continue to pay for them promoters and TV co's will continue to put them on.

I very much agree with boycotting the fight, or at least boycotting paying for it. I don't blame anybody who wants to watch this on an illegal internet stream. PPV is killing the sport.

I say boycott all PPV's until a high quality is guaranteed. When PPV started in the UK you had quality matchups with build up fights. I remember watching 3 heaveyweight title fights in 1 night! Tyson v Holyfield, Botha v Moorer, Akinwande v Zolkin! Undercard had Ricardo Lopez & Scot Welch and this was after we watched the following from Manchester:

Nynex Arena, Manchester, Lancashire, United Kingdom
Naseem Hamed W Remigio Daniel Molina TKO 2 12x3
Ronald Wright W Ensley Bingham UD 12 12x3
Steve Collins W Nigel Benn RTD 6 12x3
Terry Dunstan W Sergio Daniel Merani KO 3 10x3
Herbie Hide W Frankie Swindell KO 1 10x3
Carl Thompson W Jason Nicholson PTS 8 8x3
Michael Gomez W David Morris PTS 4 4x3
Danny Williams W Michael Murray TKO 1 4x3

That is a PPV night!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 11 world champions and a future slayer of Mike Tyson.

Now we are expected to pay for a crap bill (no offence to the guys on this undercard but as an example nothing compares to Benn V Collins in significance) because Khan won a silver medal at the Olympics! WTF!

We should all refuse PPV until the quality returns. The Mag 7 show was a step in the right direction but still pales in significance against the above list.

We're seeing the results of boxing being off terrestrial TV and on high rate subscription TV and PPV right now. Young men in their early 20s have not grown up with exciting big time boxing on terrestrial TV, they're not inspired to join boxing gyms, and look at the results. Where are all the great fighters?

They're all in their mid to late 30s!

loaded_gloves wrote:We're seeing the results of boxing being off terrestrial TV and on high rate subscription TV and PPV right now. Young men in their early 20s have not grown up with exciting big time boxing on terrestrial TV, they're not inspired to join boxing gyms, and look at the results. Where are all the great fighters?

They're all in their mid to late 30s!

Khan?

Ketchel - I disagree that the Mag 7 bill was a step in the correct direction. Was it that much better than the Hamed vs Calvo bill that got slated and slated way back when. The thing is we haven't have had an all UK PPV for a long long time and essentially the Mag 7 bill was 7 domestic fights, only 1 was really 50:50. Most predicted 7 out of 7 on the prediction league.

Ketchel wrote:I say boycott all PPV's until a high quality is guaranteed. When PPV started in the UK you had quality matchups with build up fights. I remember watching 3 heaveyweight title fights in 1 night! Tyson v Holyfield, Botha v Moorer, Akinwande v Zolkin! Undercard had Ricardo Lopez & Scot Welch and this was after we watched the following from Manchester:

Nynex Arena, Manchester, Lancashire, United Kingdom
Naseem Hamed W Remigio Daniel Molina TKO 2 12x3
Ronald Wright W Ensley Bingham UD 12 12x3
Steve Collins W Nigel Benn RTD 6 12x3
Terry Dunstan W Sergio Daniel Merani KO 3 10x3
Herbie Hide W Frankie Swindell KO 1 10x3
Carl Thompson W Jason Nicholson PTS 8 8x3
Michael Gomez W David Morris PTS 4 4x3
Danny Williams W Michael Murray TKO 1 4x3

That is a PPV night!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 11 world champions and a future slayer of Mike Tyson.

Now we are expected to pay for a crap bill (no offence to the guys on this undercard but as an example nothing compares to Benn V Collins in significance) because Khan won a silver medal at the Olympics! WTF!

We should all refuse PPV until the quality returns. The Mag 7 show was a step in the right direction but still pales in significance against the above list.

Me and you pal

stujones wrote:I cannot understand this - there was no sign of a "khancott" on Saturday - even though the undercard looked shoddy and it was scheduled to be on SBO.

So why the "he's fecking us over now" - the bill is exactly the same, same cost etc.

You're right, ultimately nothing has changed as far as the consumer is concerned, but it is telling that Khan threw his toys out when it looked as though he wouldn't be getting PPV money. Obviously nobody likes to take a pay cut, but you can't then claim you're fighting "for the fans" when you're charging them 15 quid each.

Course I'll be buying it. Even if it wasn't my job I would, I'm the sort of boxing mug punter the TV tyrants dream of

I will watch an illegal stream

Glyn Leach wrote:Course I'll be buying it. Even if it wasn't my job I would, I'm the sort of boxing mug punter the TV tyrants dream of

50 lashes for you.

That looks like fun Dioufy! Must admit, if I was on-line at home I'd definitely be considering my options