BoxRec

leforge wrote:Also is allegedly leaving sky?

He already has his own channel called allegedly on Channel 456. Its free to view and is currently showing reruns of Khan, Sprott and Cleverly fights.

watson748 wrote:

leforge wrote:Also is allegedly leaving sky?

He already has his own channel called allegedly on Channel 456. Its free to view and is currently showing reruns of Khan, Sprott and Cleverly fights.

If he charges for ppv I can see it being a flop!

MachoMan09 wrote:Boxing has always been and always will be PPV on Sky

not true, When I were a lad, Nigel Benn, Frank Bruno, Chris Eubank, Naseem Hamed, Steve Collins and others were on Sky for free
Then Bruno v Tyson 2 was PPV and everything after that

Rambo wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:Boxing has always been and always will be PPV on Sky

not true, When I were a lad, Nigel Benn, Frank Bruno, Chris Eubank, Naseem Hamed, Steve Collins and others were on Sky for free
Then Bruno v Tyson 2 was PPV and everything after that

When you we a lad, Sky paid massive amount more, and treated boxing as big time.
Now they have got their fingers burned overhyping the overrated haye, and boxing suffers from the cut back. They must have made fortunes out of Haye-Klit and Haye-Fraud. So now we endure domestic crap while Prime get the biggies? Not good.

carrotcruncher wrote:

Rambo wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:Boxing has always been and always will be PPV on Sky

not true, When I were a lad, Nigel Benn, Frank Bruno, Chris Eubank, Naseem Hamed, Steve Collins and others were on Sky for free
Then Bruno v Tyson 2 was PPV and everything after that

When you we a lad, Sky paid massive amount more, and treated boxing as big time.
Now they have got their fingers burned overhyping the overrated haye, and boxing suffers from the cut back. They must have made fortunes out of Haye-Klit and Haye-Fraud. So now we endure domestic crap while Prime get the biggies? Not good.

Boxing delivered viewing figures then. Now its very poor! We see what happens in July 2012 when contracts are up.

smcb80 wrote:if mayweather-ortiz is ppv here, a fight against manny certainly would.

just because sky aren't doing ppv doesn't mean they won't be on another channel.

sky get dog's abuse on here, sometimes rightly so, but adam smith is doing a great job i reckon. plenty of coverage and plenty of decent scraps on regular subscription.

I'm fine with it being on another channel, so long as I'm not paying a monthly subscription for that channel.

I refuse to pay for Sky's rip off services any more.

MachoMan09 wrote:Boxing has always been and always will be PPV on Sky. However, I welcome this move away from PPVPPV.

No it hasn't. First British PPV was in 1996.

stujones wrote:Mayweather vs Pacquiao would be on Sky box office, make no mistake about it.

Many of Oscar's fights were on "normal" sky, but the Mayweather and Hopkins ones were not....

Pretty sure Mayweather-Oscar was on standard Sky Sports.

MachoMan09 wrote:

boxingchat wrote:

Josh1111 wrote:Great news. I just hope promoters dont just ship next year and jump on the primetime bandwagon.

Great news for now though, looks like Froch v Ward will be on normal sky, result

The problem is the big fights cost money and that money can only be raised via the PPV format.

if Sky doe freeze PPV it could also make the big fights unlikely.

It's not a good thing if you think outside the box.

Were there no big fights prior to PPV? Why do big fights have to cost big money to make?

Exactly. In my time as a boxing fan, the following huge fights were not PPV:

Eubank-Benn 1 + 2 (and, in fact, all of Eubank and Benn's individual fights except for a couple near the end when they were parts of multi-fight bonanzas).

Lewis-Bruno (and I think all Lewis fights until Mavrovic)

Bruno-McCall

Calzaghe-Lacy

Calzaghe-Hopkins

Plus plenty of top Stateside stuff.

oliverfennell wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:

boxingchat wrote: The problem is the big fights cost money and that money can only be raised via the PPV format.

if Sky doe freeze PPV it could also make the big fights unlikely.

It's not a good thing if you think outside the box.

Were there no big fights prior to PPV? Why do big fights have to cost big money to make?

Exactly. In my time as a boxing fan, the following huge fights were not PPV:

Eubank-Benn 1 + 2 (and, in fact, all of Eubank and Benn's individual fights except for a couple near the end when they were parts of multi-fight bonanzas).

Lewis-Bruno (and I think all Lewis fights until Mavrovic)

Bruno-McCall

Calzaghe-Lacy

Calzaghe-Hopkins

Plus plenty of top Stateside stuff.

Both Calzaghe fights were on the PPV channel Setanta.

King Geedorah wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:Boxing has always been and always will be PPV on Sky. However, I welcome this move away from PPVPPV.

No it hasn't. First British PPV was in 1996.

He's trying to subtly say that paying for a Sky subs is the equivalent of PPV. I think his error came in trying to apply subtlety to the world of Internet forums.

Oh I get it now. PPVPPV. Missed the last bit!

Final round wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote: Were there no big fights prior to PPV? Why do big fights have to cost big money to make?

Exactly. In my time as a boxing fan, the following huge fights were not PPV:

Eubank-Benn 1 + 2 (and, in fact, all of Eubank and Benn's individual fights except for a couple near the end when they were parts of multi-fight bonanzas).

Lewis-Bruno (and I think all Lewis fights until Mavrovic)

Bruno-McCall

Calzaghe-Lacy

Calzaghe-Hopkins

Plus plenty of top Stateside stuff.

Both Calzaghe fights were on the PPV channel Setanta.

The Lacy fight was on ITV and Hopkins on standard Setanta (which I know incurred a subscription, but not PPV by definition).

Your right about Lacy, I remember now they even repeated it the next weekend. I meant to say Kessler and Hopkins

oliverfennell wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:

boxingchat wrote: The problem is the big fights cost money and that money can only be raised via the PPV format.

if Sky doe freeze PPV it could also make the big fights unlikely.

It's not a good thing if you think outside the box.

Were there no big fights prior to PPV? Why do big fights have to cost big money to make?

Exactly. In my time as a boxing fan, the following huge fights were not PPV:

Eubank-Benn 1 + 2 (and, in fact, all of Eubank and Benn's individual fights except for a couple near the end when they were parts of multi-fight bonanzas).

Lewis-Bruno (and I think all Lewis fights until Mavrovic)

Bruno-McCall

Calzaghe-Lacy

Calzaghe-Hopkins

Plus plenty of top Stateside stuff.

Lewis vs McCall 2 was a PPV as was Lewis vs Briggs.

Your dead right about DLH vs Mayweather being on normal sky sports - I still though think sky will be back in the PPV running if/when Mayweather vs Pacquiao is set.

stujones wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote: Were there no big fights prior to PPV? Why do big fights have to cost big money to make?

Exactly. In my time as a boxing fan, the following huge fights were not PPV:

Eubank-Benn 1 + 2 (and, in fact, all of Eubank and Benn's individual fights except for a couple near the end when they were parts of multi-fight bonanzas).

Lewis-Bruno (and I think all Lewis fights until Mavrovic)

Bruno-McCall

Calzaghe-Lacy

Calzaghe-Hopkins

Plus plenty of top Stateside stuff.

Lewis vs McCall 2 was a PPV as was Lewis vs Briggs.

Your dead right about DLH vs Mayweather being on normal sky sports - I still though think sky will be back in the PPV running if/when Mayweather vs Pacquiao is set.

Maybe, maybe not, but whatever happens, I'm sure this is not some lovely, warm act of benevolence from Sky. They just won't be offering it until they're confident it will be profitable again.

PPV uptake would have to be essentially fck all for it to NON-PROFITABLE.

Problem isn't PPV its putting Khan v Fagan on PPV, by the time you get to Khan v McCluskey 2-3 years later, patience has gone.

Then mix in PPV for Haye v Harrison and Haye v Klitschko and you have a the golden goose being cooked well and truly.

If this move makes SKY boxing stronger for the money I already invest every month, good. If it means some fights turn up on Primetime, thats fine.

DavidPayne wrote:PPV uptake would have to be essentially fck all for it to NON-PROFITABLE.

If that was true, then why not just continue it anyway, if it's so assured that it will make some profit every time?

I know the promoter pays the fighters, but the TV station pays for the broadcast rights. Therefore, whatever they pay the promoter, they have to ensure will be recouped by the advertising and/or PPV. I imagine advertising costs less on PPV because of the reduced exposure of the programming, so that means the bulk of Sky's income would be from the buy rate. And so, if the buy-rate is below X, they will lose money.

oliverfennell wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:PPV uptake would have to be essentially fck all for it to NON-PROFITABLE.

If that was true, then why not just continue it anyway, if it's so assured that it will make some profit every time?

I know the promoter pays the fighters, but the TV station pays for the broadcast rights. Therefore, whatever they pay the promoter, they have to ensure will be recouped by the advertising and/or PPV. I imagine advertising costs less on PPV because of the reduced exposure of the programming, so that means the bulk of Sky's income would be from the buy rate. And so, if the buy-rate is below X, they will lose money.

Because SKY realise they cannot keep screwing customers by their own hand or by proxy through the performance of fighters in fights and promoters in building fights and under cards.

Even the money grabbing SKY machine realise that, its tight economic times, their push for new customers has to have plateaued and they need to add value to their offering not ask for more from existing punters - and then supply diluted or disappointing product.

They've just announced a price freeze for 18 months and provided Sky Atlantic for free, wasn't cheap to buy the HBO back catalogue. I think their business model is entering a new phase. PPV is only one facet of that of course, but to me its a reflection of bigger influences than the actual state of top-level boxing or the performance of Haye between the ropes. They contribute but I think SKY is changing course - interested in profit still, naturally, but a slightly altered focus now on providing value to existing customers not just attracting new in difficult economic times.

I was being flippant with my opening point previously of course.

That all makes sense. Just it's rare these days for businesses to look at long-term profitability when there's money to be made RIGHT NOW. The big knock against boxing on PPV was always more that it reduced the exposure, and thus the potential new fan base and therefore future profitability, of the sport, than the fact that it cost existing and confirmed fans a bit more.