BoxRec

-KOKid- wrote:Watching the press conference now.
FW said they'll need 100,000 subscribers to start with.
Richard Brooke then said they don't need that many, but will be aiming for more.
Good luck with that.


The line up of fights on allegedly is very good though.
I'd certainly take up a subscription if I lived in the UK.
I have no trouble supporting boxing, but I do not agree that another subscription channel is the best thing for the sport.

-KOKid- wrote:Watching the press conference now.
FW said they'll need 100,000 subscribers to start with.
Richard Brooke then said they don't need that many, but will be aiming for more.
Good luck with that.


The line up of fights on allegedly is very good though.
I'd certainly take up a subscription if I lived in the UK.
I have no trouble supporting boxing, but I do not agree that another subscription channel is the best thing for the sport.

King Geedorah wrote:So the general consensus over the years seems to be.

“I love Buncey, me, I’d pay a tenner a month just to watch his show, it is brilliant.”

“Credit to Spencer Fearon on his six fight Premier deal, the channel is now well worth £6.99 a month (think that is the price, I subscribe but never check my subs amount).”

“ESPN are doing a few shows per month, sounds a bargain for a couple of extra quid.”

“£15.99 for PPV is a rip off but I would pay £5 a show for a decent bill.”

“I wish Sentanta was back on air in the UK, it was only £9.99 a month and I got to watch boxing once a week, sometimes twice, and there was a shit load of Gaelic football!”

Come on now, if a group of small hall promoters signed up for a TV deal that included 2 shows per week, a few extras and whatnot then we’d all say it was our duty as gentlemen and scholars to shell out for the subs and support the sport.

I buy every extra boxing bit going, this represents good value if it works out, separate what is on offer from personal feeling for the organisation launching it, add up the cost of the statements above and then make your mind up.

Eff me, there were people ready to commit to Primetime at £15 a pop for a mere sniff of the odd Golden Boy show. The beeb take our money on a monthly basis and won’t even give boxing the time of day, preferring instead to show Lesbians In A Boat: Expect Rowing and reality TV fare amongst the odd decent bit of TV.

King Geedorah wrote:So the general consensus over the years seems to be.

“I love Buncey, me, I’d pay a tenner a month just to watch his show, it is brilliant.”

“Credit to Spencer Fearon on his six fight Premier deal, the channel is now well worth £6.99 a month (think that is the price, I subscribe but never check my subs amount).”

“ESPN are doing a few shows per month, sounds a bargain for a couple of extra quid.”

“£15.99 for PPV is a rip off but I would pay £5 a show for a decent bill.”

“I wish Sentanta was back on air in the UK, it was only £9.99 a month and I got to watch boxing once a week, sometimes twice, and there was a shit load of Gaelic football!”

Come on now, if a group of small hall promoters signed up for a TV deal that included 2 shows per week, a few extras and whatnot then we’d all say it was our duty as gentlemen and scholars to shell out for the subs and support the sport.

I buy every extra boxing bit going, this represents good value if it works out, separate what is on offer from personal feeling for the organisation launching it, add up the cost of the statements above and then make your mind up.

Eff me, there were people ready to commit to Primetime at £15 a pop for a mere sniff of the odd Golden Boy show. The beeb take our money on a monthly basis and won’t even give boxing the time of day, preferring instead to show Lesbians In A Boat: Expect Rowing and reality TV fare amongst the odd decent bit of TV.

themadmariner wrote:It sounds like I need to discover You Tube boxing!!!!!

Ben Carey wrote:

King Geedorah wrote:So the general consensus over the years seems to be.

“I love Buncey, me, I’d pay a tenner a month just to watch his show, it is brilliant.”

“Credit to Spencer Fearon on his six fight Premier deal, the channel is now well worth £6.99 a month (think that is the price, I subscribe but never check my subs amount).”

“ESPN are doing a few shows per month, sounds a bargain for a couple of extra quid.”

“£15.99 for PPV is a rip off but I would pay £5 a show for a decent bill.”

“I wish Sentanta was back on air in the UK, it was only £9.99 a month and I got to watch boxing once a week, sometimes twice, and there was a shit load of Gaelic football!”

Come on now, if a group of small hall promoters signed up for a TV deal that included 2 shows per week, a few extras and whatnot then we’d all say it was our duty as gentlemen and scholars to shell out for the subs and support the sport.

I buy every extra boxing bit going, this represents good value if it works out, separate what is on offer from personal feeling for the organisation launching it, add up the cost of the statements above and then make your mind up.

Eff me, there were people ready to commit to Primetime at £15 a pop for a mere sniff of the odd Golden Boy show. The beeb take our money on a monthly basis and won’t even give boxing the time of day, preferring instead to show Lesbians In A Boat: Expect Rowing and reality TV fare amongst the odd decent bit of TV.

Some good points, Terry, however who is going to be in charge of QUALITY CONTROL, on allegedly going forward? I'm talking beyond the initial flurry of decent bouts such as Cleverly-Bellew and Burns-Katsidis. You've got to be as biased as some of the anti-Frank people you are having a pop at above if you think it's not going to be exploited.

gobbles wrote:

Ben Carey wrote:

King Geedorah wrote:So the general consensus over the years seems to be.

“I love Buncey, me, I’d pay a tenner a month just to watch his show, it is brilliant.”

“Credit to Spencer Fearon on his six fight Premier deal, the channel is now well worth £6.99 a month (think that is the price, I subscribe but never check my subs amount).”

“ESPN are doing a few shows per month, sounds a bargain for a couple of extra quid.”

“£15.99 for PPV is a rip off but I would pay £5 a show for a decent bill.”

“I wish Sentanta was back on air in the UK, it was only £9.99 a month and I got to watch boxing once a week, sometimes twice, and there was a shit load of Gaelic football!”

Come on now, if a group of small hall promoters signed up for a TV deal that included 2 shows per week, a few extras and whatnot then we’d all say it was our duty as gentlemen and scholars to shell out for the subs and support the sport.

I buy every extra boxing bit going, this represents good value if it works out, separate what is on offer from personal feeling for the organisation launching it, add up the cost of the statements above and then make your mind up.

Eff me, there were people ready to commit to Primetime at £15 a pop for a mere sniff of the odd Golden Boy show. The beeb take our money on a monthly basis and won’t even give boxing the time of day, preferring instead to show Lesbians In A Boat: Expect Rowing and reality TV fare amongst the odd decent bit of TV.

Some good points, Terry, however who is going to be in charge of QUALITY CONTROL, on allegedly going forward? I'm talking beyond the initial flurry of decent bouts such as Cleverly-Bellew and Burns-Katsidis. You've got to be as biased as some of the anti-Frank people you are having a pop at above if you think it's not going to be exploited.

Well, you can always cancel if the standard drops. Premier Sports promised much more than it has actually delivered

stevek3lly wrote: 100K subscribers will be very tough when you think Sky tend to only get at max 200K viewers for normal bills.

MachoMan09 wrote:

gobbles wrote:Warren also said he was in talks with Bob Arum

I talked to Kate Moss once. She didn't let me bum her, though.

MachoMan09 wrote:

broomy7s wrote:They are aiming at 100,000 but don't need a number as will make enough dollar with ad's.

Advertising rates are normally worked out on a per thousand adult views basis - it's about six and half quid for every thousand people who are served a thirty second advert. So how do you figure they "don't need a number as they will make enough money with ad's"? Surely it figures that the fewer people watch the less money received in advertising revenue.

Thinking about this whole allegedly business: I admit that when I was 16-22 I would've been all over this like a rash and would have already mailed off my subs. I'm simply not as much of a fanatic any more and it wouldn't matter what or who they showed, or indeed who the puppet-master was, I wouldn't buy.

I wonder what the actual take-up will be?

dohboy wrote:So what if a Warren fighter is down to meet a Matchroom/Hatton etc boxer. Who shows it or will this mean these fights won't happen now

danfoster wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:I dont really like much British boxing as it is.

Bad move from Warren.

Hmmmm.

gobbles wrote:
Well, you can always cancel if the standard drops. Premier Sports promised much more than it has actually delivered

broomy7s wrote:

dohboy wrote:So what if a Warren fighter is down to meet a Matchroom/Hatton etc boxer. Who shows it or will this mean these fights won't happen now

Whichever promoter wins the purse bids I would've thought