Page 3 of 3
Re: Allegedly channel teaming up with Maloney and Hatton.
Posted: 27 Jun 2013, 04:33
by palooka
BillyTKid wrote:Allegedly channel is great value. They average one big show a month from the US which you would have to pay $50+ for if you lived over there. On top of this you get plenty of action from Germany and the UK. Boxing fans have never had it so good with Allegedly channel, Sky, Channel 5 and ESPN showing pretty much everything with a title.

If BN wasn't running then boxing fans in the UK would be knackered; SKY have all but pulled the plug; it'd be internet streams etc for us. I've seen a fair few very good bouts and talented boxers I'd have not seen otherwise; there was a Danish fan of Kessler on here before the Froch rematch and the Danish fans had to pay a lot of money to watch that bout on PPV.
Re: Allegedly channel teaming up with Maloney and Hatton.
Posted: 27 Jun 2013, 05:07
by warriorbox
This is great for British boxing and some British boxing promoters no doubt, I've been subscribed pretty much since the beginning so it will be great to see more live boxing on the channel, rather than endless repeats of November 2012 etc. I've always said it's a flawed concept which will never get enough members to make money and I still think that to be the case, but for as long as it's around I'll support it.
Re: Allegedly channel teaming up with Maloney and Hatton.
Posted: 27 Jun 2013, 08:20
by Daveyswan
think its brilliant for the subscriber and brilliant news for boxing in general.
Putting emotions aside I don't understand how anyone could think otherwise.
Re: Allegedly channel teaming up with Maloney and Hatton.
Posted: 27 Jun 2013, 08:38
by palooka
Daveyswan wrote:think its brilliant for the subscriber and brilliant news for boxing in general.
Putting emotions aside I don't understand how anyone could think otherwise.
Me neither; my wife shops at Top Shop but thinks that Phillip Green is a bell end.
The allegedly schedule should be listed on the BoxRec for the consideration of the users, (as someone else has said previously).
Re: Allegedly channel teaming up with Maloney and Hatton.
Posted: 03 Jul 2013, 13:52
by Final round
Alvarez v Mayweather is $64.95! over the pond
Re: Allegedly channel teaming up with Maloney and Hatton.
Posted: 03 Jul 2013, 13:59
by jessi
Final round wrote:Alvarez v Mayweather is $64.95! over the pond
Well there you go ! That's 4 months of box n a t I o n
Re: Allegedly channel teaming up with Maloney and Hatton.
Posted: 03 Jul 2013, 14:43
by DMA1987
Cracking value.
Slightly OT - Do you think Sky are missing (have missed) a trick by letting BN snap these fights up? Surely they could have just thrown some money at it and really starved BN, but they are really letting them get on a roll.
Re: Allegedly channel teaming up with Maloney and Hatton.
Posted: 03 Jul 2013, 15:05
by ashedward
DMA1987 wrote:Cracking value.
Slightly OT - Do you think Sky are missing (have missed) a trick by letting BN snap these fights up? Surely they could have just thrown some money at it and really starved BN, but they are really letting them get on a roll.
I agree,they probably didn`t want to get a bidding war,of course they would of one it if they wanted but they set their budget tight on boxing at the moment.I think they don`t want to spend big,and be dragged in to these battles not for international fight at 4 am in the morning but they should off pulled out the stops to get this imo.Boxing is small fry for Sky Sports at the moment confirmed by them not getting the biggest international fight out there,which is a disappointment the their subscribers especially seeing that they will be giving us the big sell on Fury-Haye on ppv
Re: Allegedly channel teaming up with Maloney and Hatton.
Posted: 03 Jul 2013, 15:48
by mickey1975
DMA1987 wrote:Cracking value.
Slightly OT - Do you think Sky are missing (have missed) a trick by letting BN snap these fights up? Surely they could have just thrown some money at it and really starved BN, but they are really letting them get on a roll.
They wont even give allegedly a second thought.
Re: Allegedly channel teaming up with Maloney and Hatton.
Posted: 03 Jul 2013, 15:56
by DMA1987
mickey1975 wrote:DMA1987 wrote:Cracking value.
Slightly OT - Do you think Sky are missing (have missed) a trick by letting BN snap these fights up? Surely they could have just thrown some money at it and really starved BN, but they are really letting them get on a roll.
They wont even give Allegedly channel a second thought.
Clearly they don't. And I think they must know more than me in terms of it's chances of success and failure, just seems like something they could have quite easily starved of oxygen before BN even got started.
ashedward wrote:
I agree,they probably didn`t want to get a bidding war,of course they would of one it if they wanted but they set their budget tight on boxing at the moment.I think they don`t want to spend big,and be dragged in to these battles not for international fight at 4 am in the morning but they should off pulled out the stops to get this imo.Boxing is small fry for Sky Sports at the moment confirmed by them not getting the biggest international fight out there,which is a disappointment the their subscribers especially seeing that they will be giving us the big sell on Fury-Haye on ppv
Well that's it isn't it, would have been a lot more value to them in tackling it early. Honestly, they probably expected it to have gone under by now. And now I'm sure they have let BN walk into some exclusivity contracts too with regards to showing US fights in the UK, at least with some promoters.
Re: Allegedly channel teaming up with Maloney and Hatton.
Posted: 03 Jul 2013, 16:02
by ashedward
DMA1987 wrote:mickey1975 wrote:DMA1987 wrote:Cracking value.
Slightly OT - Do you think Sky are missing (have missed) a trick by letting BN snap these fights up? Surely they could have just thrown some money at it and really starved BN, but they are really letting them get on a roll.
They wont even give Allegedly channel a second thought.
Clearly they don't. And I think they must know more than me in terms of it's chances of success and failure, just seems like something they could have quite easily starved of oxygen before BN even got started.
ashedward wrote:
I agree,they probably didn`t want to get a bidding war,of course they would of one it if they wanted but they set their budget tight on boxing at the moment.I think they don`t want to spend big,and be dragged in to these battles not for international fight at 4 am in the morning but they should off pulled out the stops to get this imo.Boxing is small fry for Sky Sports at the moment confirmed by them not getting the biggest international fight out there,which is a disappointment the their subscribers especially seeing that they will be giving us the big sell on Fury-Haye on ppv
Well that's it isn't it, would have been a lot more value to them in tackling it early. Honestly, they probably expected it to have gone under by now. And now I'm sure they have let BN walk into some exclusivity contracts too with regards to showing US fights in the UK, at least with some promoters.
Yep, I don`t think they thought it would last this long at all
Re: Allegedly channel teaming up with Maloney and Hatton.
Posted: 03 Jul 2013, 16:06
by Final round
jessi wrote:Final round wrote:Alvarez v Mayweather is $64.95! over the pond
Well there you go ! That's 4 months of box n a t I o n
8) yeah my favourite channel, bar none.
Sky seem happy with their merry band of matchroom fighters only concerned in showing internationals when a possible opponent for the future is fighting or a big juicy PPV. Which is fine for a subscriber who likes the odd fight.