Page 3 of 3
Re: PPV - A failed venture?
Posted: 29 Feb 2016, 06:52
by pyenest77
Agree. Whoever decided that McDonnell should be chief support got it badly wrong
Re: PPV - A failed venture?
Posted: 29 Feb 2016, 07:27
by veriton
pyenest77 wrote:Agree. Whoever decided that McDonnell should be chief support got it badly wrong
this is true, the guy is a guaranteed bore. i thought burton v shinkin was going to be the main support as that looked highly likely to be a great fight (it was) but then they stuck it on first on tv on the freeview bit just to draw punters in - superb business tactic i suppose, but wish they had spared us mcdonnell. i paid for a ticket to watch kell brook last time and ended up watching mcdonell boring everyone to death and then eubank blasting some hapless tool out. i cant take any more of him.
Re: PPV - A failed venture?
Posted: 29 Feb 2016, 08:04
by Boxerbeetle
At least the next Brook fight is being advertised as Sky Sports 1 rather than Sky Box Office. Although it would have been pretty hilarious if they tried to sell us that one.
Re: PPV - A failed venture?
Posted: 29 Feb 2016, 09:14
by Exoddus
I've not paid for a PPV in years. If everyone stops buying the PPVs. Then they would cease to exist. Simply really.
Re: PPV - A failed venture?
Posted: 16 Mar 2016, 13:21
by pyenest77
veriton wrote:pyenest77 wrote:Agree. Whoever decided that McDonnell should be chief support got it badly wrong
this is true, the guy is a guaranteed bore. i thought burton v shinkin was going to be the main support as that looked highly likely to be a great fight (it was) but then they stuck it on first on tv on the freeview bit just to draw punters in - superb business tactic i suppose, but wish they had spared us mcdonnell. i paid for a ticket to watch kell brook last time and ended up watching mcdonell boring everyone to death and then eubank blasting some hapless tool out. i cant take any more of him.
Never realised the Burton v shinkwin fight was freeview to up the buy rate.