BoxRec

Will they offer "refunds" though.... I thought the ONLY way you could order this was via the website. So I would think those who "ordered" on Sky did not pay a thing.

freddydoesdallas wrote:

veriton wrote:all the fights on sky are behind a 60 quid a month (or whatever their subs are) paywall!

i dont pay for that, so a tenner was a good deal for me. this is the way its going, no one wants to be tied down to a contract any more, paying over the odds for sport. so 10 quid for a saturday night fight card is good going in my book.

id be interested how many people watched eubank compared to how many watched lomachenko v walters on BN or some other top level fight. my wild guess is that eubank pulled much bigger numbers.

People don't pay £60 a month to sky to watch boxing, they pay to have access to live sport, of which boxing is included.

That's hardly a valid comparison as Lomachenko isn't fighting at a reasonable hour is he and he's not a British fighter. Why not compare him to Anthony Joshua who is a British fighter boxing on ppv?

same difference squirrel. if i want to watch boxing on sky i would need to pay 60 quid a month. so i dont pay that as its not worth it.

people are slagging the eubank fight off cos it wasnt a great match up (although quinlan struck me as one of those guys who may go on to do something in the future), so im comparing it to lomachenko v walters which was one of the best fights of last year on paper. how many people were interested in that? not many....it aint just about the quality its about the drawing power thats my point.

Just back to the problems Sky owners had with ordering the fight via Sky. I am just thinking back to the whole Sky Box Office platform debate that Eddie and Frank were having about a year ago. Does the rather complex method ITV used for Sky owners to order the fight mean that actually Eddie was correct that only he can promote SkyBoxOffice fights, using the Sky ordering system.

ITV basically used the old Primetime method (although online and not via phone). If it was so easy to access SkyBoxOffice the traditional way, why didn't ITV just use it.

veriton wrote:

freddydoesdallas wrote:

veriton wrote:all the fights on sky are behind a 60 quid a month (or whatever their subs are) paywall!

i dont pay for that, so a tenner was a good deal for me. this is the way its going, no one wants to be tied down to a contract any more, paying over the odds for sport. so 10 quid for a saturday night fight card is good going in my book.

id be interested how many people watched eubank compared to how many watched lomachenko v walters on BN or some other top level fight. my wild guess is that eubank pulled much bigger numbers.

People don't pay £60 a month to sky to watch boxing, they pay to have access to live sport, of which boxing is included.

That's hardly a valid comparison as Lomachenko isn't fighting at a reasonable hour is he and he's not a British fighter. Why not compare him to Anthony Joshua who is a British fighter boxing on ppv?

same difference squirrel. if i want to watch boxing on sky i would need to pay 60 quid a month. so i dont pay that as its not worth it.

people are slagging the eubank fight off cos it wasnt a great match up (although quinlan struck me as one of those guys who may go on to do something in the future), so im comparing it to lomachenko v walters which was one of the best fights of last year on paper. how many people were interested in that? not many....it aint just about the quality its about the drawing power thats my point.

What are you on about? You want to compare an international fight that was on at 3-4am in the morning with a fight that was only shown in Britain at a peak time? That's not a valid comparison. However, you're talking about drawing power but won't comment on an actual valid comparison, Anthony Joshua. Why not use his first 'world' title fight against Martin, which again wasn't a great match up?

And it's not the same difference. People buy sky sports for the football which then gives them access to the boxing which Hearn uses to his advantage to attract casual fans in

im only interested in watching boxing not football so id be paying 60 quid for boxing. 12 quid for bocksnation, so sky is a rip off and if youre paying for it then how can you complain about eubank being a tenner? even a 10 quid ppv every week would be cheaper than a sky subscription.

kovalev v ward did 150k ppvs in the US (on primetime) and lets say eubank v quinlan did 300k here (some are saying that i honestly dont know). i think that's a good reflection about how many boxing fans there are in the uk and how well certain fights and fighters have becomed engrained in our collective psyche. not really summat to start bleating about is it?

veriton wrote:im only interested in watching boxing not football so id be paying 60 quid for boxing. 12 quid for bocksnation, so sky is a rip off and if youre paying for it then how can you complain about eubank being a tenner? even a 10 quid ppv every week would be cheaper than a sky subscription.

kovalev v ward did 150k ppvs in the US (on primetime) and lets say eubank v quinlan did 300k here (some are saying that i honestly dont know). i think that's a good reflection about how many boxing fans there are in the uk and how well certain fights and fighters have becomed engrained in our collective psyche. not really summat to start bleating about is it?

i don't pay for sky sports but i'm trying to show you what the market is on there. They say that approximately 6million people have legal access to skysports. On top of that, the rest of the sky subscribers have access to sky sports mix and sky sports news.

You were talking about Lomachenko in the last post. Why have you brought up Ward v Kovalev now and why are you comparing ppv performance in different countries? Joshua apparently did 400,000 buys at a higher price against Dillian Whyte and possibly 600,000 against Charles Martin in his first 'world' title fight. That would be double the amount of Eubank jnr if they did 300,000 which i doubt very much as there has been no talk of it being a success from itv or the Eubanks

The only source I've seen saying 300k is from a guy on here who spent the weeks beforehand telling anyone who would listen that it was a great fight, a guaranteed success and so on. I don't believe it for a second.

Some boxing fans are desperate to tell you they only watch boxing, which is fine, but most people aren't in this bracket and have a range of sporting interests, hence why Sky has been a success. Even if all you watch is boxing the money for the Eubank card doesn't really stack up well against, say, Joshua Molina:

Main event: mismatches, but Joshua's was for a proper world title at least.
Chief support: Whyte Chisora was a European level fight and ended up being a great watch. Price Hammer was pretty awful and a step down in talent. Price literally exhausted after less than ten minutes.
Domestic contest: Burton Buglioni for the British title - no complaints. Etches Ryder - not as good but hey ho.
Highlight of the rest: Kal Yafai fighting Concepcion for a world title. This is clearly a long way above Andrew Selby's fight.
The rest: Quigg and Callum Smith in reasonable if not exactly competitive fights, Ortiz in a mismatch and a Benn cameo v Galahad against a last minute replacement and a Kongo cameo.

I would buy the Sky card absolutely every day above the ITV one.

Only way this did 300k is if Eubanks bought 250k themselves.

Tarkus wrote:Only way this did 300k is if Eubanks bought 250k themselves.