BoxRec

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

SweetLikeSugar wrote:Ian, is that article saying that the whole think should never have been PPV or that it shouldn't be now that Wlad v Chisora is off?

It's saying that the Liverpool card shouldn't have been part of the PPV at all. Ever.

If they wanted to make Wlad/Khan PPV, fine (maybe). But as it turns out, normal subscribers are having to pay for a card which should be part of their normal package.

Ian would you have payed for the Khan/Maidana bill ppv on it's own? If not doesn't the Liverpool bill add up to a nice undercard to the main Khan event?

Yes we should have access to the Liverpool bill as normal subscribers but without the PPV cashcow would the brit fighters be all on the same bill...

sorry if you have addressed all this in the boxrec article i aint read it yet

Ian, read the article. Its very interesting, however call me thick but I still don't quite understand what you mean by your refering to Khan being on the PPV as a different arguement.

I think I sort of understand, but my perspective is that the Liverpool bill was a "bonus" to the headline events. As someone who does often subscribe to the PPV I prefer that this is part of the PPV bill than on normal sky sports.

I don't see this as any different to many of the Lewis/Naz USA cards which had the likes of Clinton Woods in EBU title fights and Billy Schwer headlining.

I see this PPV as much better value than the Mag 7 bill. Again, how many true 50:50 fights were on that card? Most were 70:30 I would say and no world title fight to top it off. It was dissapointing really (cracking for the live fan, no doubt but not VFM compared to other PPV's). I believe it did very well, deemed a success - so I cannot blame Sky for doing this as a PPV.

Hate to do this, as I love boxing with all my heart- and I want to see Smigga and Bellew do well- but i'm boycotting tonight. Sky/Warren/Whoever tkae the piss - i'll pick this up for free on a stream. I urge other to do the same- they took the piss with the last one which was saved by some fairly intriguing match making but do you think i'm paying to watch 4 hours of utter shit followwed by 3 decent fights. fornicate that. Thanks SKY

Goz wrote:I'm going to go out of my way to watch illegally. Really not about the money (my missus is out tomorrow so I'm not going out, £15 not much in the grand scheme of what one might spend on a weekend) but the principle.

I woukld rather donate £15 to charity

Jeff Thomas wrote:Hate to do this, as I love boxing with all my heart- and I want to see Smigga and Bellew do well- but i'm boycotting tonight. Sky/Warren/Whoever tkae the piss - i'll pick this up for free on a stream. I urge other to do the same- they took the piss with the last one which was saved by some fairly intriguing match making but do you think i'm paying to watch 4 hours of utter shit followwed by 3 decent fights. eff that. Thanks SKY

Do you see the Mag 7 bill as better value for money? (if not, I appologise) but lets get real not all those fights looked particularly competitive on paper.

With regards to Ian's article which included Manny vs Hatton. I would say Manny vs Hatton was a harder fight to call than Brook vs Jennings. Hatton was undefeated at Light Welter and looked the business in his last outing. Pacquiao at the time, hadn't beaten anyone of note beyond Lightweight - DLH was weight drained and actually, David Diaz was his only Lightweight win - not exactly proven at that stage at the higher weights.

Jeff Thomas wrote:

Goz wrote:I'm going to go out of my way to watch illegally. Really not about the money (my missus is out tomorrow so I'm not going out, £15 not much in the grand scheme of what one might spend on a weekend) but the principle.

I woukld rather donate £15 to charity

stujones wrote:Ian, read the article. Its very interesting, however call me thick but I still don't quite understand what you mean by your refering to Khan being on the PPV as a different arguement.

I think I sort of understand, but my perspective is that the Liverpool bill was a "bonus" to the headline events. As someone who does often subscribe to the PPV I prefer that this is part of the PPV bill than on normal sky sports.

The article is saying that normal subscribers, who don't want to shell out for the Khan fight, should have been able to see the Liverpool bill as part of their normal package.

You're actually supporting what the article says (I think) - unless you subscribe to Sky Sports and then I just don't understand your point.

The Liverpool undercard is a bonus for those who take the PPV. But what about the regular sky supporters who don't want to shell out? They should get to see this type of card...because it isn't PPV worthy.

Final round wrote:Ian would you have payed for the Khan/Maidana bill ppv on it's own? If not doesn't the Liverpool bill add up to a nice undercard to the main Khan event?

Yes we should have access to the Liverpool bill as normal subscribers but without the PPV cashcow would the brit fighters be all on the same bill...

sorry if you have addressed all this in the boxrec article i aint read it yet

I would pay for the Khan bout under different circumstances - nothing to do with the match but it has to be amazing for me to do a 5am finish any more...

I wouldn't care if all those Brits weren't on the same bill mate. I'd rather see a couple in decent matches.

stujones wrote:With regards to Ian's article which included Manny vs Hatton. I would say Manny vs Hatton was a harder fight to call than Brook vs Jennings.

Agreed. But that's only because it was even more clear that Brook was going to smash Jennings, to anyone who knew what was what. He didn't really get the chance, mind.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

stujones wrote:Ian, read the article. Its very interesting, however call me thick but I still don't quite understand what you mean by your refering to Khan being on the PPV as a different arguement.

I think I sort of understand, but my perspective is that the Liverpool bill was a "bonus" to the headline events. As someone who does often subscribe to the PPV I prefer that this is part of the PPV bill than on normal sky sports.

The article is saying that normal subscribers, who don't want to shell out for the Khan fight, should have been able to see the Liverpool bill as part of their normal package.

You're actually supporting what the article says (I think) - unless you subscribe to Sky Sports and then I just don't understand your point.

The Liverpool undercard is a bonus for those who take the PPV. But what about the regular sky supporters who don't want to shell out? They should get to see this type of card...because it isn't PPV worthy.

Okay, got it now. Well I think it would be hard sell for Sky to say.... okay please pay £15 at 3.30 for about an hours worth of boxing.

I know its a bit daft of me to think that and can see with the Maths your thinking a lot more logically at the end of the month I would still be paying £55 for this months Sky sports (roughly, call it 40 + 15) whether this was part of the PPV or not. Having said that, I do actually think whilst not the marquee names on paper in the liverpool card.... there are some more level contests on it. I think given Bellew's last display, his match with McKenzie isn't as easy to call as a few of the fights on the Mag 7 card. Degale vs Smith tougher to call than any of the Mag 7 fights and then we have the main event in the USA a true acid test for Khan.

I know its not the point of your article, but if you ask me which I feel like I have had better VFM in my £55 - this month or the Mag 7 card (lets not take the other weeks in December or September? into account) then I think this one as a whole. Personally, I thought your article was very apt for that month. However, can see your point entirely.... but at the same time can see why Sky do it this way - cause there would be people (like myself) stupidly claiming about VFM if it was just Khan.

What. A. Show......!!

I just wish I could of paid double!!! Can someone pm me skys head office number just want to send them a cheque for another £15 such is the value of this mammoth card

im glad that after all my big talk of boycotting the ppv - i ended up buying it - what a night of boxing.Khan v maidana must be fight of the year.

Anyone still think tonights fights not worth £15?

I watched the whole show on a stream- what a night of boxing- and I didn't pay a penny. Thanks for putting on the khan fight sky or i'd have been really pissed off.

UpperCrust wrote:Anyone still think tonights fights not worth £15?

As the article to which I referred said, the Khan fight is a completely different argument.

The Khan/Wlad contests - fine (maybe, depending on how you look at things).

The Liverpool card - never.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Final round wrote:Ian would you have payed for the Khan/Maidana bill ppv on it's own? If not doesn't the Liverpool bill add up to a nice undercard to the main Khan event?

Yes we should have access to the Liverpool bill as normal subscribers but without the PPV cashcow would the brit fighters be all on the same bill...

sorry if you have addressed all this in the boxrec article i aint read it yet

I would pay for the Khan bout under different circumstances - nothing to do with the match but it has to be amazing for me to do a 5am finish any more...

I wouldn't care if all those Brits weren't on the same bill mate. I'd rather see a couple in decent matches.

Fair enough Ian I paid and had a good nights boxing watched Khan with breakfast this morning.

Three good fights, Khan/Maidana, DeGale/Smith and Bellew/McKenzie and a few stinkers but all in all worth £15 quid.

Final round wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Final round wrote:Ian would you have payed for the Khan/Maidana bill ppv on it's own? If not doesn't the Liverpool bill add up to a nice undercard to the main Khan event?

Yes we should have access to the Liverpool bill as normal subscribers but without the PPV cashcow would the brit fighters be all on the same bill...

sorry if you have addressed all this in the boxrec article i aint read it yet

I would pay for the Khan bout under different circumstances - nothing to do with the match but it has to be amazing for me to do a 5am finish any more...

I wouldn't care if all those Brits weren't on the same bill mate. I'd rather see a couple in decent matches.

Fair enough Ian I paid and had a good nights boxing watched Khan with breakfast this morning.

Three good fights, Khan/Maidana, DeGale/Smith and Bellew/McKenzie and a few stinkers but all in all worth £15 quid.

plus your subscription? People like you are why we- as boxing fans- get the piss taken out of us. Its not about the money, its about the principle

I'm not so sure Jeff, if you want to "blame" anyone - why not those who do not subscribe to SS but still buy PPV's - believing the hype. It might surprise people how many non "sports" fans will just pay for the PPV.

Get used to it, it ain't gonna change

Jeff Thomas wrote:

Final round wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote: I would pay for the Khan bout under different circumstances - nothing to do with the match but it has to be amazing for me to do a 5am finish any more...

I wouldn't care if all those Brits weren't on the same bill mate. I'd rather see a couple in decent matches.

Fair enough Ian I paid and had a good nights boxing watched Khan with breakfast this morning.

Three good fights, Khan/Maidana, DeGale/Smith and Bellew/McKenzie and a few stinkers but all in all worth £15 quid.

plus your subscription? People like you are why we- as boxing fans- get the piss taken out of us. Its not about the money, its about the principle

Well Jeff I pay for Sky sports sub, Premier sports and the odd PPV, so I'd say fans like me who are willing to cough up to watch boxing are the reason why it gets shown on TV at all

Btw mate I wouldn't openly admit to streaming under your real name . :idea:

Final round wrote:Well Jeff I pay for Sky sports sub, Premier sports and the odd PPV, so I'd say fans like me who are willing to cough up to watch boxing are the reason why it gets shown on TV at all

This is exactly my point mate, and no doubt Jeff's too. You already pay for your subs, Premier Sports, etc...you should be getting that Liverpool card as part of your package.

If you want to pay for Khan too, OK...

stujones wrote:I'm not so sure Jeff, if you want to "blame" anyone - why not those who do not subscribe to SS but still buy PPV's - believing the hype. It might surprise people how many non "sports" fans will just pay for the PPV.

I know so many people who just buy PPV's but have never subscribed to Skysports or any other sports channel for that matter and never even watched the boxing when it was on ITV and when I've asked them why don't they subscribe to Skysports and watch some boxing that is on weekly they just say that they are not interested in any fighter until they get big enough to be on PPV! Baffles me completely how are boxers going to get big if people don't follow them early in their career?

For this reason I think Sky know this and that's why they will continue to do PPV's. So many people have spoke to me about the fights on this PPV any many of them wouldn't of known who, Smith, Macklin, Bellew, McKenzie, Cleverly or Brook were before they were on PPV and now some of them are interested in seeing them again and even though some under performed they're more than happy to pay PPV to see them again, it's annoying that this happens but more exposure to boxing is better than no exposure.

And once again the bookies got it wrong to how mis matched the fights were going to be and they all ended up being far closer than the betting suggested.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Final round wrote:Well Jeff I pay for Sky sports sub, Premier sports and the odd PPV, so I'd say fans like me who are willing to cough up to watch boxing are the reason why it gets shown on TV at all

This is exactly my point mate, and no doubt Jeff's too. You already pay for your subs, Premier Sports, etc...you should be getting that Liverpool card as part of your package.

If you want to pay for Khan too, OK...

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Final round wrote:Well Jeff I pay for Sky sports sub, Premier sports and the odd PPV, so I'd say fans like me who are willing to cough up to watch boxing are the reason why it gets shown on TV at all

This is exactly my point mate, and no doubt Jeff's too. You already pay for your subs, Premier Sports, etc...you should be getting that Liverpool card as part of your package.

If you want to pay for Khan too, OK...

But I'd say that the number of people who subscribe to Sky only for boxing is a vastly insignificant minority, likely less than 100 in total.

I have a full sky+ HD Multiroom package, and >80% of my viewing (95% of live viewing) is of a Sky channel that's not available on freeview or terrestrial. I watch all the boxing that Sky show and purchase the PPVs. But I also watch a large amount of football, cricket, rugby, snooker, darts. My wife watches a significant amount of non-boxing during the day as well as films, Sky 1, FX, etc, so we get great value for money from our subscription. My point is that I don't just look at the boxing coverage and consider that being the only reason I get Sky. Sky are a huge organisation that produces a wide range of broadcast content for a wide range of viewers - to cater to the remarkable section of society that only wants to watch Boxing would drive them to ruin!

If you happen to be one of the lucky 100 that watches only Boxing on sky and then complains about spending £££s each month for a limited service, can you not appreciate that while you might only be wishing to pay for the boxing, Sky do deliver to you a whole host of programming that 99% of the viewing public would have some interest in?