BoxRec

In all seriousness, this is a very bad move from Khan's point of view.

I know his PR has always been a bit questionable, but this decision by his advisors really paints him as a tightfisted, money grabbing pudendum.

For me, the biggest flaw in the whole set up is that they air their laundry in public. Constant Twitter wars with journalists, the farce of the Peterson fight falling through over money and so on.

Given that Sky are effectively bankrolling domestic boxing it would be wise to keep them on side. The Khan set up seem to genuinely believe that it's him that's the PPV attraction - not a particular fight or event..... in order for fights to be on PPV you need to either have an intriguing matchup or a stacked bill. This is neither.

Sky did the right thing by taking this off PPV and offering them a slot on regular Sky Sports. So how did the Khan's react?

By immediately dragging McCloskey in and asking him to take a paycut

Then because the money offered to them isn't enough (still substantial it has to be said) they spit the dummy out and go for a fringe PPV channel that has had no experience of putting together a production of it's own - for the Froch fights they've simply used the Showtime feed and had their own commentators.

In fact, this could backfire spectacularly if there aren't enough buys. Primetime will need a certain amount in order to cover their own costs of putting the show together, which, unless the buy rate is right, could leave Amir with less than what he would have got by sticking with Sky. The lack of American TV money doesn't help matters from their side.

There's no exposure to a large audience, no time (crucially) to try to sell the event, and no actual intrigue within it (or the card) to make it compulsive viewing.

Basically, they need to get their heads out of their arses and face facts. Khan is NOT a major draw over here, and should try and build himself. Sure, he seems a nice kid and is entertaining to watch, but is prone to regular gaffes with the mic in his hand which can put people off.

He's lucky that Golden Girl have HBO in their pocket - because otherwise it could all blow up around him, leaving himself with no TV deal and very few fans in his home country.

Ideally, he'd sack everyone around him - his dad, Asif Vali and the other clowns.... and get someone that actually knows what they are doing running the show, whoever that may be.

I know the likes of Laz will defend him even when they know he is wrong, but surely even they can see that this is a major gaffe from ''Team Khan'', and one that probably won't benefit them even in the short term.

I'm surprised Hatton Promotions are associating themselves with the whole charade, I suppose there's too little time remaining for them to do otherwise, the undercard fighters will have been training for several weeks and they won't want to let them down.

The only winner in this is allegedly. It just shows that despite his faults (and there are many) that he's the man when it comes to staging big promotions. He's got the right staff around him, they can always pull a reasonable opponent out of the hat at short notice and the shows are generally good to watch as a whole.

gobbles wrote:

wrimc wrote:

gobbles wrote: No, but that doesn't make him the villain so many on here are suggesting

No it doesnt but the point is its smacks of greed from the Khan camp.

The reason he is being villified is because he genuinely believes urged on by his family that he is PPV material. He thinks that people will buy the fight regardless they will buy him. That is not the case it is the quality of opponent and quality of the undercard that are so obviously important but Khan seems to think his name is good enough for PPV alone when it clearly isn't.

He was offered a figure for a fight. A week before the fight, the person withdraws the offer and makes a paultry offer in its place. What would you do?

What was Sky's actual offer? What if they offered £50,000, which is there usual figure for a Saturday night, with the Watson fight to come from that too? What if they offered £30,000?
You are calling him greedy when you know absolutely no facts about the offer he was made at all.
Sky don't pay £200-£300,000 for fights any more. Maybe you think he should have boxed for free?
The figures quoted in the press last week are all pie in the sky.

Im not suggesting Khan takes any fight for free and it is obviously any fighters prerogative to make as much money as they possibly can. The point is that it is not simply that Sky have moved the goalposts by the looks of things yes i am speculating but we have to speculate a certain amount.

SKy have entrusted Khan Promotions, thats who it is its not Goldenboy its Khan Promotions to run a succesful promotion which is going to be PPV worthy. Yes they entrusted Hatton with providing the undercard but it was ultimately KP pulling the strings as it is he that will have decided the budget and will have had some say in the selection of opponents.

They have failed with a few weeks left to produce a PPV worthy product and so Sky not wanting to sully their reputation in providing PPV's further after the Haye Harrison debacle have said okay we will cover the undercard costs and still pay you and McCloskey's lesser purses of 250 000 and 100 000.

We have heard all the Khan's talk of im taking the paycut essentially paying McCloskey out of my own pocket but the point is if he had taken a little paycut of 100-200k in he first place it would have ensured a 5* undercard and would have secured himself a much higher purse than he was ultimately offered. Now he is left scrounging for PPVs from Primtetime.

This is why there is a bit of greed from KP they dont want to give a few inches would secure them a higher purse ultimatelyand a relationship with Sky.

MachoMan09 wrote:Sky: Amir this PPV does not look like it's going to sell.
Khan: What about my money?
Sky: You were going to be on a cut of the PPV sales and because we don't forecast there being many buys, we are exploring other options.
Khan: What about my money?
Sky: It will almost certainly work out more beneficial for everyone if we move the fight to Sky Sports and pay you a set fee.
Khan: What about my money?
Sky: If the PPV had sold big you might have got close to 1.5 million but it looks like it will flop completely and you'll get buttons. If we moved the fight to Sky Sports we'd pay you 250K guaranteed. It's the best option all round.
Khan: What about my money?
Sky: FFS!

Khan: Is that Primetime?
Primetime: Yes.
Khan: What about my money?

I didn't realise you worked for the NOTW

'what about my money'

i can see a new 'needs to step up', here

Counter-puncher wrote:'what about my money'

i can see a new 'needs to step up', here

Just excellent, Macho. Pure genius.

your missis needs to step up

Counter-puncher wrote:your missis needs to step up

The Wolves defence needs to step up. Quite literally. That's what happens when they defend so deep and back off.

MachoMan09 wrote:Sky: Amir this PPV does not look like it's going to sell.
Khan: What about my money?
Sky: You were going to be on a cut of the PPV sales and because we don't forecast there being many buys, we are exploring other options.
Khan: What about my money?
Sky: It will almost certainly work out more beneficial for everyone if we move the fight to Sky Sports and pay you a set fee.
Khan: What about my money?
Sky: If the PPV had sold big you might have got close to 1.5 million but it looks like it will flop completely and you'll get buttons. If we moved the fight to Sky Sports we'd pay you 250K guaranteed. It's the best option all round.
Khan: What about my money?
Sky: FFS!

Khan: Is that Primetime?
Primetime: Yes.
Khan: What about my money?

Is it going to rain today?

Team khan saj is slagging off sky on Twitter! Says it's on primetime. Can't see khan ever on sky unless he sacks these clowns.

Farcical but Sky only have themselves and their greed/lack of quality control to blame in my opinion. Remember, the date was announced as PPV even before an opponent had been named. What sort of quality control is that? Then, because McCloskey is a good challenger but not a big enough name, they start relying on the likes of Matthew Macklin and Tyson Fury to bolster the show. I'm sorry, but who the hell are those two at the end of the day? We know them, we appreciate them, but are they PPV material? I say no. And anyway, no one in the TV world sells a PPV on the strength of an undercard fight. It's the main event that's supposed to sell.

So then Sky do the right thing by taking it off PPV because they don't think it will sell and start blaming the promoters for not having found them a good enough undercard, when this is the company that declared the fight PPV without there even being an opponent!! Ridiculous, the card and particularly the OPPONENT should have been settled before it was even made PPV. But that's not how Sky work. They set a PPV date then try to fill it, it seems to me. And on this occasion they couldn't.

So Khan and McCloskey are offered far less than they'd originally been promised, and they've said fornicate that for a game of soldiers and gone to Primetime to take a punt on the fight selling. I feel sorry for them. It's their right to get the best deal possible and they were promised a good one, you can't blame them. But when it's snatched away from them through no fault of their own, what are they suppose to do? I wouldn't have done it myself, but they might as well take a punt on Primetime. But I don't think the fight will do particularly well on there. And Sky will take Khan back for Bradley, no worries - there's money to be made and they'll want to be part of it. There won't be any longterm damage to the relationship, bet your house on it. Money talks.

The whole thing's a joke but the point it started to go wrong was right at the start, when Sky decided that Khan vs TBA was good enough to charge 15 quid for. Let's hope they've learned from this and it will be the start of a more realistic era in the economic relationship between TV and boxing. The signs for that are good and I think Sky belatedly made the best move under the circumstances, even though they were at fault for all the problems.

Dioufy wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:your missis needs to step up

The Wolves defence needs to step up. Quite literally. That's what happens when they defend so deep and back off.

but Jodie Craddock is a better cook than your missis. fact.

And my misses is a better defender. Fact.

We need to stand united on this one and NOT pay for it where ever it will be shown! Sky have stood firm because they don't want another poor PPV event, great news for fans but not so great for current boxers such as Khan that think anytime they fight it should be PPV. Khan's team need to wake up and realise, this isn't a PPV event.

The whole event is turning into a real shambles and really reflecting badly on Khan. It was supposed to be his 'home-coming' fight, one for the fans, before he engaged in several 'Superfights' staged in the US. To be shown 'live' on Sky Sports and to put a good performance in (no disrespect to McCloskey but he was chosen to make Khan look good) would've guaranteed massive PPV sales for his next fight, Timothy Bradley. He would be getting fantastic publicity by being more accessible to boxing fans and sport fans throughout the UK, fans that would be willing to pay for his next fight, you can't beat that kind of advertising and it's almost a slap in the face to not only his fans here in the UK but also Sky Sports. In short, he's cutting his userbase to make more money instead of seeing the bigger picture and to be honest, I don't think it's going to make more money.

We don't know what the rest of the week will bring yet either, we might see a u-turn, we might see a big fight being announced on the undercard or we might see Primetime think 'Hang on, if Sky couldn't sell this fight,then what the hell are we doing with it??'....

Glyn Leach wrote:Farcical but Sky only have themselves and their greed/lack of quality control to blame in my opinion. Remember, the date was announced as PPV even before an opponent had been named. What sort of quality control is that? Then, because McCloskey is a good challenger but not a big enough name, they start relying on the likes of Matthew Macklin and Tyson Fury to bolster the show. I'm sorry, but who the hell are those two at the end of the day? We know them, we appreciate them, but are they PPV material? I say no. And anyway, no one in the TV world sells a PPV on the strength of an undercard fight. It's the main event that's supposed to sell.

So then Sky do the right thing by taking it off PPV because they don't think it will sell and start blaming the promoters for not having found them a good enough undercard, when this is the company that declared the fight PPV without there even being an opponent!! Ridiculous, the card and particularly the OPPONENT should have been settled before it was even made PPV. But that's not how Sky work. They set a PPV date then try to fill it, it seems to me. And on this occasion they couldn't.

So Khan and McCloskey are offered far less than they'd originally been promised, and they've said eff that for a game of soldiers and gone to Primetime to take a punt on the fight selling. I feel sorry for them. It's their right to get the best deal possible and they were promised a good one, you can't blame them. But when it's snatched away from them through no fault of their own, what are they suppose to do? I wouldn't have done it myself, but they might as well take a punt on Primetime. But I don't think the fight will do particularly well on there. And Sky will take Khan back for Bradley, no worries - there's money to be made and they'll want to be part of it. There won't be any longterm damage to the relationship, bet your house on it. Money talks.

The whole thing's a joke but the point it started to go wrong was right at the start, when Sky decided that Khan vs TBA was good enough to charge 15 quid for. Let's hope they've learned from this and it will be the start of a more realistic era in the economical relationship between TV and boxing. The signs for that are good and I think Sky belatedly made the best move under the circumstances, even though they were at fault for all the problems.

good points, i will be buying it, but it wont do as well now because the average fan dont know prime time, the ones that do will be thinking well it wasnt ppv 2 days ago so im not buying it ! and all the boxrec fans are boycotting it. it should sell ok though, so khan will make atleast half a million i think....

Glyn Leach wrote:Farcical but Sky only have themselves and their greed/lack of quality control to blame in my opinion. Remember, the date was announced as PPV even before an opponent had been named. What sort of quality control is that? Then, because McCloskey is a good challenger but not a big enough name, they start relying on the likes of Matthew Macklin and Tyson Fury to bolster the show. I'm sorry, but who the hell are those two at the end of the day? We know them, we appreciate them, but are they PPV material? I say no. And anyway, no one in the TV world sells a PPV on the strength of an undercard fight. It's the main event that's supposed to sell.

So then Sky do the right thing by taking it off PPV because they don't think it will sell and start blaming the promoters for not having found them a good enough undercard, when this is the company that declared the fight PPV without there even being an opponent!! Ridiculous, the card and particularly the OPPONENT should have been settled before it was even made PPV. But that's not how Sky work. They set a PPV date then try to fill it, it seems to me. And on this occasion they couldn't.

So Khan and McCloskey are offered far less than they'd originally been promised, and they've said eff that for a game of soldiers and gone to Primetime to take a punt on the fight selling. I feel sorry for them. It's their right to get the best deal possible and they were promised a good one, you can't blame them. But when it's snatched away from them through no fault of their own, what are they suppose to do? I wouldn't have done it myself, but they might as well take a punt on Primetime. But I don't think the fight will do particularly well on there. And Sky will take Khan back for Bradley, no worries - there's money to be made and they'll want to be part of it. There won't be any longterm damage to the relationship, bet your house on it. Money talks.

The whole thing's a joke but the point it started to go wrong was right at the start, when Sky decided that Khan vs TBA was good enough to charge 15 quid for. Let's hope they've learned from this and it will be the start of a more realistic era in the economic relationship between TV and boxing. The signs for that are good and I think Sky belatedly made the best move under the circumstances, even though they were at fault for all the problems.

allegedly is what about Groves and Degale ,Clevely not a ppv fighter.

ScottDetonator wrote:We need to stand united on this one and NOT pay for it where ever it will be shown! Sky have stood firm because they don't want another poor PPV event, great news for fans but not so great for current boxers such as Khan that think anytime they fight it should be PPV. Khan's team need to wake up and realise, this isn't a PPV event.

The whole event is turning into a real shambles and really reflecting badly on Khan. It was supposed to be his 'home-coming' fight, one for the fans, before he engaged in several 'Superfights' staged in the US. To be shown 'live' on Sky Sports and to put a good performance in (no disrespect to McCloskey but he was chosen to make Khan look good) would've guaranteed massive PPV sales for his next fight, Timothy Bradley. He would be getting fantastic publicity by being more accessible to boxing fans and sport fans throughout the UK, fans that would be willing to pay for his next fight, you can't beat that kind of advertising and it's almost a slap in the face to not only his fans here in the UK but also Sky Sports. In short, he's cutting his userbase to make more money instead of seeing the bigger picture and to be honest, I don't think it's going to make more money.

We don't know what the rest of the week will bring yet either, we might see a u-turn, we might see a big fight being announced on the undercard or we might see Primetime think 'Hang on, if Sky couldn't sell this fight,then what the hell are we doing with it??'....

but what is ppv quality ? all the best fights are the ones we least expect, you could say apart from haye v wlad and pacman v mayweather nothing else should be ppv, if you like the look of a fight or a particular fighter and dont mind spending your own money to watch it then whats the problem ?

jessi wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:Farcical but Sky only have themselves and their greed/lack of quality control to blame in my opinion. Remember, the date was announced as PPV even before an opponent had been named. What sort of quality control is that? Then, because McCloskey is a good challenger but not a big enough name, they start relying on the likes of Matthew Macklin and Tyson Fury to bolster the show. I'm sorry, but who the hell are those two at the end of the day? We know them, we appreciate them, but are they PPV material? I say no. And anyway, no one in the TV world sells a PPV on the strength of an undercard fight. It's the main event that's supposed to sell.

So then Sky do the right thing by taking it off PPV because they don't think it will sell and start blaming the promoters for not having found them a good enough undercard, when this is the company that declared the fight PPV without there even being an opponent!! Ridiculous, the card and particularly the OPPONENT should have been settled before it was even made PPV. But that's not how Sky work. They set a PPV date then try to fill it, it seems to me. And on this occasion they couldn't.

So Khan and McCloskey are offered far less than they'd originally been promised, and they've said eff that for a game of soldiers and gone to Primetime to take a punt on the fight selling. I feel sorry for them. It's their right to get the best deal possible and they were promised a good one, you can't blame them. But when it's snatched away from them through no fault of their own, what are they suppose to do? I wouldn't have done it myself, but they might as well take a punt on Primetime. But I don't think the fight will do particularly well on there. And Sky will take Khan back for Bradley, no worries - there's money to be made and they'll want to be part of it. There won't be any longterm damage to the relationship, bet your house on it. Money talks.

The whole thing's a joke but the point it started to go wrong was right at the start, when Sky decided that Khan vs TBA was good enough to charge 15 quid for. Let's hope they've learned from this and it will be the start of a more realistic era in the economical relationship between TV and boxing. The signs for that are good and I think Sky belatedly made the best move under the circumstances, even though they were at fault for all the problems.

good points, i will be buying it, but it wont do as well now because the average fan dont know prime time, the ones that do will be thinking well it wasnt ppv 2 days ago so im not buying it ! and all the boxrec fans are boycotting it. it should sell ok though, so khan will make atleast half a million i think....

It will need to shift some for Khan to hit the £500,000 mark. To generate that figure alone it will need to sell 35,000 buys at £15. I don't think virgin media viewers or freesat people can purchase it and on top of that, Khan has not done huge numbers before.

I'm not paying now, nor am I finger pointing. I'm not bothered enough about this fight to chase watching it live.

boxingchat wrote:

stujones wrote:

boxingchat wrote:It's fine to be slagging the Khan's here for what appears to be their penny-pinching and greed, but this problem stemmed from the undercard not being good enough for PPV on Sky. Haye V Harrison is to blame here and Sky don't want an other black-eye after that debacle when the undercard was a few divsions lower than even the exisiting undercard for Khan.

For me (and they will not admit it) but they seem to be placing so much emphasis on the undercard because they think McCloskey is a weak opponent and, if this is the case, why did they go with it in the first place?

What I cannot understand is that where are Golden Boy in all this? They made a big noise about signing Khan yet appear to have retreated into the shadows here leaving Amir to take a massive pay-cut and for his wholly inexperience team to take all the flak on their behalf - THEY are his Promoters so how can they have let this happen? They don't have one name that could have bolstered the undercard to any acceptable level?

No one involved in this show has rung any other UK Promoter to enquire as to which of their fighters may be available to fight on the undercard so did they really have any intention of putting a decent undercard together or just grabbing all the PPV cash for Amir. If Fury was supposedly on the card, why wasn't Chisora enquired about? It's a mandated fight and out for purse offers so surely a deal could have ben done. Surely if you stand to lose over £1M then to spend a few quid to protect that would be sensible wouldn't it.

The thing all the aforementiond parties have in common? De La Hoya, Haye, Harrison, Khan and Hatton are all ex fighters, all are self Promoted and all want to grab as much as they can by doing things on the cheap.

Ricky Hatton is the Promoter of his event isn't he, with Golden Boy? So these two entities cannot put together an undercard with all their resourses?

Too many Cooks springs to mind and all the greedy ones are in the same kitchen on this occasion.

I do largely agree with this, particularly the part I've bolded. Very unproffesional from Sky - they should have waited untill a concrete undercard before agreeing the PPV or stated McCloskey didn't cut it from the word go. It was a tough one for the promotion team to handle though - they obviously wanted a tune up for Bradley and who else was available - this isn't a barely top 50 fighter being rejected - this is a top 15 fighter - and the #2 ranked Brit (I don't want to go there about Nationalities - I hope you know what I mean) - Problem is, Khan isn't in the hotbed of big names - hardly anyone has heard of the Unified (twice) champ. If McCloskey got rejected without a cracking undercard - then who would get accepted.

There are 2 parts I do disagree with.

1) -Hasn't rung any UK promoter..... okay, well we know your contacts so I am sure you are correct here but does it have to be a Uk promoter? They certainly rang other promoters - Macklin vs Gevor was a good fight.... and they clearly asked if Hennessy if Tyson Fury would be available - so they must have called them.

2) Tarnishing DLH or GBP in the same brush as Haye, Hatton, Harrison and Khan - did you see the bill this weekend? I think GBP involvement in this fight has been minimal. Just there as Khan's representative.

They havent rung anyone. Hennessy for Tyson Fury maybe, or the other way around probably, The world is a big place and with a £1m loss on the cards a little bit of expense could have prevented this mess. Golden Boy are his Promoters, they have let him down in my opinion.

Totally agree, seems that they have offered no support at all.

A really bad move by Khan, in my opinion, for what it's worth.

freddydoesdallas wrote:

jessi wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:Farcical but Sky only have themselves and their greed/lack of quality control to blame in my opinion. Remember, the date was announced as PPV even before an opponent had been named. What sort of quality control is that? Then, because McCloskey is a good challenger but not a big enough name, they start relying on the likes of Matthew Macklin and Tyson Fury to bolster the show. I'm sorry, but who the hell are those two at the end of the day? We know them, we appreciate them, but are they PPV material? I say no. And anyway, no one in the TV world sells a PPV on the strength of an undercard fight. It's the main event that's supposed to sell.

So then Sky do the right thing by taking it off PPV because they don't think it will sell and start blaming the promoters for not having found them a good enough undercard, when this is the company that declared the fight PPV without there even being an opponent!! Ridiculous, the card and particularly the OPPONENT should have been settled before it was even made PPV. But that's not how Sky work. They set a PPV date then try to fill it, it seems to me. And on this occasion they couldn't.

So Khan and McCloskey are offered far less than they'd originally been promised, and they've said eff that for a game of soldiers and gone to Primetime to take a punt on the fight selling. I feel sorry for them. It's their right to get the best deal possible and they were promised a good one, you can't blame them. But when it's snatched away from them through no fault of their own, what are they suppose to do? I wouldn't have done it myself, but they might as well take a punt on Primetime. But I don't think the fight will do particularly well on there. And Sky will take Khan back for Bradley, no worries - there's money to be made and they'll want to be part of it. There won't be any longterm damage to the relationship, bet your house on it. Money talks.

The whole thing's a joke but the point it started to go wrong was right at the start, when Sky decided that Khan vs TBA was good enough to charge 15 quid for. Let's hope they've learned from this and it will be the start of a more realistic era in the economical relationship between TV and boxing. The signs for that are good and I think Sky belatedly made the best move under the circumstances, even though they were at fault for all the problems.

good points, i will be buying it, but it wont do as well now because the average fan dont know prime time, the ones that do will be thinking well it wasnt ppv 2 days ago so im not buying it ! and all the boxrec fans are boycotting it. it should sell ok though, so khan will make atleast half a million i think....

It will need to shift some for Khan to hit the £500,000 mark. To generate that figure alone it will need to sell 35,000 buys at £15. I don't think virgin media viewers or freesat people can purchase it and on top of that, Khan has not done huge numbers before.

well thats see, all the people i know who would buy khan ppv on sky will still do so on primetime !

Glyn Leach wrote:Farcical but Sky only have themselves and their greed/lack of quality control to blame in my opinion. Remember, the date was announced as PPV even before an opponent had been named. What sort of quality control is that? Then, because McCloskey is a good challenger but not a big enough name, they start relying on the likes of Matthew Macklin and Tyson Fury to bolster the show. I'm sorry, but who the hell are those two at the end of the day? We know them, we appreciate them, but are they PPV material? I say no. And anyway, no one in the TV world sells a PPV on the strength of an undercard fight. It's the main event that's supposed to sell.

So then Sky do the right thing by taking it off PPV because they don't think it will sell and start blaming the promoters for not having found them a good enough undercard, when this is the company that declared the fight PPV without there even being an opponent!! Ridiculous, the card and particularly the OPPONENT should have been settled before it was even made PPV. But that's not how Sky work. They set a PPV date then try to fill it, it seems to me. And on this occasion they couldn't.

So Khan and McCloskey are offered far less than they'd originally been promised, and they've said eff that for a game of soldiers and gone to Primetime to take a punt on the fight selling. I feel sorry for them. It's their right to get the best deal possible and they were promised a good one, you can't blame them. But when it's snatched away from them through no fault of their own, what are they suppose to do? I wouldn't have done it myself, but they might as well take a punt on Primetime. But I don't think the fight will do particularly well on there. And Sky will take Khan back for Bradley, no worries - there's money to be made and they'll want to be part of it. There won't be any longterm damage to the relationship, bet your house on it. Money talks.

The whole thing's a joke but the point it started to go wrong was right at the start, when Sky decided that Khan vs TBA was good enough to charge 15 quid for. Let's hope they've learned from this and it will be the start of a more realistic era in the economic relationship between TV and boxing. The signs for that are good and I think Sky belatedly made the best move under the circumstances, even though they were at fault for all the problems.

You raise some interesting points Glyn about Sky that i hadn't considered originally. The system is obviously a mess there is no structure or formula to go buy and that is part of the problem. In a sense they have inflated KP's ego by proclaiming it a ppv fight before an opponent is named as that suggest they believe Khan sells rather than the event as a whole.

It is Skys prerogative though to insist on a certain amount of quality control and though they may have cocked it up originally by giving Khan the PPV date they have tried to at least make an attempt to push for a good undercard whether it sells or not. You can bet if they went to Warren and said the undercard isn't good enough that he would do whatever he could to bolster it to keep the PPV. Even if they came back to Warren and said this should be a Sat fight night card i still bet he would take the hit rather than attempt to waltz off to primetime.

Khan's have essentially from my point of view made the worst decisions for the event themselves and the fans. They will get less money because they didnt concede a small portion of the purse to building the undercard which, though may have not sold PPV's would have appeased Sky and ultimately made it more accessible for the causal fan and would secure a better purse for their fighter than that which he might get through Primetime. On top of that he is burning bridges with Sky and his fanbase in this country which ensure his star will burn that little less brighter in the future.

FIGHTFANs wrote:allegedly is what about Groves and Degale ,Clevely not a ppv fighter.

I tend to agree. These are prospects still, they need maximum exposure in my opinion. Having them fight the breakthrough fights of their careers on PPV is very risky and possibly horribly shortsighted in the longterm. But again, this is a case of Sky filling a pre-existing PPV date. If you remember, originally 21 May was set aside for Haye vs TBA, which got scrapped when the Klitschko fight was announced. But Sky wanted to do a PPV on that date anyway, without even having a fight!

The Cleverly fight was originally going to be a regular fight night, but when it was rescheduled Sky named it as a PPV on 21 May - and this was before the purse bids for DeGale-Groves had even been staged, let alone the fight having been made. Sky wanted a PPV so they went looking for a fight to bolster Cleverly, hence their apparently having subsidised in some way the DeGale fight, although allegedly tells me he is accepting the financial liability for it.

All in all it's the same problem - Sky announcing PPV dates without having fights to fill them, when the rest of the world finds a fight and then decides if it's good enough to go PPV with. Hopefully the Khan fiasco will make Sky realise the error of their ways and issue PPV dates on the merits of their product rather than the way they've worked in the past.

I sometimes wonder what the answer is, in these negotiations -
-What are we selling them for their £15
I sometimes think I don't want to hear the answer.
Ratners springs to mind.

The Haye vs Klitschko negotiations stalled because Sky apparently only do one PPV per month and that was booked for Khan vs TBA, at the time, and then turned out to be McCloskey. So, I could have been watching a much bigger fight this month that I would have happily shelled out £15 for.

Khan vs McCloskey is not PPV and none of the fights that have been mooted on the undercard helped its cause.

Out of interest anyone know the average or highest PPV figures for PrimetimeTV? I presume they are alot less than Sky's.

Sky have seen sense in a bad situation though they took long enough to reach a decision. While I wish Primetime success given that it was they that backed Carl Froch rather than Sky, I also hope this fight doesn't do well as it will be a lesson to Team Khan.