BoxRec

MachoMan09 wrote:Steve, some genuine boxing fans will refuse to sign-up because they can't afford the subs, just like they can't afford the subs for Sky.

This is true. I would happily pay £10 for BN based on what we've had so far, but I don't have Sky at the moment and can't afford to pay for a package in order to get BN right now. If they continue to stream BN's cards online I'd pay £10 a month for that as long as they streamed the replays too.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

King Geedorah wrote:There is an anti-FW slant on this forum, always has been (1) and I'm not judging, just stating the truth, but most of us have supported what BN offer in one form or another over the years but view BN itself through the spectrum of feelings for the people at the helm. Remove those feelings, look back at what we've asked for in the past RE televising small hall shows, a dedicated channel and whatnot, and BN gives us what we asked for over the years, it is just that many don't like the people delivering it and can't see past that.(2)

(1) If that is the case, why do you think this is?

(2)...or they don't feel 'seeing past it' is justified.

1: You are clearly bitter for not being invited as press to their events. But when all you do is moan at every single thing they put on/say/do, I can't blame them. Press are expected to review, analyse and comment with no personal angle. To justify your vendetta against them on personal experience is probably why they don't allow you to attend as press.


2: An immature way to look at the world. You talk about them as if they are the antichrist!! So far they have delivered and if it carries on delivering, people will subscribe. If only you could look through untainted specs...?

I think the 'you're not a true boxing fan unless you subscribe to this channel' is ludicrous, it really is. I'm not going to pay for it - firstly, it's not on Virgin - but does that make me any lesser of a fan? No.

As well as paying to see boxing at varying levels for eons, I've spent the last six years going to shows all over the Midlands [for BBN and now my own site] for nothing more than to see my writing online, sometimes costing me more in petrol than it would cost to go in. Now i'm earning a few quid out of boxing for the local papers but that doesn't mean i'm looking to get a free lunch out of it; though i have a degree in Journalism i still have a 9-5 job at present.

Oh, and i'd like to see these so-called experts who write for the national press heading to the Holiday Inn in Birmingham for a three-fight show with three-lots of 60-54s over six-twos on a cold Monday night, because i used to without fail. But i suppose because i'm not going to pay for this channel and they are, i'm not. Sorry.

jabnmove wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

King Geedorah wrote:There is an anti-FW slant on this forum, always has been (1) and I'm not judging, just stating the truth, but most of us have supported what BN offer in one form or another over the years but view BN itself through the spectrum of feelings for the people at the helm. Remove those feelings, look back at what we've asked for in the past RE televising small hall shows, a dedicated channel and whatnot, and BN gives us what we asked for over the years, it is just that many don't like the people delivering it and can't see past that.(2)

(1) If that is the case, why do you think this is?

(2)...or they don't feel 'seeing past it' is justified.

1: You are clearly bitter for not being invited as press to their events. But when all you do is moan at every single thing they put on/say/do, I can't blame them. Press are expected to review, analyse and comment with no personal angle. To justify your vendetta against them on personal experience is probably why they don't allow you to attend as press.


2: An immature way to look at the world. You talk about them as if they are the antichrist!! So far they have delivered and if it carries on delivering, people will subscribe. If only you could look through untainted specs...?

I understand your answers but I disagree with them both. The fact that responding to your points fully and frankly would get me into bother is my biggest gripe of all.

Maybe those people who live down south in their Surrey mansions (or wherever they live) don't realise that there is more unemployment in this country than at anytime in the last 25 years. Or that many who are still employed have had to take pay cuts or take a low wage job to get by due to a lack of real opportunities in what they may be qualified/experienced in.

This is what i mean by it being bad timing. At a time when many people are feeling the squeeze and trying to make their money go as far as possible, £10 a month might just be a push too far on top of all the other things.

Those who spout on about 'proper fan' this and that are just chatting absolute bullshit.

jabnmove wrote:

1: You are clearly bitter for not being invited as press to their events.

out of interest, why do you think the above state of affairs exists?

jabnmove wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

King Geedorah wrote:There is an anti-FW slant on this forum, always has been (1) and I'm not judging, just stating the truth, but most of us have supported what BN offer in one form or another over the years but view BN itself through the spectrum of feelings for the people at the helm. Remove those feelings, look back at what we've asked for in the past RE televising small hall shows, a dedicated channel and whatnot, and BN gives us what we asked for over the years, it is just that many don't like the people delivering it and can't see past that.(2)

(1) If that is the case, why do you think this is?

(2)...or they don't feel 'seeing past it' is justified.

1: You are clearly bitter for not being invited as press to their events. But when all you do is moan at every single thing they put on/say/do, I can't blame them. Press are expected to review, analyse and comment with no personal angle. To justify your vendetta against them on personal experience is probably why they don't allow you to attend as press.


2: An immature way to look at the world. You talk about them as if they are the antichrist!! So far they have delivered and if it carries on delivering, people will subscribe. If only you could look through untainted specs...?

Sorry, I thought you were an 'ordinary' poster there and therefore dignified your sh1te with a response.

I really should have known better and checked you out before rather than after.

How is the weather in Hertfordshire?

ah, 'boxingchat' has a brother?

From a website point of view I think the BN site is poor and unclear. Also the streaming hasn;t worked once in all the times I've been on the site on fight nights. I thought the channel was meant to be free at the moment - therefore how come the streaming hasn't ever worked. This has not encouraged me about the streaming side of things, so as a Virgin customer I am pretty much out in the cold as I'm certainly not gona pay £10 a month for an unreiable/non-existant stream.

J-C wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:Steve, some genuine boxing fans will refuse to sign-up because they can't afford the subs, just like they can't afford the subs for Sky.

This is true. I would happily pay £10 for BN based on what we've had so far, but I don't have Sky at the moment and can't afford to pay for a package in order to get BN right now. If they continue to stream BN's cards online I'd pay £10 a month for that as long as they streamed the replays too.

actually just checked the FAQ on the site

7.Is allegedly only available through a Sky TV subscription?
You don't need to subscribe to Sky to get allegedly.

So probably will be subscribing after all.

I'll be signing up because it has tons of boxing,they show entire cards and i can afford the fees and that's all it comes down to for me.
I think the service will probably go the same way as setanta at some point so i'm enjoying it whilst it lasts.


Anyone know if allegedly will be getting into mma or ufc?

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

jabnmove wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote: (1) If that is the case, why do you think this is?

(2)...or they don't feel 'seeing past it' is justified.

1: You are clearly bitter for not being invited as press to their events. But when all you do is moan at every single thing they put on/say/do, I can't blame them. Press are expected to review, analyse and comment with no personal angle. To justify your vendetta against them on personal experience is probably why they don't allow you to attend as press.


2: An immature way to look at the world. You talk about them as if they are the antichrist!! So far they have delivered and if it carries on delivering, people will subscribe. If only you could look through untainted specs...?

Sorry, I thought you were an 'ordinary' poster there and therefore dignified your sh1te with a response.

I really should have known better and checked you out before rather than after.

How is the weather in Hertfordshire?

I wouldn't know as I live in West Sussex but I'll take the mature response as proof of my point above.

Enjoy your evening

Buncey, fact of the matter is Ian McNeilly easily outranks you as boxing journalist - fact.

Not just because he's obviously a better writer, but mainly because he's allowed to call it as he sees it, and not just how his boss pays him to see it.

The fact that the nutless wonders @ SN head office have banned boxrec speaks volumes, both in terms of how they treat their paying customers, and also their inability to listen to even the slightest criticism as a result of it.

They like their boxing press housetrained, like boxing news.

Just reading through this thread I am shocked that Buncey takes that approach. Your paymaster is a pudendum, fine sir, and you talking like you are to prospective customers, customers you may need to stay on TV, is quite frankly shocking.

Massive thumbs down.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

jabnmove wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote: (1) If that is the case, why do you think this is?

(2)...or they don't feel 'seeing past it' is justified.

1: You are clearly bitter for not being invited as press to their events. But when all you do is moan at every single thing they put on/say/do, I can't blame them. Press are expected to review, analyse and comment with no personal angle. To justify your vendetta against them on personal experience is probably why they don't allow you to attend as press.


2: An immature way to look at the world. You talk about them as if they are the antichrist!! So far they have delivered and if it carries on delivering, people will subscribe. If only you could look through untainted specs...?

I understand your answers but I disagree with them both. The fact that responding to your points fully and frankly would get me into bother is my biggest gripe of all.

I only just spotted your answers and thank you for the post back. Perhaps you should set up a meeting with the outfit you have such a problem with to iron out the issues?

This forum would benefit surely from this.?

As i said before enjoy your evening

MightyWarrior wrote:Buncey, fact of the matter is Ian McNeilly easily outranks you as boxing journalist - fact.

Not just because he's obviously a better writer, but mainly because he's allowed to call it as he sees it, and not just how his boss pays him to see it.

The fact that the nutless wonders @ SN head office have banned boxrec speaks volumes, both in terms of how they treat their paying customers, and also their inability to listen to even the slightest criticism as a result of it.

They like their boxing press housetrained, like boxing news.

Boxing News who they banned at least twice in modern memory. Well done.

How many proper fans as buncey says are there? I think the idea of boxing channel good but in reality ate there enough proper fans to make it work? Judging from viewing figures on sky & setanta I not sure there is.

Buncey wrote:Thanks to the proper fans.

Adios.

So people who give up plenty of their free time to travel around the country watching small hall shows and write reports for the benefit of people that weren't there for no reward other than their enjoyment of boxing are not proper fans because they don't agree with you when it comes to subscribing to a boxing channel?

I find all this a tad childish. Ian McNeilly's problem should be HIS problem and he using his platform as a weapon to vent his petty frustrations which are so biased he should work for the North Koreans. The fact is the people on this forum are supposed to be boxing fans so the very fact that will you or wont you subscribe is even being discussed is almost laughable. Surely the topic it is - will you ADMIT to subscribing or not ADMIT to subscribing - as if you are a boxing fan then surely you want to actually watch Boxing, don't you? The fans on here moan constantly about certain matches not being made and the marquee fights passing them by, but without revenue, from subscriptions, advertising, PPV sales or whatever then this will only get worse as fighters wont fight for nothing, why should they?

The fact is if you want the best fights to happen then what TV needs is your support, the people who turn on to watch it. Simple fact is without it the sport will become marginalised even further and and will eventually die.

McNeilly is supposed to be championing our sport via this website, which is a good website in the main, but his agenda is tiresome and if he were the bigger man he would sort his problems out with the people he has them with directly and not spout his self-opiniated bile to everyone else.

Buncey has forgotten more than McNeilly will ever know so to even compare the two is laughable.

Regardless of who is behind allegedly it is a Breath of fresh air and is dedicated to the Boxing fan and their money , via subsciptions, will be reinvested into the best content for the fans not reinvested into other programming and sports. You might want to think about that!

ADIOS

boxingchat wrote:I find all this a tad childish. Ian McNeilly's problem should be HIS problem and he using his platform as a weapon to vent his petty frustrations which are so biased he should work for the North Koreans.

yeah, i just hate people using their media platforms to further their own personal agendas, which can verge on the childish and go all the way to a flat-out vendetta.

some nasty pudenda, and I'm sure you don't know anyone like this, but some nasty pudenda could have a field day with their personal agendas, if they had, say, a regular column in a National Newspaper.

imagine what a vindictive person would say about, for example, fighters who never signed with them, or fighters who left them for other promoters.

some people would really go to town with a platform like that.

lets just all thank heaven we don't know anyone that petty, vindictive, and smallminded.

boxingchat wrote:I Simple fact is without it the sport will become marginalised even further and and will eventually die.

A boxing only channel will only ever attract hardcore (or "proper") boxing fans and can never hope to compete with the likes of SKY Sports. The upshot of that is that causal fans will stop watching boxing that is on said channel and in the UK at least it will become even more marginalised than it is now. Boxing needs the general sports fans to show an interest and tune in. I don't believe that will happen with a boxing only channel. I hope I am wrong.

Counter-puncher wrote:

boxingchat wrote:I find all this a tad childish. Ian McNeilly's problem should be HIS problem and he using his platform as a weapon to vent his petty frustrations which are so biased he should work for the North Koreans.

yeah, i just hate people using their media platforms to further their own personal agendas, which can verge on the childish and go all the way to a flat-out vendetta.

some nasty pudenda, and I'm sure you don't know anyone like this, but some nasty pudenda could have a field day with their personal agendas, if they had, say, a regular column in a National Newspaper.

imagine what a vindictive person would say about, for example, fighters who never signed with them, or fighters who left them for other promoters.

some people would really go to town with a platform like that.

lets just all thank heaven we don't know anyone that petty, vindictive, and smallminded.

POST OF THE YEAR!!

doctorboxing wrote:

boxingchat wrote:I Simple fact is without it the sport will become marginalised even further and and will eventually die.

A boxing only channel will only ever attract hardcore (or "proper") boxing fans and can never hope to compete with the likes of SKY Sports. The upshot of that is that causal fans will stop watching boxing that is on said channel and in the UK at least it will become even more marginalised than it is now. Boxing needs the general sports fans to show an interest and tune in. I don't believe that will happen with a boxing only channel. I hope I am wrong.

As I said in posts how many proper fans are there? I be surprised if it's over 50000 judging from the sky viewing figures which include casuals. In fury tv audience thread there a link to eastside thread with viewing figures for last few years!

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:No.

Just quoting so we all remember Ian's awful over the top biased rant against the channel and its backers.

No wonder boxing is viewed as a minor sport by most decent sized media outlets in this country.

I can see good arguments from both sides but the general tone of this debate is both childish, personal and corrosive.

Some of the people from both Mr Warrens venture and this website are making a bit of an arse of themselves here......