BoxRec

Sky will ream the boxing public out big stylee.

Every single event worth watching, goes on £15 box office PPV.

And they wonder why so many of us turn to streams and downloads?

Can't they be content with providing us with decent fights for purely our Sky sports subscriptions?

Sauerland and Universum etc in Germany do massive TV figures every month, I can see more of our fighters heading there to fight soon.

Haye vs Klit is just the start of the trend, as British TV will not bank roll any good fights. It'll be either a trip to the states or a trip to Germany.

Especially now Arenabox has a few cubans coming through too, to join the Armenians (Abraham) and Ukranians (Sergiy Dzinziruk, Klitschkos etc).

Can you get Box office if you are NOT already a subscriber? I'd happily pay £10-£15 for a good bill as a "one off" but its a waste of money to pay an ongoing subscription I wouldn't ever watch.

Will seriously curtail people's enjoyment. Setanta has played a massive part in trying to revive boxing and i always looked forward to the Friday and Saturday night fights. Itv4 i will miss, becuase it was a great way of keeping in touch with the domestic scene and where can i watch Tyson Fury fights in the future ? Is it all going to sky now ? Will all the fights that where shown on itv4 and setanta, now be shown on sky or will we lose 50% of the fights that were once screened live ?

The root problem is that screening live boxing is expensive, and at the moment everyone is trying to cut back on costs.

whicker wrote:The root problem is that screening live boxing is expensive, and at the moment everyone is trying to cut back on costs.

Maybe it's time that the promoters etc, decided to make boxing more appealing to the televison companies by cutting the cost of televising their shows or is that too simple and straight forward ?

But not with the footie it would seem, thats the root problem IMO. Lets face it, it wasn't the HBO or Saurland deals that made Setanta go into administration. It was paying over the odds for the footie.

stujones wrote:But not with the footie it would seem, thats the root problem IMO. Lets face it, it wasn't the HBO or Saurland deals that made Setanta go into administration. It was paying over the odds for the footie.

it was the ridiculous type of football setanta decided to screen, if they had managed 2 of the 5 available packages, and just stuck to the premiership, ufc and boxing they would have got more subscribers and been ok. 1.2 mil viewers when the break even figure was 1.9 was never going to work with a diet of shit sweaty sock minor league pub football. problem is setanta was a celtic station and presumed it had to honour its celtic viewers.

Quixall wrote:

whicker wrote:The root problem is that screening live boxing is expensive, and at the moment everyone is trying to cut back on costs.

Maybe it's time that the promoters etc, decided to make boxing more appealing to the televison companies by cutting the cost of televising their shows or is that too simple and straight forward ?

I don't know what the economics of it all is. Presumably SKY pays the promoter, but then on top of that there are all the costs of setting up and doing a one-off live broadcast.

Someone like ITV need to recoup all of that through the adverts.

The top promoters should all get together and start a niche TV station.

Cannibal wrote:The top promoters should all get together and start a niche TV station.

Sadly it would never pay - simply not enough people watch boxing - unless of course its the top fights - and the even sadder thing is in this country the promoters have the utmost reluctance to work with each other.

Streams are always going to be available lads. Don't worry.

lirva wrote:Streams are always going to be available lads. Don't worry.

Not if fights are not going ahead AT ALL.

If bills rely on TV money, and there is no TV coverage, then the bill won't happen.

whicker wrote:

lirva wrote:Streams are always going to be available lads. Don't worry.

Not if fights are not going ahead AT ALL.

If bills rely on TV money, and there is no TV coverage, then the bill won't happen.

Good point.

Well the rumours persist that ESPN will be getting into the British sport market.

Maybe they will give us some of their Friday Night Fights shows that have done so well ?

In theory, Hennessy could get back on Sky with world champ Froch as leverage; Hayemaker can do same if Haye achieves something good at heavyweight. With those big names come rest of the stables. Competition as to who/what gets shown is upped; each given promoter as fewer dates, thus they match each other's stars vs each other. Cross-promoter bouts, better value for money, fewer Prize Fighters (especially the ones that exploit the names of former champs who so obviously are not going to win the big prize).

I don't know anything about Warren and Maloney contracts, and whether this could prevent/severely limit what's available - in terms of dates - to other promoters.

With new contracts Sky should take measures to extert control over the quality of product; no guaranteed dates for stuff that belongs in a rubbish bin. The current stuff is very poor quality.

Haye
Froch
Hatton, if he comes back
Khan
Mayweather
Pacquiao

All on Box Office? One of the reasons I am cancelling Sky Sports tomorrow.

What good did having Froch the champion do for Hennessey's and ITV's relationship.

Sky it would appear want to show less boxing period. I don't think Hennessey signing Oscar De La Hoya would make a different.

There is no way Froch will want to defend his WBC title on a Friday night in Altrincham or something, thats what Sky want.

it was clear for a long time that ITV wouldn't be able to afford anything big in a world title fight, especially when it starts getting late at night.

sky have more money to chuck around. they're minus one star in hatton, who - for want of a better term - was exposed on the big stage.

so they have khan on SBO, khan being a massive KO risk every tiome he steps up in class. one star, in khan, and he's not even a star. he's a household name, and that's about it.

hence, froch, due to current form (wins over current WBC light heavy champ pascal, and former undisputed middle king taylor): proven world class, can take a shot, bloody exciting. and with him come murray, barker - promising fighters both. all 3 are fighters built up by sky.

or do sky want to just have nicky cook, enzo mac, essex boy and co getting KO'd on undercards in borderline world level fights? keep it cushy, in-house (them & frank) & utterly mediocre?

yes, why would anyone want froch? britain's one frigigng world champion - a fighter who gives 100% in genuine world title fights (talk about vaue for money).

Unfortunately, I think a combination of a few things could affect any Sky deal.

1) They don't like Saturday boxing, as Warren lack of Saturday bills are showing.

2) Khan hasn't done well on SBO - thats why we have seen a huge increase in his opponents calibre for his last PPV. Rumour had it that Frankie had to deliver a world title fight for number the final PPV - otherwise Sky might not want to renew.

If Khan, a bigger name than Froch, cannot generate revune - then whats Froch going to do?

I don't know. Surely it's up to the powers that be to think of something. It can take a fighter a while to catch on/be built up - 8 years it took Calzaghe. But Froch is taking no prisoners and not messing about taking on good worthy opponents and - to reiterate - engaging in thrilling fights.

Froch could become the biggest commodity in British boxing. Especially if Khan gets ground down by Toothache Kotelnik.

Khan is a name and that's about it. A household name, but does the man in the street know what he's done, who he's fought?

It doesnt look like we are witnessing the "Golden Age" of boxing that a top promoter recently claimed was about to happen. With the demise of Setanta in the UK and ITV pulling out of live boxing it looks to me as if Sky are now in a monopoly situation. For a good while now FFN on Sky has been awful and I wonder if with nowhere else to go, promoters may have to sign up with Sky, resulting in better more competative bills. I certainly dont want to see Sky making every decent bill a PPV event bu they probably will. Monopolies are not a good thing and I am not at all happy that Sky is going to be the only channel showing live boxing. Their main interest is in football but you can be sure they will bleed us fight fans for every penny they can. I can understand ITV pulling out, while they had Khan they were more than happy. Carl Froch may be a World champion but the casual viewer doesnt really know much about him. The same goes for Jon Thaxton, and as for Darren Barker, who the hell is he. Amir Khan is a household name, so were Eubank, Benn, Naz, Lewis, Bruno, Tyson etc. The only reason ITV brought back boxing was because of Khan and since he went to Sky boxing on ITV hasnt been doing very well. People who were not even boxing fans watched Ali, Tyson, Khan etc and that is what ITV wanted. For ITV it wasnt so much about boxing but sports stars everyone wanted to see.

Autobarn wrote:I don't know. Surely it's up to the powers that be to think of something. It can take a fighter a while to catch on/be built up - 8 years it took Calzaghe. But Froch is taking no prisoners and not messing about taking on good worthy opponents and - to reiterate - engaging in thrilling fights.

Froch could become the biggest commodity in British boxing. Especially if Khan gets ground down by Toothache Kotelnik.

Khan is a name and that's about it. A household name, but does the man in the street know what he's done, who he's fought?

That sums it up really and with Khan fighting on Sky the public has almost forgotten him. When Froch went on ITV a friend of mine was supprised he was still around. People who dont have Sky Sports soon forget fighters who were on ITV or the BBC, the only places where you can become a household name. The terrestrial channels want the public to watch main boxing events (which have to have a household name) not just boxing fans and ITV bills have just not worked out of late with Amir Khan going to Sky. If Kotelnik does beat Khan it wont mean a great deal to the average person who hasnt seen him in a while.

stujones wrote:But not with the footie it would seem, thats the root problem IMO. Lets face it, it wasn't the HBO or Saurland deals that made Setanta go into administration. It was paying over the odds for the footie.

Very, very true.

I only bought a freeview box in order to get Setanta - the reason being they signed up Haye vs Mormeck.

They stupidly paid over the odds for a Premiership package when there only competition was ITV and possibly the BBC. They spent alot on Scottish football which only appeals to a section of the UK.

I'm really going to miss Setanta boxing. They brought us tons of top quality US boxing when Sky for several years previous had not given the boxing fans what they wanted. Throw in Buncey's boxing hour and you had great weekly coverage of our sport.

I, for one never pay PPV for a Khan fight and won't be paying any PPV on Sky. Setanta going is a huge loss to all Uk boxing fans.

Autobarn wrote:it was clear for a long time that ITV wouldn't be able to afford anything big in a world title fight, especially when it starts getting late at night.

sky have more money to chuck around. they're minus one star in hatton, who - for want of a better term - was exposed on the big stage.

so they have khan on SBO, khan being a massive KO risk every tiome he steps up in class. one star, in khan, and he's not even a star. he's a household name, and that's about it.

hence, froch, due to current form (wins over current WBC light heavy champ pascal, and former undisputed middle king taylor): proven world class, can take a shot, bloody exciting. and with him come murray, barker - promising fighters both. all 3 are fighters built up by sky.

or do sky want to just have nicky cook, enzo mac, essex boy and co getting KO'd on undercards in borderline world level fights? keep it cushy, in-house (them & frank) & utterly mediocre?

yes, why would anyone want froch? britain's one frigigng world champion - a fighter who gives 100% in genuine world title fights (talk about vaue for money).

just cos he got beat in the ring he's still very popular and the biggest boxing name we have.

and why are we minus one star.

he hasn't announced his retirement yet.

Autobarn wrote:I don't know. Surely it's up to the powers that be to think of something. It can take a fighter a while to catch on/be built up - 8 years it took Calzaghe. But Froch is taking no prisoners and not messing about taking on good worthy opponents and - to reiterate - engaging in thrilling fights.

Froch could become the biggest commodity in British boxing. Especially if Khan gets ground down by Toothache Kotelnik.

Khan is a name and that's about it. A household name, but does the man in the street know what he's done, who he's fought?

It took Joe 8 years, but only one fight to catch on. Circumstances were different with Joe - mainly because of Joe's lack of ambition. I'm sure if a Jeff Lacy figure was around in 2000, with Joe fighting on ITV - Joe would have been a superstar then.

In some ways, in my opinion, Froch's ambition is his problem. Look at how Henessey handled a non "box office" world champion in Witter - a few leisure centre victories on a Friday with no US TV - then the switch to ITV... which resulted in some meaningful exposure - but sadly a loss.

Froch is not going to want the type of opponent that Sky will want from him to start with..... Filling altrincham leisure centre on a Friday night. US TV will not want this, Hennessey will not want this. What Hennesey/Froch/US TV will want is a Saturday night opponent at a Stadium against someone of callibre - this means Sky BO. Will Sky want to put Froch's first fight on Sky BO? With Tyson Fury on the Undercard.... I aint convinced.

Yes, they did with Khan - but really, if you read the reports, they were left without much choice. Warren had a bigger stable with some other world champions, potential champions - that Hennessey doesn't have. The likes of Arthur, Cook, Enzo Mac, Mitchell, etc. If Sky wanted them, they must have Khan - and that meant Box Office.

Viewing figures would indicate the Khan/Box Office deal has not been successful so far - and I aint convinced Sky will want that risk, without the lure of a mix range of world class fighters that Warren also had.