BoxRec

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/spo ... 001042348/

Bang on the money

That is funny. What annoys me about Sky is how they completely ignore anything that isn't on their channel. When they showed Haye on PPV they marketed the hell out of it, but I bet before that he had never even got a mention on their channels. That's what I liked about Setanta, they and Bunce always promoted boxing no matter what channel is was on. Saying that, I think Sky have stepped up to the plate as far as boxing is concerned after the collapse of Setanta. Most weeks we get some sort of a decent fight to watch.

winkveron wrote:That is funny. What annoys me about Sky is how they completely ignore anything that isn't on their channel. When they showed Haye on PPV they marketed the hell out of it, but I bet before that he had never even got a mention on their channels. That's what I liked about Setanta, they and Bunce always promoted boxing no matter what channel is was on. Saying that, I think Sky have stepped up to the plate as far as boxing is concerned after the collapse of Setanta. Most weeks we get some sort of a decent fight to watch.

Spot on. If it ain't on Sky, not only doesn't it matter, it simply doesn't exist.

Sky Sports News is hilarious thesedays.
It's like watching The Daily Star play out on screen.
They have resorted to making up football transfer stories and have a couple of prized wankers who are transfer guru's so to speak.
You know when a headline leads with "Sky Sports News understands..." it is nothing more than an educated guess. Always reminds me of when papers quote "friends of the celebrity" or "a spokesperson"

Thy don't promote boxing, they promote SKY.

You expect a multi million pound corporation to promote sports they dont hold the rights to? Come on lads, this is business.

I think Sky Sports is good, not fantastic, but good. They have all of the premiership footy (ESPN is a sky off shoot), Rugby, Cricket PDC darts (mentioned in that article as semi-pro dart - eh?) and a whole host of other massive sporting events that are exclusive to their channel. Dont they have Ryder Cup, Ashes, 90% of the champions league too?

Veteran Rob Norton defends his British and Commonwealth cruiserweight titles against David Dolan in a mandated, much-anticipated rematch in Altrincham on Friday week (January 15). Ricky Hatton promotes.
Norton outscored Dolan for the same titles in a thrilling 12-rounder last February in Birmingham. It was unanimous but it was close. Dolan dropped Norton twice but was dropped three times in return, which sums up the nature of the fight. Dolan deserves a second go.
The 30-year-old Sunderland man was a brilliant amateur who turned pro at heavyweight in 2006, where he proved too small. He dropped down to cruiserweight in 2008 where he ‘can’ hurt his opponents, as Norton discovered, and possesses good handspeed. Dolan has also won two warm-up fights. He will feel this is ‘his time’.
Norton is almost 38 but remains remarkably fit and fresh after 17 long years as a pro. For most of those years he was stuck out in his native Stourbridge in the Midlands and has toed the line just 37 times, although he is getting more work under new promoter Hatton. He squeezed in a nice warm-up by outscoring durable Belgian Ismael Abdoul over six rounds in Stoke in November, a man who had been the full 12 with David Haye.
Norton is one of those nightmare southpaws - big, strong, cagey, superfit, heavy handed, stinkin’ and “Who needs him?” He knows how to get the job done. For that reason, I expect him to nick another tight verdict in another bruiser.

winkveron wrote:That is funny. What annoys me about Sky is how they completely ignore anything that isn't on their channel. When they showed Haye on PPV they marketed the hell out of it, but I bet before that he had never even got a mention on their channels. That's what I liked about Setanta, they and Bunce always promoted boxing no matter what channel is was on. Saying that, I think Sky have stepped up to the plate as far as boxing is concerned after the collapse of Setanta. Most weeks we get some sort of a decent fight to watch.

Very true, they refused to even mention Calzaghe-Kessler was happening and they have the cheek to call themselves a news channel. No one expects them to give out rival TV details, but Sky News is just a vehicle to plug themselves.

Wales wrote:You expect a multi million pound corporation to promote sports they dont hold the rights to? Come on lads, this is business.

I think Sky Sports is good, not fantastic, but good. They have all of the premiership footy (ESPN is a sky off shoot), Rugby, Cricket PDC darts (mentioned in that article as semi-pro dart - eh?) and a whole host of other massive sporting events that are exclusive to their channel. Dont they have Ryder Cup, Ashes, 90% of the champions league too?

Thank you Wales

Look at Setanta, and the "Steve Bunce Boxing Hour" for example


Those effing morons would spend large portions of their show previewing fights being broadcast on another channel, basically doing SKY's work for them, for free.


Setenta lost money every day of their existence and went out of business fast, SKY has been making fortunes for 20 odd years now.



what does that tell you?

Matt W wrote:http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/spo ... 001042348/

Bang on the money

God what a pathetic attempt that was. Can you please highlight a single insightful or amusing sentence for me.


I've read more interesting things on tattooed on the forearms of my local bin-men.

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote: God what a pathetic attempt that was. Can you please highlight a single insightful or amusing sentence for me.


I've read more interesting things on tattooed on the forearms of my local bin-men.

The Daily Mash is a poor british man's theonion, but it usually does better than this. Sports reporting ought to be satire gold but that article is clumsy and lazy, except for the headline and the last para

A Sky spokesman said: "ENGLAND... AUSTRALIA... MANCHESTER UNITED... MACCLESFIELD TOWN... THE RYDER CUP... CHELSEA TAKE ON HARLEQUINS AT THE EUROPEAN UNDER-14 BADMINTON CHAMPIONSHIPS, LIVE FROM ANTWERP..."

Sky Sports is quite simply the greatest thing ever, boxing, football, rugby, motorsports and all sorts of other sports. Few quid a month, effing bargain.

winkveron wrote:That's what I liked about Setanta, they and Bunce always promoted boxing no matter what channel is was on.

Yeah! and they also went out of business...

I don't know if anyone has ever watched the Hollywood adaptation of A Christmas Carol, Scrooged, with Bill Murray in the title roll, but Sky's promotion, especially in it's early days, reminds me of the promos he was running for the live play of the Dickens Novel he was going to broadcast on Christmas Day, which was so intimidating that an old woman died of a heart attack after watching it.

(Oh my God, that promo for Scrooge sucks... I want to make people so afriad, so terrified to miss the show that they HAVE to watch it.)

("I want to see her nipples", <<But it's a Christmas show, Frank!>>, "Well, I'm sure Charles Dickens would have wanted to see her nipples, too")

Anyway, are we not ignoring the fact that Sky's coverage is usually better than the other channels? Their football coverage is these days a million times better, ditto for Rugby Union and especially League (Eddie and Stevo: Legends). OK, their cricket coverage isn't as good as Channel Four's, but if they had Richie Benaud it probably would be not far short.

ed

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

winkveron wrote:That's what I liked about Setanta, they and Bunce always promoted boxing no matter what channel is was on.

Yeah! and they also went out of business...

I'm not a businessman, I'm a sports fan. Like I could give a f**k about a certain company's fortunes. From a fans point of view I just prefer the whole sport being covered, maybe it doesn't make business sense but that isn't my interest.

Maybe Sky don't have to promote an event on another channel but the don't even mention it AFTER the event. If David Haye went back in a time machine to beat Mike Tyson in front of 1 million fans on the moon but it was on the BBC they wouldn't even acknowledge it had happened.

winkveron wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

winkveron wrote:That's what I liked about Setanta, they and Bunce always promoted boxing no matter what channel is was on.

Yeah! and they also went out of business...

I'm not a businessman, I'm a sports fan. Like I could give a f**k about a certain company's fortunes. From a fans point of view I just prefer the whole sport being covered, maybe it doesn't make business sense but that isn't my interest.

Maybe Sky don't have to promote an event on another channel but the don't even mention it AFTER the event. If David Haye went back in a time machine to beat Mike Tyson in front of 1 million fans on the moon but it was on the BBC they wouldn't even acknowledge it had happened.

So why do you pay for it then?

"Im not a business man im a sports fan, I dont give a fornicate about a companys fortunes" - maybe you would if it were your company?

There Cricket coverage pisses on 4s!4 used to go off to racing during Saturday afternoon play!

Wales wrote:
So why do you pay for it then?

"Im not a business man im a sports fan, I dont give a eff about a companys fortunes" - maybe you would if it were your company?

That's a ridiculous argument. If you saw a Mercedes for sale for a tenner would you buy it even though the low price may put the company out of business? Or would you pass up the bargain and take the high road?

I pay for Sky because despite the flaws they still provide a decent service, read back on my earlier post where I actually compliment the shows they have been putting on post-Setanta. Doesn't mean I can't criticise it.

Dont have a problem with Sky's Boxing Team at all - however - I have a problem with the executives who remain totally inconsistent in their demands to promoters to come forward with decent shows which are worthy of showing.

winkveron wrote:That is funny. What annoys me about Sky is how they completely ignore anything that isn't on their channel. When they showed Haye on PPV they marketed the hell out of it, but I bet before that he had never even got a mention on their channels. That's what I liked about Setanta, they and Bunce always promoted boxing no matter what channel is was on. Saying that, I think Sky have stepped up to the plate as far as boxing is concerned after the collapse of Setanta. Most weeks we get some sort of a decent fight to watch.

Sky are terrible - not only do they ignore anything that isn't on Sky Sports, but all the so-called presenters and commentary team just toe the party line and deliver asinine bland idiocies and hype up their featured fighters.

The 'colour' build ups to big fights are uninteresting and no more than PR and advertising voiced in an embarassingly over-excited helium tone.

Still, that's the modern age for you - spin and PR rather than substance

I guess at least they are showing boxing, although I don't have a subscription.

As to Winkeron's point that Sky have stepped up their game recently - I don't agree. Last year was awful. Some of the main events were warm up bouts at best.
And I can't say I will be renewing my subscribtion for Ian Napa v Jamie McDonnell or Lee McAllister v Samuel Amaoko! And as for making Fagan - Khan a PPV just over a year ago.....I mean seriously!

AT lest they're showing Mosley vs Berto and have been showing the Klits recently on the good side

Twinkle Toes wrote:Thy don't promote boxing, they promote SKY.

Bang on. They are like every big corporation, all they're bothered about is keeping shareholders happy. That is who they have a responsibility to.

You would think with the success of Haye-Valuev and all the Hatton shows,they would know the market is there,and they have to start putting more money in for the next generation of ppv stars.How many other sports could charge £15,often at 4am,and get hundreds of thousands of people buying it?They should be throwing money at grass roots boxing in this country in the hope of producing another Hatton.How much have Sky made on him over the years?And remember,he did it all on satelite television and turned pro with no fanfare(outside the trade anyway).

@reggaereggae

I agree some of the main events weren't up to scratch. But they definitely upped the quantity of fights after the collapse of setanta, maybe not all of them are top class fights but it's better than nothing I suppose.

I'm looking forward to Feb 13th (The Night of Champions) which is on normal Sky Sports 1 and features 3 decent fights plus the Olympians.

winkveron wrote:@reggaereggae

I agree some of the main events weren't up to scratch. But they definitely upped the quantity of fights after the collapse of setanta, maybe not all of them are top class fights but it's better than nothing I suppose.

I'm looking forward to Feb 13th (The Night of Champions) which is on normal Sky Sports 1 and features 3 decent fights plus the Olympians.

I agree that is a decent bill. However my only fear is that in 2 hours, they will show only brief highlights of the Olympians.

Wales wrote:You expect a multi million pound corporation to promote sports they dont hold the rights to? Come on lads, this is business.

Politely disagree mate. Don't say you're a news service when you're not. They either pretend non-Sky stuff doesn't exist or try and spoil highlights shows by flashing up results without warning.