BoxRec

To receive a SKY signal we all have to pay a fee -and its not cheap ! But once we've paid we can watch the best football teams in the world playing live .
A few years ago BOX OFFICE was introduced for HUGE boxing nights . I didn't grudge paying extra to watch Hatton v Mayweather , Calazaghe v Kessler these were 'must see ' rare events .
Now we have to pay BOX OFFICE fees for fairly routine events . I don't think Khan fights are BOX OFFICE material - yet . I don't think Chisora getting thumped by Klitschko is a rare event . So who on the big bill this weekend is the BOX OFFICE superstar ??
Believe me friends , this is the thin edge of the wedge . Every time there is a few title fights on the bill , regardless of the opposition we'll be paying extra for it . AND , the BOX OFFICE fee will creep up . If we get a huge fight next year , Haye v Klitschko for example , the BOX OFFICE price will edge up a few quid , and it'll stay there .
We're in a recession for goodness sake . How much more money are these people , ( SKY and the promoters ) going to cream off us ??

You have a very pertinent point and I do agree with you. I have to say though that this Saturdays bundle of title bouts is much better value than the Haye v Harrisson PPV.

To play devils advocate, surely it's up to the boxers to take pay cuts if they are to appear on the big bills. They can't expect the promoters to pay them the same amount as if they were headlining their own show. e.g. fighters a, b & c get paid £10k for a standard fight on their own shows and the promoter rakes in about £20k for these individual shows and pays off the opponent, undercard etc. Put them all together on one bill and they'll still want their £10k but the promoter can only move it to a slightly bigger venue and generate an extra £15 which means the shows could likely run at a loss. TV won't want to pay much extra nor will the advertisers so the only option is ppv and hope boxing fans pay more.

As a side note, wasn't Kessler v Calzaghe on setanta therefore subscription rather than ppv?

don't mind paying for saturdays package....decent value for money on paper.

then again i'm a mug who has hardly missed any ppv on sky ever.

only one i did miss was when prescott knocked out khan. because i thought prescott was some bum being fed to khan.

:(

freddydoesdallas wrote:To play devils advocate, surely it's up to the boxers to take pay cuts if they are to appear on the big bills. They can't expect the promoters to pay them the same amount as if they were headlining their own show. e.g. fighters a, b & c get paid £10k for a standard fight on their own shows and the promoter rakes in about £20k for these individual shows and pays off the opponent, undercard etc. Put them all together on one bill and they'll still want their £10k but the promoter can only move it to a slightly bigger venue and generate an extra £15 which means the shows could likely run at a loss. TV won't want to pay much extra nor will the advertisers so the only option is ppv and hope boxing fans pay more.

As a side note, wasn't Kessler v Calzaghe on setanta therefore subscription rather than ppv?

Yes Kessler Vs Calzaghe was setanta as was Calzaghe Vs Hopkins and Calzaghe Vs Jones, all of which would be PPV on Sky.
Haye Vs Mormeck and Maccrinelli were also Setanta

Now, Setanta went bust because of ludicrous payments for football, not boxing. So, if Setanta could put on these fights on the back of a general £10/month subscription why can't Sky? How much of this extra PPV money is going to the boxers and how much is going to the promoters and Sky?

I think this is just like the government putting through stealth taxes. Shortly anything other than small hall stuff will be PPV as the norm and there's nothing we can do about it, we'll just have to put up with it.

we do not have to put up with it, just do not buy it, if you are not happy with what is on offer. I never bought the haye v fraudley but bought the froch v abrabham fight. SKY BOX office shows are taking the p really, The fights this weekend i think there is only one fight where we do not know the winner smith v degale. So £14.95 for 1 fight is a p take.

dalcumly wrote:To receive a SKY signal we all have to pay a fee -and its not cheap ! But once we've paid we can watch the best football teams in the world playing live .
A few years ago BOX OFFICE was introduced for HUGE boxing nights . I didn't grudge paying extra to watch Hatton v Mayweather , Calazaghe v Kessler these were 'must see ' rare events .
Now we have to pay BOX OFFICE fees for fairly routine events . I don't think Khan fights are BOX OFFICE material - yet . I don't think Chisora getting thumped by Klitschko is a rare event . So who on the big bill this weekend is the BOX OFFICE superstar ??
Believe me friends , this is the thin edge of the wedge . Every time there is a few title fights on the bill , regardless of the opposition we'll be paying extra for it . AND , the BOX OFFICE fee will creep up . If we get a huge fight next year , Haye v Klitschko for example , the BOX OFFICE price will edge up a few quid , and it'll stay there .
We're in a recession for goodness sake . How much more money are these people , ( SKY and the promoters ) going to cream off us ??

I agree with you, it's not fair.

One point is though, you can only watch a number of football games live, the games which sky and ESPN put on tv. In the future all premier league matches will be ppv, only a matter of time.

There needs to be some regulation of PPV, and what is deemed a fair charge on the consumer. I would rate the Haye card as worth £5 for example. Saturday's card is worth the full £15, and I am surprised they never took us to the cleaners for this one. More and more of us are finding streams rather than pay these extortionate fee's for crap cards. For example, I can easily get a bang on stream and plug direct into a large tv and it will be like just watching the real thing quality wise. This Saturday I WILL be paying as I think it is deserved of my hard earned money.

The problem is, there's too many people ready to cough up the money. So everyone else has to suffer. Take Haye Vs Harrison for an example. It was always going to be piss poor. This forum is generally used by the real boxing fan. Yet, there was still a lot of people who brought the Haye Vs Harrison PPV on this forum and then complained on here after the PPV finished. Fully knowing it was going to blow anyway!

I probably use the internet more than I watch TV. I only pay £15 (unlimited D/L) a month for the internet. I'm already paying Sky a fortune. So asking for £15 for a boxing PPV which I think should be shown on one of the Sky Sports channels for free, is a joke.

This PPV is better than the Haye Vs Harrison PPV though. I'm undecided if it's worth the £15 (extra on top of your current Sky bill, which is the main argument) but I'll most likey catch it on a stream like I did with Haye Vs Harrison!

I enjoyed watching the Magnificent 7 bill at the LG Arena, but like everyone else I was disappointed (but kind of expecting it) when David Haye fought (Fr)Audley Harrison last month, I wanted to see Haye really dismantle Harrison, but alas I did not get my wish, but I am looking forward to the Gr8 Britain versus the World card, I will be getting the beer in for that and be sitting down with my notepad to watch and score the fights (if I can stay awake) because I reckon with the Khan fight it is going be on to nearly 2am I reckon. I know can watch it as I finish work at 4pm on Saturday.

to be honest i pay £73 to virgin tv plus ive had to pay for haye vs harrison and froch and now they want me to pay £15 again thats £45 on top of my £73 a month i pay i thinks its a fornicating joke im fumin with it all sky are greedy bastards

For what we pay for cable/satellite subscriptions. I think having a bill like this on one of the Sky sports channels for free would help justify their subscription costs. It's right before Christmas and our subscription prices are going up again at the start of next year because of VAT. You'd of thought customers who've been paying their subscription all year round, should get this for free.

It is getting to the point where half decent cards are becoming PPV and they have the cheek to still put adverts on them.

My Sky bill seems to increase every couple of months. It will be £52 next year. Ofcom are investigating them because of high prices.

Once my bill hits £55. That's it for me . I can watch anything that's shown on Sky on the internet for free anyway. Just to lazy to do it atm.

I do have a dislike for these big bills that Warren tells us cost a lot to put together which justifies the £15 we are asked for every time there is a "big" fight now (noting he doesn't have any "big" fighters left in his stable to justify a one-off pay per view fee so has to put on these multi-fight bonanzas now) - why can't we just have 1/2 good fights every week rather than 8 on one night?

Also - going through the list only the Smith-Degale fight is one I am particularly looking to that could be seen as 50/50. All the rest are the usual Warren fare of overmatched or underdog type opposition for his prospects.

dalcumly wrote:To receive a SKY signal we all have to pay a fee -and its not cheap ! But once we've paid we can watch the best football teams in the world playing live .
A few years ago BOX OFFICE was introduced for HUGE boxing nights . I didn't grudge paying extra to watch Hatton v Mayweather , Calazaghe v Kessler these were 'must see ' rare events .
Now we have to pay BOX OFFICE fees for fairly routine events . I don't think Khan fights are BOX OFFICE material - yet . I don't think Chisora getting thumped by Klitschko is a rare event . So who on the big bill this weekend is the BOX OFFICE superstar ??
Believe me friends , this is the thin edge of the wedge . Every time there is a few title fights on the bill , regardless of the opposition we'll be paying extra for it . AND , the BOX OFFICE fee will creep up . If we get a huge fight next year , Haye v Klitschko for example , the BOX OFFICE price will edge up a few quid , and it'll stay there .
We're in a recession for goodness sake . How much more money are these people , ( SKY and the promoters ) going to cream off us ??

Personally I think packages such as The Magnificent Seven and Gr8 Britain Vs The World are much more PPV-worthy than the traditional format of one "must-see" fight with an undercard of whatever quality. In the absence of a Lewis or a Naz or a Hatton, I think it's a fair enough model and having seven or eight solid bouts is much better value for money for one "event" type fight.

I can hear the argument about none of the fights or fighters being PPV-worthy in their own right, but I think the quantity approach is fine. For example, this Saturday will have something like 7 or 8 hours' worth of boxing. And as for the Mag 7, regardless of your opinion on whether or not it should have been PPV, I'm sure we all agree it was one of the best promotions of recent times - and the fact, like it or not, is that it simply wouldn't have happened without PPV money. Well, the individual fights may still have happened, but spread over 3 or 4 months.

And as for worries about price increases. It could well happen, but we've been worrying about that for a long time, and the price has remained 14.95 for as long as I can remember. In fact, there's only been one price increase in SBO's nearly 15-year history.

The fact remains that I watched Barcelona v Real Madrid last Monday night for nothing extra . This featured arguably the Worlds best players , certainly a majority of Spain's World Cup winning side were on view . There were over 90,000 watching live and millions more throughout the World . But we're expected to pay Box Office fees to see mismatches in Liverpool ( except one ) , Chisora being destroyed by Klitschko , and Khan who deserted Britiain to apparently earn more money in America , fighting at around 5am on Sunday morning .
I have no specialist knowledge , but I think all the live gate money goes to pay the boxers , and allegedly gets a portion of what Sky earn . Mr Warren will also get a fee from being involved with Chisora and 'somebody ' gets cash from SKY on behalf of Khan .
I don't blame anybody other than SKY for all of this .Of course we should all be grateful to SKY for showing ANY boxing , and I AM grateful . But this is simply greed . Got back to my original point BARCELONA v REAL MADRID !!!!!

dalcumly wrote:To receive a SKY signal we all have to pay a fee -and its not cheap ! But once we've paid we can watch the best football teams in the world playing live .
A few years ago BOX OFFICE was introduced for HUGE boxing nights . I didn't grudge paying extra to watch Hatton v Mayweather , Calazaghe v Kessler these were 'must see ' rare events .
Now we have to pay BOX OFFICE fees for fairly routine events . I don't think Khan fights are BOX OFFICE material - yet . I don't think Chisora getting thumped by Klitschko is a rare event . So who on the big bill this weekend is the BOX OFFICE superstar ??
Believe me friends , this is the thin edge of the wedge . Every time there is a few title fights on the bill , regardless of the opposition we'll be paying extra for it . AND , the BOX OFFICE fee will creep up . If we get a huge fight next year , Haye v Klitschko for example , the BOX OFFICE price will edge up a few quid , and it'll stay there .
We're in a recession for goodness sake . How much more money are these people , ( SKY and the promoters ) going to cream off us ??

You don't HAVE to do anything. Sky show the boxing for £14.95, pay for it if you want to watch it, don't pay for it if you don't.

It's a matter of choice

dalcumly wrote:To receive a SKY signal we all have to pay a fee -and its not cheap ! But once we've paid we can watch the best football teams in the world playing live .
A few years ago BOX OFFICE was introduced for HUGE boxing nights . I didn't grudge paying extra to watch Hatton v Mayweather , Calazaghe v Kessler these were 'must see ' rare events .
Now we have to pay BOX OFFICE fees for fairly routine events . I don't think Khan fights are BOX OFFICE material - yet . I don't think Chisora getting thumped by Klitschko is a rare event . So who on the big bill this weekend is the BOX OFFICE superstar ??
Believe me friends , this is the thin edge of the wedge . Every time there is a few title fights on the bill , regardless of the opposition we'll be paying extra for it . AND , the BOX OFFICE fee will creep up . If we get a huge fight next year , Haye v Klitschko for example , the BOX OFFICE price will edge up a few quid , and it'll stay there .

We're in a recession for goodness sake . How much more money are these people , ( SKY and the promoters ) going to cream off us ??

well put sky and adam smith are a disgrace. the haye-fraudley farce was pushed for by smith as much as haye or a-farce and it wasnt just 14.95 we were asked to pay for one mismatch and 1 undercard fight ....oh no....sky have got in the habit of charging an extra 1 pound telephone fee for calling them to book the box office fight!! Rupert murdochs greed is disgusting and typical of the hook nosed shyster.

dalcumly wrote: Khan who deserted Britiain to apparently earn more money in America , fighting at around 5am on Sunday morning .

Damn the deserter! Damn him, and damn Lewis, Bruno, Naz, Hatton, Benn, Danny Williams, Paul Ingle, Clinton Woods, Calzaghe, Froch and anyone else who dared to fight in the US, who we would have criticised if they didn't!

Lewis and all the others fought in America for one or more fights . Khans different and you know he is .He upped sticks and relocated -and he DID desert British boxing. But funnily enough he still wants the British public to pay him .

dalcumly wrote:Lewis and all the others fought in America for one or more fights . Khans different and you know he is .He upped sticks and relocated -and he DID desert British boxing. But funnily enough he still wants the British public to pay him .

How is he different? Trainining under Freddie Roach was obviously for the benefit of his career and the improvements have been obvious.

How many of Lewis' world title fights were in the UK?

oliverfennell wrote:

dalcumly wrote:Lewis and all the others fought in America for one or more fights . Khans different and you know he is .He upped sticks and relocated -and he DID desert British boxing. But funnily enough he still wants the British public to pay him .

How is he different? Trainining under Freddie Roach was obviously for the benefit of his career and the improvements have been obvious.

How many of Lewis' world title fights were in the UK?

3 I think and two of them were in his first reign.

oliverfennell wrote:

dalcumly wrote:Lewis and all the others fought in America for one or more fights . Khans different and you know he is .He upped sticks and relocated -and he DID desert British boxing. But funnily enough he still wants the British public to pay him .

How is he different? Trainining under Freddie Roach was obviously for the benefit of his career and the improvements have been obvious.

How many of Lewis' world title fights were in the UK?

Bizzare statements - so far Khan has had 2 title fights in the states 2 in the UK. He is in a constantly no-win situation with the fickle British fight fans. It was originally suggested that Khan would fight Maidana in the UK - it was met with "oh trying to get all the advantages, Argies don't travel well usually". I'm not suggesting it was a response to these criticisms but Khan fought Maidana in the states and he is now a "deserter".

The money is out in the states - all the main champions and contenders fight in the states. Don't blame him one bit. Now he is scheduled to face Judah and it is probably going to be in the UK - what will be "wrong" with that defence I wonder.

Lewis moved to the states also - so its exactly the same as Khan. Lewis fought 1 time as Undisputed champion - made numerous defences during his 3 reigns and 3 times fought in world title fights hear. Khan is twice already.

How many times did Hamed fight in the UK after the Kelly fight?

Yep, I wasn't criticising Lewis, I was using his (and others' examples) as defence of Khan. Not that he needs defending for "deserting the UK", though, FFS. We all know if he DIDN'T fight in the US, he's get criticised for that too.

King Geedorah wrote:

banjo wrote:

oliverfennell wrote: How is he different? Trainining under Freddie Roach was obviously for the benefit of his career and the improvements have been obvious.

How many of Lewis' world title fights were in the UK?

3 I think and two of them were in his first reign.

Can't blame Lennie for this. The UK didn't want him and spent yonks moaning about his accent then became strangely enthused about him when he unified the division. He rocked up for a gimme, grabbed some dosh, told us he'd be back and then laughed his way back to Jamaica. Lennox was class in everything he did.

Very true mate

Does anyone remember that fecking appalling ITV show with Ian Wright after he drew with Holyfield. With an audience of Z-list 'celebs' who had no idea about boxing and were so patronising. I guarantee about 10% of them didn't even watch the fight.

The low point, and there were several, was slapper Jo Guest asking him if he had sex before a fight

Cue a five minute Carry On sketch.

I also remember Lewis was wearing leather trousers and looked thrilled to be getting more exposure.

Cringeworthy

It's really simple, guys. PPV will exist whilst people pay for it. If everybody stopped buying PPVs, Sky would stop doing them. But, because we want to see the fights we pay the cash. Sky know we'll pay so they make us pay. If you object to paying PPV and want it to change...STOP BUYING PPVs.

Personally, I can't help myself.