BoxRec

I know all the money for Hayemaker PPVs goes to Toevid Haye and Booth, the undercard is usually poor.

DO FIGHTERS GET PAID MORE ON PPV BILLS?

I REMEMBER BACK IN THE DAY MIKE TYSON BEING PRAISED BY UNDERCARD FIGHTERS FOR ADDING A 0 OR 2 TO THEIR PAY JUST FOR BEING ON HIS UNDERCARD.

DOES THIS STILL APPLY?

PS, DAVID HAYE, YOU GREEDY TOE DODGER.

In FW back pocket....

BIGMARK wrote:i was going to start a subject simular to this as i read in the Boxing Monthly piece with the head of Primetime that he says it only needs 5000 buys to make it work and cover all costs. If this is the case you can see why Sky may go for the PPV approach with certain W@rren shows as they may need to sell a few more than 5000 to cover their OVer heads but not that many more.

I read that also.

Where the hell does all the money go?

I DOUBT THE UNDERCARD FIGHTERS SEE ANY OF IT, I ALSO DOUBT THE DOMESTIC MAIN EVENT FIGHTERS SEE IT EITHER.

BIGMARK wrote:i was going to start a subject simular to this as i read in the Boxing Monthly piece with the head of Primetime that he says it only needs 5000 buys to make it work and cover all costs. If this is the case you can see why Sky may go for the PPV approach with certain W@rren shows as they may need to sell a few more than 5000 to cover their OVer heads but not that many more.

5000 ? thats only £74,950 , not much pay to spread around , cant see how thats right to be fair , would cover a normal show but surely not a ppv worthy one

damianhucker1 wrote:

BIGMARK wrote:i was going to start a subject simular to this as i read in the Boxing Monthly piece with the head of Primetime that he says it only needs 5000 buys to make it work and cover all costs. If this is the case you can see why Sky may go for the PPV approach with certain W@rren shows as they may need to sell a few more than 5000 to cover their OVer heads but not that many more.

5000 ? thats only £74,950 , not much pay to spread around , cant see how thats right to be fair , would cover a normal show but surely not a ppv worthy one

I think the point he is making is that to use a PPV platform an cover the costs of that it is 5000 buys to cover that alone.

The rest covers fighters pay.

Even a PPV getong 40K buys generates £600K and that will easily cover the fighters ( domestic level) pay etc.

If Allegedly had 80K buys = £1.2M.

Where does the money go? Remember that Chisora would receive £150K for Wlad, where does the rest go?

We are being fleeced.

But yes SKY I agree SKY would invest more into the event.

WE ARE STILL BEING FLEECED.

BIGMARK wrote:

THE MESSIAH wrote:

damianhucker1 wrote: 5000 ? thats only £74,950 , not much pay to spread around , cant see how thats right to be fair , would cover a normal show but surely not a ppv worthy one

I think the point he is making is that to use a PPV platform an cover the costs of that it is 5000 buys to cover that alone.

The rest covers fighters pay.

Even a PPV getong 40K buys generates £600K and that will easily cover the fighters ( domestic level) pay etc.

If Allegedly had 80K buys = £1.2M.

Where does the money go? Remember that Chisora would receive £150K for Wlad, where does the rest go?

We are being fleeced.

But yes SKY I agree SKY would invest more into the event.

WE ARE STILL BEING FLEECED.

dont leave your house mate because you are getting fleeced on everything these days from a pint of milk to the price of a bus ticket to PPV boxing or electricity bill, these are times we live in supply/demand

We should stop paying for sky and get those dodgy boxes!

BIGMARK wrote:

THE MESSIAH wrote:

BIGMARK wrote: dont leave your house mate because you are getting fleeced on everything these days from a pint of milk to the price of a bus ticket to PPV boxing or electricity bill, these are times we live in supply/demand

We should stop paying for sky and get those dodgy boxes!

what you think those who sell the dodgy boxes arent making money or are they just a modern day Robin Hood

Well, a friend of mine gets everything for free - all the PPVs and europe stuff. I prefer not to break the law. but SKY and the PPVs are taking the piss.

Those sellin the boxes make a one off fee ( £100.00?) but that is it.

SKY should be glad THE MESSIAH is a good chap and not into breaking the law.

Have I missed something?

This year Sky have broadcast 33 shows (since January), a couple of which were shown delayed. Of these 33, 2 (two) were PPV. In 7 months, there have been 2 PPVs at £15 each. 31 sky shows were broadcast "free" to Sky Sports subscribers. If you had been asked to pay an additional £5 per month at the start of the year with the guarantee that there would be no PPV's, I imagine 95% of Sky subscribing posters on this forum would have happily stumped up, yet the net cost is the same. It seems to be the psychology of PPV that gets people going, rather than the actual finances involved.

Primetime have broadcast how many shows "free-to-air" in that period? I can recall one (Bute v Mendy). How many PPV's have they done? By next weekend, it'll be at least 2 (Khan v McCloskey and Judah).

People act like PPVs are on every week and that no boxing is on free, but that simply isn't the case.

earsjohn wrote:Have I missed something?

This year Sky have broadcast 33 shows (since January), a couple of which were shown delayed. Of these 33, 2 (two) were PPV. In 7 months, there have been 2 PPVs at £15 each. 31 sky shows were broadcast "free" to Sky Sports subscribers. If you had been asked to pay an additional £5 per month at the start of the year with the guarantee that there would be no PPV's, I imagine 95% of Sky subscribing posters on this forum would have happily stumped up, yet the net cost is the same. It seems to be the psychology of PPV that gets people going, rather than the actual finances involved.

Primetime have broadcast how many shows "free-to-air" in that period? I can recall one (Bute v Mendy). How many PPV's have they done? By next weekend, it'll be at least 2 (Khan v McCloskey and Judah).

People act like PPVs are on every week and that no boxing is on free, but that simply isn't the case.

I PAY A SUBSCRIPTION TO VIEW. I PAY SKY OVER £50.00 PER MONTJH JUST FOR BOXING.

I ALREADY PAY TO VIEW!

I WILL CANCEL SKY SPORTS ONCE THE SEASON FINISHES, MIGHT THEN PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT TO PAY TO VIEW.

THIS IS WHERE IT STARTS, 1 PPV THEN 2 THEN 5 THEN 10 THEN ALL OF BLOODY TIME!


BIGMARK, MESSIAH IS AN HONEST CHAP..

THE MESSIAH wrote:

earsjohn wrote:Have I missed something?

This year Sky have broadcast 33 shows (since January), a couple of which were shown delayed. Of these 33, 2 (two) were PPV. In 7 months, there have been 2 PPVs at £15 each. 31 sky shows were broadcast "free" to Sky Sports subscribers. If you had been asked to pay an additional £5 per month at the start of the year with the guarantee that there would be no PPV's, I imagine 95% of Sky subscribing posters on this forum would have happily stumped up, yet the net cost is the same. It seems to be the psychology of PPV that gets people going, rather than the actual finances involved.

Primetime have broadcast how many shows "free-to-air" in that period? I can recall one (Bute v Mendy). How many PPV's have they done? By next weekend, it'll be at least 2 (Khan v McCloskey and Judah).

People act like PPVs are on every week and that no boxing is on free, but that simply isn't the case.

I PAY A SUBSCRIPTION TO VIEW. I PAY SKY OVER £50.00 PER MONTJH JUST FOR BOXING.

I ALREADY PAY TO VIEW!

I WILL CANCEL SKY SPORTS ONCE THE SEASON FINISHES, MIGHT THEN PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT TO PAY TO VIEW.

THIS IS WHERE IT STARTS, 1 PPV THEN 2 THEN 5 THEN 10 THEN ALL OF BLOODY TIME!


BIGMARK, MESSIAH IS AN HONEST CHAP..

You are happy to pay £50 per month, just for boxing then? Are you saying you draw the line at £55?

go for BT vision. you get sky sports 1 and 2 plus ESPN plus phone calls plus internet broadband. 40 quid per month!!

earsjohn wrote:

THE MESSIAH wrote:

earsjohn wrote:Have I missed something?

This year Sky have broadcast 33 shows (since January), a couple of which were shown delayed. Of these 33, 2 (two) were PPV. In 7 months, there have been 2 PPVs at £15 each. 31 sky shows were broadcast "free" to Sky Sports subscribers. If you had been asked to pay an additional £5 per month at the start of the year with the guarantee that there would be no PPV's, I imagine 95% of Sky subscribing posters on this forum would have happily stumped up, yet the net cost is the same. It seems to be the psychology of PPV that gets people going, rather than the actual finances involved.

Primetime have broadcast how many shows "free-to-air" in that period? I can recall one (Bute v Mendy). How many PPV's have they done? By next weekend, it'll be at least 2 (Khan v McCloskey and Judah).

People act like PPVs are on every week and that no boxing is on free, but that simply isn't the case.

I PAY A SUBSCRIPTION TO VIEW. I PAY SKY OVER £50.00 PER MONTJH JUST FOR BOXING.

I ALREADY PAY TO VIEW!

I WILL CANCEL SKY SPORTS ONCE THE SEASON FINISHES, MIGHT THEN PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT TO PAY TO VIEW.

THIS IS WHERE IT STARTS, 1 PPV THEN 2 THEN 5 THEN 10 THEN ALL OF BLOODY TIME!


BIGMARK, MESSIAH IS AN HONEST CHAP..

You are happy to pay £50 per month, just for boxing then? Are you saying you draw the line at £55?

I am not happpy to pay £50.00 poer month, but I am over a barrell.

rhino222 wrote:go for BT vision. you get sky sports 1 and 2 plus ESPN plus phone calls plus internet broadband. 40 quid per month!!

It's good value I agree, But i think the picture quality can be woeful at times. They upscale SD content pretty well but miles behind on HD content.

I've got both Virgin cable and Sky HD - and Sky's encoding of the audio/visual kicks the daylights out of Virgin which many say is also better than BT vision.

Basically cable re-encode an MPEG4 signal to MPEG2 for their network so this can potentially reduce quality.

Also no 5.1 audio on BT vision, so it's just PCM sound. With Sky if you connect a optical lead to a surround amp you get full HD dolby digital surround sound.

On the Haye fight it was f*cking amazing quality through the cinema amp. Like being there.