Discuss:
No more PPV
Khan on Prime
Prime beat them to Mayweather
Relationship with FW bad
allegedly
Relationship with Golden Boy bad
Awful commentaries of late for domestic shows (who is Nick Halling)
Sky new obsession with F1
Could it be Isleworth's boxing from the Wakeling era is drawing to a close.
Weekly shows in uk leisure centres looking tired
Fat Mick on Channel 5 as Sky do not bother with Fury
Will they scale back next year? The tea leaves suggest yes.
Sky losing interest?
Re: Sky losing interest?
Total rubbish. This standard of this season's shows is far better than last season's so far. They paying to show Froch v Ward, not just trying to coin it through PPV.
What is also impressive is that the cover non-Sky boxers on Ringside and now on SSN. I remember when Calzaghe fought Kessler, probably the biggest fight in the UK this century, SSN did not give it a mention because it was on Setanta.
What is also impressive is that the cover non-Sky boxers on Ringside and now on SSN. I remember when Calzaghe fought Kessler, probably the biggest fight in the UK this century, SSN did not give it a mention because it was on Setanta.
Re: Sky losing interest?
Sky better then ever in my opinion, love ringside, and if you don't know nick halling you don't know much !
Re: Sky losing interest?
Boxing would be dead in the UK if it was not for SkySports, They are making us promoters make fights that the fan's want to see.
Re: Sky losing interest?
As said in another thread if allegedly becomes a subscription channel or ppv how many people would purchase it?
Re: Sky losing interest?
Certain Promoters/people not getting the chance to charge us PPV money for domesic fights, thats the reson for allegedly/Primetime imo.
Sky are looking out for the fans a bit. But they - SKY- should have a boxing only subscription!
£7.99 for all channels. They would get more subscribers than the current set up.
Sky are looking out for the fans a bit. But they - SKY- should have a boxing only subscription!
£7.99 for all channels. They would get more subscribers than the current set up.
Re: Sky losing interest?
PPV isn't the way forward, in terms of the long term wellbeing of boxing in this country, or any other, for that matter.
Allegedly has said that ''the big fights won't get made without'', well, I'm sure the fighters will sit on their arse doing nothing if there's no PPV
If he wants to set up his own PPV channel then by all means, it's a supply and demand service, he's made some bad business decisions with the ridiculous deals given to the 2008 Olympians and needs to think outside the box to avoid financial disaster. Kinda dumb really, the lads aren't going to gain enough experience to succeed only fighting three times a year, and the PPV market is relatively small so the publicity they get is minimal.
All it does is provide an opportunity for other promoters to take TV dates and promote their own fighters. If Allegedly wants to go ahead without Sky good luck, but it's a car crash waiting to happen.
I've got major reservations over all his prospects, in particular the Olympians, and would be very surprised if any of them reached world level.
Allegedly has said that ''the big fights won't get made without'', well, I'm sure the fighters will sit on their arse doing nothing if there's no PPV
If he wants to set up his own PPV channel then by all means, it's a supply and demand service, he's made some bad business decisions with the ridiculous deals given to the 2008 Olympians and needs to think outside the box to avoid financial disaster. Kinda dumb really, the lads aren't going to gain enough experience to succeed only fighting three times a year, and the PPV market is relatively small so the publicity they get is minimal.
All it does is provide an opportunity for other promoters to take TV dates and promote their own fighters. If Allegedly wants to go ahead without Sky good luck, but it's a car crash waiting to happen.
I've got major reservations over all his prospects, in particular the Olympians, and would be very surprised if any of them reached world level.
Re: Sky losing interest?
x2gobbles wrote:Total rubbish. This standard of this season's shows is far better than last season's so far. They paying to show Froch v Ward, not just trying to coin it through PPV.
What is also impressive is that the cover non-Sky boxers on Ringside and now on SSN. I remember when Calzaghe fought Kessler, probably the biggest fight in the UK this century, SSN did not give it a mention because it was on Setanta.
Re: Sky losing interest?
x3Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:x2gobbles wrote:Total rubbish. This standard of this season's shows is far better than last season's so far. They paying to show Froch v Ward, not just trying to coin it through PPV.
What is also impressive is that the cover non-Sky boxers on Ringside and now on SSN. I remember when Calzaghe fought Kessler, probably the biggest fight in the UK this century, SSN did not give it a mention because it was on Setanta.
British boxing seems to be (fingers crossed) finally emerging from the days of padded out prospects boxing journeymen forever, mismatches and overly-cautious matchmaking. Think about it - three years ago, would Degale v Groves have been at this stage of their career? Not a chance. And credit to FW's team, throwing in Stephen Smith after barely 10 fights. In the very recent past he would have been allowed to drift along building a long but meaningless record for a long time.
No, it seems to me that Sky and the promoters are now making fights that the fans want to see and i have enjoyed this season a great deal so far. Hats off.
Last edited by danfoster on 21 Sep 2011, 04:10, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Sky losing interest?
x3Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:x2gobbles wrote:Total rubbish. This standard of this season's shows is far better than last season's so far. They paying to show Froch v Ward, not just trying to coin it through PPV.
What is also impressive is that the cover non-Sky boxers on Ringside and now on SSN. I remember when Calzaghe fought Kessler, probably the biggest fight in the UK this century, SSN did not give it a mention because it was on Setanta.
British boxing seems to be (fingers crossed) finally emerging from the days of padded out prospects boxing journeymen forever, mismatches and overly-cautious matchmaking. Think about it - three years ago, would Degale v Groves have been at this stage of their career? Not a chance. And credit to FW's team, throwing in Stephen Smith after barely 10 fights. In the very recent past he would have been allowed to drift along building a long but meaningless record for a long time.
No, it seems to me that Sky and the promoters are now making fights that the fans want to see and i have enjoyed this season a great deal so far. Hats off.
-
twenty six
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3574
- Joined: 17 Jun 2006, 13:43
Re: Sky losing interest?
They're not losing interest, just making a stance with the Promotors with whom they work, by insisting on quality rather than quantity and at the same time, pruning the amount they are paying.
Sky are a business and everything they are doing is demonstrating good business acumen.
If the Promotors don't like it, then they have the option to seek deals with other Broadcasters, or explore other avenues such as opening their own subscription channels.
As an example, Rhodes next fight 2 years ago would have been on Sky no problem even though it's a non title affair.
In todays market - no chance.
You've only to look at Coldwell's bill on 26-11-11 which will have no coverage and compare that to the quality of shows shown on Sky 2 years ago.
It compares admirably - but is not good enough for Sky now.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing ?
Well it depends whether you're a casual observer or actively involved.
I understand that Sky are demanding two title fights as the minimum for all future televised shows.
Inevitably that will be the extent of the coverage - I don't think we'll see much of the undercards going forward.
That said, if that's what we want we can always buy a ticket and see it live.
Sky have been brilliant for British boxing over the years and I think they will continue to deliver.
If that means a bit of pain for Promotors and fighters then so be it.
For the fans it's all good news because the shows will focus on quality not quantity.
Whilst it is hard work running the small hall shows with no tv backing, some of the Promotors at this level are doing cracking jobs and I applaud them.
Sky are a business and everything they are doing is demonstrating good business acumen.
If the Promotors don't like it, then they have the option to seek deals with other Broadcasters, or explore other avenues such as opening their own subscription channels.
As an example, Rhodes next fight 2 years ago would have been on Sky no problem even though it's a non title affair.
In todays market - no chance.
You've only to look at Coldwell's bill on 26-11-11 which will have no coverage and compare that to the quality of shows shown on Sky 2 years ago.
It compares admirably - but is not good enough for Sky now.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing ?
Well it depends whether you're a casual observer or actively involved.
I understand that Sky are demanding two title fights as the minimum for all future televised shows.
Inevitably that will be the extent of the coverage - I don't think we'll see much of the undercards going forward.
That said, if that's what we want we can always buy a ticket and see it live.
Sky have been brilliant for British boxing over the years and I think they will continue to deliver.
If that means a bit of pain for Promotors and fighters then so be it.
For the fans it's all good news because the shows will focus on quality not quantity.
Whilst it is hard work running the small hall shows with no tv backing, some of the Promotors at this level are doing cracking jobs and I applaud them.
Re: Sky losing interest?
twenty six wrote:They're not losing interest, just making a stance with the Promotors with whom they work, by insisting on quality rather than quantity and at the same time, pruning the amount they are paying.
Sky are a business and everything they are doing is demonstrating good business acumen.
If the Promotors don't like it, then they have the option to seek deals with other Broadcasters, or explore other avenues such as opening their own subscription channels.
As an example, Rhodes next fight 2 years ago would have been on Sky no problem even though it's a non title affair.
In todays market - no chance.
You've only to look at Coldwell's bill on 26-11-11 which will have no coverage and compare that to the quality of shows shown on Sky 2 years ago.
It compares admirably - but is not good enough for Sky now.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing ?
Well it depends whether you're a casual observer or actively involved.
I understand that Sky are demanding two title fights as the minimum for all future televised shows.
Inevitably that will be the extent of the coverage - I don't think we'll see much of the undercards going forward.
That said, if that's what we want we can always buy a ticket and see it live.
Sky have been brilliant for British boxing over the years and I think they will continue to deliver.
If that means a bit of pain for Promotors and fighters then so be it.
For the fans it's all good news because the shows will focus on quality not quantity.
Whilst it is hard work running the small hall shows with no tv backing, some of the Promotors at this level are doing cracking jobs and I applaud them.
codwells show on the 26th nov isnt on sky because ricky hatton has a show on that nite, the only fight released at the mo is joe murray v chris male english feathweight title. guessing a british title title shot will top that bill. wat wud u rather watch 2 title fights or cook woodhouse and rhodes fighting a bum
Re: Sky losing interest?
Partially disagree with some of the things you are saying there 26. Rhodes' non title fights wouldn't have been on Sky at any time..... Sky still have the policy of showing title fights as their main event.... only time they didn't stick to it in recent times (and I'm talking last 5/6 years) was with Frankie Gavin vs Michael Lomax - and that bill fell apart at the very last moment.twenty six wrote:They're not losing interest, just making a stance with the Promotors with whom they work, by insisting on quality rather than quantity and at the same time, pruning the amount they are paying.
Sky are a business and everything they are doing is demonstrating good business acumen.
If the Promotors don't like it, then they have the option to seek deals with other Broadcasters, or explore other avenues such as opening their own subscription channels.
As an example, Rhodes next fight 2 years ago would have been on Sky no problem even though it's a non title affair.
In todays market - no chance.
You've only to look at Coldwell's bill on 26-11-11 which will have no coverage and compare that to the quality of shows shown on Sky 2 years ago.
It compares admirably - but is not good enough for Sky now.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing ?
Well it depends whether you're a casual observer or actively involved.
I understand that Sky are demanding two title fights as the minimum for all future televised shows.
Inevitably that will be the extent of the coverage - I don't think we'll see much of the undercards going forward.
That said, if that's what we want we can always buy a ticket and see it live.
Sky have been brilliant for British boxing over the years and I think they will continue to deliver.
If that means a bit of pain for Promotors and fighters then so be it.
For the fans it's all good news because the shows will focus on quality not quantity.
Whilst it is hard work running the small hall shows with no tv backing, some of the Promotors at this level are doing cracking jobs and I applaud them.
There are also two ways of looking at your arguement of quality not quantity..... yes I agree, provided there is a weekly fix of boxing - lets see quality fights...... however, it could be seen as a lack of interest, or lack of interest in spending the cash. If it goes down the route of showing one quality British bill a month, then surely that would mean a lack of interest. Take Ryan Rhodes again - 2/3 years ago it wouldn't have even been debated would Sky show his fight with Alvarez live (you don't get much quality than a brit fighting for a world title) - it wasn't though.... surely that is NOT a good thing.
-
Jeff Thomas
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3016
- Joined: 30 Apr 2009, 06:32
Re: Sky losing interest?
X6 or whatever we up to
Re: Sky losing interest?
The past year have seen Sky dig their heels in on the PPV issue, something that most fans had long called for. They took note of the discontent displayed after the Haye Harrison fight, and made a stand. Khan didn't like that stand (neither would I had I already agreed a more profitable deal than the second offer), but Sky admirably stuck to their guns. Obviously it's not a charitable intention from Sky, but it does show they listen. I could be wrong, but I think appointing a 'Head Of Boxing' indicates that they intend to stick around.
My big concern is with boxing on TV is that much like what has happened with football, more choice doesn't always make a market more competitive. I used to get all the footy for my Sky Sports subs, now I need to shell out again if I want ESPN's portion of the games. Opening the competition, however slightly, has made the product more costly in this case. With boxing, the array of PPV or additional subscription channels leaves me suspicious that boxing too will become more expensive to watch a significant amount of events. Sky wouldn't ever do 3 PPV's per month, but if those events are spread across a multitude of channels, who draws the line at where the limit should be? Nobody would have the jurisdiction - other than the punters, but what percentage would need to buy for it to succeed? I'd assume it's not a huge number. The sooner shows are frequently streamed online at a fraction of the current PPV cost, the better imo.
My big concern is with boxing on TV is that much like what has happened with football, more choice doesn't always make a market more competitive. I used to get all the footy for my Sky Sports subs, now I need to shell out again if I want ESPN's portion of the games. Opening the competition, however slightly, has made the product more costly in this case. With boxing, the array of PPV or additional subscription channels leaves me suspicious that boxing too will become more expensive to watch a significant amount of events. Sky wouldn't ever do 3 PPV's per month, but if those events are spread across a multitude of channels, who draws the line at where the limit should be? Nobody would have the jurisdiction - other than the punters, but what percentage would need to buy for it to succeed? I'd assume it's not a huge number. The sooner shows are frequently streamed online at a fraction of the current PPV cost, the better imo.
-
twenty six
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3574
- Joined: 17 Jun 2006, 13:43
Re: Sky losing interest?
Stu,
If you look back, you can count up how many times Rhodes has been on Sky in a non title affair so don't understand what you mean by "never". If you mean top of the bill of course you're right.
Anyway - I don't want this to become a Rhodes debate and that's my fault. I was merely using him as an example to make my point because I knew what I was saying was factually accurate.
Maley,
Calm down mate - if you read my post I agree with you !
I'm not a muppet - Coldwell's show would not be shown because he hasn't got a Sky contract.
What I'm saying is, a few years ago if Coldwell had a Sky contract then the show would have been aired.
Now ? - no chance.
Woodhouse v Cook matches up to some of the dross I've witnessed over the years on Sky.
Equally Rhodes v TBA would have been on the Hatton bill a few years ago - not now.
I don't want this to turn into a Rhodes debate as I've said earlier - and that's my fault.
I also think you should wait to find out who the opponent is before calling him a bum.
When you know then by all means comment.
Back to thread - no, I don't think Sky are losing interest, just modifying the product. Just my take lads.
If you look back, you can count up how many times Rhodes has been on Sky in a non title affair so don't understand what you mean by "never". If you mean top of the bill of course you're right.
Anyway - I don't want this to become a Rhodes debate and that's my fault. I was merely using him as an example to make my point because I knew what I was saying was factually accurate.
Maley,
Calm down mate - if you read my post I agree with you !
I'm not a muppet - Coldwell's show would not be shown because he hasn't got a Sky contract.
What I'm saying is, a few years ago if Coldwell had a Sky contract then the show would have been aired.
Now ? - no chance.
Woodhouse v Cook matches up to some of the dross I've witnessed over the years on Sky.
Equally Rhodes v TBA would have been on the Hatton bill a few years ago - not now.
I don't want this to turn into a Rhodes debate as I've said earlier - and that's my fault.
I also think you should wait to find out who the opponent is before calling him a bum.
When you know then by all means comment.
Back to thread - no, I don't think Sky are losing interest, just modifying the product. Just my take lads.
-
allahsnackbar
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 302
- Joined: 18 May 2011, 13:36
Re: Sky losing interest?
I think its a good thing if Sky scale down. We won't get to see mismatches as main events. The likes of a Maloney heavyweight vs a Latvian doorman was happening all too often.
I think Haye ruined PPV for everyone. First the horrific fight with Harrison for money and the whole "I bet on myself" incident. Then all the talk about decapitating Wlad and the pathetic performance followed by a little toe excuse. No doubt that pissed Sky right off and it pissed all the fans off, who basically felt they got conned out of their 15 quid again.
Not getting the Mayweather fight is a clear sign that Sky are scaling down. Primetime have a serious opportunity on their hands.
Channel 5 getting involved is great. They will only show good decent fights. Hennessy is probably going to piss them off by putting Fury in with Firthas though. A fight with Mike Perez or Rogan would be perfect next but I'm sure we'll see another no-hoper after the way fat mick was talking after the fight.
Warren looks to be going to his own channel which will allow him to put on mismatches and will flop big if he doesn't put quality cards on PPV.
With the availability of illegal internet streams of fights, promotors and TV companies over here are going to have to really think about the cards they are putting on if they want to make money.
I think Haye ruined PPV for everyone. First the horrific fight with Harrison for money and the whole "I bet on myself" incident. Then all the talk about decapitating Wlad and the pathetic performance followed by a little toe excuse. No doubt that pissed Sky right off and it pissed all the fans off, who basically felt they got conned out of their 15 quid again.
Not getting the Mayweather fight is a clear sign that Sky are scaling down. Primetime have a serious opportunity on their hands.
Channel 5 getting involved is great. They will only show good decent fights. Hennessy is probably going to piss them off by putting Fury in with Firthas though. A fight with Mike Perez or Rogan would be perfect next but I'm sure we'll see another no-hoper after the way fat mick was talking after the fight.
Warren looks to be going to his own channel which will allow him to put on mismatches and will flop big if he doesn't put quality cards on PPV.
With the availability of illegal internet streams of fights, promotors and TV companies over here are going to have to really think about the cards they are putting on if they want to make money.
-
twenty six
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3574
- Joined: 17 Jun 2006, 13:43
Re: Sky losing interest?
The point is mate, that no one else in the broadcasting business UK would provide the level of commitment that Sky do.
If Fury loses before he gets to title level, will Channel 5 stay the course ?
I'm not sure.
If Fury loses before he gets to title level, will Channel 5 stay the course ?
I'm not sure.
Re: Sky losing interest?
Stu Jones - McCloskey vs Prescott wasn't for a title, so they mustn't be demanding title only main events
Re: Sky losing interest?
The programme featured a world heavyweight title fight though. Not every fight has to be for a title, but the main event typically does (which I think for the show was Klitchsko vs Adamek - thats were the main commentary team was). It also featured a commonwealth title fight live on the card.smcb80 wrote:Stu Jones - McCloskey vs Prescott wasn't for a title, so they mustn't be demanding title only main events
Re: Sky losing interest?
Sky have been brilliant for British boxing over the years and I think they will continue to deliver again and again. 
Re: Sky losing interest?
Do you think that British Boxing is in a better state now than say 20 years ago when Sky started ?phil5555 wrote:Sky have been brilliant for British boxing over the years and I think they will continue to deliver again and again.
It is not all Sky's fault (although I believe that they did indirectly facilitate many of the issues that have caused the decline in the sport), but could there be a correlation ?
-
themadmariner
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 43
- Joined: 20 Sep 2011, 07:46
Re: Sky losing interest?
I think Sky have been and continue to be good for British Boxing.
They show a (reasonably) quality fight every week as well as throwing in the odd big fight too, like the recent Klitschko fight.
With regards the PPV element I think Sky are spot on to stop the PPV's. I think they have realised that as they are so unpredictable, there is no way of offering the customer guarenteed value for money. Recent PPV's obviosuly haven't helped this (David Haye is clearly to blame here), but I was in The O2 for the Groves V Degale fight and the quality if that bill should have been nowhere near PPV. Yes the main event was a decent fight, but to pay £15 i think you should be able to expect more than 1 half decent fight (there are obvious exceptions to this i.e, if Mayweather & Pacquiao ever fought). I believe in fact the reason they pulled Kahn v McCloskey was due to a very poor undercard.
Lets be serious though, the main reason Sky would stop producing PPV's is because they are no longer cost effective. If Sky were making money they would cotinue to sell them. Sky realise that the country is in the middle of a recession and aren't going to pay £15 to see Nathan Cleverly v Tony Bellew or Ricky Burns V Michael Katsidis or even Carl Froch V Andre Ward for that matter.
I'm sure in a few years if a few current domestic level fighters become world class like DeGale, Groves or even Brook and the country starts making financial gains then PPV's will return
They show a (reasonably) quality fight every week as well as throwing in the odd big fight too, like the recent Klitschko fight.
With regards the PPV element I think Sky are spot on to stop the PPV's. I think they have realised that as they are so unpredictable, there is no way of offering the customer guarenteed value for money. Recent PPV's obviosuly haven't helped this (David Haye is clearly to blame here), but I was in The O2 for the Groves V Degale fight and the quality if that bill should have been nowhere near PPV. Yes the main event was a decent fight, but to pay £15 i think you should be able to expect more than 1 half decent fight (there are obvious exceptions to this i.e, if Mayweather & Pacquiao ever fought). I believe in fact the reason they pulled Kahn v McCloskey was due to a very poor undercard.
Lets be serious though, the main reason Sky would stop producing PPV's is because they are no longer cost effective. If Sky were making money they would cotinue to sell them. Sky realise that the country is in the middle of a recession and aren't going to pay £15 to see Nathan Cleverly v Tony Bellew or Ricky Burns V Michael Katsidis or even Carl Froch V Andre Ward for that matter.
I'm sure in a few years if a few current domestic level fighters become world class like DeGale, Groves or even Brook and the country starts making financial gains then PPV's will return
Re: Sky losing interest?
I think PPVs need to have a minimum of 3 quality match ups on them becasue they are so unpredictable.
Re: Sky losing interest?
Ezzard wrote:I think PPVs need to have a minimum of 3 quality match ups on them becasue they are so unpredictable.
If sky left boxing it would be really bad news,We have no PPV fighters in the uk,and cant see it happening for a few years to come,Also cant see sky work en with allegedly again if he jumps ship,Just look at what happened to Khan .