BoxRec

If so, why?

If not, why not?


Maybe allegedly should be asking this question themselves but thought I'd help them out as they are struggling.

Currently I've chosen no because I don't see any good shows coming up and I work on a sunday so can catch cotto vs margo in the morning!! If I didn't I'd probably pay the first month!

No. I have virgin media and so when it goes live on this platform i won't feel as if i'm missing out as i've never had it and there are always ways to watch a fight



(by that i mean at a friends or the pub obviously)

ill subscribe if it comes to virgin been good so far especially the international shows

If yes, why dudes?

That tonight was pretty poor to be honest. Went last week, but as I am from Halifax I had a vested interest.
The girlfriend has said she will pay which I am currently going along with but definitely having a few doubts. If it was my money I would say no.

Yes. I like the idea of a dedicated boxing channel. I don't have a 'dish', so would subscribe online. Out of interest; is it cheaper online? (like Setanta used to be)

What's not to like ?

Another question to ask do casual boxing fans know this channel exists? These are the subscribers allegedly going to need to make it work! Can't subscribe as not on virgin yet!

Not really, my dad will pretty much watch any sport on sky and likes his boxing but he didn't know about the channel until the Burns Katsidis fight when i told him he could watch the fella from the fight we watched a few years ago (Earl Kats) again which he wanted to do

No.

King Geedorah wrote:Yes. Because it shows boxing.

Aye. And what's your usual self-referential quote in these matters?

Can't bring myself to put more money in fwank pockets

Dont think i will to start with but maybe in the new year if it looks like the quality will be ok.

Suprised they have not been in touch yet about subscriptions.

If the channel is struggling to get us serious fan to subscribe how are they going to get enough casual subscribers! Setanta was different model all together as it was free on Virgin and also people would have subscribed for the football.

Thought i would when the channel was announced, but they have nothing that great in the lineup so i won't for the time being! I really can't see the channel working though

Yes, want to watch the Cotto/Margarito fight, but have a feeling the quality of the bills will drop.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:No.

another closet subscriber. You can sit in the wardrobe and peep at it with Eddie Hearn then write both about what you didnt see!

Pathetic excuse for a boxing writer.

I will get it if it comes to Virgin.

If it comes on Virgin I may give it a go, but as it isn't even a choice for me currently then it's a no from me. The lineups have varied wildly, some of the Friday Night stuff has been filler, but the main events have been decent so far. Can't argue with Katsidis vs Burns, Smith vs Groves, the DeGale euro fight and the opening night they had with Appleby vs Walsh.

If they can maintain any sort of quality it might be worth it, but I can see them struggling to keep funding big fights and maintain it. I would love for an out and out boxing channel to be a big success, but I just think the timing is probably wrong.

What boxing needs is more terrestrial/mainstream coverage to get a new generation on board, not going underground to 10-20 thousand hardcore fans, preaching to the converted.

At this moment in time would you rather be Tyson Fury building his career on Channel 5, seen by millions, a Sky fighter seen by 100-200k, or would you rather be an upcoming Warren fighter buried on allegedly seen by 10-20k (when it goes subscriber only)?

Yes, because it's showing boxing - simple for me.

We all used to complain that small hall promoters don't get any TV and a lot will through allegedly and I enjoy seeing the guys in the early stages of their careers because there are good fighters on the small hall promotions, Lee Selby for example, and allegedly could find some guys like Lee.

It's also going to pick up a lot of foreign high profile fights that we don't get to see live otherwise, Chavez Jr v Manfredo for example.

leforge wrote:If the channel is struggling to get us serious fan to subscribe how are they going to get enough casual subscribers! Setanta was different model all together as it was free on Virgin and also people would have subscribed for the football.

I've heard they aren't doing to well and that investors aren't willing to put any more cash to it until their viewing figures improve.

I don't want a subscription boxing channel- I think its bad for the longevity of the sport however, watching the other night- even though the bill was pretty shit in terms of significance I for the first time got a sense of continuity which you just don't get on Sky anymore. Watching young frank make his debut then follow up with another impressive win....

I'll be sad to see allegedly go, if it does- but I hope that Sky have seen that boxing deserves a bit more coverage then speedway and curling. Why not record full bills and stick them on late night on one of the THREE sports channels you have then we can record and view at OUR pleasure?!!!

Anyway fair play to FWP for trying something new. I don't think its the answer but allegedly has hopefully served a greater purpose. Or I could be completely wrong- but i'm sure boxing chat would have pulled me if I were.

Im undecided the big big fights are the ones involving khan and Froch and they are both with sky. Also i've never paid for a fight without a UK fighter in it, i have to support a fighter to part with my cash. So unless Pac v PBF is on there, im not really that bothered about any other international fight. Its like watching the world cup without england playing, id really like to see france v germany but would i pay for it?

Also i think they should have waited until after christmas before turning to a subscriber channel; hardly anyone knows about the channel, they have done no advertising. I text people saying there was a big fight on free to air and even my mates who are boxing fans didnt know about the channel. Also everyone is tightening their belts over crimbo.

boxingchat wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:No.

another closet subscriber. You can sit in the wardrobe and peep at it with Eddie Hearn then write both about what you didnt see!

Pathetic excuse for a boxing writer.

You are a clown and it's this attitude towards genuine boxing fans that engenders so much antipathy towards your employer.

Jeff Thomas wrote:

leforge wrote:If the channel is struggling to get us serious fan to subscribe how are they going to get enough casual subscribers! Setanta was different model all together as it was free on Virgin and also people would have subscribed for the football.

I've heard they aren't doing to well and that investors aren't willing to put any more cash to it until their viewing figures improve.

I don't want a subscription boxing channel- I think its bad for the longevity of the sport however, watching the other night- even though the bill was pretty shit in terms of significance I for the first time got a sense of continuity which you just don't get on Sky anymore. Watching young frank make his debut then follow up with another impressive win....

I'll be sad to see Allegedly channel go, if it does- but I hope that Sky have seen that boxing deserves a bit more coverage then speedway and curling. Why not record full bills and stick them on late night on one of the THREE sports channels you have then we can record and view at OUR pleasure?!!!

Anyway fair play to FWP for trying something new. I don't think its the answer but Allegedly channel has hopefully served a greater purpose. Or I could be completely wrong- but i'm sure boxing chat would have pulled me if I were.

How many subscribers are needed for this channel to work?