BoxRec

Just noticed today that SKY are charging £17.95 for Wrestlemania 29 which is on SKY Box Office later this month.

As we know Froch Vs. Kessler II will be a SKY Box Office event. If it's priced at £17.95 too, would you be prepared to pay?

I would if streaming wasnt so good

i dont think it matters what our vote is

we are the die hards... we are buying it anyway (well im not... i will be in pub)

putting the price up might put off the 'normal' punter.... esp seeing as froch aint really a 'name'

The Danes have to pay triple that so it's not that bad but I don't have to worry about SBO I'll be there

@markmcgee87 wrote:The Danes have to pay triple that so it's not that bad but I don't have to worry about SBO I'll be there

What is the average Danish salary?

First of all I'm slightly disappointed that I'll have to pay £17.95 to watch Wrestlemania, particularly as this year's line up looks largely predictable...but that's for another thread!

Froch v Kessler, well, yes I would pay it because for me it's a must see.

MachoMan09 wrote:If people can afford to pay £17.95, on top of everything else they pay, to watch Wrestlemania the financial crisis must be a myth.

Why? It is an entertainment show that involves athletes performing amazing moves albeit at least partially choreographed and the results are pre-decided. For two tickets to go to the cinema nowadays, you are close to that price. It is a once a year show that guarantees a fan approx 3 hours of entertainment, longer than the average film. I'm obviously a boxing fan and would likely pay that money to watch Froch-Kessler (grudgingly I admit) and although I will watch the undercard, I am in effect paying for a maximum of 36 minutes of action, potentially a lot less and there is always the chance it could be a stinker like Haye-Wlad.

I prefer watching boxing to wrestling but I can understand why people would prefer to watch Wrestlemania, when they know what they are getting for their money. It's a sport-based show but in reality it's just entertainment in the same way a soap or a film is.

Fuck no. PPV (at the prices they charge and with shitty undercards) should only be for massive fights. Froch/Kessler I was a great tear-up but at this stage you've got two guys nearing the end of their careers, one of which has done the square route of Fuck all since they last fought. I hope it's another good fight but it's not that significant a fight IMO

For me Froch/Bute was more significant and that wasn't PPV I don't think.

I didnt know it had leapt up in price and I certainly don't know if Carl's fight will be that much.

In answer to the question, it's a lot of dough for some people.

If it was two chinny bangers and the fight could be over in 60 seconds, then possibly it's too risky a price. But we know these pair will batter lumps out of each for the full 12 and neither will just go over once he's had enough - they will get back up again.

It's not a bad price split between mates with some beers. But for loners it might be steep.

The last one was £15 on Primetime or the other channel, from memory and I paid that and it was a woeful undercard.

So yeah, probably.

MachoMan09 wrote:

doctorboxing wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:If people can afford to pay £17.95, on top of everything else they pay, to watch Wrestlemania the financial crisis must be a myth.

Why?

Because Stone Cold said so!

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

J-C wrote: For me Froch/Bute was more significant and that wasn't PPV I don't think.

He was relatively new to the channel at the time, and wasn't a champion either. Add to that Lucian Bute being unknown on these shores and they have a fight would have sold next to nothing. This is a rematch of a good fight that was close last time and it's a unification too. 17.95 is a joke though.

I'm just talking from my own perspective, not taking really into account what sells. For me a PPV fight would be something like Froch stepping up to challenge Dawson.

Bute vs SO and Pascal/Dawson II, was the word, no?

Yes, it's going to cost double that here in Australia. It'll cost me five times that to watch it at the pub because I'm too cheap to buy it.

No.

PPV is a stain on humanity.

We are already paying to view by subscribing in the first place so paying to view on top of what we've already paid to view? No chance, PPV can suck my hairy ball sack.

You don't actually need a subscription to PPV.

orbtastic wrote:You don't actually need a subscription to PPV.

Oh

banjo wrote:No.

PPV is a stain on humanity.

We are already paying to view by subscribing in the first place so paying to view on top of what we've already paid to view? No chance, PPV can suck my hairy ball sack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brjVfLwSCF4

18 fecking quid to watch one show on tv.. For that I expect a copy on Blu Ray sent through the post from Hearn towers.
First worthwhile fight of the season on Sky sports and your'e getting fleeced!
Glad I cancelled start of season! ( typed in a smug way)
£10 pound gets you six live bills on allegedly during March inc Hopkins/ Cloud tommorow night

Here is a link to the offical SKY Sports page confirming Wrestle Mania will be £17.95.

http://www1.skysports.com/other-sports/ ... estleMania

Hopefully the boxing won't go the same way. Hopefully it's WWE pushing the price and not SKY. Only problem is if wrestling fans cough up the £17.95 SKY will probably assume boxing fans will be happy to also.

I don't think £17.95 is good value. For that I can get a months subscription to allegedly and ESPN. If I had to chose between the PPV or allegedly and ESPN, it would have to be allegedly and ESPN. This for me personally presents more value and entertainment for my money. In fact even SKY Sports 1&2 for the whole month, depending on TV provider, is cheaper than £17.95.

I can understand why people are turning to illegal streams. I don't agree with them but I do understand.

no it will be bar or stream

Yes I would be happy to pay it especially if there a good under card, there is talk all over the net that from now on all of sky's shows will show the entire under cards. If this is correct then I think it's value for money

I think if Eddie does maybe 4-5 ppv shows a year with a massive main event and a really good under card wich we get to see all of the under card then I would be happy to pay for ppv a few times a year

was gonna get this until hearing it's gonna be £17.95.

3 quid knocked on.

they can stick it now.

If it's ppv only then that is different to paying out £85 per month for Sky then being asked to fork out again to watch something that the subs should cover.

hitman_hatton1 wrote:was gonna get this until hearing it's gonna be £17.95.

3 quid knocked on.

they can stick it now.

Nothing official yet. SKY have just made the latest WWE PPV £17.95 on SKY Box Office. Hopefully Froch Vs. Kessler will be the nromal £14.95.