BoxRec

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... opoly.html

Promoter Dennis Hobson believes that Sky Sports’ refusal to deal with anyone but Matchroom Sport is “crippling” the sport in this country and has described their partnership as “akin to a monopoly”.

“It doesn’t help anybody that only Matchroom Sport have the deal with Sky Sports,” said Hobson. “They should have at least two promoters dealing with them and you should be able to deal with them directly, not be asked to go through Matchroom Sport when you contact them.”

I thought this was going out on loaded. Admittedly it isnt Sky & wont have as many viewers but Dennis says that he cant get a TV deal?

I think he does have a fair point but I think matchroom suits sky as they have a lot of other sports that they produce for sky aswell as the boxing

In an ideal world they would have had a few other dates they could use for other promotors ...

...shouldn't his attack also be leveled at allegedly who seem to have little domestic output and could do with more home based promoters?

A 10,000 seater stadium and Primetime pay-per-view ?

iamasadlittleboy wrote:...shouldn't his attack also be leveled at Allegedly channel who seem to have little domestic output and could do with more home based promoters?

X2 Carl Greaves Steve Wood and others put some good small hall shows on that would be great on allegedly

It's hard to disagree with Dennis on this one, I wish Sky would deal with a number of promoters as they did to up until recently, but it's also not Skys fault that very few other TV channels are willing to broadcast boxing

Chambers2 wrote:It's hard to disagree with Dennis on this one, I wish Sky would deal with a number of promoters as they did to up until recently, but it's also not Skys fault that very few other TV channels are willing to broadcast boxing

x2

iamasadlittleboy wrote:...shouldn't his attack also be leveled at Allegedly channel who seem to have little domestic output and could do with more home based promoters?

He does go onto say:

"We will talk to allegedly, the boxing subscription channel"

Maloney is on allegedly. allegedly bid for the Hatton comeback fight and will Bid for Fury Vs. Cunningham if Channel 5 are not interested. Wasn’t Willie Limond Vs. Anthony Crolla promoted by Tommy Gilmore?

I’ve not seen many promoters saying they’ve approached allegedly for air time and have been turned away. Can anyone on here confirm this to be the case, and the reasons allegedly gave?

spudder56 wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:It's hard to disagree with Dennis on this one, I wish Sky would deal with a number of promoters as they did to up until recently, but it's also not Skys fault that very few other TV channels are willing to broadcast boxing

x2

Agreed and maybe sky will change their policy in future, having hopefully sent out a firm message that they will not pay 100k for shows where half the bill comprises of tumbling latvian imports and commonwealth titles being contested in half full provincial sports centres. That is not a knock on the kind of promoter mentioned above, who really should get the opportunity to work direct with a tv company, its a knock at the promoters who did work with sky, and made them sick and tired of the politics of the sport

chad wrote:

iamasadlittleboy wrote:...shouldn't his attack also be leveled at Allegedly channel who seem to have little domestic output and could do with more home based promoters?

He does go onto say:

"We will talk to allegedly, the boxing subscription channel"

Maloney is on allegedly. allegedly bid for the Hatton comeback fight and will Bid for Fury Vs. Cunningham if Channel 5 are not interested. Wasn’t Willie Limond Vs. Anthony Crolla promoted by Tommy Gilmore?

I’ve not seen many promoters saying they’ve approached allegedly for air time and have been turned away. Can anyone on here confirm this to be the case, and the reasons allegedly gave?

If they have all these promoters offering their shows...why the fornicate can't they seem to have any decent domestic shows? Real mystery.

iamasadlittleboy wrote:

chad wrote:

iamasadlittleboy wrote:...shouldn't his attack also be leveled at Allegedly channel who seem to have little domestic output and could do with more home based promoters?

He does go onto say:

"We will talk to allegedly, the boxing subscription channel"

Maloney is on allegedly. allegedly bid for the Hatton comeback fight and will Bid for Fury Vs. Cunningham if Channel 5 are not interested. Wasn’t Willie Limond Vs. Anthony Crolla promoted by Tommy Gilmore?

I’ve not seen many promoters saying they’ve approached allegedly for air time and have been turned away. Can anyone on here confirm this to be the case, and the reasons allegedly gave?

If they have all these promoters offering their shows...why the eff can't they seem to have any decent domestic shows? Real mystery.

Money. It costs five digits to film and live broadcast a show to a decent professional standard. Somebody has to hire the truck, equipment, satellite link gear, camera guys, sound guys, runners, assistants, plus programme director, floor manager, and the boffins in the truck editing what is being filmed and beam it into space.

The question is, who pays ? the indie promoter will hardly be in a position to pay. that leaves the tv company. as w.arren has himself stated recently, it is far, far cheaper to just buy in a show from overseas, that somebody is already televising. for example, regardless of how many countries show the fight, you only need one film crew in the building filming it. so it pays for w.arren to buy shows that are already being televised. his channel gets another live show, and the show's promoter gets extra income from the same event. profitable for both parties. not the case with a british indie show that otherwise would not have television coverage.

no wonder sky were disgusted at some of the shows they were covering in the pre-eddie hearn deal days. if they're paying 100k to the promoter AND standing the costs of sending in their own professional, top class broadcast team, no wonder they were sick to their back teeth of seeing promoters serve up mediocre main events supported by one-sided undercards.

the cheaper way around the problem would be to stick with a single camera broadcast, as has been done online, with live show broadcasts (I seem to recall one or two Carl Greaves shows getting this treatment). you get a couple of commentators as normal but just one single camera angle from start to finish. the issue with this would be fans may spot it is basically being done on the cheap - no corner coverage between rounds, no close ups,

JimJim2009 wrote:

spudder56 wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:It's hard to disagree with Dennis on this one, I wish Sky would deal with a number of promoters as they did to up until recently, but it's also not Skys fault that very few other TV channels are willing to broadcast boxing

x2

Agreed and maybe sky will change their policy in future, having hopefully sent out a firm message that they will not pay 100k for shows where half the bill comprises of tumbling latvian imports and commonwealth titles being contested in half full provincial sports centres. That is not a knock on the kind of promoter mentioned above, who really should get the opportunity to work direct with a tv company, its a knock at the promoters who did work with sky, and made them sick and tired of the politics of the sport

100% correct mate Promotors are why Sky cut back in the first place and yes Dennis should be given a chance

JimJim2009 wrote:The question is, who pays ? the indie promoter will hardly be in a position to pay. that leaves the tv company. as w.arren has himself stated recently, it is far, far cheaper to just buy in a show from overseas, that somebody is already televising. for example, regardless of how many countries show the fight, you only need one film crew in the building filming it. so it pays for w.arren to buy shows that are already being televised. his channel gets another live show, and the show's promoter gets extra income from the same event. profitable for both parties. not the case with a british indie show that otherwise would not have television coverage.

Some good points Jim.

SKY do their small hall round up every Thursday on Ringside. It's clear they send cameras to various shows accross the UK each week. What I don't understand is why SKY don't make these shows or fights available via the red button, via catch up TV or via their website. It's clear they've filmed the fights so why not share the content? I don't need a boxing show to be live to enjoy it. As long as I don't know the results I'm happy as Larry. Even charge £1.00 to watch the shows via on demand. SKY get 50p and the small hall promoter gets 50p.

I agree filming something and not showing it is a bit pointless, but they would incur additional expenses should they broadcast it, as has been outlined previously - Ok so there's no need to edit it on the fly in a truck but it still needs editing and polishing...then you have the issue of paying the fighters [extra] who are being shown on TV, albeit delayed.

chad wrote:

JimJim2009 wrote:The question is, who pays ? the indie promoter will hardly be in a position to pay. that leaves the tv company. as w.arren has himself stated recently, it is far, far cheaper to just buy in a show from overseas, that somebody is already televising. for example, regardless of how many countries show the fight, you only need one film crew in the building filming it. so it pays for w.arren to buy shows that are already being televised. his channel gets another live show, and the show's promoter gets extra income from the same event. profitable for both parties. not the case with a british indie show that otherwise would not have television coverage.

Some good points Jim.

SKY do their small hall round up every Thursday on Ringside. It's clear they send cameras to various shows accross the UK each week. What I don't understand is why SKY don't make these shows or fights available via the red button, via catch up TV or via their website. It's clear they've filmed the fights so why not share the content? I don't need a boxing show to be live to enjoy it. As long as I don't know the results I'm happy as Larry. Even charge £1.00 to watch the shows via on demand. SKY get 50p and the small hall promoter gets 50p.

Chad how many would watch. I am sure matchroom would like more sky dates so they can grow but viewing figures will have to improve.

leforge wrote:

chad wrote:

JimJim2009 wrote:The question is, who pays ? the indie promoter will hardly be in a position to pay. that leaves the tv company. as w.arren has himself stated recently, it is far, far cheaper to just buy in a show from overseas, that somebody is already televising. for example, regardless of how many countries show the fight, you only need one film crew in the building filming it. so it pays for w.arren to buy shows that are already being televised. his channel gets another live show, and the show's promoter gets extra income from the same event. profitable for both parties. not the case with a british indie show that otherwise would not have television coverage.

Some good points Jim.

SKY do their small hall round up every Thursday on Ringside. It's clear they send cameras to various shows accross the UK each week. What I don't understand is why SKY don't make these shows or fights available via the red button, via catch up TV or via their website. It's clear they've filmed the fights so why not share the content? I don't need a boxing show to be live to enjoy it. As long as I don't know the results I'm happy as Larry. Even charge £1.00 to watch the shows via on demand. SKY get 50p and the small hall promoter gets 50p.

Chad how many would watch. I am sure matchroom would like more sky dates so they can grow but viewing figures will have to improve.

I would imagine not many.

There does however seem to be a hunger for small hall action to be televised based on some posts in this thread, and posts from other parts of the forum. I was just suggesting that the biggest sports broadcaster in the UK are actually out and about each week filming these events already. I can't understand why SKY would go to the expense of sending a camera crew to these events, and often someone to interview the fighters, just to show about 60 seconds worth of highlights on Ringside. Surely there has to be more value in the footage somewhere, somehow.

Maybe I'm being naive, but why do Sky need this kind of deal? Surely any promoter should be able to go to Sky and say "I want to put this show on on this date, are you interested?" I understand it is useful for Matchroom

Chad how many would watch. I am sure matchroom would like more sky dates so they can grow but viewing figures will have to improve.[/quote]

I would imagine not many.

There does however seem to be a hunger for small hall action to be televised based on some posts in this thread, and posts from other parts of the forum. I was just suggesting that the biggest sports broadcaster in the UK are actually out and about each week filming these events already. I can't understand why SKY would go to the expense of sending a camera crew to these events, and often someone to interview the fighters, just to show about 60 seconds worth of highlights on Ringside. Surely there has to be more value in the footage somewhere, somehow.[/quote]

Sky used to show loads of boxing back in the day does anyone know what viewing figures it got. Of the cards in 2013 Heavy prizefighter has done the best.

In an ideal world it's mutually beneficial - You can show up and coming fighters, that's how boxing works.

Without the next person to hype, you've not got a product to sell, long-term.

Sky are fools they shoot themselves in the foot with boxing so often. Why don't they let promoters bid for fights? By tying themselves to matchroom they immediately forego the chance to show some quality boxing. Which what they claim in he article is what they are all about.

They have committed themselves to showing only matchroom content which means they are willing to pay full whack for Barker v Rotolo but wouldn't be prepared to pick up McDonnell in a world title fight in a stadium fight.

It's not right that Coldwell or Hobson, Maloney, Hatton could come to Sky with a proposal for a top fight involving non matchroom fighters yet sky would not entertain it.

Seems a strange thing to attack Eddie and Matchroom for. Raise the issue of Sky not working with other promoters maybe but clearly it's no possible for it to go on a Matchroom show that night, if he's that adamant it is going to be in Doncaster, with a Matchroom show being televised from Glasgow.

I've no doubt if Hobson approached Hearn and was flexible enough to fight in Glasgow then Eddie would jump at the chance of having it on the Burns bill.

MarkMcBurney wrote:Seems a strange thing to attack Eddie and Matchroom for. Raise the issue of Sky not working with other promoters maybe but clearly it's no possible for it to go on a Matchroom show that night, if he's that adamant it is going to be in Doncaster, with a Matchroom show being televised from Glasgow.

I've no doubt if Hobson approached Hearn and was flexible enough to fight in Glasgow then Eddie would jump at the chance of having it on the Burns bill.

Why should he have to have him on an undercard of a Burns title fight? When he can legitimately fill a stadium in Doncaster on his own?

what fighters does Hobson have? just curious?

these promoters seem to think Sky is a charity. Regularly produce top level cards and you will deserve a deal with them. If they are wrong to not wanna put your card on, then prove it to them by getting mega numbers on another channel.