BoxRec

http://helpforum.sky.com/t5/Sky-Product ... false#M454

Up until 24th May @ Midnight the cost is £14.95 / €21.95 over all forms of booking.

From Midnight Friday 24th May until Midnight Sat 25th May; £14.95 / €21.95 across all “self service” bookings (remote control /online) & £19.95 / €26.95 if booked via the phone.

There is an additional charge of £1 if you have to speak to a Sky agent.

makes me wonder why i bother paying a fortune for SKY subsciption including Sky Sports when i need to fork out an additional £15 for a fight. What am i paying for exactly, the overrated Premier League s described by Alan zzzzZZZZZ Smith and Gary zzzzZZZZZ Neville? & ... a bunch of sports that nobody bothers watching like Cricket and super league?

This will be a good fight and i'm lookin forward to it, but it's irrelevant. Both guys are past their best and at best this fight establishes who is 2nd best in the super middleweight division - how can that justify a PPV, it's hardly Lewis-Tyson.

Pisses me right off.

desperados wrote:makes me wonder why i bother paying a fortune for SKY subsciption including Sky Sports when i need to fork out an additional £15 for a fight. What am i paying for exactly, the overrated Premier League s described by Alan zzzzZZZZZ Smith and Gary zzzzZZZZZ Neville? & ... a bunch of sports that nobody bothers watching like Cricket and super league?

This will be a good fight and i'm lookin forward to it, but it's irrelevant. Both guys are past their best and at best this fight establishes who is 2nd best in the super middleweight division - how can that justify a PPV, it's hardly Lewis-Tyson.

Pisses me right off.

Lewis and Tyson were past their best as well, in fact Tyson's "best" was a hell of a long time gone.
The football matches and boxing are nice to catch but I don't have Sky cos essentially if you have it all the time it doesn't matter what they put on there it will get boring.

It will be interesting to see if all of Froch's fights will be Box Office from now on after this one.

NorthEastBoxingFan wrote:

desperados wrote:makes me wonder why i bother paying a fortune for SKY subsciption including Sky Sports when i need to fork out an additional £15 for a fight. What am i paying for exactly, the overrated Premier League s described by Alan zzzzZZZZZ Smith and Gary zzzzZZZZZ Neville? & ... a bunch of sports that nobody bothers watching like Cricket and super league?

This will be a good fight and i'm lookin forward to it, but it's irrelevant. Both guys are past their best and at best this fight establishes who is 2nd best in the super middleweight division - how can that justify a PPV, it's hardly Lewis-Tyson.

Pisses me right off.

Lewis and Tyson were past their best as well, in fact Tyson's "best" was a hell of a long time gone.
The football matches and boxing are nice to catch but I don't have Sky cos essentially if you have it all the time it doesn't matter what they put on there it will get boring.

indeed but the magnitude of Tyson v Lewis justified a PPV - isn't it one of the highest grossing fights of all time?

desperados wrote:
indeed but the magnitude of Tyson v Lewis justified a PPV - isn't it one of the highest grossing fights of all time?

Why not compare it with other PPV's instead of comparing it with one of the biggest grossing fights of all time (that was incidentally a sh*t fight too) ?

Such as Khan vs Salita, Khan vs McCloskey or The Magnificent Four show - you know, a British soil pay-per-view.

You should look at this "glass half full" because it's going to be a barnstormer, unlike that $59.99 Showtime turd at the weekend between Mayweather vs Guerrero.

Sky and Matchroom are seriously missing a trick here. This is a huge backward step.
The box ch437 nation channel is £10 dd subscription but for that you can join and leave any time and most recently have watched the best fighters on the planet month after month live, not to mention online streaming.
If the PPV was around a fiver they may stand a chance but even die hard boxing fans are refusing to pay let alone the more general members of the public. Have they not learned their lesson? This is clearly the tip of the iceberg and they'll want more one off PPV for every title fight from the Matchroom stable such as Haye, Groves, Froch etc. This seriously adds up over a year on top of already high and seperate Sky sports package prices.

Show these fights as part of the Sky subscription package and they'd still earn big on new subscriptions alone. But £15 for every half decent show just infuriates boxing fans and current Sky subscribers.

I like the fight, and will be going, but watching it the other night only confirmed what I remembered from the first bout. It was not that amazing.... It caught fire late on and a mixture of an out of sorts Carl and a pumped up Kessler produced about five or six good rounds. Sky are hammering it so much that anything less than Balboa-Creed will be a let down. God knows how Smith and Nelson would have reacted if they had seen Rios-Alvarado!

Not sure if it'll get it or not? It's a kick in the sack paying as much as I do for Sky then this on top.

I'll find a stream online no problem so may just stick with that.

G0mez wrote:

desperados wrote:
indeed but the magnitude of Tyson v Lewis justified a PPV - isn't it one of the highest grossing fights of all time?

Why not compare it with other PPV's instead of comparing it with one of the biggest grossing fights of all time (that was incidentally a sh*t fight too) ?

Such as Khan vs Salita, Khan vs McCloskey or The Magnificent Four show - you know, a British soil pay-per-view.

You should look at this "glass half full" because it's going to be a barnstormer, unlike that $59.99 Showtime turd at the weekend between Mayweather vs Guerrero.

my point is that if you already pay a fortune for subscription to Sky Sports, then Sky Sports, to whom you pay a subscription to, go out and buy the rights to broadcast a fight, then there's no way they should turn round and ask me for MORE money to watch something i already pay for. It's a farce.

Like i said, the fight should be on the magnitude of Tyson-Lewis to even attempt to justify charging extra. And while 1 guy might have been washed up and the fight itself not great, it had been hyped for years and was historic in the sense it was the 2 greatest Heavyweights of the modern era finally getting it on.

Don't get me wrong i'm sure it will be a good fight, but it's a meaningless 1. Battle for 2nd best between 2 guys past their best.

[quote Don't get me wrong i'm sure it will be a good fight, but it's a meaningless 1. Battle for 2nd best between 2 guys past their best.[/quote]

Bit harsh..

Ste Hawkins wrote:

Don't get me wrong i'm sure it will be a good fight, but it's a meaningless 1. Battle for 2nd best between 2 guys past their best.

Bit harsh..

How so? They are both past their best, they have 70 years and 80 fights combined. It's also fair to say it's a battle for 2nd best, i don't think anyone disputes Ward a fair bit ahead - he beat them both easily.

desperados wrote:

Ste Hawkins wrote:

Don't get me wrong i'm sure it will be a good fight, but it's a meaningless 1. Battle for 2nd best between 2 guys past their best.

Bit harsh..

How so? They are both past their best, they have 70 years and 80 fights combined. It's also fair to say it's a battle for 2nd best, i don't think anyone disputes Ward a fair bit ahead - he beat them both easily.

The "meaningless" phrase. It's for the IBF and WBA world titles. Ward is P4P probably the best in the game. To then denigrate two other world titlists because one man on earth is better at their weight is a bit harsh fella.

desperados wrote:

Ste Hawkins wrote:

Don't get me wrong i'm sure it will be a good fight, but it's a meaningless 1. Battle for 2nd best between 2 guys past their best.

Bit harsh..

How so? They are both past their best, they have 70 years and 80 fights combined. It's also fair to say it's a battle for 2nd best, i don't think anyone disputes Ward a fair bit ahead - he beat them both easily.

They might aswell not bother then

mickey1975 wrote:I like the fight, and will be going, but watching it the other night only confirmed what I remembered from the first bout. It was not that amazing.... It caught fire late on and a mixture of an out of sorts Carl and a pumped up Kessler produced about five or six good rounds. Sky are hammering it so much that anything less than Balboa-Creed will be a let down. God knows how Smith and Nelson would have reacted if they had seen Rios-Alvarado!

Declared their love for each other live on ringside?

Oh it's not live i forgot.

chad wrote:
There is an additional charge of £1 if you have to speak to a Sky agent.

They are like hookers, them Sky agents.

desperados wrote:

G0mez wrote:

desperados wrote:
indeed but the magnitude of Tyson v Lewis justified a PPV - isn't it one of the highest grossing fights of all time?

Why not compare it with other PPV's instead of comparing it with one of the biggest grossing fights of all time (that was incidentally a sh*t fight too) ?

Such as Khan vs Salita, Khan vs McCloskey or The Magnificent Four show - you know, a British soil pay-per-view.

You should look at this "glass half full" because it's going to be a barnstormer, unlike that $59.99 Showtime turd at the weekend between Mayweather vs Guerrero.

my point is that if you already pay a fortune for subscription to Sky Sports, then Sky Sports, to whom you pay a subscription to, go out and buy the rights to broadcast a fight, then there's no way they should turn round and ask me for MORE money to watch something i already pay for. It's a farce.

Like i said, the fight should be on the magnitude of Tyson-Lewis to even attempt to justify charging extra. And while 1 guy might have been washed up and the fight itself not great, it had been hyped for years and was historic in the sense it was the 2 greatest Heavyweights of the modern era finally getting it on.

Don't get me wrong i'm sure it will be a good fight, but it's a meaningless 1. Battle for 2nd best between 2 guys past their best.

It's like when you pay a hooker for sex and she "turns round" and asks for more money for doing anal.


Just think of it like that.

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote: It's like when you pay a hooker for sex and she "turns round" and asks for more money for doing anal.


Just think of it like that.

not familiar with that scenario, i'm far too handsome to ever have to pay.

desperados wrote:

Ste Hawkins wrote:

Don't get me wrong i'm sure it will be a good fight, but it's a meaningless 1. Battle for 2nd best between 2 guys past their best.

Bit harsh..

How so? They are both past their best, they have 70 years and 80 fights combined. It's also fair to say it's a battle for 2nd best, i don't think anyone disputes Ward a fair bit ahead - he beat them both easily.

So basically only fights involving the no1 fighter in each division should be of interest to anyone?

jameswilson wrote:

desperados wrote:

Ste Hawkins wrote:

How so? They are both past their best, they have 70 years and 80 fights combined. It's also fair to say it's a battle for 2nd best, i don't think anyone disputes Ward a fair bit ahead - he beat them both easily.

So basically only fights involving the no1 fighter in each division should be of interest to anyone?

No but its surely the least expected when asked for more money, ppv, on top of what you pay. Try and keep up, my point was simple to intepret yet you still got it all wrong.

Carry on with this lark and I am leaving SKY SPORTS after 10 years loyal service.

Ch 437 is the way...Plus BT!

Matchroom/SKY are taking the piss.

desperados wrote:

jameswilson wrote:

desperados wrote:

How so? They are both past their best, they have 70 years and 80 fights combined. It's also fair to say it's a battle for 2nd best, i don't think anyone disputes Ward a fair bit ahead - he beat them both easily.

So basically only fights involving the no1 fighter in each division should be of interest to anyone?

No but its surely the least expected when asked for more money, ppv, on top of what you pay. Try and keep up, my point was simple to intepret yet you still got it all wrong.[/quote]

I think people have kept up, its just not the best point.

Froch Kessler II featured high up in most peoples "dream" fight lists, especially those lists grounded in some reality (e.g I also had klit v klit in mine, and that is never happening).

For it to take place, inevitably required the return of a PPV model. The money simply wasn't there otherwise.

To say PPV should only be reserved for fights featuring division number ones is a lovely sentiment, but naive and not accepting the economics of the situation IMO.

ThereByTheGrace wrote:It will be interesting to see if all of Froch's fights will be Box Office from now on after this one.

I'd hope not - especially if they are "away" fights. I mean the basis we've been given for this being PPV is that it cost a lot to get the fight made in the UK so in order to recoup that they've had to make it ppv. Presumably if Froch were to win and fight Ward again it would be in the States and so wouldn't "need" to be PPV - whether another excuse was then found to make it ppv is another matter I guess.

Would definitely have paid for this but am out on a stag do so will miss it :(

mfc_se15 wrote:

ThereByTheGrace wrote:It will be interesting to see if all of Froch's fights will be Box Office from now on after this one.

I'd hope not - especially if they are "away" fights. I mean the basis we've been given for this being PPV is that it cost a lot to get the fight made in the UK so in order to recoup that they've had to make it ppv. Presumably if Froch were to win and fight Ward again it would be in the States and so wouldn't "need" to be PPV - whether another excuse was then found to make it ppv is another matter I guess.

Would definitely have paid for this but am out on a stag do so will miss it :(

Well Froch himself has already told us how boring Ward is and nobody wants to watch him. He surely wouldn't try sell us a fight between them two on PPV would he?

Great fight. Best the division can make.

Just wish I could buy the fight and not subscribe to SKY.