BoxRec

I'm almost sure earlier in the year that they said they'd have HD available to subscribers before the year is out....

Was that all bullsh*t??

There is a thread about on here which stated Warren is floating the company in order to raise £5 million - some of which would be spent on developing the HD channel.

So the answer I guess is, it won't be here until he can afford it.

Groove Armada wrote:

DMA1987 wrote:There is a thread about on here which stated Warren is floating the company in order to raise £5 million - some of which would be spent on developing the HD channel.

So the answer I guess is, it won't be here until he can afford it.

I am glad we don't have to pay more for it!

DMA1987 wrote:

Groove Armada wrote:

DMA1987 wrote:There is a thread about on here which stated Warren is floating the company in order to raise £5 million - some of which would be spent on developing the HD channel.

So the answer I guess is, it won't be here until he can afford it.

I am glad we don't have to pay more for it!

You can bet that the investors won't be that happy to pay for the upgrade to existing customers.

im not over bothered on allegedly getting HD, the quality is good enough, dont get me wrong it would be great but id rather carry on getting great fights than that being sacrificed for 1080p.

I'd rather have the quality run of shows they have this and next month than HD!

Rather spend they're money on more fights.

Can't knock allegedly lately they've got some great cards on the next few weeks

Allegedly gets a lot of stick on here

[quote="Finn"]im not over bothered on allegedly getting HD, the quality is good enough, dont get me wrong it would be great but id rather carry on getting great fights than that being sacrificed for 1080p.[/quote

Trouble is, you watch HD on another channel and then turn over to BN and it looks bloody awful

Watching the allegedly feed here in HD from Bulgaria....

They are recording & transmitting in HD, just not on Sky yet unfortunately

does it cost more to put a HD channel on sky? if its all recorded in HD then why the wait until its on out tv?

thatllbeme wrote:does it cost more to put a HD channel on sky? if its all recorded in HD then why the wait until its on out tv?

I'd say it costs a few bob to get it on & that's the holdup.

Setanta here have had serious problems getting there HD channel onto the Sky platform.

The recording of Rumble in the Jungle from 1974 is better than the quality on this.

G0mez wrote:The recording of Rumble in the Jungle from 1974 is better than the quality on this.

I've no commentator on the feed from Bulgaria but it's in HD.

Switched to Allegedly and just shook my head - stream like

thatllbeme wrote:does it cost more to put a HD channel on sky? if its all recorded in HD then why the wait until its on out tv?

I don't have full details about SKY but I do know BT's going rates. It's slightly different as the channels are delivered through their TV connect broadband service, which is cheaper than SKY.

The pricing of the TV Connect service took effect from 1st May 2013, and each channel carries a one-off £80,000 activation fee. A 3 Mbps SD channel would cost £20,000 a month to broadcast over the network, rising to £67,000 for a HD channel. How this translates into a cost per subscriber really depends on how many subscribers a channel attracts.

Here is some info on SKY's platform contribution charges which you might find interesting:

http://corporate.sky.com/documents/pdf/ ... n_2014.pdf

All in my understanding is it's more expensive to launch and run a HD channel on SKY compared to a standard definition channel. If allegedly do launch a HD channel, they are going to be paying more than double what they currently are for their space on the SKY EPG. Personally I can't see anyway they can launch a HD channel without putting the monthly subscription up.

The recent report about floating allegedly, to raise £5,000,000, wasn't solely based on launching their HD channel. Richard Brooke and Frank allegedly plan to use most of the money to roll out allegedly internationally.

G0mez wrote:The recording of Rumble in the Jungle from 1974 is better than the quality on this.

im watching it on a 50 inch and im not having any problems, looks SD quality to me

Finn wrote:

G0mez wrote:The recording of Rumble in the Jungle from 1974 is better than the quality on this.

im watching it on a 50 inch and im not having any problems, looks SD quality to me

I've never seen anything wrong with the picture on allegedly, might be that people are used to HD and see normal TV as having poor picture quality.

how can it be rolled out internationally though? surely anyone in other countries would just need to do the same thing as they have done call it something else and not pay for the name allegedly? same as people saying bt will buy allegedly surely it would be better and cheaper if they just called one of their channels btboxing and just pick up the fights the same way sky and allegedly do?

[quote="BAP1"]Allegedly gets a lot of stick on here[/quote]

He gets loads, some of it deserved and some of it not - some people don't post anything but stick about him and some are experienced in the boxing 'industry' (not me, just a fan) and don't see a lot of difference between one man and the other man.

thatllbeme wrote:how can it be rolled out internationally though? surely anyone in other countries would just need to do the same thing as they have done call it something else and not pay for the name allegedly? same as people saying bt will buy allegedly surely it would be better and cheaper if they just called one of their channels btboxing and just pick up the fights the same way sky and Allegedly channel do?

I think allegedly intend to be distributor of boxing internationally. For example say allegedly launches in South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan and Nigeria. allegedly will secure deals with Golden Boy, Sauerland, Dennis Hobson etc... for those territories meaning only allegedly can broadcast their fights in those countries. In return the promoters will get a percentage of allegedly subscriptions in those countries.

In most countries boxing is shown sporadically, with fights being picked up last minute. Not too many TV stations internationally have long term deals with internationally promoters. allegedly are looking to exploit a gap in the market to bring international boxing to the masses which should make any promoter tied to the channel a very good return.