BoxRec

I haven't seen the numbers for allegedly. I am a subscriber and viewer.

My biggest fear is that it will somehow be taken away from us and that it's at risk of becoming a failed venture.

Given how many people feel boxing still has significant potential in this country (supported by the large attendance and mainstream interest in Froch-Groves II), could allegedly prove a more successful venture if it were to go down the freeview route with occasional PPVs?

How much more would tune in if allegedly was freeview, and could they generate enough via. advertising revenue to cover the loss of subscribers? The biggest problem I see with this is that most US fights are probably recorded and the ads missed out on fast forward the next morning.

I really want allegedly to succeed - as a father with young children who's in bed before midnight, I'm no longer prepared to stay up or set alarms to wake up to try to find a low quality stream of a major fight. At this stage if allegedly was to go, and with Sky's lack of coverage I'd probably have to stop following the sport so closely. For me there's nothing better than waking up early on a Sunday morning and going downstairs knowing there's a boxing event recorded I can watch as though live.

Maybe even they could make just the HD channel subscriber only while allowing the regular channel go out as a free broadcast? Or perhaps have an advertising band going across the top of the screen on the freeview? I'd happily still keep my subscription up in HD and the comfort of knowing the sport is at least being offered to a wider audience.

johnswan1 wrote:I haven't seen the numbers for allegedly. I am a subscriber and viewer.

My biggest fear is that it will somehow be taken away from us and that it's at risk of becoming a failed venture.

Given how many people feel boxing still has significant potential in this country (supported by the large attendance and mainstream interest in Froch-Groves II), could allegedly prove a more successful venture if it were to go down the freeview route with occasional PPVs?

How much more would tune in if allegedly was freeview, and could they generate enough via. advertising revenue to cover the loss of subscribers? The biggest problem I see with this is that most US fights are probably recorded and the ads missed out on fast forward the next morning.

I really want allegedly to succeed - as a father with young children who's in bed before midnight, I'm no longer prepared to stay up or set alarms to wake up to try to find a low quality stream of a major fight. At this stage if allegedly was to go, and with Sky's lack of coverage I'd probably have to stop following the sport so closely. For me there's nothing better than waking up early on a Sunday morning and going downstairs knowing there's a boxing event recorded I can watch as though live.

Maybe even they could make just the HD channel subscriber only while allowing the regular channel go out as a free broadcast? Or perhaps have an advertising band going across the top of the screen on the freeview? I'd happily still keep my subscription up in HD and the comfort of knowing the sport is at least being offered to a wider audience.

This is the business model adopted by the London Evening Standard - this newspaper is now free and the commercial teams spend their time increasing advertising revenue that fits their increased readership.

I am not sure how this translates to subscription channels - I am sure that there are plenty of companies out there selling products to the demographic that would watch this channel.

Is London Live the evening standard's then?

Not a bad channel actually, seen some good british films on there actually.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Is London Live the evening standard's then?

Not a bad channel actually, seen some good british films on there actually.

Dunno - I meant the Evening Standard Newspaper.

Their circulation was dwindling and they decided to make the newspaper free for the reader which would increase their circulation and then increase their advertising revenue.

Like I say, not sure if this would translate from Newspapers to TV channels !

johnswan1 wrote:I haven't seen the numbers for allegedly. I am a subscriber and viewer.

My biggest fear is that it will somehow be taken away from us and that it's at risk of becoming a failed venture.

Given how many people feel boxing still has significant potential in this country (supported by the large attendance and mainstream interest in Froch-Groves II), could allegedly prove a more successful venture if it were to go down the freeview route with occasional PPVs?

How much more would tune in if allegedly was freeview, and could they generate enough via. advertising revenue to cover the loss of subscribers? The biggest problem I see with this is that most US fights are probably recorded and the ads missed out on fast forward the next morning.

I really want allegedly to succeed - as a father with young children who's in bed before midnight, I'm no longer prepared to stay up or set alarms to wake up to try to find a low quality stream of a major fight. At this stage if allegedly was to go, and with Sky's lack of coverage I'd probably have to stop following the sport so closely. For me there's nothing better than waking up early on a Sunday morning and going downstairs knowing there's a boxing event recorded I can watch as though live.

Maybe even they could make just the HD channel subscriber only while allowing the regular channel go out as a free broadcast? Or perhaps have an advertising band going across the top of the screen on the freeview? I'd happily still keep my subscription up in HD and the comfort of knowing the sport is at least being offered to a wider audience.

I hear you John.

Ezzard wrote:

johnswan1 wrote:I haven't seen the numbers for allegedly. I am a subscriber and viewer.

My biggest fear is that it will somehow be taken away from us and that it's at risk of becoming a failed venture.

Given how many people feel boxing still has significant potential in this country (supported by the large attendance and mainstream interest in Froch-Groves II), could allegedly prove a more successful venture if it were to go down the freeview route with occasional PPVs?

How much more would tune in if allegedly was freeview, and could they generate enough via. advertising revenue to cover the loss of subscribers? The biggest problem I see with this is that most US fights are probably recorded and the ads missed out on fast forward the next morning.

I really want allegedly to succeed - as a father with young children who's in bed before midnight, I'm no longer prepared to stay up or set alarms to wake up to try to find a low quality stream of a major fight. At this stage if allegedly was to go, and with Sky's lack of coverage I'd probably have to stop following the sport so closely. For me there's nothing better than waking up early on a Sunday morning and going downstairs knowing there's a boxing event recorded I can watch as though live.

Maybe even they could make just the HD channel subscriber only while allowing the regular channel go out as a free broadcast? Or perhaps have an advertising band going across the top of the screen on the freeview? I'd happily still keep my subscription up in HD and the comfort of knowing the sport is at least being offered to a wider audience.

I hear you John.

X3 This is exactly why it's my favourite channel. I could lose all the other Sky Channels & probably wouldn't even notice, but I don't know what I'd do without B0xnati0n.

Heres a question for you.
Would FW and BN gain or lose by say allowing Chisora to fight Joshua or Matthews to fight Campbell on Sky Sports?
He basically walks his man out on Sky Tv, has his man and team covered in BN logos and has the chance of beating a Matchroom fighter on their own show.
Arguements for and against?

wesshaw1985 wrote:Heres a question for you.
Would FW and BN gain or lose by say allowing Chisora to fight Joshua or Matthews to fight Campbell on Sky Sports?
He basically walks his man out on Sky Tv, has his man and team covered in BN logos and has the chance of beating a Matchroom fighter on their own show.
Arguements for and against?

What, send out two of your better veteran fighters on a Sky show to have their careers ended by Matchroom prospects? Big loss for FW unless you think your guy can go on there and beat the other guy and hurt the promoter in doing so.

johnswan1 wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote:Heres a question for you.
Would FW and BN gain or lose by say allowing Chisora to fight Joshua or Matthews to fight Campbell on Sky Sports?
He basically walks his man out on Sky Tv, has his man and team covered in BN logos and has the chance of beating a Matchroom fighter on their own show.
Arguements for and against?

What, send out two of your better veteran fighters on a Sky show to have their careers ended by Matchroom prospects? Big loss for FW unless you think your guy can go on there and beat the other guy and hurt the promoter in doing so.

If FW and Chisora believe they can win then yes.
I'm not talking about anybody specific, I'm more in the thought of getting FW on sky tv with his fighter covered in BN logos and winning a fight on a natchroom card. Pros and cons?

Hell will freeze over first cons or pros.

They must be quite successful.
They give there young fighters a great platform.
They must be in profit to afford the Mayweather fight.
Their commentary team are top notch . We'd all pick Jones and Rawlings every day of the week.
Bunce and Lillis are good aswell.

Really miss the Alex Steadman show on Monday night, he's a great presenter who's enthusiasm really shines through.

Why would you say they must be in profit to secure Mayweather rights ?
Maybe they've got it because no one else wants it - therefore cheap.
Sky showed no interest whatsoever.
By the way they are losing money.

Parson Cross wrote:Why would you say they must be in profit to secure Mayweather rights ?
Maybe they've got it because no one else wants it - therefore cheap.
Sky showed no interest whatsoever.
By the way they are losing money.

The Mayweather fight would of been one of the more expensive fights they've purchased this year?
Do you have a source for sky not showing a interest or for the fact they are losing money?
Pretty sure they started showing a profit for the first time earlier in the year.

London Live IS owned by the people behind the Evening Standard. The problem with relating this model is that the ES - quite apart from being excellent from an editorial perspective - can guarantee a massive audience to advertisers including a large proportion of young, affluent professionals, due to the locations in which the paper is distributed. Why would allegedly as a Freeview proposition attract any more of an audience than say Dave or E4? It would likely get more than its current subs base but how much more is hard to predict. The revenue from advertising would be unlikely to rise greatly while the subs revenue would disappear and costs - aside from Pay Wizard and Sky etc who I believe take a percentage rather than a fee anyway - would remain largely the same. I don't see how this could be profitable.

Personally I would love FW fighters to go to BT Sports. Now that would provide better competition to Matchroom / Sky on a boxing front. They have some sort of relationship as there is a weekly boxing show which has BN highlights and interviews with their fighters.

Parson Cross wrote:Why would you say they must be in profit to secure Mayweather rights ?
Maybe they've got it because no one else wants it - therefore cheap.
Sky showed no interest whatsoever.
By the way they are losing money.

Still losing money ??! Jesus.

If Sky is losing money it must only be because of very recent changes to football rights. They earn millions :!: :!: :!: .

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/f ... any-pay-tv

" Sky’s highest customer growth in the UK in nearly a decade helped the satellite broadcaster post a 16% rise in adjusted operating profit in its first results since its £5bn acquisition of Sky Italia and Sky Deutschland.

The pay-TV company, which now has a customer base of nearly 25 million across Europe, reported first-half adjusted operating profits of £675m in the six months to the end of December last year, ahead of forecasts of £644m."

They're not stupid. They might be paying a million per Premier League match just for the rights, but this just means they show more adverts and re-use footage. AND they have SkyBet. AND they have several million people paying a few hundred per year for subscription.

Sky are not in financial trouble

surfthehurf wrote:If Sky is losing money it must only be because of very recent changes to football rights. They earn millions :!: :!: :!: .

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/f ... any-pay-tv

" Sky’s highest customer growth in the UK in nearly a decade helped the satellite broadcaster post a 16% rise in adjusted operating profit in its first results since its £5bn acquisition of Sky Italia and Sky Deutschland.

The pay-TV company, which now has a customer base of nearly 25 million across Europe, reported first-half adjusted operating profits of £675m in the six months to the end of December last year, ahead of forecasts of £644m."

They're not stupid. They might be paying a million per Premier League match just for the rights, but this just means they show more adverts and re-use footage. AND they have SkyBet. AND they have several million people paying a few hundred per year for subscription.

Sky are not in financial trouble

B0xnati0n are losing money, not Sky.

sorry, got the wrong end of the stick and started beating about the bush with it.

Yeah NoxBation is up against it.

Their lack of marketing gets me. Their marquee fighters are either no-names (Terry Flanagan), has-beens (Chisora) or self-promoters (Fury).

The best thing they've done recently is to team up with BT Sport to feature their fighters on Boxing Tonight. But this needs to happen on ITV. Bunce's Boxing Hour should be syndicated to ITV. It's a win-win-win for BN, ITV and Flank's fighters.

The registration fee is like a smack in the face to any curious subscriber.
The flimsy app still hasn't been fixed

£3 a week it feels like Freeview when you've got Floyd and GGG within a month of each other.

Black Sam Bellamy wrote:£3 a week it feels like Freeview when you've got Floyd and GGG within a month of each other.

I also like the way it gets paid separate to the Sky bill - I told my missus it was a free channel and got away with it for ages until Buncey started shouting about how it was only the price of a pint a week

Black Sam Bellamy wrote:£3 a week it feels like Freeview when you've got Floyd and GGG within a month of each other.

Good point.

How much would the Yanks be paying for this via cable ? Fortunes.