BoxRec

Anyone know what the peaks and troughs have been with regards to UK PPV events over the years?

I'd imagine the Khan-Prescott PPV was one of the all-time lowest. I remember that doing horrible numbers. Not sure about highest. Would have a stab at Lewis-Tyson and Hatton-Mayweather.

Sky told me that Hatton-Mayweather was their best ever.

No idea about the lowest but, yes, Khan's last load of shite must be down there.

I'd put my money on Hopkins v Eastman on Setanta before Setanta went mainstream.

For Khan I was told 85000, but another poster was told 100,000.

The last three HBO PPV have received 50,000 buys (Marquez v Casamayor), 190,000 buys (Hopkins v Pavlik) and 220,000 (Calzaghe v RJJ) buys respectively. To put that into comparison, Cotto v Margarito did 450,000 buys.

From yahoo:

There is, perhaps, good news for 2009, though. HBO’s boxing budget is the same as it was in 2008 which, given the economic downturn, is significant news. Already, a quality match between two big names, Shane Mosley and Antonio Margarito, has been signed for Jan. 24.

I'd disagree, if the budget is the same it's bad.

Only me and Mick Hennessy's dietician bought Hopkins v Eastman.

DavidPayne wrote:Only me and Mick Hennessy's dietician bought Hopkins v Eastman.

and Mrs Eastman.

Lowest will surely have to be the Setanta jobs before they went mainstream (as Mr Payne pointed).

Tyson vs McBride?
Bennett vs Earl?
Haakar vs Hopkins.
Klitchsko vs Byrd 2
Jones vs Ruiz

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:For Khan I was told 85000, but another poster was told 100,000.

The last three HBO PPV have received 50,000 buys (Marquez v Casamayor), 190,000 buys (Hopkins v Pavlik) and 220,000 (Calzaghe v RJJ) buys respectively. To put that into comparison, Cotto v Margarito did 450,000 buys.

From yahoo:

There is, perhaps, good news for 2009, though. HBO’s boxing budget is the same as it was in 2008 which, given the economic downturn, is significant news. Already, a quality match between two big names, Shane Mosley and Antonio Margarito, has been signed for Jan. 24.

I'd disagree, if the budget is the same it's bad.

100K for Khan-Prescott? Lower, lower, lower Brucey!

Eastman-Hopkins probably does take the wooden spoon, though. Do you reckon that even reached four figures? From what I remember it was put together really late in the day, too. Fair play to Setanta for showing it when nobody else wanted to.

stujones wrote:Lowest will surely have to be the Setanta jobs before they went mainstream (as Mr Payne pointed).

Tyson vs McBride?
Bennett vs Earl?
Haakar vs Hopkins.
Klitchsko vs Byrd 2
Jones vs Ruiz

Yeah, that's true. Didn't even consider those...which tells you all you need to know.

How much were Sultana PPVs?

Hatton vs Mayweather, Tyzyu
Lennox vs Tyson, Holyfield 2
Hamed vs Barrera
Are probably the best ones for sky.

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:Only me and Mick Hennessy's dietician bought Hopkins v Eastman.

and Mrs Eastman.

She had a chipped box so didn't pay for it!!

Setanta's PPV ranged in price.....I think the cheapest was Bennett vs Earl something like 7.99 if memory serves me.

Most were 9.99 or 11.99

Francis vs Tyson also did quite well with Sky if I remember.

Setantas werent almost like independant shows though werent they? the channel(s) didnt really exist then did they?

Abbo wrote:Setantas werent almost like independant shows though werent they? the channel(s) didnt really exist then did they?

It was a PPV channel then, like the equivalent of Channel 743 now - "Box office sports".... it did feature other sports that you could purchase.

I do think in the last few PPVs it was a proper channel and you had the option of purchasing the boxing as a PPV or buying the channel, but signing up for a certain amount of time. I remember purchasing Byrd vs Klitchsko 2 and there was alot of options on the phone.

Quite bizarre how some people think the Khan fight must be amongst the lowest ever, simply because Khan got KO'd inside a minute


how does that figure, then?


Lowest must be Catley - Cant remember on OnDigital, back when it 1st started

I presume Hatton v Mayweather is the biggest.

I doubt Khan v Prescott was the worst, possibly the worst featuring a fighter with such a high profile but that's it.

Something people haven't put into context. How many people have Sky now compared to 5 or 10 years ago? 100k buys now is worse than the same figure in '96.

It must have worked otherwise he would not be on ppv again. Also wrestling main events are pay per view these days. How many people buy them? I dont mind the occassional pay per view but Sept took the piss not having any fights from the states.

leforge wrote:It must have worked otherwise he would not be on ppv again.

It's in the contract mate.

Next time one of you lot start with the quacking about Khan PPV's (or any other you object too), do some basic maths


14.99 x say even a very modest 50,000 buys is £750,000



Which is a pretty sizable whack of moolah, hardly a "faliure" is it?

Terry D wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:Next time one of you lot start with the quacking about Khan PPV's (or any other you object too), do some basic maths


14.99 x say even a very modest 50,000 buys is £750,000



Which is a pretty sizable whack of moolah, hardly a "faliure" is it?

Would that be net profit? Or would it take into account the costing of the show/higher levels of advertising costs (they run more ads for PPV and print a lot of them out)?

Didn't you know that it's all free in the world of KG? The PPV licence fee, the advertising, marketing, Warren's fees, other fighter's fee, the cost of the show, all free in a big box with a red ribbon on it.

Merry Xmas!

Terry D wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:Next time one of you lot start with the quacking about Khan PPV's (or any other you object too), do some basic maths


14.99 x say even a very modest 50,000 buys is £750,000



Which is a pretty sizable whack of moolah, hardly a "faliure" is it?

Would that be net profit? Or would it take into account the costing of the show/higher levels of advertising costs (they run more ads for PPV and print a lot of them out)?

Well no thats not all net profit and of course SKY and the tax man take their cut. But when you see Junior Witter defending his WBC title for £75,000 (so i was told) just think on about what "faliure" is, in PPV terms



Hatton make an ungodly killing on the Floyd fight by keeping the UK PPV rights


1.3 million x 20 quid


yum!

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:

Terry D wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:Next time one of you lot start with the quacking about Khan PPV's (or any other you object too), do some basic maths


14.99 x say even a very modest 50,000 buys is £750,000



Which is a pretty sizable whack of moolah, hardly a "faliure" is it?

Would that be net profit? Or would it take into account the costing of the show/higher levels of advertising costs (they run more ads for PPV and print a lot of them out)?

Didn't you know that it's all free in the world of KG? The PPV licence fee, the advertising, marketing, Warren's fees, other fighter's fee, the cost of the show, all free in a big box with a red ribbon on it.

Merry Xmas!

Still leaves Khan with far more that Witter had for WBC world title defences, and of course there is ticket sales, and sponsership, often bar takes as well, often good money is made on the parking!