boxnation my undying anger

First topic message reminder :

I used to post on the old 606, but since 606v2 i have only viewed articules. Not until the birth of boxnation have I felt like posting. I know there have been a few articules on this already but just wanted to vent my spleen like the rest of us. I feel Mr Warren has truely arse raped boxing fans and did not even have the common courtesy to use lubricant! My non boxing friends have told me, "whats the problem its only another tenner". Well add that onto the rest we have to pay for sky and sky sports is a p*ss take. The sad thing is that alot of us are so used to being the most abused fans we will proberly sh ell out the extra tenner just to see our beloved sport. Why O why did i have to love this cursed sport! Rant over.

KingMonkey wrote:Maybe I'm out of my depth here but do you guys REALLY want to watch that much boxing? A few extra shows is one thing but I don't watch it for the sake of watching it. Saturday Fight night suits me, the odd extra night is great and the ocasional big fight from the US that I can catch up on in the morning.

News (SSN), Bunce (was free previously) magazine show (ringside).... It's all spin.

Oh and dare I say it but amateur boxing is no spectator sport.

Setanta was free?

Find somewhere where I had a pop at someone and I'll talk to you about it...try to think before making incorrect statements.

Like I said above, I'm usually against streaming and think that, as a boxing fan, I should do my part and pay through the proper channels, but in this case it is just too much, there is no way the missus will allow another £10 a month for a channel she has no interest in watching, and the fact that we don't get to choose what fights we pay for just isn't on.

Scottrf wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Why is it that a channel proposing to show what are essentially repeats is being lauded as a good thing? I know that some classic fights have great 'replay' value, but I'd rather have new content personally. Showing replays is just making you pay for something you've very possibly already paid at least once to see. Christ knows, people complain enough that the BBC are guilty of that!

These are supplementary to at least 2 shows a week, a boxing news channel, and a magazine style show.

That's how many hours? I simply don't think there's enough content of the right kind being offered. How much news can a boxing channel realistically look to mention? Have you ever watched BBC News 24 for any length of time?

I presume you work, how much can you watch? Would you watch it between 2am and 6 am on a Thursday morning?

I work, yeah (allegedly), but the point is if they want to be taken seriously they should endeavour to be more than a part-time channel that scrapes the barrel-bottom for the six hours a day they do intend to fill. If they only have six hours of content a day, why not repeat it four times over the full day, and look to entice a wider audience?

That's were I am fists, pay both my licence fee and for the full sky package so think I am doing my bit to play by the rules and pay for PPV's when the match up appeals with something approaching good grace, but am really reaching straw that broke the camels back point.

The thing that keeps bothering me is the thought that were I to follow virtually any other sport the financial commitment I have made would be sufficient, struggle to understand what makes boxing different or accept it should be the case. As you rightly say at some point even the most tolerant of person will say enough is enough.

Scottrf wrote:

KingMonkey wrote:Maybe I'm out of my depth here but do you guys REALLY want to watch that much boxing? A few extra shows is one thing but I don't watch it for the sake of watching it. Saturday Fight night suits me, the odd extra night is great and the ocasional big fight from the US that I can catch up on in the morning.

News (SSN), Bunce (was free previously) magazine show (ringside).... It's all spin.

Oh and dare I say it but amateur boxing is no spectator sport.

Setanta was free?

Bunce has been on the radio in recent times and his podcasts are on the BBC website.

Fists of Fury wrote:Find somewhere where I had a pop at someone and I'll talk to you about it...try to think before making incorrect statements.

Like I said above, I'm usually against streaming and think that, as a boxing fan, I should do my part and pay through the proper channels, but in this case it is just too much, there is no way the missus will allow another £10 a month for a channel she has no interest in watching, and the fact that we don't get to choose what fights we pay for just isn't on.

You and the other admins had no problem with links to streams being posted before primetime joined the site. Then the tune changed to streams are bad m'kay!

You were all for primetime and defended them. Look at what they offer. Roughly 4 PPV's a year costing £60. Boxnation will cost you double but you are getting much more than double the coverage.

I'd go as far as to suggest that boxing is the sport that really shouldn't have these extra charges, based on it's volatile nature.

If you watch football you get 90 minutes, that is a fact. If you watch boxing, the fight that interested you in the first instance could end up being all over inside 1 minute.

As a big cricket fan I pay for sky sports and get to watch every last piece of cricket you could ever dream of, but with boxing the PPV grinds on me (but is acceptable because I have the ability to choose if I will pay or not), but I am completely against a further subscription on top of what I already pay.

KingMonkey wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

KingMonkey wrote:Maybe I'm out of my depth here but do you guys REALLY want to watch that much boxing? A few extra shows is one thing but I don't watch it for the sake of watching it. Saturday Fight night suits me, the odd extra night is great and the ocasional big fight from the US that I can catch up on in the morning.

News (SSN), Bunce (was free previously) magazine show (ringside).... It's all spin.

Oh and dare I say it but amateur boxing is no spectator sport.

Setanta was free?

Bunce has been on the radio in recent times and his podcasts are on the BBC website.

It's a different show.

prettyboykev wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:Find somewhere where I had a pop at someone and I'll talk to you about it...try to think before making incorrect statements.

Like I said above, I'm usually against streaming and think that, as a boxing fan, I should do my part and pay through the proper channels, but in this case it is just too much, there is no way the missus will allow another £10 a month for a channel she has no interest in watching, and the fact that we don't get to choose what fights we pay for just isn't on.

You and the other admins had no problem with links to streams being posted before primetime joined the site. Then the tune changed to streams are bad m'kay!

You were all for primetime and defended them. Look at what they offer. Roughly 4 PPV's a year costing £60. Boxnation will cost you double but you are getting much more than double the coverage.

We have never allowed illegal streams, they're against the house rules and could get us shut down. Wrong again, Kev.

Double the coverage, yes, but do I actually want to watch most of that? Probably not. Typical Warren mismatches galore and £120 a year on top of what is already a pretty hefty sky bill just takes the michael.

Primetime is in the same boat as sky in that, whilst PPV isn't ideal, it is something that has been done for years, and for some fighters I'm willing to pay it.

My issue lies with having the choice removed, given that it is a subscription service. And, of course, the additional costs as I've mentioned before. Rowley sums it up perfectly when saying why should boxing fans be expected to pay extra, when a similar scenario with football or cricket would cause uproar, and not even be contemplated by the networks.

With regard to the streams, there certainly hasn't been one posted whilst I have been a mod/admin, as it'd have been removed straight away, and the same goes for the other mods/admins. Your streams must have gone unnoticed, or people just didn't realise that they were illegal.

Fists of Fury wrote:Primetime is in the same boat as sky in that, whilst PPV isn't ideal, it is something that has been done for years, and for some fighters I'm willing to pay it.

My issue lies with having the choice removed, given that it is a subscription service.

You still have choice.
If you don't like the look of the schedule, cancel.

Scottrf wrote:

KingMonkey wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

KingMonkey wrote:Maybe I'm out of my depth here but do you guys REALLY want to watch that much boxing? A few extra shows is one thing but I don't watch it for the sake of watching it. Saturday Fight night suits me, the odd extra night is great and the ocasional big fight from the US that I can catch up on in the morning.

News (SSN), Bunce (was free previously) magazine show (ringside).... It's all spin.

Oh and dare I say it but amateur boxing is no spectator sport.

Setanta was free?

Bunce has been on the radio in recent times and his podcasts are on the BBC website.

It's a different show.

Now we really are splitting hairs.

Scottrf wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:Primetime is in the same boat as sky in that, whilst PPV isn't ideal, it is something that has been done for years, and for some fighters I'm willing to pay it.

My issue lies with having the choice removed, given that it is a subscription service.

You still have choice.
If you don't like the look of the schedule, cancel.

Lot of messing about, cancelling then reinstating, then cancelling. Best bet is to just not bother, and hope it all goes wrong for Frank.

You haven't had your choice removed you have the choice not to buy it. Boxing isn't football it's not a mainstream sport any more. It's a niche sport so a specialist channel is fair enough. The 90's are over mate.

PPV for the money is worse value than Boxnation.

I've been on chat boxes with amdins when a link has been posted for football, wrestling or boxing and no one has said a word. Like I said all change when Primetime joined the forum.

Fists of Fury wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:Primetime is in the same boat as sky in that, whilst PPV isn't ideal, it is something that has been done for years, and for some fighters I'm willing to pay it.

My issue lies with having the choice removed, given that it is a subscription service.

You still have choice.
If you don't like the look of the schedule, cancel.

Lot of messing about, cancelling then reinstating, then cancelling. Best bet is to just not bother, and hope it all goes wrong for Frank.

That's the worst arguement against the channel I've heard. You can do it online or over the phone.

It's not really though is it?! Companies know that people can't be bothered messing about and you can bet your life they won't make it that easy.

Selective reading or what, Kev, I have spent many many posts above stating why I am against the channel.

All perfectly valid reasons.

Not selective reading I was commenting on that excuse not all your excuses that don't stand up given your love for primetime.

If I subscribe to Boxnation, my virgin bill will be about £100 a month, that's just too bloody much.

I think though, SKY should have channels for individual sports, I have no interest in watching golf or minor league football, but I have to pay for them in order to get a couple of hours boxing and a couple of hours speedway once or twice a week. Anyway, assuming I subscribe to Fwank, what's to stop sky going head to head with him and putting a bill on at the same time? The only people who will benefit will be Sky and Virgin when the force me to buy one of those bloody recordable boxes.

You're boring me now, talking complete garbage.

Why because I don't agree with you? You like Primetime but have a problem with this? Lots of live boxing plenty of stuff we wouldn't normally get over here, magazine shows and classic fight archives. £10 a month as a boxing fan isn't to bad imo.

If you read what I said above, I said PPV isn't ideal. So no, I don't particularly like it, however choice plays a big part in it and I'm willing to fork out one off fees for a fight that interests me. Subscriptions are a different matter, as I would usually only buy 2 PPV's per year at most - nowhere near £120.

As a boxing fan it isn't a huge amount, but as a person that has bills/sky subsciptions already, and a missus that will kick up a fuss it presents more problems.

prettyboykev wrote:You haven't had your choice removed you have the choice not to buy it. Boxing isn't football it's not a mainstream sport any more. It's a niche sport so a specialist channel is fair enough. The 90's are over mate.

PPV for the money is worse value than Boxnation.

I've been on chat boxes with amdins when a link has been posted for football, wrestling or boxing and no one has said a word. Like I said all change when Primetime joined the forum.

It's only a niche sport because deals like this one and PPVs have made it that way. As recently as the 90s I can remember fights on terrestrial TV being a big thing.

We all have bills to pay mate and I also have a missus to keep sweet. I like the idea. Plenty of boxing from all over the World for only a tenner a month. Not even £1.50 a show.

prettyboykev wrote:Why because I don't agree with you? You like Primetime but have a problem with this? Lots of live boxing plenty of stuff we wouldn't normally get over here, magazine shows and classic fight archives. £10 a month as a boxing fan isn't to bad imo.

In defence of Primetime (and it'll be only this once that I say that) they're at least trying to bring the big events. Fwank's simply trying to wring a bit more cash out of the public for much less high-profile events.

BALTIMORA wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:You haven't had your choice removed you have the choice not to buy it. Boxing isn't football it's not a mainstream sport any more. It's a niche sport so a specialist channel is fair enough. The 90's are over mate.

PPV for the money is worse value than Boxnation.

I've been on chat boxes with amdins when a link has been posted for football, wrestling or boxing and no one has said a word. Like I said all change when Primetime joined the forum.

It's only a niche sport because deals like this one and PPVs have made it that way. As recently as the 90s I can remember fights on terrestrial TV being a big thing.

That would be down to Sky getting involved and ITV pulling out of boxing. The damage was already done.

BALTIMORA wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:Why because I don't agree with you? You like Primetime but have a problem with this? Lots of live boxing plenty of stuff we wouldn't normally get over here, magazine shows and classic fight archives. £10 a month as a boxing fan isn't to bad imo.

In defence of Primetime (and it'll be only this once that I say that) they're at least trying to bring the big events. Fwank's simply trying to wring a bit more cash out of the public for much less high-profile events.

There going to be showing top shows from America and Europe on a monthly basis.

BALTIMORA wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:Why because I don't agree with you? You like Primetime but have a problem with this? Lots of live boxing plenty of stuff we wouldn't normally get over here, magazine shows and classic fight archives. £10 a month as a boxing fan isn't to bad imo.

In defence of Primetime (and it'll be only this once that I say that) they're at least trying to bring the big events. Fwank's simply trying to wring a bit more cash out of the public for much less high-profile events.

What if he has Pacquiao-Marquez?

Can you get this channel without sky sports?

If boxing moves over there more than on sky sports it would be worth me swapping.

It's going to Virgin soon and they are looking into bringing it to free view like ESPN and Sky Sports have done.

final nail in the coffin for brittish boxing for me , with ufc and what ever ealse its called growing , boxing needs exposure , well done frank warren your helping kill the sport , another thing , what the hell was mayweather ortiz doing on ppv channel , one of the biggest fights of the year and its not on sky ?

GBP teaching Sky a lesson because of the Khan vs McCloskey stuff.

Have to say I'm a little surprised on the negativity on this here!! First off this will be a dedicated boxing channel, something a lot of people have petitioned for on the web for a long long time.

Secondly, this maybe the brainchild of Warren, but it doesn't necessarilty mean he will have complete charge of the channell and and be full of his promotion propaganda!! Goldenboy and Saurland promotions have contracts with this channel, which can only be good.

And thirdly, its going to be free for the first couple of months!! So if it turns out to be not that great, don't pay for it!! If its better than expected and your an exclusive boxing fan, swap your skysports subscription to this!! I'm going to keep openminded and see how it develops, but can't help but be excited about having an exclusive boxing channel and hope it turns out great!!

Big Paul wrote:If I subscribe to Boxnation, my virgin bill will be about £100 a month, that's just too bloody much.

I think though, SKY should have channels for individual sports, I have no interest in watching golf or minor league football, but I have to pay for them in order to get a couple of hours boxing and a couple of hours speedway once or twice a week. Anyway, assuming I subscribe to Fwank, what's to stop sky going head to head with him and putting a bill on at the same time? The only people who will benefit will be Sky and Virgin when the force me to buy one of those bloody recordable boxes.

You do realise you can subscribe to Sky plus for free if you are already a subscriber to Sky right? You could have had "One of those bloody recordable boxes" for free ages ago.

also ro be fair if they get a lot of Golden Boy Promotions fights on there along with Top Rank, have figts like Manny - Marquez, Cotto - Marg 2 then I will be buying. To be fair Sky rarely show any guys like Gamboa and the like if Frank was to be able to show these guys along with all the domestic fights then I would be buying. People are saying that these are just the fights that you see on Sky to be fair we never see Donaire and Gamboa on Sky, most of the decent GBP and Top Rank fights aren't shown over here. They didn't even show Berto - Ortiz! (Which I was immensly annoyed about) They rarely do any around the world fights and if Warren puts up good bills himself and shows the quality action around the world and the Sauerland fights then it's definately worth £10 a month for me.
I'll just stop buying my daily sandwich which costs me like £10 a week! Though I won't argue this whole system has a detremental effect on boxing as a whole with it being even more cut off to the masses. I don't like it, but I guess I'll have to go with it. If Sky had bothered showing the real fights the I would be complaining but they haven't they were trying to change things around and failed now there's not going to be much boxing to brag about on Sky at all considering they've fallen out with GBP and they won't be showing any of there fights.

the only area I wonder about is what happens with Khan in all of this? Seeing as Khan is a "PPV fighter" and also a GBP fighter where will his PPV go? Stay on Primetime for that or will Warren fork out a heap of cash for him? One major problem is no advertising however. Even though PRimetime had little advertising it still had channel 5 after a Fury fight! this has nothing really... Except word of mouth.

I think all this talk of "if they get this" and "if they get that" is a lot of wishful thinking in all honesty. If it's a mickey mouse channel it'll struggle to win over the big players, because it simply won't have the financial clout. The logical conclusion being that it'll cover domestic stuff and Warren cards with the odd bit of low-key foreign stuff.

Contracts with Golden Boy Sauerland and Top Rank suggest otherwise, it's not like Sky had to pay through the nose for Mayweather and Manny fights, and if he invests in these fights surely the number of subscribers will go up.

Contracts with the promoters you name is one thing, but those companies handle a lot of relatively low-key guys too, so it's no guarantee of the big names. Personally I just think this is a risky business. Any time a company realises they can charge for one thing it won't be long before they try charging for others. I wouldn't trust Warren as far as I could throw him, because he's a slimy despicable fish-eyed red-faced bloated backstabbing toad of a man. Let's not forget he fed the public Khan vs the milkman and stuck a £15 price tag on it. He filed for bankruptcy so as to avoid paying out to Calzaghe after losing a court case over non-payment of fees.

Boxing could definitely benefit from a dedicated channel, but I don't think this is the best way to go about it. I think anything that's closely associated with someone who has their own vested interests will always be open to abuse.

Although some of these DO look decent:

http://www.boxingfutures.com/opinion/0922-boxnation-fight-schedule-2011

i think everyone needs to take a chill pill and wait and see the content.

I thinks sky's coverage of boxing is pretty good, especially their more recent commitment to domestic bills, but plenty moan we don't get to see enough fights from across the pond, so lets wait and see. Don't forget that sky are complicit in this... boxnation doesn't exist without their commitment to show it... yes it will go to virgin too, but sky is the main prize. What will be interesting is whether any existing sky content migrates to boxnation over time, or whether sky maintain a commitment to boxing.

I understand the fears that its just dilution, paying twice for the same thing etc... it certainly will be to some degree. But if boxnation becomes a one stop shop for boxing, then you can all cancel skysports and save some money

ok back in the real world where most of us also watch other sports. I'm no fan of warren but don't think that sky won't be creaming a significant part of your tenner a month... they are the experts in add-on subscriptions. Despite boxnation being regarded as direct competition to sky sports boxing coverage, and sky being able to claim the moral high ground, in the murky world of contract negotiations in multi-channel television it wouldn't surprise me if the whole thing wasn't their idea.

Imagine a greasy Sky executive with calculator working out extra predicted revenue generated from boxnation + money saved from paying warren for his bills, minus the number of people who will be predicted to churn from skysports and just take boxnation. If that figure is > zero they'll be quite happy. I joked about it above but infact the key thing for us boxing fans is how many boxing fans their research tells them they have... who don't also watch other sports. That will dictate whether they feel the need to provide competitive boxing content of their own in the long run. My guess though is they'll sit tight and provide alternative content of their own in the short term...they'll be committed contractually to some of it anyway, and wait and see what the interest in boxnation is and take a view in a year or two. Most of these type of channels crash and burn anyway due to failure to meet subscription predictions. Sky won't be losing any sleep,

Dedicated boxing channel for boxing enthusiasts?


Just what the doctor ordered, I would have thought.


Me, there are a few fights from America, no more than about three or four a year, that I'd like to see.


The question is, as I'm not really interested in subscribing for a boxing channel at that price, would the channel be willing to ppv any good cards they get from America, to those without a subscription?

I would hope any PPV could be covered by the subsciption costs Herman, but if not i would imagine anyone could buy it or it may be available at a reduced price for subscribers.

Cheers, Gal.

Point is though, if the channel got a fight like, and just using it as an example, Hopkins/Dawson- obviously this wouldn't normally be a ppv event.

Could then the channel ppv it to non-subscibers at a reduced rate- say £5.99?


Just using it as an example. I know the fight is already going to be broadcast for free.

Let's hope they do Herman, i remember either Premiersports or Primetime selling Vitali against maybe Juan Carlos Gomez for a one off price of around 5.99. It's definately an option.

Herman Frotchlinger wrote:Point is though, if the channel got a fight like, and just using it as an example, Hopkins/Dawson- obviously this wouldn't normally be a ppv event.

Could then the channel ppv it to non-subscibers at a reduced rate- say £5.99?


Just using it as an example. I know the fight is already going to be broadcast for free.

If they work on a month-by-month basis most people will just spend a tenner for the month.

If you can stop and start your subscription as easy as counting to three, then I would pay for the month in which there was a fight I wanted to see. Then I would cancel, and re-join, and so on and so on...

Frank Warren doesn't have any of the top British boxers on his books. He's asking the public to subscribe to a boxing channel that will not show Khan, Haye or Froch's fights. What a disaster.

Personally I think that another subscription channel is the start of a slippery slope.

Interesting interview with Groves:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tsZl5_Epm4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

BALTIMORA wrote:Interesting interview with Groves:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tsZl5_Epm4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Thanks Balti, didn't realise all these videos were out about the channel.