Box Nation and the future for Boxing on Sky...

First topic message reminder :

With the arrival of Box Nation (essentially Frank Warren Tv) where does this leave boxing on Sky? Historically a substantial amount of boxing on Sky has been from Frank Warren's stable. We can assume Warren will now keep his fighters exclusive to Box Nation to warrant the subscription cost (Groves vs Smith to be screened on Box Nation!)

This leaves very little for Sky in the way of quality fights.
It seems they are already positioning themselves to screen fights from Eddie Hearn's stable. Now, as much as I like Kell Brook, I did feel they were over playing the fight at the weekend with one eye on future PPV.

Being as I only subscribe to SkySports for boxing do we think Its going to be worth the coin now that Box Nation is on the scene?

My only complaint with Box Nation is that the production quality looks like its being broadcast from Iran.

Don't know why a boxing fan wouldn't subscribe for £10 a month from the evidence of quality match ups we've seen.

People seem to have their knickers in a twist about Warren fighters, but all the US fights have been with Top Rank and were seeing fights we should've been seeing years ago.

I keep reading or they'll go bust! Why worry let them worry it's only a tenner and if they keep delivering the fights its the best news for a boxing fan in a long time.

Like Galveston I've ditched sky, the production is robotic and predictable, the fight schedule is embarrassing.

Don't know what the problem is,

coxy0001 wrote:

ThrowingLeather wrote:Coxy Makes a good point. Its not necessarily your avid boxing fan that pays the bills and boxing on sky has to an extent been carried on the coat tails of SkySports. I dont imagine many 'neutrals' will be signing up for Boxnation. I suspect you're right in that the channel may be too specialist to last long term.

Has just got Setanta written all over it, and they had football and other sports as well. Fact is unless one sport is on just one channel most will just stream boxnation fights and watch the fights aired on Sky. It's not like they've got humdingers every week.

If only 30,000 people signup (which i think is a ballpark figure) @ £10 p/m:

£10 pm x 12 = £120

£120 x 30,000 = £3,600,000

To air a channel costs an absolute fortune, to pay all the guys it takes to air a show costs a fortune, take away tax on that to a net figure reduces it further. It won't be much they're left with. You can take 20% off that for VAT ffs!

you're forgetting the main revenue for TV stations - advertising.

Cribb as one of those who will not be subscribing I will answer, firstly I like other sports than boxing, enjoy cricket, football and darts amongst others so ditching sky is not a particularly viable option.

Secondly I don't agree with the principle of the channel, realise what everyone is saying about we get to see more US stuff etc and a dedicated channel for the sport should be a boon but personally I would like the sport to grow and flourish and if it has a hope of doing this like all sports it needs to attract new fans, how we acheive this with most of the action being on an obscure subscription only channel is beyond me.

I don't mind golf but would not consider myself a fan, will watch the majors and ryder cup but not much else, however what chance would there be of me making the transition from casual watcher of the majors to full blown fan who will attend events or heaven forbid participate if the sport was buried on a channel I had to pay for, because as a casual fan I would never subscribe in the first place.

Thanks for your response Rowley, I must say I'm surprised you're not going to subscribe mate.

I understand it's for difficult for those who enjoy other sports, and it's not for anyone to say have one or the other, Sky were charging me 64 quid a month for the sports and other bits and bobs and really I watched the odd match but mainly the boxing and it's plain to see Sky have lost interest in the fight game. Theyve let obscure channels like Primetime take Mayweather and Pacquiao fights away from them, the two biggest fighters in the world and they haven't bought the rights for a nationwide super channel like Sky I find that disgusting.

Sky boxing broadcasting has hit an all time low in my opinion and I see what you're saying about the sport flourishing mate, bit it's not going to flourish on Sky, you only have to look at the schedule.Box nation in it's short time have probably shown more interesting fights than Sky have over the last 6 months.

unfortunately sky have blown a budget on F1, just shows the priority, for me boxing is dead in the water for Sky, the odd Khan fight, Brook and Froch not enough for me to pay over the odds when I can get see a whole wider selection on box nation for a tenner.

Whether they're dangling the carrot and are able to keep up with the hectic schedule wil remain to be seen.

Sorry if this has already been mentioned but does anybody know the exact date that Boxnation goes subsciption? Has it done so already? I haven't been keeping up with the recent dismal prospects but would like to know what else I can catch before/if it isn't too late.

Knowsit17 wrote:Sorry if this has already been mentioned but does anybody know the exact date that Boxnation goes subsciption? Has it done so already? I haven't been keeping up with the recent dismal prospects but would like to know what else I can catch before/if it isn't too late.

1st Dec mate.


Crolla V Limond on Friday

On the sky box tv guide it also has live boxing from 3am on Sunday morning, so I'm presuming they might be showing Alvarez v Cintron but not confirmed yet.

Cheers fella, might give that one a go

rowley wrote:Cribb as one of those who will not be subscribing I will answer, firstly I like other sports than boxing, enjoy cricket, football and darts amongst others so ditching sky is not a particularly viable option.

Secondly I don't agree with the principle of the channel, realise what everyone is saying about we get to see more US stuff etc and a dedicated channel for the sport should be a boon but personally I would like the sport to grow and flourish and if it has a hope of doing this like all sports it needs to attract new fans, how we acheive this with most of the action being on an obscure subscription only channel is beyond me.

I don't mind golf but would not consider myself a fan, will watch the majors and ryder cup but not much else, however what chance would there be of me making the transition from casual watcher of the majors to full blown fan who will attend events or heaven forbid participate if the sport was buried on a channel I had to pay for, because as a casual fan I would never subscribe in the first place.

I can't disagree with you rowley,a boxing fan will feel subscribing to box nation worthwhile,my two sporting loves are boxing and football and I'll watch the golf majors, but speak to the majority of subscribers who have sky sports would they pay £10 for boxnation I suspect it would be no.

Apart from myself and my brother I don't know any of our friends or casual acquaintances who would buy it,as you rightfully say it is an obscure channel for the avid boxing fan but not for the casual watcher.
I feel Warren is gong to have to pull a rabbit out of the hat to keep this channel going, for a huge boxing fan like yourself not to subscribe doesn't bode well for the future.

I'll not subscribe. I've said it before but all I see is Warren moving away something I had before and charging me more for it. Yes, I realise that the coverage is decent but the consumer needs to make a stand, if we continue to lap it up then it will contnue to happen.

OasisBFC wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

ThrowingLeather wrote:Coxy Makes a good point. Its not necessarily your avid boxing fan that pays the bills and boxing on sky has to an extent been carried on the coat tails of SkySports. I dont imagine many 'neutrals' will be signing up for Boxnation. I suspect you're right in that the channel may be too specialist to last long term.

Has just got Setanta written all over it, and they had football and other sports as well. Fact is unless one sport is on just one channel most will just stream boxnation fights and watch the fights aired on Sky. It's not like they've got humdingers every week.

If only 30,000 people signup (which i think is a ballpark figure) @ £10 p/m:

£10 pm x 12 = £120

£120 x 30,000 = £3,600,000

To air a channel costs an absolute fortune, to pay all the guys it takes to air a show costs a fortune, take away tax on that to a net figure reduces it further. It won't be much they're left with. You can take 20% off that for VAT ffs!

you're forgetting the main revenue for TV stations - advertising.

You're forgetting that advertisers won't pay top dollar for a channel that in all probability would do well to get 50,000 subscribers. It's not exactly X-Factor style viewing figures is it?

coxy0001 wrote:

OasisBFC wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

ThrowingLeather wrote:Coxy Makes a good point. Its not necessarily your avid boxing fan that pays the bills and boxing on sky has to an extent been carried on the coat tails of SkySports. I dont imagine many 'neutrals' will be signing up for Boxnation. I suspect you're right in that the channel may be too specialist to last long term.

Has just got Setanta written all over it, and they had football and other sports as well. Fact is unless one sport is on just one channel most will just stream boxnation fights and watch the fights aired on Sky. It's not like they've got humdingers every week.

If only 30,000 people signup (which i think is a ballpark figure) @ £10 p/m:

£10 pm x 12 = £120

£120 x 30,000 = £3,600,000

To air a channel costs an absolute fortune, to pay all the guys it takes to air a show costs a fortune, take away tax on that to a net figure reduces it further. It won't be much they're left with. You can take 20% off that for VAT ffs!

you're forgetting the main revenue for TV stations - advertising.

You're forgetting that advertisers won't pay top dollar for a channel that in all probability would do well to get 50,000 subscribers. It's not exactly X-Factor style viewing figures is it?

50,000 specific boxing fans. Kickdummy love it.

Scottrf wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

OasisBFC wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

ThrowingLeather wrote:Coxy Makes a good point. Its not necessarily your avid boxing fan that pays the bills and boxing on sky has to an extent been carried on the coat tails of SkySports. I dont imagine many 'neutrals' will be signing up for Boxnation. I suspect you're right in that the channel may be too specialist to last long term.

Has just got Setanta written all over it, and they had football and other sports as well. Fact is unless one sport is on just one channel most will just stream boxnation fights and watch the fights aired on Sky. It's not like they've got humdingers every week.

If only 30,000 people signup (which i think is a ballpark figure) @ £10 p/m:

£10 pm x 12 = £120

£120 x 30,000 = £3,600,000

To air a channel costs an absolute fortune, to pay all the guys it takes to air a show costs a fortune, take away tax on that to a net figure reduces it further. It won't be much they're left with. You can take 20% off that for VAT ffs!

you're forgetting the main revenue for TV stations - advertising.

You're forgetting that advertisers won't pay top dollar for a channel that in all probability would do well to get 50,000 subscribers. It's not exactly X-Factor style viewing figures is it?

50,000 specific boxing fans. Kickdummy love it.

They must have a huge advertising budget like John Lewis and co do......

coxy0001 wrote:They must have a huge advertising budget like John Lewis and co do......

Gigantic.

rowley wrote:Cribb as one of those who will not be subscribing I will answer, firstly I like other sports than boxing, enjoy cricket, football and darts amongst others so ditching sky is not a particularly viable option.

Secondly I don't agree with the principle of the channel, realise what everyone is saying about we get to see more US stuff etc and a dedicated channel for the sport should be a boon but personally I would like the sport to grow and flourish and if it has a hope of doing this like all sports it needs to attract new fans, how we acheive this with most of the action being on an obscure subscription only channel is beyond me.

I don't mind golf but would not consider myself a fan, will watch the majors and ryder cup but not much else, however what chance would there be of me making the transition from casual watcher of the majors to full blown fan who will attend events or heaven forbid participate if the sport was buried on a channel I had to pay for, because as a casual fan I would never subscribe in the first place.

It pains me to say it, but this is a great post, jeff, particularly the paragraph about trying to encourage the sport to grow and flouish. For the same reasons as you (except watching football which is just about the most depressing sport on the planet) I won't be subscribing. I won't leave Sky as I love rugby and cricket but I won't buy Boxnation on principle. It is nothing to do with money, £10 isn't much money but it is just another small nail in the coffin for boxing as a semi-mainstream sport. I don't want to add to the hammering in of that nail.

Scottrf wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:They must have a huge advertising budget like John Lewis and co do......

Gigantic.

If a huge budget cannot be used in a better fashion than crafting their Christmas monstrosity, with the idiot murdering a Smiths song I am all for advertisers having zero budget.

Very kind of you Tina.

Fair enough on the principle Tino, however I refuse to pay sky high subscription costs on principle on the fact this overpaid babies of the premiership may take a wage drop.

I think if the channel wasn't attached to Warren it may take some of the bitterness away from the fans towards the channel, considering it's the first channel to show full undercards instead of listening the painfully dull Adam Smith an co bleat on. I thought it may be received a little better.

tcribb wrote:
I think if the channel wasn't attached to Warren it may take some of the bitterness away from the fans towards the channel

I think you're absolutely right, tcribb. I think this is probably one of the major reasons behind it. I can only speak for myself, but it is not my reason for giving it a miss, but I take your point. I have long resigned myself to the unscrupulous manner of promoters and the moral vacuum they inhabit so Fwank is not the reason I won't be subscribing but I can see how it would be enough to put many people off.

The other issue is, if this works and the channel becomes a success, will the Hearns look to follow a similar model, will HBO, Golden Boy, King or Arum all think there is sufficient demand to justify them having their own channel over here, obviously some way off this happening but not impossible this could represent the thin end of the wedge.

We already as boxing fans have to endure things no other sport has to suffer, such as the virtual complete lack of terrestrial coverage and big fights being PPV. Everyone will make their own decision as to where they say enough is enough, and I am saying it now.

rowley wrote:Everyone will make their own decision as to where they say enough is enough, and I am saying it now.

My old Man always says to me 'if you stand for nothing, you'll fall for everything'.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

rowley wrote:Everyone will make their own decision as to where they say enough is enough, and I am saying it now.

My old Man always says to me 'if you stand for nothing, you'll fall for everything'.

Coxy's always says to him "when are you going to move out"

*waves papers*

rowley wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

rowley wrote:Everyone will make their own decision as to where they say enough is enough, and I am saying it now.

My old Man always says to me 'if you stand for nothing, you'll fall for everything'.

Coxy's always says to him "when are you going to move out"

and 'please tidy your bedroom'

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

rowley wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

rowley wrote:Everyone will make their own decision as to where they say enough is enough, and I am saying it now.

My old Man always says to me 'if you stand for nothing, you'll fall for everything'.

Coxy's always says to him "when are you going to move out"

and 'please tidy your bedroom'

And "If you must do "that" so often can you please make sure your door is shut"

The problem being fellas, how long do you leave it before you bite the bullet, IF the channel keeps delivering the big fights from the U.S, couple of avid fans like yourself, surely if that's the cast you won't be cutting your nose off to spite your face for too long.

I agree with your sentiments I really do, but all I care about is seeing the fights, we shouldve been seeing for the 60 odd quid Sky charge.

tcribb wrote:The problem being fellas, how long do you leave it before you bite the bullet, IF the channel keeps delivering the big fights from the U.S, couple of avid fans like yourself, surely if that's the cast you won't be cutting your nose off to spite your face for too long.

I agree with your sentiments I really do, but all I care about is seeing the fights, we shouldve been seeing for the 60 odd quid Sky charge.

It's a genuinely tough one, tcribb, and missing out on huge fights is not something I will be happy about, but I can only go on my feelings at the moment and right now, I am drawing the line somewhere. If the channel is a huge success, something I do have doubts about, then maybe I will revisit it in the future.

The one thing I dont get in all of this is how Sky get away with not being labelled mercenaries as well.

When they launched, the same conversations were bandied about - "oh they are ripping people off for what used to be free....etc"
=
For me, boxnation and Primetime are just TV channels in the free market. Slate them all you will but they are not taking boxing away from the common man who doesnt pay - they do pay. Its just its now socially accepted that Sky is okay to pay for.

It was Sky who took it away in the first place and now they are getting their comeuppance.

You may not like paying for it but the reality has been you have already been paying for it.

What Sky should have done is to make their sports channels into themed ones. ie Sky Sports 1 is football.
Sky sports 2 is golf and tennis
Sky sports 3 is boxing and Wrestling ()

Charge seperately and cross subsidise a little better.

Further to Adam's comment...

Lads we're all boxing fans here. If we want to watch the sport, we are going to have to pay for it - unless we're accepting that Mick Hennessy, Channel 5 and Tyson Fury are the way forward.

Thus far, boxnation has put on some fantastic cards - and in spite of the price - at pretty good value.

Sky used to charge us ppv for tosh - look at some of Khan's fights.

PPV and marginalisation TV is killing boxing as a whole - yes. But to blame boxnation, or primetime - or any 1 individual company is wrong in my opinion. Its a systemic failing within the sport.

Thats what I was trying to say but just not very well

Fair point Adam but the point is at some point everyone will have to say enough is enough in terms of how much they are willing to pay to watch the sport they love. Some said it with Sky, some said it with PPV, all me and Tina are saying is Boxnation is that point for us.

However your post still does not address my point about the marginalisation of the sport which for me Boxnation represents. I have Sky for boxing, football, cricket and darts, but on occasions when TSMR is out I may watch Rugby league, golf, snooker or other sports, and thus my chances of getting into these sports increases. The chances of this happening for boxing for other people has now been radically reduced, which cannot be healthy for the sport long term.

Adam D wrote:
It was Sky who took it away in the first place and now they are getting their comeuppance.

You may not like paying for it but the reality has been you have already been paying for it.

They are not really getting their comeuppance though are they? They have marginalised boxing to such a degree that someone with the clout of Warren was always likely to attempt something like this. Adam Smith and Jonny Nelson might care, but I doubt the real power brokers at Sky give a monkeys. If they lose fighters, so what, they lose the hassle of poor fights etc etc, if Boxnation fails then Warren comes back, cap in hand and Sky pay him less.

So long as football keeps the cash register ticking over, you think Sky care about a few guys punching each other in the face for money?

Thanks for pointing out the second part though.

rowley wrote:Fair point Adam but the point is at some point everyone will have to say enough is enough in terms of how much they are willing to pay to watch the sport they love. Some said it with Sky, some said it with PPV, all me and Tina are saying is Boxnation is that point for us.

However your post still does not address my point about the marginalisation of the sport which for me Boxnation represents. I have Sky for boxing, football, cricket and darts, but on occasions when TSMR is out I may watch Rugby league, golf, snooker or other sports, and thus my chances of getting into these sports increases. The chances of this happening for boxing for other people has now been radically reduced, which cannot be healthy for the sport long term.

Fair point about the multi sports and casual viewing.

I think that the real problem is the second part of your post - the marginalisation of the sport in the UK. It started with ITV binning any meaningful boxing (although they have had the Klits on not too long ago), and now sky obviously wanted to keep their money to spend on Carlos Tevez wages instead of paying the boxers pittance in comparison.

Channel 5 have the right idea (although I cynically feel it is only there to build Tyson into a PPV figure for PT).

You cannot overlook the fact that Sky provide damned good coverage too, better than anything BN or PT are capable of, and of course HD.

Further to that, Sky is great for a family as it has channels covering all sorts of things so everyone is happy. Segregating one sport is a bad, bad idea unless it were covered as part of your general sky sports subscription.

Adam D wrote:

I think that the real problem is the second part of your post - the marginalisation of the sport in the UK. It started with ITV binning any meaningful boxing (although they have had the Klits on not too long ago), and now sky obviously wanted to keep their money to spend on Carlos Tevez wages instead of paying the boxers pittance in comparison.

So what point are you making here? That because bad stuff has happened in the past, we should all forget about it and just perpetuate the marginalisation, ad infinitum. It is an unhealthy development for the long term prospects of the sport, that is the bottom line. If people are happy to pay for that, then fine, good luck to them. I won't be part of it.

Fists of Fury wrote:You cannot overlook the fact that Sky provide damned good coverage too, better than anything BN or PT are capable of, and of course HD.

For me, upgrading Sky Sports to HD is the same price as subscribing to BoxNation.

Scottrf wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:You cannot overlook the fact that Sky provide damned good coverage too, better than anything BN or PT are capable of, and of course HD.

For me, upgrading Sky Sports to HD is the same price as subscribing to BoxNation.

It is, but that still doesn't address that fact you are getting a whole bunch of other stuff in HD for part of the same £10.

Adam D wrote:

I think that the real problem is the second part of your post - the marginalisation of the sport in the UK. It started with ITV binning any meaningful boxing (although they have had the Klits on not too long ago), and now sky obviously wanted to keep their money to spend on Carlos Tevez wages instead of paying the boxers pittance in comparison.

You argument doesn't really stand up though, it appears to be the sport is already marginalised so something that marginalises it further is fine. That's akin to saying I was already over the drink drive limit after two pints so I thought I may as well have another eight.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:You cannot overlook the fact that Sky provide damned good coverage too, better than anything BN or PT are capable of, and of course HD.

For me, upgrading Sky Sports to HD is the same price as subscribing to BoxNation.

It is, but that still doesn't address that fact you are getting a whole bunch of other stuff in HD for part of the same £10.

Yeah but programming>picture quality.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Adam D wrote:

I think that the real problem is the second part of your post - the marginalisation of the sport in the UK. It started with ITV binning any meaningful boxing (although they have had the Klits on not too long ago), and now sky obviously wanted to keep their money to spend on Carlos Tevez wages instead of paying the boxers pittance in comparison.

So what point are you making here? That because bad stuff has happened in the past, we should all forget about it and just perpetuate the marginalisation, ad infinitum. It is an unhealthy development for the long term prospects of the sport, that is the bottom line. If people are happy to pay for that, then fine, good luck to them. I won't be part of it.

The point I was making that although PT and Boxnation are hurting the sport long term, just as sky did in the past. Its very easy to demonise the new boys in town - I was just pointing out that they arent the only bad guys in the room. Its just that Sky is the credible executioner of the sport.

Adam D wrote:

Its just that Sky is the credible executioner of the sport.

Without Sky, boxing would have been the gutter a long time ago.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Adam D wrote:

Its just that Sky is the credible executioner of the sport.

Without Sky, boxing would have been the gutter a long time ago.

I dont understand that comment.

Without Sky and their piggy bank out bidding ITV and the Beeb, it would still be on terrestrial perhaps.

Sky took a lot of viewers away from the sport.

I bet if you asked people from their mid to late 30's who arent boxing fans, who the last fight they watched was, most of them would say Eubank v Benn or something like that.

Adam D wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Adam D wrote:

Its just that Sky is the credible executioner of the sport.

Without Sky, boxing would have been the gutter a long time ago.

I dont understand that comment.

Without Sky and their piggy bank out bidding ITV and the Beeb, it would still be on terrestrial perhaps.

Sky took a lot of viewers away from the sport.

I bet if you asked people from their mid to late 30's who arent boxing fans, who the last fight they watched was, most of them would say Eubank v Benn or something like that.

Sky did take alot of viewers away, hence my earlier comments about bad things happening in the past. I am not denying that, but they have also supported the domestic scene to a huge degree over the last decade or so. ITV/BBC may have carried on showing big title fights, but not small hall cards that showcase the best of British talent. That would have died out years ago and we would have missed some brilliant fights and the fighters would have received far less money. It is not all about Eubank v Benn or other fights of such magnitude.

So Sky took viewers away, and now Boxnation come along as the saviour? No, they come along with a bucket to collect all the heads.

I never said they were a saviour!

All I said was that I dont understand why they get criticised but Sky get away Scot free.

We would all prefer all of boxing to be on terrestrial, but that time has gone. As rowley says there comes a time when you just have to draw the line and say I won't be spending any more and getting ripped off for watching one of the sports I love. That is now, for many people.

Shame it isn't on terrestrial any more it really is, even fights like Tyson Fury vs Dave from Poland generate millions of views, which shows the incredible drawing power the sport still has with the public. Money, as they say, talks.

Adam D wrote:I never said they were a saviour!

All I said was that I dont understand why they get criticised but Sky get away Scot free.

I have, and am, criticising Sky to a degree. I don't think anybody can be happy with the situation, but Boxnation just exacerbates it. There is no way that BBC/ITV would have shown domestic and small hall fights. It's just not in their remit. Sky have the power to do this, and that is a good thing. Boxnation may well keep showing brilliant domestic, small hall fights, but a far smaller audience will see them on their screen.

The long term health of the sport will suffer, that is the most pertinent point, regardless of what Sky did or didn't do in the past.

tcribb wrote:The problem being fellas, how long do you leave it before you bite the bullet, IF the channel keeps delivering the big fights from the U.S, couple of avid fans like yourself, surely if that's the cast you won't be cutting your nose off to spite your face for too long.

I agree with your sentiments I really do, but all I care about is seeing the fights, we shouldve been seeing for the 60 odd quid Sky charge.

Completely disagree with this comment.

Before BoxNation aired, there was always a way round watching them even when they weren't on a UK channel.

And the likes of JCCJR vs Manfredo they show, if we are all honest, did many of us even stay up to watch fights like this?

The only real big American fight they have shown so far was Hopkins vs Dawson and that was a complete flop.

Ok, they have Cotto vs Margarito, but there isn't that many big blockbusters on the horizon for BoxNation as Primetime have Pac and Floyd wrapped up and Sky have got Khan back.

Boxnation has so far provided a couple of decent domestic fights which aren't worth paying extra for.

The likes of "Enzo's comeback", "Cleverly vs Bellew", and a few dull cruiserweight world title fights are what we have got from them so far.

The American fights that they are showing aren't fights that I risk staying up for on a Sunday morning only to be knackered the next day.

At the minute I would only stay up for Floyd, Manny and Khan and Froch. None of which are on Boxnation or likely to be in the near future.

The schedules look good on paper, but I have done alright up to now by watching the fights the following day.

Has anyone thought that a tad bit of the budget was bumped from the Sky boxing team due to the fact that there are Froch and Khan coming this december? Of course BoxNation has been putting on fantastic card after fantastic card but a reason that they haven't paid up for some of the licensing for the others has been due to Khan and Froch being given a rather large amount of money?

Whilst i'm quite sure there won't be any real longevity in Box Nation, and, sure, the quality of fights and overall coverage hasn't been of the best quality, i'll be giving it a go. I've seen enough to suggest that it's worth sticking with, and even if you haven't, it's not as if they're tying you to a long contract or charging the earth.

Can't help thinking boxing is shooting itself in the foot not having a free to air channel like this. A shop window, and for marketing.

It's been nice the last few months , just having it there.


Razzaq/Shinkwin, Cleverly/Bellew, Tony Conquest re-runs- it's been superb. I'm going to miss it. Fiver a month they can have the next five years up front.

Unfortunately it's unsustainable on free to air TV. That's why Sky were so successful.