Boxnation

Looks like they've listened to customers and are now doing a rolling contract instead of 6 months. Personally £10 a month is great for what I get and the amount I watch of it.

I still won't subscribe.

Think a rolling contract will bust the business (Setanta tried and failed at that) but I'm happy with that, pick a good month when there's 2 or more decent fights and I'll pay for it.

It's a great move. A lot of people are asking for it and they gave them what they wanted.

They have a lot of good stuff on that would have never been on TV if it wasn't for Boxnation.

They post a lot of there schedule on there site in advance so this is really good.

The clowns set up two accounts for the same TV for me and have sent me notice letters along with threatening phone calls for not paying 1 month for one of them.

Despite the fact that I've been charged double for 5 months, they advised me "they couldn't give me a refund" for the other account.

Consumer advice: Be careful dealing with them.

Anyone know if Floyds fight will just be PPV or will you have to be a member?

Also are they showing Manny and Khans fight?

I had it then took it off. It's easier if you a Virgin customer.

Khans fight is on sky, not sure what will happen after this one though.

Khan signed a three fight deal with Sky before the first Peterson fight so he still has 2 fights on his Sky deal. Theres a good chance the Pac fight will be on boxnation they are getting everything else.

Khan is definitely on sky.

great news about this, i didnt want to be tied in to a year but if theres a good month of action i'll sign up straight away

Boxnation have certainly upped their game and £10 is great value for May 5 alone

Anyone have access to the small print with the ins and outs?

The Galveston Giant wrote:Anyone have access to the small print with the ins and outs?

*Boxnation accepts no responsibility for the impact on the long-term health of the sport

That was the only thing I could find.

I have heard alleged rumours that the "owner" of Box nation may be in some financial difficulty.
There have been a number of well known fights cancelled recently.
Boxnation is now looking to get money quickly by offering monthly.
A planned showing of a 24/7 didnt materialise possibly due to them being unable to pay.
mmmmm

Had not heard that Skimpton but if true I could not be happier, the sooner the channel disappears never to return cannot come soon enough for me.

If that happens boxing on tv will drop by over 50% rowley, for the amount you actually get it is fantastic value for money. People seem more interested in knocking it that actually giving it ago.

I think Hampo it's more a case of if it's successful then where does it end. At least if it fails all routes should lead to sky.

rowley wrote:Had not heard that Skimpton but if true I could not be happier, the sooner the channel disappears never to return cannot come soon enough for me.

what are your reasons rowley? i see it as a good thing.dominated
sky sports can only over so much - and it's dominated by it's football premier league coverage. Darts gets more coverage than boxing on sky with the darts premiere league.

box nation show great fights, and understandably we have to pay for it.

My objections are not, and have never been with the content of the channel which I am assured is lovely, my objection has always been about the marginalising affect such a channel will have on a sport that is already marginalised, nobody outside the hardcore fan will buy the channel meaning no new fans will be attracted to the sport as their opprtunity to actually see the sport are dramtically reduced.

I don't doubt that it would encourage more to move this way, but at the moment it's great value for money with it being the only one. ABA boxing never gets shown, was on boxnation last week and was a really good watch, the rolling contract is a cracking idea and still cheaper than box office is for one night.

Not sure how much they'd be struggling for cash with them just signing to show GBP cards either.

I also heard sky are cutting there boxing budget by 50% and doubt they would do this if Boxnation was going under

I too agree it is great for overseas fights but people will always get melodramatic about the health of boxing for one reason or another

if boxnation wasnt around and a big fight came up sky would show it, there coverage of the big overseas fights is poor i know but still rather watch the fights on sky for no extra cost

so sky would have shown rios and marquez last weekend..

Unbeatable Georgey Groves wrote:so sky would have shown rios and marquez last weekend..

probably not, but most people would have just watched it the next day on sites rather than stay up for it. theres not a single person i know who has subscribed to boxnation. probably the reason for this offer.

Got to admit, I'm tempted to pay for a month to include the Floyd Cotto fight but that will be about it. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it has taken away content I had and wants to charge me more for it. And for that, they can poke it.

Good idea by Boxnation. They will get the casual fans in for the Mayweather vs Cotto fight.

I really like how Boxnation has developed. It really is quality. Hopefully, they are ambitious and launch on freeview. (via Top-up TV or subscription)

bottom line is its a cheaper option than ppv... you basically pay cheaper and get the whole channel for a month. even if there is one fight every 2 months to watch its not a bad deal..

Amazing isnt it, we have been crying out for a boxing channel that constantly shows the best fights from around the globe, we finally get one & people are moaning about it, some folk are never happy!

It's a joke mate. People need to remember Boxing is a niche sport now. Fans of MMA would love a channel like boxnation. Boxing fans have plenty to moan about but boxnation isn't one of them. Its a great channel and I've only paid 20 quid for it since it stopped being free.

Wouldn't advertise that mate

I'm not the only one mate plenty of people on twitter doing the same.

Order the channel and pay the first tenner. Then do nothing until the day they cut it off then go online and pay another tenner. I paid my first one at the end of Novemeber and never had to pay again until during the week.

Because its done through Paywizard there is no charge for missing a payment.

People assume that just because the fight will be on boxnation that it won't be promoted. Currently you have big fights that are hyped and everyone knows about it and then you are charged 15£ for 1 nights boxing..

Why does boxnation change anything? Other than some fights being 10£ and you get to watch a whole months boxing from then on...

[quote="SugarRayRussell (PBK)"]It's a joke mate. People need to remember Boxing is a niche sport now.[quote]

I sincerely hope the irony of that statement is not lost on you, kev. If boxing is a niche sport, why would creating a subscription only, single sport channel that competes with other outlets help in any way? In its current format Boxnation, outside of the cosy 606v2 world, serves to marginalise this 'niche' sport even further.

Those of us who have raised (legitimate) questions about Boxnation are not doing it simply because we want to moan about boxing, I have better things to do with my time, rather it is out of genuine concern for the long term health of the sport.

Some people on here either can't, or don't want to, see the bigger picture. This is a boxing section that is full of dedicated, long term and 'hardcore' fans. Of course the weight of opinion on here is going to be pro-Boxnation, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't question it or raise concerns. Manos raised an excellent point on a different thread. He intimated that if Boxnation had all the coverage available and were able to dominate the market then it would create a single point of interest for the fans, but at the moment, all it does is dilute the coverage even more, and charge fans for the privilege. If you take your 606v2 goggles off, then I don't see how, in its current form, Boxnation adds anything to the long term development of the sport.

It would not surprise me Alma, even if you put aside the objections people like me and Tina have it is extremely niche, has no HD channel which people expect in this day and age, pretty ordinary production values and does not really offer much for those interested in the history of the sport such as classic fights or documentaries etc. Just not sure there are enough hardcore boxing fans out there to make such a channel viable and because it is so niche they are not going to attract anyone but the hardcore fans

[quote="Mind the windows Tino."][quote="SugarRayRussell (PBK)"]It's a joke mate. People need to remember Boxing is a niche sport now.

I sincerely hope the irony of that statement is not lost on you, kev. If boxing is a niche sport, why would creating a subscription only, single sport channel that competes with other outlets help in any way? In its current format Boxnation, outside of the cosy 606v2 world, serves to marginalise this 'niche' sport even further.

Those of us who have raised (legitimate) questions about Boxnation are not doing it simply because we want to moan about boxing, I have better things to do with my time, rather it is out of genuine concern for the long term health of the sport.

Some people on here either can't, or don't want to, see the bigger picture. This is a boxing section that is full of dedicated, long term and 'hardcore' fans. Of course the weight of opinion on here is going to be pro-Boxnation, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't question it or raise concerns. Manos raised an excellent point on a different thread. He intimated that if Boxnation had all the coverage available and were able to dominate the market then it would create a single point of interest for the fans, but at the moment, all it does is dilute the coverage even more, and charge fans for the privilege. If you take your 606v2 goggles off, then I don't see how, in its current form, Boxnation adds anything to the long term development of the sport.

Boxnation doesn't harm the sport. There is more boxing on TV now than ever. Sky aren't interested in putting on most of the stuff boxnation show. So who's going to invest in boxing and put as much on as boxnation does?

What do Sky add to the long term development of the sport? They have made it the niche sport it has became. I wonder how people would have reacted to boxnation if it wasn't Warren who started it.

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:Boxnation doesn't harm the sport. There is more boxing on TV now than ever. Sky aren't interested in putting on most of the stuff boxnation show. So who's going to invest in boxing and put as much on as boxnation does?

What do Sky add to the long term development of the sport? They have made it the niche sport it has became. I wonder how people would have reacted to boxnation if it wasn't Warren who started it.

It is no good saying Sky did this or Sky did that, so Boxnation is therefore absolved of all blame or scrutiny. That is just a perpetually self-defeating argument. Kev, you're on record as being a big fan of the lighter weight classes, do you really think ITV/BBC would have picked up all the outstanding nights that Sky have shown over the last 15 years? Sky didn't create a niche for boxing, they kept it alive on TV for two decades, it was already marginilised on BBC/ITV as they have only being interested in fights of a certain calibre, OR, some kind of human interest angle like Audley Harrison after his gold medal. There are many reasons for boxing being a niche sport, but Sky are certainly not at the top of that particular list.

I don't know if you are misunderstanding me or not, so let me make it clear. More boxing on TV is a good thing, I am not denying that. What I am saying is that having it tucked away on a low-profile (aside from hardcore boxing forums) channel that re-charges you for something you were already paying for is not healthy. They are currently preaching to a half empty chruch. Ask someone on one of the other forums who occasionally tunes into boxing for a fight whether they are going to pay up for Boxnation? You would get the odd one that might, but I would guess it would be substantially less than would tune into Sky. Unless Boxnation had a complete monopoly on content, people outside of the hardcore support are probably not going to see the sport as much as they used to, regardless of there being "more on TV now than ever".

As for your last point, well, I can't speak for anyone else, but that is certainly not my motivation for airing my concerns. I couldn't give a monkeys whether Frank Warren or Pol Pot had started the channel, that is not the point.

Well if you look at the situation at present you basically have boxing coverage thats split over two subscription channels. Take the big fights coming up: Froch/Bute and Khan/Peterson is Sky while the likes of Cotto/Mayweather is boxnation. For an already niche sport with a shrinking fanbase I don’t think this situation is good for the development of the sport. Something like boxnation is only going to appeal to hardcore boxing fans and in my view wont attract many new fans as things stand now.

If you are a hardcore boxing fan and willing to pay for multiple channels to follow boxing then I think its a fair point that you now have a broader selection and the chance to follow more fights. However for trying to attract new fans, armchair fans etc then something like boxnation is actually taking boxing away from mainstream tv where it has a much greater platform to attract new fans. Take the fights like Haye/Harrison or Haye/Klitschko which Sky really got behind. These fights actually got the common persons attention and put boxing back onto the mainstream landscape. Would this have happened if the fights were on boxnation? Unlikely in my view. For the hadcore boxing fan or the fan who subscribes to both channels it doesn’t make a huge difference but for the effect on the general public its massive. This is the potential that a channel like Sky has, as opposed to boxnation for bringing the sport to wider attention.

However, it seems unlikely that Sky will ever treat boxing as anything more than a niche sport. It has a whole host of sports it covers and most have bigger audiences and give more back. So Sky7 doesnt really have the time or inclination to try and drag boxing forward. The benefits of being on Sky for boxing are more indirect through simply having greater exposure to the general public. But bringing the sport forward will require more than that.

This is where boxnation has potential because unlike Sky who are simply concerned with the big picture of all sports and programming. Boxnation depends on boxing fans and attracting boxing alone. For someone like me who is interested in many sports then Sky is far better value, even if its boxing coverage isn’t top drawer. I get lots of sports for my money. But if you just followed boxing then you would probably be considering whether it was worth paying for Sky at the moment. If boxnation could compete aggressively with Sky and take all the boxing (or at least the lions share) from Sky then I think it has the potential to be both good value and possibly to expand the sport through marketing and advertising and freeviewing.

Ideally someone like Sky would try and invest heavily in getting behind boxing. To some extent they did this with Haye and Khan but in both cases I think the rewards were far less than the efforts. But it highlighted the potential Sky has for putting the sport into the mainstream if it wanted to. Boxnation just cant do this to anywhere near the same degree. But Sky will probably not be willing to really get behind a sport that already is niche and is hugely inconsistent and variable unless boxing gets its own house in order the way someone like Hearn was able to shake up darts by having full control over the PDC. Therefore something like boxnation may be necessary just to keep the sport on tv at all.

Hated the idea of a minimum term but now they offer a rolling contract, that's great.

That fact I have paid in the past (and will again) £15 for 1 fight and you pay £10 for a month it's a no brainer!

Yeah the rest of the month could be rubbish but better than having nothing to watch at all.

Me and a few friends are going to subscribe for Boxnation for the Maywether / Cotto fight, it'll cost us £2 each and a mate will get a the channel for a whole month after!

I would like it to be free or only on Sky Sports, but it isn't!

19000 subscribers, £190'000 a month, plus advertising on the channel. The fighters aren't paid that much for title fights etc and the production is low budget. Showing the American fights increases the price to advertise on the channel I would guess.

The channel is turning over 1 million in its first year by the looks of things. It could get better as the years go on.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:Boxnation doesn't harm the sport. There is more boxing on TV now than ever. Sky aren't interested in putting on most of the stuff boxnation show. So who's going to invest in boxing and put as much on as boxnation does?

What do Sky add to the long term development of the sport? They have made it the niche sport it has became. I wonder how people would have reacted to boxnation if it wasn't Warren who started it.

It is no good saying Sky did this or Sky did that, so Boxnation is therefore absolved of all blame or scrutiny. That is just a perpetually self-defeating argument. Kev, you're on record as being a big fan of the lighter weight classes, do you really think ITV/BBC would have picked up all the outstanding nights that Sky have shown over the last 15 years? Sky didn't create a niche for boxing, they kept it alive on TV for two decades, it was already marginilised on BBC/ITV as they have only being interested in fights of a certain calibre, OR, some kind of human interest angle like Audley Harrison after his gold medal. There are many reasons for boxing being a niche sport, but Sky are certainly not at the top of that particular list.

I don't know if you are misunderstanding me or not, so let me make it clear. More boxing on TV is a good thing, I am not denying that. What I am saying is that having it tucked away on a low-profile (aside from hardcore boxing forums) channel that re-charges you for something you were already paying for is not healthy. They are currently preaching to a half empty chruch. Ask someone on one of the other forums who occasionally tunes into boxing for a fight whether they are going to pay up for Boxnation? You would get the odd one that might, but I would guess it would be substantially less than would tune into Sky. Unless Boxnation had a complete monopoly on content, people outside of the hardcore support are probably not going to see the sport as much as they used to, regardless of there being "more on TV now than ever".

As for your last point, well, I can't speak for anyone else, but that is certainly not my motivation for airing my concerns. I couldn't give a monkeys whether Frank Warren or Pol Pot had started the channel, that is not the point.

What can you blame Boxnation for was Warren just supposed to put up with the shows Sky let him put on. This has gave young talent the chance to box more often than they had the opportunity to under Sky which is hardly bad for the sport.

You say you are being re-charged for a product but that isn't true. Look at what boxnation have shown since it started and Sky wouldn't have touched half of it. Take Salido vs Lopez for example. There is no way Sky would have put that on.

I love the smaller weights mate but to be fair Sky used to be big on boxing but they have went cool on it. No doubt boxnation doesn't get the sport the exposure it used to but I couldn't care less. I now get to watch what I want from the comfort of my living room without having to download or wait on someone uploading to youtube.

I originally subscribed but have cancelled. Just wasn't worth the money in the end. Not that I'm saying I would never sign up again. The quality of fights would have to improve though plus I'm already forking out for Sky Sports and ESPN.

Read a few posts up mate and you can get it on the cheap.

This weekends boxing was worth £10 on its own, Seth Mitchell, Dawson vs
Hopkins, Malinaggi, and the Warren card was very good. Next weekends is a pretty good night of boxing as well.

Even if you only have one weekend of boxing that's good it's usually worth a tenner because you tend to have the British card and then one from the states. Hopefully the deal with GBP will bring even better fights to the screens.

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:

What can you blame Boxnation for was Warren just supposed to put up with the shows Sky let him put on. This has gave young talent the chance to box more often than they had the opportunity to under Sky which is hardly bad for the sport.

You say you are being re-charged for a product but that isn't true. Look at what boxnation have shown since it started and Sky wouldn't have touched half of it. Take Salido vs Lopez for example. There is no way Sky would have put that on.

I love the smaller weights mate but to be fair Sky used to be big on boxing but they have went cool on it. No doubt boxnation doesn't get the sport the exposure it used to but I couldn't care less. I now get to watch what I want from the comfort of my living room without having to download or wait on someone uploading to youtube.

So you have picked one example to highlight your point. Had I wanted to watch Cleverly v Karpency I would have had to subscribe to see a fighter I used to see for my standard Sky subscription.

I don't/haven't blamed Warren for anything. He is a businessman and has done what he had to do to survive. No issues for me there.

I'm happy for you that you can watch it from the comfort of your living room. I haven't once said people shouldn't subscribe if they want to. People will make their own mind up where they draw the line, but your viewing comfort is irrelevant to the broader point I am making regarding the future of the sport. In its current format, I don't see how the channel can hope to encourage new growth over a longer term.

But, we are never going to agree and this thread is going to descend into the same opinions being re-worded over and over again so I am out. I am bored of my typing now so if we just agree that I am right we can all live happily ever after.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:

What can you blame Boxnation for was Warren just supposed to put up with the shows Sky let him put on. This has gave young talent the chance to box more often than they had the opportunity to under Sky which is hardly bad for the sport.

You say you are being re-charged for a product but that isn't true. Look at what boxnation have shown since it started and Sky wouldn't have touched half of it. Take Salido vs Lopez for example. There is no way Sky would have put that on.

I love the smaller weights mate but to be fair Sky used to be big on boxing but they have went cool on it. No doubt boxnation doesn't get the sport the exposure it used to but I couldn't care less. I now get to watch what I want from the comfort of my living room without having to download or wait on someone uploading to youtube.

So you have picked one example to highlight your point. Had I wanted to watch Cleverly v Karpency I would have had to subscribe to see a fighter I used to see for my standard Sky subscription.

I don't/haven't blamed Warren for anything. He is a businessman and has done what he had to do to survive. No issues for me there.

I'm happy for you that you can watch it from the comfort of your living room. I haven't once said people shouldn't subscribe if they want to. People will make their own mind up where they draw the line, but your viewing comfort is irrelevant to the broader point I am making regarding the future of the sport. In its current format, I don't see how the channel can hope to encourage new growth over a longer term.

But, we are never going to agree and this thread is going to descend into the same opinions being re-worded over and over again so I am out. I am bored of my typing now so if we just agree that I am right we can all live happily ever after.

Like I said I can see your point about the future of the sport but it's not as if we have a channel who like showing boxing and want to put as much stuff on TV as boxnation do there going to start showing a lot of stuff from Asia as well apparently they have a deal to show Kamedas next fight. Purely as a fan it's great. But as always your right mate .

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:
But as always your right mate .

You're a good sport, kev.

Ok this is how it is. Sky has reduced their boxing budget by half. Channel 5 has marginal coverage (but good) and then there is a dedicated TV channel boxnation. I read posters have a problem with Boxnation or is it beef with Mr Warren? The facts are quite simple really; Boxing has been dropping in popularity for years. It’s not a mainstream sport any longer; new sports like MMA have become more popular. This means boxing no longer has a place on testrial TV. So really no matter what happens in boxing it will never be as popular as it was in for example the 80’s. So to have a channel dedicated to it is a great thing. As long as there are gyms in our neighbourhoods, we will have fans and fighters.

This is cheaper than Pay per view and Primetime and you still have another 4 weeks worth of viewing, think I will be purchasing this one.
No way was I going to be locked into a years contract though, don't see how that could be beneficial to the fighter as their fan base may be big, but has no chance of getting huge due to no new exposure.
Hope it stays this way of one month at a time.

Anybody have access to the small print for the new contract?