Boycott Pay Per View!

I know its not Cleverley's fault etc. But for Sky Sports to charge the public £15 for Saturday nights debacle is a disgrace.

I understand all of us are big boxing fans and a match ticket would cost more etc. And people will always pay money to watch any boxing event but you must admit it is now farcical. Pay Per View was invented for large world title fights similar to the Rumble in the Jungle or the up and coming eagerly anticipated Haye - Klitschko fight. I think Sky have totally lost touch with the common man and have lost sense with reality, charging £15 during a time of economic struggle for a one sided show with no real proven stars.

Boxing fans seem to be the only sports fans punished and forced to pay a subsiduary for the sport they love (barring WWE of course), with the greatest of respect, imagine if Sky Sports showed Stoke Vs Bolton, Birmingham Vs Fulham but to watch Chelsea Vs Man Utd it cost an extra £15?

There would be a public outcry. Why do we stand for this?

There is only one way we can get Sky to listen.

We need to boycott this Saturday in our masses, anyone who has already purchased the fight under the pretense that it was Cleverley - Braehmer/ Bellew needs to contact Sky Sports (Tel: 08442410363) and cancel their subscription, get refunded their money in full, it is the only way we the people can show Warren/ Sky and the money grabbing men that represent boxing that we no longer are going to be conned.

This worked with Khan - McCloskey, and Sky had to shift it to Sky Sports 3, before Khan eventually opted for PrimeTime.

If we continually boycott these imbalanced, stupid PPV events we all collectively could see our sport return to Sky Sports proper - a service we already pay vast amounts of cash for on a yearly basis.

Anyone who still wants to pay £15 for Saturday nights fights now, seriously needs their head examined.

Sheng.

I was gonna buy it but after the clev debacle will not be getting it. It's not the money but the principle. There's a pub near me that's showing degale v groves so I'll go down there and watch it with my mate. Normally I like to watch a big fight on my own telly without the distractions of a pub, but there's no way I'm paying fish face 15 knicker for a domestic fight between two rookies with 21 pro bouts between them.

100% Sugar Boy.

Basically being charged for everything now.

I love boxing as much as everyone else on this board, and I want to see DeGale - Groves, but if we all pay for this now, where does it end?

They will be charging us for Prizefighter next!

(Probably shouldnt have wrote that, incase Sky are watching....)

They've probably sold more than 50 advance PPV buys hence why they're keeping it on.

And i'd be more than happy to pay £15 for it. As it is we're hooking a laptop up to one of the flatscreens up the cricket club and running it off a stream....

Looking forwards to Degale vs Groves rather alot to be honest. Probably shouldn't be £15 worth but it's too late to take it off the PPV platform now and you CANNOT blame Sky or Warren for Braehmer pulling out in fight week.

I knew you'd pay for it cooxy.

I am not blaming SKY or Warren for that.

But I am blaming them for keeping it on Pay Per View.

Why not shift it to Sky Sports and reimburse those that have paid for it?

Coxy0001: it's too late to take it off the PPV platform now and you CANNOT blame Sky or Warren for Braehmer pulling out in fight week.
----------
That is true coxy, however he has pulled out and regardless of who's fault it is Sky need to show consideration to the fans. If the product is no longer worth £15 they shouldn't charge it. It's basically JD V GG with a small domestic undercard that's hardly worth watching. I'm not a fan of streams, and as much as I want to watch degale groves I can't bring myself to buy it. I made a vow after being sucked in by the haye harrison fiasco that I'd only buy a ppv card if it was 100% worth it and this doesn't come close. Pub for me, watch the groves fight there then go for a curry.

shenglong1983 wrote:Why not shift it to Sky Sports and reimburse those that have paid for it?

I presume you don't run a business?

shenglong1983 wrote:I knew you'd pay for it cooxy.

I am not blaming SKY or Warren for that.

But I am blaming them for keeping it on Pay Per View.

Why not shift it to Sky Sports and reimburse those that have paid for it?

Because they've done the whole advertising campaign which has probably cost a small fortune? Wasn't like Khan vs PM that got pulled early.

Degale vs Groves and Clev vs Braehmer was PPV worthy IMO as you've our 2 best prospects facing off and Clev has all the Welsh lot following him as they're searching for a new JC. If i was staying in i'd have paid for it (thiefing a stream instead as it costs serious money to get a PPV up the cricket club)

Scottfr:

That is why everyone should phone SKY and ask to be reimbursed. They sold a fight under false pretenses, I recognise it isnt their fault, but you can not justify charging the working class folk £15 for DeGale Groves. You guys make this possible with your spoilt "door matt" attitudes.

Cooxy?

Nope the P McCloskey - Khan fight was pulled about 2 weeks before the fight and they ran a FULL advertising campaign including specials on RingSide and even recored a Through the ropes special which never went to air. So no there is no real difference, apart from the fact they probably have secured a load more PPV customers over the last month for this Saturday.

Which would quickly evaporate if people asked for their money back.

That number again is: (0) 8442410363

shenglong1983 wrote:Scottfr:

That is why everyone should phone SKY and ask to be reimbursed. They sold a fight under false pretenses, I recognise it isnt their fault, but you can not justify charging the working class folk £15 for DeGale Groves. You guys make this possible with your spoilt "door matt" attitudes.

I'm not buying the PPV...

People are buying DeGale vs Groves and Cleverly vs XX. What % of people buying do you think knew Braemer?

Scottfr:

Point is wether people had heard of Braehmer or not it was a title figt, were Cleverly had to take the title from a German champion no less, which will always generate interest with the British public.

Then it was reduced to Bellew, which people didnt mind paying for as it would have been a good domestic scrap, with Bellew being given the once in a life time shot at taking the newly crowned (albeit by default) champion and the Press Conference gave it a bit of edge, heck if people were being honest a Bellew - Cleverely scrap was looking tastier than Braehmer!

But now it is a complete no mark journey man, this will be a hallow night for Cleverley (through no fault of his own) and a poor night for PPV and our dying sport in general.

Code:

apart from the fact they probably have secured a load more PPV customers over the last month for this Saturday

So... why would they pull the PPV if it's already sold and sold well?

I take it you're not a businessman? That you're a milkman or something where you don't have to make any decisions or have any understand what the heck is going on!??!

As Scott said, Billy Brollocks wouldn't know who Braehmer is... But will buy the PPV as he's probably heard of Clev and has certainly heard about this big rivalry between the golden Olympian and Groves - People remember the Benn v Eubank days and are comparing it to that.

If you don't feel it's worthy of PPV status then so be it. But please stop trying to force your opinion (pot kettle i know) on us, i for one would pay to see Degale vs Groves alone.

Why don't you call up and put on lots of different voices? Seriously boxing-rev just give it a rest would ya?

The difference between this and most fights is when Coldwell won the purse bids Sky basically bought it off him and paid the £400k specified themselves, rather than the promoter which is unusual and gives them a financial commitment in this fight they normally would not have.

Not saying this justifies having it on PPV but does esplain their relucatance/inability to shift it down to normal Sky sports

Boxing-rev

You're reminding me of this preacher who's predicting the world will end on Saturday...

"We must do this" "Must do that"

Fact is we're all capable of making up our own minds. If we leave the cricket club early (which i doubt) i'll be paying for it - What do you make of the fact i'm quite excited about Degale v Groves and am prepared to pay for it? I've made up my mind along with thousands of other advanced PPV customers.

Cooxy:

I didnt realise I was on a board with Duncan Bannatine and peter Jones - you guys shouldnt let your real identites be known.

Please you have already made a fool out of yourself yesterday try not to reenact that today (the most surprising thing about yester was not the fight being called off, or Bellew standing in, it was finding out you are 29 years old).

Please understand this, they secured that many PPV's under false pretenses, I am urgung people to get reimbursed of their money. What do you not understand?

Dont remember Benn - Eubank being on PPV either?

Once again it sold well under false pretenses - please remember that when you are writing your lame retort.

The very fact you are defending the £15 charge tells me all I need to know about what type of IQ you have.

I also made the mistake of paying £15 for the Haye Vs Harrison fight. Same as Sugarboy, I vowed I would not get sucked into paying for an event that simply wasn't worth the money. If this is worth £15, then what would the Haye vs Klit fight be worth? Will Sky charge £30 or £40 for that? People wouldn't stand for it. I appreciate it's not Skys fault, but it isn't ours either.

Anyone know any good streaming sites?

Sheng, you cant say nothing, you bought Khan v McCloskey haha

I probs will be paying for it. Id rather pay £15 and watch this then watching Britians Got Talent with the missus

JackMagic:

myp2p.com

Is a good site for streaming the fights. I watched Holyfield - Valuev on it from Switzerland, it was great.

100% Jack Magic about not paying for this, it is people who pay for these type of fights that will keep SKY coming back for more.....

SOF:

So you would rather watch Britains Got No Talent on Box Office instead!

LOL.

Joking of course, my English cousins.

shenglong1983 wrote:Britains Got No Talent

You forgot about Khan-McCloskey quickly?

And Big Bang Willie Casey

Stream for me, was going to stream it in the first place anyway, not PPV worthy, by todays standards maybe but not by mine.

shenglong1983 wrote:Cooxy:

I didnt realise I was on a board with Duncan Bannatine and peter Jones - you guys shouldnt let your real identites be known.

Please you have already made a fool out of yourself yesterday try not to reenact that today (the most surprising thing about yester was not the fight being called off, or Bellew standing in, it was finding out you are 29 years old).

Please understand this, they secured that many PPV's under false pretenses, I am urgung people to get reimbursed of their money. What do you not understand?

Dont remember Benn - Eubank being on PPV either?

Once again it sold well under false pretenses - please remember that when you are writing your lame retort.

The very fact you are defending the £15 charge tells me all I need to know about what type of IQ you have.

Don't you dare question my IQ when you're making yourself look a buffon.

You bang on about Clev etc etc etc - but who are you to guess that people wanted to see Degale vs Groves? Because everyone i've spoken to, all the media hype and all the boxing forums have been on about Groves vs Degale. Clev and his fight was merely sliding into a irrelevance as a result.

What has Sky Sports been pushing? What have the papers picked up on? Yup, Degale vs Groves - which as a rivalry and the fact you've got an Olympic Gold medallist in a such a hotly contested fight has probably sold the PPV by itself. Clevs fight was always an irrelevance in comparison - both from the fans, the media and the way Sky hyped it! It's not hard to understand.

And back to the insult - Coming from someone who calls themselves "seasider shark" "shenglong1983", "boxing-revolution" among others is a general disgrace when quesstioning someone elses IQ. You quite clearly have issues you sad little ****.

I'm sure Sky will be listening to you. I mean they've sold more than enough to keep it on PPV and your lack of a brain fails to realise that Clevs fight falling through will mean absolutely JACK **** as the Degale vs Groves fight is the one pulling the PPV cusomters in.

Isn't it about time you went and created a new alias you pathetic little lad?

coxy0001 wrote:

shenglong1983 wrote:I do not believe this is worthy of a PPV but you are entitled to your opinion.

I respectfully disagree and would be willing to pay for it.

See, it's all about opinions.

Scottrf wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

shenglong1983 wrote:I do not believe this is worthy of a PPV but you are entitled to your opinion.

I respectfully disagree and would be willing to pay for it.

See, it's all about opinions.

When did i write that?!

Just a summary of your previous convo with our Irish friend.

Still cant decide!!! Arggghh!!! Really want to see the fights but not sure i want to fork out.

Can you believe that UFC PPV's in America go for $50 a time?!

Hopefully not a sign of things to come over here.

I can see the argument as being asked to pay to watch a domestic fight when football fans can watch the champions league final for nothing the week after seems a little unfair on fans of the sport.

However I don't particularly care for people telling others how they should spend their money. As I work full time, pay my bills and all relevant taxes what I choose to spend what little money is left is pretty much my business.

rowley wrote:I can see the argument as being asked to pay to watch a domestic fight when football fans can watch the champions league final for nothing the week after seems a little unfair on fans of the sport.

However I don't particularly care for people telling others how they should spend their money. As I work full time, pay my bills and all relevant taxes what I choose to spend what little money is left is pretty much my business.

Especially if said preacher is scrounging his cash from his neighbours anyway to prop up his failing economy.

Scottrf wrote:

rowley wrote:I can see the argument as being asked to pay to watch a domestic fight when football fans can watch the champions league final for nothing the week after seems a little unfair on fans of the sport.

However I don't particularly care for people telling others how they should spend their money. As I work full time, pay my bills and all relevant taxes what I choose to spend what little money is left is pretty much my business.

Especially if said preacher is scrounging his cash from his neighbours anyway to prop up his failing economy.

Yup, he should probably stay quiet about monetary situations when his beloved country has been bailed out by its vastly more successful neighbour!

rowley wrote:I can see the argument as being asked to pay to watch a domestic fight when football fans can watch the champions league final for nothing the week after seems a little unfair on fans of the sport.

However I don't particularly care for people telling others how they should spend their money. As I work full time, pay my bills and all relevant taxes what I choose to spend what little money is left is pretty much my business.

Been reading for a good while now but first time to post, just thought I'd say I completely agree with Rowley here, well said mate.

Rowley:

I appreciate your input and how people wish to spend their money is entirely up to them. I am merely pointing out that if we continue to pay SKY will continue to charge.

If we managed to collectively stop paying for these events they would have no choice but to put it back on Sky Sports as it should be.

Can you remember when SKY made an attempt to put top premier league games on an extra channel called "Premiership Plus" and wanted football fans to pay an extra £10 for it?

Well I do.

And what happened? People stopped paying, in fact some began to get rid of their SKY boxes all together.

SKY had no alternative and returned all the football back to Sky Sports.

Cooxy:

I think you have crossed the line using swear words and the likes, you personal vandetta against me is pathetic.

The addition of constantly bringing up my home nation and nationalistic pride is also boring, and feeble attempts to goad me into conversations I do not wish to have, can you not stick to talking about boxing?

I do not wish to talk about countries and their economies if I wanted to do that I would text into Question Time with David Dimbley, perhaps with all your wisdom you guys could get on the panel?

Cheers mick, very kind of you and welcome aboard

Mick wrote:

rowley wrote:I can see the argument as being asked to pay to watch a domestic fight when football fans can watch the champions league final for nothing the week after seems a little unfair on fans of the sport.

However I don't particularly care for people telling others how they should spend their money. As I work full time, pay my bills and all relevant taxes what I choose to spend what little money is left is pretty much my business.

Been reading for a good while now but first time to post, just thought I'd say I completely agree with Rowley here, well said mate.

Welcome Mick, i too agree as well

House rules are agree with most of what i say if you want peace and quiet! Don't ever agree with D4 and try to avoid calling the moderators twonks as they don't view that favourably! And don't mention modern nutrition what ever you do!!!!!!

Coxy, what stream and do you need a relatively new TV?

shenglong1983 wrote:I know its not Cleverley's fault etc. But for Sky Sports to charge the public £15 for Saturday nights debacle is a disgrace.

I understand all of us are big boxing fans and a match ticket would cost more etc. And people will always pay money to watch any boxing event but you must admit it is now farcical. Pay Per View was invented for large world title fights similar to the Rumble in the Jungle or the up and coming eagerly anticipated Haye - Klitschko fight. I think Sky have totally lost touch with the common man and have lost sense with reality, charging £15 during a time of economic struggle for a one sided show with no real proven stars.

Boxing fans seem to be the only sports fans punished and forced to pay a subsiduary for the sport they love (barring WWE of course), with the greatest of respect, imagine if Sky Sports showed Stoke Vs Bolton, Birmingham Vs Fulham but to watch Chelsea Vs Man Utd it cost an extra £15?

There would be a public outcry. Why do we stand for this?

There is only one way we can get Sky to listen.

We need to boycott this Saturday in our masses, anyone who has already purchased the fight under the pretense that it was Cleverley - Braehmer/ Bellew needs to contact Sky Sports (Tel: 08442410363) and cancel their subscription, get refunded their money in full, it is the only way we the people can show Warren/ Sky and the money grabbing men that represent boxing that we no longer are going to be conned.

This worked with Khan - McCloskey, and Sky had to shift it to Sky Sports 3, before Khan eventually opted for PrimeTime.

If we continually boycott these imbalanced, stupid PPV events we all collectively could see our sport return to Sky Sports proper - a service we already pay vast amounts of cash for on a yearly basis.

Anyone who still wants to pay £15 for Saturday nights fights now, seriously needs their head examined.

Sheng.

Yes Sky need to be consistent, if they cancelled the Khan vs McCloskey PPV event why have they not cancelled this one?

It is funny seeing all the people disagreeing with Sheng when only a month ago they thought it was a great idea that the Khan vs McCloskey fight should have been taken of PPV.

Coxy, what stream and do you need a relatively new TV?

http://www.boxingguru.eu/ was the one i used to use but has been a bit unreliable. Alternatively use http://www.myp2p.eu/index.php?part=sports and find the fight on the best stream you can find that works

All the TV needs is to have a RCA (basically ins for aux cables)

You need a VGA to RCA lead that you can pick up from PC World, Currys etc etc:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/1-8M-VGA-LEAD-CABLE-LAPTOP/dp/B000P3NZ68

It's definately one of those things to get the most expensive as you'll need the best cable you can get to carry the signal, cheaper the cable the crappier the picture

Michaels, Sean wrote:Coxy, what stream and do you need a relatively new TV?

I use myp2p.eu on my laptop. My laptop isnt new and doesnt have HDMI. I have a newish telly though - but even the new ones still support component cable (like a monitor cable both ends) - i just connect this cable via my laptop to my tv and it works fine. I did this for the Khan fight.

D4:

Dont worry buddy I'm used to it.

If I said I hated the BNP people would vote for them.

A WBA world title fight Khan Vs unbeaten reigning European champion Paul McCloskey in Khans home coming wasnt fit enough for PPV, BUT Hold up,


DeGale Vs Groves for the British title is definately PPV material???

Beggars belief, or is there something more sinister to peoples opinions???

I wonder.....

Hark at the resident WUM getting high and mighty!

shenglong1983 wrote:D4:

Dont worry buddy I'm used to it.

If I said I hated the BNP people would vote for them.

A WBA world title fight Khan Vs unbeaten reigning European champion Paul McCloskey in Khans home coming wasnt fit enough for PPV, BUT Hold up,


DeGale Vs Groves for the British title is definately PPV material???

Beggars belief, or is there something more sinister to peoples opinions???

I wonder.....

I'm not saying I agree with this still being PPV without Braehmer, but it's a bit different to the Khan farce. It's happened at much shorter notice, and until Braehmer pulled out there were at least those two fights people were looking forward to. In comparison Khan's bill was a damp squib because there wasn't enough filler to begin with, not due to withdrawals.

Shenglong,

Well said it's got beyond a joke now, I can't remember the last PPV which I really thought thats well worth the £15 (not to say I haven't bought them though).

When PPV first came to UK they were either massive fights with people the public have heard of i.e. Bruno and Lewis and later Naz or 3 or 4 world title fights.

I canvassed about 10 guys in my office, noe of them had heard of Groves or Cleverley and only a couple had heard of De Gale because of the olympics, these guys are all sports fans but only casual boxing fans. How can a guy like Clev who's a decent young fighter build a fanbase on PPV, 10 years ago people were saying you couldn't build public support on Sky Sports.

If this sort of show continues to be PPV, the casual fan will be no more and boxing will be like UFC a sport only for hardcore fans with no global superstars I'm afraid.

Having said all that I really can't miss De Gale v Groves so need a local pub to watch in or if all else fails an interweb stream!

Just because I found it interesting, Sky's PPVs:

96 Tyson v Bruno 660,000
97 Tyson v Holyfield 1 550,000
97 Hamed v Kelley
97 Tyson v Holyfield 2
98 Hamed v Vasquez
98 Hamed v McCullough
99 Lewis v Holyfield 1 400,000
99 Hamed v Ingle
99 Hamed V Soto
99 Lewis v Holyfield 2
00 Tyson v Francis 500,000
00 Tyson v Saverese
00 Hamed v Sanchez
00 Hamed V Soto
00 Lewis v Grant
00 Lewis v Botha
01 Lewis v Tua
01 Lewis V Rahman 1
01 Lewis v Rahman 2
01 Hamed Barrera
02 Lewis v Tyson 760,000
02 Hamed v Calvo
03 Lewis v Klitschko
05 Hatton v Tszyu
05 Hatton v Maussa
06Hatton v Collazo
07 Hatton v Urango
07 Hatton v Mayweather 1,000,000
08 Hatton v Lazcano
08 Khan v Prescott
08 Khan v Fagan /Pac v De la Hoya
08 Hatton v Malignaggi
09 Khan v Barrera
09 Hatton v Pac 450 000
09 Khan v Kotelnik
09 Haye v Valuev 800,000
09 Khan v Salita
10 Haye v Ruiz
10 Mag 7
10 Haye v Harrison 800,000
10 Return of Mag 7/ Khan Maidana
11 Cleverly v XX/ Groves v Degale

Thanks Sugarray, and you make an epic point about fighters building fan bases.

This PPV is making it now nearly impossible.

I have loads of casual boxing friends, although I never call them "fans" of the sport and they too would be in the same boat, most would not have heard of Groves or Cleverley, and I wouldnt expect them to as they have never had enoguh televised coverage and now they want people to pay £15 to watch them.

They are crippling the sport with this.

But no point in preaching to some of the people on this board, I guess its difficult to explain to big boxing fans like Cooxy and Scottrf etc. They love the game and dont mind paying to watch the sport thwey love and credit to them, but I think they are totally missing the bigger picture and how detrimental it will be to the sport in the long term.


But well done lad, for grasping the idea of what I was trying to achieve today.

Can only think that if this is a successful ppv, warren/sky might try sticking degale as ppv for future fights.

..il be streaming it tomoro!

Good list Scott.

There is a severe drop off in quality once Warren unleashes Hatton and then Khan to the PPV scene and realises people will pay PPV for just about anything!

Mayweather and Pac Man are only ones of Hatton warranting PPV.

The only Haye fight which warranted PPV was against Enzo Mac, but that was on Setanta, besides I spent 200 notes on tickets which kinda bias's me!

Khan hasn't had a fight that should have been PPV!

I understand your point completely sheng, it's shortsightedness. Return now rather than investing in a fanbase for the future.

But realistically, what do you expect promoters to do? Boxers demand the purses or another promoter will sign them up, terrestrial TV isn't interested. This fight simply wouldn't happen without PPV, Sky stumped up £400k for the second fight on the bill. I believe Braemer was on £300k, not sure about Cleverly but it's an expensive bill.

Anyway, I respect your stance and would urge anyone who doesn't feel it's worth it to not pay. But another person's money is for them to spend how they like.

sheng

I do completely understand the fanbase point of view. Naturally Clev won't be PPV for every fight. It just so happens he's co-headlining a fight that's got most UK boxing fans excited.... Most sports fans have heard of both (Groves as a result of Degale i might add) and those around my age (and older obviously, i was 10 or so when that was all kicking off so just about remember it etc) instantly think "Benn v Eubank all over again".... Just saying that's the vibe having been around the rugby/cricket lads etc

40 odd PPVs in 15 years isn't thattttt bad though.... i mean that's only £600... probably lost that amount over the years in shrapnel falling out my pockets

One PPV won't destroy his chances of building a fan base. Look at Froch, barely on TV yet has a decent following etc. Side note but his fight with Johnson has been picked up by Sky, which i'm more than happy about as he deserves it.

The main problem for me is that we're not only paying the £15 for the fight, we're also paying £45 (or more depending on package) a month.....so for some reason unbeknown to myself some executive thought us stupid enough to pay for it twice....and it seems some of us are proving him right.
Bring on the stream.

As sweet pea's alluded to, greed is like a contagious virus, once Warren and SKY realise DeGale can capture X amount of PPV, that will be it for the rest of his career PPV for every fight from here on in.

And Cooxy it wont be long before Froch will be on PPV on Sky and it will snowball from there.

You say there has only ever been 40 odd PPV's and that isnt much, but we can see from the figures posted that it used to be few and far between, and for top fights.

In the last 12 rolling months we fans through one station or another have had to pay tooth and nail for any decent fights, the Magnificent 7, Haye - Harrison, Khan - McCloskey, now DeGale - Groves then Haye - Klitschko.

How come the football fans can make a stand and refute the "Premiership Plus" channel but we are the stereotypical "punchy" boxing fans accept paying extra to watch our sport?

Scott:

I understand people can spend their money how they like and I am not trying to be an economic Mousillini, I am simply saying if we unite and boycott this PPV SKY TV would have no other option than to stage these fights on regular SKY channels.

What other option would SKY have? Drop boxing all together? Dont think so....

Smalltime:

100% right mate. People always refer to Pacquiao fights at 4am as "free", they are not "free" I pay a SKY subscription and as a result expect to see top sports on their network. It is not "free" it is paid for by all those who subscribe.

Its about time we all took a stand against these con artists.

I too will be streaming.