PPV for Froch v Kessler - Telegraph!!!!

[GazOC]

Originally Posted by USA Rob

Hearn said he has nothing to do with the undercard.

Thats very handy for him.

[Marlow]

Originally Posted by USA Rob

Hearn said he has nothing to do with the undercard.

You referring to the Haye fight?

[stevebhoy87]

While I'd obviously rather it wasn't PPV, it's a fight I will pay to watch, one of the few I think is worth spending the extra money on. Hope it's not the same night as the champions league though, undercard will be very weak if it is.

[USA Rob]

Originally Posted by Marlow

You referring to the Haye fight?

yeh. there was an interview criticising the undercard and Hearn said he new it was bad but he had nothing to do with it.

[USA Rob]

Originally Posted by shaunster101

So the options will be use PPV, come up with a system that has yet to be invented by anyone else in sports broadcasting history, or don't have the fight.

I'm not a fan of PPV by any stretch of the imagination - but it has obviously become a necessary evil to generate the revenue required to set up certain fights in this country. I can stomach it if it is used purely as a means of making fights that others wise would not be made for financial reasons - the only problem is it soons turns in to a way of fleecing the sportsfan who already pays through the nose for multiple sports channel subscriptions.

DFTaylor has invented something, but he won't tell us.

[GazOC]

Originally Posted by USA Rob

yeh. there was an interview criticising the undercard and Hearn said he new it was bad but he had nothing to do with it.

What was his excuse for the main event?

[Boxalot]

I can't believe what i'm reading on this thread?!

Are people seriously complaining about having to pay £15 to see one of the most highly anticipated fights in boxing between two proud warriors who deserve a payday as much as anyone in the sport?

[ero-sennin]

Originally Posted by GazOC

What was his excuse for the main event?

e-mails.

[ero-sennin]

Originally Posted by Boxalot

I can't believe what i'm reading on this thread?!

Are people seriously complaining about having to pay £15 to see one of the most highly anticipated fights in boxing between two proud warriors who deserve a payday as much as anyone in the sport?

£15 on top of the subscription, in a ****ed up economy. Kessler vs Froch is no way ppv worthy. They are not superstars, not Mayweather/Pacquio, and like Oli said in another thread, this fight is to see who is second best, after Ward. They will get their payday anyway. They're set for life, and never need to work again. If anyone needs a payday it's the rest of us.

This warrior talk also goes a bit too far sometimes. I understand they take risks every time they step into the ring, but they're entertainers who have made a choice to fight for a prize. Not as if they're soldiers or Roman gladiators.

[fg2227]

I love froch but he aint even close to being a PPV worthy fighter.

[ishy]

Originally Posted by Boxalot

I can't believe what i'm reading on this thread?!

Are people seriously complaining about having to pay £15 to see one of the most highly anticipated fights in boxing between two proud warriors who deserve a payday as much as anyone in the sport?

No fighter ever 'deserves' a payday. They earn them. Don't even think Kessler needs this financially, he seems to make good money at home taking on people like Allan Green.

I could probably name a dozen fights (if not more) that I'd like to see before Froch/Kessler. It's a good fight but not one I'm counting down the days to.

And boxing fans should complain about paying an extra £15. For too long promoters have token us for mugs and put shows on PPV that aren't worth it. And they've known that the fans will pay regardless. Well **** that. Time that attitude changed.

[Boxalot]

Originally Posted by ero-sennin

£15 on top of the subscription, in a ****ed up economy. Kessler vs Froch is no way ppv worthy. They are not superstars, not Mayweather/Pacquio, and like Oli said in another thread, this fight is to see who is second best, after Ward. They will get their payday anyway. They're set for life, and never need to work again. If anyone needs a payday it's the rest of us.

This warrior talk also goes a bit too far sometimes. I understand they take risks every time they step into the ring, but they're entertainers who have made a choice to fight for a prize. Not as if they're soldiers or Roman gladiators.

Kessler vs Froch has to be PPV or the fight can't happen, they're getting paid £2million each! It's 100% PPV worthy imo, and is the best fight that could be made on British soil right now.

I'll quite happily be paying £300+ for a ringside seat to this, and i'm far from rich. It's a great fight and just be grateful that we don't have to pay out $60+ for every decent fight like they do in the US. £15 for a fight like this is absolutely nothing.

[ishy]

They're getting paid 2m each because the promoters know they can fleece us.

Frank got Kessler over here when he was undefeated and held two world titles. He was ranked no.2 in the division and Calzaghe was no.1 and Joe was a bigger name than Froch is now. That wasn't on PPV. You got that as part of your £10 a month Setanta subscription.

[Boxalot]

Originally Posted by ishy

They're getting paid 2m each because the promoters know they can fleece us.

Frank got Kessler over here when he was undefeated and held two world titles. He was ranked no.2 in the division and Calzaghe was no.1 and Joe was a bigger name than Froch is now. That wasn't on PPV. You got that as part of your £10 a month Setanta subscription.

Because it was in a massive arena and sold a student amount of tickets.

It's taken £2million to get Kessler over here and he deserves every penny imo. If it means the fight is on PPV then that's fine with me, whatever it takes to get the fight made. It's one of the best, most even fights that can be made at the moment and it's not like we're paying out for PPV every month like they do in the US. In fact, what was the last PPV? Haye vs Klitschko? 18 months ago now.

[dftaylor]

Originally Posted by shaunster101

Don't know what it has to do with Hearn. Any other British promoter would face the exact same situation. If Froch was promoted by any other British promoter who had the same deal with Sky, it would be the same.

The purses have to be paid for out of the money generated for that fight? Promoters are not going to pay for purses that surpass the money made by the fight.

So the options will be use PPV, come up with a system that has yet to be invented by anyone else in sports broadcasting history, or don't have the fight.

I'm not a fan of PPV by any stretch of the imagination - but it has obviously become a necessary evil to generate the revenue required to set up certain fights in this country. I can stomach it if it is used purely as a means of making fights that others wise would not be made for financial reasons - the only problem is it soons turns in to a way of fleecing the sportsfan who already pays through the nose for multiple sports channel subscriptions.

I'm surprised you even asked that question. Eddie is the promoter, yes? So it has everything to do with him. Whether others are in the same position is irrelevant, we're talking about this fight.

There's no point promoters complaining about low margins and then setting up fights they can't afford. And there wasn't any real need to make this fight, it means nothing of great significance. It's on ppv because Eddie can't afford to pay his two fighters without it.

Genuine ppv fights make big money from tickets to tv, they don't require one to shore up the other. That's why this isn't ppv.