Amir Khan 1 Sky PPV 0

I don't remember say I don't have a problem with it? Please don't put words in my mouth and no they won't "raise the tone" of boxing by just charging you for it. They are taking what would have been free fights on Sky and making a quick buck off them. This does nothing for boxing what so ever, Sky pick up the majority of decent world title fights with the major names and charge nothing for them unless there is a domestic fighter involved (or at least has been the trend in the last few years), to take some of these fights and make you pay for them does NOTHING for the fans. No way around it, no way to argue it. Primetime profitted from Khans short sighted I want to be on PPV all the time attitude when Sky pulled the plug on it, good for them, not good for fans.

 

Sky have Degale vs Groves on PPV ffs, they are such fine gentlemen.

 

So having only 1 PPV channel will increase the casual fan base?

Surely having 2 PPV channels creates a competition and over time therefore reduce the cost of PPV, PPV is here therefore the more competition the better.

We all want it for free but unlikely its going to happen.

 

How will it reduce the cost of a PPV, two channels don't show the same PPV on the night, its exclusive, so the price will stay the same. If anythin the price will go up on covering the increasing costs they have in competing to get the fight.

 

This is ******ed. So so ******ed. I actually don't even have the will go into the specifics of it's ******ation as I believe a large part of my soul died when I read the post. But trust me, it's ******ed.

 

Not entirely sure its a good thing.

Primetime have shown 2 poor quality fights at £15 a pop with poor undercards, how have we benefited?

Sky wanted to show Khan/McCloskey for free.

 

It's also a sad state of affairs when you're charging people £15 for a PPV and the picture quality is worse than that offered by free online streams.

Unless they can actually make assurances about improved picture quality for their next show then I think i'll opt to find another way to watch it.

 

Of course they wont both show them but both will potentially want to show the same fights, let me help explain a bit further.

When you go to buy a car do you just buy it from the main dealer? NO.

Not explaining any further.

And no-one is saying the boxing fans have gained anything from primetime PPV, but may do in the future if they improve.

 

look we can all say bla bla this and bla bla that, if it wasnt for the fact that team khan are a bunch of ****s surrounded by a bunch of ****s then i would like khan a hell of a lot more.....

its not the lads fault, i just cant stand his crew and sometimes that passes over to khan himself from my point of view.

 

Sky are best to just play it cool. What immediate fights does Khan have that are genuinely PPV worthy and interesting? Timothy Bradley? No chance. When he moves up to 147 a fight with Brook would be interesting and also one with Mayweather. But, 4am Khan fights with a **** undercard belong on Primetime.

If Khan gets the Mayweather fight or makes the fight with Brook then his team would need their heads examined if they didnt have it on Sky, they will make a lot more money and that is all that counts in the end.

In 9 -12 months time - Sky will have more options on the table for PPVs. Froch will be free from the Super Six tourney and he can fight the likes of Kessler, Bute, Cleverly etc in the UK.

I think Haye will be back for one more big fight, you can't rule that out.

Khan will be back for the big fights.

And the only option Wazza has for the time being is another Magnificent Seven style card headlined by Cleverly-Bellew.

In the future, I still believe that Degale will emerge as a PPV fighter.