Boycott primetime!

Wasn't the whole issue with Sky that they wanted to show the McCloskey fight on normal Sky Sports and Khan wouldn't take the cut?

 

agree **** primetime

 

my mates all boycott primetime ,so im sure the 1 less sale will really make them listen!

 

I thought that it was that he was offered SS3 and he wanted 1 or 2, and McCloskey was a stand-in opponent, anyway, when Khan failed to land a big US name, but regardless of that - Peterson is a much bigger opponent with a much bigger name in the States, and is the mandatory, so I don't think that the McCloskey fight is a great example. Had Khan landed a Bradley instead of a McCloskey Sky would have ppv'd it, most likely.

And specific examples don't detract from my point - big fights don't suddenly become free without Primetime. Quite apart from anything else, we pay for Sky.

 

Alright, here's one then. Fast Eddie vs. Wladimir. That worth PPV? Granted it wasn't a £15 (think it was £10), but that's not a PPV worthy fight, surely.

 

simon templer is a multi of ***** Diablo ,he has a few multi...pathetic and shows how desperate they are for our money

 

Simon Templar is a gentleman and should be treated as such.

 

Khan pulled out because he wanted to be on PPV, nothing to do with which regular Sky channel they were offering. They never offered the fight to a big US name. As far as I know the fighters they were in negotations with were Witter, Peterson and McCloskey. No "big US name".

Peterson isn't a much bigger opponent at all. No one in the UK knows who he is, and the fight will be on in the middle of the night.

There was never any plan to fight Bradley in April. After April the Khan's were told that even if they were fighting Bradley or Judah it wouldn't be on Sky PPV.

 

Some very astute analysis in this thread but 1 more point.
Nobody was forced to pay for Froch. No other channel
Was interested in showing his fights up until the super 6 semi finals. If they had, Primetime would never have come into existence.
There is a whole other debate about the rights and wrongs of why a channel would show a boxer managed by 1 promoter and not another but for now I'm
With All those who say if you dont want it then just don't buy it.
Why shouldn't Khan be on PPV? Surely he's earnt the right to make big money? He,s unified world titles, and is arguably the most well known boxer in Britain. ( I won't say best as that's debatable) If more people want to see him fight than anyone else, surely he,s entitled to be well paid for that?

Realistically the likes of Khan will always be ppv and others will all be on some other form of pay tv. It's just a bonus we get Tyson Fury on terrestrial for free.

 

I guess there is always a first time, but it has never happened before.

Hypothetically if Primetime did go bust:

I am also guessing BoxNation is long term looking for a profit. So why would they touch the fights that ruined another company? As a fan, the sport is always stronger when there are a number of outlets to watch the sport.

When I first started watching boxing in the early 80s, you had ITV and the BBC showing a limited amount of fights. It got a little better in the late 80s, but still boxing had its limitations coverage wise.

It was only when SKY got in on the act, that we as British fans of boxing started to get anything resembling decent coverage.

As a person in the late 80s who had to shell out £5 every time I wanted to watch a decent fight, and that meant Closed Circuit, I am pretty glad now PPV's are around and I can at least watch a fight in the comfort of my own home, not some grubby Town Hall, with a TV having a crap picture and very often no sound...

If we start wishing away different ways of watching the sport, history suggests we limit the amount of boxing we are going to see. I think it is best that all options stay open, and we can then decide whether we want to fork out £15 for a fight.

In recent times I have not always brought PrimeTime fights, but I am glad I have had option to, if I wished.

 

There IS a need for boycotts. How dare they even suggest we pay them £15 to watch mediocrity like Khan vs Mcloskey ect when we would have got them with our Sky subscriptions if only they'd **** off.

No! there cheeky ****s and they can **** off. Im not paying for Primetime EVER. Im not even paying for this boxnation wank either.

 

Don't know what numbers it did, but no, most channels would not put that on as ppv. I bought it, but I just want to see all the fights, want to watch the big names while they are around to watch, so I don't begrudge the money.

But I agree with you that, were there to be some imaginary 'threshold' above which fights qualify for ppv, then that one would surely not have made the cut. However, the game has changed, and these days it does not need to be a guaranteed great fight, it just needs at least one of the fighters to have sufficient 'name'. I'm not saying that that is a great state of affairs, but the Klitschkos and Khan will largely be involved in ppv bills from here on out.

Haye-Audley was always a terrible ppv fight, but it was always going to be on ppv and similar fights will be again.

So I agree that under the old rules Chambers wouldn't be in, but we aren't playing by the old rules any more.

 

TBH thats what it boils down to. People are pissed off that their Sky subs are getting them less boxing. Thats understandable but it looks like thats the way its going to be in the future for at least the medium term.

 

:bart absolutely not. Not when hes fighting the likes of Paul Mcloskey, washed up Zab and Lamont Peterson. Khan vs Maidana was SKY Boxoffice material. The rest isnt.

PPV is NOT a ****ing automatic right for these fighters. Jesus i remember a time when only the BIG fights were PPV and people were quite happy to pay for that. But these days they seem to think EVERYTHING should be PPV

 

'Fraid I don't entirely follow that. Are you saying that I am venusdiablo operating under a different account name to imply that Primetime have more supporters than is, in fact, the case? Or just that I have no real mind of my own and simply support Primetime on autopilot? I genuinely don't know which it is, as I have not heard 'multi' in that context previously.

But whichever definition it is - and do tell me if I am wide of the mark and there is a third explanation that I have missed - I can assure you that I am a 37 year-old fight fan who has nothing to do with Primetime or venusdiablo, I just don't mind paying £15 a pop if that's the only way I get to see the fights I want to see.

So there is nothing pathetic here, I just like boxing. You are seeing things that are not there. Sometimes in life, if people disagree with you, there is no conspiracy, no subterfuge: they simply disagree with you. This is one of those times.