I'm a big froch fan and I like this fight but it's a joke that it's on box office. Froch vs Kessler was fair enough, Kessler was out going to come over for a massive purse. Haye vs fury I can just about deal with because they both had options to fight eliminators for world titles but rejected that for big money. But this I'm not happy with. Groves wants a world title and would have taken this fight for 2 quid and froch was never going to vacate his title. Groves is not proven enough to be a pay-per-view attraction! Unacceptable.
I'm not not bothered, but are you saying a whole month's boxing programming, including archived fights, analysis small shows etc isn;t worth a £10. But Froch-Groves is worth £15. The problem with the Groves-Froch fight is that it signals the way toward alot of PPV stuff going forward
It's a round of drinks? If you're skint watch it in the pub or chip in with some mates... Why are people moaning? Punters paid $70 in the US Mayweather/Canelo for the HD feed!
As I have said before... Quote: Hearn... told The Daily Telegraph: "We want to keep Carl on Sky Box Office in the UK..." ***********.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/boxing/10137578/Carl-Froch-handed-four-superfights-by-HBO-as-defeat-of-Mikkel-Kessler-makes-America-sit-up-and-take-notice.html Eddie Hearn previously said: Thats important, [Hayes first fight with Matchroom to be on Sky Sports] especially with our mission because fan perception of what were doing is important, we dont want them to think: Oh, Froch-Kesslers pay-per-view so thats how it is going to go now, it isnt, answered Hearn when asked if putting Haye on Sky Sports was an indication that the powers-that-be wont milk the PPV teat dry. Froch and Kessler is a freak fight that comes around once in many years, especially in the U.K., so when we signed David people came out and said it would be another pay-per-view, but it isnt what Im saying is that pay-per-view should be for something very, very special. Haye on normal Sky Sports will do massive numbers, and thats paramount to what Im trying to do on Sky. "Froch and Kessler is a freak fight that comes around once in many years" "we dont want them to think: Oh, Froch-Kesslers pay-per-view so thats how it is going to go now, it isnt," "what Im saying is that pay-per-view should be for something very, very special" But now they want to keep Froch on PPV? All Carl Froch fights now are "very very special"? I got the impression from what Hearn was saying before that PPV would only be used rarely. I'm tempted to say that Hearn isn't living up to what he said, but is going down the "milk the fans" path.
Problem is most of the streaming sites are rubbish now so it will be a nightmare watching on them with it keep cutting out every two minutes
10 million homes have sky TV in the UK where as in america around 60 million have cable that allows you to order PPV. This may have an effect on the costs we pay, on top of that the fight was shown at 4am and a low UK price may help to get more viewers. In America the Mayweather v Alvarez fight cost $64.99 which is £40.95 here. i don't thin it is expensive and you do not have to watch it. Obviously you have computers so watch it online somewhere for nothing!
Exactly. I think it really shows Hatton/Haye/Froch's box office efforts when you consider that back then sky in that time has had 8-10 million subscribers and they were getting almost 800,000 - 1 million buys. Thats like a boxing PPV in the US doing 6-7million buys