Frank Warren new TV deal: 3 Saturday shows rumoured for September

Yes, because Richard Branson is dirt poor, as we all know. And its not UFC, its Strikeforce.

 

It doesnt matter if Branson is rich. ESPN are owned by Disney and have bags of money. They aint giving it away for free though. Makes no sense to!!

 

ESPN don't have Strikeforce or Warren though. Branson will come up with the goods, it will all be made clear at tomorrows conference mate:good

 

I wonder how much bigger a star Hatton would have been if his career had been broadcast on BBC or ITV.

I think Sky do a tremendous job with their sports production in the main, but if you want a good example of how a mainstream sport has been harmed by being shown just on Sky, try cricket. In 2005, England won the Ashes for the first time in 18 years. That series was watched by huge numbers on Channel 4, who's coverage and commentary was actually far better than Sky's. Cricket enjoyed more popularity than it had in years, participation and interest went through the roof and clubs and associations were thriving.

Cricket then went exclusivly to Sky and the 2009 Ashes received nowhere near the amount of interest or coverage as the last. Participation in cricket is actually down on 2005 and clubs and leagues are actually folding where I live (Northants). We actually have a far better side than we've had for years. Our individuals such as Strauss, Swann and Pietersen are far better than household names who were established on mainstream TV such as Gatting and Gower (check their records). Yet how often do you see them on anything other than the cricket.

Now I know on here there is a penchant for old school fighters, but arguably in Haye, we have a fighter who is capable of dominating the heavyweight division (if he pulls his finger out and fights and beats a Klit) and it would be criminal if he wasn't shown on terrestrial TV.

Sky is expensive and is watched by a vast minority of the viewing public. There are some tremendous current fighters out there (Haye, Froch, Khan) and some incredible prospects (Gavin, Bellew, S Smith) but boxing will never get back to where it was until it gets back regularly on BBC or ITV.

People might say things have changed since the late 80's early 90's boxing heyday in this country. But I still think there are millions of casual sports fan who would quite happily watch David Haye fight on BBC or ITV...just as happened when Benn, Eubank and Naz were on terrestrial back then. But is a casual sports fan going to pay £15 to watch a fight when they are already paying £45 a month? No.

Anyone who thinks boxing doesn't need terrestrial TV in this country is deluded

 

Really good post, apart from the bit highlighted.

Modern averages in cricket are misleading, with shorter boundaries, better quality bats and easier pitches.

Plus a general downturn in the standard of bowling.

:good

 

My batting hasn't got any better, I'm still only averaging 15 this season, which is what I usually end up with

Swann's the best spinner we have produced since Derek Underwood but outside of cricket, no-one knows him. Plus he's a top lad a great value on tv!

I guess my point was that cricket and boxing do have outstanding stars, but they do need a forum to showcase their talent to the masses and no matter how good the Sky coverage is, not enough people watch it cos it's too expensive.:good

 

Pure tripe.

 

Because...

 

Yet a darts player called Phil Taylor can become mainstream playing something which many wouldnt even call a sport thanks to Sky TV.

 

Phil Taylor. Mainstream. Really??

 

One or two of the really top names in any given sport will become household names now. In darts it's Phil Taylor, that fat Scottish bloke with the beard and that Dutchman. Twenty years ago you could reel off a dozen darts players.

Boxing's the same. Hatton, Khan and maybe Haye are household names but there's no-one else. The same twenty years ago you had Benn, Eubank, Watson, Bruno, Lewis, Duke MacKenzie, Lloyd Honeyghan. It's not all down to Sky, but the smaller viewing figures do have an influence.

 

But surely there just isnt the talent in British boxing like there was then. How many world champions are there now? How many fighters actually are on the fringe of becoming world champion? There just isnt the star power at the moment.

If Snooker's big events were on Sky people would be blaming them for the demise in that sport. However snooker has been on terrestrial tv and is dying a slow death. It doesnt matter that terrestrial tv gives exposure to much more homes than sky does. The sport just doesnt have enough stars and doesnt interest the public anymore.

There is nothing to stop the written press to give more space to boxing?

 

I can guarantee 100% that there will not be a Virgin sports channel. In the last couple of weeks Virgin Media confirmed the long rumoured withdrawal from owning channels and is becoming purely a service provider. Sky have bought all the channels owned by Virgin: the soon to be rebranded Virgin 1, Living etc. Can't post a link as I'm on my mobile but feel free to Google.

 

Dan-B is Richard Bransons Son and he has confirmed there will be a sports channel:good

 

[url]http://www.frankwarren.tv/boxing/index.php/latest-news/news-stories/452-burns-title-shot-confirmed.html[/url]

Burns vs Smith confirmed but no word on Sky.