Fair point.. However, how much did it cost henessey to set up the channelin the first place? Hes going to have to pay a presenter etc to do coverage on the channel. Hes done no promotion on the fight/channel as yet so no-one outside of the boxing circle knows about the fight. Finally its only for sky customers which means people like myself on virgin cant tune in and pay £13! Had he put it on terrestrial/sky etc he would have been guaranteed a lump sum and a wider audience. As it stands hes probably going to get **** all buys and id imagine with lack of ticket sales make hee haw money. Were is the sense in that?!
I suspect there is a deal with SKY to cover production costs. The problem is we are hardcore fans, and sometimes forget this is 2009 not 1989, boxing is a minority sport, and as such are going to get minority TV coverage. Froch needed the publicity on the way up and tried; as he has been on both the Beeb and ITV, but as fun as the Pascal fight was, ITV decided that they could still say no to the Taylor fight... Froch is not going to get terrestrial TV coverage, so unless SKY or ESPN are prepared to take a risk which Setanta showed could help ruin them, then PPV is the only logical option. I understand £13 (plus other costs) may be a lot money for some people, but Froch is not doing this sport for love, his primary concern is rightly money.
I can see your point mate. however as much as i hate to say it..If froch was associated with warren he would be a uk/global star by now. Had henessey promoted froch properly e.g getting him on sky sports news,getting his name about not just in nottingham but up and down the country then he would be a far bigger start than he currently is. The bigger the fan base the more money he would make.
The reason ITV said no to the Taylor fight was the time's. When was the last time ITV showed a fight live at 2am?
Would've been so much better to have this fight on for free in order to hype the next two. We should be aiming to attract the casual fan, paying £13 for Froch v Dirrell won't do that.
That's come out of the blue:roll:. Wonder if it has anything to do with..... na, it's been said before. Anyway, 'Primetime' now have their own website: http://www.primetimelive.co.uk/ The banner on the Super Six poster clearly states 'Primetime Channel Debuts Super Six On Sky'. Have they duped Hennessey? It also says in the paragraph below: 'An entire nights worth of live and exclusive boxing action from the UKs newest pay-per-view Channel on Sky. Primetime some events you cant afford to miss ' :think Surely this is just a mix-up?
i fukkin hope that they announce Virgin Customers can get it soon, would not even bother me if it was more expensive to be honest!
Sky have no involvement, other than raking in money for a broadcast on their platform. Independents plus others still in talks I hear. The surprise is that ESPN did not pick this up. Maybe they do not have the money in their current budget. But it would make have made sense if they are to gain respectability in the UK market as serious players. Maybe next time ... after all whatever the merits of Dirrell, chances are Carl is too big and heavy handed. Now Kessler in Denmark. That is tough, and you really would want to see that. By then, ITV ill have a new CEO so who knows what a New Year might bring and ESPN might have disposable cash by then.
£12.95 for Froch vs Dirrell, plus and undercard fight of Taylor vs Abraham... and you all moan?? Jeeeez. Yet Amir Khan vs Kotlenik floats people's boats ! If this was on Sky sports it would ABSOLUTELY be on pay per view. Screw ITV, they have no intention of getting involved in boxing whilst Xfactor is pulling in the masses. It's not their forte.
Here is a good overview of the primetime tv channel and the Froch fight... http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/oct/02/carl-froch-primetime-tv-deal I will be paying £13 for the Abraham v Taylor fight (and card) and the Froch v Dirrel, fights, no problem with me.