itv back in profit [more boxing maybe]

your just being a twat for the sake of it now. sky is where boxing belongs. the sport doesnt need itv. deal with it

 

my numbers have been backed up by a fighter on the show who said if anything i am low balling

what good is it not being a niche sport?

every twat in the world has an opinion about football when they no nothing about the sport. I dont wanna be in a bar and hear someone talking about Amir Khan being "really fasy"

 

I didnt say they were too high or too low, unless you ask the people themselves you cant possibly know the right numbers aka still speculating. Makes it just a bit of fun but that aint what you're doing you're being serious about them and these sky ones- GUESS WORK, and even your guess work on the number of people to potentially own Sky Sports proves the sport is being limited. Get boxing news read 60 second interview 1 question "What would you change about the sport" more often than not more t.v dates and more money is the answer. Simple economics that despite your boring maths calculations you cant grasp

As for Khans 'fasy' hands and being over 'protectedy' well you get trolls on here who claim to be boxing fans, you're gonna get that deal with it

Basically you need boxing to be a niche sport as it means less people would know how much of a whining ***** you are :good

 

Boxing was a mainstream sport in the UK until it went to Sky. That's a fact. For someone who spent the last month having a tantrum about how they were going to leave boxing behind, it's hilarious that you want to restrict it.

When Khan was on ITV, loads of people who weren't boxing fans watched it and they would ask me about it at work. They knew who Calzaghe was (do you think he'd have sold out the Millennium Stadium if he hadn't been on ITV?), they even knew who Maccarinelli was.

You'll bring up Hatton next, but he's an exception who proves the rule.

 

Agree with this whole post, when khan was on itv boxing had a big lift. Rob do you think that DeGale would be as popular as he is if the olympics were shown on sky?

 

Imagine if we had match ups soon with Degale, Groves, Travis Dickinson, even Jefferies down the line when the aforemtioned move up and if Jaffa could sort himself/trainer situation out. Different styles, different personas, 2 from up north 2 from down south the fights to be made there are staggering and have the potential to be the 2nd coming of our Golden era. This would only be possible if these fighters were brought up on terrestrial t.v for casual and hardcore fans alike to get to know the fighters and their personalities and turns these lads into mainstream stars. Makes no sense in PREFERRING to keep thse fighters limited and with it lessen thier earning potential whilst entertaining us. Shame on you Rob

 

Great personalities, contrasting styles - just like Eubank and Benn...

 

First off.....Dickinson and Jeffries will never be beyond euro level. and thats pushing it. plus sky pay more money for fights than itv so they are making more money.

As a boxing fan, i want to see the big fights. Hatton vs Mayweather/Pacquiao would of never happend if Hatton was just bringing terrestiral tv to the table.

Haye and Hatton have prooved you can become a star without terrestiral TV. Khan has shown terrestrial TV won't make you a star fighter. Sky wouldnt even pay for his last fight and he got low PPV numbers.

The problem is this. Only the biggest sporting events should be on terrestrial TV. World Cup, Wimbledon, Olympics, Champions League. Major Boxing matches like Haye vs Klitscko and Hatton vs Mayweather should be there to but theres no way the BBC or ITV will ever be able to afford those fights.

Domestic level boxing doesn't beling on terestrial TV. It belongs on a dedicated Sports channel.

If George Groves and James DeGale are more popular with the masses.....how does they change your enjoyment of the fight as a boxing fan. if it was on sky, itv, bravo, babestation you would still watch the fight??

 

My point is DeGale had big exposure due to the terrestrial coverage of the olympics. Doubt he would be as well known of the olympics were shown by a pay to view service I.e sky.

If an England football match was put on terrestrial and sky, I guarantee on my life terrestrial would have more viewers. Reason is because its free ffs. I like spanish chorizo sausage, had it not been free to try on the deli counter at sainsburys I would never have tried it! So by using the anology and logic how can you blood new fans and the mainstream audience into boxing when the only platform for viewing is limited. Rob we're in a recession where most people cut back on luxuries, the sky sports package would be first to go in most households, common sense mate!!!

You do make good points but overall you fighting a losing battle, terrestrial ktfo sky for audience scope.

 

DeGale would never be as big as Khan. He doesn't have the story to endear him to the public. Khan was a 17 year old Muslim kid at the Olympics, plus his fighting style was exciting.

DeGale just reminds people of a 15 year old twat you find outside a cinema on a saturday night.

 

Khan has the chin of a 15 year old twat.

 

Class rob, degale is like one of those horrible *******s who used to wear rockport boots and a berghaus coat loitering in the middle of corridors at schools taking money off the youngs uns and selling ***s to 11yr olds at schools. Spot on roberto ;-)

 

You saying Benn-Eubank, McGuigan-Pedroza, Calzaghe-Lacy etcetc werent big fights?? They pulled in numbers promoters today could only dream of, mainly talking about the 1st 2. The point youre either too dim or single minded to see is if you get British and European level fighters on terrestrial t.v MORE people can attach themselves to fighters at an early stage of thier career and feel a part of the boxers' journey. It dont matter if they're world class (referring to your comment re dickinson and jefferies) coz your casual fan will buy into personalities, you say Jaffa aint much and he might not be but he's a big **** off draw up north and with itv/bbc backing he'd be even greater a crowd puller.

Then when the fighters that progress to world level can seek the bigger t.v deals with Sky and ppv, its natural progression and the viewers then have a choice. Pay to continue watching the hero theyve invested their time watching or find a new up and comer for fee. its a basic logic but its a tried and tested one. Your hatton and haye examples are ridiculous as they are exceptions, hatton being the nations biggest draw because of who he is not how he fights woulda been even bigger if he was recognised earlier on and haye's marketed himself very well and only just reached £4mill a year as hw champ.

Your last comment is selfish and pedantic, your thinking of yourself not the fighters. Sky pay more sure, but they dont pay for all the poor sods working hard and see fights fall through coz of lack of tv dates. More tv dates, especially terrestrial means fighters of all levels get a chance of making £, and as i say if theyre top notch they can find better deals elsewhere ie Sky.

The sports you mentioned shouldnt just be terrestrial they should be on BBC, ****ing t.v licence money ought to get you the HUGE events you ridiculously brought up. Its a boxing forum **** off elsewhere if you cant stick within the sport to give credibilty to your 'we need it to be a niche sport' argument

 

read this article and had to laugh. its just pure speculation with no evidence to back it up. there will be no UK TV for this card. its the shobox date hennesey had had for some time.

you gotta ask yourself, why would any tv company deal with Hennesey especially ITV?

They had a contract with him to show his fighters, but when Froch gets a fight in the US its not part of the deal? How comes the Dirrell fight was not part of the ITV contract?? Instead ITV get O'Donnell vs Tom Glover with Angel McEnzie on the undercard.

If anything its far more likley Primetime would show it. No TV company will deal with Hennesey and I don't blame them.