Not sure I completely agree with that. It is impossible for a channel to launch from a standing start and immediately hit break even subscriber numbers. There is always going to be a period of loss-making building up the consumer base. The question is how realistic is the breakeven point and how long does it take to get there. I don't think we should take the fact that Setanta ran out of cash before they reached a profitable subscriber base as evidence that they weren't showing what people wanted to see. It can just as easily be seen as proof that they reached too ambitiously without deep enough pockets.
Oh, I thought it was ESPN. I don't have the channel but on the TV guide it says ESPN and Abraham live. Must still be showing as the Setanta programme schedule.
If ESPN are going to be serious rivals to sky and start buying some of skys programs then hopefully we'll see room for more boxing on sky as well as the boxing we'll get on ESPN.
Which part of this aren't you getting? Showtime/HBO don't own the rights in the UK unless they buy those. Why would they buy them when they don't have broadcast outlets in the UK? Showtime/HBO own the rights to broadcast fights in the United States. If someone then wants to broadcast the fight in the UK, Germany or Nepal, they would buy the rights from whoever holds those - fighter(s) or promotion company depending on the arrangement for that promotion. Why are you saying 'look at Froch/Taylor' when it proves the exact opposite of your argument? Showtime broadcast the fight in the US, but had nothing to do with the rights in the UK. Mick Hennessy held the rights as part of the contract for the promotion of that fight. He was unable to find a buyer at the price he wanted and broadcast the fight on the internet instead. The only thing I can fathom where you might be getting confused is that I guess a fee would have to be payable to the US broadcaster if a UK broadcaster wanted to use their actual coverage, commentary, analysis, etc. But Sky or Setanta never did that, so I don't see why ESPN would either.
hardly struggling mate........ I seem to remember they were rapidly expanding..... they were ambitious and wanted to challange sky and they got ripped off on the tv rights for the premier league thats what caused the problem the channell was doing fine with all the "niche" sports :deal