Discussion in 'British Boxing Forum' started by Puroresu_Fan, Jan 2, 2019.
So according to that video the PPV didn't hit Eddie's expectations
400k is a phenomenal number for a non world title fight with no former champion involved. Although I reckon Hearn is a bit disappointed. I believe he expected more. I also think Warrington/Frampton took more buys off him than the the "twenty or thirty thousand" he envisaged.
PPV is a pain in the hole. Sometimes I bite the bullet and buy the fight but it's a rip off for fans who already pay monthly subscriptions for sky and bt, as I do.
I would've paid £50 to watch Fury/Wilder because Fury is my favourite fighter and I wasn't missing that fight for anything. However, despite it being a heavyweight title fight with two unbeaten fighters, that ended up being a great fight, I still wouldn't come on here telling people "Its only £20", or "It has to be PPV to make the fights happen" - none of that rubbish.
The clowns on here not only defending PPV, but embracing PPV are idiots. They're either matchroom employees or Eddie Hearn fanboys. Get a life lads!
The bit i truly dont get us when people say certain fighters won't for less than X amount
If Frampton or Whyte ask for say a milk per fight if their promoter then tells them no,where realistically do they go?
It's not Football where a player will find another 5 to 8 clubs willing to pay out
In UK it's Warren and Hearn
If they both stood firm this stops
His sums don't add up in fairness. He reckons Frampton Warrington does 100k tops so not sure where the rest come from.
Well, if Hearn suddenly decided he wouldn't put them on PPV, surely they'd just go to another promoter who would put them on?
Also, the promoters make more money if they sell a successful PPV. Why would they just stop if it meant earning less? Think of what you're asking here; 'why don't boxers and promoters agree to make less money in order to make fights cheaper for fans despite the current set up working from a business perspective?'
What other promoters?
People still absolutely missing the point, time and time again.
Affordability is not the same as value. People paying the same amount for diluted content reduces the value of that product. The more people continue to pay, the easier it is to dilute. THAT is what most of us are pissed off about.
That said, I can be accused of fighting a battle I've no business being in as I haven't paid for a PPV in years. I still think it's worth arguing though as I just want the best fights possible all of the time.
"We spend a lot of money of the undercards"
Total spend for the year must have been 75 quid
It does 500 to 600,000 easily and could do a million
500 to 600,000 is conservative.
It didn't hit any of those numbers
There is ZERO chance of Parker whyte, whyte v chisora being non ppv fights. I enjoyed both fights a hell of a lot. The parker whyte card was the most entertaining £20 of the year!
Sorry That was quoting Hearn from thay video
Zero chance because things like Bellew-Clev had been PPV's in the past and people paid for it, hence my point about diluted product.
So ****ing what if you enjoyed both fights a lot? Is that what you want, every entertaining fight to be worth a score? How about we do it retrospectively and we tally up all the fights you enjoyed then you can reimburse the necessary companies directly?
Have PPV's got worse since then though? Cleverly Bellew was a lot like a really bad old Warren PPV with names against nobodies but it's not really happened since.
I wouldn’t waste your breath pal, just remember the more successful Matchroom and Sky are... the more it will hurt their little sensitive snowflake personalities
The fact remains, you're never going to get better cards if people continue to just fork out for it because it's "only 20 quid!". The quality of content on regular Sky shows this year has suffered as a result. How many world title fights were on regular Sky in 2018? Really didn't feel like many at all.