Will Sky show my coment?

Setanta was paying up to 75% more than the market value for the fights... What do you think Sky should have done? Why do you think Sky is so suceessful as a business?

 

calm down Lee FFS. I was asking who you are because you put the follwing comment in you first post.....

"However, surely you don't expect us to financially ruin ourselves to complete with idiots like Setanta who had no business sense?"

See now the word US in their said to me that you may have indeed worked for them hence why I asked who you were

 

Carl Froch has wrote in Adam Smith's blog.

 

saying what

 

Here it is, Slayer:

http://www.skysports.com/opinion/story/0,25212,13841_5535800,00.html

It's obviously someone taking the **** but it's still funny to think Sky published that and nothing mentioned on here (as of yet).

 

Sorry, it's been a crap day and I need a beer and some sex!

 

You surely don't expect Dan to oblige?:hey It's always interesting seeing a difference in opinion on here anyway. I see your point about Sky previously being very good but, for me, that doesn't make up for the present situation- the underacrd fiasco for the Kotelnik-Khan fight was completely stupid as well, IMO:good.

 

Excuse my ignorance Losfer, what happened for the kahn-kotelnik fight, what was the underrcard fiasco on the Sky coverage? Was in the MEN so didnt pick up on things...

 

They televised all of the mismatches involving the 'Olympians' live as well as Small-Hall but never showed Brook-Lomax, Enzo-Lebedev or the Mitchell fight. Bearing in mind they had a scheduled hour left of coverage, they never even broadcasted delayed coverage or highlights of any of the fights I mentioned either. It was a disgrace, IMO:bart. I was left feeling a tad shortchanged- at least Warren put the entire fights on youtube a few days afterwards, though:good.

 

Yeah, I'm pleased to see Warren putting the fights on there, not just interviews, that's great. I don't understand why Sky wouldn't show those fights?? I remember on the night being surprised to see Brook on so early. I thought he'd go last before Khan. That said, it was a good bit of prime time coverage for the Olympians which will help build them up.

 

haha probably not, they never showed my comment on one there articles about US fans being conned by julio ceasar chavez jr being on ppv and how they were just using his name:huh.... i left a comment about how sky put AMIR KHAN on ppv and they werent impressed

 

edit

 

didnt they just make a recent deal with hatton promotions??

 

just posted this comment , about their lack of boxing from america

i think sky do a fairly good job with their coverage of domestic boxing. some of the undercards can be poor though. its their us coverage that has let them down badly in the last year or two. i think im right in saying that the mayweather v marquez fight will be the first us fight shown live on sky sports since mosley v moyorga last september. thats not counting the hatton ppv's or de la hoya v pac. we got a couple of delayed showings in june which were better than nothing being shown. and people might say setanta had alot of fights. but there was some they did not show like williams v wright , the lightweight tournament in april and there is more as well. to only get 2 live us fights a year on normal sky is a disgrace. we should be getting most of the top rank and golden boy stuff live. or at the very least delayed next day coverage like sky used to do 4 or 5 years ago. in this day and age a week is too long to be waiting for a delayed showing. 4 or 5 bills a year inc the couple of american ppv's does not constitute regular american coverage for me. i think most would agree that sky's coverage of us fights was very good 4 or 5 years ago. and boxing fans want it to get back to that level where we were getting us action every 2 or 3 weeks at least and most of the american bills were screened. we need alot more us fights than 3 or 4 a year.

 

Put it this way, anything negative about them will not be shown.