Will you pay ppv for Froch vs Kessler?

Rob your a legend mate, You've sat there for ages doing that list ain't ya .

 

Why would he be bankrupt? These fights would sell out arenas, bring in big advertising money and big money from Sky.

 

I'd say so.

Not with that main event or featuring Paul "deluded" McCloskey. Ward will do even better than last time and it would be another uneventful fight.

No. Khan isn't PPV material (as is evident), and Brook isn't a big enough name. That's the sort of fight you should make widely available if possible, since if Brook beat Khan he'd gain some notoriety. Eubank Jr isn't a big enough name and neither is Ryder.

Honestly I think Price-Fury belongs on Channel 5. But I could at least see it on PPV as an attraction. The undercard doesn't thrill me.

 

yeh. im really sick at the moment so got nothing better to do while my misses is at work.

 

You've always made the point that boxing doesn't bring in much in the way of big advertising...

But regardless, the purses he'd need to secure would be tough to balance with guaranteed income, IMO.

 

I'd buy them all, undercard or no undercard. The only one I'd be tempted to poke off & watch on a stream is Fury v Price

 

Gordon Bennett! Jesus Christ Superstar! Jonesy has gone hardcore on you Murdoch PPV hating mofo's!

Step out of line (at your mercy) and he'll hit you up with possible matchups!

 

Which of the sky shows could not be afforded?

 

Jonesy how many PPV events could sky put on a year without pissing the fans off? 3-4?

 

as long as there still providing enough regular sky shows, and the PPV's are sufficient quality I would not have an issue with 6 a year...if i still lived in the UK.

but Froch vs Kessler is the first PPV in 2 years and people are pissed off. so.....your already gonna **** of the fans.

 

Revenue £6.791 billion (2012)
Operating income £1.243 billion (2012)
Net income £970 million (2012)
Employees 22,800 (2012)

With those figures, Im fairly certain Sky could make this fight free for the highest package subscribers. Otherwise, what is the point of having the highest package? There are people on this forum, who are paying over a £100 a month, and are still being made to pay for this fight, same as those who are subscribed on a much lower package, lets say £20-25 a month. The ones on the highest package I feel most sorry for. They should qualify to get PPV fights automatically.

Someone revealed on here that their Sky bill is 3rd behind the mortgage and council tax every year. I'm sorry, but that is awful. It seems digital television has become essential to some people. When your forking that out every month, thats your choice, :tired, but I still say, Sky would have a nerve to charge these subscribers PPV......and they are about to you know?

A disgrace, and by those people paying for this fight, your telling them to do more of it, and basically welcoming them to **** you in the ass.

 

Start here.

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/business/[/url]

 

Nah, I aint a suit, or a wannabe pal. :good

You can try and justify this PPV all you want, the fact is, there are people forking out top money for the service every month, those people should be valued. As it stands, there is no difference between people paying for a basic package, and those paying for the top. The fight is still £15 for all. Those paying for premium service, should receive premium service. Simple as.

But we live in a world of :tired and they wont be told any different.

Just like you.

 

If your not a suit....what are you?

 

A naturist.

:hey