Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Whyte vs Parker PPV numbers

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by koolkc107 View Post
    Cable companies operate pretty much the same worldwide.

    Some of them are multinational too.

    And by the way, we aren't talking about SKY...we are talking about the actual cable companies that Sky broadcasts on. When you order a fight, you don't order from SKY, you order from your cable provider. They take 55% off the top.
    Well your argument is unfortunate because I was genuinely interested in a proper response. Saying ‘oh it’s just the standard everywhere’ is fairly disappointing...

    As for the bolded, I’m a little confused. Sky is the service provider. There is nothing inbetween. What company could you be referring to ?

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by techliam View Post
      Well your argument is unfortunate because I was genuinely interested in a proper response. Saying ‘oh it’s just the standard everywhere’ is fairly disappointing...

      As for the bolded, I’m a little confused. Sky is the service provider. There is nothing inbetween. What company could you be referring to ?
      Sorry to disappoint you but sometimes the simplest answer is the right one.

      The same tech is worldwide in all developed nations and the costs to do business (and hence what is charged) are pretty much the same.

      Sometimes the content providers are able to wrangle more because of the stature of the event- for example Mayweather vs Pacquiao may have seen the cable companies take 10% less- but for the most part it's the same.

      As to your confusion, SKY is the channel, the same way Showtime is the channel here in the states. When I pay my bill each month, I don't make the check out to Showtime. Instead, I make it out to the cable company that provides Showtime as one of many channels. That cable company (and the other distributors of the content) are the ones that get about 45% of every PPV buy. Then SKY (or Showtime) takes another 10%.

      The promoters get the remaining 45%.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by koolkc107 View Post
        Sorry to disappoint you but sometimes the simplest answer is the right one.

        The same tech is worldwide in all developed nations and the costs to do business (and hence what is charged) are pretty much the same.

        Sometimes the content providers are able to wrangle more because of the stature of the event- for example Mayweather vs Pacquiao may have seen the cable companies take 10% less- but for the most part it's the same.

        As to your confusion, SKY is the channel, the same way Showtime is the channel here in the states. When I pay my bill each month, I don't make the check out to Showtime. Instead, I make it out to the cable company that provides Showtime as one of many channels. That cable company (and the other distributors of the content) are the ones that get about 45% of every PPV buy. Then SKY (or Showtime) takes another 10%.

        The promoters get the remaining 45%.
        Sky is also the equivalent of a US cable company, they provide internet, telephone etc, same thing with BT

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Randall Cunning View Post
          Sky is also the equivalent of a US cable company, they provide internet, telephone etc, same thing with BT
          Fair enough.

          But, does that automatically mean they would operate any differently?

          Would Sky take less than their 45% for the cable arm and 10% for the sports content arm simply because they are operating under the same umbrella? Or do you think it more likely they take the same 55%?

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by koolkc107 View Post
            Fair enough.

            But, does that automatically mean they would operate any differently?

            Would Sky take less than their 45% for the cable arm and 10% for the sports content arm simply because they are operating under the same umbrella? Or do you think it more likely they take the same 55%?
            I think it works out at 40% Sky, 10% Matchroom, 50% to the fighters. Sky pays for the promotion/adverts and production out of their bit. Undercard comes out of the fighters 50%.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Randall Cunning View Post
              I think it works out at 40% Sky, 10% Matchroom, 50% to the fighters. Sky pays for the promotion/adverts and production out of their bit. Undercard comes out of the fighters 50%.
              If you want to believe that a company like SKY would take less money than usual out of the kindness of their hearts, don't let me stop you.

              And whatever Matchroom gets would come out of the net. It would not be a separate percentage. The promoter works for the fighter, or at least they are supposed to.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by TheBigLug View Post
                Why didn't AJ accept the offer when they met his demand?

                Anyone can sent a bull5hit contract with terms that are never going to be taking seriously, or accepted first time without serious revision. They do that to save face. Don't be naive. It's the oldest trick in the book.

                only one team met the others demands which they asked for, and that was Wilder's team. If AJ stuck to his word, we would have a fight.
                I can't remember team wilder sending a contract to the UK, instead the reverse was the case which they agreed and suddenly go AWOL and started crying to the media.
                But they are quick to cajole unfit fury to a fight.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by RJJ-94-02=GOAT View Post
                  It’s the fact that the standard of boxing is continuously lowered in this country. We used to get fights like Froch-Bute on Sky tv now we get Cordina-Dodd. It’s pathetic. If people keep paying for this dross it’s only going to get worse! That card as a PPV was a disgrace, anyone who thinks otherwise is a deluded imbecile.
                  I understand your stand but many people are saying otherwise. Some even say it's the best 20 pounds they have spent in a long while, some say it's worth every penny. I guess it's different strokes for different folks.
                  Personally I loved the cards.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Laligalaliga View Post
                    I understand your stand but many people are saying otherwise. Some even say it's the best 20 pounds they have spent in a long while, some say it's worth every penny. I guess it's different strokes for different folks.
                    Personally I loved the cards.
                    Only gullible people that don’t understand boxing would think that PPV was value for money.
                    But that’s the market Hearn targets, so credit to him I guess for exploiting the casual market whilst lowering the standards of British boxing in the process.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by EnglishOxide View Post
                      Why did HBO pick up Whyte v Browne but not Whyte v Parker when it was clearly a bigger fight and card?
                      A Clear flirt with Hearn to try and get Joshua. As Joshua's Contract with Showtime was expiring in a week.

                      Turned out Hearn had DAZN waiting in the wings.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP