Jump to content

Backlash


Latino Reheat
 Share

Recommended Posts

No one as of yet has picked it up, so we'll either have to miss it (which will mean something big and exciting will happen and we won't see it) or Sky Box Office will pick it up at the last moment.

Question is, would you pay £14 for Backlash? I mean it's Backlash, a PPV with a track record for being mainly bad. I dunno if I would, unless there was a good card I wouldn't bother.

 

How do you feel about this?

Edited by Grapple
Link to comment
Share on other sites


If Sky Box Office get it again, I wont be watching it until someone gives me a loan of it the next week on tape. I couldnt care less, cause im not paying for these PPVs on top of ridiculous digital prices already.

 

There is no way Americans get ripped off the same for Television, they get a better deal just like with internet etc. So buying a PPV here isnt worth it. Particularly if its to be as bad as the Rumble was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dean Douglas

To All The Crybabies Out There...

 

The great PPV Whingefest begins again. Backlash is £14, in the US it is $35, equivalent to £24, or £10 more than Sky Box Office so you can quit complaining.

 

I am also sick of all the spoiled people whining about the Sky subscription being unfair too, Sky is a subscription service with the legal rights to broadcast certain channels and they charge subscribers a fee for this. Sky does not provide you with free entertainment and their service is a privilege, not a right and you are not entitled to dictate terms to them, if you can't afford the subscription or feel it's unfair then there's a simple solution, don't pay for it. Additionally, cable in the US is somehere in the region of $75 if I remember correctly.

 

Accept the hand you're dealt, wanting more than you can have and feeling you deserve it when don't is the very definition of spoiled, I also see the ungrateful ignoring the fact that Sky Box Office is charging less than the WWF's domestic market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go again, just like the "if you dont like wrestling dont watch it" you get the "if you dont like skys fees dont pay them". What is with this BS, where people all of a sudden arent allowed to state their opinions about things....

 

I'll back up what i said about Americans being better off with the TV and internet thing. At the moment i pay about £11 just for Sky Sports 1 (im getting ripped off by ITV digital you see) and about £12 for the rest of the wee digital channels. I know an American isnt paying that much just to see Raw. I didnt say anything about Americans being better off with PPVs did I.

 

Internet wise, theres no disputing that, i cant get anything except for 56K where I live, and its a situation that repeats itself throughout a lot of Scotland.

 

I think it could be to do with the fact that maybe US society is slightly richer, and that their society is more used to PPV tv...nobodys even debated that idea yet....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Alliance Mark

I don't know whether or not you've noticed but when someone starts a company they like to make a profit. A company that doesn't profit is called a charity.

 

It amazes me that you think that somehow the WWF or Sky owe you something. When you subscribed to Sky it was because of the package they were offering. Was Backlash or the Royal Rumble in that package? Nope.

 

We've been lucky to have the WWF PPVs for free for so long. If Sky had wanted the ex-Ch4 PPVs they would have bought them like they bought the rest. They obviously don't want them that much so it's a situation where if you want it then we pay for it. Channel 4 and 5 for whatever reason didn't get them and at the last minute Sky (sort of) "came to the rescue" for those people that wanted to watch it so much they were willing to pay.

 

It isn't a "if you don't like it don't bother" situation, it's a "if you think it's worth it then buy it" situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And they went on a rant for someone saying that they thought it wasnt worth it, thats what i was talking about.

 

I didnt say Sky owed me anything, nobody said that. Fact is a lot of people are getting ripped off by digital companies. I dont know about Skys packages, but ITV Digital basically gives the meaning to the word "rip-off". Hence why, some people wont be getting the event if its on Box Office.

 

All this BS is taking away from the real point, that Backlash always sucks, and will do again. Therefore theres probably not much point in getting it anyway.

Edited by Simon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dean Douglas

Though Simon seems to have taken offence to it, my post was not directed at him, more at 3 or 4 people in chat yesterday complaining that we actually had to pay for it in the first place and the masses that did the same thing not so long ago about the Royal Rumble. One person in particular stated that £5 would be alright for Sky, hence the "dictating terms" and "feeling you deserve it" part.

 

But on to the digital debate, I don't feel anyone is ripped off for any digital package. A Skoda costs £5k but a Mercedes costs £25k, are Mercedes owners being ripped off?, no, because a Mercedes is a superior machine to a Skoda and it's costs necessitates it's price, just like Sky Sports channels. Sky pays a scary amount of money to broadcast sports events on their channels so in order to make a profit they need to chage extra for them and Raw just happens to be shown on them, simple economics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I pay Sky Digital £32 per month and I believe this breaks down as follows.

 

£12 for th standard channels, Sky One, music channels, kids channels etc.

 

£5 for 12 movie channels and

 

£15 for 5 Sky Sports channels.

 

I don't have no problem with paying extra for PPV's what I am wondering is this, if I want to watch a PPV I would have paid Sky £46 that month. Skullmonkey, how much do you pay for your cable/sattelite in a month if you buy a WWF PPV?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I broke it down for Simon in a different thread, but I'll repost here for you K.J, as you can see the American veiwer gets the short end of the stick on the fees. :(

Originally posted by Skullmonkey

You pay £12 for the digital service. We pay $79.99 {Or £56}

 

Then add on top the PPV cost of $29.99 {Or £21}

 

For a grand total of $110.00 {Or £77} a month.

 

If you only pay £12 for the digital service plus £11 for Sky Sport's, and then add in £14 for the PPV, it still only comes to £37 {Or $52} a month.

Although the numbers are a bit different than you posted K.J, I'm assuming you have a different package than Simon has.

 

Your £46 monthly fee translates to $65 U.S, a bit more but still a saving's of £31 {Or $45} over the U.S viewer's cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow i'm confused

 

 

If backlash did go ppv, no i would'nt be watching as my dad would'nt let me. We have 2 digi boxes in my house 1 sky and 1 itv, i pay for the itv and it costs a bomb with all the sport and ppv football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right here's my point.

 

I would happily pay per view forbig sporting events, if I didn't have to pay extra for the sports channels anyway.

 

I think it should either be no extra charge for sports channels, and then pay per view for big events

 

or

 

Pay extra for the sports channels and then that covers all the sport.

 

Not both.

 

I thought they'd have learnt that PPV football wasn't the licence to print money they thought it would be, but maybe they'll make the same mistake with the WWF PPV's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dean Douglas
Originally posted by Jayden

Right here's my point.

 

I would happily pay per view forbig sporting events, if I didn't have to pay extra for the sports channels anyway.

 

I think it should either be no extra charge for sports channels, and then pay per view for big events

 

or

 

Pay extra for the sports channels and then that covers all the sport.

 

 

Sky has to charge for sports channels to make a profit, they're a business, not a charity.

 

Also see paragraphs 2 and 3 of my first post in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes i know they have to charge, they have to make a profit, they aren't a charity.

 

but i still think it should be one or the other. I pay extra for the privilege of watching sport, but am then asked to pay extra for such big sporting events as Tyson fights and Bolton Vs Ipswich in the Premiership.

 

You can disagree with me all you like, but from my point of view I believe that I pay enough for sport already. By paying them that extra to see sport, I believe that I shouldn't then be asked for more as and when they feel like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiamTon Bomb

Well, in my opinion, Royal Rumble was shite, we paid far too much for something that no one really liked. I hope sky box office do not purchase Backlash, we pay enough for our sky subscriptions without having to pay extra for soemthing we have enjoyed for free over the past ten years.

 

Charging £14 for it really does ruin it for us, ok its cheaper than opping on a plane to America to see the wrestling, but asking us for more money for something we used to get for free just isn't good for morale.

 

Liam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tomc2488

If Backlash is a PPV then I'll probably pay for it. If its a dud then thats just £14 down the drain.

 

I couldn't afford to pay for every WWF event if they were all PPV's but a few aren't bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alot of people said Backlash was allways a bad PPV, I seem to remember Backlash 2000 being on of the Best WWF PPV's in recent years and Rumble 2002 was given Thumbs Up by well over 3/4's of the people who saw it. Also one factor that people miss out on is that Sky can't sell any advertising during a WWF PPV meaning they would probaly make more money showing the 3rd replay of the Sunday Game than showing a live WWF show. I think we do take for granted the fact we have gotten years of shows for free.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dean Douglas
but i still think it should be one or the other. I pay extra for the privilege of watching sport, but am then asked to pay extra for such big sporting events as Tyson fights and Bolton Vs Ipswich in the Premiership.

 

To that I say...

 

Sky is a subscription service with the legal rights to broadcast certain channels and they charge subscribers a fee for this. Sky does not provide you with free entertainment and their service is a privilege, not a right and you are not entitled to dictate terms to them

 

from my point of view I believe that I pay enough for sport already. By paying them that extra to see sport, I believe that I shouldn't then be asked for more as and when they feel like it.

 

To this I say...

 

wanting more than you can have and feeling you deserve it when you don't is the very definition of spoiled,
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blimey you do have it bad in the ol' US of A.

 

After reading what Skullmonkey saidI really don't think we have any cause for compaint against PPV's being on PPV. We've just been spoilt for so long.

 

Soon you'll probbly have to pay per view for Premiership games and most major sporting events. It's the way verything is going and we'll just have to get used to it.

Edited by K.J
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm...Backlash a good PPV.....?

 

Backlash 2000 in particular you singled out. No, that sucked. What? Austin half dead comes down to interfere in a boring HHH v Rock match....he could do nothing but swing a chair...the excitment. It was proof that the WWF were desperate to get Austin back on telly.

 

Backlash 2001 - possibly the worst PPV main event of the year...a blooming tag team match. People, US people in particular, get a raw enough deal without having to put up for crap that youd probably see on Raw the next night.

 

If i was in the USA, id be selective about my PPVs, maybe only get the big 4 and maybe Unforgiven and Vengeance (usually the WWF is most solid at end of year).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are definitely getting a worse deal than the americans in the ppv respect, first off Backlash will be on in America at 8/9pm, this is prime-time viewing. In Britain Backlash wont end til at least 3:30am. Also, Backlash is generally considered one of the weaker WWF "extravaganzas", so why pay for it? and £14? Disgraceful. I'm not gonna call anyone a mug for buying it because thats unfair, but put simply, if no-one buys it, Sky cant get away with it. But of course thousands will and in a year or so they'll all be on Box Office at a cost of £168 a year. What do you want to pay, £168 or £0? If the latters your answer than don't watch for a month- you have the power!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...