BBC lose rights to show another sport live

[hairyhandedfool]

That's right sports fans, having already lost half the coverage of Formula One, the BBC have lost the rights to show any horse racing live, including the Grand National, to Channel 4. The BBC have said that they can now direct funds to the remaining sports they have.

I'm not a fan of horse racing, but I must admit I was a little surprised not to see a joint BBC/Sky deal emerge which would allow the BBC to show the start of the Grand National live, with the rest getting 'extended highlights' later in the evening.

 

[Schnellzug]

Yes, i just heard about that. How much longer can it continue to trade on "the Nation's broadcaster" amd "a national institution" and so on? It does seem as if it just can't compete while it has to rely on the Licensing system. Time to think about shooting a few sacred cows I wonder?

 

[Clip]

C4 do race coverage so much better though so im non too fussed about it.

 

[ACE1888]

BBC hasn't given a toss about sports for years, remember their crappy coverage of Test Cricket, appalling it was:cry:

 

[jon0844]

Can't they just show EastEnders 24/7 on BBC 1? Then I can delete the channel from my EPG completely!

(To be fair though; they're somewhat stuck as they can't be seen to 'waste' money securing rights for anything, so they're likely to lose a lot more stuff in the future).

 

[Schnellzug]

Can't they just show EastEnders 24/7 on BBC 1? Then I can delete the channel from my EPG completely!

(To be fair though; they're somewhat stuck as they can't be seen to 'waste' money securing rights for anything, so they're likely to lose a lot more stuff in the future).

Shouldn't the Beeb be expected, though, to show National Institutions like the grand National? Mightn't it be argued that that should be part of its Duty? I bet they'll be having 24/7 megacoverage of the Womens' left-handed 200m Frisbee and everything else in the Olympics.

 

[jon0844]

I'm not against the BBC bidding money for sports, or other big events. The problem is that so many people would moan, even protest, that they were wasting money - funded by the tax payer.

I'm sure the tax payer wants to be able to get sport, movies and new-run TV shows on the BBC, but like everything, they don't want to be pay for it!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I think the BBC have to spread the costs across many interests that's only fair really, but I don't really think they have the money to do so because of the fifteen radio channels (grouping English local radio as one) and nine TV channels they have!

Seems to me that the logical choice is to look at how may different channels they actually need and work from there.

 

[jon0844]

Remember the outrage when they wanted to close down some channels/stations?

 

[Lampshade]

Hang on guys, it'll be alright, The Voice will be along soon enough...




Any other channel you could protest by not watching, therefore they lose ad revenue, but the BBC have a forced guaranteed income :-x

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Erm, well, no actually, I imagine the outrage was from the people who watched the channels that were under threat?

Each episode of Eastenders is shown three times during the week, same with Top Gear (even if it is a repeat!) BBC Three is showing re-runs of Doctor Who and BBC Four has episodes of TOTP from the 1970s and that is just what springs to mind right now. I think there is some room for change. There was a time when two TV channels, five national radio stations and local radio was more than enough!

Infact we also have the iPlayer and there are DVD (and presumably still VCR) recorders out there, so there really is no need for repeats these days.

 

[jon0844]

Hang on guys, it'll be alright, The Voice will be along soon enough...

I think this could be quite good. I've seen some of the US and Swedish versions and it does at least seem to be more about the talent.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

This is sort of related - is the BBC dropping the football league (plus highlights) next season? It appears obvious that they don't really care about them.

 

[tbtc]

(To be fair though; they're somewhat stuck as they can't be seen to 'waste' money securing rights for anything, so they're likely to lose a lot more stuff in the future).

I'm not against the BBC bidding money for sports, or other big events. The problem is that so many people would moan, even protest, that they were wasting money - funded by the tax payer.

I'm sure the tax payer wants to be able to get sport, movies and new-run TV shows on the BBC, but like everything, they don't want to be pay for it!

Agreed Jon - people are quick to complain when the BBC spends large sums of money on things, then quick to complain when the BBC doesn't spend enough money on other things. They can't win.

And all this is at a time when they are seeing a reduction in the money they are allowed to raise through the licence fee, plus are having to pick up the tab for specialist Welsh Language programming and paying for a greater share of the World Service too.

This is sort of related - is the BBC dropping the football league (plus highlights) next season? It appears obvious that they don't really care about them.

I remember when ITV showed the lower league highlights at about one o'clock on a Monday morning. The Football League show is a decent enough product, just showed too late on a Saturday - would be nice if they could put it on earlier but then you'd get complaints from the Strictly Come Dancing fans about their Saturday evening show.

 

[jon0844]

I think MOTD and the Football League show need to be fairly late as they need to edit everything, and I am sure there have been cuts made everywhere - so editing to a tighter deadline might not be feasible.

 

[tbtc]

I think MOTD and the Football League show need to be fairly late as they need to edit everything, and I am sure there have been cuts made everywhere - so editing to a tighter deadline might not be feasible.

Good point - going through a few dozen games in just a few hours and cutting them down to suit the time available must be a lot of work - especially as the amount of time available to one game may depend on whether anything interesting/ contentious has happened at another game.

 

[Oswyntail]

Why should the BBC be expected to bid for these events? There are plenty of other providers that are willing to pay ridiculous amounts of money to show football, cricket, racing etc. This means that there is access to them, so there is no need for the national provider to cover them. (After all, how much football does a country need?:roll. OK, so, in some sports, their production team is far better than the opposition but that will change if the audiences demand it.
The BBC still does most other products FAR better than the independent companies, and, IMHO, the balance of channels is about right. I don't even mind repeats - if i don't want to buy the whole series on DVD, I can still drop in when I have the inclination. What I do appreciate is that we still have a broadcaster that can produce things like Birdsong, Symphony and the like - quality stuff - without having to dumb down or chase ratings.

 

[radamfi]

C4 is free anyway, so it isn't really a problem, compared to Sky winning the rights. C4 is also a public service broadcaster.

 

[Clip]

C4 is free anyway, so it isn't really a problem, compared to Sky winning the rights. C4 is also a public service broadcaster.

And they also recieve some of the License fee.

 

[Schnellzug]

Why should the BBC be expected to bid for these events? There are plenty of other providers that are willing to pay ridiculous amounts of money to show football, cricket, racing etc. This means that there is access to them, so there is no need for the national provider to cover them. (After all, how much football does a country need?:roll. OK, so, in some sports, their production team is far better than the opposition but that will change if the audiences demand it..

because the BBC is, or likes to describe itself as, the National Broadcaster, and it should therefore be expected to cover major national sports, e.g. football, f1 & the Horses. If it's not able to because it doesn't have enough money, maybe it's time to reconsider the method of funding.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Remember the outrage when they wanted to close down some channels/stations?

Before the financial clamp-down on the BBC took affect, they regarded that the license fee annual increases would enable them to do all things digital and establish "limited viewing availability" channels such as BBC3 and BBC4 without any thought as to the cost benefit of these.

There had long been needed to be a financial reality check to their ambitions, when they are competing for viewer-share against large bodies such as Sky. Long gone indeed are the days when Alvar Liddell epitomised the BBC as a national institution free from any serious competition.

We are in the 21st century.....deal with the financial facts that are currently in place.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I note the BBC's Director General has announced today that he is standing down in autumn.

I remember when ITV showed the lower league highlights at about one o'clock on a Monday morning. The Football League show is a decent enough product, just showed too late on a Saturday - would be nice if they could put it on earlier but then you'd get complaints from the Strictly Come Dancing fans about their Saturday evening show.

Aye, I certainly prefer the BBC having any football program or rights over ITV, and their shows are better; but I would keep the times as they are now - after a trip out somewhere it's always nice to come home to no tea but football highlights :P Seriously though, I don't think showing them at 2350 on a Saturday helps, nor does Late Kick Off at 2235 / 2305 on a Monday - can you imagine being an Accy Stanley fan and having to stay up to 0100 on a Sunday morning or 2330 on a Monday to see your team - maybe ITV got it right by showing it on a Sunday morning. Then again, there is always iPlayer, but if you don't have the Internet...

They have certainly cut it back though, last season they had comments from viewers on too. Now it just looks like two blokes sat in a disused warehouse talking about football. Not to mention they don't bother with it at all during the week.

I think MOTD and the Football League show need to be fairly late as they need to edit everything, and I am sure there have been cuts made everywhere - so editing to a tighter deadline might not be feasible.

Good point - going through a few dozen games in just a few hours and cutting them down to suit the time available must be a lot of work - especially as the amount of time available to one game may depend on whether anything interesting/ contentious has happened at another game.

They can however edit up to 10 fixtures in just shy of an hour for midweek MOTDs. I imagine it must be a bit of a job though.

Five blissful words for this Wednesday now - Midweek Match of the Day!

 

[Oswyntail]

because the BBC is, or likes to describe itself as, the National Broadcaster, and it should therefore be expected to cover major national sports, e.g. football, f1 & the Horses. ...

Why should sport be any different from other events? And why should some sports be more favoured than others? When did we last have a broadcast of a major operatic premiere, or the national championships of a smaller sport? There is obviously some element of choice here, and that should surely be influenced by the willingness and ability of other providers to cover events. Once the "Crown jewels" list had been abandoned, then it was inevitable that most events on the list would go elsewhere. By attempting to spend huge pots of its budget on football, neddies, and F1, I would suggest that the BBC is actually failing in its role as National Broadcaster.

 

[SS4]

Evidently the BBC needs some sport if it's to call itself the nation's broadcaster although what could they replace the sport with if it goes?
On the radio the BBC is head and shoulders above everyone else when it comes to covering sport and I for one (although I'm bound to be a minority) wouldn't mind the BBC losing TV rights if it gained secure radio rights. I noticed a couple of seasons ago that Five Live no longer broadcast the Saturday Evening game from the premiership, more often than not talksport have it.

 

[Greenback]

Can't they just show EastEnders 24/7 on BBC 1? Then I can delete the channel from my EPG completely!

Well, Eastenders, Holby City, Casualty and Waterloo Road, interspersed with news bulletins should be enough for anyone!

Shouldn't the Beeb be expected, though, to show National Institutions like the grand National? Mightn't it be argued that that should be part of its Duty? I bet they'll be having 24/7 megacoverage of the Womens' left-handed 200m Frisbee and everything else in the Olympics.

But The Olympics is The Most Important Thing Ever To Happen. The BBC simply must spend all of its sports budget on them.

 

[LE Greys]

Well, can I add my name to the " :roll: there goes another one" list? The BBC are losing out because of a bizarre twist in the funding, some people are prepared to spend in excess of £40 per month for a Sky subscription, yet people object to a reasonable licence fee that would give the BBC sufficient funds of (say) £20 per month. The reason, one is voluntary, the other is compulsory. I think that sums up the Human mentality.

Ideally, broadcasting of encrypted signals would be illegal, so Sky's entire business model would have to be rethought, since anyone with a satellite dish could watch any of their channels. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen, so answers on a postcard please.

 

[SS4]

I'd like to see a ban on both subscription and advertising funding. You can fund your channel by one method or the other but not both. Alternatively have a BBC Sport channel which is an optional subscription at a reasonable price (the danger here would be that it'd cherry pick the best stuff)

Sky gets subscription money (£30 HD basic + £30 for HD sports iirc) and that's added to advert money! BBC are losing the sport because they simply cannot compete on such a skewed playing field. Can't see anything happening since Jeremy Hunt is a fan of Murdoch.

 

[tbtc]

Well, can I add my name to the " :roll: there goes another one" list? The BBC are losing out because of a bizarre twist in the funding, some people are prepared to spend in excess of £40 per month for a Sky subscription, yet people object to a reasonable licence fee that would give the BBC sufficient funds of (say) £20 per month. The reason, one is voluntary, the other is compulsory. I think that sums up the Human mentality.

Agreed - I know people spending over £50 a month on Sky who still think that the BBC licence is "expensive". Mind boggles...

I'd like to see a ban on both subscription and advertising funding. You can fund your channel by one method or the other but not both. Alternatively have a BBC Sport channel which is an optional subscription at a reasonable price (the danger here would be that it'd cherry pick the best stuff)

Sky gets subscription money (£30 HD basic + £30 for HD sports iirc) and that's added to advert money! BBC are losing the sport because they simply cannot compete on such a skewed playing field. Can't see anything happening since Jeremy Hunt is a fan of Murdoch.

Again, I agree.

You pay your subscription to Sky, then you pay more for Sports/ Films, then you still have to sit through adverts, then they ask you to pay a premium for HD, then they ask you to pay more for certain things (like "Box Office" boxing)...

 

[Oswyntail]

..... Alternatively have a BBC Sport channel which is an optional subscription at a reasonable price (the danger here would be that it'd cherry pick the best stuff)...

Good idea - but you can bet your bottom dollar people would whinge about the licence fee needing to be reduced because they have to pay for their sport! As for cherry picking - have a proper "crown jewels" list, and let whowever wants to pick up the rest

 

[Statto]

Agreed Jon - people are quick to complain when the BBC spends large sums of money on things, then quick to complain when the BBC doesn't spend enough money on other things. They can't win.

And all this is at a time when they are seeing a reduction in the money they are allowed to raise through the licence fee, plus are having to pick up the tab for specialist Welsh Language programming and paying for a greater share of the World Service too.



I remember when ITV showed the lower league highlights at about one o'clock on a Monday morning. The Football League show is a decent enough product, just showed too late on a Saturday - would be nice if they could put it on earlier but then you'd get complaints from the Strictly Come Dancing fans about their Saturday evening show.

I remember ITVs Football League Extra at silly O' clock on Monday night/Tuesday morning[remember watching it at Manchester Airport one morning, before getting the overnight train to Sheffield], then ITV switched the Football League highlights to Sunday mornings at more sensible time.


BBC don't seem that bothered about Horse Racing, so no real loss, & C4 is the home of Horse Racing on FTA TV anyway so perfect fit for C4.