|
|
Post by o on Dec 17, 2014 10:29:10 GMT 1
But ITV can pay what they want to their presenters, I dont care, I fund the BBC, and I still say over half a million for one job is too much. ITV only have so many jobs after all.
I dont get how you quote me above and say "You'll get your wish" where did I wish for anything? As for calling my comments financially stupid, rather rude isn't it.
|
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Dec 17, 2014 23:30:53 GMT 1
But if the rates the BBC pay fall too far behind other broadcasters (not just ITV) then they won't keep any decent presenters at all. We'll end up with all BBC programmes being presented by some useless numpty who can barely read an autocue (or anything else).
|
|
|
|
Post by raliverpool on Dec 18, 2014 0:02:32 GMT 1
|
|
Tom
Member
*Of Royal Blood*
Posts: 15,419 
|
Post by Tom on Dec 20, 2014 12:21:35 GMT 1
Looks like another cull is on the way. Channel 5 are set to take the rights to Football League highlights from next season. ITV are believed to be planning to try and get the Premier League highlights back when the next contract is due for renewal and it's rumoured BBC will be willing to share its Wimbledon coverage with BT in an attempt to reduce costs. Whilst it's a shame for me that the Football League show has gone as I did like it (preferable to the Championship and the old Nationwide league extra show or whatever it was called), it will still be on terrestrial and according to the report I read it will be on at 9pm on a Sat, so earlier than the football league highlights have ever been on. So all in all i'm not fussed, hopefully C5 will show it every week unlike the BBC who decided for whatever reason that generally when there weren't any Championship games it wasn't worth doing it.
Hope the other two don't happen though. The disadvantage for BT is that Wimbledon apparently have a cosy relationship with the BBC. Also, they don't have the excellent red button/online coverage that the Beeb provides which i'm sure is an attraction for Wimbledon. I'm old fashioned, I always want Wimbledon to be on the BBC, but if anyone was going to share the coverage i'd rather it was Sky. I've not seen that much of BT's coverage (just the odd match on a stream, and that was just the match rather than analysis before or afterwards) so not much idea how good it would be. Sky's coverage is excellent, and they also provide red button coverage.
|
|
|
|
Post by o on Dec 20, 2014 14:47:00 GMT 1
But if the rates the BBC pay fall too far behind other broadcasters (not just ITV) then they won't keep any decent presenters at all. We'll end up with all BBC programmes being presented by some useless numpty who can barely read an autocue (or anything else). I think the bbc is about value for money. And saying that we'd end up with numpties if we dont pay them enough is a bit like saying you'd end up with a pub team in the Championship if you dont them stupid wages because they'll leave to go to the Prem. There's always promising youth coming through which is cheap and getting their big break, and I'm sure some people dont want to work for ITV anyway. Is Gary Linekar really worth what he earns? Could someone else do the job, of course they could, all irrelevant I guess if they lose the football. There's enough good presenters around to cover any that leave to itv and other channels, at the end of the day there are only so many other jobs out there. |
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Dec 20, 2014 14:58:12 GMT 1
Another way of saying "value for money" is "if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys".
|
|
fchd
Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by fchd on Dec 20, 2014 18:28:52 GMT 1
But if the rates the BBC pay fall too far behind other broadcasters (not just ITV) then they won't keep any decent presenters at all. We'll end up with all BBC programmes being presented by some useless numpty who can barely read an autocue (or anything else). At least all the ex-Radio 1 presenters will find a home then. |
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Jan 29, 2015 16:03:20 GMT 1
BBC retain Premier League highlights rights until 2019!
|
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Jan 29, 2015 16:25:44 GMT 1
Great news! There's a new midweek show as well although I'm not sure what will be on it (apart, presumably, from brief highlights of any Monday night game). Perhaps they will invite Adrian Chiles to present it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shireblogger on Jan 29, 2015 22:44:55 GMT 1
Great news for me. Bad news for Sky Sports as it delays my subscription for another 5 years at least.
|
|
Tom
Member
*Of Royal Blood*
Posts: 15,419
|
Post by Tom on Jan 30, 2015 16:47:49 GMT 1
BBC retain Premier League highlights rights until 2019! After ITV made the surprising decision to pull out. Good news though. |
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Jan 31, 2015 17:53:15 GMT 1
So MOTD stays but the Open golf is lost to Sky...
|
|
Tom
Member
*Of Royal Blood*
Posts: 15,419
|
Post by Tom on Jan 31, 2015 20:20:30 GMT 1
So MOTD stays but the Open golf is lost to Sky... Partly because they paid more money, and partly because Sky are considered to provide better coverage. It seems they prioritised MOTD over the Open, good decision! (though i'm sure others will disagree). |
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Jan 31, 2015 20:25:17 GMT 1
I'm sure it makes more sense to spend the money on a show that is on for around nine months of the year rather than one that lasts just three days.
|
|
Tom
Member
*Of Royal Blood*
Posts: 15,419
|
Post by Tom on Jan 31, 2015 20:40:10 GMT 1
I'm sure it makes more sense to spend the money on a show that is on for around nine months of the year rather than one that lasts just three days. Yes, but there's the history, and it's got to be on the BBC, etc etc. Not trying to be flippant though, I wouldn't want them to lose Wimbledon.
Anyway, I said it because i'm sure there are golf fans here who aren't happy. I thought I was possibly being a bit controversial!
|
|
vastar iner
Member
I am the poster on your wall
Posts: 17,626
ONLINE
|
Post by vastar iner on Jan 31, 2015 21:13:06 GMT 1
Never mind. They've still got The Voice. £25m well spent.
|
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Jan 31, 2015 22:35:58 GMT 1
Never mind. They've still got The Voice. £25m well spent. You mean the show that gets their second-highest audience of the week? Two million more than anything on ITV. |
|
vastar iner
Member
I am the poster on your wall
Posts: 17,626
ONLINE
|
Post by vastar iner on Feb 1, 2015 0:24:05 GMT 1
Don't care. The BBC is not about ratings. Leave them to the commercial channels that depend on them. Trouble is the Daily Fail cares about BBC ratings.
|
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Feb 1, 2015 0:27:41 GMT 1
Don't care. The BBC is not about ratings. Leave them to the commercial channels that depend on them. Trouble is the Daily Fail cares about BBC ratings. They have to strike a balance though. They cannot expect to escape criticism if they have a Saturday night prime-time show that gets audiences of 3 million. You may not like The Voice but it is clearly a more up-market show than X Factor. |
|
vastar iner
Member
I am the poster on your wall
Posts: 17,626
ONLINE
|
Post by vastar iner on Feb 1, 2015 0:54:58 GMT 1
Yes, but then again, to be fair, the homeless swigging Special Brew outside Aldi at 11.30pm last night are more upmarket than Fix Factor.
The balance is that the Beeb is spending tens of millions on getting not tens of millions of viewers. Like the X Factor model, it's actually grossly inefficient at getting ratings. It's the bludgeon factor. Like Chelsea, they buy success but they don't get what they ought to for that investment. But because they still win loads people don't question it.
For the £25m the BBC could make a dozen programmes with a million viewers each. So that's 12m viewers. Loads more than The Voice. And that's without taking into account that they could probably do a lot better. Look at Wolf Hall for a start.
|
|
