Mich's posts

1,039 search results, most recent first

MI
Mich Founding member

The Sport Thread

Alexia posted:
Further to my above point -

The pool hall chain made a profit of £3 million (down from £12 million) last financial year. £1.2 million was spent on Sky Sports subscriptions for the various branches.

No wonder they cancelled it.


Those figures don't mean much on their own - what was their turnover?
MI
Mich Founding member

The Sport Thread

Alexia posted:
Further to my above point -

The pool hall chain made a profit of £3 million (down from £12 million) last financial year. £1.2 million was spent on Sky Sports subscriptions for the various branches.

No wonder they cancelled it.


Those figures don't mean much on their own - what was their turnover?
MI
Mich Founding member

TV Licensing

deejay posted:
Yawn - TV Forum in danger of descending into the boredom that DS has become!

I'm maybe a bit out of date but my understanding is that you need a television license if the equipment you own is capable of receiving a television broadcast (digital or analogue). Therefore owning a DVD Player and a Television Set would mean that you have to have a television license regardless of whether it is tuned in, regardless of whether you actually watch any live television. The same can be said for owning a PVR, DVD Recorder or a VCR. The same applies to a computer with a TV Card in it.

You don't need an additional license for extra TVs or receivers within one dwelling (unless there are lockable doors between rooms). You don't need a license for a battery operated set, used by someone from a properly licensed dwelling when they are out and about (this is a pretty old rule dating back to at least the 80s, possibly 70s, created when 'portable' TV sets became avaiable for used in caravans or boats). Unfortunately, this rule dictates that you can't use a battery set and your home set at the same time.

So, when you're at Uni, you cannot use your folks' license (unless you watch a battery set when you know they're out!). You need a license if your laptop has a TV card in it, regardless of whether you're on battery or mains. You need a license if you own a telly, regardless of whether or not you watch anything live.

If you MUST avoid paying the license and you're a DVD or gaming type person - you have to get a monitor without a tv tuner in it - several plasmas and LCDs still are display only, PC monitors often are displays even though some bundle analogue tv tuners in to add to the spec relatively cheaply.

Because when you buy a screen, the retailer is obliged by law to send your details on to the TV Licensing agency, you'll probably still get some hassle from them, but if you can show the display hasn't got a tuner in it and you don't own a VCR or a PC with a TV card in it, then they haven't got a case, so should leave you alone.

Otherwise, pay the £140 (it ain't much) and make the most of the BBC while it still exists!

And to think that it's not that long ago that there was a Radio License too...


One of the better summaries but the old chesnut of "lockable doors" is pure myth.

The distinction where is with regards to tenancy agreements - for a typical student a shared contract would require one licence and separate contracts requiring separate licences; a logical extension otherwise a hall could simply buy one licence to cover hundreds.

Another point; if you had a television that was entirely detuned you would probably be able to satisfy a licencing officer.
MI
Mich Founding member

Advertising on BBC Sport.

Connews posted:
Channel-flicking and I spotted the Golf today; noticing that there are small logo flashes on the Leaderboards of businesses like Unisys. Is this legal considering the BBC is intended as a state broadcaster with no advertisements?


I would imagine that the logo of unisys, computacentre and sieko are more classified as credits rather than sponsorship/branding.
MI
Mich Founding member

More from inside the Central studios

Connews posted:
Orry Verducci posted:
From what I have gathered on the site, it seems they break in to get the photos.


Definitely.

There is an Alton Towers report here. I am certain they would not have been welcomed in with open arms!

Fascinating all the same, though.

The Break-In


Definitely nothing.

Their ethos is totally against "breaking in" - they do not break and enter. They do enter sites without permission but with no criminal intent and cause no damage whilst they are there.. Their only 'crime' is trespass which is only a civil wrong.
MI
Mich Founding member

More from inside the Central studios

623058 posted:
so no put the writing on them self?

That Group has done something like that before, With other things and it turned out to be made up by them Evil or Very Mad


Why would anybody bother making that up? Why would they carry a whole selection of differents pens with them just in case?

28 Days Later are fairly resolute with the "leave only footprints and take only pictures' philosophy - do you care to quote a care where any poster there has made anything up?
MI
Mich Founding member

Lottery Cock up

rdobbie posted:

This can be proved with a fun experiment. Try explaining to your average lottery player that they'll have an identical chance of winning with the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and they'll never believe you - they'll give you weird and wonderful theories about how it'd be a waste of money because those numbers would never come out!


You would have the same odds, but it is also rational not to do that - there must be loads of other people who have sets of consecutive numbers like that, so if they did come up you'd probably end up sharing the jackpot.

No guarantee that it won't happen with any other set of numbers but certainly less likely.
MI
Mich Founding member

itsrobert

Steve posted:
Good luck Rob... I remember my few days as a moderator in the long and distant past so you deserve a medal for doing it for so long! Does anyone else remember the few days we spent in purple because TV Forum broke!? Must have been, what, 2001?!

Ah happy days...!!


They were the days!

The regular forum crashes, when they stopped I think that was when this place started going downhill Wink .

Cheers for all of your efforts over the years Rob, much appreciated.
MI
Mich Founding member

TV Forum Review of the TV Year 2007

Tumble Tower posted:
This time it was presented by Vernon Kay, who funnily enough happened to be a contestant in the previous series of Gameshow Marathon in autumn 2005.


I think we all had a good chortle at that one.
MI
Mich Founding member

Freeview Question

itsrobert posted:
Yep, indoor aerials are absolutely useless. I've used them several times over the years and can 100% confirm that they're crap, unless, as Mark said, you're very close to the transmitter. Nothing can beat a proper outdoor rooftop aerial.


That hasn't been my experience. If have a "Telecam" indoor aerial with a booster and it can pick up digital in the two different places that I have tried it, where both of the existing rooftop aerials needed to be upgraded.

They aren't ideal - but a good one is certainly worth a try if you haven't got any other options.
MI
Mich Founding member

SW England news thread

tvarksouthwest posted:
Why is the BBC leasing the building and not owning it outright?


The simple reason should be because it makes financial sense; the actual answer may be a political fudge or anyone one of hundreds of reasons, but it could make financial sense.

While the BBC isn't like other businesses their practices also make sense for them....

Take a store that Sainsburys built and own - in the process of compiling the accounts for that store they will include a value against the 'lease' of the property - typically the value they could obtain for the property if they were to attempt to lease it to another company.

At first it is just an accounting value but it does have an important purpose. If the general running costs of the store plus the 'lease' value are greater than the revenue the store generates they should close the store.

If that lease value stops the store being financially worthwhile they should close their store and instead lease the store out. This is the same as the decision they would undertake when choosing if they should operate a store that they lease from a property company.

The next logical step is to get 'Sainsburys Property ltd' to manage all of this by technically purchasing all stores and renting back to the main company, if they end up being profitable that business could be sold off. Then in the future when they open a new store they can just go up to any property company who offers them a worthwhile deal.


To bring all of this back to the BBC; there is no reason why they should own a new building - they aren't a property management company. If it is worth them renting it they should, if not they shouldn't.
MI
Mich Founding member

The Sport Thread

Brekkie Boy posted:

Talking rights though, anyone know what the situation is with the Premiership Rugby Union rights the BBC hold? They do have rights to highlights, but only seem to screen them at the end of the season after the Six Nations.


A very interesting question...

According to the BBC (they *should* be a credible source of information on this) they only hold the highlights rights for the second half of the season.

However I think that the above is rubbish - last year they screened premiership highlights around the autumn internationals (although only for the one week) and I can't understand Premier Rugby selling highlights for half a season.

I agree that a Monday highlights/analysis programme would work really well... why they don't do it is a mystery.