SR
What's the betting that the ITV News Channel will show a repeat of the whole match to mark the occasion? 
IN
The BBC currently has a ban in place on news programmes showing clips from the Rugby World Cup Final due to the overzealous and ridiculous pricing the International Rugby Board (which owns all footage of Rugby World Cup matches) has set for using footage, something like £6,500 a minute. Obviously with the many outlets BBC News has, it would be quite expensive, and the BBC have decided it isn't right to use public money for that.
However, the BBC has negotiated a fairer deal for Sports Personality of the Year.
So? ITV would probably do exactly the same thing vice-versa, and in any case, I believe the BBC did bid for the rights for the Rugby World Cup, but were outbid by ITV, so that makes your point null and void.
Very stupid and irresponsible of ITV News flagging it up as that, as the ban on using footage of the match only applies to BBC News I believe, and the parade coverage programme on BBC ONE/TWO is being produced by BBC Events, so the BBC programme could very well end up using footage. They have no way of knowing.
However, the BBC has negotiated a fairer deal for Sports Personality of the Year.
Ste posted:
That the BBC didnt acually pay for the rights to show the tournament live but are happy to show the parade to cash in on the success?
So? ITV would probably do exactly the same thing vice-versa, and in any case, I believe the BBC did bid for the rights for the Rugby World Cup, but were outbid by ITV, so that makes your point null and void.
Andrew posted:
ITV News are flagging it up by saying that ITV1 is the only place where you will also see clips of the final during the show
Very stupid and irresponsible of ITV News flagging it up as that, as the ban on using footage of the match only applies to BBC News I believe, and the parade coverage programme on BBC ONE/TWO is being produced by BBC Events, so the BBC programme could very well end up using footage. They have no way of knowing.
SE
Square Eyes
Founding member
Yes, the BBC did bid for the rights to the world cup, and the International Rugby Board described it as a "derisory offer". ITV bid £40m for both 2003 & 2007 World Cups which they will now see as a steal following the return from the 2003 tournament.
Yet the BBC managed to raise £105m for Premiership highlights.
Yet the BBC managed to raise £105m for Premiership highlights.
IN
Not surprising considering what a bunch of greedy ba.stards the IRB seem to be. Lucky, but good choice by ITV to get the rights.
At the time, Football was seen as a much more valuable asset to the BBC, but of course following the success of the Rugby World Cup for England, it will be re-evaluated, and if the passion for the game remains at the current post-win levels, then higher bids by the BBC will be possible.
Square Eyes posted:
Yes, the BBC did bid for the rights to the world cup, and the International Rugby Board described it as a "derisory offer". ITV bid £40m for both 2003 & 2007 World Cups which they will now see as a steal following the return from the 2003 tournament.
Not surprising considering what a bunch of greedy ba.stards the IRB seem to be. Lucky, but good choice by ITV to get the rights.
Square Eyes posted:
Yet the BBC managed to raise £105m for Premiership highlights.
At the time, Football was seen as a much more valuable asset to the BBC, but of course following the success of the Rugby World Cup for England, it will be re-evaluated, and if the passion for the game remains at the current post-win levels, then higher bids by the BBC will be possible.
LU
What, like the Heineken Cup you mean? The sports boards are getting tired of the BBC's lax offers, and , by the way, when did you start your job at the BBC Press Office?
intheknow posted:
At the time, Football was seen as a much more valuable asset to the BBC, but of course following the success of the Rugby World Cup for England, it will be re-evaluated, and if the passion for the game remains at the current post-win levels, then higher bids by the BBC will be possible.
What, like the Heineken Cup you mean? The sports boards are getting tired of the BBC's lax offers, and , by the way, when did you start your job at the BBC Press Office?
IN
What, like the Heineken Cup you mean? The sports boards are getting tired of the BBC's lax offers...
Well, as people always say, the BBC is funded by a licence fee, public money. These so-called "lax" offers reflect the fact that the BBC can't just throw loads of money at sports rights, especially those that aren't certain to be watched by large amounts of the audience. As for the Heineken Cup, I think Sky got the rights, and given the new intrest in Rugby, Sky put in quite a higher bid than they normally would have, so the BBC couldn't really go higher.
If only...
I thought that this was where the BBC had the legal right to cover this match on Test Match Special, but the Bangladeshi authorties prevented the BBC team from entering the cricket ground for some reason, so not sure how this applies?
CPFC posted:
intheknow posted:
At the time, Football was seen as a much more valuable asset to the BBC, but of course following the success of the Rugby World Cup for England, it will be re-evaluated, and if the passion for the game remains at the current post-win levels, then higher bids by the BBC will be possible.
What, like the Heineken Cup you mean? The sports boards are getting tired of the BBC's lax offers...
Well, as people always say, the BBC is funded by a licence fee, public money. These so-called "lax" offers reflect the fact that the BBC can't just throw loads of money at sports rights, especially those that aren't certain to be watched by large amounts of the audience. As for the Heineken Cup, I think Sky got the rights, and given the new intrest in Rugby, Sky put in quite a higher bid than they normally would have, so the BBC couldn't really go higher.
CPFC posted:
, and , by the way, when did you start your job at the BBC Press Office?
If only...
Ste posted:
Another example is no TMS coverage of Bangladesh v England cricket.
I thought that this was where the BBC had the legal right to cover this match on Test Match Special, but the Bangladeshi authorties prevented the BBC team from entering the cricket ground for some reason, so not sure how this applies?
ST
Well, as people always say, the BBC is funded by a licence fee, public money. These so-called "lax" offers reflect the fact that the BBC can't just throw loads of money at sports rights, especially those that aren't certain to be watched by large amounts of the audience. As for the Heineken Cup, I think Sky got the rights, and given the new intrest in Rugby, Sky put in quite a higher bid than they normally would have, so the BBC couldn't really go higher.
If only...
It seems to be able to waste money on plenty of other things though! I bet the BBC put in huge bids for Wimbledon Tennis every year to keep those rights and its free tickets to the tennis.
Sky got the rights for the Heineken Cup just after the World Cup had started, not just since the final. The BBC hasnt even bid for the terrestrial highlights of the compertition!
Any details on the Sky News parade coverage? Will it use the Sky Copter etc.?
Ste
Ste
Founding member
intheknow posted:
Well, as people always say, the BBC is funded by a licence fee, public money. These so-called "lax" offers reflect the fact that the BBC can't just throw loads of money at sports rights, especially those that aren't certain to be watched by large amounts of the audience. As for the Heineken Cup, I think Sky got the rights, and given the new intrest in Rugby, Sky put in quite a higher bid than they normally would have, so the BBC couldn't really go higher.
If only...
It seems to be able to waste money on plenty of other things though! I bet the BBC put in huge bids for Wimbledon Tennis every year to keep those rights and its free tickets to the tennis.
Sky got the rights for the Heineken Cup just after the World Cup had started, not just since the final. The BBC hasnt even bid for the terrestrial highlights of the compertition!
Any details on the Sky News parade coverage? Will it use the Sky Copter etc.?
Ste
IN
In the case of Wimbledon, only BBC Sport and possibly Sky Sports would have the resources and airtime to be able to mount an effective showing of Wimbledon.
However, Wimbledon is a listed event, which means it has to be shown on a terrestial channel, and cannot be subscription or PPV, so that rules Sky out. Since ITV probably isn't intrested in it because of the amount of airtime it would eat up, I think the BBC is perhaps the only bidder, although I don't know how much they bid.
Ste posted:
It seems to be able to waste money on plenty of other things though! I bet the BBC put in huge bids for Wimbledon Tennis every year to keep those rights and its free tickets to the tennis.
Sky got the rights for the Heineken Cup just after the World Cup had started, not just since the final. The BBC hasnt even bid for the terrestrial highlights of the compertition!
Sky got the rights for the Heineken Cup just after the World Cup had started, not just since the final. The BBC hasnt even bid for the terrestrial highlights of the compertition!
In the case of Wimbledon, only BBC Sport and possibly Sky Sports would have the resources and airtime to be able to mount an effective showing of Wimbledon.
However, Wimbledon is a listed event, which means it has to be shown on a terrestial channel, and cannot be subscription or PPV, so that rules Sky out. Since ITV probably isn't intrested in it because of the amount of airtime it would eat up, I think the BBC is perhaps the only bidder, although I don't know how much they bid.
MS
Actually:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,1098674,00.html
Ste posted:
Sky got the rights for the Heineken Cup just after the World Cup had started, not just since the final. The BBC hasnt even bid for the terrestrial highlights of the compertition!
Actually:
Quote:
But a BBC spokeswoman denied last night that the corporation had not competed for a highlights package. She said: "We have approached Sky several times but they have decided not to sell any of the broadcast rights."
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,1098674,00.html
DU
No. Actually I believe Bangladesh asked for more money for 3 ODIs and 2 test matches than Sri Lanka (much better opposition and marginally better time zone for UK listeners) for 3 ODIs and 3 Tests. The Bangladesh cricket board got greedy and the BBC weren't prepared to meet their lavish dreams (see parallel argument for Fox and "24")
That would be live and exclusive on BBC One
Ste posted:
Another example is no TMS coverage of Bangladesh v England cricket, with a BBC derisery offer to the cricket board of Bangladesh
No. Actually I believe Bangladesh asked for more money for 3 ODIs and 2 test matches than Sri Lanka (much better opposition and marginally better time zone for UK listeners) for 3 ODIs and 3 Tests. The Bangladesh cricket board got greedy and the BBC weren't prepared to meet their lavish dreams (see parallel argument for Fox and "24")
Quote:
Who is showing the next England international against NZ Barbarians?
That would be live and exclusive on BBC One
YO
I hope they don't, i'm sick of seeing it in the epg and plugging it in run up to the top of the hour.
I think the simulcast would be brill on itv1 & nc combing itn's news experience with carlton's sports experince and granada experience in outside broadcasting.
If i remember rightly it was granada who co-produced most royal events and the september 11th first anniversary broadcasts.
Sir Richard Rotcod posted:
What's the betting that the ITV News Channel will show a repeat of the whole match to mark the occasion?
I hope they don't, i'm sick of seeing it in the epg and plugging it in run up to the top of the hour.
I think the simulcast would be brill on itv1 & nc combing itn's news experience with carlton's sports experince and granada experience in outside broadcasting.
If i remember rightly it was granada who co-produced most royal events and the september 11th first anniversary broadcasts.