GO
Producing a better national final isn't going to make victory any more likely. They've only got a one in 25 chance of winning and that's if they qualify from the semi. Look at Sweden, an incredible NF that is by far the highest rated programme each year yet they haven't won the contest since 1999, three years before the current NF format was introduced.
The reason why the Late Late Show was so poor was because, frankly, RTE cannot produce entertainment to high standard. It's barely producing it to an acceptable standard. Even Iceland was able to produce something better than that. They might not have any money but they've still got to serve the public with television worth paying for. I'm sure they can at least afford a decent sound engineer to sort out the sound issues they have with the music year after year.
There's no need to change the rules, they're fine as they are. RTE could have easily rejected the right to host the contest all those years ago just as several other countries had done before them. The BBC even offered to co-fund the event if it was held in Northern Ireland in 1997 but they rejected that outright so it was clearly all about pride rather than money when it came to hosting Eurovision.
RTÉ most probably cant afford anything grander, and the reason why they are making next to no effort is they would probably not be able to host the event if they won.
IIRC, Norwegian broadcaster NRK had to drop a lot of its sports coverage to meet the bill in 2010.
IIRC, Norwegian broadcaster NRK had to drop a lot of its sports coverage to meet the bill in 2010.
The reason why the Late Late Show was so poor was because, frankly, RTE cannot produce entertainment to high standard. It's barely producing it to an acceptable standard. Even Iceland was able to produce something better than that. They might not have any money but they've still got to serve the public with television worth paying for. I'm sure they can at least afford a decent sound engineer to sort out the sound issues they have with the music year after year.
I think time is long overdue to end the tradition that whichever country wins the Eurovision Song Contest hosts it the following year.
Wind back to the 1990s. Ireland won in 1992, and hence hosted it in 1993 from Millstreet.
Ireland won again in 1993, and hence hosted it in 1994 from Dublin.
Why didn't the EBU excuse RTE from hosting the 1995 ESC, and offer Poland (who came 2nd in 1994) the chance to host the 1995 contest? I don't think it was fair to expect Ireland to host the Contest 3 years running.
In 1996 Ireland won for the fourth time in 5 years, and hence in hosted it for the 4th time in 5 years in 1997.
Contrary to any rumours that may have been circulating by the late 1990s, I think Ireland were grateful and proud to have won 4 times in 5 years, but were getting fed up with footing the bill for hosting it so often.
Wind back to the 1990s. Ireland won in 1992, and hence hosted it in 1993 from Millstreet.
Ireland won again in 1993, and hence hosted it in 1994 from Dublin.
Why didn't the EBU excuse RTE from hosting the 1995 ESC, and offer Poland (who came 2nd in 1994) the chance to host the 1995 contest? I don't think it was fair to expect Ireland to host the Contest 3 years running.
In 1996 Ireland won for the fourth time in 5 years, and hence in hosted it for the 4th time in 5 years in 1997.
Contrary to any rumours that may have been circulating by the late 1990s, I think Ireland were grateful and proud to have won 4 times in 5 years, but were getting fed up with footing the bill for hosting it so often.
