When will the BBC just grow up?

Just reading through this thread and I have to say, what a load of old bollocks it contains...

So what the BBC had a special news flash to say what the score was? Anyone could have easily found the score out, seeing as it was in the public domain. For instance, I could have chosen WAP, Internet, Sky, Teletext, The Local Pub to have found out the score, so I can't see the problem in the BBC doing it.

The match, like an other sporting event, or any event full stop, is a coverable event, and any news network can do so if they please.

ITV had the rights to the match, but not to exclusivity on the score!

And as for the comment about the BBC having a poor sporting coverage - I'd like that person to think about how much sport the BBC actually does have in comparison to other networks. ITV shows a little bit of Football, and Motorsport (and don't even think of including Rugby - do they cover it all year?!) and Channel 4 has the cricket (with a little bit of early morning sports coverage) - compare this to the huge range of sports the Beeb have and you find they win hands down.

Blimely, even Five have more sports coverage than either ITV or C4.

Instead of arguing over such a petty thing, why not either A) Complain to the BBC or B) Go out on this lovely day and do something before it gets far too cold to do so!

Rant well and truly over...

S

You seem to be comparing, alledgelly, like for like.

BBC does infact have more sport than the others but that is not the question - quality over quantity surely? But you have answered my question by posting that! Thanks.

The statement that seems to have got a certain person into a state of orgasmic confusion is as follows:-

I said - "BBC standards ARE dropping and this is proved by the poor range of sports programmes shown on the channel"

BBC LDN pointed out - "that the range of sports programming on the channel cannot be cited as the sole indicator for BBC standards dropping."

Where did I ever state that it was the SOLE indicator of BBC standards. You seem be making things up again Mr LDN and my opinion still is that the poor level of sport on BBC is imho an inidicator of the WHOLE quality of the BBC. Many big things are made up of smaller proportions.

I cant even be arsed replying to the rest of the stuff you have stated as I have better things to do with my life!

I have never liked you and never will and am not wasting anymore time on you because im off out to enjoy life - you remember that LDN - real life, meeting people, having fun. Not skulking about on forums nit-picking peoples' posts and fritting your life away with such trivial matters.

I announce this portion of the debate officially closed!

So next year when the BBC have all the Home England Internationals & FA Cup, Preimership Highlights, Limited SPL Action as well as UEFA Cup and European Super Cup, that the BBC won't have the quality? And this just their Football division, let alone all the other sporting events the BBC cover...

(And Euro 2004, which will of course be covered better by the Beeb than ITV)

S

Well it's all relative I'll grant you, but having 10m to spalsh on a single film would suggest they're not short of a bob or two. The last licence fee settlement certainly did wonders for the BBC's finance, particularly since it coincided with a downturn in advertising revenue and therefore the funding of ITV etc.

The test is whether they could have afforded the delayed rights to fulfill a public service (i.e. responding to the request from the Sports Minister for the game to be shwon on FTA to discourage England fans from travelling). I have no doubt they could, particualrly if they spent less on much of the rubbish they do produce and which would never meet any definition pf public service. (Before I get flamed, yes I know they produce plenty of good stuff, and yes I also know they tend to produce more if just about the time the charter comes up renewal. I also know that everyone else produces rubbish as well, the difference is that if I don't want to pay Sky I can choose not to, and what advertisers spend their money on is their business.)

Nicely put, and we all know what the answer is.

Just like every other BBC division, BBC Sport has a budget, and so they have to keep within that, so it was probably decided that as most people who were intrested in the match would find some way to watch it on Sky Sports live, it wasn't worth paying for delayed rights.

In practice you well be right, it may well have been decided that "it wasn't worth paying for delayed rights" but actually that sounds pretty much like the sort of thing I'd expect to hear from a commercial operator. But there is undoubtedly scope for money to moved between budgets in all organizations. For example, if a General Election was called tomorrow the BBC would (quite rightly) find a lot of extra money for the News and Current Affairs departments. Same in the event of death of a monarch etc. It's all a question of degrees and priorities. As I said above, I don't accept for a second that the BBC couldn't have found the money, it they'd really wanted to fulfill a public service. {Interesting of course that ITV thought it was worth it on commercial grounds, whether they were right will become apparrent tomorrow.]

"For example, if a General Election was called tomorrow the BBC would (quite rightly) find a lot of extra money for the News and Current Affairs departments."

I think you'll find the Iraqi War (an example of something happening "tomorrow" like a general election) actually put the BBC in debt ... You really have got your facts quite muddled here.

plenty of large organizations are in debt - Ruper Murdoch has (or had and probably still does have) one of the biggest overdrafts around. Are you really trying to say the BBC's finanicla position isn't healthier than ITV at the moment?

and if they are in such debt why did they pay £10m for extremely delayed rights to one bloody film!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not just shown earlier by Sky, but by a DVD player, VCR or cinema near you!

It wasn't exactly £10m for one film - more like £10m for 10 films with repeat showings included.

Yes the others might not be huge blockbusters, but the point is the have a worth from within that £10m...

Anyway I suppose the real test is see how many people watch the film when it's on.

S

"You could make six Full Montys for that. It makes me question the BBC's sense in spending so much on Hollywood movies," Mr Lygo said. "Why should they be shovelling money into Hollywood moguls' pockets?"

Mr Lygo's remarks, which were reported on the mediaguardian website, were challenged by the BBC.

It claimed it had paid "nowhere near" £10 million. The Potter film was one of about 10 in a package. However insiders said the other, minor, films were of negligible value.