The World Cup 2006

It's so ironic that the English think the Scottish and the Welsh would welcome their support, as if we should be greatful for it!

It's the attitude of people telling us we should support England that is a key reason that we don't!

You do need to remember alot of it is in jest too!


Anyhow, getting pretty sick of this debate right now! I'll moan about it all next week after John Motson spends half the final telling us how England would have won it "if" this, that and the other hadn't happened!


So it's Germany v Italy on ITV, and Portugal v France on the BBC. No confirmation of who has the 3rd place game (though I seem to recall that ITV would get it), with both showing the final!


I suspect Gabby Logan has presented her last World Cup game. Steve Ryder hosted both quarter-finals, and I'd expect him to front the semi-final and final too. I'm betting now anchoring the World Cup was part of the deal to move him to ITV!

There is boxing on ITV next week - don't know if Jim Rosenthal will be back for that.


And in other football news, ITV will have exclusive rights to the later stages of the UEFA Cup from next season, from the quarter finals on.

Earlier rounds will still be sold on a match by match basis.

Of course I have read it. I have responded to it.

As you will read, in my experience, football fans are not like that. I happen to be a native of one of the most passionate footballing regions in the whole of the UK!



I have not missed it out. I have assumed that all readers will understand that - as in the phrase "it goes without saying that..."

Do the Scotland fans who want England to lose get as passionate about Wales or Northern Ireland losing? Probably not. Why is that?



You called me an "arrogant tosser" and then claimed I was being "creamed" in the debate and you object to my bringing those up as red herrings and desperate argument tactics?

Interesting strategy.

The 3rd/4th place game is on BBC1, as advertised in numerous newspapers and on the EPG. And for the last time, it's Rider, not Ryder.

I definitely agree with the point about the English media.

It also pisses off a lot of English people not interested in football. But, hey, there's all that airtime to fill in the silly season!



I'm one of the lucky ones to have SkyHD and although the pictures aren't as amazing as advertised, the graphics on the BBC HD Trial channel did look amazing.

Indeed, how they've managed to get the 3rd/4th place as well as everything else I don't know. Were 2 group games for ITV such a big draw?

Talking about graphics, personally I like to see the host broadcaster's graphics. It makes the tournament more unique, rather than seeing the same graphics that have been used/will be used on other football matches

Regarding the nations thing, I notice this has all just blown up now after England lost, with people who I had thought would have been ones who don't like football suddenly laughing at England's defeat. Interesting

Not sure what you mean by "everything else". ITV had two guaranteed England group games, including the only game in peak time, plus 25 of the group games compared to 23 on the BBC, including a greater number of games in peak time. They've had by far the best of the non-England games in the knockout stage (the BBC went almost a week without a goal). ITV also have first choice of the semi-final (if England had qualified they would shown both semi-finals compared to one on the BBC) and they don't have to give any airtime to the biggest anti-climax in world football, the 3rd place play off.

ITV have lost out big time - they must have paid less than the BBC for their rights.

Usually you'd have expected yesterdays England game to switch back to ITV. Why would ITV sacrifice it in return for a simulcast of the semi-final, when during simulcasts the BBC always get a significant majority of the viewers.

If ITV had gambled perhaps on England getting through the quarter finals and then ITV having exclusive rights to their semi-final, it would be more understandable!

So the BBC not only get the extra England game, they also get the extra 3rd place game.



Always happens after saying you'll move on to something, but out of interest how have BBC World been reporting the World Cup?

If you want to talk about name-calling we could maybe start with that provocative post of yours where you described me as "surprisingly blind" no fewer than three times for the simple reason that I don't support a foreign football team. That was the precise reason I called you arrogant.

The points I brought up were all valid and true. They are objectively checkable.

No offence meant, but I had a read of your blog. You are obviously a talented writer with a lot to say - I spent about thirty minutes reading it and enjoyed your thoughts a lot, even the bit about Scottish support for England's football team.

It seems slightly hard to believe that it is the same writer. Are you having a bad night?

Hi,

does anyone have any videos of pictures of the 80s Tyne Tees music show "The Roxy"?

Thanks
xx

Your analysis is way wide of the mark.

Add up the total audience figures for the five England games, compare the ITV total to the BBC total, and then consider what would have happened if all five games had been simulcast. Factor in also the uncertainty about how many knock out games there would be, and you'll see ITV has done pretty well out of it. Compare it to last time for example.

For the second time, if you're a commercial broadcaster whose total audience actually SUFFERS during the World Cup, you simply CANNOT gamble on England reaching the second round or quarter finals.

There's a very recent example in Euro 2000, where England failed to qualify from their group.

If ITV had only had only delivered one England group game for advertisers (and then England didn't qualify for the 2nd round), all hell would have broken out at ITV.

It's also absolutely inconceivable that the ITV and BBC didn't pay EXACTLY (to pounds and pennies) the same amount for the rights.