[alcockell]

Kinda makes things harder for them as wasn't the cost of the sport OBs cross-subsidised by other series and formats that were sold abroad (like all the drama, That's Life etc)?

Yes - the Shiny Floor Shows are cheaper in that respect - but weren't programmes like Challenge Anneka *better*?

Something to be said for running OBs, playout etc in-house...

[ftv]

The BBC sport budget for this year has been cut by 16% as a result of DQF. I would assume they have now met that target by shedding the racing, saving money on the grand prix and a few other things. People talk as if the BBC has no money - it has an income of over £3 billion a year !

[Chris1964]

Quite a relevant thread given the Beeb is presenting its, as things stand, last Grand National after a remarkable 52 consecutive years.
However its hard to say that the BBC doesnt have some commitment to sport given they have only recently tied up long term deals with Wimbledon,Queens, Six Nations and F1. Im pretty sure they would have budgeted also to keep the racing, but Channel 4 obviously had other ideas.
I also think they will go all out to retain MOTD. Personally I think its still the best way to catch up with football. The Premiership is magnificent entertainment and bitesize chunks of all the games surely beats two game features.The ratings are consistently good so they must be doing something right.
It is slightly concerning that the DG and possible successors dont appreciate sport personally, I can remember Greg Dyke making an all out bid to grab the Champions League rights (actually outbidding ITV IIRC). Its hard to imagine that happening now. Whatever though, for me the BBC has to remain a major player in sport.

[Chris1964]

Originally Posted by ftv

The BBC sport budget for this year has been cut by 16% as a result of DQF. I would assume they have now met that target by shedding the racing, saving money on the grand prix and a few other things. People talk as if the BBC has no money - it has an income of over £3 billion a year !

Agreed.

On the strength of that I think we have to expect to continue to see top class sport on the BBC.

[alcockell]

Originally Posted by Chris1964

Agreed.

On the strength of that I think we have to expect to continue to see top class sport on the BBC.

Only issue is they're having to hire OB facilities time and time again now...

[slow motion]

Originally Posted by ftv

People talk as if the BBC has no money - it has an income of over £3 billion a year !

A little bit more than that...

BBC Income £4,993 million 2010-2011 - BBC Annual Report

[carl.waring]

Originally Posted by BenFranklin

What do you mean "increasingly difficult"?

I assume he means exactly that.

What sports are suffering from this?

Any sport with sponsors who have their corporate logos prominently displayed. Like, for example, behind all the post match interviews in Football.

What "editorial guidelines"?

If you don't know something, look it up . Took me ten seconds to find using Google.

If anything covering sport is easier for the BBC than it was 20-30 years ago when plenty of sports had various tobacco/alcohol companies as their main sponsors.

Yes, because they're only companies ever to sponsor sports events You don't think other companies have taken their place in more recent years?!

Examples please because I have no idea what you mean.

Try watching some sports coverage

Originally Posted by ftv

People talk as if the BBC has no money - it has an income of over £3 billion a year !

Which is now has to do a lot more with.

[gemma-the-husky]

personally, i reckon the BBC would have plenty of money for sport and indeed anything else, if it cut back on the over the top payments to so-called "talent", and no doubt overpaid staff.

[Nilrem]

Originally Posted by gemma-the-husky

personally, i reckon the BBC would have plenty of money for sport and indeed anything else, if it cut back on the over the top payments to so-called "talent", and no doubt overpaid staff.

oh god, not that load of old claptrap.

The BBC has historically been shown to pay LESS for it's staff than the commercial operators (and these days many of the "BBC staff" are in fact employed by third parties who have won contracts to supply services or even complete programmes).

Even the "talent" at the BBC probably wouldn't save enough money to pay for much sport if they were all dumped and replaced with 16 year olds at minimum wage as work experience (and then you'd get people complaining that the guy commentating on Football only knows about Man U's current team)..

TV is generally expensive to make, and Sports rights these days can cost milliions just for the rights, before any incidental expenses that might be incurred such as actually getting a single camera and employee on the ground to record it.

Unfortunately for BBC viewers the subscription Sports channels can afford to pay many times more than the BBC for events, as the BBC has to also provide other things, whilst you can have a channel showing just football charging £10-20 a month, or sporting events at £25+ a time for a single one that might last anything from 30 minutes to a few hours (Boxing).

And that's before you remember that some people will no doubt still complain that the BBC is showing too much sport whenever it shows a football match, darts tournament, or Snooker that runs past the expected finish time.

[u006852]

Originally Posted by Nilrem

oh god, not that load of old claptrap.

The BBC has historically been shown to pay LESS for it's staff than the commercial operators

Even the "talent" at the BBC probably wouldn't save enough money to pay for much sport if they were all dumped and replaced with 16 year olds at minimum wage as work experience

Unfortunately for BBC viewers the subscription Sports channels can afford to pay many times more than the BBC for events, as the BBC has to also provide other things, whilst you can have a channel showing just football charging £10-20 a month, or sporting events at £25+ a time for a single one that might last anything from 30 minutes to a few hours (Boxing).
e.

Yes, Sky has distorted the market and this is detrimental to the BBC, the FTA commerical channels and ultimately the consumer.

[Nilrem]

[edit] the below was a reply to Pat, but I got called away before pressing submit
[/edit]

I'm not sure if you're serious or not.

But a pension pot is not generally a lump sum, but normally either a yearly sum or a sum that is meant to be invested and last the rest of the persons life*

Yes her "pot" may be worth nearly 4 million, but that is because it's a final salary pension (of the sort that was quite common going back 40 odd years ago when she joined the BBC).

Seriously learn about the things, she's not getting given it as a "thank you, we don't care about money it's not ours to begin with", she's getting a payout based on a scheme she joined nearly 40 years ago, and presumably has paid quite a lot into.
Or to put it another way, she's getting what she has paid towards, under the terms of a contract that she and her employer have both kept to for 30-40 years (the same sort of pension loads of private companies had, similar to teacher, civil servants etc also had).

[Vericacious]

Originally Posted by slow motion

A little bit more than that...

BBC Income £4,993 million 2010-2011 - BBC Annual Report

That's right.

I'm still trying to work out where the other £1.4 billion went- does anyone have any ideas? It looks to me as if two thirds was used to build up the reserves, which were in deficit following the bail out of a major pension shortfall, and that the rest is being used to run a rather large surplus, which, when added to other comprehensive income, becomes what would ordinarily be termed a profit of £858 million for 2010/11.

Anyway, wherever the £1.4 billion has gone, it doesn't seem to have been spent on programmes.

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by gemma-the-husky

personally, i reckon the BBC would have plenty of money for sport and indeed anything else, if it cut back on the over the top payments to so-called "talent", and no doubt overpaid staff.

If you had read te reports over the last 10-12 months, you will see that it is indeed doing exactly that.

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by carl.waring

I assume he means exactly that.


Any sport with sponsors who have their corporate logos prominently displayed. Like, for example, behind all the post match interviews in Football.


If you don't know something, look it up . Took me ten seconds to find using Google.


Yes, because they're only companies ever to sponsor sports events You don't think other companies have taken their place in more recent years?!


Try watching some sports coverage


Which is now has to do a lot more with.

Correct on all counts.

[ftv]

If anyone is interested in finding out more about BBC pensions (after all it's partly your money if you're a licence payer):

www.bbc.co.uk/mypension

[AidanLunn]

Originally Posted by Tassium

I've said it before, I think Mark Thompson had an agenda to destroy the BBC. Pushing it towards a commercial focus and alienating half the population with fem-friendly pap and soaps cannot have been accidental.

No, that was Michael Grade, John Checkland, John Birt and Marmaduke Hussey, all brought in from the commercial media and all doing so under the orders of Mrs Thatcher.

[AidanLunn]

Originally Posted by BenFranklin

And yet sport is consistently one of the things that brings in viewers.

Not that I'm saying the BBC's main purpose is to chase viewers, but ultimately you need everyone to tune into BBC at some point in the week or the universal nature of the BBC (and therefore the license fee) falls apart. Which is what I think Sir Paul Fox was referring to.

Not this old pile of pony poop again.

It is not a subscription service so don't view it as such.

It is a public service, just like libraries, schools, the fire service etc. I never use these week on week yet I still fund them.

[AidanLunn]

Originally Posted by AidanLunn

No, that was Michael Grade, John Checkland, John Birt and Marmaduke Hussey, all brought in from the commercial media and all doing so under the orders of Mrs Thatcher.

Apologies, I meant Michael Checkland.

[mlt11]

Originally Posted by Vericacious

That's right.

I'm still trying to work out where the other £1.4 billion went- does anyone have any ideas? It looks to me as if two thirds was used to build up the reserves, which were in deficit following the bail out of a major pension shortfall, and that the rest is being used to run a rather large surplus, which, when added to other comprehensive income, becomes what would ordinarily be termed a profit of £858 million for 2010/11.

Anyway, wherever the £1.4 billion has gone, it doesn't seem to have been spent on programmes.

No.

You are primarily talking about the revenue of BBC Worldwide.

But BBC Worldwide has its own costs.

See link:

http://www.bbcworldwide.com/annual-r...inancials.aspx

In fact its profits are far lower than many think - £167m in 2010/11 but that's only because of a one-off gain (pre tax) of £96m on the sale of Animal Planet.

[mikw]

Originally Posted by Nilrem

oh god, not that load of old claptrap.

The BBC has historically been shown to pay LESS for it's staff than the commercial operators (and these days many of the "BBC staff" are in fact employed by third parties who have won contracts to supply services or even complete programmes).

Even the "talent" at the BBC probably wouldn't save enough money to pay for much sport if they were all dumped and replaced with 16 year olds at minimum wage as work experience (and then you'd get people complaining that the guy commentating on Football only knows about Man U's current team)..

TV is generally expensive to make, and Sports rights these days can cost milliions just for the rights, before any incidental expenses that might be incurred such as actually getting a single camera and employee on the ground to record it.

Unfortunately for BBC viewers the subscription Sports channels can afford to pay many times more than the BBC for events, as the BBC has to also provide other things, whilst you can have a channel showing just football charging £10-20 a month, or sporting events at £25+ a time for a single one that might last anything from 30 minutes to a few hours (Boxing).

And that's before you remember that some people will no doubt still complain that the BBC is showing too much sport whenever it shows a football match, darts tournament, or Snooker that runs past the expected finish time.

Correct, "Gemma the husky" and other forum members would be wise not to take their information spoon-fed from the media and actually open their eyes.

The BBC pays LESS the the other broadcasters for equivalen jobs!

[Vericacious]

Originally Posted by mlt11

No.

You are primarily talking about the revenue of BBC Worldwide.

But BBC Worldwide has its own costs.

See link:

http://www.bbcworldwide.com/annual-r...inancials.aspx

In fact its profits are far lower than many think - £167m in 2010/11 but that's only because of a one-off gain (pre tax) of £96m on the sale of Animal Planet.

Yes, of course- thank you for that.

The extra income (and expenditure) did seem enormous. I'd made the assumption that Worldwide had been worked out separately- they really should specify it in the general accounts.

Now, what about that surplus, the pension situation and the need to replenish the reserves?

[ftv]

For years BBC Radio overbid for the rights to football commentaries when there was no-one bidding against them,they were responsible for artifically increasing the cost themselves !

[RedSnapper]

Originally Posted by Chris1964

.
However its hard to say that the BBC doesnt have some commitment to sport given they have only recently tied up long term deals with Wimbledon,Queens, Six Nations and F1. .

There arent many people who will agree that the BBC's F1 "sublet" is much proof of their commitment to sport. I also agree with those that feel the presence of Tennis on the BBC is more about the preferences of BBC bosses than anything else.

[Pizzatheaction]

I'm not sure which thread to put this in for the best, but, here we go...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/18106672

[Dan's Dad]

Originally Posted by AidanLunn

No, that was Michael Grade, Michael Checkland, John Birt and Marmaduke Hussey, all brought in from the commercial media and all doing so under the orders of Mrs Thatcher.

For the record - Checkland had a BBC career, not from the commercial media -
but you are basically right, he was an accountant and played his part in changing the ethos - for the worst!

Sir Michael Checkland
Director-General 1987-1992
Checkland was a Chartered Accountant and joined the BBC Finance Department in 1964. He was Director of Television Resources and Chairman of BBC Enterprises before becoming Director- General.