Media Moguls/ The Murdochs/ News International/ BSkyB: Why The BBC Is So Important...

1567810

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    peter05 wrote: »
    well david cameron and the murdoch's made sure the BBC could not keep F1 to themselfs, but I do think the BBC got a good deal:D

    No they didnt, the BBC chose to get rid of F1. They could have let the voice go to another fta channel (i believe others bidded?) and keep f1 fta so the fta viewer is happy and could watch both but they thought ratings were more important. They are like any other channel in this respect
  • peter05peter05 Posts: 3,569
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    3 $pirit wrote: »
    No they didnt, the BBC chose to get rid of F1. They could have let the voice go to another fta channel (i believe others bidded?) and keep f1 fta so the fta viewer is happy and could watch both but they thought ratings were more important. They are like any other channel in this respect

    As I have allready said I think the BBC got a good deal on F1, but are you trying to say they should have kept F1 and had blank screens on a sataday, night the voice is a proven good programe and I am sure SKY would like to put it behind a pay wall
  • miles19740miles19740 Posts: 14,205
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    peter05 wrote: »
    As I have allready said I think the BBC got a good deal on F1, but are you trying to say they should have kept F1 and had blank screens on a sataday, night the voice is a proven good programe and I am sure SKY would like to put it behind a pay wall

    The only thing I would have preferred is for the winner to have just won...like they do on Strictly.

    For me, The Voice is great...very BBC. Informative, educational and the standard is high. It knocks spots off the merry-go-round tabloid equivalents on the commercial networks.

    Hands off Murdoch!
  • peter05peter05 Posts: 3,569
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    miles19740 wrote: »
    The only thing I would have preferred is for the winner to have just won...like they do on Strictly.

    For me, The Voice is great...very BBC. Informative, educational and the standard is high. It knocks spots off the merry-go-round tabloid equivalents on the commercial networks.

    Hands off Murdoch!

    Puplic vote starts this week so it will be even better ( ps I have been watching the french version)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    miles19740 wrote: »
    The only thing I would have preferred is for the winner to have just won...like they do on Strictly.

    For me, The Voice is great...very BBC. Informative, educational and the standard is high. It knocks spots off the merry-go-round tabloid equivalents on the commercial networks.

    Hands off Murdoch!

    Im sure he's happy enough with F1
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    peter05 wrote: »
    As I have allready said I think the BBC got a good deal on F1, but are you trying to say they should have kept F1 and had blank screens on a sataday, night the voice is a proven good programe and I am sure SKY would like to put it behind a pay wall

    They did what was best for them and let down lots of F1 fans when the voice could have gone to another fta channel and they make less expensive programmning or talent show.
  • peter05peter05 Posts: 3,569
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    3 $pirit wrote: »
    Im sure he's happy enough with F1

    I am sure he or his son will not have much say in who has F1 or any other uk tv sport or any thing else in a couple of years( or am i just being Hopefull)
  • mersey70mersey70 Posts: 5,049
    Forum Member
    peter05 wrote: »
    I am sure he or his son will not have much say in who has F1 or any other uk tv sport or any thing else in a couple of years( or am i just being Hopefull)

    They probably wont be around, in fact i'm certain they wont.

    But do you honestly think any potential new owner of Sky wont go after exclusive sports and other rights as well? whatever happens to the Murdoch's one thing is certain, Pay TV is going nowhere.

    From an end users point of view I don't think it's going to make much difference regarding content, it will just be another media group that the free to air brigade will scream at :)

    The same happened in Italy, the bogeymen were mostly considered to be Telepiu (Canal+) and then it was mostly Sky. In Germany the bogeymen were Premiere and then it was Sky too!
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    3 $pirit wrote: »
    They did what was best for them and let down lots of F1 fans when the voice could have gone to another fta channel and they make less expensive programmning or talent show.

    The Voice and get some of that money back with royalties, the Tour and programme sales.

    It won't "cost" £22m when all is said and done.

    It's a gamble, but one which could save money on the slot in the end.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    peter05 wrote: »
    I am sure he or his son will not have much say in who has F1 or any other uk tv sport or any thing else in a couple of years( or am i just being Hopefull)

    I think his influence will now decline as his name has now been tarnished so maybe and hopefully his influence will decrease.
  • derek500derek500 Posts: 24,887
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mersey70 wrote: »
    They probably wont be around, in fact i'm certain they wont.

    But do you honestly think any potential new owner of Sky wont go after exclusive sports and other rights as well?

    From an end users point of view I don't think it's going to make much difference regarding content, it will just be another media group that the free to air brigade will scream at :)

    The same happened in Italy, the bogeymen were Tele (Canal)+ then it was Sky. In Germany the bogeymen were Premiere and then it was Sky too!

    Exactly. NewsCorp selling its shares will have very little effect on how BSkyB is run.

    It will continue to make as much profit it can for its shareholders, whether it's NewsCorp, the BBC pension fund or whoever.
  • peter05peter05 Posts: 3,569
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mersey70 wrote: »
    They probably wont be around, in fact i'm certain they wont.

    But do you honestly think any potential new owner of Sky wont go after exclusive sports and other rights as well?

    From an end users point of view I don't think it's going to make much difference regarding content, it will just be another media group that the free to air brigade will scream at :)

    The same happened in Italy, the bogeymen were Telepiu (Canal+) and then it was Sky. In Germany the bogeymen were Premiere and then it was Sky too!

    You seem to think the free to air brigade as you call them are bad if there was no free air to you would have to pay for every channel on tv like satalite tv just a few years ago, when sky made you pay for all channels, but the BBC stood up and said we are going free to air and sky/ Murdoch were most unhappy and threatened putting the bbc epg's and any other broadcaster who threated to go free to air a long way down the list. But the BBC had more power then which is has been taken away by the tories now. May the free to air channels stay for ever and grow
  • mersey70mersey70 Posts: 5,049
    Forum Member
    peter05 wrote: »
    You seem to think the free to air brigade as you call them are bad if there was no free air to you would have to pay for every channel on tv like satalite tv just a few years ago, when sky made you pay for all channels, but the BBC stood up and said we are going free to air and sky/ Murdoch were most unhappy and threatened putting the bbc epg's and any other broadcaster who threated to go free to air a long way down the list. But the BBC had more power then which is has been taken away by the tories now. May the free to air channels stay for ever and grow

    No Peter yet again you are completely wrong on my position.

    I can merely grasp the difference between Free To Air and Pay Television, they are two distinctly different products with different priorities and long may that continue.

    And that will be the case whoever owns or controls them.
  • peter05peter05 Posts: 3,569
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    derek500 wrote: »
    Exactly. NewsCorp selling its shares will have very little effect on how BSkyB is run.

    It will continue to make as much profit it can for its shareholders, whether it's NewsCorp, the BBC pension fund or whoever.

    But NEWS CORP will not want to sell there share's they still want to buy your's and everybody elses share's but they can't there lies a proplem for BSKYB
  • derek500derek500 Posts: 24,887
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    peter05 wrote: »
    You seem to think the free to air brigade as you call them are bad if there was no free air to you would have to pay for every channel on tv like satalite tv just a few years ago, when sky made you pay for all channels, but the BBC stood up and said we are going free to air and sky/

    What are you on about Peter!!?? There have always been FTA channels on both Sky platforms (analogue and digital). no one has ever had to pay for ITV, BBC, C4, C5 etc. on satellite.

    When have Sky made anyone pay for channels that are now free?
  • derek500derek500 Posts: 24,887
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    peter05 wrote: »
    But NEWS CORP will not want to sell there share's they still want to buy your's and everybody elses share's but they can't there lies a proplem for BSKYB

    That's NewsCorp's problem not BSkyB's!!!!
  • mersey70mersey70 Posts: 5,049
    Forum Member
    peter05 wrote: »
    But NEWS CORP will not want to sell there share's they still want to buy your's and everybody elses share's but they can't there lies a proplem for BSKYB

    Peter, News Corp may want to do that but you cannot honestly believe it is now going to happen can you?

    It would be absolute political suicide for any Government to sanction it, there would be complete uproar.

    The Murdoch brand is beyond toxic, they are on their way out. Their performance this week completely cemented that

    But BSkyB will continue and long may it do so, whatever it is called and whoever owns it.
  • peter05peter05 Posts: 3,569
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mersey70 wrote: »
    Peter, News Corp may want to do that but you cannot honestly believe it is now going to happen can you?

    It would be absolute political suicide for any Government to sanction it, there would be complete uproar.

    The Murdoch brand is beyond toxic, they are on their way out. Their performance this week completely cemented that

    No I don't think it is possible but it is what Rubert Murdoch think's, my point is he will not want to sell his share's in what he see's as his company, I am sorry I got your point wrong on another post but you did say the free to air brigade I take your point about pay tv but free to air needs to be protected for the good of the UK puplic
  • peter05peter05 Posts: 3,569
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    derek500 wrote: »
    That's NewsCorp's problem not BSkyB's!!!!

    Carefull derek500:D
  • derek500derek500 Posts: 24,887
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    peter05 wrote: »
    I am sure he or his son will not have much say in who has F1 or any other uk tv sport or any thing else in a couple of years( or am i just being Hopefull)

    I'm sure all these sporting bodies do deals with BSkyB despite of the Murdochs, not as many believe, because of them.
  • peter05peter05 Posts: 3,569
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    derek500 wrote: »
    That's NewsCorp's problem not BSkyB's!!!!
    derek500 wrote: »
    I'm sure all these sporting bodies do deals with BSkyB despite of the Murdochs, not as many believe, because of them.

    I think my job is done derek500 saying something against the Murdock's/ NEWS CORP you are not a yank are you derek500 time for a short holiday for me
  • lundavralundavra Posts: 31,790
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mikw wrote: »
    The Voice and get some of that money back with royalties, the Tour and programme sales.

    It won't "cost" £22m when all is said and done.

    It's a gamble, but one which could save money on the slot in the end.

    Worth every penny if it upsets Cowell.

    What are the viewing figures for Formula 1? I don't know anybody who watches it and many who hate it like myself.
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    lundavra wrote: »
    Worth every penny if it upsets Cowell.

    Agreed.
    What are the viewing figures for Formula 1? I don't know anybody who watches it and many who hate it like myself.

    About 3.5 million on terrestrial. I like it myself.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mikw wrote: »
    The Voice and get some of that money back with royalties, the Tour and programme sales.

    It won't "cost" £22m when all is said and done.

    It's a gamble, but one which could save money on the slot in the end.

    It is still a considerable amount of money for the show and it leaves a lot of f1 fans having to pay for Sky to watch or miss out on half the races. It all could have been fta but BBC went ratings chasing which it shouldn't be doing imo.
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    3 $pirit wrote: »
    It is still a considerable amount of money for the show and it leaves a lot of f1 fans having to pay for Sky to watch or miss out on half the races. It all could have been fta but BBC went ratings chasing which it shouldn't be doing imo.

    They were trying to deliver value for money for their Saturday Night Audience, which is very large, and always has been.

    It's worked and it won't cost the headline £22m when all is said and done.

    It really wasn't there fault they had their budget cut, if they hadn't then the F1 deal would have run it's full course.

    After which, well - it's not exactly a secret that Sky wanted it, it may have gone off FTA forever.
Sign In or Register to comment.