Was she a favourite with bookies across Europe...or just the UK bookies? Would that make a difference? (I'd imagine more money would be going on her in a UK bookie than one in mainland Europe).
She was similar odds everywhere. I think it's a bit of a myth that odds vary a lot between countries because otherwise people would be constantly arbitraging between them
This is what's bugging me, the bookmaker prices were pretty accurate tonight for all but Molly, who was way off her predicted position ......
Im obviously talking specifically about tonight's grand final. We came in the bottom 10 of the countries that were voted for tonight.
The UK's song did not earn it's position in the final. The BBC bought it's way into the final. The lack of exposure in a semi-final puts the UK at a disadvantage for the Saturday night show.
The UK came second of the countries that bought their way into the final.
The UK's song did not earn it's position in the final. The BBC bought it's way into the final. The lack of exposure in a semi-final puts the UK at a disadvantage for the Saturday night show.
The UK came second of the countries that bought their way into the final.
But we also pay for countries like san marino and montenegro to enter
Remove the word "by" and you almost have a point. Leave it in and your thesis is absurd nonsense.
Quite. I love the way everyone thinks that neighbouring countries voting for each other must be some massive political conspiracy, and nothing to do with the fact that maybe their proximity means they're more likely to share similar cultures and tastes.
oh you don't say? why do you think that is? Is it just the complete arrogance of expecting to win a contest that any country has a pretty slim chance of winning unless you have something exceptional or outstanding or maybe it's that half the country seems to be some kind of nutcase obsessed with paranoid conspiracies, it's like we have a national psychosis sometimes.
She was one of the favourites across Eurovision polls all over the web from every country.
And none of them based on live performances.
The only thing she had was pre-recorded auto-tuned recordings. Which means it's going to be very important she can live up to that. By being able to sing. Unfortunately she wasn't able to sing live and was punished by the voters for this failing.
She was similar odds everywhere. I think it's a bit of a myth that odds vary a lot between countries because otherwise people would be constantly arbitraging between them
This is what's bugging me, the bookmaker prices were pretty accurate tonight for all but Molly, who was way off her predicted position ......
I think they bought the hype but the odds were never great, i think the best was 7/1 which is still very much an outsider.
But if we didnt fund it they couldnt enter so i think we deserve our place
You already get an automatic place in the final as one of the funders of the contest. You can't expect that to buy you votes too, votes have to be earned by the song and the performance.
17th place for the UK sounds about right to me having heard the song for the first time tonight.
But we also pay for countries like san marino and montenegro to enter
This really is a myth now.
It's not the 1970s where hosting Eurovision is seen as a drain on the national purse. Today Eurovision is like what Northern Ireland just did with the Giro or Yorkshire are doing with the TdF, you pay hte money and boost your economy through the event and subsequent tourism.
Countries want to win Eurovision now, they want the publicity and prestige it gies. And the BBC isn't paying for that. It pays into the EBU because it makes money from programme sales thanks to its membership.
But if we didnt fund it they couldnt enter so i think we deserve our place
the ESC is self-funding. The EBU is not. The ESC could easily function outside of the EBU if the BBC decided not to use the EBU to make money by selling programming and withdrew.
oh you don't say? why do you think that is? Is it just the complete arrogance of expecting to win a contest that any country has a pretty slim chance of winning unless you have something exceptional or outstanding or maybe it's that half the country seems to be some kind of nutcase obsessed with paranoid conspiracies, it's like we have a national psychosis sometimes.
Exactly right. Just look at what happens when we fail to land the World Cup. When we lost out to Germany for the 2006 finals football phone-ins and forums were inundated with complaints that we only lost because those pesky Europeans in UEFA didn't like us and would do anything to do us down. In reality Germany had a tacit agreement not to bid for Euro 96 if we didn't bid against them for the World Cup, but we reneged on that promise. If you think about it we were the sneaky ones, not the Europeans.
The same thing happened for the 2016 World Cup. FIFA made it clear long ago that they were going to rotate the World Cup hosts around the different world Federations and that emerging countries would be given priority. Therefore when UEFA's turn came around, Russia was always overwhelmingly likely to win. Now I happen to think that a country with Russia's appalling record on gay and ethnic minority rights should be banned from hosting any international event whatsoever - any country where black UK citizens are advised against going to certain areas by the Foreign Office is beyond the pale to me - but an anti-UK conspiracy it ain't. We really need to grow up.
the UK song wasn't even charting well in our own country. It isn't popular. I mentioned in another thread I'm worried about how much its charting, and everyone said "don't worry, its not been played yet". But you could tell there was a problem.
I think our song was ok , and the performance was ok, but there was lots of better if not great songs on the night.
I predicted 10th-15th in the prediction thread. Her song is mediocre and the result is not surprising to any sensible person.
Exactly. I don't always watch Eurovision, but I thought I would this time because I fell for all the hype and wanted to say I'd watched the Eurovision where we finally pulled it off. Instead I ended up wincing at Molly's underwhelming song and somewhat bland performance. Her vocals were also off in places when compared with many of the proper singers, such as the X-Factor girl whose name escapes me (i.e not including the novelty acts). I found myself wondering if she might have been affected by nerves.
Regardless, I can't believe that any non-partisan observer would be that surprised she didn't do well. Depending on your point of view she may have been slightly more or less cr*p than some of the bargain-basement acts, but she wasn't in the same league as the best of them and so its hardly outlandish that she didn't do particularly well and certainly not very convincing evidence of biased voting.
They have to earn their place in the final by competing in a semi final.
But they can only afford to send an entry to the semi finals because of Big 5 funding. That's what the money is used for, and a promise to help fund the contest if a poor country wins. We do have to agree to some terms to qualify for a final place.
The UK's song did not earn it's position in the final. The BBC bought it's way into the final. The lack of exposure in a semi-final puts the UK at a disadvantage for the Saturday night show.
The UK came second of the countries that bought their way into the final.
Take away the TV audiences of the Big 5 and the whole contest starts to become irrelevant. The Big 5 are given automatic entry because the ESC finds the TV audiences they provide beneficial.
Comments
She was similar odds everywhere. I think it's a bit of a myth that odds vary a lot between countries because otherwise people would be constantly arbitraging between them
This is what's bugging me, the bookmaker prices were pretty accurate tonight for all but Molly, who was way off her predicted position ......
The UK came second of the countries that bought their way into the final.
But we also pay for countries like san marino and montenegro to enter
Quite. I love the way everyone thinks that neighbouring countries voting for each other must be some massive political conspiracy, and nothing to do with the fact that maybe their proximity means they're more likely to share similar cultures and tastes.
oh you don't say? why do you think that is? Is it just the complete arrogance of expecting to win a contest that any country has a pretty slim chance of winning unless you have something exceptional or outstanding or maybe it's that half the country seems to be some kind of nutcase obsessed with paranoid conspiracies, it's like we have a national psychosis sometimes.
But if we didnt fund it they couldnt enter so i think we deserve our place
Who was proud ? I've heard nursery rhymes with more meaningful lyrics. Plus I have had this opinion since Radio 2 first played it.
And none of them based on live performances.
The only thing she had was pre-recorded auto-tuned recordings. Which means it's going to be very important she can live up to that. By being able to sing. Unfortunately she wasn't able to sing live and was punished by the voters for this failing.
No we don't each country has an entrance fee based on the annal budget reports of the national broadcaster
I think they bought the hype but the odds were never great, i think the best was 7/1 which is still very much an outsider.
You already get an automatic place in the final as one of the funders of the contest. You can't expect that to buy you votes too, votes have to be earned by the song and the performance.
17th place for the UK sounds about right to me having heard the song for the first time tonight.
Whoever pays the most, wins!
I'm sure Azerbaijan would agree with you!
Betsson and Tipico are based in Malta (something to do with the laws) and had the same odds we are familiar with
(currently still showing here http://www.betbrain.com/specials/europe/eurovision/)
14/1 was the best odds on Molly across 40-50 bookmakers on that site yesterday, and there are definitely a lot of non UK books included in that...
This really is a myth now.
It's not the 1970s where hosting Eurovision is seen as a drain on the national purse. Today Eurovision is like what Northern Ireland just did with the Giro or Yorkshire are doing with the TdF, you pay hte money and boost your economy through the event and subsequent tourism.
Countries want to win Eurovision now, they want the publicity and prestige it gies. And the BBC isn't paying for that. It pays into the EBU because it makes money from programme sales thanks to its membership.
the ESC is self-funding. The EBU is not. The ESC could easily function outside of the EBU if the BBC decided not to use the EBU to make money by selling programming and withdrew.
Exactly right. Just look at what happens when we fail to land the World Cup. When we lost out to Germany for the 2006 finals football phone-ins and forums were inundated with complaints that we only lost because those pesky Europeans in UEFA didn't like us and would do anything to do us down. In reality Germany had a tacit agreement not to bid for Euro 96 if we didn't bid against them for the World Cup, but we reneged on that promise. If you think about it we were the sneaky ones, not the Europeans.
The same thing happened for the 2016 World Cup. FIFA made it clear long ago that they were going to rotate the World Cup hosts around the different world Federations and that emerging countries would be given priority. Therefore when UEFA's turn came around, Russia was always overwhelmingly likely to win. Now I happen to think that a country with Russia's appalling record on gay and ethnic minority rights should be banned from hosting any international event whatsoever - any country where black UK citizens are advised against going to certain areas by the Foreign Office is beyond the pale to me - but an anti-UK conspiracy it ain't. We really need to grow up.
I think our song was ok , and the performance was ok, but there was lots of better if not great songs on the night.
Exactly. I don't always watch Eurovision, but I thought I would this time because I fell for all the hype and wanted to say I'd watched the Eurovision where we finally pulled it off. Instead I ended up wincing at Molly's underwhelming song and somewhat bland performance. Her vocals were also off in places when compared with many of the proper singers, such as the X-Factor girl whose name escapes me (i.e not including the novelty acts). I found myself wondering if she might have been affected by nerves.
Regardless, I can't believe that any non-partisan observer would be that surprised she didn't do well. Depending on your point of view she may have been slightly more or less cr*p than some of the bargain-basement acts, but she wasn't in the same league as the best of them and so its hardly outlandish that she didn't do particularly well and certainly not very convincing evidence of biased voting.
For me, the worst song was Poland's although Belarus, Denmark, Germany and the Ukraine weren't much better.
But they can only afford to send an entry to the semi finals because of Big 5 funding. That's what the money is used for, and a promise to help fund the contest if a poor country wins. We do have to agree to some terms to qualify for a final place.
Take away the TV audiences of the Big 5 and the whole contest starts to become irrelevant. The Big 5 are given automatic entry because the ESC finds the TV audiences they provide beneficial.