Government decision.

The BBC isn't spending the money.

It's just money being used by the government I think to provide incentives for complete broadband coverage. The DSO ring-fenced spend was the thin end of a wedge - it's now just too tempting for governments to raid the LF pot to fund any old projects.

Anyway, I think we digress.

You get up early, mlt!
I suppose they're all pretty straightforward ideas. I read your post as the BBC not suggesting no new programming on BBC One after 10.35pm, just a suggestion of there being less than there is at the moment. One or two people seem to have interpreted that as a blanket ban on new programmes after 10.35pm.

Thanks - so still cheaper for the live football than MOTD - and indeed noteworthy that the value of those packages fell by around 15%, while the BBC paid the same, if not more, with no competition, for MOTD.

I suspect MOTD is of more PSB value to the BBC than 23 live Premiership Games (which would really screw up Strictly!) - but I suspect ITV might get more out of a live package than the highlights.


Although F1 is less reliant on exposure than most sports being such an exclusive sport for so few.


LOL @ Graham Norton to be protected! Just watching bits and pieces of a few things over the weekend it's easy to see where money could be saved instantly by reducing presenting personal at least:
[LIST][*]The Lottery - why does a ten minute opt out on a Saturday need two presenters, plus the Voice of the Balls?[*]Football - five presenters over one weekend. Could easily be reduced to three with the Football Focus host also doing Final Score and either the MOTD or Football League host doing MOTD2[*]Country Tracks - they'd get away with repeating last weeks Countryfile there (with an edit for the weather!)[/LIST]
OK - that's just small fry but although a lot has been cut already there are still large areas where improvements could be made, but undoubtedly there will be visible changes in the years to come. In terms of sport though I wonder now if the BBC need to abandon their plan of focussing spending on fewer, but major, events - and instead look towards contracts which fill more hours for less.

Big peak for the football and ITV have had more luck with it this year. Im slightly surprsied as Arsenal just did not look like they would make a game of it imo.
As for the cuts-its interesting that the Beeb is saying its going to concentrate on primetime as some might say its not doing that properly now. Presumably this just means maintaining staus quo ie Motorway cops and New Tricks repeats looped when there is nothing else to show?
Im interested in the films acquisition bit-the Beeb have already withdrawn to the point where the the virtually only headline films are Christmas premieres. Are we to assume these are under threat? Im sure I heard someone say that these would remain as the only interest.

That doesn't even save 1m a year, Incredible savings

Secondly the lottery is produced by Endemol for Camelot they decide who and how many do it.

Country tracks is about the cheapest thing on TV. Its one presenter on a walk introducing old Countryfile clips FFS.

Your post is just so deluded.
Those will make absolutely no difference to the huge gap in BBC funding


Yeah because the Championship games are doing so well

Unless they did the second show without pay, that wouldn't save any money.

I reckon that just because they've said they don't want to cut services doesn't mean they won't.

I think all this media coverage at the moment is a bit obvious, loads of leaked stories saying how "THE BBC IS GOING TO GET RID OF EVERY SINGLE THING PEOPLE LIKE LOTS".

Expect them to announce soon that bbc3 and bbc4 are going, maybe some radio stations as well, people will be cross but the bbc can say "well you remember how we were going to get rid of x, y and z and everyone got really upset? not happening anymore".

Classic media expectations game.

Strange, I'd put F1 in both categories - a major event, but it fills more hours than the majority of other sports. Just on BBC TV alone (excluding Red Button):

Formula 1
- 3 hours race
- 2 hours qualifying
- 1 hour highlights
= 6 hours x 19 weekends
==> at least 114 hours*
* excluding Asian session re-runs

Wimbledon
- 8 hours x 14 days
==> at least 112 hours

Match of the Day
- 1 hour 30 minutes Saturday
- 1 hour Sunday
= 2 hours 30 minutes x 38 weekends
==> at least 95 hours*
* in theory not 38 weekends though as some games are mid-week

Six Nations
- 5 hours Saturday
- 2.5 hours Sunday
= 7.5 hours x 6 weekends
==> at least 45 hours

In reality, for cost per viewer, as noted here, F1 and Wimbledon are the two that 'hit' every category (pg 35). And F1, for the record has a higher average audience than Wimbledon.

interesting that you get an internal bbc report saying how great wimbledon and f1 are, and then the same week you get a leak to the media saying both are under threat, something doesn't add up.

From a ratings and PSB point of view the BBC would be mad to drop Wimbledon. Consistently this has been one of the BBC's most successful OBs over the years and if it went to Sky, it would be diminished in the same way the Cricket World Cup has by not being on FTA.
I don't know why the BBC doesn't drop snooker instead which gets a fraction of the audience.

I see this is now the BBC cuts thread. Its like the BBC version of X Factor and BGT scheduling on ITV. Its all hearsay and starting to get tedious.


The thing is I wouldnt have a problem with that. A chairman of a huge international broadcaster should be entitled to a few perks, a car and chaeffur being one of them.

He isn't Chairman of the BBC. He may be chairman of the BBC Trust which is supposed to be the BBCs semi independent (dont laugh!) regulator.

And only posh people and the French, have chauffeurs. We have drivers in the UK.

I work in a large company where you need to be a VP to even get a secretary. You'd need to be God to get a driver.

Interesting stuff (slight correction - Six Nations is five weekends, but throw in the Autumn internationals etc. and you're easily at 50 hours a year.) I get what you're saying about F1 too.

It does come down a lot to how the BBC use their rights - take the Diamond League Athletics for example. Last year out of 12 events only the two British legs were shown on BBC1/2, a couple more on BBC3 and the rest consigned to the red button. Now, most of these usually take place Friday nights between 7-9pm - so surely where possible screening on BBC2 is not only making best use of their rights, but also meaning that BBC2 isn't having to spend on programming in that slot. (Note though extra presentational costs for a network presentation compared to a red button feed which would usually be without presenters/analysts/interviewers).

Although of course the press are running with the worse case scenario figures as the BBC consider absolutely everything, and no doubt the BBC are happy to leak such ideas so ultimately any cuts don't seem as bad as they are.

I think his perk is to be paid £110,000 a year for a three-day week, not to mention all the other jobs he has, not to mention the jollies he will get to Wimbledon , Olympics etc at the BBC's expense (sorry, our expense).

A quarter of the audience (a quite large fraction that ) and a fraction of the cost. that's why they keep it.

However, this is a tiny fraction of what Michael Grade earned at ITV, which is a smaller broadcaster with no radio and international commitments.

I'm sure he is entitled. I assume he's decided not to take it.

The original report used the term chauffeur not driver, just using their terminology.

I dont think your right, Im sure the heads of department get a secretary at ITV.


At the way some people are going on he will have to pay on the gate to get into Wimbledon and the Olympics. He may not even make it in on those three days as the bus might not turn up.

But surely to save Wimbledon and F1 surely some of the BBC's lesser sports commitments could go. It wouldn't surprise me, though, the way they have cut back on horse racing if that becomes a target.

Reading that report (although it's got all the juicy stuff cut out), page 18 suggests the top ten products are worth £1.4bn a year, and then suggests the World Cup makes up 10% of that. Now is that chart averaging out the cost of the World Cup over four years - because if that's the case each game costs £8.75m - which there is no way ITV would make back. Even around £2.2m assuming that's the total figure per World Cup is pushing it, although around the same rate as Setanta/ESPN paid per Premier League game.

on the issue of two presenters on the lottery, I tend to agree, there is no need for 2 and VotB, but last night was the first time ive seen 2 hosts, maybe a host and a guest, and ive not see it done with two presenters.

There is horse racing on the BBC?

I think they just cover something like 13 days of racing now - so I wouldn't be surprised either considering C4 are there waiting to pick up the scraps (and probably get paid to broadcast them as well!). Racing though is a good example of cuts versus value for money - I doubt scaling back has actually saved much cash in the grand scheme of things, but it means now most Saturdays at 1pm BBC1 are having to find 60-90 minutes of filler in a slot where racing would often fill the gap before the main sporting event of the BBC's day took centre stage.

Well ITV wont get the dream final but there is the prospect of a huge FA Cup semi final audience with Man U v Man C. Ofcourse Reading might scupper that.

FA Cup semi-final draw (no replays for ITV1 so far)

Manchester City or Reading vs Manchester United
Bolton Wanderers vs Stoke City

MUTV....sorry, ITV1...won't take long in choosing their semi-final.