• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Broadcasting
BBC Lose the Grand National and the Derby
<<
<
2 of 7
>>
>
slow motion
19-03-2012
They lost both these races?! Didn't know the BBC ran horses in the first place!

Seriously though, consider the £25 million mimicking ITVs BGT/XFactor with "The Voice" - need I say more?

it's a matter of priorities.

Perhaps if they had celebrity jockeys, you could criticise and then vote off, they'd have kept the rights.
Zac Quinn
19-03-2012
Would be interesting to see how many of those that voted Conservative in the last General Election are outraged now that the implications of Cameron and Osborne's licence fee freeze have hit home in a sport that is mostly followed by upper-class folk, would imagine there's quite a crossover.
Originally Posted by Inspiration:
“Wonder if Clare Balding will jump over to C4 now or if she will decide to do other sports?”

I still don't quite understand why serious action wasn't taken publicly for the hugely disrespectful 'teeth' comment. If the Grand National is going to form the centrepiece of C4's annual sporting output I doubt they'd risk a moment like that.
Zac Quinn
19-03-2012
Originally Posted by BenFranklin:
“BBC really should have bid £5m a year for the lot”

With what money? The dosh they put forward will have been the very most they could afford to bid in their need to cut-back, they couldn't afford to bid anymore and that's why they lost the rights!
nobabydaddy
19-03-2012
Originally Posted by Zac Quinn:
“With what money? The figure of £4m they reportedley put forward will have been the very most they could afford to bid in their need to cut-back, they couldn't afford to bid anymore and that's why they lost the rights!”

With the £24 million wasted on yet another crappy 'talent' contest.
Ginger Daddy
19-03-2012
Originally Posted by nobabydaddy:
“With the £24 million wasted on yet another crappy 'talent' contest.”

£24m on many, many, many hours of prime time broadcasting represents better value for money than £5m for a bit of horse racing on in the afternoon.

Sorry, that is the harsh reality of it. People moan about how much the Eurovision Song Contest costs the UK, however if the Beeb were to produce its own three hours of programming for that slot it wouldnt be any cheaper.
derek500
19-03-2012
Originally Posted by Ginger Daddy:
“£24m on many, many, many hours of prime time broadcasting represents better value for money than £5m for a bit of horse racing on in the afternoon.”

The Voice figures quoted are for the rights for the format. They still need to pay millions more to produce the actual programme.

It was reported last week that one of the judges is getting a £500k fee to appear.
Ginger Daddy
19-03-2012
Originally Posted by derek500:
“The Voice figures quoted are for the rights for the format. They still need to pay millions more to produce the actual programme.

It was reported last week that one of the judges is getting a £500k fee to appear.”

Ah, in which case I shall reserve judgement
nobabydaddy
19-03-2012
Originally Posted by derek500:
“The Voice figures quoted are for the rights for the format. They still need to pay millions more to produce the actual programme.

It was reported last week that one of the judges is getting a £500k fee to appear.”

Exactly. A spectacular waste of money.
Zac Quinn
19-03-2012
Originally Posted by nobabydaddy:
“With the £24 million wasted on yet another crappy 'talent' contest.”

'Yet another'? Unless I'm mistaken the BBC haven't shown a singing talent contest since 2003. So, if you like, they've essentially been saving up this '£24m' for the last 9 years, which works out at roughly £2.6m a year. I don't know the ins and outs of the BBC's contract for the racing, but I'm guessing that figure isn't that different from the amount they have been paying for 4 hours of racing a year, and let's be honest when you compare it to the amount of viewers Jessie J and Tom Jones will bring in prime-time, the Derby pales into insignifcance.

Adding 'The Voice' has added significant variety to a Saturday Night BBC1 schedule which, for 60% of the year, consists of hospital Drama and repeats of Comedy Roadshow. 'The X Factor', even in it's 100th+ season, got an average of £15m viewers for the final last year, and The Voice is a far more interesting format.
BenFranklin
19-03-2012
Originally Posted by Zac Quinn:
“With what money? The dosh they put forward will have been the very most they could afford to bid in their need to cut-back, they couldn't afford to bid anymore and that's why they lost the rights!”

The BBC can afford £5m a year for horse racing rights
Big Boy Barry
19-03-2012
Originally Posted by slow motion:
“They lost both these races?! Didn't know the BBC ran horses in the first place!

Seriously though, consider the £25 million mimicking ITVs BGT/XFactor with "The Voice" - need I say more?

it's a matter of priorities.

Perhaps if they had celebrity jockeys, you could criticise and then vote off, they'd have kept the rights. ”

"I'm sorry, but that wasn't your best fence. You needed to step out of your comfort zone when you got to The Chair, and for that reason....I'm sending home....."
slow motion
19-03-2012
Originally Posted by derek500:
“The Voice figures quoted are for the rights for the format. They still need to pay millions more to produce the actual programme.

It was reported last week that one of the judges is getting a £500k fee to appear.”

The Guardian covered this a few days ago:

Quote:
“Half a million pounds of licence fee payers' money is being spent on will.i.am's fee alone; the Black Eyed Peas frontman is raking in half the £1m talent bill. Veteran crooner Sir Tom Jones is taking home an estimated £250,000, Jessie J a little less, and the relatively unknown Danny O'Donoghue from the Script is still pulling in six figures.”

BBC's The Voice is an attack on the Simon Cowell juggernaut
hendero
19-03-2012
The racing will still be on FTA TV, and the BBC can focus its resources elsewhere. Sounds like good news all around.
The Ginge
19-03-2012
I am not really a fan of horse racing but it seems Sport is just slipping away from the BBC bit by bit. In years to come there won't be much left. At least as people say it is still free to air but I am sure it won't be long until 'Sky Horse Racing HD' comes about......
mossy2103
19-03-2012
Originally Posted by omnidirectional:
“That's quite an exaggeration.”

Note that I said "being seen as" implying a perception is the eyes of some, and that it was a qualified statement ("if Channel 4 take on much more sport").

Quote:
“Most weeks of the year, sport on C4 is nothing more than two hours of horse racing on a Saturday afternoon.”

Except when they show Cheltenham, Aintree meetings etc

And except when they show Indoor Athletics

And except when they show other sports which take place throughout the week.

As I said, it's the perception rather than the reality - the same perception that gets people complaining that there's too much sport on the BBC, that every Saturday afternoon sport takes over on the BBC, that the BBC should start a sports channel.
mossy2103
19-03-2012
Originally Posted by slow motion:
“Seriously though, consider the £25 million mimicking ITVs BGT/XFactor with "The Voice" - need I say more?”

I will say more, and I will say something that you should already know - the BBC Sport budget is entirely separate from any other programming or channel budget, and as such any savings by not bidding for The Voice would have been unlikely to have been carried across to the BBC Sport budget. Read the DQF proposals and you will see why.
mossy2103
19-03-2012
Originally Posted by Ginger Daddy:
“£24m on many, many, many hours of prime time broadcasting represents better value for money than £5m for a bit of horse racing on in the afternoon.”

And that is £24 million or so for the rights across three years, with each run being 12 programmes of what seem now to be 80 mins each.
GeorgeS
19-03-2012
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“Note that I said "being seen as" implying a perception is the eyes of some, and that it was a qualified statement ("if Channel 4 take on much more sport").


Except when they show Cheltenham, Aintree meetings etc

And except when they show Indoor Athletics

And except when they show other sports which take place throughout the week.

As I said, it's the perception rather than the reality - the same perception that gets people complaining that there's too much sport on the BBC, that every Saturday afternoon sport takes over on the BBC, that the BBC should start a sports channel.”

This is just clutching at straws. Everyone expects racing on Channel 4. It is already the terrestial home of racing. You'd need to never watch the channel to not know that.
GeorgeS
19-03-2012
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“I will say more, and I will say something that you should already know - the BBC Sport budget is entirely separate from any other programming or channel budget, and as such any savings by not bidding for The Voice would have been unlikely to have been carried across to the BBC Sport budget. Read the DQF proposals and you will see why.”

and of course the budgets are set by management and they could easily take money from one and put it into another. They werent handed down in stone tablets from God
mossy2103
19-03-2012
Originally Posted by GeorgeS:
“This is just clutching at straws.”

No it is not at all. I'm simply echoing what others have posted about sport on the BBC. And I was careful (very careful in fact) to qualify my statement so as to clearly indicate that it might be a perception. But such is the way with DS, nothing can be taken at face value.

In truth, neither you nor I know what the public perception is or will be regarding C4 and the amount of sport that it will carry into the future. But I am as free as anyone else here to put forward a viewpoint without you coming out with any "clutching at straws" riposte (as if I have some agenda to uphold, which I don't - I have nowt against C4 showing sports events).

Quote:
“Everyone expects racing on Channel 4. It is already the terrestial home of racing. You'd need to never watch the channel to not know that.”

i cannot quite see the significance of why you posted that, and what relevance it has to my post.
slow motion
19-03-2012
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“And that is £24 million or so for the rights across three years, with each run being 12 programmes of what seem now to be 80 mins each.”

Just the rights?

So much more altogether then with £1m celeb judges costs a year plus all the production costs on top.

Can you also indicate why this is "across three years" as reports I've seen only state 2 years, ie only 2 series confirmed.
mossy2103
19-03-2012
Originally Posted by slow motion:
“Just the rights?

So much more altogether then with £1m celeb judges costs a year plus all the production costs on top.

Can you also indicate why this is "across three years" as reports I've seen only state 2 years, ie only 2 series confirmed.”

If it was across two years, then that was my mistake.

And when this was first mooted, I expressed some scepticism that it was a wise move (yes, go and check my posts if you doubt me).
slow motion
19-03-2012
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“If it was across two years, then that was my mistake.”

So a million pounds a show in rights costs alone then?
GeorgeS
19-03-2012
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“But I am as free as anyone else here to put forward a viewpoint without you coming out with any "clutching at straws" riposte (as if I have some agenda to uphold, which I don't - I have nowt against C4 showing sports events).”

indeed. DS is home to many unique viewpoints. It doesnt mean that we cant point out how unlikely they are
mossy2103
19-03-2012
Originally Posted by GeorgeS:
“indeed. DS is home to many unique viewpoints. It doesnt mean that we cant point out how unlikely they are ”

Go on the - PROVE how unlikely it might be, some facts and supporting surveys would be fine.

The trouble is, you won't be able to, just as I am not able to do the same for my opinion.

So perhaps just leave it there with no other barbed comments like "clutching at straws"
<<
<
2 of 7
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map