Pezo Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 I may be in the minority on this one but it always amazes me how anyone can feel cheated out of their £120 a year or whatever a TV licence costs. For me I watch probably 10-20 games of football per year on the BBC, plus 38 episodes of MOTD. Plus plenty of factual shit like Frozen Planet, Planet Earth etc etc in addition to the likes of Top Gear, some food programs and films etc. The mrs also watches the god awful soaps they put on there several billion times a year. 4 games at City costs £120-ish and you can bet your ass there's a lot more disappointment there Quite how anyone can get worked up about how many pundits cover a game of footy is beyond me. Sky charge £70+ PER MONTH for their top TV package. But no one moans because they have Gary Neville, Ray Wilkins, Jamie Redknapp, Alan Smith and Graeme Souness at a match. The only reason people bitch about the BBC is because they don't like being told to pay the BBC when they can voluntarily choose not to pay Sky. But still do. And then moan about the BBC. Yawn. No doubt someone else will be along to bitch about the audacity of a BBC radio pundit driving to Barnsley when he could have gone by solar powered bicycle. Bore off. This is a fair point of view but look at it the other way - if a couple private TV company were created with the same mandate as say ITV you wouldn't have to pay anything - they could bid for those 10 - 20 games and still show them - they would offer a same type of program as MOTD - all the Attenborough type stuff is sold to the BBC so could just be auctioned and Top gear works as the same model - There are plenty of food programs, soaps and films on other channels and there is no reason why this couldn't be offered if say another 2 private company's were granted the rights to do this privately. This would also create a level playing field for everyone in the industry and create extra competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Red Hat Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 I choose to pay for Sky and don't complain about it but that's not the crux of this argument. I happen to think that the BBC's coverage of sport in general is sub-standard to Sky. Not just football either, take cricket, rugby or more recently darts all great examples of the difference between them. I appreciate that the BBC don't have the same resources or number of channels as Sky but that should not have an effect on the quality of programmes like MOTD. Imo the BBC look like amateurs in comparison. So you appreciate the beeb don't have the same resources? What do you think affects programme making then?!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
054123 Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 <br />My actual point is why does it need 4 summarisers for a game that the fans did not think was that important, it was not a sell out in fact up to 5,000 down on a full house, sure 4 summarisers is over kill and a waste of money.<br /> I know, i was being slightly fececious and i apologise. I just don't get all the BBC bashing. Having travelled the world and talking to my cousins who live in Australia and Canada, i don't know of a better independent media services provider, which caters for such a large ranging group of people. My cousins can't believe how lucky we are to have the BBC, and even when you point out the licence fee, they can't believe the value. You may argue about it being a stealth tax, but if the BBC didn't exist, the alternatives are shocking. There is nothing in the English speaking world which rivals it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
054123 Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 <br />I don't need to let tv schedules dictate when I watch something (which is limited these days). Sky anytime has 0 adds, same as the anytime service on Virgin.<br /> Is that for all programmes? I am being genuine when i ask that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 Is that for all programmes? I am being genuine when i ask that. You can record anything you have on your package yes. Apart from sport, I rarely watch anything when its on. One massive plus point which AVIV alludes to is that I dont have to watch ads.... Though it is frustrating when watching a game of football and the ads come on - I'm used to forwarding the ads!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 Only problem with sky is that they now have gary neville as a "pundit" Didn't like him as a player, but as a pundit he's absolutely top drawer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Red Hat Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 I just don't get all the BBC bashing. Having travelled the world and talking to my cousins who live in Australia and Canada, i don't know of a better independent media services provider, which caters for such a large ranging group of people. My cousins can't believe how lucky we are to have the BBC, and even when you point out the licence fee, they can't believe the value. You may argue about it being a stealth tax, but if the BBC didn't exist, the alternatives are shocking. There is nothing in the English speaking world which rivals it. Spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted January 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 I know, i was being slightly fececious and i apologise. I just don't get all the BBC bashing. Having travelled the world and talking to my cousins who live in Australia and Canada, i don't know of a better independent media services provider, which caters for such a large ranging group of people. My cousins can't believe how lucky we are to have the BBC, and even when you point out the licence fee, they can't believe the value. You may argue about it being a stealth tax, but if the BBC didn't exist, the alternatives are shocking. There is nothing in the English speaking world which rivals it. I agree with you in general, however the BBC have made the fatal mistake of following their commercial counterparts in 'dumbing down' their schedule, far too many game shows, cookery programs, reality programs and property programs and they are the masters at padding out a half an hour program too make it an hour long program by repeating things more than once from it's start making the presenters make tits of themselves or going completely off subject. The BBC should stick to the quality type programs they are world famous for. 4 summarisers is ridiculous for one game. As for Top Gear, I know it is very popular but IMO it is 3 just blokes dicking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fodbarmyarmy Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 I don't need to let tv schedules dictate when I watch something (which is limited these days). Sky anytime has 0 adds, same as the anytime service on Virgin. But I thought it was SKY and their £££££££ that had ruined our beautiful game? Obviously not nescesarily so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
054123 Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 <br />I agree with you in general, however the BBC have made the fatal mistake of following their commercial counterparts in 'dumbing down' their schedule, far too many game shows, cookery programs, reality programs and property programs and they are the masters at padding out a half an hour program too make it an hour long program by repeating things more than once from it's start making the presenters make tits of themselves or going completely off subject. The BBC should stick to the quality type programs they are world famous for.<br /><br />4 summarisers is ridiculous for one game.<br /><br />As for Top Gear, I know it is very popular but IMO it is 3 just blokes dicking about.<br /> The one case for change i would make is to look to do away with BBC 3 and 4 and incorporate their schedules into BBC 1 and BBC 2. BBC 4 has some excellent programes but if they were spread over the BBC 2 schedule and sometimes later on BBC 1, it would make for richer choice of quality programming. I think the BBC's radio service is outstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murraysrightplum Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 The BBC is better value for money than going to watch Bristol City. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted January 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 The one case for change i would make is to look to do away with BBC 3 and 4 and incorporate their schedules into BBC 1 and BBC 2. BBC 4 has some excellent programes but if they were spread over the BBC 2 schedule and sometimes later on BBC 1, it would make for richer choice of quality programming. I think the BBC's radio service is outstanding. Apply for the job as BBC controller mate, you've just sorted it, I agree totally. As for football summarisers I would love to see 1 studio ex pro summariser + perhaps a football journo, a fan perhaps (who perhaps edits a good blog or fanzine) or a credible celeb fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phileas Fogg Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 I may be in the minority on this one but it always amazes me how anyone can feel cheated out of their £120 a year or whatever a TV licence costs. For me I watch probably 10-20 games of football per year on the BBC, plus 38 episodes of MOTD. Plus plenty of factual shit like Frozen Planet, Planet Earth etc etc in addition to the likes of Top Gear, some food programs and films etc. The mrs also watches the god awful soaps they put on there several billion times a year. 4 games at City costs £120-ish and you can bet your ass there's a lot more disappointment there Quite how anyone can get worked up about how many pundits cover a game of footy is beyond me. Sky charge £70+ PER MONTH for their top TV package. But no one moans because they have Gary Neville, Ray Wilkins, Jamie Redknapp, Alan Smith and Graeme Souness at a match. The only reason people bitch about the BBC is because they don't like being told to pay the BBC when they can voluntarily choose not to pay Sky. But still do. And then moan about the BBC. Yawn. No doubt someone else will be along to bitch about the audacity of a BBC radio pundit driving to Barnsley when he could have gone by solar powered bicycle. Bore off. Totally correct. Good to see such an informed and thought about opinion about this topic. I quickly worked out that by dividing the £120 by 365 days of a year - then dividing that figure by 4 (to assume an average household of a partner and 2 kids) it works out at 0.08p per person per day. For the excellent standard of coverage and wide range of choice the BBC provides on a daily basis, that figure is astonishingly small. (I hope that sum is right now!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted January 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 Totally correct. Good to see such an informed and thought about opinion about this topic. I quickly worked out that by dividing the £120 by 365 days of a year - then dividing that figure by 4 (to assume an average household of a partner and 2 kids) it works out at 0.08p per person per day. For the excellent standard of coverage and wide range of choice the BBC provides on a daily basis, that figure is astonishingly small. (I hope that sum is right now!) and that daily amount would be even smaller or leave more for 'quality' programs, if they didn't feel the need for 4 summarisers for 1 game and the rest of the ex pro's and other's riding the BBC gravy train. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murraysrightplum Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 Those pundits are on yearly wages from the BBC, so it's not like they had to pay extra for 5 people to cover it. You should be glad there wasn't just 1 of them as the other 4 would be being paid to sit on their backsides. Sky etc have forced the cost of pundits up so that the BBC have had to pay more to keep people they want. Just look at the likes of Ray Stubbs, Adrian Viles, I mean Chiles etc. They hopped straight over to ITV/ESPN/Sky as soon as the money came in. Unless you want the BBC to have 1 pundit who does every single game and is paid annually, I don't see a solution. Don't forget the BBC is independantly regulated to see if it is value for money and it remains the best public broadcaster in the world. Even with Eastenders... PS a lot of the 'substandard rubbish' is either 1) interesting/entertaining to some - you can't please everyone all of the time or 2) Flogged abroad/to satalite for repeats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 So you appreciate the beeb don't have the same resources? What do you think affects programme making then?!!! My beef is about the quality. The BBC produce some great quality programmes but that doesn't include their sports coverage which imo is second rate when compared to Sky's sports coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Red Hat Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 My beef is about the quality. The BBC produce some great quality programmes but that doesn't include their sports coverage which imo is second rate when compared to Sky's sports coverage. It's just possible that quality is affected by.... err...resources! That's equally relevant whether applied to drama, news, documentaries, radio etc, or sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murraysrightplum Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 My beef is about the quality. The BBC produce some great quality programmes but that doesn't include their sports coverage which imo is second rate when compared to Sky's sports coverage. It is far far better than ITV, who it should be compared with (not Sky who have almost limitless resource). The World Cup figures demonstrate that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 You couldn't get worse than ITV. It's like the bottom of the barrel. Even Chanell 5 does a better job of football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_BCFC Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 Never understood the BBC bashing. Love the radio, website is brilliant, TV not so good but enjoy Match of the Day (still decent football no matter how much people moan about the Prem). The only thing is I wish they would try not to have so many repeats etc but have more original shows. Iplayer is decent though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.