our public broadcaster dumps another of our institutions

[Never to the dark side]

Question of sport to finish after 53 years,plus the two years as a pilot show

Viewing figures dropped from 4 million to one million in its attempt to bring in a younger audience

Not dissimilar to what they have done to local radio

Shame they don't dispose of some of the senior citizens at board level

[phantom]

Sadly it's had its time and like other great TV shows it's run it's course 

I gave up on it a long time ago as the presenter and captains had little to no charisma and weren't like likeable or relatable 

In my opinion it should have been put to bed a long time ago before it's sad demise, and the fall in viewing figures speak for themselves 

One interesting thing is that the BBC are keeping the rights to the show so nobody else can relaunch it on another channel. Though to be honest Sky already tried bringing their own version to our screens with A league of their own, but typically of sky they keep flogging a dead horse 

[phantom]

With host Sue Barker 4-5M watched

2020 Barker replaced by Paddy McGuinness

Sam Quek & Ugo Monye replaced captains Dawson & Tufnell

2022 Viewing figures, slumped to 730K

If I was on a show Paddy McGuinness was added to, I'd be out of the door after this and previously Top Gear 

[TV Tom]

Stopped watching when the extremely annoying Willie Carson became a captain 

[pongo88]

This is a classic 
 

 

[Peter1450]

3 hours ago, Never to the dark side said:

Question of sport to finish after 53 years,plus the two years as a pilot show

Viewing figures dropped from 4 million to one million in its attempt to bring in a younger audience

Not dissimilar to what they have done to local radio

Shame they don't dispose of some of the senior citizens at board level

I’m not sure you can blame senior citizen management for a lot of the BBC’s recent decisions, seems the younger managers always want to “ upgrade “ classic shows to attract a younger audience which usually has the complete opposite effect!

     Look at what they’ve done at Radio 2 recently, that went well ……..

[italian dave]

Without wishing to turn this too political, the BBC has had its funding cut by a third in the past decade. It’s got no option but to dump some of its traditional output. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

10 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Without wishing to turn this too political, the BBC has had its funding cut by a third in the past decade. It’s got no option but to dump some of its traditional output. 

Or it could cut some of the modern crap it outputs that no one watches? 

30 million quid spent on Survivor for example. Nice little paid holiday for the BBC workers tho paid for by the licence fee payers. 

[luke_bristol]

17 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Without wishing to turn this too political, the BBC has had its funding cut by a third in the past decade. It’s got no option but to dump some of its traditional output. 

Funding radio shows that ask what the punishment for blasphemy should be instead of continuing to fund QoS is a choice well within their scope, the blame lies nowhere else.

[GrahamC]

Hilarious to see the social media reaction saying this is another example of political correctness when the reality is a much liked female presenter was replaced by a white male one.

Not watched it in years but appears to be more about the choice of a crap presenter rather than box ticking & downgrading the guests to include some with no connection to sport at all.

[italian dave]

16 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Or it could cut some of the modern crap it outputs that no one watches? 

30 million quid spent on Survivor for example. Nice little paid holiday for the BBC workers tho paid for by the licence fee payers. 

Whatever it cuts it will always be something that someone likes. So that becomes an endless debate based on personal preferences. But the bigger picture is that a funding cut of a third means that the decisions are going to be so sweeping that somewhere along the way it affects something you or I like. 

Incidentally, Survivor - at its recent low - gets 2.5m viewers. Hardly 'no-one'. QoS is on 1m. So if it's based on how many watch it the that's your rationale for it being QoS and not Survivor. 

(For the record, I've never watched Survivor -it just doesn't appeal - so this isn't about my preferences!)

17 minutes ago, luke_bristol said:

Funding radio shows that ask what the punishment for blasphemy should be instead of continuing to fund QoS is a choice well within their scope, the blame lies nowhere else.

See above.

[W-S-M Seagull]

4 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Whatever it cuts it will always be something that someone likes. So that becomes an endless debate based on personal preferences. But the bigger picture is that a funding cut of a third means that the decisions are going to be so sweeping that somewhere along the way it affects something you or I like. 

Incidentally, Survivor - at its recent low - gets 2.5m viewers. Hardly 'no-one'. QoS is on 1m. So if it's based on how many watch it the that's your rationale for it being QoS and not Survivor. 

(For the record, I've never watched Survivor -it just doesn't appeal - so this isn't about my preferences!)

See above.

But does QoS cost 30 million to produce? 

Didn't QoS get 4 million viewers before they changed the line up? 

Isn't 2.5 million viewers in a prime time spot pretty poor? 

There certainly isn't any bang for our buck with poor output like this. 

Take a look on iPlayer and you'll see plenty of other crap on there. 

It seems to me they wanted to ditch QoS before but with respectful viewing figures they couldn't, so they had to make it crap 1st to lower tge figures. 

The BBC is like the NHS. Resources are poorly spent. 

[phantom]

4m was it's peak viewing back in the day 

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

The BBC is like the NHS. Resources are poorly spent.

If you mean the resources are guided into the pockets of private businesses with connections to Tory MPs….then yes I agree.  

[ORANGE500]

52 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Without wishing to turn this too political, the BBC has had its funding cut by a third in the past decade. It’s got no option but to dump some of its traditional output. 

Needs to have the other 2/3's cut and let it sink. Going to ASDA later but happy to pay Tesco and Sainsbury's etc  as well because i'm using the services of  a grocery store so must pay for them as well completely fair and just.Trying to think of anything else you don't use but still have to pay for or more accurately forced to pay for. 

[spudski]

If it's not broke...why change it?

Why change it to attract a younger audience?

Sue Barker didn't want to retire, she wanted to continue. 

Some programmes are like a pair of old slippers, they are comforting and something that feels ' traditional '. 

Lots of older people watched, both my mum and dad did, and mum didn't really like sport. 

Some programmes and presenters just go together. 

There are plenty of programmes that attract a more youthful audience...are they going to change them to get older people on board?

They've probably got it right with Strictly, as that seems to attract all ages. 

When David Attenborough passes ...nature programmes will never be the same. 

I also miss Peter Allis with the Golf. Sadly passed. 

 

Edited December 16, 2023 by spudski

[Northern Red]

 

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, spudski said:

I also miss Peter Allis with the Golf. Sadly passed

[Abraham Romanovich]

Heads up Bargain Hunt Xmas special this Monday at 12:15, let's hope the Blues can end 5 years of hurt after the Reds have won an astonishing 4 Xmas specials in a row.

Also BBC confirmed a special highlights package of King Charles coronation on Boxing Night, sure to be a good watch.

[spudski]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

She is pleasant on the eye for sure. 

Unlike Paddy McGuiness who I loath. I actually don't know anyone who likes him. 

[richwwtk]

I think that, especially now that streaming has essentially taken over from Live TV for most people under 40 the BBC should have it's roles and responsibilties changed maybe.

Stop trying to produce generic entertainment programmes,soap operas, reality shows etc. and stick to real Public Broadcasting.

Continue with news, free to air sport, radio (especially local), things such as the World Service, the more niche output (documentaries that nobody else will make etc), but leave everything that is essentially profitmaking to the commercial broadcasters, be it ITV, Netflix or whatever.

In return for this the Licence fee should be scrapped but the BBC would be properly funded directly by the government. The Licence fee is only really a ringfenced tax anyway, so why not just fund them directly?

Edited December 16, 2023 by richwwtk

[spudski]

Brian Cox signs off with the general demeanour of the nation right now.

 

Edited December 16, 2023 by spudski

[TheReds]

1 minute ago, spudski said:

She is pleasant on the eye for sure. 

Unlike Paddy McGuiness who I loath. I actually don't know anyone who likes him. 

I bet he's made some serious money basically because of being a mate of Peter Kay. I actually seen him down the Colston Hall for a stand up gig and he was pretty poor, not surprised he knocked that career on the head. Decent in the comedies with Kay, but as a presenter he certainly does seem an odd choice to keep getting roles.

[spudski]

1 minute ago, TheReds said:

I bet he's made some serious money basically because of being a mate of Peter Kay. I actually seen him down the Colston Hall for a stand up gig and he was pretty poor, not surprised he knocked that career on the head. Decent in the comedies with Kay, but as a presenter he certainly does seem an odd choice to keep getting roles.

So overrated. Agree about the Peter Kay connection. 

[exAtyeoMax]

37 minutes ago, spudski said:

Sue Barker didn't want to retire, she wanted to continue. 

Sounds a bit familiar…

[italian dave]

1 hour ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

But does QoS cost 30 million to produce? 

Didn't QoS get 4 million viewers before they changed the line up? 

Isn't 2.5 million viewers in a prime time spot pretty poor? 

There certainly isn't any bang for our buck with poor output like this. 

Take a look on iPlayer and you'll see plenty of other crap on there. 

It seems to me they wanted to ditch QoS before but with respectful viewing figures they couldn't, so they had to make it crap 1st to lower tge figures. 

The BBC is like the NHS. Resources are poorly spent. 

2.5m is poor - but it's not "no-one". That's all I said!

I also said at the outset that this isn't about what I think is good and what you think is good and what either of us thinks is a waste of money. It's simply making the point that any organisation that has its funding cut by a third will cut things that some people are happy about and others not. Those cuts have consequences. Same with local councils.

And the BBC is expected to be all things to all people, which means a) everyone will find something they like and something they dislike - and probably take a view on whether its good value based on that subjective view, and b) everyone will be annoyed when something they like gets cut.

Personally, I value the BBC and I think we'd regret it if we let it fail. I don't begrudge paying the licence fee - it's far better value (in my eyes) than any other streaming service. But I agree with @richwwtk that it needs greater clarity in terms of what we all expect of it.

[Red from afar]

They tried to broaden its appeal and ended up not being good at anything.

It stopped being a proper sports quiz, it wasn't especially entertaining, the team captains were a hockey player and an average rugby international who were largely unknown outside their sports and had a host that had nothing to do with sport. Who was their target audience? 

There's loads of people who love sport and quizzes, they should have concentrated on doing that well.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Red from afar

[Eddie Hitler]

28 minutes ago, TheReds said:

I bet he's made some serious money basically because of being a mate of Peter Kay. I actually seen him down the Colston Hall for a stand up gig and he was pretty poor, not surprised he knocked that career on the head. Decent in the comedies with Kay, but as a presenter he certainly does seem an odd choice to keep getting roles.

 

He was excellent in Max and Paddy but I would sya that the problem with putting him onto QoS and Top Gear is that the BBC executive is misunderstanding, some would say patronising, the audience for each programme by thinking that they are watched by low brow working class people who would like to see one of their own presenting and think him ideal.

This is simialr to my memories of the absolute worst of children's TV where the execs reasoned that as kids were the audience then they would like to see a kid producing.  Usually some annoying precocious yet very amateurish twonk from the Anna Scher Stage School.  I give you: Why Don't You, Razzamatazz and (brace yourselves) Our Show.

When what we actually wanted was funny professional adult presenters like John Noakes, Johnny Ball and Brian Cant to whom youngsters could relate.

Top Gear was different as they couldn't really have kept Clarkson on but there was no sensible reason for replacing Sue Barker on QoS she was was ideal for the job.

 

For those younger souls who are fortunate enough not to have seen it, here is Our Show in all its unwatchable shambolic amateurness. 

Well done if you can make it to the minute mark without stopping it or throwing your screen / tablet / phone against the wall.

 

 

 

[cidered abroad]

It ceased to be a Question of Sport and has become a comedy show.

[Eddie Hitler]

Just now, cidered abroad said:

It ceased to be a Question of Sport and has become a comedy show.

 

Bit like 606 then.

I used to listen to it with Dannys Baker and Kelly whne it was excellent, humorous but not clownish.

Then I listened to it on the Sunday after Nigel had been sacked, expecting it to be covered and at least one call taken, and it was quite astoundingly bad.  Robbie Savage and Chris Suttion sounded like two old drunks making each other laugh at a corner table of a pub without realising that they were actually meant to be presenting a show.

I couldn't believe quite how far it had fallen.