6 Nations

[JohnnyDee]

It's being shared with the BBC

Ah, didn't know that so slightly less miffed then.

Itv support rugby with the premiership highlights package and World Cup coverage. the bbc in England support nothing

For me it's about ads really, that's all. I hate having to watch sport interspersed with ads.

Realise the world's changing and before long the only thing Beeb will have available to them will be live Pro-Celebrity Badger Fettling.

 

[User20205]

live Pro-Celebrity Badger Fettling.

Already on Eurosport, but I believe BT sport have tabled a bid for the 2016/2017 season

 

[jdpjamesp]

My new office is within spitting distance of the Aviva Lansdowne Road in Dublin. Unfortunately I am not there over weekends, solely midweek. So whilst all my colleagues are buzzing about their tickets I will have to follow on social media (no TV license - not worth it). Boo!

 

[User20205]

My new office is within spitting distance of the Aviva Lansdowne Road in Dublin. Unfortunately I am not there over weekends, solely midweek. So whilst all my colleagues are buzzing about their tickets I will have to follow on social media (no TV license - not worth it). Boo!

Liverpoolphil will object but i'm pretty sure you can watch on the bcc iplayer from a UK ip address, just tick the 'I'm a licence fee payer' box, they'll never know

if you're in Ireland you can pay a one off fee of a few quid or euros to get remote access to a UK IP address

 

[jdpjamesp]

Liverpoolphil will object but i'm pretty sure you can watch on the bcc iplayer from a UK ip address, just tick the 'I'm a licence fee payer' box, they'll never know

if you're in Ireland you can pay a one off fee of a few quid or euros to get remote access to a UK IP address

Yes I know you can do that but it's dishonest

 

[GB72]

Ah, didn't know that so slightly less miffed then.



For me it's about ads really, that's all. I hate having to watch sport interspersed with ads.

Realise the world's changing and before long the only thing Beeb will have available to them will be live Pro-Celebrity Badger Fettling.

Sadly rugby is another example of the BBC just wanting the crown jewels. They do nothing for club rugby having ditched Rugby Special years ago. ITV at least have a highlights program and the adds are only going to be on at half time so you lose a few minutes of usually banal match analysis.

Personally I think that coverage of the 6 Nations should be tied to investment in the game at Club level and that would mean it going to BT Sport.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Sadly rugby is another example of the BBC just wanting the crown jewels. They do nothing for club rugby having ditched Rugby Special years ago. ITV at least have a highlights program and the adds are only going to be on at half time so you lose a few minutes of usually banal match analysis.

Personally I think that coverage of the 6 Nations should be tied to investment in the game at Club level and that would mean it going to BT Sport.

As with all the other sports going - blame the government for restricting their budget

 

[GB72]

As with all the other sports going - blame the government for restricting their budget

Not willing to do that. If the BBC had commitment to sport at any level other than the crown jewels then there are plenty of affordable options out there which is could show. Until recently Championship level rugby had no TV deal at all and that is of a very high standard. Then you have lower level football, lower tour golf. The BBC could really emphasise its remit as a National Broadcaster by promoting lower level sport but it chooses not to.

As for Radio, the BBC has plenty of rights to cover live rugby but it will ignore the highest level of club match or bump it to digital only sports extra if it means being able to cover a run of the mill game of football. The preferential treatment for football on 5 Live is scary and yet the BBC is meant to cater for all tastes and should be eschewing some of its football coverage in favour of lesser sports for which there is interest. That is the heart of public service broadcasting.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Not willing to do that. If the BBC had commitment to sport at any level other than the crown jewels then there are plenty of affordable options out there which is could show. Until recently Championship level rugby had no TV deal at all and that is of a very high standard. Then you have lower level football, lower tour golf. The BBC could really emphasise its remit as a National Broadcaster by promoting lower level sport but it chooses not to.

As for Radio, the BBC has plenty of rights to cover live rugby but it will ignore the highest level of club match or bump it to digital only sports extra if it means being able to cover a run of the mill game of football. The preferential treatment for football on 5 Live is scary and yet the BBC is meant to cater for all tastes and should be eschewing some of its football coverage in favour of lesser sports for which there is interest. That is the heart of public service broadcasting.

The BBC have had their purse strings tightened - they will focus on football because that's what appeals to the majority of the sports fans in the country

They showed lower level football after MOTD and repeated - no one watched it , couldn't justify spending the money on highlights people weren't watching

The football coverage comes in packages - can't mix and match it , the broadcaster picks a package and bids for it - the BBC bid for the terrestrial package and provides a service for the majority - the channels they broadcast on are also transmitted around the world to ex pats and BFBS etc

To broadcast lower level sport still takes the same resources as it does higher level sport and a times even more resources at stadiums that aren't prepared for live broadcasting. They won't pay out that sort of money when they know the level of viewers won't be able to justify the spending.

If they hadn't had the budget cut so badly then they could afford to spend more on minority sports

 

[GB72]

The BBC have had their purse strings tightened - they will focus on football because that's what appeals to the majority of the sports fans in the country

They showed lower level football after MOTD and repeated - no one watched it , couldn't justify spending the money on highlights people weren't watching

The football coverage comes in packages - can't mix and match it , the broadcaster picks a package and bids for it - the BBC bid for the terrestrial package and provides a service for the majority - the channels they broadcast on are also transmitted around the world to ex pats and BFBS etc

To broadcast lower level sport still takes the same resources as it does higher level sport and a times even more resources at stadiums that aren't prepared for live broadcasting. They won't pay out that sort of money when they know the level of viewers won't be able to justify the spending.

If they hadn't had the budget cut so badly then they could afford to spend more on minority sports

But the whole point of a public service and publicly funded broadcaster is that they should not cater to the majority that could be equally served on other channels. They are mandated to cater for all groups irrespective of viewing figures and national appeal. If the BBC want to cater for the majority and judges itself on viewing figures then it is a commercial broadcasting entity and it is time it lost its protected status and funding and had to fight in the real world. It is a reasonable argument that many other commercial TV and Radio broadcasters are happy to broadcast football free to air and thus there is no requirement for a publicly funded broadcaster to fill that role. As such, it should step aside from mainstream sport that can be catered for on other free channels and focus wholly on sports that do not receive the same level of interest.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

But the whole point of a public service and publicly funded broadcaster is that they should not cater to the majority that could be equally served on other channels. They are mandated to cater for all groups irrespective of viewing figures and national appeal. If the BBC want to cater for the majority and judges itself on viewing figures then it is a commercial broadcasting entity and it is time it lost its protected status and funding and had to fight in the real world. It is a reasonable argument that many other commercial TV and Radio broadcasters are happy to broadcast football free to air and thus there is no requirement for a publicly funded broadcaster to fill that role. As such, it should step aside from mainstream sport that can be catered for on other free channels and focus wholly on sports that do not receive the same level of interest.

Again the government is forcing the BBC to justify its spending - that's why it has to look at viewing figures - another reason why BBC3 is going to online - budget cuts.

Other commercial broadcasters do broadcast free to air - but then it comes at the cost of the constant adverts to pay for it

I don't think the BBC will ever please everyone - I have no doubt they would love to have as much sport as possible to broadcast to millions - but they can't but for £10 a month they do a pretty damn good job of trying to please as many as possible

 

[GB72]

Again the government is forcing the BBC to justify its spending - that's why it has to look at viewing figures - another reason why BBC3 is going to online - budget cuts.

Other commercial broadcasters do broadcast free to air - but then it comes at the cost of the constant adverts to pay for it

I don't think the BBC will ever please everyone - I have no doubt they would love to have as much sport as possible to broadcast to millions - but they can't but for £10 a month they do a pretty damn good job of trying to please as many as possible

In general I have to agree but there is an argument as to whether the massive sums spent to secure the rights for Match of the Day and 5 Live coverage are better applied to funding coverage of events that commercial broadcasters would not be interested in covering.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

In general I have to agree but there is an argument as to whether the massive sums spent to secure the rights for Match of the Day and 5 Live coverage are better applied to funding coverage of events that commercial broadcasters would not be interested in covering.

And it's an argument that I would possibly agree with

I would prefer for that money to be spent on

The Open
The Grand National
Derby
Masters
FA Cup
6 Nations

As an example

 

[JohnnyDee]

I agree with Phil, the reason the Beeb is no longer the force it once was that it is being slowly killed by a death of a thousand cuts.

I have an eye-wateringly expensive Sky subscription so have no real axe to grind - other than feeling sorry for those millions who have traditionally enjoyed many show-piece events free-to-air, but who can now no longer enjoy / afford these.

The government, the popular media and Rupie's press pack lose no opportunity to portray the BBC in a negative light. However what it manages to still offer whilst being slowly bled to death is commendable, not only in its TV output but also its radio programming, which for me alone, and compared to the £1150 a year I pay for Sky currently, is fantastic value for money.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/...tinging-slap-down-5826921#qzIEfWlocVTeClmL.97

We lurve the BBC in Scotland.


AHEM.....is this not a 6 Nations thread

 

[JohnnyDee]

Yes, we've strayed off piste a little - my fault. :thup:

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I wasn't aware ITV even had any of the games so every day is a school day. It's a shame that the BBC is losing more and more live sport. It can't afford it and sooner or later Wimbledon and the rest will all go the same way.

 

[fundy]

Hartley as captain, no Itoje or Daly in the opening squad. Not a very encouraging start mr Jones

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...re.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

[Val]

Hartley as captain, no Itoje or Daly in the opening squad. Not a very encouraging start mr Jones

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...re.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

He has also started mind games suggesting Scotland are favourites for the Calcutta Cup

 

[Val]

48 hours away now till Scotland v England at Murrayfield, teams are announced and no real surprises, so who wins and where will it be won?

For me, England playing 2 6's in the back row may come and bite them in the breakdown with Scotland having as strong a back row as I remember. Add in Farrell at centre where he looked a bit out of his depth during the RWC in there. All that said it will take a monumental Scottish effort to win but I think we are good enough and will stick my head on the block and say Scotland by 3.