Masters not to be shown on BBC

GB72

Money List Winner
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
14,474
Location
Rutland
Visit site
Its the package pricing for me that puts me off

Each one alone is like £18 .. or £27 was the lot? Think so anyways used to be

If it was £10 a month for sky golf I'd 100% get it

Sadly I suspect Sky needs everyone who watches sport to chip in a bit for the massive cost of showng football and so it does not suit that model to sell, for example, golf on its own for a low price. Luckily for my spots viewing, Sky has next to no rigby now. All fo the club rugby is on BT with the odd match on free to air, England matches are on BBC and ITV for the 6 Nations and Amazon for the Autumn Internationals and so all that Sky has left thta is of any interest for me is the Lions and I am sure I can add a Sky Sports subscription to my account for a month every 4 years.
 

BiMGuy

LIV Bot, (But Not As Big As Mel) ?
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
6,385
Visit site
Bit of a wow at that. Sky entertainment with sky sports is £44 (adding Netflix is is only about £4)

There are always deals. I very rarely pay more £20 p/m plus boost. I split the cost with a mate so it’s very cheap.
 

Jigger

Club Champion
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,798
Visit site
I'm not paying for Now TV to have it in HD. Watching normal pictures on a 65" screen is not enjoyable, I want minimum of HD to wacth anything on my tv:)
As it is, I feel I pay enough to have Virgin (including BT Sport and Eurosport) and Netflix so I'm not paying out for anything more:)
Yep if you add all the packages together it a huge amount.
 

Swango1980

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
10,643
Location
Lincolnshire
Visit site
The biggest joke, for me, that the BBC are trying to pull off, is their coverage of womens football to compensate for the fact they can't afford proper football. They are a joke company now and the sooner they are made to fend for themselves the better it will be for them. They will get rid of ALL the hangers on and excess stuff, (regional weather and TV for one, who cares and all the regional radio, again who cares, we have enough local radio) and maybe get back to producing the quality programs they used to. Then people may return and pay x amount to have their programs again.
I find this a strange, and very outdated post.

Making quality programs like they used to? Back in the day, there were only 3 channels up until the early 80's I think, when Ch4 began, and Ch5 began near the end of the 90's. I think Sky started in the late 80's / early 90's, although I'm guessing it took a while to become household for many. Must be much more popular now. So, with only 3-5 channels back in the day, and no streaming services to watch what you want, when you want, I can imagine it was relatively easy for the BBC to get quality programs? The producers of such programs would have been desperate to get on the BBC, one of the few channels that will broadcast their shows, to most of the nation as they've nothing else to watch. All of this is extremely diluted now across so many channels and streaming services. It is difficult to see how BBC would still be the primary broadcasting services all the producers want their shows on?

Also, in regards to football: I'm sure it is absolutely true they cannot invest the same amount as Sky and BT into elite mens football. That does not make them a joke of a company, it just means they are not structured to invest heavily in sport. Which I'm sure is fine to most people. However, I don't see the issue with broadcasting Women's football? Why would anyone be upset about that, unless they were desperate to watch the EastEnders omnibus or repeats of Grange Hill at the time the football was being broadcast? I obviously don't follow ladies football that much really, because I never grew up watching it like most of us. But, I watched the England ladies at Euros, and I've actually watched Man Utd ladies a couple of times when I've seen their match is on. It is actually an enjoyable watch. Believe it or not, it isn't the same as watching your mum or nan kicking a football whilst on holiday in Tenerife. They are actually good football players, and it can be just as entertaining as watching the mens game. Credit to the BBC in giving the ladies sport a platform. I was talking to my physio last week, and we were talking about sport in school. She is only in her early 20's, but when she was at school the only sports she was allowed to play was hockey and netball. She likes sport, but not those ones, and so it was all very depressing. I can see the broadcasting of ladies international and club football being really positive for females in general. It will open the eyes of schools, show that girls can excel at many sports considered "male" sports, and give them many more opportunities going forward
 

GB72

Money List Winner
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
14,474
Location
Rutland
Visit site
I find this a strange, and very outdated post.

Making quality programs like they used to? Back in the day, there were only 3 channels up until the early 80's I think, when Ch4 began, and Ch5 began near the end of the 90's. I think Sky started in the late 80's / early 90's, although I'm guessing it took a while to become household for many. Must be much more popular now. So, with only 3-5 channels back in the day, and no streaming services to watch what you want, when you want, I can imagine it was relatively easy for the BBC to get quality programs? The producers of such programs would have been desperate to get on the BBC, one of the few channels that will broadcast their shows, to most of the nation as they've nothing else to watch. All of this is extremely diluted now across so many channels and streaming services. It is difficult to see how BBC would still be the primary broadcasting services all the producers want their shows on?

Also, in regards to football: I'm sure it is absolutely true they cannot invest the same amount as Sky and BT into elite mens football. That does not make them a joke of a company, it just means they are not structured to invest heavily in sport. Which I'm sure is fine to most people. However, I don't see the issue with broadcasting Women's football? Why would anyone be upset about that, unless they were desperate to watch the EastEnders omnibus or repeats of Grange Hill at the time the football was being broadcast? I obviously don't follow ladies football that much really, because I never grew up watching it like most of us. But, I watched the England ladies at Euros, and I've actually watched Man Utd ladies a couple of times when I've seen their match is on. It is actually an enjoyable watch. Believe it or not, it isn't the same as watching your mum or nan kicking a football whilst on holiday in Tenerife. They are actually good football players, and it can be just as entertaining as watching the mens game. Credit to the BBC in giving the ladies sport a platform. I was talking to my physio last week, and we were talking about sport in school. She is only in her early 20's, but when she was at school the only sports she was allowed to play was hockey and netball. She likes sport, but not those ones, and so it was all very depressing. I can see the broadcasting of ladies international and club football being really positive for females in general. It will open the eyes of schools, show that girls can excel at many sports considered "male" sports, and give them many more opportunities going forward

I actually agree with very much of that. In fact I honestly believe that the BBC should use the budget set aside for men's football rights to cover women's football and any sport that needs a lift to get the audience it deserves. The BBC should cater for and promote that whcih is not covered elsewhere and there is no shortgage of coverage of men's football with plenty of channels willing to show the Saturday night highlights package and so take the money spent on that and FA Cup rights and spread if across any number of sports underrepresented on TV.
 

sunshine

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 17, 2018
Messages
5,047
Visit site
I find this a strange, and very outdated post.

Making quality programs like they used to? Back in the day, there were only 3 channels up until the early 80's I think, when Ch4 began, and Ch5 began near the end of the 90's. I think Sky started in the late 80's / early 90's, although I'm guessing it took a while to become household for many. Must be much more popular now. So, with only 3-5 channels back in the day, and no streaming services to watch what you want, when you want, I can imagine it was relatively easy for the BBC to get quality programs? The producers of such programs would have been desperate to get on the BBC, one of the few channels that will broadcast their shows, to most of the nation as they've nothing else to watch. All of this is extremely diluted now across so many channels and streaming services. It is difficult to see how BBC would still be the primary broadcasting services all the producers want their shows on?

Also, in regards to football: I'm sure it is absolutely true they cannot invest the same amount as Sky and BT into elite mens football. That does not make them a joke of a company, it just means they are not structured to invest heavily in sport. Which I'm sure is fine to most people. However, I don't see the issue with broadcasting Women's football? Why would anyone be upset about that, unless they were desperate to watch the EastEnders omnibus or repeats of Grange Hill at the time the football was being broadcast? I obviously don't follow ladies football that much really, because I never grew up watching it like most of us. But, I watched the England ladies at Euros, and I've actually watched Man Utd ladies a couple of times when I've seen their match is on. It is actually an enjoyable watch. Believe it or not, it isn't the same as watching your mum or nan kicking a football whilst on holiday in Tenerife. They are actually good football players, and it can be just as entertaining as watching the mens game. Credit to the BBC in giving the ladies sport a platform. I was talking to my physio last week, and we were talking about sport in school. She is only in her early 20's, but when she was at school the only sports she was allowed to play was hockey and netball. She likes sport, but not those ones, and so it was all very depressing. I can see the broadcasting of ladies international and club football being really positive for females in general. It will open the eyes of schools, show that girls can excel at many sports considered "male" sports, and give them many more opportunities going forward

I can’t be bothered to read your long post (you really do need to learn to be more succinct), but I think think you’re on the right track so I’ll give you a like ?
 

SwingsitlikeHogan

Major Champion
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
32,219
Visit site
I can’t be bothered to read your long post (you really do need to learn to be more succinct), but I think think you’re on the right track so I’ll give you a like ?
In early days of email I was advised that if Pres. Lincoln managed in the Gettysburg Address to get across everything he wanted to say about his vision for a fully United States of America in 271 words, then I should not have to use more than that number of words to get across anything I wish to say in an email. And of course the reason is that Lincoln knew that the Union Army soldiers he was addressing on the Civil War battlefield would lose track of what he had said were he to go on too long, and so he kept it short and concise, and we readers today are just as these soldiers back then.

Of course I fail regularly on that, but what I try to do is keep my paragraph length down.

(136 words - half the length of the Gettysburg Address ?)
 

Swango1980

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
10,643
Location
Lincolnshire
Visit site
In early days of email I was advised that if Pres. Lincoln managed in the Gettysburg Address to get across everything he wanted to say about his vision for a fully United States of America in 271 words, then I should not have to use more than that number of words to get across anything I wish to say in an email. And of course the reason is that Lincoln knew that the Union Army soldiers he was addressing on the Civil War battlefield would lose track of what he had said were he to go on too long, and so he kept it short and concise, and we readers today are just as these soldiers back then.

Of course I fail regularly on that, but what I try to do is keep my paragraph length down.

(136 words - half the length of the Gettysburg Address ?)
You lost me at about "Union Army" :)
 

Voyager EMH

Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
5,140
Location
Leicestershire
Visit site
You lost me at about "Union Army" :)
;)
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
 
Last edited:

Swango1980

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
10,643
Location
Lincolnshire
Visit site
I can’t be bothered to read your long post (you really do need to learn to be more succinct), but I think think you’re on the right track so I’ll give you a like ?
Good advice. Two slight problems with shorter responses though:

1. I have to get back to work sooner
2. Some people have a habit of shifting the context of your words to suit their own argument, so I sometimes try to add in a few clarifications. Sometimes many :censored:
 

SwingsitlikeHogan

Major Champion
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
32,219
Visit site
;)
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Splendid words - and only 271 (or 272 whether battlefield or battle-field)
 

Crumplezone

Active member
Joined
May 23, 2020
Messages
209
Visit site
I actually agree with very much of that. In fact I honestly believe that the BBC should use the budget set aside for men's football rights to cover women's football and any sport that needs a lift to get the audience it deserves. The BBC should cater for and promote that whcih is not covered elsewhere and there is no shortgage of coverage of men's football with plenty of channels willing to show the Saturday night highlights package and so take the money spent on that and FA Cup rights and spread if across any number of sports underrepresented on TV.

The BBC is completely hamstrung by its funding being slashed, they can barely run the services they have, never mind cover other sports. I guess they see premier league/FA cup highlights and Wimbledon as the jewels in the crown, so they will be last to go.
 

GB72

Money List Winner
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
14,474
Location
Rutland
Visit site
The BBC is completely hamstrung by its funding being slashed, they can barely run the services they have, never mind cover other sports. I guess they see premier league/FA cup highlights and Wimbledon as the jewels in the crown, so they will be last to go.

That is part of the point though. The BBC should be broadcasting sport that is underrepresented on other channels. As such, the football budget should be moved to sports like golf with no free to air coverage and little prospect of other channels showing it. The £211 million pounds paid for the last set of rights would cover a lot of other sport, drama etc. Add in production costs, salaries etc and you must be looking at close to £100 million per year for match if the day. Think that may help the budget somewhat and could not only help many sports, it could actually save some
 

Lord Tyrion

Money List Winner
Moderator
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
26,696
Location
Northumberland
Visit site
@GB72 to counter this, at a time when the universal licence is under even more pressure than ever, would removal of a major programme, an institution, add to the calls for it to go? Why should people pay for sports they aren't interested in at the cost of the big one that they are?
 
D

Deleted member 15344

Guest
That is part of the point though. The BBC should be broadcasting sport that is underrepresented on other channels. As such, the football budget should be moved to sports like golf with no free to air coverage and little prospect of other channels showing it. The £211 million pounds paid for the last set of rights would cover a lot of other sport, drama etc. Add in production costs, salaries etc and you must be looking at close to £100 million per year for match if the day. Think that may help the budget somewhat and could not only help many sports, it could actually save some

Imagine the reaction if BBC cancelled MOTD ( one of their most popular programs ) along with their live coverage of the FA Cup just to show some golf highlights

BBC already show a lot of the sports that aren’t on subscription service

It’s worth remembering that the BBC has to cover everyone and not just sports fans or golf fans etc
 

Ando

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2022
Messages
24
Visit site
Seeing Tiger win The Masters on the BBC was probably the catalyst for me and a mate to give golf a go. Was brilliant when it was during Easter holidays when I was at school, always made everyone want to get out and play. It feels like that's still going - there were queues to get a bay my local range the other year on Masters Saturday. I think it's a shame it's no longer on council tele.
 

GB72

Money List Winner
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
14,474
Location
Rutland
Visit site
Imagine the reaction if BBC cancelled MOTD ( one of their most popular programs ) along with their live coverage of the FA Cup just to show some golf highlights

BBC already show a lot of the sports that aren’t on subscription service

It’s worth remembering that the BBC has to cover everyone and not just sports fans or golf fans etc

Totally agree but think what programming that hundred million pounds a year would provide. ITV, channel 4 and channel 5 would pick up the football rights in a heartbeat. Golf would only be a drop of that spending. Real money and much needed air time could be handed to all sorts of sports, it could produce high end drama, factual TV, all sorts of diverse viewing at the cost of 90 minutes of football on a Saturday night
 
Top