• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Beeb lose Grand National"

Collapse

  • Basil Fawlty
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    Yes they do. If you don't want Sky, don't pay for it. If you don't want to watch terrestrial TV, don't get a TV license.... you can still watch catchup TV on iPlayer (and other catchup websites I suppose).
    But what if you want Sky and not the beeb ? Good excuse to go the pub I suppose...

    Leave a comment:


  • lilelvis2000
    replied
    Originally posted by scooby View Post
    This is my point... Surely the loss of revenue is more than the output? Add to that the loss of the F1 income from selling it around the world, and the lack of any football whatsoever...

    All lost revenue.
    I didn't think that Bernie allowed that. But hey I suppose it is possible.

    Mind you I get annoyed when people talk about just how much money BBC makes from selling DVD's, books and programmes to us and the world. If they make so much from that, then scrap the licence fee altogether.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by Basil Fawlty View Post
    That's exactly my point - if you don't want Sky you don't pay for it, but people don't have that choice with the good ol' beeb.
    Yes they do. If you don't want Sky, don't pay for it. If you don't want to watch terrestrial TV, don't get a TV license.... you can still watch catchup TV on iPlayer (and other catchup websites I suppose).

    Leave a comment:


  • cojak
    replied
    Originally posted by Basil Fawlty View Post
    That's exactly my point - if you don't want Sky you don't pay for it, but people don't have that choice with the good ol' beeb.
    Ah, I see now. Well since I use their Internet services extensively I guess that's where a lot of the money goes and personally I don't have a problem with that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bagpuss
    replied
    IMHO this could be a big loss to the gambling industry. It's very much a mug punters race, where people who don't normally gamble have a once yearly punt. Remove it from terrestial and I can see many of them forgetting to bother.

    Leave a comment:


  • scooby
    replied
    Originally posted by Basil Fawlty View Post
    "In addition to worldwide news access and online reports, BBC Worldwide, the commercial arm of the BBC, distributes footage of the John Smith’s Grand National to 140 countries worldwide. This makes the great race very much a global event, enjoyed by millions of viewers around the world. The estimated worldwide audience for the John Smith’s Grand National is 600 million."
    This is my point... Surely the loss of revenue is more than the output? Add to that the loss of the F1 income from selling it around the world, and the lack of any football whatsoever...

    All lost revenue.
    Last edited by scooby; 19 March 2012, 15:06.

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Greg
    replied
    Originally posted by lilelvis2000 View Post
    Its great that such a farce of a "race" has now gone elsewhere. I'm sure the BBC can fit in a good movie in its place and get higher ratings than a bunch of horses falling over.
    They could get some Z list celebs to compete with each other in pushing horses over for a tenth of the price.

    Leave a comment:


  • Basil Fawlty
    replied
    Originally posted by lilelvis2000 View Post
    Its great that such a farce of a "race" has now gone elsewhere. I'm sure the BBC can fit in a good movie in its place and get higher ratings than a bunch of horses falling over.
    "In 2011, the Grand National achieved a domestic viewing audience of 8.8 million viwers, representing a 35.8 per cent share of the available television audience at the time."

    And

    "In addition to worldwide news access and online reports, BBC Worldwide, the commercial arm of the BBC, distributes footage of the John Smith’s Grand National to 140 countries worldwide. This makes the great race very much a global event, enjoyed by millions of viewers around the world. The estimated worldwide audience for the John Smith’s Grand National is 600 million."

    Leave a comment:


  • lilelvis2000
    replied
    Its great that such a farce of a "race" has now gone elsewhere. I'm sure the BBC can fit in a good movie in its place and get higher ratings than a bunch of horses falling over.

    Leave a comment:


  • Basil Fawlty
    replied
    Originally posted by cojak View Post
    Which bit of 'I'm not prepared to pay' do you not understand?

    I can get everything I want either through Freeview or the odd DVD.

    Which is considerably cheaper than Sky.
    That's exactly my point - if you don't want Sky you don't pay for it, but people don't have that choice with the good ol' beeb.

    Leave a comment:


  • gingerjedi
    replied
    Originally posted by scooby View Post
    I doubt it, they are not willing to spend money on sport, hence why they have lost nearly everything in the last 5 yrs
    I thought the Beebs 6 year license fee freeze and cost cutting program was common knowledge?

    It's now in the 3rd year yet you sound surprised??

    Leave a comment:


  • cojak
    replied
    Which bit of 'I'm not prepared to pay' do you not understand?

    I can get everything I want either through Freeview or the odd DVD.

    Which is considerably cheaper than Sky.

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by scooby View Post

    Where is license fee going?
    Keeping 5000 people employed in HR

    Leave a comment:


  • Basil Fawlty
    replied
    Originally posted by cojak View Post
    Well I'm not prepared to pay more for Sky. I watch Freeview and listen on the radio if I want live sports.
    At least you have the choice with Sky though....

    Leave a comment:


  • cojak
    replied
    Well I'm not prepared to pay more for Sky. I watch Freeview and listen on the radio if I want live sports.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X