QUOTE(deegee178 @ Jun 10 2012, 08:42)
As for the F1 thing, I may be wrong but I thought it was the BBC who approached Sky about having a joint bid for the rights as a way for the BBC to shed some cost. As I understood it they had the full rights until the end of this season but decided to give them up early to take on a different approach to cut cost.
The BBC approached Sky for numerous reasons (budget issues would have been amongst them) not least of which was that Sky had made it clear they intended to bid for the F1 rights when they came up and Eccelstone making it fairly clear that he'd go where the money is. In truth the BBC managed to create a remarkably amazing deal that has kept F1 FTA for the near future.
I agree with you that the FA are diminishing the popularity of football - as far as I'm concerned the sheer greed of everybody concerned has put the game on a path to ruin and I suspect the point of no return is dangerously close. If the sport does collapse then it will, in time, recover but my concern would be the impact on other sports where tv money is vital and they've used it responsibly - how they would survive when it runs out is anyone's guess!
On this subject interesting to note that reportedly all bids for the up for renewal Premiership rights have been rejected this week because they were deemed to be 'too low'. The crazy thing is that Sky and ESPN will now likely make higher bids despite having absolutely no motivation to. The league can't and won't not sell the TV rights.
QUOTE(KernowKid @ Jun 10 2012, 13:36)
Don't buy this normal programming argument, every four years Normal Programming IS the Olympics, World Cup or Euros. Every year Wimbledon is held, that is normality. What people who argue otherwise are arguing is for abnormaility.
All well and good but slightly hung up on semantics. Whilst its fair to say that the current system of sports 'disrupting' the schedules is 'normal' that doesn't completely diminish the idea that sport could (in theory) all migrate to a specialised Freeview channel.
I would also point out that your argument isn't entirely fair. If you take a look at something like Wimbledon for example it can be hugely disruptive to the schedule. In part because live sport has a tendency to overrun but also because the BBC has an insane insistence on shoehorning Andy Murray (or whoever the British tennis hope is that year) onto the BBC1 schedule at all costs. This can see whole sections of the schedule disappear or shifted to BBC2. Didn't it even result in delays to the news last year? That these events happen every year or every two years or every four years doesn't mean that aren't disruptive to the schedule around it.
I suppose the question is more why should sports take prominence over everything else.
Mixed Genre has worked for years, and should do in the future as well.
I'm not convinced I agree with that (the future bit). I'm firmly in the camp that we're moving away from the mass audience mixed genre channels to more focused and tailored viewing. The explosion of multi-channel options and ultimately online viewing is going to make this near unavoidable. Whether or not BBC1 and ITV1 can maintain mass audience appeal over the long term is going to be interesting. I suspect BBC1 will probably be able to do so to some extent at least but I'm less convinced by ITV's prospects.
QUOTE(duxk @ Jun 10 2012, 16:54)
One thing I did wonder when one of the reasons the BBC gave for not being able to cover test cricket was lack of channels, they've got BBC3 and 4 sitting there unused until 7pm every night, now the digital switch over is almost complete I don't see why these two channels can't be used to boost the channels available
Cost. And demand.
Plus the BBC lost Test Cricket a while ago didn't they? It wasn't really an option to switch it to that 'dead space' and buying it back now would prove too expensive I suspect.This post has been edited by Mister R: Jun 10 2012, 16:29