albathebrave Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Bollocks. Yes they should. It is a national public service. That is exactly what it exists for and what it should do. Your view is exactly what the problem is and will see the death of the licence fee. Your view that the EPL is better is entirely subjective and flawed. Better for who and better in what way. Something is only better if you want to watch it and I dont. Totally agree with you here! sick to death of us scots just accepting the crumbs from the establishment! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
girvanTA Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 I stopped paying the tv licence 2 years ago. Never will I part with cash for the bbc peadophile ring. I urge you to watch youtube re bbc tv licence. It wont be long before you stop paying aswell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotlad Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 I read man utd were £450 m in debt , how can that go on ? They probably have a similar amount of assets, which means it balances out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Bollocks. Yes they should. It is a national public service. That is exactly what it exists for and what it should do. Your view is exactly what the problem is and will see the death of the licence fee. Your view that the EPL is better is entirely subjective and flawed. Better for who and better in what way. Something is only better if you want to watch it and I dont. It's showing Scottish football isn't it ? Your argument is that they should pay more money because it's a national public service doesn't hold water. I believe the biggest participation sport across the country is fishing so using your logic the bbc should be spending fortunes broadcasting it. It doesn't because no one wants to watch it. The SPFL are selling a product and you will get what someone is willing to pay. As someone has said devolve it and you can spend your entire budget showing it. As for the EPL being better I would agree that is entirely subjective and I believe currently they are receiving record sums from everybody domestic and foreign to watch it. So it would look like you are in a minority ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Sorry nobby, I understand your point of view but its bollocks. It only holds water if the BBC were fully self funded. Its not. We contribute 10% of the funding to a supposed public service broadcaster. Where is the public service in spending f&ck all of our investment in the thing we care about and want to watch. I know lots of people watch motd but I hardly ever do. It means f&ck all to me regardless of how good and silky the football I would agree it is a publicly funded service and they should show Scottish football. They are ;-) what they shouldn't have to do is pay more because they pay more to show the EPL . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flure Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Make the league more exciting and they will pay more, simples . An injection of cash from the State Broadcaster would go a long way to helping lift the quality of the players and matches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotsgary1 Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 It's showing Scottish football isn't it ? Your argument is that they should pay more money because it's a national public service doesn't hold water. I believe the biggest participation sport across the country is fishing so using your logic the bbc should be spending fortunes broadcasting it. It doesn't because no one wants to watch it. The SPFL are selling a product and you will get what someone is willing to pay. As someone has said devolve it and you can spend your entire budget showing it. As for the EPL being better I would agree that is entirely subjective and I believe currently they are receiving record sums from everybody domestic and foreign to watch it. So it would look like you are in a minority ;-) In summary you support the BBC on this then ? just to make it clear ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 It's showing Scottish football isn't it ? Your argument is that they should pay more money because it's a national public service doesn't hold water. I believe the biggest participation sport across the country is fishing so using your logic the bbc should be spending fortunes broadcasting it. It doesn't because no one wants to watch it. The SPFL are selling a product and you will get what someone is willing to pay. As someone has said devolve it and you can spend your entire budget showing it. As for the EPL being better I would agree that is entirely subjective and I believe currently they are receiving record sums from everybody domestic and foreign to watch it. So it would look like you are in a minority ;-) I may be in the minority nobby but as far as I am concerned I am correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 An injection of cash from the State Broadcaster would go a long way to helping lift the quality of the players and matches. It might well do but its not the job of the BBC to improve Scottish football in the same way its not the job of the BBC to improve English Water polo. If the BBC paid over the odds for Scottish football presumably it could expect every other sport that required improvement to give it the same treatment ? Why should football get preferential treatment at the expense of all other sports ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 In summary you support the BBC on this then ? just to make it clear ??? I support the BBC in showing ALL sport however what I would not support is the BBC paying over the odds for any sport English or Scottish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flure Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 It might well do but its not the job of the BBC to improve Scottish football in the same way its not the job of the BBC to improve English Water polo. That's illogical. You're implying by that, that an injection of cash by the BBC (or any broadcaster) into Water Polo wouldn't improve the sport. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BremnerLorimerGray Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 The EPL is a 2 horse race and will be, unless something drastic happens to City and Chelsea, for the foreseeable future. No team has a chance of winning it except those two such is the vast and unmatched investment by the respective owners of these Clubs. The franchise era of football is well and truly here and while admirable, the old fashioned beliefs of Liverpool, Everton, Arsenal etc... will see them only fall further behind. The SPFL is only worth what someone will pay for it, the BBC don't have to pay anymore for it than they currently do and nor would I expect them to if there is no competition for the rights or standard of package. We could be a relatively attractive league to market if only we had people in charge that knew how to do what they are paid handsomely to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 That's illogical. You're implying by that, that an injection of cash by the BBC (or any broadcaster) into Water Polo wouldn't improve the sport. Of course it would, if it was invested wisely but,thats not the issue. the issue here is why should the BBC pay a penny more than is required to purchase the highlights of Scottish football. i dont believe its the responsibility of the BBC to subsidise scottish football. The argument that it should because it is funded by the licence payer is ridiculous. I was merely pointing out that if the BBC did it for football then the logical conclusion is that it should do it for all sports Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flure Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Of course it would, if it was invested wisely but,thats not the issue. the issue here is why should the BBC pay a penny more than is required to purchase the highlights of Scottish football. i dont believe its the responsibility of the BBC to subsidise scottish football. The argument that it should because it is funded by the licence payer is ridiculous. I was merely pointing out that if the BBC did it for football then the logical conclusion is that it should do it for all sports No, that's still not logical. The specific point of debate is whether - as the BBC receives 10% of its licence fee from the people of Scotland - that is should spend a pro rata amount of its spend on English football, on Scottish football. Other sports has hee-haw to do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 No, that's still not logical. The specific point of debate is whether - as the BBC receives 10% of its licence fee from the people of Scotland - that is should spend a pro rata amount of its spend on English football, on Scottish football. Other sports has hee-haw to do with it. In answer to that question then no. the BBC should get the best value for money that it can. its the job of the BBC to broadcast sport for as little as it can and get value for money for the licence payers. I dont think the BBC would be too happy to pay 10% of what it pays for the EPL for the welsh or northern irish leagues and presumably the SPFL can flog their rights to whoever they like just like the EPL can. If when the EPL highlights package moves back to ITV does the BBC get the SPFL rights for free as its paying nothing for the EPL ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flure Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 In answer to that question then no. the BBC should get the best value for money that it can. its the job of the BBC to broadcast sport for as little as it can and get value for money for the licence payers. I dont think the BBC would be too happy to pay 10% of what it pays for the EPL for the welsh or northern irish leagues and presumably the SPFL can flog their rights to whoever they like just like the EPL can. If when the EPL highlights package moves back to ITV does the BBC get the SPFL rights for free as its paying nothing for the EPL ? No. It's the job of the BBC to provide a service for its licence payers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 No. It's the job of the BBC to provide a service for its licence payers. And correct me if im wrong but the BBC is currently showing Scottish football so the BBC is fulfilling that mandate, the fact that it got the rights for a relatively small amount is neither here nor there. If the SPFL want more money make the overall product more attractive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rasputin Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 In answer to that question then no. the BBC should get the best value for money that it can. its the job of the BBC to broadcast sport for as little as it can and get value for money for the licence payers. I dont think the BBC would be too happy to pay 10% of what it pays for the EPL for the welsh or northern irish leagues and presumably the SPFL can flog their rights to whoever they like just like the EPL can. If when the EPL highlights package moves back to ITV does the BBC get the SPFL rights for free as its paying nothing for the EPL ? The BBC is a public service broadcaster that receives it's funding from the taxpayer via a TV licence, therefore they should not prioritise according to market values but instead social value to it's viewers. The fact that they do not is one of the reasons we should all call on the BBC to be disbanded, broken up into smaller localised broadcasters whose priorities are the needs of their viewers, not commercial or politicial needs. Other reasons include the political bias and worse still the closing of ranks relating to sexual abuse by people within the BBC. Simple thing is they are not fit for purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I support the BBC in showing ALL sport however what I would not support is the BBC paying over the odds for any sport English or Scottish. what about paying over the odds for some smug english presenters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 The BBC is a public service broadcaster that receives it's funding from the taxpayer via a TV licence, therefore they should not prioritise according to market values but instead social value to it's viewers. The fact that they do not is one of the reasons we should all call on the BBC to be disbanded, broken up into smaller localised broadcasters whose priorities are the needs of their viewers, not commercial or politicial needs. Other reasons include the political bias and worse still the closing of ranks relating to sexual abuse by people within the BBC. Simple thing is they are not fit for purpose. spot on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flure Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 And correct me if im wrong but the BBC is currently showing Scottish football so the BBC is fulfilling that mandate, the fact that it got the rights for a relatively small amount is neither here nor there. If the SPFL want more money make the overall product more attractive. You're deliberately missing the point that after harvesting the TV tax, the State Broadcaster is not distributing their largess fairly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 You're deliberately missing the point that after harvesting the TV tax, the State Broadcaster is not distributing their largess fairly. Fair !!! Like it or not the BBC doesnt have to distribute their "largesse" fairly. As previous if it had to share the pot "fairly" why should football get any more than rugby or squash ? If the BBC had it in its mandate that it had to distribute funds for sports fairly each sport would have an allocation of about £50 . There is a finite pot of money and they should get the best result for the licence payer. I dont doubt that at some point the EPL highlights package will go back to ITV as for whatever reason ITV will pay more and the BBC will judge that it isnt worth that amount of money. its how it works ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 The BBC is a public service broadcaster that receives it's funding from the taxpayer via a TV licence, therefore they should not prioritise according to market values but instead social value to it's viewers. The fact that they do not is one of the reasons we should all call on the BBC to be disbanded, broken up into smaller localised broadcasters whose priorities are the needs of their viewers, not commercial or politicial needs. Other reasons include the political bias and worse still the closing of ranks relating to sexual abuse by people within the BBC. Simple thing is they are not fit for purpose. If that were to happen the pot for football in each area would be much much smaller than it is now and your higfhlights would probably end up on a pay-per view channel. IMHO ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davew Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 If that were to happen the pot for football in each area would be much much smaller than it is now and your higfhlights would probably end up on a pay-per view channel. IMHO ;-) You mean a commercial channel. Like STV. Aye, sounds like a nightmare right enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 what about paying over the odds for some smug english presenters? I believe we are fully in agreement on this one. Lineker is no way worth 2m a year and yes hes overpaid and hes also smug ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.5eeaf0fbe501ba3c868c32fd77caef1f.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.