ShedTA Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 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...
Flure Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Fair !!! Like it or not the BBC doesnt have to distribute their "largesse" fairly. By George, he's got it! They SHOULD have to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 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 ! Not completely true Nobby. The BBC does have to spend its money in a fair manner - allocating large sums to showing arts programmes etc. promoting little know productions on some of its channels and its spend on news/current affairs related programmes. These attract a fraction of the viewers of X factor for example but the BBC must still show them - It is in its charter to do this because of the manner of its fund raising through the licence fee. so it is not wholly driven by commercial concerns and currently its coverage of scottish football is pathetic compared to the coverage the EPL gets. I wouldnt mind so much what they were spending on scottish football if the coverage was decent but its not, its sh*te. so they should spend more and show a decent highlights programme. Its chicken and egg as well. if you dont promote/ give coverage to something then less people will get interested in it. they are trying to shoe horn us into watching the EPL and nothing else. As Renton put it so succinctly - its a sh*te state of affairs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 By George, he's got it! They SHOULD have to. OHHHHHHH NO they shouldnt !!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Not completely true Nobby. The BBC does have to spend its money in a fair manner - allocating large sums to showing arts programmes etc. promoting little know productions on some of its channels and its spend on news/current affairs related programmes. These attract a fraction of the viewers of X factor for example but the BBC must still show them - It is in its charter to do this because of the manner of its fund raising through the licence fee. so it is not wholly driven by commercial concerns and currently its coverage of scottish football is pathetic compared to the coverage the EPL gets. I wouldnt mind so much what they were spending on scottish football if the coverage was decent but its not, its sh*te. so they should spend more and show a decent highlights programme. Its chicken and egg as well. if you dont promote/ give coverage to something then less people will get interested in it. they are trying to shoe horn us into watching the EPL and nothing else. As Renton put it so succinctly - its a sh*te state of affairs. All true but what they pay the SPFL to cover the games shouldnt be related to what they actually spend on the cost of carrying out that coverage smug english presenter aside ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 By George, he's got it! They SHOULD have to. I believe I will be distributing my annual £20 of largesse next week as spurs yet again finished below Arsenal to the same payment instructions as before ? Tell Parklife im happy to pay the same £20 next year !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mariokempes56 Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Scotland subsidising England as per.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 All true but what they pay the SPFL to cover the games shouldnt be related to what they actually spend on the cost of carrying out that coverage smug english presenter aside ;-) No Nobby, but you and I both know that a more extensive/ regular highlights programme would cost more. They could even tender to screen some live games - god forbid they might have to pay for the priviledge though eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320lichtie Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Nobby still wumming on here How sad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Alloa chairman Mike Mulraney was putting the boot into the BBC over this on Sportsound last night. The journos weren't liking it at all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Alloa chairman Mike Mulraney was putting the boot into the BBC over this on Sportsound last night. The journos weren't liking it at all... how could the journos possibly defend it? i mean if they think carefully they make their living out of the game so surely any increased investment is good for them too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chesney Hawkes TA Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Sport, including football, should just be left to commercial channels to televise. It's good the BBC shows so little sport now. Once the licence fee is scrapped then the BBC can bid at market rates against its competitors for whatever sport it likes. Hard to justify a licence fee being used to bid against commercial competitors in the open market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 how could the journos possibly defend it? i mean if they think carefully they make their living out of the game so surely any increased investment is good for them too? They seemed to be taking the Nobby line. Even Jim Spence from what I heard... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bino's Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Gary Lineker gets paid more per annum than Scottish Football gets from the BBC, enough said. why on earth would you retain the services of Gary lineker if it was costing you £3m a year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Nobby still wumming on here How sad What part of disagreeing with someone is wumming ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flure Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 What part of disagreeing with someone is wumming ? And further - what is "wumming"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 And further - what is "wumming"? I think its what Jonathan Ross does in trainers round the park ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caledonian Craig Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Much as it pains me to say it I do see where Nobby is coming from. The BBC can't be blamed for not throwing money into the SPL. They'll pay the minimum so they can stretch the budget. I'd bet what they paid for the EPL highlights is the minimum they could have paid to get that as well. I mean who here, would pay say £1000 for a TV set from Curry's when the shop is offering it for say £600 - nobody would. It is up to those at the SPFL to pull the plug on the deal and look elsewhere or more to the point why bother signing the deal in the first place? They saw the figures did they not? Sadly, life often seems unfair in many walks of life and this is one of those but in order to change that it is up to the SPFL to think twice before signing such a deal in future and then moaning about it down the line - very odd. 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.