Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[UncleUB]

I am appalled as a cricket lover that the ECB has awarded Sky all the live cricket for the next five years.The comment from the BBC was that it did not represent value for money for their license payers.Are we the license payers ever consulted?Its funny that Wimbledon always seems good value for the license payers  . Now I know there is a lot of non cricket fans out there,but as a Yorkshire man I love watching cricket,its something I have been brought up with,football in the winter and cricket in the summer.Being on low income like a lot of people I find it beyond my means to subscribe to Sky sports.Once again greed seems to have raised its ugly head in sport.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/7542774.stm

[roseway]

I'm totally with you there Phil. I'm a cricket fan too, but I'm not prepared to spend that much money to watch it on TV. The inevitable result is that lots of people who might have watched cricket on TV are denied the opportunity, and general interest in the sport is reduced. I feel sure that the ECB will get its comeuppance sooner or later, but cricket will have suffered in the meantime.

[Yorkie]

Not an avid cricket fan, but I agree with you, some of the comments the BBC bod made seemed odd to me, "wouldn't fit in with their scheduling" - what, you mean that repeated rubbish in an afternoon is better.

Object as I do to paying for the licence fee, I would have preferred it to have been spent on this rather than some of those over-rated so called presenters.

[chrissie]

Not an avid cricket fan, but I agree with you, some of the comments the BBC bod made seemed odd to me, "wouldn't fit in with their scheduling" - what, you mean that repeated rubbish in an afternoon is better.

Object as I do to paying for the licence fee, I would have preferred it to have been spent on this rather than some of those over-rated so called presenters.

Hear hear 

[UncleUB]

A spokesman from the BBC said that bidding for the cricket did not represent good value for money,yet paying Johnathen Ross an £18 million contract is   According to th ECB there are 19 million license paying cricket fans in the uk.
The BBC has sent over 400 staff to Beijing to cover the Olympics,not doubt travelling /staying first class.  is that value for money ?
One last question,is anything value for money on the BBC. ?

[guest]

One last question,is anything value for money on the BBC. ?

No. The BBC (Natural History unit at Bristol excepted) has been a complete waste of money for decades.

The function of the BBC is, and always has been, to promulgate the propaganda of whatever political party is in power. Post-Hutton there isn't even any pretence at impartiality either - they just say exactly whatever NuLab tells them to. When the Tories are elected in 2010 they'll do the same for them.

Oh and of course we pay for it and if we don't then we go to jail.

Wonderful..... 

[scottiesmum]

I think it's a but unfair to say there's nothing which is  value for money from the BBC.    I know a lot of people are miffed about the cricket, if I'm honest it doesn't affect me much        Someone once said you can't please all the people all of the time ....   but they do please some of the people some of the time ....   perhaps I haven't the right to comment as a non- UK Licence Payer .....    I sometimes despair at the number of people it takes to report the news  ...why they need two people in a studio flicking from one to the other is beyond me .....then the outside broadcast people get their moment  to tell you what the two in the studio have already told you but with  bit added on ......the outside broadcast weather reports is another area where there could be economies made ...a chart in the studio is sufficient for anyone to understand that it's going to rain         IMHO there is too much news  ...when you've heard it for the umpteenth time it ceases to be news....  I think there is room for manoeuvre with all the news broadcasters and perhaps the BBC should economise in that department in order to be able to compete with SKY  for the items people are interested in...but having said all that I still think the BBC offer some superb television and radio (which I'm more interest in) be it all a bit repetitive     As far as the Olympics are concerned I'm afraid they are ALWAYS a no no for me  ....  I just hope the 2012 committee have organised plenty of indoor events   

[UncleUB]

I agree Kate about always having 2 to read the news (I call it Noahs Ark syndrome).They are like a pair of nodding dogs.What also gets me is if something happens that is news,why do they have to have someone actually at the site?Example,the floods last year which badly affected my home city of Sheffield,.Next morning Bill Turnbull,and many other newsreaders are stood in the flood water reading the news. 

[Floydoid]

Don't get me started on this one... for a *cricket fanatic like myself with no access to digital TV, and no desire to subscribe to Sky (for reasons I've explained elsewhere on this forum) I'm not a happy chappie.

Thank goodness I can get TMS on my DAB radio... otherwise I'd go insane.

*no doubt, like myself being born in Yorkshire, Uncy was taught how to hold a cricket bat as soon as he learned to stand up

[UncleUB]

*no doubt, like myself being born in Yorkshire, Uncy was taught how to hold a cricket bat as soon as he learned to stand up

Middle and leg Floydy.   

[scottiesmum]

Yes;, but can either of you  'bowl a maiden over'    ??   

[Floydoid]

I used to bowl very nifty left arm spinners.

[Floydoid]

One last question,is anything value for money on the BBC. ?

Yes.  Kate Silverton is.

(that is a purely subjective remark)

[UncleUB]

I used to bowl very nifty left arm spinners.

I was a fast bowler and was taught,if you can't get em out,lay em out. 

[Floydoid]

Nah, far better to bamboozle them with spin.