Page 3 of 60 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 593
  1. #21
    Rock royalty
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Abu Dhabi
    Posts
    16,966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fretwired View Post
    Answer this question. Why does the BBC refuse to publish the cost of Wimbledon? It's rumoured to be astronomical, which is why Sky hasn't bothered to bid. Tim Henman was reported to have been paid £14K per day for his analysis and next year's will be in 3D.
    Probably partly down to the fact that a huge number of BBC employees get freebie tickets to wimbledon, but they don't for F1. Same goes for the music festivals they organise and/or cover.

    And don't get me started on the Salford move. £900m and counting...

  2. #22
    Rock royalty
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    11,923

    Default

    Aside from the fact that Wimbledon is great and F1 is mostly a bit dull, why would the BBC drop tennis for F1.....'we're not very good so we're not playing' doesn't seem like a very logical argument

    Also, F1 is not proper motorsport, it's roundy-roundy motorsport, puddle jumping is where it's at

    One more thing, we have a full Sky Sports package and we probably won't even watch the F1 (admittedly, we may have to get rid of it, but at the moment they've let me have it for less money!)

    I wouldn't have bothered with that post if it wasn't for the attack on Wimbledon

  3. #23
    Rock royalty
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    11,923

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stickyfiddle View Post
    Probably partly down to the fact that a huge number of BBC employees get freebie tickets to wimbledon, but they don't for F1. Same goes for the music festivals they organise and/or cover.

    And don't get me started on the Salford move. £900m and counting...
    I hate the whole corporate tickets thing, but even big corporations draw the line at forking out the obscene amount of money it costs to go to the British GP!

  4. #24
    The comeback tour
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fretwired View Post
    Answer this question. Why does the BBC refuse to publish the cost of Wimbledon?
    i cant answer that - i dont know - if i had to guess i would say it cost less than f1 - but i could be wrong

    afaik the bbc budget is publicly available to i dont suppose they can hide it very well

    Quote Originally Posted by Fretwired View Post
    Wimbledon just proves what a bunch of losers we Brits are when it comes to tennis.
    no it doesnt - it also provides a lot of entertainment to a lot of people - by your logic we should ditch international football competitions in favour of darts

  5. #25
    Rock royalty
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    10,159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SeriousCat View Post
    by your logic we should ditch international football competitions in favour of darts
    International football is shared between all the major TV channels - it's not exclusively on the BBC, nor does it cost that much. Wimbledon is expensive and is also predominantly watched by the middle/upper class .. not very representative of the UK as a whole.

    From the Guardian ..

    Wimbledon is a kind of sub-Ascot, indelibly middle class from the car park to the loos. The people who watch tennis are middle class. The people who play it are middle class. They join middle class clubs and get tutored by middle class coaches.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-class-malaise

    The viewers are more likely to have Sky so let Sky have the coverage ...

  6. #26
    Difficult second album
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Derby
    Posts
    713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fretwired View Post
    International football is shared between all the major TV channels - it's not exclusively on the BBC, nor does it cost that much. Wimbledon is expensive and is also predominantly watched by the middle/upper class .. not very representative of the UK as a whole.

    From the Guardian ..

    Wimbledon is a kind of sub-Ascot, indelibly middle class from the car park to the loos. The people who watch tennis are middle class. The people who play it are middle class. They join middle class clubs and get tutored by middle class coaches.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-class-malaise

    The viewers are more likely to have Sky so let Sky have the coverage ...
    I think it's the chavs that are more likely have Sky, it's what they spend their dole on after they've bought beer and blow. They need somthing to watch on their looted 50 inch plasma tvs.

  7. #27
    The rehab years
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Oxfordshire
    Posts
    1,404

    Default

    I think if you compared global viewing figures per hr of actual event , nothing matches F1 in popularity , BBC have seriously dropped the ball here and we'll probably have to put up with bloody adverts again although we might at least get a break from Eddie Jordan , dear lord what a w**ker.

  8. #28

  9. #29
    The rehab years
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Dorset
    Posts
    1,857

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanCorps View Post
    and we'll probably have to put up with bloody adverts again
    Sky has already said there will be no advert breaks during the actual race.

  10. #30
    The comeback tour
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Somerset Quite Close To Avalon Over The Hills And Far Away
    Posts
    8,369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akeldama View Post
    Sky has already said there will be no advert breaks during the actual race.
    There will be six minute add breaks after the race instead so they get paid by the advertisers and for the channel as well

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •