Grand Prix Rant

Jennifer_Jane

I'm also very sad that I won't be watching half of the Grands Prix next year. It is - to me - stunningly exciting and has been since I was involved (in a partying sense) in the 70's.

PS - I'd be very cross indeed if the BBC couldn't afford it because of the huge salaries they are paying their executives and vile comedians such as Jonathan Ross.

Nilrem

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

I'm also very sad that I won't be watching half of the Grands Prix next year. It is - to me - stunningly exciting and has been since I was involved (in a partying sense) in the 70's.

PS - I'd be very cross indeed if the BBC couldn't afford it because of the huge salaries they are paying their executives and vile comedians such as Jonathan Ross.

It's worth noting, that JR's "reported salary" is thought to have matched the fee paid to his production company for completed shows (IE not a salary, but for dozens of hours of completed TV and radio shows), and most BBC execs seem to be paid well under the rate they can/do get by moving to ITV etc
IIRC JR's "reported salary" most likely paid for about 50 hours of completed TV, plus his radio work per year, which would have made it very cheap by TV terms.

The DM and NI papers have been loudly proclaiming how overpaid BBC staff are, and how their expenses are huge by cherry picking examples*, and not giving comparisons to the rest of the industry, when they haven't been caught outright lying about things (IIRC the editor of the DM is paid about 3x what the DG of the BBC is, despite the BBC being a much bigger/complex organisation).



*It averaged out (according to the BBC report), that their top "expenses" claimant was putting for <£50 a week, and the DM's "luxury hotel rooms" only cost <£100 a night (a Travel Lodge costs nearly that in many cases).

split_second

i looked into getting sky, no equipment in already so would cost £40 a month.

not a chance

been watching f1 since i can remember and i turn 30 in a fortnight, will not pay that much on principle, my mum might get it for my dad cos its just an upgrade to their existing package and he can record it and watch it when he wants, but to be honest i wouldnt be surprised if he says its stupid money for what it is

trukdiver

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

PS - I'd be very cross indeed if the BBC couldn't afford it because of the huge salaries they are paying their executives and vile comedians such as Jonathan Ross.

Jonathan Ross is a commedian?

ProdigalScouser

pmduk wrote: »

It doesn't bother me at all, it has always cost too much for the relatively small number of viewers that watch it. I've got my fingers crossed that Top Gear goes next.

Erm.... over 8 million people watched the Canadian GP on the BBC, that's very, very far from a "relatively small number of viewers". To put that in context, that's about double the highest figure the News pulls inThe fact that Sky want to show the F1 shows exactly how popular it is, they wouldn't go to the expense of showing it otherwise.

Top Gear regularly pulls in 6 million viewers, nearly double what anything else on BBC2 gets. In fact, it's always in the top three shows right the way across the BBC, only beaten by dross like Eastenders and whatever reality show the Beeb is infliciting on the world this week (the Apprentice being a good example - and by "good", I mean a prime example of an awful programme).

The annoying thing about Sky showing the F1 is that the FIA are circumventing their own rules about the races being free to air by saying that the BBC showing highlights counts as showing the race on a free channel.

I'm just glad that ESPN is free on Virgin, so I can watch the WRC.

vyle

Whenever discussions about the BBC pop up, this ALWAYS happens, and I find it highly amusing:

Person: Yay! This program is going to be axed. This is brilliant because it's too niche and costs too much license fee! Programs that don't get many views should not be on the BBC because I'm paying for it and I don't watch this.

*Same person in a different discussion about something they like being cut*

Person: How dare they axe this niche program that I like to watch in favour of all that popular crap! I pay for the bbc, why do they care about ratings? The BBC should be for niche programs that would never be aired on commercial channels.

ProdigalScouser

vyle wrote: »

Whenever discussions about the BBC pop up, this ALWAYS happens, and I find it highly amusing:

Person: Yay! This program is going to be axed. This is brilliant because it's too niche and costs too much license fee! Programs that don't get many views should not be on the BBC because I'm paying for it and I don't watch this.

*Same person in a different discussion about something they like being cut*

Person: How dare they axe this niche program that I like to watch in favour of all that popular crap! I pay for the bbc, why do they care about ratings? The BBC should be for niche programs that would never be aired on commercial channels.

The thing is, in this case it's not a niche programme. It's one of the most popular things the BBC shows.

knightstyle

MSE solution. Get a French satellite box and dish aimed at French satellite, watch on TF1 listen on 5Live. Simples!!!!!

vyle

ProdigalScouser wrote: »

The thing is, in this case it's not a niche programme. It's one of the most popular things the BBC shows.

That's what I thought, except someone earlier in the thread claimed that not many people watched it.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

I didnt think Jonathon Ross worked for the BBC anymore so how can that be used in the arguement?

vyle wrote: »

That's what I thought, except someone earlier in the thread claimed that not many people watched it.

Didnt it have 10 million the other week or something? Thats not a niche number of people thats huge!