Threat to 6 Nations being Free-to-Air ???

First topic message reminder :

http://www.planet-rugby.co.uk/story/0,25883,3551_9685817,00.html

Six Nations chief executive John Feehan has warned that any decision to add the Championship to the list of protected sports events that must be broadcast live on terrestrial television would be 'extraordinarily detrimental' to the sport.

Under current broadcast regulations in the UK, only highlights of the northern hemisphere's premier international competition have to be shown on a free-to-air channel but Labour are reportedly considering adding the Six Nations to the protected list if they win this year's election on May 7.

Feehan admits that the Six Nations has benefited from its long-term partnership with terrestrial broadcaster the BBC but is totally against any move that would prevent deep-pocketed pay-per-view broadcasters such as Sky and BT Sport the chance to bid for the rights in the future and also potentially deny the Six Nations Committee millions of pounds in revenue.

"All I can say is that it would be extraordinarily detrimental to our game if any government was to turn round and say you have to have the Six Nations on terrestrial television," said Feehan, speaking at the official launch of this year's Championship in London.

"I think we could lose significant levels of revenue because effectively you would not be getting a market price for what is the greatest championship in the world.

"We have a belief in terrestrial broadcasting, we have a belief in free-to-air, but having said that, everyone has to be given an opportunity to at least put their best foot forward and that's all we are looking for."

Every Six Nations game has been live on terrestrial television since 2003 when the Championship returned exclusively to the BBC following the end of Sky Sports' controversial deal with the Rugby Football Union that saw England games broadcast on pay-per-view and the remainder by the corporation.

Sky have reportedly expressed an interest in adding the Six Nations rights to their already extensive rugby portfolio that includes England's November internationals and June tours, the British & Irish Lions, the European Rugby Champions Cup, the PRO12 and France's Top 14.

However, it is understood that they failed in their most recent attempt to prise the rights from the BBC back in 2011 when the public-funded broadcaster agreed its latest contract extension that runs until 2017.

But with the BBC having to increasingly pick its battles when it comes to bidding for valuable TV rights, Sky are expected to mount another challenge later this year alongside their efforts to secure the rights to The Open golf championship, another prized asset currently broadcast by the corporation.

"We have an open relationship with all the broadcasters in the UK, from A to Z, because effectively we always keep a dialogue going for a heap of different reasons," said Feehan.

"But it is right and proper to say that the BBC have been a fantastic partner over many, many years and we would hope, and they have certainly indicated to us, that they would want to be involved in the future.

"But I do think, for genuine reasons that we need to realise whatever value is in the Championship. The BBC have always been very competitive and they should continue to be so but the only way we can guarantee that is if they have to challenge in an open and fair market."

thomh wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:We already pay a subscription to view the BBC called the TV Licence. A subscription that is or should be made illegal. Nobody should be forced to pay for a channel they don't watch. Especially when their viewing included the likes of strictly come blinking dancing really badly. I pay for Sky TV but at least they give people a choice.

Personally I'll always stream for free anyway

So should people who privately educate their children or use BUPA instead of the NHS be exempted from some of their income tax to account for that then?

What a ridiculous statement.
It comes down to choice. We should all pay our tax in order to fund such things as the NHS and education but if someone chooses to go private on either as well then that's their choice. They choose to subscribe to something over and above what the taxation system pays for.

Thunor I know what a TV licence is for, to licence your TV reciever but the money goes to the BBC, it's their very own little tax. I'd simply rather have the choice to either pay a subscription for it or not and what with soaps and strictly come reality I wouldn't be paying for the service. If we paid for the BBC by subscription I'd say it wouldn't have half the drivel it shows and would force it to up it's game.

But one failing Pete is that if every channel had to seek 'advertising' to make money, then instead of there being the usual Saturday afternoon/evening slop of 'fambily shows' with the glitter and the green and yellow lights, there would actually be much more of it! - because for some strange reason, Mr and Mrs Average Humanbeing seems to only tune in for such shyte, absolutely adores such shyte and has advertisers breaking down doors to get to said Mr and Mrs Average with their lovely ads about cheap shyte food that you might freeze before a 'party'

Be careful what you wish for - no TV licence means just more ITV with the lorrah cullah and the fambily fun'n'games of sent in giggly or cuddly videos getting 500 quid if we show YOURS!!!  WEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think one thing that would help increase rugby viewing figures on the BBC 6 nations is so simple - sack the current tired punditry team of Gabby Logan,Jonathan Inverdale,Jeremy Guscott,Jonathan Davies, Eddie Butler and co.

BT team in my opinion are signicantly better for example.

Pete330v2 wrote:If we paid for the BBC by subscription I'd say it wouldn't have half the drivel it shows and would force it to up it's game.

Well as most of that drivel is among the most watched programs - I suspect that BBC would do just fine if it had to switch to an advertising based revenue. It is because of the licence fee that we still get minority programming rather than just pushing for the most watched all the time.

beshocked wrote:I think one thing that would help increase rugby viewing figures on the BBC 6 nations is so simple - sack the current tired punditry team of Gabby Logan,Jonathan Inverdale,Jeremy Guscott,Jonathan Davies, Eddie Butler and co.

BT team in my opinion are signicantly better for example.

In a way I agree with you, beshocked but in another way I'm not so sure.............  
I always hear this about the 'CLUB' game presenters/pundits as distinct from the more 'family untechnical overview' stuff you might expect for Internationals.  And in a way, yep, the lack of anything susbstantial being said, especially by the poet Butler, does make one feel they're eating far too much sugar than is good for them at times when looking at BBC coverage; but then, the serious, po-faced analyists and self-important arrow manipulator types of the Club game platforms don't turn me on either.

A large event such as the Six Nations (that can draw in many non-rugby watchers) does need to keep things more show than grim detail for the [just for entertaiment] audience it speaks to, but I would personally drop a few of the BEEB people if I had the power -namely smug Guscott, whispering bland Wood and sorry Eddie............. I don't mind poetry in its place but you do spread it on with a trowel too often.

Secretfly so who do you like?

I was thinking of people like Will Greenwood,BOD,Austin Healey as guys I like. Nick Mullins does make some stupid errors but he's still alright overall. Mark Durden Smith is alright too.

Admittedly I would struggle to find good representatives from Scotland,Wales,France and Italy in the punditry stakes....perhaps because of English bias.

Not a big fan of Betsen's punditry either, to me it seems like he can barely speak english - Thomas Castaignede is okay.

beshocked wrote:Secretfly so who do you like?

I was thinking of people like Will Greenwood,BOD,Austin Healey as guys I like. Nick Mullins does make some stupid errors but he's still alright overall. Mark Durden Smith is alright too.

Admittedly I would struggle to find good representatives from Scotland,Wales,France and Italy in the punditry stakes....perhaps because of English bias.

Not a big fan of Betsen's punditry either, to me it seems like he can barely speak english - Thomas Castaignede is okay.

Yeah Will is nice...like him. Can do two things which are essential - detail PLUS some self-effacing humour.
I like guys who can detail when they have to, but aren't so self-important that they feel a little loosening of the collar and lightness when appropriate is beneath them.

I'd probably ideally prefer a rolling alley of present day coaches doing the punditry duty. Not the same faces through the whole thing - mix it up; some SH coaches brought over to look at things with a true outside eye and perhaps a funny fresh way of looking at things without worrying about stepping on anyone's toes.
I know many people don't like Jiffy but I find him a ball - he's valuable for the spice and, despite themselves, the English secretly love him too when his side are under pressure He's a pantomime character but actually much funnier when commenting on Pro12 games.

[quote="beshocked"]Secretfly so who do you like?

I was thinking of people like Will Greenwood,BOD,Austin Healey as guys I like. Nick Mullins does make some stupid errors but he's still alright overall. Mark Durden Smith is alright too.

Admittedly I would struggle to find good representatives from Scotland,Wales,France and Italy in the punditry stakes....perhaps because of English bias.

Not a big fan of Betsen's punditry either, to me it seems like he can barely speak english - Thomas Castaignede is okay.

beshocked wrote:Secretfly so who do you like?

I was thinking of people like Will Greenwood,BOD,Austin Healey as guys I like. Nick Mullins does make some stupid errors but he's still alright overall. Mark Durden Smith is alright too.

Admittedly I would struggle to find good representatives from Scotland,Wales,France and Italy in the punditry stakes....perhaps because of English bias.

Not a big fan of Betsen's punditry either, to me it seems like he can barely speak english - Thomas Castaignede is okay.

That's probably because he's French and born in Cameroon. I'm sure your average rugby watcher in France is not too impressed with Greenwood's french.

The BBC aren't in a numbers game, but rather see themselves as the cultural custodians of the nation. They generally abhor middle class sports like Show Jumping which used to get more viewers than Match of the Day, and they got shot of it at the earliest opportunity. Golf is obviously now next against the wall and Rugby can't be far behind.

If Rugby were pay per view it would be bad for English rugby but far worse for smaller nations like Ireland. Rugby is already a marginal sport in Ireland but at least has an International facet that GAA doesn't have, and draws viewers from a National Pride pov. If Kids don't get to actually see a competitive Ireland team on the box - they aren't going to be inspired by reading about it.