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."

The BBC article I posted a link to earlier in this thread clarifies that the Welsh Assembly does not have the power to make events protected.

Should Wales games be protected (which frankly sticks two fingers up to rugby fans elsewhere in Britain) then surely the 6N organisers will not want to have Wales games on a FTA channel and all the other games on a subscription channel? The way around this would be to have S4C fulfilling the free-to-air requirement and then have English coverage on a subscription channel.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in Ireland though. Currently I presume the UK and RoI rights are sold separately (to the BBC and RTÉ respectively) but Sky and BT broadcast to Britain and Ireland so will want rights for both. Will be see a situation like the one with Ireland's autumn internationals with matches on both RTÉ and Sky Sports, with only the latter available in GB?

In any case this is probably academic as I highly doubt the 2018 Six Nations will be exclusively on subscription TV. There may be a sharing arrangement, or ITV may be showing it, but I doubt it will completely disappear from FTA TV.

there are lots of ways they can make it work.

given that England RFU almost got kicked out of the 6NAtions for trying to sell rights to England games to SKY as a separate deal from 6N committee, there are clearly ways to separate the broadcasting. it's just a matter of pipes, dishes, IP addresses.

Hopefully this will just be an attempt to create a bidding war and extract as much £ from the BBC as possible, without any intention of actually going across to non-terrestrial. Agree with those who say this would be very detrimental to the game 20, 30 years down the line when generations who hadn't grown up watching the 6N started to make up s sizeable % of the target audience. Problem as always is that the people making decisions now won't be in the jobs by then anyway so don't take it into sufficient consideration.

The RFU DID sell their home games, not try. But they sold the home games in England for broadcast in the UK. So yes, that can be done easily. They didn't sell all the England games (home and away) for broadcast in England....mainly because they couldn't.

Davies obviously wasn't the only MP on the panel...otherwise it wouldn't be a panel...but he was the chairman of it.

And you don't think that the BBC wouldn't propose more sporting events to be limited to a handful of other broadcasters including themselves? So that the big players can't bid, driving up the prices? Really? You think they would need political pressure?

HammerofThunor wrote:The RFU DID sell their home games, not try. But they sold the home games in England for broadcast in the UK. So yes, that can be done easily. They didn't sell all the England games (home and away) for broadcast in England....mainly because they couldn't.
Davies obviously wasn't the only MP on the panel...otherwise it wouldn't be a panel...but he was the chairman of it.

And you don't think that the BBC wouldn't propose more sporting events to be limited to a handful of other broadcasters including themselves? So that the big players can't bid, driving up the prices? Really? You think they would need political pressure?

Hammer I remember that well, it was at a time when England were probably the front runners in professional rugby, I also remember something about England wanting to leave th 5N and join the Tri Nations for better competition or something at around the same time, but that is a different debate, I cannot remember if they are both connected. But I remember the fighting that took place over the selling of the England home games to sky tv, there was a massive row over how much the visiting teams should get paid, I don't think the RFU wanted to share any of the sky money with anybody else, and as Wales, Ireland, Scotland and France would be on sky as well, playing in Twickenham over the proposed period I think they wanted an equal share, but the English RFU refused and as a result England were not going to be invited to play in the 5N unless they played ball, as a result the sky deal was scrapped and it all went back to BBC. i only think England home games were on sky for one competition, at most two.

I think the issue is one we see repeated all over business and society. Its the what's good for me right now approach. Rather than what's good in the long term . a rather sad world we live in really

From a Welsh perspective the regional and club game need more money. The national side is as well funded as anywhere else. We still need to pay off our stadium but the WRU are not on the verge of bankruptcy anymore.

I don't see why international rugby needs to drastically earn more money in any other country either, other than to fund the lower tiers and that worries me because when the businessmen at that level get involved they see profits not sport and I think the game I general is losing out.

Does more money help?

Wales, Ireland, Scotland and Italy have improved in the last 20 years, they have had dips and trough's but I would say that going into the 2015 six nations they are better teams than they were 20 years ago.

The same can not be said for France and England the two who have the highest earning, best funded club game. They have dropped off in the last twenty years, France dramatically.

I would rather see the six nations prevented from becoming a PPV commodity.

But we have little option, this will happen and we can evaluate in 2025 whether it was worth it.

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

LordDowlais wrote:I also remember something about England wanting to leave th 5N and join the Tri Nations for better competition or something at around the same time, but that is a different debate, I cannot remember if they are both connected.

Wasn't that a journalist you wrote that they might as well leave because there was no challenge there? Nothing about England wanting to leave. Just more media cowpat swallowed up and then repeatedly puked back up again.

i only think England home games were on sky for one competition, at most two.

5 years.

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

You don't pay the TV license to watch BBC. You pay the TV license to watch any TV, then it's used to pay for the BBC.

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?

HammerofThunor wrote:5 years.

Was it for that long ? Fook, it didn't seem like that, the arguments between the other countries were right though weren't they ? Didn't the rest threaten not to invite England to play in the 5N unless a fair payout was made ? That is what killed the Sky deal off wasn't it ?

As for the joining of the Tri nations nonsense though, it was about the same time as all this, so perhaps that's why I got the two things overlapped.

A slight aside but I don't think the BBC should be spending money on entertainment shows or sports that other channels would bid for. It should show what 'should' be made available to the general populous, whether they want to watch it, or do, is irrelevant. So news, documentary, sports which no-one wants to pay for but should be available, etc. Then the FTA stuff that people want should go to who bids highest out of ITV, Channel 5, etc. But that's just my opinion.

LordDowlais wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:5 years.

Was it for that long ? Fook, it didn't seem like that, the arguments between the other countries were right though weren't they ? Didn't the rest threaten not to invite England to play in the 5N unless a fair payout was made ? That is what killed the Sky deal off wasn't it ?

As for the joining of the Tri nations nonsense though, it was about the same time as all this, so perhaps that's why I got the two things overlapped.

RFU sold the right to all their home games in 1996 (including the 6 nations).  The other unions said that when the current 6 nations agreement came to an end (1999 I think) they would form a new competition that did not include England.  In the end England agreed to share funds and they agreed to give control over their TV rights to the 6 Nations board.  I seem to remember something saying that England and france get more that 1/6th of the money but not sure where I saw that or if it's true.  The Sky deal ended in 2002 and it went back to BBC.

EDIT: not sure if this is all right now I've looked into it again.  It reads like England were to be out of the 1997 competition but then they were allowed back in before being kicked out again in 1999.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/england-kicked-into-touch-in-five-nations-cash-row-26162879.html

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?

Actually, yes... But that's not a rugby or broadcasting matter!

I think the TV licence would be a bit less hated if it wasn't for the way they pursue those who haven't paid it. Can you imagine if the unemployed and students who don't earn enough to pay income tax got threatening letters like TV Licensing send you? "Dear X, We note that you have not paid any tax this year. Be prepared for legal action, we have opened an investigation against you. You could face jail or a large fine." That's what you get from TV licensing even if you don't have a TV!

highland_scot wrote:

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?

Actually, yes... But that's not a rugby or broadcasting matter!

I think the TV licence would be a bit less hated if it wasn't for the way they pursue those who haven't paid it. Can you imagine if the unemployed and students who don't earn enough to pay income tax got threatening letters like TV Licensing send you? "Dear X, We note that you have not paid any tax this year. Be prepared for legal action, we have opened an investigation against you. You could face jail or a large fine." That's what you get from TV licensing even if you don't have a TV!

Of course it was a bit tenuous, but I just wanted to make the point that not using a public service yourself doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't have to contribute towards it.

BamBam wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:The more this happens, the more everyone should just stop paying for their TV licence.

This won't really help the problem. I'm sure the Beeb would love to keep the 6N, amongst other sports rights like the Open golf, but the amount of pressure from the right wing media (most of whom have an indirect interest in seeing the BBC fail) on the TV licence means that they have to be seen to be offering value for money.

Obviously all us rugby nuts would be aghast at the thought of no 6N on free to air TV, but non rugby fans would argue that money could go towards keeping hold of Premier League highlights, or the golf

And I don't think I could cope with ITV massacring the coverage by sticking adverts in the middle of the game like they have a habit of doing with the round ball game

Apologies for getting a bit political

Don't apologise, this is essentially a political decision, and therefore, a political discussion.  And I agree 100%.  Certain well-known parts of the media (in my opinion this includes the utterly mis-named News Corp., headed by the right winger's right wing mogul), clearly does have an interest in weakening the BBC, which increases their impact and reach.  In the US this is happening with Fox News, another Murdoch product.  And the results are significant and dangerous.  I could really get rolling here, but suffice it to say, we need to strengthen our basic institutions, such as the BBC, regardless of how they can frustrate the urine out of us from time to time.

Totally agree, doctor_grey. Sadly, money talks a lot more persuasively to those who make the decisions  - the people, for example, who have "Chief Executive" in their job title and who decide whether to sell off a public asset like a national broadcasting operation. It's all in the national interest, and purely the for the good of the game, of course. The fat bonus that appears in their pay packets later that year is - OOPS! - a total surprise.

One piece of good news is that it looks like Murdochs Ozzie lap dog Abbot has been voted out. Well done the Australian people for that

The supreme irony is that some posters don't see the hypocrisy of lauding the BT deal for club rugby yet decry the Unions money to keep all levels funded.

The Great Aukster wrote:The supreme irony is that some posters don't see the hypocrisy of lauding the BT deal for club rugby yet decry the Unions money to keep all levels funded.

Fail to understand your point. People are complaining about the 6 nations leaving FTA (games which only a fraction of the population have a chance of attending). BT Sports deal resulted in a club competition (with most sides not selling out all/any games) moving from one subscription broadcaster to a different one. It's completely different. The comparison would have been when the ERC moved away from the BBC about a decade ago.

HammerofThunor 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

You don't pay the TV license to watch BBC. You pay the TV license to watch any TV, then it's used to pay for the BBC.

Including Lineker and his mates on MOTD.

Clubs who are asking for "compensation" from their Union during Test windows, RWC etc. - where does this money come from? The professional club game naturally demands more and more money from the Union pot so that has to either come from something else the Union already sponsors or they increase the pot.

British Open to Sky, I hear.
We'll be paying extra to tune in to the radio next.

Slightly off topic, but as "Free-to-air" is in the question, wouldn't it be beneficial to rugby to have a few top European games on free telly? Like soccer do in fact with the Champions League.

Cardiff Dave wrote:Slightly off topic, but as "Free-to-air" is in the question, wouldn't it be beneficial to rugby to have a few top European games on free telly? Like soccer do in fact with the Champions League.

It would be nice. Where we have had two games in the Champions Cup kicking off concurrently one of those could be on a free-to-air channel whilst still allowing Sky or BT a game in that slot, and then the next time the rights are sold have the French model of either Sky or BT with a game or two per round on terrestrial TV.

OMc wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:Slightly off topic, but as "Free-to-air" is in the question, wouldn't it be beneficial to rugby to have a few top European games on free telly? Like soccer do in fact with the Champions League.

It would be nice. Where we have had two games in the Champions Cup kicking off concurrently one of those could be on a free-to-air channel whilst still allowing Sky or BT a game in that slot, and then the next time the rights are sold have the French model of either Sky or BT with a game or two per round on terrestrial TV.

Agreed and my mad idea is that a few games here and there might lead to an increased interest in the game at club level.
At present, unlike footy there is no European club rugby on free telly at all, other than highlights. In Wales we get an S4C show which includes snippets of matches featuring Gweilch, Gleision, Gwyn and Derwyn. Who?

PenfroPete wrote: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.

What nonsense. This statement is born out of pure greed. Making rugby pay-per-view only would be detrimental to the sport. Going from audiences of 5 or 6 millions to less than one million would be detrimental to the sport.

Just take a look at some other sports. Cricket for example. Participation boomed after the 2005 Ashes on Channel 4 but have significantly dropped since cricket moved from terrestrial tv. The attendances at county cricket have continued to fall so much so that a survey by cricket fans suggested this was because too much cricket is on pay-per-view channels and a return to terrestrial tv could boost interest.

Another sport, basketball sold their soul to Sky many years back and now cries foul when its funding is cut due to lack of interest in the sport. The BBL made their bed and now have to lie in it. If they were more proactive and had basketball on BBC on Saturday and Sunday afternoons I am 100% sure the sport would pick up in this country.

Even with football we have see a drop in standards and numbers in grassroots and youth football in recent years. I never understand why the FA have more FA Cup games on BT Sport than BBC or ITV? Surely getting people to watch football should inspire than to go to games and play the sport? The only time most kids get to see the top Premier League stars now is on an Xbox or Playstation and they stay playing it rather than take up an interest in the sport.

If the Six Nations moved from terrestrial tv to pay-per-view clubs will suffer, attendances will drop and participation levels will drop.

Where I do think there is opportunity to expand these tv deals is remove 'terrestrial' from the bargaining and replace it with 'free-to-view'. If Sky or BT Sport want to bid for the Six Nations let them but only on the proviso that the network shows it free-to-view and makes every effort to reach out to the biggest audience. Free-to-air shouldn't necessarily mean terrestrial.

Cardiff Dave wrote:Slightly off topic, but as "Free-to-air" is in the question, wouldn't it be beneficial to rugby to have a few top European games on free telly? Like soccer do in fact with the Champions League.

Wasn't there some sort of caveat in the BT Sport deal that certain games would be made "free to air" via Freeview?
IRCC there were a couple of free nights at the start of BT Sport where they showed some football and rugby as well as Rugby Tonight but it's not happened again.

Cardiff Dave wrote:

OMc wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:Slightly off topic, but as "Free-to-air" is in the question, wouldn't it be beneficial to rugby to have a few top European games on free telly? Like soccer do in fact with the Champions League.

It would be nice. Where we have had two games in the Champions Cup kicking off concurrently one of those could be on a free-to-air channel whilst still allowing Sky or BT a game in that slot, and then the next time the rights are sold have the French model of either Sky or BT with a game or two per round on terrestrial TV.

Agreed and my mad idea is that a few games here and there might lead to an increased interest in the game at club level.
At present, unlike footy there is no European club rugby on free telly at all, other than highlights. In Wales we get an S4C show which includes snippets of matches featuring Gweilch, Gleision, Gwyn and Derwyn. Who?

I do agree with you, but the Premiership rugby highlights are shown on ITV4 every Sunday, definitely isn't any free live rugby though

What I'm finding - and maybe it's just an optical illusion of frustration from me - but what I seem to be noticing is that the more and more Sports events migrate to 'Pay-Up' TV, the more actually the terrestrial Channels that have lost the rights to those sports choose to TALK about them - either in brief highlights shows or as special 'News' segments.
It's like attempting to soothe starvation pains with plates of marrowless bone.  

Waffle Sport I'm beginning to call it all.  Bright flashy studios with lots of Tellys flickering in the background but no real sport - but lotsa and lotsa lovely 'flavour' of sport.     The trick seems to be that: "If we talk enough about it with interviews and things then our audience will forget that we don't actually cover any of it".

I'd prefer Channels who can't afford the sports they want to actually be more rebellious and virtually deny the existence of those sports on their channels (boycott the chatathons) because chat is merely 'non-paid-for' oxygen for the 'Pay-per-view' companies to market their 'pay up' products.

No British Open on Terrestrial TV?  So never mention it on terrestrial TV.  

Those who want to follow the sport have the choice of subscribing to the pay-per-view or doing the old internet searches (niggly and not always a pleasant experience)  
But we'd see then how quickly those sports, who sell themselves to the highest refined bidder, might think about a few seasons of not a bloody mention on the much broader stroked/watched Terrestrial TV.  Fight fire with fire - it's all biz  "We don't get the sport, you don't get the free 'News' publicity.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31037565


BBC are extending their match of the day which means they'll have less disposal cash to hold onto the likes of the 6 nations and the british open.

Not good....

BBC needs to hold onto some of it's sport if not it will only pander to fans of Downton Abbey and call the midwife!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_programmes_broadcast_by_the_BBC

a list of what the BBC currently offers though there are some notable absentees like the 6 nations!

beshocked wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31037565


BBC are extending their match of the day which means they'll have less disposal cash to hold onto the likes of the 6 nations and the british open.

Not good....

BBC needs to hold onto some of it's sport if not it will only pander to fans of Downton Abbey and call the midwife!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_programmes_broadcast_by_the_BBC

a list of what the BBC currently offers though there are some notable absentees like the 6 nations!

That one is on ITV

Fair enough, I don't watch it as you can probably tell! Though the point still stands that it looks to pander to fans of Downton Abbey even if it doesn't show it.

It's ridiculous how shows like Call the Midwife and Downton Abbey crush the likes of the 6 nations and a superior TV series like Peaky Blinders.

A spiffing pot of proper tea delivered by the butler, m'Lord? - and you ain't best pleased, beshocked???

You're hard to please! Now where's me bell to call in my morning gin and tonic from downstairs

BTW, if all the channels would just drop the bloody endless soaps of the 'whispering bar-room depressions' it would free up tons of room for other programs for a new century and new millennium! I mean, do people really want to be greatgrandpeople still watching the doings of sly-boys with frowns down at the old Queen Vic? Never too much of a good thing? If a movie lasted 30 years the critics would be howling derision.

Is that how most people want to remember their lives? "We watched that bloomin street from cot to coffin - it was mauvellous to experience all them generations of affairs and fights and whispering moans......."

sportform wrote:

PenfroPete wrote: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.

What nonsense. This statement is born out of pure greed. Making rugby pay-per-view only would be detrimental to the sport. Going from audiences of 5 or 6 millions to less than one million would be detrimental to the sport.

I think Feehan's point is not that Rugby would be better off on pay TV, but that making it legally required to be on terrestrial would mean a huge drop in revenues as the BBC wouldn't have to outbit any serious rivals to get it.

thomh wrote:

sportform wrote:

PenfroPete wrote: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.

What nonsense. This statement is born out of pure greed. Making rugby pay-per-view only would be detrimental to the sport. Going from audiences of 5 or 6 millions to less than one million would be detrimental to the sport.

I think Feehan's point is not that Rugby would be better off on pay TV, but that making it legally required to be on terrestrial would mean a huge drop in revenues as the BBC wouldn't have to outbit any serious rivals to get it.

Which is probably true, unfortunately. Equally unfortunately as Unions have to fight to hold onto their best players the ever present lure of pay TV gets more tempting every year.

thomh wrote:

sportform wrote:

PenfroPete wrote: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.

What nonsense. This statement is born out of pure greed. Making rugby pay-per-view only would be detrimental to the sport. Going from audiences of 5 or 6 millions to less than one million would be detrimental to the sport.

I think Feehan's point is not that Rugby would be better off on pay TV, but that making it legally required to be on terrestrial would mean a huge drop in revenues as the BBC wouldn't have to outbit any serious rivals to get it.

But its already apparent that they can't - therefore what Feehan is saying is that his boys are close to finally resolving to go the way of the 'market' - "to keep the game alive" so to speak for everyone that simply wants more money in their pocket - and therefore he doesn't want any shackles put on him before he can bring such a future into being.

In short, he's probably annoyed that he's been rumbled before he got to the winning post and now the chase is on from prospective legislation.

"Waffle Sport I'm beginning to call it all.  Bright flashy studios with lots of Tellys flickering in the background but no real sport - but lotsa and lotsa lovely 'flavour' of sport.     The trick seems to be that: "If we talk enough about it with interviews and things then our audience will forget that we don't actually cover any of it".

This is pretty much what SKY Sports did for a long time, they would just ignore any sports that they did not have coverage of except in the context of how what they were showing was better - e.g. "And at the Open today Ernie Els leads by two shots, and tonight on our live and exlcusive coverage of the PGA Tour Bobby Bumgardener the third takes a five shot lead into the last round of the Lower Maryland Vase for Americans who didn't qualify for the Open or want to leave the USA, live and exclusive coverage starts at 8.00 from the Tallahassee Links"....

secretfly it's never going to happen because soaps are very popular.

A show or program that is high quality doesn't necessary means it will be popular. Equally a show of low quality can be a huge hit with the general public.

We know the 6 nations is superior to many programs shown on TV but this doesn't mean it will win the support of the general public.

It does alright but I am not sure it's enough for BBC to want to back it.

The BBC will need to fork a lot of money for the rights to the 6 nations. Of course we want them to do but not sure they will.


BBC have just lost the Golf Open - perhaps they are sacrificing it for the 6 nations...

The 6 nations does at least compare favourably to the likes of golf, tour de france and cricket.

Irish Londoner wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:Slightly off topic, but as "Free-to-air" is in the question, wouldn't it be beneficial to rugby to have a few top European games on free telly? Like soccer do in fact with the Champions League.

Wasn't there some sort of caveat in the BT Sport deal that certain games would be made "free to air" via Freeview?
IRCC there were a couple of free nights at the start of BT Sport where they showed some football and rugby as well as Rugby Tonight but it's not happened again.

Dunno, but I do believe rugby is missing a trick by not ensuring that there are a handful of Euro games on free telly. Come to think of it, I don't think i've ever a seen a HEC final on telly. Come to think of it again, haven't seen a Lions' game for donkey's years.

beshocked wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31037565


BBC are extending their match of the day which means they'll have less disposal cash to hold onto the likes of the 6 nations and the british open.

Not good....

BBC needs to hold onto some of it's sport if not it will only pander to fans of Downton Abbey and call the midwife!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_programmes_broadcast_by_the_BBC

a list of what the BBC currently offers though there are some notable absentees like the 6 nations!

aka Lineker's chums of the day. What's he on now? £2m? For talking the same guff every weekend? His mates get paid shed loads too. Typical beeb.

BamBam wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:

OMc wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:Slightly off topic, but as "Free-to-air" is in the question, wouldn't it be beneficial to rugby to have a few top European games on free telly? Like soccer do in fact with the Champions League.

It would be nice. Where we have had two games in the Champions Cup kicking off concurrently one of those could be on a free-to-air channel whilst still allowing Sky or BT a game in that slot, and then the next time the rights are sold have the French model of either Sky or BT with a game or two per round on terrestrial TV.

Agreed and my mad idea is that a few games here and there might lead to an increased interest in the game at club level.
At present, unlike footy there is no European club rugby on free telly at all, other than highlights. In Wales we get an S4C show which includes snippets of matches featuring Gweilch, Gleision, Gwyn and Derwyn. Who?

I do agree with you, but the Premiership rugby highlights are shown on ITV4 every Sunday, definitely isn't any free live rugby though

Good program too and not at all chummy.

beshocked wrote:Fair enough, I don't watch it as you can probably tell! Though the point still stands that it looks to pander to fans of Downton Abbey even if it doesn't show it.

It's ridiculous how shows like Call the Midwife and Downton Abbey crush the likes of the 6 nations and a superior TV series like Peaky Blinders.

Michelle Dockery, the main character in Downton Abbey is a Munster fan

http://rsvpmagazine.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/michelle-dockery.jpg

lostinwales wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:True but maybe on fta more people become  interested in the sport it grows if it grows revenue goes up. Win win. For  everyone

Yes - just takes longer.

I always think of Cricket. I watched loads on the box when I was a kid, and as we don't have sky my two sons never do, and have next to no understanding of the game. It was a huge and influential sport in the UK, cant help thinking its a lot smaller than it was.

A very good example. When England's tests were on the Beeb or Channel 4 interest in the game was high. Lots of kids would be playing in the local park and club cricket was very healthy.

That's the next generation of potential  County and International cricketers taking a keen interest in the game. Now they can no longer watch cricket 'free' interest in the game has waned dramatically. County attendances are very low and the only people playing cricket in the local park now are Asian lads for whom it is the No. 1 sport.

I would hate to see that grassroots drop off in interest in rugby. As kids years ago me and my mates would be straight outside re enacting the tries in the 6N game we had just watched. How can kids do that if they haven't been able to watch the game!!

I am from a Cricket/Rugby (League and Union) background. I used to go to County matches in the 70s/80s and still do. Crowds now are probably higher than they were then. I can never remember there being lots of kids in the park playing cricket in any great numbers, rugby even less so. Cricket moving to Sky has had an impact on the awareness amongst casual watchers - but has increased the profile among the avid demographic. Maybe, for minority sports liek Cricket and rugby that is the best we can ever hope for?

I want the 6Ns to stay on terrestrial TV - but I do not want politicians to force them. We have been told numerous times on other threads that the unions are the only people we can trust to run the game (certainly more than politicians and the only people thi sboard hates more - club owners) so how about letting them do that?

thomh wrote:

sportform wrote:

PenfroPete wrote: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.

What nonsense. This statement is born out of pure greed. Making rugby pay-per-view only would be detrimental to the sport. Going from audiences of 5 or 6 millions to less than one million would be detrimental to the sport.

I think Feehan's point is not that Rugby would be better off on pay TV, but that making it legally required to be on terrestrial would mean a huge drop in revenues as the BBC wouldn't have to outbit any serious rivals to get it.

I don't know about a huge drop. ITV would probably be willing to take it on, especially if the BBC made a ridiculously low offer. Ultimately it brings in millions of viewers outside normal prime time hours, and for ITV, and Channels 4 & 5 that has to be desirable. And going by the premiership highlights - which were a bit rubbish when they started, but actually very good now, I wouldn't have too many complaints if ITV did get it!

ITV have shown no interest in the past. Channel 4 paid big money for racing - which would cause them a scheduling conflict.

True, but they did pay a lot more for the current round of world cups than the preceding one. So presumably they are of the view that rugby is of increasing interest.