Sportscene Watch 2016/17

[lionel hutz]

5 minutes ago, The Master said:

Funny that they're showing a live game next month, then.

 

 

No, I'm just pointing out that Sky are showing a live Championship game when you were claiming neither they nor BT had the rights to do so.

Sky and BT have the option to chose certain live Championship games, such as the two favourites for the league title playing for the first time.

BT released a statement saying they would show Championship matches, on a limited basis for very important matches.

[Redstarstranraer]

10 minutes ago, mike_gain said:

I don't work for the BBC and I would be more than happy to have lower league highlights. Where I think people will agree is that there was a lack of camera angles, shortened highlights to make room for the Championship highlights etc... Those were real issues that people discussed week in week out. Saints had 30 seconds of highlights one week, total shambles. The BBC have, in the recent contract, addressed the camera angles issue buy making sure more cameras are at top flight games it could be argued longer highlights are as a result of less games but it's also because Celtic aren't getting 30 minutes dedicated to them while Bonner tries to remember the names of at least one of the players playing against Celtic.

In my mind there is no mystery as to why the BBC are only showing top flight highlights....they don't have access to the footage anymore and they can't for whatever reason afford to licence the footage from those who are filming. They would presumably have to spend even more to get what they had before for less. So yes it was their decision but many of the compounding factors are out of their control e.g. who now owns the footage and who they have a licencing agreement with these are the factors that have changed and would have been known around September last year....before Rangers were assured of promotion.

The reason i suggest getting the clubs involved are that if you were to publish footage of the say Hibs vs Dumbarton who do you think would come chapping at your door asking questions? It won't be Sky or BT. You think there are no managers or chairmen in Scottish football that would be prepared to call out the BBC on grounds of favoritism towards Rangers to the determent of non top flight clubs? When upon seeing the terms of the deal signed in May and saw what many believe to be the BBC reducing their funding and interest in the lower leagues as they didn't need to spend money on them anymore that no chairmen thought to make a point of this?

The situation is still far from perfect. We should have highlights available on a Saturday and there is an argument that as the 1st Div has been extremely competitive for at least the last 10 years that it warrents some coverage. But the budget isn't there and the BBC chose to address what they could. Money controls the game and they've spent it where they thought it best. Christ the BBC cannie even keep a hold of their own baking show.

Well if you don't work for the BBC I've no idea why you're flailing around making increasingly daft points to justify their decision and absolve them of any blame but if that's your honest opinion I suppose you're entitled to it.

As I stated above I really don't think the lack of cameras in previous seasons had anything to do with showing a championship match or two.  On average you were lucky if the highlights of those were a couple of minutes tacked on at the end, so to say that was what was to blame for the poor quality of premiership highlights is just nonsensical.  You yourself identify a much more pertinent point: excessive focus on particular games to the detriment of the other fixtures.  It would make much more sense to cut five to ten minutes of Pat Bonner droning on than actual footage of a football match surely?  The idea that it was the lower league highlights that were primarily responsible for the squeezing of certain highlights into a thirty-second snippet or the lack of camera angles at certain games is just implausible.  Yes people complained week in week out that the Sportscene was poor but I don't recall the general consensus being 'get rid of the championship highlights and the other footage will therefore be of better quality'.

You're still parroting the 'we don't have access anymore' line.  Is that actually true?  They haven't clarified this at all or the reasons they now apparently don't.  I simply don't buy this line that it's become suddenly extortionately expensive now Rangers are in the top tier.  The deal was apparently signed in May when it was obvious Rangers had got promotion.  Also if Sky and BT were no longer buying these rights (and it's been pointed out that they are on occasion) then wouldn't they be available for less?  There are valid questions here and I for one am not merely going to take it on trust that the BBC did everything they could but 'factors out of their control' were at play.  Essentially my original questions about the rights issue haven't been addressed by you here (I doubt you could address them obviously) and the BBC ought to provide some answers as to what they wanted when they came to negotiate this new deal and what they offered the SPFL.

Your argument about the club chairmen is still nonsensical.  The BBC took these decisions.  Even if the clubs were unhappy about it why would they be able to explain to us how the decision was reached?  The idea that they ought to have complained about the BBC's decision but didn't therefore we should ask them for answers about why said decision was made is a total non-sequitur.  Even if they were raging about it and hence ought to have kicked up a fuss why would they be the best people to explain why the decision was taken?  I just don't follow your argument here at all.

How do you know the budget isn't there?  How do you know it had become more expensive to secure these rights?  You've made a lot of assertions here about what happened and why the BBC took these decisions that they themselves haven't made so I'm interested to know how you've got this insider information.  If they could afford to show these highlights the past four years I would have thought the money would be available to keep showing them, especially given their funding of the SPFL has actually gone up not down as mentioned above.  There are a range of issues the BBC ought to clarify and I'm not prepared to accept that it must have been too expensive due to factors out of their control when the footballing and commercial context clearly seems to indicate the opposite was most likely true.

[mike_gain]

8 minutes ago, The Master said:

Funny that they're showing a live game next month, then.

 

 

No, I'm just pointing out that Sky are showing a live Championship game when you were claiming neither they nor BT had the rights to do so.

I was trying to make the point that they had a contract, an obligation, to show x number of live games this was temporarily extended to include the lower leagues at Sky and BT's request with out their terms changing i.e. they didn't have to show x+1 games. This is the period where the BBC didn't really have a choice to make that's my point. They showed lower league highlights before as it was a no brainer, there was nothing to loose bar what some perceived as a reduction is service.

That situation has changed and Sky and BT can now pick and choose a few games a season, the BBC could also try and license this but the difference is now they have to make a choice and the lower leagues are on the rough end of this choice. Does that make sense?

Sadly the fans of 2 Glasgow clubs (and more specifically their wallets) dictate a lot of what goes on in our game and even our own clubs make this choice where season ticket holders get bumped out their seats to make way for the hoards. Clubs, supporters and indeed sometimes the BBC get dragged along with whatever is going on.

This doesn't excuse the BBC for all their nonsense though.

[Salvo Montalbano]

It'll be interesting to see what happens with the highlights of that SKY game - the BBC seem to have veered between they don't own the rights to there are no highlights available to whatever they feel like. I predict they show the goals and then waffle on about an agreement for limited coverage or something when they get called out on it.

[mike_gain]

17 minutes ago, Redstarstranraer said:

Well if you don't work for the BBC I've no idea why you're flailing around making increasingly daft points to justify their decision and absolve them of any blame but if that's your honest opinion I suppose you're entitled to it.

As I stated above I really don't think the lack of cameras in previous seasons had anything to do with showing a championship match or two.  On average you were lucky if the highlights of those were a couple of minutes tacked on at the end, so to say that was what was to blame for the poor quality of premiership highlights is just nonsensical.  You yourself identify a much more pertinent point: excessive focus on particular games to the detriment of the other fixtures.  It would make much more sense to cut five to ten minutes of Pat Bonner droning on than actual footage of a football match surely?  The idea that it was the lower league highlights that were primarily responsible for the squeezing of certain highlights into a thirty-second snippet or the lack of camera angles at certain games is just implausible.  Yes people complained week in week out that the Sportscene was poor but I don't recall the general consensus being 'get rid of the championship highlights and the other footage will therefore be of better quality'.

You're still parroting the 'we don't have access anymore' line.  Is that actually true?  They haven't clarified this at all or the reasons they now apparently don't.  I simply don't buy this line that it's become suddenly extortionately expensive now Rangers are in the top tier.  The deal was apparently signed in May when it was obvious Rangers had got promotion.  Also if Sky and BT were no longer buying these rights (and it's been pointed out that they are on occasion) then wouldn't they be available for less?  There are valid questions here and I for one am not merely going to take it on trust that the BBC did everything they could but 'factors out of their control' were at play.  Essentially my original questions about the rights issue haven't been addressed by you here (I doubt you could address them obviously) and the BBC ought to provide some answers as to what they wanted when they came to negotiate this new deal and what they offered the SPFL.

Your argument about the club chairmen is still nonsensical.  The BBC took these decisions.  Even if the clubs were unhappy about it why would they be able to explain to us how the decision was reached?  The idea that they ought to have complained about the BBC's decision but didn't therefore we should ask them for answers about why said decision was made is a total non-sequitur.  Even if they were raging about it and hence ought to have kicked up a fuss why would they be the best people to explain why the decision was taken?  I just don't follow your argument here at all.

How do you know the budget isn't there?  How do you know it had become more expensive to secure these rights?  You've made a lot of assertions here about what happened and why the BBC took these decisions that they themselves haven't made so I'm interested to know how you've got this insider information.  If they could afford to show these highlights the past four years I would have thought the money would be available to keep showing them, especially given their funding of the SPFL has actually gone up not down as mentioned above.  There are a range of issues the BBC ought to clarify and I'm not prepared to accept that it must have been too expensive due to factors out of their control when the footballing and commercial context clearly seems to indicate the opposite was most likely true.

Ok so what is your version of events?

To use an analogy my current Virgin media package includes BT Sport. Do I make a point of NOT watching any games or do I watch some? It's the latter. Say Virgin Media then lose BT sport as an included channel. Do I watch any games? Only if i choose to pay for them to gain access or accept I don't have access anymore and spend my money on a pie at McDiarmid? it's a choice I have to make where none existed before.

Did the BBC do everything they could to secure Championship highlights? Probably not but seeing as they had to do nothing at all before probably any effort seemed too much.

Also my point about the length of highlights I admitted lower league coverage was probably not the reason but limited number of cameras was a real issue and that's been resolved due to an increase of investment by the BBC and increase they could have, as I said before, spent on Championship highlights but they chose to spend it on better coverage. 

I'm not sure what kind of proof you're looking for, I have no insider information just a keen interest, the nature of contracts are widely reported. I've chosen to believe what makes sense to me and don't think there's some sort of pro Rangers conspiracy with regard to rights to show highlights. But I'm open to hear other theories but reserve the right to label them as nonsensical.

[Redstarstranraer]

1 minute ago, mike_gain said:

Ok so what is your version of events?

To use an analogy my current Virgin media package includes BT Sport. Do I make a point of NOT watching any games or do I watch some? It's the latter. Say Virgin Media then lose BT sport as an included channel. Do I watch any games? Only if i choose to pay for them to gain access or accept I don't have access anymore and spend my money on a pie at McDiarmid? it's a choice I have to make where none existed before.

Did the BBC do everything they could to secure Championship highlights? Probably not but seeing as they had to do nothing at all before probably any effort seemed too much.

Also my point about the length of highlights I admitted lower league coverage was probably not the reason but limited number of cameras was a real issue and that's been resolved due to an increase of investment by the BBC and increase they could have, as I said before, spent on Championship highlights but they chose to spend it on better coverage. 

I'm not sure what kind of proof you're looking for, I have no insider information just a keen interest, the nature of contracts are widely reported. I've chosen to believe what makes sense to me and don't think there's some sort of pro Rangers conspiracy with regard to rights to show highlights. But I'm open to hear other theories but reserve the right to label them as nonsensical.

I don't have to provide a version of events.  I'm not trying to provide a version of events but pointing out that their version isn't convincing.  I've complained to the BBC to get them to clarify what the actual sequence of events was.  It's not for me to speculate as to how they arrived at their decisions but for them to provide a reasonable explanation of them.  

Your analogy is woeful.  The BBC are not 'subscribers' to TV content produce by the other broadcasters, they produce content themselves.  You and they are providing a narration of events which makes it sound like it is up to Sky or BT to decide what coverage of Scottish football the BBC provides.  That is clearly not true.  I've already stated I find it a ludicrous argument that the BBC had essentially 'no choice to make' to presumably pay for lower league highlights in the first place.  What they now have paid for isn't clear, especially given the BBC Alba angle, and it isn't asking to much to enquire what they can and can't show.  Nor is it unreasonable to ask them for clarity over whether or not they made any attempt to secure an extension of the rights package they 'accessed' last season.

Ridiculous you think it being 'too much bother' is a reasonable argument here.

If length of highlights was irrelevant in this decision why did you bring it up in the first place then?

You think I'm asking you for proof of the BBC's internal decision making process?  I'm asking them to explain that.  But if you're going to make assertions like 'the BBC chose to spend the money on more cameras rather than lower league highlights' don't be surprised if people ask you how you could possibly know that.  You evidently don't.  The nature of the contract in these key areas hasn't been widely reported and your inferences from it are merely your opinions.  I reserve the right to point out how illogical these are.  In the course of this thread you've already been pulled up on a range of factual errors such as whether or not Sky or BT could show championship games so excuse me if I find your white-knighting of the BBC a little less than convincing.

And for the record I'm not alleging a 'pro-Rangers' conspiracy but a systemic disdain for the lower league game on the behalf of the BBC.  As far as the Rangers angle goes though it's self-evident that the only reason they started showing the highlights over the last four years was due to Rangers being in the lower leagues; you, er, said so yourself earlier on.  They got promoted and now the highlights have disappeared, but I'm sure the BBC were just 'dragged along'.  The Championship features games as well-attended (or better attended) than the Premiership.  The BBC as a public service broadcaster and a producer of content should provide a better service to the rest of Scottish football and recently (and this goes for the online service as well, and also the cup competitions) has made cutbacks in their coverage.  Their explanation of these decisions has been inadequate and self-serving.  It clearly isn't just a case of being dragged along by the other broadcasters as they and you seem to be alleging.

 

 

[mike_gain]

13 minutes ago, Redstarstranraer said:

I don't have to provide a version of events.  I'm not trying to provide a version of events but pointing out that their version isn't convincing.  I've complained to the BBC to get them to clarify what the actual sequence of events was.  It's not for me to speculate as to how they arrived at their decisions but for them to provide a reasonable explanation of them.  

Your analogy is woeful.  The BBC are not 'subscribers' to TV content produce by the other broadcasters, they produce content themselves.  You and they are providing a narration of events which makes it sound like it is up to Sky or BT to decide what coverage of Scottish football the BBC provides.  That is clearly not true.  I've already stated I find it a ludicrous argument that the BBC had essentially 'no choice to make' to presumably pay for lower league highlights in the first place.  What they now have paid for isn't clear, especially given the BBC Alba angle, and it isn't asking to much to enquire what they can and can't show.  Nor is it unreasonable to ask them for clarity over whether or not they made any attempt to secure an extension of the rights package they 'accessed' last season.

Ridiculous you think it being 'too much bother' is a reasonable argument here.

If length of highlights was irrelevant in this decision why did you bring it up in the first place then?

You think I'm asking you for proof of the BBC's internal decision making process?  I'm asking them to explain that.  But if you're going to make assertions like 'the BBC chose to spend the money on more cameras rather than lower league highlights' don't be surprised if people ask you how you could possibly know that.  You evidently don't.  The nature of the contract in these key areas hasn't been widely reported and your inferences from it are merely your opinions.  I reserve the right to point out how illogical these are.  In the course of this thread you've already been pulled up on a range of factual errors such as whether or not Sky or BT could show championship games so excuse me if I find your white-knighting of the BBC a little less than convincing.

And for the record I'm not alleging a 'pro-Rangers' conspiracy but a systemic disdain for the lower league game on the behalf of the BBC.  As far as the Rangers angle goes though it's self-evident that the only reason they started showing the highlights over the last four years was due to Rangers being in the lower leagues; you, er, said so yourself earlier on.  They got promoted and now the highlights have disappeared, but I'm sure the BBC were just 'dragged along'.  The Championship features games as well-attended (or better attended) than the Premiership.  The BBC as a public service broadcaster and a producer of content should provide a better service to the rest of Scottish football and recently (and this goes for the online service as well, and also the cup competitions) has made cutbacks in their coverage.  Their explanation of these decisions has been inadequate and self-serving.  It clearly isn't just a case of being dragged along by the other broadcasters as they and you seem to be alleging.

 

 

You do like hyperbole :-P

To answer you request to how I know  'the BBC chose to spend the money on more cameras rather than lower league highlights'

Well they increased the money invested and we have extra cameras at top flight grounds and don't have lower league highlights. That is a fact and not one that needs any special insight. It can't have happened by accident so must have been a choice....although granted not a binary one there may have been the options on which to spend their extra investment on. What we do know is that they chose not to spend any of it on lower league highlights and spent some of it on cameras. 

I'm going to stop now as you're obviously emotionally involved in this to quite a degree certainly more than I am and I don't think there much to be gained from going over the same ground again. I'm making a very bad job of getting my point across as you seem to be paraphrasing what I've been saying. I'll happily accept that you may still think I'm ridiculous and move on.

[Redstarstranraer]

11 minutes ago, mike_gain said:

You do like hyperbole :-P

To answer you request to how I know  'the BBC chose to spend the money on more cameras rather than lower league highlights'

Well they increased the money invested and we have extra cameras at top flight grounds and don't have lower league highlights. That is a fact and not one that needs any special insight. It can't have happened by accident so must have been a choice....although granted not a binary one there may have been the options on which to spend their extra investment on. What we do know is that they chose not to spend any of it on lower league highlights and spent some of it on cameras. 

I'm going to stop now as you're obviously emotionally involved in this to quite a degree certainly more than I am and I don't think there much to be gained from going over the same ground again. I'm making a very bad job of getting my point across as you seem to be paraphrasing what I've been saying. I'll happily accept that you may still think I'm ridiculous and move on.

Ok then so you don't know in other words.

I don't want to be harsh but you've been all over the place on this one.  First it was that the BBC didn't have the rights because it was up to Sky and BT to get the footage and now there was no footage to have.  Then it was that they hadn't the 'capacity' to do so.  Then it was somehow the clubs' fault for not pressurising them to buy the rights to footage once it had been established the footage actually exists.  We also had the argument they canned championship highlights because they were cutting in to the time available for premiership clubs (and then this argument was withdrawn).  We also had the same unconvincing waffle about contracts and Sky and BT dictating what the BBC could show as the BBC came out with originally.  Now its because the extra cameras have taken up all the available funding.

For what it's worth I don't think the extra cameras have necessarily sucked up all the BBC's budget and they therefore decided that was the deal-breaker in terms of providing highlights of lower league games.  As you suggest yourself I can't see it as being a 'binary' choice either, and certainly I can't see the SPFL making them choose between one or the other.  If that's your settled opinion then fine, but it isn't what the BBC have suggested and I don't think it reasonable to criticise other fans questioning the BBC's decision on the basis you think there's a definitive causal link.  

Aye, think it's best you move on.  Clearly the only folk who can offer a proper explanation of what has happened are the BBC.  Hopefully they'll be considerate enough to offer some clarification of the questions that I and other fans have put to them over this, but I'm not holding out much hope.

 

[lionel hutz]

Just leave this here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXFRLEEtnsc

 

[dogmc]

The bbc aren't showing lower league games because it would mean spending less time talking about / fawning over rangers n Celtic. Any nonsense about rights budgets n cameras is just hot air. They always have and always will see other teams as a distraction from the of. Same goes for radio coverage.

[Ira Gaines]

1 minute ago, dogmc said:

The bbc aren't showing lower league games because it would mean spending less time talking about / fawning over rangers n Celtic. Any nonsense about rights budgets n cameras is just hot air. They always have and always will see other teams as a distraction from the of. Same goes for radio coverage.

Yup.

Of course it's just a coincidence that the only time in years that they've given a shit about the second tier, Rangers were in it. Just a massive coincidence.

[7-2]

20 hours ago, dogmc said:

The bbc aren't showing lower league games because it would mean spending less time talking about / fawning over rangers n Celtic. Any nonsense about rights budgets n cameras is just hot air. They always have and always will see other teams as a distraction from the of. Same goes for radio coverage.

Perfectly put sir but there have been some impressive posts from Redstarstranraer.

There is one point being missed though. The talk is of 'the BBC', their motivation, budget and resources however the obvious was only briefly mentioned. There are actually two BBC's at work, one being what we generically call 'the BBC', ie BBC1, 2 and Radio Scotland, the other being the almost forgotten BBC Alba. Apparently the mainstream BBC doesn't have what's required to cover non-Premiership football yet somehow BBC Alba does. It does have the motivation, budget and resources eg this Saturday Falkirk v Dundee United is live on Alba at 5.15. Alba has obviously previously covered lower league games and cups. 

This is the biggest farce of the lot. Apparently the BBC's right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, which would be no great surprise, or it's an internal political or editorial decision that has resulted in the budget and resource actually being available for BBC Scotland as one company to cover both Premiership and lower league football, despite denials, and the motivation to put the two together in one all enveloping package that their customers ie the licence fee payer, the fans, the viewers, are crying out for just doesn't exist.

They must presumably negotiate as two independent companies and, damningly, the SPFL must be happy to deal with them this way. They should be telling the BBC to get their act together and buy one deal for all of Scottish football. Of course the motivation for Hampden to promote more than two teams must exist too so there's another weak link unfortunately. It's amateurs dealing with amateurs with the game in general and the fans losing out. Scottish football in a nutshell really.

 

 

 

[Salvo Montalbano]

Remember that BBC Alba is a partnership between the BBC and MG Alba and it's not wholly a BBC enterprise. The rest of the above is fair enough though.

[7-2]

30 minutes ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

Remember that BBC Alba is a partnership between the BBC and MG Alba and it's not wholly a BBC enterprise. The rest of the above is fair enough though.

Indeed but they're obviously happy for the budget to be spent on football and it comes under the BBC name.

(Actually, I'm all for protecting gaelic but if I was a speaker I'd be a bit miffed on the limited budget and air time it got being spent on football compounded by the fact that the half time stuff is always in English!)

[dogmc]

Indeed but they're obviously happy for the budget to be spent on football and it comes under the BBC name.

(Actually, I'm all for protecting gaelic but if I was a speaker I'd be a bit miffed on the limited budget and air time it got being spent on football compounded by the fact that the half time stuff is always in English!)

The rugby coverage is also very good.

[DA Baracus]

Delayed tonight because of the tennis.

Not sure if this means they'll have a truncated show

[Nizzy]

Will Rangers v Ross County be the last game on as the weekend's only goalless draw?

[Shaggy Jenkins]

Get this tennis pish to f**k 

[DA Baracus]

10 minutes ago, Nizzy said:

Will Rangers v Ross County be the last game on as the weekend's only goalless draw?

Be surprised if they even show it given the BBC's huge agenda against Sevco

[Miguel Sanchez]

Ross County's first serve is really good, it's no wonder The Hat struggled.