Finances

[tommy2k8]

With the news yesterday that the BBC might not be able to afford the Football League and possibly the FA Cup (although they'd prefer that) I hope they can still afford to show F1 from 2014!

[tommy2k8]

They may not afford to pay what they did for this contract

[AndyL]

With belt-tightening all around, it's more of a buyer's market now, so it's the broadcasters' chance to turn the screws on the promoters for a change.

[tommy2k8]

This is the updated article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1369025/Charles-Sale-Ian-Watmore-David-Gills-club-conflicts-stymie-FA-board.html#ixzz1HNanwWsJ

but the end of this paragraph worries me (which I will highlight in bold):

'BBC Sport, who must cut 20 per cent from their budget, are understood to have decided not to bid to renew either Carling Cup or live Football League packages. F1 will be next'

[tommy2k8]

Hopefully, if this does happen Sky won't get it.

According to the papers on Saturday, there is strong speculation that the BBC may be trying to find a way out of their F1 contract early.

[MrJan]

Hopefully, if this does happen Sky won't get it.

I believe that Bernie has always pushed for F1 to be terrestial, he's far too aware of how you limit yourself by going to subscription services. If I were the Beeb then I'd cut costs in the first instance by scaling back the coverage, i.e so that you don't send such a large number of people to each event and don't bother with the F1 Forum and all that.

[Mark]

I think the actual production costs form a very small part of the overall cost of F1. The main being what they pay for the rights in the first place.
Of course, this depends on Bernie. If BBC came along and said "We can't pay you what we were, we'll give you half, otherwise we'll walk away". It would then depend on if the likes of Sky or ESPN could match it, or if Bernie doesn't want to go to a subscription channel then what ITV, Channel 4 or Channel 5 would be willing to pay - which likely wouldn't be much either!

[Dave B]

I believe that Bernie has always pushed for F1 to be terrestial, he's far too aware of how you limit yourself by going to subscription services. If I were the Beeb then I'd cut costs in the first instance by scaling back the coverage, i.e so that you don't send such a large number of people to each event and don't bother with the F1 Forum and all that.

The actual coverage will be dirt cheap compared to the cost of the rights. Even sending Jake and the team out to the races won't be that big a deal compared to the cost of hiring a studio and crew in London for two days. The forum is pretty much free apart from a bit of satellite or fibre time, given that everybody is already in place.

[MrJan]

The actual coverage will be dirt cheap compared to the cost of the rights. Even sending Jake and the team out to the races won't be that big a deal compared to the cost of hiring a studio and crew in London for two days. The forum is pretty much free apart from a bit of satellite or fibre time, given that everybody is already in place.

Indeed, but I'm willing to bet that the difference in cost per MotoGP race v cost per F1 race is still a fair old chunk. Rather than wholesale chopping whole sports the Beeb would be better off just making slightly cheaper coverage in all areas. A bit less spent on swimming and athletics would be my first choice.

[Mark]

What sort of costs to the BBC have apart from transporting the likes of DC and MB to the track, then you need them to stand in the paddock with a camera crew, they'll probably use existing TV facilities to broadcast their feed out. The whole thing is actually done quite cheaply already by TV standards.

[Dave B]

Indeed, but I'm willing to bet that the difference in cost per MotoGP race v cost per F1 race is still a fair old chunk. Rather than wholesale chopping whole sports the Beeb would be better off just making slightly cheaper coverage in all areas. A bit less spent on swimming and athletics would be my first choice.

Surely the BBC's remit as a publicly funded broadcaster is the opposite though: to showcase sports like swimming and athletics which might otherwise get ignored or sidelined by commercial rivals. If anything it's football and F1 which should be canned as the free market has shown itself perfectly capable of broadcasting these, both in the UK and elsewhere.

[BDunnell]

Surely the BBC's remit as a publicly funded broadcaster is the opposite though: to showcase sports like swimming and athletics which might otherwise get ignored or sidelined by commercial rivals. If anything it's football and F1 which should be canned as the free market has shown itself perfectly capable of broadcasting these, both in the UK and elsewhere.

I agree. I always dislike the comments one reads saying that 'x sport is boring so it shouldn't be broadcast so much by the BBC', as though these views are factually correct rather than just a matter of personal taste.

[Dave B]

What sort of costs to the BBC have apart from transporting the likes of DC and MB to the track, then you need them to stand in the paddock with a camera crew, they'll probably use existing TV facilities to broadcast their feed out. The whole thing is actually done quite cheaply already by TV standards.
Indeedy do. I can't vouch for the accuracy of this figure but I read somewhere that to hire a small studio in TV Centre would cost somewhere in the region of £30K per race weekend, plus a duplication of resources such as camera crew. You might as well use that money to send those people out to the races where they can have access to the teams and drivers, therefore providing a far richer programme. I know from various Tweets that the team fly economy and stay in basic hotels, so I'm willing to bet you could fund the trip for less than hiring TC5 or wherever.

[MrJan]

Oh ffs! Did I state anything other than personal choice? I thought that the bit where I wrote "my first choice" gave the game away somewhat ;) Anyway, although I don't actually know the viewing figures I'm willing to guess that there would be less people watching the Athletics World Championships than if they'd got the CWC. I'd say that the Beeb should be broadcasting what is in the public interest, the fact that someone else can do the same is neither here nor there.

Anyway, transporting 5 presenters plus however many technical and camera bods to each and every event may be cheap by telly standards but I fail to understand why cuts should be one massive cut rather than lots of little cuts. It's like when you see councils cutting their budget but simultaneously throwing money away in other areas. I'm willing to bet that the inefficiency of the Beeb and other large corporations is costing a pretty penny every year. And don't even get me started on the waste of money that they've built oop North.

[Dave B]

Oh ffs! Did I state anything other than personal choice? I thought that the bit where I wrote "my first choice" gave the game away somewhat ;) Anyway, although I don't actually know the viewing figures I'm willing to guess that there would be less people watching the Athletics World Championships than if they'd got the CWC. I'd say that the Beeb should be broadcasting what is in the public interest, the fact that someone else can do the same is neither here nor there.
Fair enough, but your choice will be different to my choice which will be different to somebody else's choice. The remit of a publicly funded broadcaster should be to show sports that - left to the commercial market - might get ignored. Cricket does alright in the free market, as does football and F1. But if it were solely up to ITV, Sky etc would athletics really be given much airtime? If it were driven solely by viewing figures we'd have soaps and football on 24/7. Shudder!


Anyway, transporting 5 presenters plus however many technical and camera bods to each and every event may be cheap by telly standards but I fail to understand why cuts should be one massive cut rather than lots of little cuts.
Becuase cutting (say) 5 presenters to 4 would make bog-all difference when the overwhelming bulk of the cost is buying the rights in the first place. Even sending no presenters, and simply starting the programme at the ten-minute FOM sting, wouldn't save very much in percentage terms.


And don't even get me started on the waste of money that they've built oop North.
Not really their fault: TV Centre is falling apart, and can't be modernised beyond simple refurbs because it's a listed building. It was due to be sold before the property market crashed. The previous government instructed the BBC to decentralise, it wasn't their decision, and Salford Quays is a shared facility which should actually save them money in the long run. :)

[MrJan]

These things find a home of their own eventually. Rallycross hardly has a mass following but gets shown, likewise truck racing etc. Fair enough it may not end up on one of the main Sky channels but a home would be found.

I don't care if it makes no difference at all, cutting EJ from the show would benefit us all :D What I'm trying to say is that cost cutting across the board can aid these things, few less people flying to F1, few less pies for Phil Mitchell etc. Like I said earlier, I'm willing to say that the production costs for MotoGP v F1 are still a fair chunk of cash different...and the bikes are more interesting. And while it may not save much in percentage terms it would still save money, moving your £5k from a 2.5% apr ISA to a 2.6% ISA doesn't change much in percentage but you'd still do it.

I know that TV centre needed replacing, but the cost of the fancy dancy building that they're replacing it with is stupid. Knowing the sort of designs that architects like to come up with, and seeing some of the site pictures, I can assure you that a lot of money has been wasted in that build.

[Dave B]

I know that TV centre needed replacing, but the cost of the fancy dancy building that they're replacing it with is stupid. Knowing the sort of designs that architects like to come up with, and seeing some of the site pictures, I can assure you that a lot of money has been wasted in that build.
Don't forget that it's not a BBC building, they're merely leasing space (admittedly a lot of space and on long-term leases).

MediaCity will also house some ITV productions, public galleries and theatres, and living space. Anyway, why shouldn't a cultural centre be lavishly designed? It's going to sit there for decades, so it might as well be nice to look at, plus there's plenty of evidence to suggest that staff retention and productivity rates are better in good quality buildings.

[MrJan]

Don't forget that it's not a BBC building, they're merely leasing space (admittedly a lot of space and on long-term leases).

MediaCity will also house some ITV productions, public galleries and theatres, and living space. Anyway, why shouldn't a cultural centre be lavishly designed? It's going to sit there for decades, so it might as well be nice to look at, plus there's plenty of evidence to suggest that staff retention and productivity rates are better in good quality buildings.

Oops, the Salford one wasn't what I was on about (tbh I didn't know which one I was talking about, just aware that they'd had huge overspend as I remembered something on the news last year that left me agog).

Here we go http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8536356.stm


The new broadcasting centre at Pacific Quay in Glasgow went over budget by £62m and faced a year's delay


The extension of Broadcasting House has cost £100m more than planned and was due for completion in 2008, a National Audit Office report found.


The Pacific Quay project, which cost £188m, ran into delays.

It had been originally budgeted at £126m, although this was revised upwards when the BBC opted for a bigger building and more advanced technology.

Although to be fair there was this:

BBC's Salford centre is set to be completed around £76m under budget.
which is pretty impressive.

However it's huge sums of money to spend and, probably without too much effort, could have been reigned in by substantial amounts. £100m overspend on one building shirley shows massive mistakes by the consultants used, or a massive change of mind (which seems to be what buggered Glasgae). When you're building anything the moment you start moving the goalposts it'll cost you more.

[BDunnell]

Oh ffs! Did I state anything other than personal choice? I thought that the bit where I wrote "my first choice" gave the game away somewhat ;)

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to have a go at you.

[BDunnell]

Don't forget that it's not a BBC building, they're merely leasing space (admittedly a lot of space and on long-term leases).

MediaCity will also house some ITV productions, public galleries and theatres, and living space. Anyway, why shouldn't a cultural centre be lavishly designed? It's going to sit there for decades, so it might as well be nice to look at, plus there's plenty of evidence to suggest that staff retention and productivity rates are better in good quality buildings.

Indeed. What irks me about the move to Manchester, though, is the rationale behind it — that it will somehow help the BBC become less 'London-centric'. So what if it is? Like it or not, London is the capital, and the political and financial centre of the nation. But I digress.

[MrJan]

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to have a go at you.

Meh, it's Monday so I have a tendancy to be annoyed if people look at me/use my name/exist :D