Precisely!Quote:
Originally Posted by ErinGoBraghHFC
Printable View
Precisely!Quote:
Originally Posted by ErinGoBraghHFC
Ahhh, sarcasm?[emoji28] sorry about thatQuote:
Originally Posted by 007
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What's that then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotty Leither
You are dodging the point about whether a decent effort on Scottish football is unacceptable because it would be unfairly subsidising the game out the licence fee payer's pocket. Is there any proof - at all, any - that the BBC spend on English football recovers the output?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Different discussion altogether (if it's even a discussion at all, I don't think so). The great defence of the thin gruel that is served up by our national broadcaster is that anything else would be subsidising private interests. Fair dos. Show me that the outlay/income on English football is the same and I'll shut up.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
I'm not dodging anything. The argument here appears to be that the BBC should pay more for Scottish TV rights. Why? Just because it appears. So it's not about unfairly subsidising the Scottish game. The BBC can't bid for something, win it, and then just lob in a few extra million.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
So they can't pay a bit more to provide a studio show that's worth watching?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Oh, and do we as licence fee payer's make money out of the market-driven price we pay for English football?
What’s what?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
You’ve made some sly dig (presumably political) that because I say we’d have a better chance of watching our national team on free to air TV if we had our own broadcaster, yet you call somebody “silly” for stating a FACT that England is a separate country???
Beats me, I’m oot.
That's not the same thing. I've suggested above some ideas I think would improve the show. But even if they brought in Graham Norton to present it, none of that would mean additional money for Scottish football.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
But did the BBC offer a relative price for Scottish football as they did English football? If not, why not? Do the BBC, in charge of public money, make a return off English football?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
It's easy for me to ask questions,to be fair, because the BBc is unaccountable. You are defending them without any stats.
Oh really. So a thread that's dripping with blah blah blah ENGLAND...blah blah blah UNIION...blah blah blah SEPARATE COUNTRY...and so on and I make it political? In the real world Scottish football has to do a better job marketing itself. Something Ron Gordon was well aware of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotty Leither
Btw it's not a FACT that England is a separate country, even if you capitalise it.
It’s about paying for something that is of more interest to one part of the uk than the uk as a whole. Most likely over the odds at the “expense” of funding a similar interest elsewhere in the uk. It’s you that’s making it about unfairly subsidising the game up here. It’s about not getting value for our licence fee whilst other seem to be getting more. It’s imbalanced. Nothing to do with funding football. You really are a strange one.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
I wonder how much they are *****ing on coronation coverage?
What does 'relative price' mean. I assume they bid what they thought would take to win the bid, both here and with the EPL. What 'return' do you think they would make given it's free to air? As for the BBC is unaccountable, given that they operate under a royal charter and have obligations not shared by other broadcasters, I can't see how you reach that conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
But it is, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a political union between four countries. EVEL (abandoned to streamline parliamentary discussion during coronavirus epidemic) confirmed this by making it that all four countries had their own devolved parliament and national identities.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Have a day off, Archie.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How much did they bid for the English coverage?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
There's so much assertion here. Do you know that people in Scotland don't want Match of the Day? The notion around imbalance suggests that the BBC should pay more for Scottish football out of some distributed funding arrangement.But why? They bid and they won. It's not a slight to Scotland that the commercial value of Scottish football is what it is. It's an indictment of the people who run Scottish football. As for the 'strange one' comment, that suggests your argument is pretty thin.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenlex
I hope you aren't about to sit an exam on The UK constitution any time soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by ErinGoBraghHFC
I posted above that they paid £211m for the latest rights. I don't know how many years that covers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
The UK doesn’t have a written constitution, next.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It doesn't have a single codified document. Not the same thing as not having one.Quote:
Originally Posted by ErinGoBraghHFC
Not everyone is a football fan and I’ll wager the it’s pretty safe to say majority of people don’t give a flying one for the EPL up here and would baulk at the price paid out the licence fee. Imbalance is exactly that. I’d suggest they pay less for coverage of the English game not more for the Scottish version. You’re still a strange one however thin my argument is.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Okay so it doesn’t have a written constitution then, there may be ideals that are protected by law but if they’re not codified in a single, specific document it is not a written constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't understand you're being so nasty about it. But on to your point. If they pay less for the coverage they won't have it. You might be pleased about that. Others won't be.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenlex
This might help https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/explainers/what-uk-constitutionQuote:
Originally Posted by ErinGoBraghHFC
So exactly what I said, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks. You did right enough, sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Is that value for money? What does the licence fee payer get out of it? Does it help limit future increases? Does it offer a way to reduce the licence fee?
If all it's about is getting it free to watch, why is the studio element so far ahead of the Scottish version? Is that value for money? They are a public sector broadcaster, spending our money, so what makes the difference?
Did you type all that with one finger?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
You said the UK didn't have a written constitution. The Constitution Unit says:Quote:
Originally Posted by ErinGoBraghHFC
'The UK is often said to have an ‘unwritten’ constitution. This is not strictly correct. It is largely written, but in different documents.'
So if you think that's exactly what you said then we'll done.
So you introduced the assertion about the UK not having a written constitution because there isn't a single document.Quote:
Originally Posted by ErinGoBraghHFC
You are correct there isn't a single document.
But the person you're arguing with is also correct that the UK has a constitution based on the Magna Carta, Common Law, Precedent and Statute - so in several documents.
What are you trying to achieve with this argument?
Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
Nothing reallyQuote:
Originally Posted by Salisbury Hibby
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk