I see they've based their pundits in an English studio with scenes from the Euro's shown on a screen behind them. ITV have apparently gone down the route of sending everyone out there and putting a studio in the centre. As a viewer do you think there is much of a difference or doesn't it matter to you where the studio is and whether the image behind the presenters is actually outside their window or a few thousand miles away?
You can't beat channel 5 with Stan they should have part of the coverage Only matters to the pundits ITV lads have the better deal!
Why though? What difference does it actually make to your viewing? I'll put the question another way. If you were told by the BBC that their studio was in poland (or ukraine or wherever) and that the scenes behind them were really behind them would you suddenly enjoy the programme more?
I'm with the BBC on this. They're accountable for every penny and sending a crew all that way makes no sense. If it was just Poland, or any central European country I'm sure they'd have gone, but with it being split with Ukraine they're better saving the cash and keeping the studio in the UK
If the BBC Sports team had gone out to Poland and Ukraine, with all the associated back up staff, everyone would be complaing about the was of License Fee Payers money. And as is often said on here, FACT.
Prefer them there, the atmosphere on ITV coverage with the square behind them, lets see tonight if Poland win the atmosphere behind them. But the BBC have been criticised in the past for sending loads out there when they are accountable to the licence payer. Problem for me with BBC coverage is it's just like watching Match of the Day.
what a load of ****** who cares if they are at the stadium or not as long as we see the game,bbc everytime for me,the commentries better,the guests summing up is better and they don,t have a ***** introducing the show.
I think the problem wasn't so much the footage but the inane, speak the bleading obvious, commentary on it
