GB have sent 366 competitors to Rio 2016

They have to record the studio bits, the interviews with the athletes and summarizers and other stuff that is not official event coverage.

 

They have a nice s****y brand new studio in Manchester. I fail to see how it makes any difference to my viewing experience whether I know that the bloke presenting a show is in a studio in Manchester watching an event on a TV or in a studio n Rio watching an event on a TV.

 

Multiplatform brilliance

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/07/bbc-staff-rio-2016-olympics-2012-games-nbc

"BBC staff for Rio 2016 Olympics to be 40% down on 2012 Games"

Probably because competing in the olympics and creating television are different jobs. Also- that is just the athletes I wonder what the number is taking into account trainers backroom staff etc. In conclusion- what a pointless pair of numbers to compare to try to bullishly beat the BBC over the head with.

I saw 321 red cars last month and yes the BBC INSIST on sending 455 staff to Rio.

 

I think the BBC is very good value for money.

 

Watch telly anywhere else on the planet and then you realise how lucky we are in the UK.

Think the BBC are great value for money. But then I would scrap the TV licence and fund it through general taxation.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ying-broadcast-filling-commercial-breaks.html

Thank god for the BBC.

Apologies for the source.

 

Allow me to counter with "no, it's ****ing ****". And there are plenty of things that I'd scrap in order to lower taxes and NI. £140 a year in my pocket or the BBC is a very easy choice to make. While it's easy to cherry pick examples like America, there are plenty of places where there isn't a TV licence and people manage to get along fine without it.

 

£2.69 a week? Would your life be better without the BBC but with an extra £2.69 a week to spend?

 

Difficult to judge without knowing how many are actually needed, I'm guessing a lot of the actual camera work is done for them but I would be very very surprised if a fair percentage of that number were shall we say non essential personnel.

 

Yes, because it's £140 a year that can go on anything else. I'd like to move to Australia, access to the NHS is a reason to stay. The BBC isn't.

 

I like the BBC, however I think the people should have the choice to subscribe or not. We are in the digital era after all!

 

Skryptic is a lot more elequent than what i can offer...

Summed it up quite well.

The bbc is the only company i know that uses the threat of imprisonment to market its services. Well capita rather than the beeb but they sign the stuff off.

The licence fee has to be paid if you watch a live broadcast regardless of whether you watch BBC channels or not.

It may only seem a small amount per week. About the same as the sun newspaper costs over the same period. If you don't read the sun would you still subscribe to it?

Highly unlikely...


And snowflake... I would expect that in 2012 the Beeb high a high number of staff covering the olympics given they were the host broadcasters. What you really should do is compare like for like...
Since brazil is topical compare the staff itv took to the World Cup in 2014 compared to the Beeb.

 

Original insult I've not had that one before..

 

You should try living in Australia with the TV they have to put up with before saying you would give it up. You'd soon be happy to pay your couple of quid a week. In a half hour programme you get ( literally) more adverts than programme. The news is Murdoch influenced bile. The worst you could ever imagine. Makes C5 look brilliant.

 

That really isn't like with like. ITV didn't provide radio coverage or run the multiplatform news service which the BBC provide as state broadcaster. Or the wider documentaries and cultural learning programmes as part of that remit.

That's before considering that ITV football coverage is absolutely abysmal.

 

Well they lost count how many they sent to Glastonbury one year

 

The license fee is effectively a tax, and there's been plans to scrap the license fee flying around for ages.

In terms of cost to what it offers the nation, I don't think anything comes close. Its also incredibly successful overseas.

 

It annoys me when people say "it's good value for money", if that's the case then people will pay for it without the threat of imprisonment.

It's just so dated and wrong.

And is it that popular overseas? Top Gear and Dr Who but that's about it.