Stevosevic Posted 6 February 2011 Posted 6 February 2011 We get more than our fair share of action/discussion so stop moaning.
AmyLGK Posted 6 February 2011 Posted 6 February 2011 Jesus wept, I put a MASSIVE post in another thread on this topic about how we HAVE got a lot of coverage this season. Let's go through the stats again. This season on the FLS, we've had substansial coverage for the following games (This is action AND talk about us) Middlesbrough- 11 Minutes coverage- Featured game Reading- 8 Minutes coverage- Sub-featured game as we were live on Sky Portsmouth- 8 Minutes coverage- Sub-featured game as we were live on Sky S****horpe- 6 Minutes coverage- Clem feature on Sousa sacking Hull- 6 Minutes coverage- Clem feature on Sven's first game Doncaster- 5 Mins coverage- Sub-featured game Ipswich- 13 Mins coverage- Featured game because of the weather and being live on Sky Leeds- 4 Minutes coverage- Mainly talk Millwall- 7 Minutes coverage- Sub-featured game There have been 26 editions of the FLS this season. Several of which we haven't featured on because of international weekend and live on Monday night, so nine episodes with decent coverage out of what, 20-22 episodes is not bad at all. So can we please dispel the myth we don't get decent coverage? We do. Other teams this season will have had nothing like what we've managed to get. Especially as, up until the last month or so, we were inconsistent and completely mediocre, so we didn't really deserve it. They have 72 teams to cover! 72!? Why do we have a devine right to have 5-6 minutes every game? I'd love us to, but we don't. It's funny that this only crops up when we win, no-one ever complains of lack of coverage when we lose. oooooh alright there statoman!
Guest ttfn Posted 6 February 2011 Posted 6 February 2011 It's the QPR bumming that does my head in. Can't stand them.
FuriousFox46 Posted 6 February 2011 Posted 6 February 2011 If Manish had his way we'd always be main feature.
Bert Posted 6 February 2011 Posted 6 February 2011 They do generally bum the teams at the top. Like, for instance showing QPR first on Saturday. They already pick which games they're going to feature, but they have cameras at every game, so I can't see why that stops them then adding in a good game.
Chairman of the Bored Posted 6 February 2011 Posted 6 February 2011 I like the low key approach. Less hype more impact. When we get to the POF they can feature us all they want.
Edmund Posted 7 February 2011 Posted 7 February 2011 Like, for instance showing QPR first on Saturday. They always show the highlights of the Friday night game first, nothing to do with their league position
Guest ttfn Posted 7 February 2011 Posted 7 February 2011 They always show the highlights of the Friday night game first, nothing to do with their league position No they don't. They always show extended highlights of the Friday night game, but it's not always first. Which is what makes it all the stranger that an unremarkable 1-0 win was shown first on a day when Leicester won 4-1, Hull won 5-1 and Bristol City won 4-0.
Edmund Posted 7 February 2011 Posted 7 February 2011 No they don't. They always show extended highlights of the Friday night game, but it's not always first. Which is what makes it all the stranger that an unremarkable 1-0 win was shown first on a day when Leicester won 4-1, Hull won 5-1 and Bristol City won 4-0. Fair enough, I could've sworn they did but I'm probably getting mixed up with them showing extended highlights of the Friday night game. I always thought they played it first as most people have watched it live already the night before so they get it out the way early.
Pete_foxes Posted 7 February 2011 Posted 7 February 2011 The way the show is formatted is terrible, the 'pundits' are terrible. When Claridge has been on it before he just seems incapable of forming an opinion. Going to Lizzie on the texts is... an abysmal idea "oooh Millwall fans think this, but Leeds fans think that". jeesshh.
marbelladave Posted 7 February 2011 Posted 7 February 2011 No they don't. They always show extended highlights of the Friday night game, but it's not always first. Which is what makes it all the stranger that an unremarkable 1-0 win was shown first on a day when Leicester won 4-1, Hull won 5-1 and Bristol City won 4-0. The way the show is formatted is terrible, the 'pundits' are terrible. When Claridge has been on it before he just seems incapable of forming an opinion. Going to Lizzie on the texts is... an abysmal idea "oooh Millwall fans think this, but Leeds fans think that". jeesshh. Once again, this is all down to contracts and money..... when isn't it.... The highlights package that the BBC buy limits the the actual amount of playing time that can be shown and requires the BBC to show something of every game, difficult to see how they cam manage things better in that respect. Also, as has been pointed out elsewhere, only the featured games have multiple cameras (usually because the game is broadcast live) which takes time to set up, so this has to be decided in advance. If that game turns out to be a dud, as it sometimes does, you are pretty much stuffed. The texts, features and punditry are all more or less 'fillers', making a longer more rounded program, not great but given the contractual restraints not too bad, much better than the ITV effort in any case.
SMX11 Posted 7 February 2011 Posted 7 February 2011 The text/emails in to the show thing should scrapped that would save about 5 mins of the show. The highlights are league position based most of the time, however the QPR bumming at the minute is getting on my nerves. It should be us and Forest they are talking about
Kitchandro Posted 7 February 2011 Posted 7 February 2011 Once again, this is all down to contracts and money..... when isn't it.... The highlights package that the BBC buy limits the the actual amount of playing time that can be shown and requires the BBC to show something of every game, difficult to see how they cam manage things better in that respect. Also, as has been pointed out elsewhere, only the featured games have multiple cameras (usually because the game is broadcast live) which takes time to set up, so this has to be decided in advance. If that game turns out to be a dud, as it sometimes does, you are pretty much stuffed. The texts, features and punditry are all more or less 'fillers', making a longer more rounded program, not great but given the contractual restraints not too bad, much better than the ITV effort in any case. Fair enough with the featured games, I'll admit there's not much they can do about that. And fair enough about them having to fit a lot of games into a short space of time. The BBC should be cutting them some slack, football is very important and it's only once a week. The show should be half and hour longer and on an hour earlier. But there'sno excuse for the emails, they are completely pointless. I really don't care what the fans have got to say. They could save a good 5 minutes if they cut that out. Also the analysis is pointless, they haven't got enough time to say anything worthwhile, and Leroy just agrees with everything Manish says. That's another 10 minutes extra. So although some of the criticism on here is unfair, the could save time (in which they could show more highlights with replays etc) if they cut out the crap that's not necessary. ITV, tbf to them, realised that with the adverts their time was limited, so had no analysis.
marbelladave Posted 7 February 2011 Posted 7 February 2011 Fair enough with the featured games, I'll admit there's not much they can do about that. And fair enough about them having to fit a lot of games into a short space of time. The BBC should be cutting them some slack, football is very important and it's only once a week. The show should be half and hour longer and on an hour earlier. But there'sno excuse for the emails, they are completely pointless. I really don't care what the fans have got to say. They could save a good 5 minutes if they cut that out. Also the analysis is pointless, they haven't got enough time to say anything worthwhile, and Leroy just agrees with everything Manish says. That's another 10 minutes extra. So although some of the criticism on here is unfair, the could save time (in which they could show more highlights with replays etc) if they cut out the crap that's not necessary. ITV, tbf to them, realised that with the adverts their time was limited, so had no analysis. Sorry but you have this the wrong way round... They already show all the action they are allowed by the terms of their contract, cutting out the other items would simply shorten the show. I aggree that some of the extra content is bollox and would like to see it replaced by replays and better analysis but this is all to do with the current BBC policy of pitching football to the 'wider' audience.
Kitchandro Posted 7 February 2011 Posted 7 February 2011 Sorry but you have this the wrong way round... They already show all the action they are allowed by the terms of their contract, cutting out the other items would simply shorten the show. I aggree that some of the extra content is bollox and would like to see it replaced by replays and better analysis but this is all to do with the current BBC policy of pitching football to the 'wider' audience. Well that is fvcking ridiculous. They can't show big penalty appeals like the missed out in the Millwall game because it's too much action? And they can't show replays either? The BBC should be ashamed of themselves. What could possibly be wrong with showing more highlights and talking less bull?
marbelladave Posted 7 February 2011 Posted 7 February 2011 Well that is fvcking ridiculous. They can't show big penalty appeals like the missed out in the Millwall game because it's too much action? And they can't show replays either? The BBC should be ashamed of themselves. What could possibly be wrong with showing more highlights and talking less bull? The amount of action that they are allowed to show is strictly controlled by their contract, they simply can't show more, blame the footall league and their lawyers for that, not the BBC. I know some of the basics of the contract but not the fine detail so it is possible that replays might form part of the total amount of action they can show.... As usual, the contracts are designed to maximise income to the rights holder, ie the Football League, not produce the best possible program for the fans. TFLS is a showcase, every club that plays gets a mention, that's part of the contract too. BTW It also enables the Football League to sell a package of more extended highlights to individual clubs for their own media outlets, more money for the football League. Our highlights, about 7 mins worth this week, come up on Foxesplayer, for which naturally, you have to pay. So, in short, you pay three times, once for your ticket, once for TV highlights and once for extended highlights.... And i used to think there were some sharks in the music business, they could learn something from this lot...
MC Prussian Posted 7 February 2011 Posted 7 February 2011 I think Stringer asked Manish Bhasin once during the Phone-In about how it works at the Football League Show. It's not up to him to push our games to an earlier slot. Basically, some games are picked in advance to feature, and the time allowed to cover the others depends on one simple thing - goals. Take last Saturday's show for example. MotD had a plethora of goals to report and it wasn't any easier for the FL Show. I guess some folks can never be pleased. There's one alternative, though: FoxesPlayer.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.