BBC

[rhinos4life]

(03-28-2012 10:48 PM)Cheese Wrote:  bbc reaches how many homes??

and produces 1.6 million for the big cup.


sky reach far far less and produces 250 000 viewers. im thinking the ratios for sky are far better.

sky sports channels ....its a pay package, bought by folk who like sports, who are predisposed to watching sport, who already like sport. bbc is dale winton and such shite.


see where we r going?

need i say more?

[Cheese]

yes, u feel the bbc are about to covert a load of blue rinses who are predisposed to watch shite like eastenders???

[chesterhino]

how have you made this into a you are right/wrong thread?

[chesterhino]

well i also said that....did you see me on here begging for recognition?

[Gateaux]

But the watching a game once in a blue moon is what helps get some fans wanting to watch more regularly.

[CherryPie]

(03-29-2012 11:54 AM)wolfie Wrote:  i know i am right, need i say more, sky sports as cheesy said is for sports fans, bbc, is not, so if you like sports, you are more likely to watch a channel that is dedicated to them as opposed to watching a game once in a blue moon

1.61 million is still more than 250,000 no matter how you look at it. If the BBC isn't for people who like sport then who watches the sports coverage on the BBC?

[Gateaux]

Well I know at least 2 people who have been to games with me after their first taste being watching the CC on TV.

[CherryPie]

(03-29-2012 11:58 AM)wolfie Wrote:  why dont you just change your name to gat and be done with it

those who cant afford sky, i would imagine, if they cant afford sky, can they afford to go games

I don't think it's necessarily people who can't afford Sky. It might be those who just haven't thought it necessary to buy it.

I'm not sure how many people would become interested in the game after stumbling across it on the BBC but I'm sure there are a few. It's not the important point though. The game is still in need of a higher profile and getting the game broadcast to as many households as possible is still a big part of that.

[CherryPie]

(03-29-2012 12:10 PM)wolfie Wrote:  lets look at these figures shall we, 250,000 viewers or 250,000 t.v sets, baring in mind that a lot of people would have been at a club/pub to watch the final, whereas bbc, more folk will stay at home, as everyone has it. if you get 30/40 people watching each of those 250.000 sets, beats your 1.6 million viewers hands down

Pubs will show sport on whatever channel they are broadcast. I've watched the Challenge Cup and Super League in pubs. It makes no real difference.

[rhinos4life]

(03-29-2012 11:58 AM)wolfie Wrote:  

(03-29-2012 11:57 AM)Gateaux Wrote:  But the watching a game once in a blue moon is what helps get some fans wanting to watch more regularly.

really, any proof at all of that, i started going games through word of mouth, never seen a game on tele before i went

---

(03-29-2012 11:58 AM)CherryPie Wrote:  

(03-29-2012 11:54 AM)wolfie Wrote:  i know i am right, need i say more, sky sports as cheesy said is for sports fans, bbc, is not, so if you like sports, you are more likely to watch a channel that is dedicated to them as opposed to watching a game once in a blue moon

1.61 million is still more than 250,000 no matter how you look at it. If the BBC isn't for people who like sport then who watches the sports coverage on the BBC?

why dont you just change your name to gat and be done with it

[/color]

[color=#FF4500] i did with football and know people who who have found rl through cc on bbc.
lets see, £20 a ticket or £30/£40 for sky, which is cheaper?