´óÏó´«Ã½

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Best of luck to all those taking part in the Olympics, wont be watching on TV myself unless the F1 debacle is resolved.

I`am not wasting money on a TV licence if we can only see highlights of the non live F1 races. Theirs nothing else apart from news and weather that i use the TV for and tbh i prefer the internet for news nowdays anyway.

Good luck Team to GB for 2012.

Is it true that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ are considering joint 2016 Olympic broadcasts with terrestrial rivals ITV and/or Channel 4?

Strange that, considering the ´óÏó´«Ã½ went out of their way to kill-off Channel 4's bid for F1, by jumping into bed with Sky.

Ignoring the F1 comments (if the blog on that is closed, wait until the next one because its off topic here), can you explain why the ´óÏó´«Ã½ chose not to show live coverage of the Cycling last weekend?

Additionally, why is the Rowing being packaged into highlights packages and only being streamed live online on the Sat/Sun?

Please explain yourselves. Thank you.

@3 - From the reports I have seen in the media today it would appear that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is definately considering sharing the 2016 Olympic coverage with either ITV, Ch4 or Ch5 rather than sharing with Sky as it has chosen to do for the F1.

Is this because it considers the Olympics to be of more cultural value than the F1? It can't be about viewing figures.

Leaving aside the questions about why the ´óÏó´«Ã½ can seemingly no longer afford to show sport properly (and I accept that some of those reasons might be due to the rising cost of the sports events themselves, but only some) then how it chooses to go about dividing the spoils is of great importance to the viewer. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ doesn't seem to be taking this into account at this point in time, having destroyed F1 coverage in the UK and then ignoring the fans who are rightly upset by it.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

@8 - actually you'd have been happier if the ´óÏó´«Ã½ had left the correct blogs open, but then you probably never would have realised the strength of feeling on the F1 issue - the ´óÏó´«Ã½ have actually widened the arena of discussion by trying to censor us, d'oh!! Sorry for having to bore non F1 fans with this but blame the ´óÏó´«Ã½ for closing down the blogs for our issue, not us for trying to be heard anyway.

As an aside, I don't think you will have to wait the full 7 years for F1 to be off the ´óÏó´«Ã½ altogther.....

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I do love the Olympics, but I also must use this blog to call on Ben Gallop to reopen his blog.

I have emailed the ´óÏó´«Ã½ every day asking them to reopen Ben Gallops blog to stop F1 taking over every blog, but he is taking a digital exile. Do not blame us, blame them who sold F1 to Sky and soon the Olympics to ITV, C4 or 5.

Presmably if the olympic coverage proves popular then the ´óÏó´«Ã½ will try and give half of it to sky.

Dear 606 host (how nice, another closed part of ´óÏó´«Ã½ Online: 606),

We already made formal complaints, now we want a forum for discussion on a ´óÏó´«Ã½ blog. So, reopen Ben Gallops blog. Or do I also have to make a formal complaint for that.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I have asked the moderators who this "606 Sport Host" is, we are now answered by anonymous ´óÏó´«Ã½ staff.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

@ 606 Sport Hosts

As others have said, we have complained numerous times, but you, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ are not addressing the complaint, replying to it with a standard responce, that refers to a closed blog does not address the problem, it compounds it.

Until the problem has been properly addressed and rectified by the ´óÏó´«Ã½ our complaints will continue.

If you dont want the subject being raised in this or other blogs, reopen Gallops original blog, thats the one with 8400+ compliants you have yet to answer.

Just to remind the ´óÏó´«Ã½ the argument is actually only over TEN HOURS OF TV, the difference between showing the non live races in full, rather than highlights.

Unless the ´óÏó´«Ã½ actually shut the transmitters down (unlikely) during that tens hours the savings they are looking at would be miniscule, but the effect on the sport MASSIVE.

@Rob-T Actually, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is looking at closing ´óÏó´«Ã½ Two and maybe One at nighttime to save an additional million pounds. The current management is totally out of touch with the real world.

I am delighted the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is showing all this Olympic Sport. It would be a shame if they had to share coverage but this is how it used to be so I can live with that.

As far as Formula 1 is concerned, it has been successful for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ but is expensive. I think given the sports avarice it is fairly inevitable that this would become the next "premier league" and unaffordable to terrestrial broadcasters. It is a shame but the Beeb can't show everything and given the circumstances I think they do very well in general on the sport they manage to cover.

Sadly, unless everyone decided to ditch Sky Sports en masse, the proliferation of pay sport will continue

Savva, the crux of the argument is that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ sidled with Sky in order to "workaround" the Concorde Agreement and block other free to air channels having full coverage of the F1. They then presented the deal to us as "absolutely delightful" (Barbara Slater) and "the best deal for the license payer" (Ban Gallop).

The best deal would in-fact be for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to relinquish all F1, allowing Channel 4 to show all races live, and saving a fortune in the process. Yes we all agree that ´óÏó´«Ã½ give the best F1 coverage, but C4 coverage, even with adverts, is better for the fans than half a season.

@ Piet Boon

I would have thought it would make far more sense to close transmission down for say 8 hours a night rather than reduce coverage of award winning programes.

I realise reducing transmission time by 1/3rd wouldnt lead to a direct 1/3rd reduction in costs, but it would allow substantial savings without affecting that many licence payers, who would be well servered by the other terrestrial channels that transmit 24/7.

@Rob-T they are doing both reductions

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

@606 Host (#15): follow up, that I promised. I understand full well that you are streaming the rowing finals on the website/red button, but why can't they be on the mainstream ´óÏó´«Ã½2 channel instead of yet another repeat of a programme? It is clear the investment is being made to carry the action 'live', so why not put it on a mainstream channel?

´óÏó´«Ã½ have removed my post - very funny. What about my human rights for freedom of expression and speech? Guess they won't post this either...

@15 606 Sport Hosts and others

Apologies for the inconvenience but isn't that true of the majority of protests if you are not directly involved in them oneself (irrespective of whether one has some sympathy for the reasons for the protest or not)?

It should be noted that there is no competition with the Olympics (or any other ´óÏó´«Ã½ coverage for that matter) at all in the minds of the main bulk of those that have raised their concerns and the issues are far more wide reaching than just 'disappointment' at losing a popular programme.

As Roger Mosey himself has pointed out, the budget for the Olympics is completely separate, has been in place for many years and the 'cuts' primarily affect post-2012. This should therefore be the case for F1 which had a contract for 2012 which has been torn up and replaced by a deal which is to the detriment of the licence payer (instigated by the ´óÏó´«Ã½). The argument that no FTA company could outbid the likes of Sky and it was therefore inevitable just doesn't hold water as Sky could bid double what all the FTA companies bid put together and still be unsuccessful (due to the Concord Agreement) unless they are let in through the back-door using a legal loophole - this is what this deal is. The burying of comment and debate on these issues (forcing the need to use these blogs), the non-response from the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and the 'run them around in circles' tactics employed in the complaints procedures are instrumental in causing anger amongst hitherto loyal ´óÏó´«Ã½ supporters such as myself.

Again, apologies for the inconvenience and the restating of some of the issues with regards to the F1 debacle on this (and other) blogs, but I feel it is important that you realise that this perceived 'invasion' is not with the intention of getting something we want at the expense of what you want - our argument is with the ´óÏó´«Ã½ over the handling of this whole sorry business and as a result may, in the future, make them think twice about their actions when a similar situation arises in a sport that you care about.

Dear Claire,

Is this blogpost pre-moderated or is it also retrospectively moderated. Does the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has money to moderate every entry twice?

Ah I see censorship is alive and well on this blog at least - I thought the ´óÏó´«Ã½ had had a change of heart since they had begun to leave blogs open and be a little less severe with their moderation techniques. Glad to see the ´óÏó´«Ã½ keeping its end up here though by moderating away perfectly reasonable comments. I was probably off topic I suppose, but where is the consistancy? Most of these comments are off topic and will continue to be until you reopen the correct blogs.

We are at least keeping the moderation team in work, they don't have much to do with our money most of the time....

Twitter update:

@xxx: @radiolemans is Ben Gallop (´óÏó´«Ã½ head of F1) due to be on the midweek show today?

@radiolemans: @xxx he has not come back to us so far.

Looks like Ben is set to miss his slot on Radio Lemans tonight, without even the courtesy of replying to them. ASB?

Great Britain will be playing 5 games in the first round of EuroBasket, just like everyone else, so you might want to look at the plans to show three games plus more 'should the team progress'. 5 is a cast iron certainty.

For goodness sake. Would the 606 Sports Hosts @ 15 please realise that we have complained - and complained - and complained through official ´óÏó´«Ã½ channels and we have been met with a standard response which tells us nothing and answers none of our questions.

Perhaps you could tell me how much longer the ´óÏó´«Ã½ are going to keep re-directing us to useless channels of complaint before someone actually does something positive for all those currently complaining?

I tried to get tickets to these basketball events, but they were all sold out. Now I see that the 12,000 people stadium is empty!!! What is going on???

@38 Zebbers - of course they realise that we have complained multiple times. They are just repeating the party line which they have been told to take in the hope that we will get bored of complaining about this issue.

They will never engage with us on the topic we actually want to discuss as of course this conveniently an off-topic issue on this blog, because the correct blogs have been closed by them. This means they are not obliged to discuss it at all which is what they want.

Unfortunately, come Spa, some new F1 blogs will appear (if only to be closed early) where we will be able at least to be on topic....

@606SportHosts the better e-mail address you can use to appeal to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Trust regarding ´óÏó´«Ã½/Sky F1 deal is:
TrustEditorial@bbc.co.uk
That is only for people who already complaint and were unhappy with the reply - as most of the posters above already did.