- This topic has 176 replies, 65 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Cut the gaudy betting advertising junk before each race
Sadly, C4 racing solely exists due to the law change allowing bookmakers to advertise on TV (2005 Gambling Act, came in to force in 2007) specifically including the use of ‘spot’ adverts.
Without them the program would not be financially viable.
Mike
Cut the gaudy betting advertising junk before each race
Sadly, C4 racing solely exists due to the law change allowing bookmakers to advertise on TV (2005 Gambling Act, came in to force in 2007) specifically including the use of ‘spot’ adverts.
Without them the program would not be financially viable.
Mike
I’m not saying cut betting advertising, I would personally prefer if the programme had significantly more emphasise on betting (an unpopular opinion I would imagine), but the advertising in its current format is incredibly tacky
I know that he’s not to everyone’s taste, but Big Mac created an excitement in the betting ring that Tanya never will. She is probably a very nice person, but weak and uninspiring in this role.
I have to admit that I didn’t like Graham Cunningham at first but I am now warming to him considerably.
Mick Fitz seems to be a bit of a Marmite presenter, you either love or hate him and I must profess to the former. He’s been there and done it and adds humour as well as knowledge to the job.
Gina Bryce, sorry but I have to hit the mute button as soon as she comes on. If she is on ATR Racing News I usually switch it straight off.
The race analysis seems ‘bitty’ to me, the interviews sometimes lacking depth and the betting coverage poor. I was annoyed at York on Wednesday when there wasn’t time for an interview with James Fanshawe after Society Rock’s win. I was really looking forward to that and guess what we had the arty crowd scene shots to finish the programme!!
I think those who were in favour of Balder’s interview with Sheik Mo on Guineas day should note that there was absolutely no such questions to SBS and Simon Crisford yesterday. I wonder why?
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
I think those who were in favour of Balder’s interview with Sheik Mo on Guineas day should note that there was absolutely no such questions to SBS and Simon Crisford yesterday. I wonder why?
On that subject, did anyone see Big Mac on The Sunday Forum on ATR? He came across as having his tongue quite far up Sheikh Mohmammed’s rear end and then made the incredible statement that:-
"Clare Balding was right to ask THE question
and
Sheikh Mohammed was right not to answer it"
The ever lazy Boycie never bothered picking him up on the logic of that one and most of John’s ramblings were incoherent "dark days for racing" nonsense. No wonder he got the boot from Channel 4, there’s more sense in a tuppenny watch.
Please pencil me in for the job of asking questions that need to be asked but shouldn’t be answered.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Mick Fitz seems to be a bit of a Marmite presenter, you either love or hate him and I must profess to the former. He’s been there and done it and adds humour as well as knowledge to the job.
Gina Bryce, sorry but I have to hit the mute button as soon as she comes on. If she is on ATR Racing News I usually switch it straight off.
Sorry, I don’t find Mick very clued up on flat racing and his accent could curl a laser beam.
I get the feeling that Gina may be one of the M-Appeal presenters that pop up on the news, weather and entertainment shows, wait, Alex Hammond, Zoey Bird…..oh I think I see a pattern here, Clare Balding?, well there’s got to be one to "keep the defence honest" as they say in American Football
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
No great surprise to see in the Racing Post today that there has been a massive slump in Channel 4’s viewing figures for racing since the takeover by the new regime.
Most people would probably agree that the overall professionalism of the coverage is now much better and more polished but much of the incidental fun of the previous coverage seems to be lacking.
It’s often a joyless experience wading through recorded programmes. I’ve got 10 programmes to watch after coming back from holiday and I can’t say I’m particularly relishing the prospect.
The fast-forward button will be a godsend (and not just for the usual bits).
Clare Balding and Nick Luck have brought a new professionalism to the coverage but the sterile atmosphere engendered by the large amounts of booth-style coverage has been a disadvantage.
The characters, such as Tommo and Francome, are being missed more than many of us expected and the often endearing bumbling nature of some of the coverage has been replaced by a colourless and bland atmosphere.
Graham Cunningham is admirably professional and competent but there is too much emphasis on showing him, Jim McGrath or Mick Fitzgerald talking among themselves, instead of showing the horses in the paddock or whatever.
Channel 4 don’t seem bothered by the sliding viewing figures for the main programme or the Morning Line and, because the viewing figures for the Grand National were quite good, don’t seem to see any cause for concern.
It’s very rare to read any comments in support of the new coverage on racing forums, however, so I suspect they might be being a bit overly complacent.
Reading today’s article in the Racing Post I was staggered that someone said the Morning Line was required viewing
must be a relative of one of the people working on the shows…I’ve already given my thoughts on how much I dislike the new coverage, unfortunately I can’t see it improving.
They’re spinning the figures slump as an effect of abandonments, but the RP’s survey says 79% prefer the old CH4 production.
I thought Mick Fitz was having a good day on Saturday until they showed the last run of the Irish hotpot – he described its acceleration as ‘instant’. Twas far from that, and I think he’d come on a ton if he just gave himself a second to think about what he’s about to say.
Reading today’s article in the Racing Post I was staggered that someone said the Morning Line was required viewing
must be a relative of one of the people working on the shows…
I don’t enjoy watching the Morning Line at all any more, even though I still, like a fool, slavishly video it every week.
It’s no fun any more. At least with Tommo hosting it and messing about, it was an amusing diversion for half-watching while reading the paper or having a cup of tea.
Now it’s not even worth half-watching…even with a heavy-duty, industrial-speed fast forwarder.
Mind you, the afternoon programme’s not much better for entertainment. I have never not enjoyed a Grand National programme so much as this year’s.
My concern with Fitzy’s contribution is that i could do what he does. Cliches, platitudes, hyperbole.
He’s been in racing for decades and yet i don’t find anything he says
on tv
interesting.
I thought Mick Fitz was having a good day on Saturday until they showed the last run of the Irish hotpot – he described its acceleration as ‘instant’. Twas far from that, and I think he’d come on a ton if he just gave himself a second to think about what he’s about to say.
He would watched the same images as you, where I would have to agree with your statement, however, watching as DoW went past me he was impressive and did he accelerate quickly. Don’t think Mick Fitz turned up to Leopardstown that day though.
Given the number of times people on this forum have lamented the lack of coverage given to the runners before a race, this admission by Channel 4 executive producer Carl Hicks sticks in the throat a bit.
He is quoted today as saying: "Jim McGrath told me we needed to show more horses in the paddock before Flat races and he was right, and at the right time and on the right day, we do show every horse but not day in, day out.
"Our storytelling needs to be more differentiating than that. If there are 15 horses in a race and we give every horse 10 seconds beforehand, then that’s two-and-a-half minutes gone.
"For a thumbnail sketch of the 15 horses, is that really worth it?
"Is it not better to tell the stories of two of the horses properly?
"With the previous regime, there was a rhythm to showing all the horses that became a bit dull. We wanted to make the race build-up more organic."
More organic? Storytelling? More differentiating?
Beyond belief, more like.If he’s begrudging us two-and-a-half minutes to see all the runners properly, it really is a bit ridiculous, not to mention organic.
As you said Crusty and from reading today’s second report in the Racing Post it appears that the powers at be at C4 are judging their coverage and viewing figures from Grand National day only, that the rest of their coverage is receiving bad viewing figures doesn’t mean anything to them.
My concern with Fitzy’s contribution is that i could do what he does. Cliches, platitudes, hyperbole.
He’s been in racing for decades and yet i don’t find anything he says
on tv
interesting.
Excellent point, Mark. There aren’t many members of the current C4 team who add anything that we could not do. I think only Simon Holt’s fluent commentaries and…arguably…Graham Cunningham’s form analysis fall into that category.
I started as a big supporter of the changes, but must admit that the old team did have more unique selling points. Nobody else commands the betting ring like Big Mac did. John Francombe did have some excellent insights into riding and jumping and, although Rishi Persad is competent as a roving reporter, he doesn’t have the warmth and jolliness of Thommo.
it seems as long as carl hicks is at the helm.ch4 racing is doomed to continue its slump,by the end of its contract ruk will im sure have picked up a lot more subscribers.
still in the interest of balance maybe tomorrows morning line will include a special report on the fall in sales of the racing post?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.