- This topic has 19 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
That is so according to Daily Mail
I thought this has been going on for years – didn’t the Tote pay Channel 4 about the same amount?
Yeah Happy, fair point about the Tote, and of course this was at a time when other bookmakers couldn’t advertise on telly so could be viewed as a good business. But, I do seem to recall the race courses also either paying Channel 4 themselves or contributing to the amount the Tote paid.
I think the bottom line was without being paid Channel 4 would have pulled the plug. Seems like they have used the same bargaining position which is to do with the fall in levy, loss of sponorship money etc from races not being on the telly would be far greater than the amount paid to Channel 4.
The alternate would have been no terrestial coverage of racing, apart from the limited number of days the BBC will be showing.
Basically C4 coverage under the new deal will be the same as now – just some of the meetings covered being changed to cover the dropped BBC meetings.
If it comes to a choice between loosing nearly all the terrestial coverage or stumping up £3m then I suggest it is probably good business sense for racing to pay for the coverage.
As has been pointed out previously this is basically the similar model to the last C4 agreement – it is just the payment is being sourced differently.
The alternate would have been no terrestial coverage of racing, apart from the limited number of days the BBC will be showing.
Basically C4 coverage under the new deal will be the same as now – just some of the meetings covered being changed to cover the dropped BBC meetings.
If it comes to a choice between loosing nearly all the terrestial coverage or stumping up £3m then I suggest it is probably good business sense for racing to pay for the coverage.
As has been pointed out previously this is basically the similar model to the last C4 agreement – it is just the payment is being sourced differently.
Why does racing need armchair viewers? What it really needs is people through the turnstiles. Paying £3M to C4 strikes me as the sort of insanity that typifies the approach of the racing authorities to promote the sport.
Tuffers
Under the current arrangement for funding racing people betting on races is more important than getting people through the turnstiles. People watching Channel4 will bet and generate money for the Levy. I ssume that the BHA have done their sums and calculated that the £3m is worth it for the extra money that will be raised through betting.
If you were looking at from the point of view of the overall health of the sport then I agree, getting people through the trunstiles and interested in racing is the most important thing. Many would argue though, and quite justifiably I say, that exposure on terrestrail TV is important to get people interested in the sport and to visit meetings. Can you honestly tell me you didn’t get your first glimpse of horse racing through watching it on television? If so, I’d say you are one of very few.
Rob
I would think that the bookmakers also find that racing shown on terrestrial channels is beneficial.
Colin
I depend totally on Ch4 for watching live racing; I also know quite a lot of people who watch it but would never actually go to a racecourse. Take sport off terrestrial television and it becomes a minority sport. People need to both watch it on the telly and go racing as well, but I don’t see how you can have one without the other; I can’t imagine someone saying ‘Oh, I might be interested in this sport therefore I shall pay at join ATR just to see if I do’. If it was taken off terrestrial television I would have to pay for ATR, but I would have to do without something else to pay for it and probably go racing even less.
Terrestrial TV is vital for the sport to a) introduce people to the sport and enthuse them about going racing b) increase betting turnover and therefore the levy c) encourage sponsorship of races (nearly all non-industry sponsors demand terrestrial TV exposure for their pound).
The TV companies only pay for the rights to sports (ie football, Olympics, grand Prix, tennis, golf etc) for which there is competition to show these races. With BBC pulling the plug on all but the elite fixtures then Channel 4 were in a strong bargaining position.
Remember that rights fees are only worthwhile if the TV companies can actually get their figures to work and can cause chaos if they cannot stump up to pay their contractual dues ie ITV and Setanta for the football.
Happy you can’t really compare Ch 4 to the dedicated TV channels because they are via a SKY service and RUK charges an extra subscription on top. Therefore they are for people already enthused about the sports whilst Channel 4 – through not only it’s afternoon coverage but the Morning Line – brings in potential new customers.
I couldn’t understand why CH4 were so obsessed with showing presentations until I realized that it was part of the sponsorship deal.
I couldn’t understand why CH4 were so obsessed with showing presentations until I realized that it was part of the sponsorship deal.
It isn’t part of the sponsorship deal. They’ve always done it.
Terrestrial TV is vital for the sport to a) introduce people to the sport and enthuse them about going racing b) increase betting turnover and therefore the levy c) encourage sponsorship of races (nearly all non-industry sponsors demand terrestrial TV exposure for their pound)
.. spot on .. racing would go the same way as boxing has if it disappeared off council telly.
C4 know it and so does everyone else, except the folk at the racing post who seem to think new punters are going to stump up endless amounts of good money to pursue a passing hobby.
I tuned into C4 Racing today for the first time in a while.
It took me all of five seconds to reach for the ”mute” button.
The reason? Alistair Down drawled the word ”class” as the jolly went to post – maybe because I haven’t got any [class, that is] silence suddenly had infinitely more appeal.
paying C4 vast amounts of cash so they then can pass it on to Tommo, Taniya and rest of that hideous bunch that make up the morning line.
Without terrestrial tv coverage I would never have become a racing fan. Thats the bottom line for me and many followers of the sport. You dont need a business degree to see the value there!
- Total Posts 170
As the guy above says – its not hard to fathem that racing on terrestial tv is KEY for the sport.
If people do not watch Sea the stars win the derby etc would they be so interested in watching him in the eclipse?
I am sure 99% on here watched racing for the first time on terrestial tv and without it the sport would be in big trouble.
Also, I am pretty positive the betting turnover etc is a lot larger on C4 races so surely its in the industries interest to secure channel 4 still keep showing the races.
I was certainly attracted to the sport by TV and that was in black and white for goodness sake!!
Nicholas Silver winning the 1961 National is my first real memory but I can remember watching the racing on ITV and BBC with my Grandad on Saturday afternoons and having fun bets with him for pennies.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.