SHA Small Heath Alliance

I don't watch and won't until we are on it. So won't comment on quality of it but just ask the question does the cost of it, basically Lineker salary provide value for money for 2 million viewers? I would say not.

His headline salary might be high (IDK if it is or not) but MOTD’s productions costs must be tiny.

Imagine how expensive some wanky programme like Strictly Chunts Dancing is to make.

I bet MOTDs costs per viewer is much smaller than SCD’s.

Plus Lineker is great at winding up with those with awful opinions

Robert Hopkins

I don't watch and won't until we are on it. So won't comment on quality of it but just ask the question does the cost of it, basically Lineker salary provide value for money for 2 million viewers? I would say not.

Have you seen the avg viewers for a sky game? It’s barely half a million.
BT sports is half that at best

Now think of how much money they pay for production and presenters etc

2 million viewers late on a Saturday night is a decent return.


The silly hysteria about the license fee is symptomatic of the country conditioned by the right wing media

Charcy

It has two million viewers per week after 10pm on Saturday evening. In the days of streaming services I would say that is pretty decent. Despite the two of you not liking it, it seems to be popular and a good use of license payers money.

I agree. I like it. I think there's a lot of trashing of the BBC these days but they make a lot of good content. There's plenty of shite on Netflix and Prime and they're putting adverts through their stuff now as well as charging a fee. If the BBC ever does go people will miss it.

Tom TheProject Brady

His headline salary might be high (IDK if it is or not) but MOTD’s productions costs must be tiny.

Imagine how expensive some wanky programme like Strictly Chunts Dancing is to make.

I bet MOTDs costs per viewer is much smaller than SCD’s.

I doubt it. The BBC spends 70m a year on the rights to show football highlights and I assume cannot sell the product on to other markets, since they don’t control the broadcasting rights.

Big brands like Strictly (Top Gear was also a well publicised example years ago) can be sold on and actually make money for the BBC and so subsidise stuff like MotD, which is more made as a public service

The more relevant comparison, as others have already made, is the cost when compared to broadcasting live matches. On that measure, MotD comes out very favourably

Love it personally.
Tend to watch it Sunday mornings rather than Saturday night though.

It’s for old people with no access to sky, BT, Iptv or social media. I’m surprised the ageist Charcy is sticking up for it, but it's good thing.

There’s enough football and inane comment for everyone. Let the old folk have their little share.

Yeah same. About to watch MOTD and The Football League Show back to back and then the 3 live games on Sky back to back. I love football

I have watched it since the 70's and it remains my weekly TV highlight. I browse my phone during any boring dialogue sections so Chappers doesn't bother me. After the frustration of Friday it's nice to be neutral watching games.

We need Jim Davidson and Lee Anderson hosting it, real men with proper tactical knowledge.

I don't watch and won't until we are on it. So won't comment on quality of it but just ask the question does the cost of it, basically Lineker salary provide value for money for 2 million viewers? I would say not.

Here’s list of salaries

[www.bbc.co.uk]

While I don’t like the right wing nutters all over radio 4 news programmes I’m surprised they are on so little compared to Lineker. They have to turn up most days. Or Lyse Doucet. Aggravating voice but Christ what a job she does.

But then Laverne is way overpaid for her simpering, mumsnet live garbage.

Then there’s Jenas.

It’s pretty clear it’s not talent or expertise that gets you the big bucks.

Iconic and very much part of the English institution when it comes to football coverage.

It’s outlasted its rivals with several attempts at replacing it during the 80’s and 90’s but the overwhelming majority preferred motd.

I personally like how it’s crown up from the days of Jimmy Hill. I also think it gives households that can’t afford sky a chance to see the top top players.

That for me remains the priority if we’re going to keep the game accessible to all.

Clapton

Iconic and very much part of the English institution when it comes to football coverage.

It’s outlasted its rivals with several attempts at replacing it during the 80’s and 90’s but the overwhelming majority preferred motd.

I personally like how it’s crown up from the days of Jimmy Hill. I also think it gives households that can’t afford sky a chance to see the top top players.

That for me remains the priority if we’re going to keep the game accessible to all.

Maybe people could afford Sky if they didn’t pay a “licence fee”

£12 a month make a big difference you think?

I'd suggest I'd £12 a month makes such a dent in people's income then Sky probably isn't a priority.