BBC BLOGS - Roger Mosey
« Previous | Main | Next »

Accommodating the BBC in 2012

Post categories:

Roger Mosey | 11:38 UK time, Sunday, 18 September 2011

Time for another in the series responding to some of the wilder stories you may read about the BBC's 2012 planning. Today, our view of the "revelation" in a couple of Sunday papers that the people covering the Games will need somewhere to stay overnight.

Being the host nation broadcaster for the London 2012 Olympics means we'll have a huge amount of output - getting on for 3,000 hours live - and services running round the clock on TV, radio and online. We will be delivering vastly more than we did in Beijing, and it's what our audiences expect. To do that we need staff to be at the venues from very early in the morning for programmes like Breakfast, while the last of the action will finish close to midnight.

TV camera at the hockey venue in Beijing

Roger Mosey on BBC plans for London 2012: "We will be delivering vastly more than we did in Beijing." Photo: Getty

If a presenter or a director or an editor isn't there when they're scheduled, we put our coverage at risk. And everyone recognises that transport is going to be one of the big challenges for London 2012, which is why we - like all organisations involved in the Games - are having to spend a lot of time working through the logistics.

Our conclusion is that we will offer accommodation as close to the venues as we can manage for key staff who would otherwise spend an hour and a half or more a day on public transport. The important thing to note here is that the 45-minute calculation for a single journey is based on normal travel times and not the longer journeys people will face during the Games. Nor does it include journeys to stations or the time it will take to get through security at Olympic sites - both of which could be significant.

The fact that BBC Sport is now based in Salford is of marginal relevance here, because we would apply the same calculations if they were still in London. And many of our Games staff are still in the capital because they work in News, at BBC London or in the Sport 2012 planning team, which has not moved north.

As for where our staff stay: our first recommendation is with family and friends if that's possible. If it's not, we'll supply somewhere. But it will be overwhelmingly in the budget category, and most of it will be student accommodation. There will be no comparison with the luxury hotels in central London where VIPs will stay or even with some of the top-range rooms that we would be entitled to from the organisers under our contract. We've turned those down. We want our staff to be safe and have the essentials they need to do the job, but we also recognise value for money is top of the agenda.

Some of you have rightly said in previous blogs that we shouldn't be defensive about the fact we will be covering the Games. Good point. But we're also not going to leave unchallenged the attempted drip, drip of unfounded criticism about the fact that we need the right staff and a proper broadcasting infrastructure to deliver what our audiences want.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    Sorry to labour point Roger, the Daily Mail have printed this story as if they have revealed a decade long conspiracy, they have added a comment from a BBC Spokeswoman yet do not reveal her name, can you not see that this just adds to the suspicion people have, why not name this BBC Spokeswoman?

  • Comment number 2.

    I was hoping to work at the Great British Beer Festival, which is taking place in London at the same time as the Olympics. The organisers have booked up a lot of student accommodation places to house our volunteers, so your assertion that the BBC is also intending to use student accommodation for its staff concerns me rather. Have you actually booked this accommodation, or are you expressing hope that the accommodation will still be available next August? If the latter, I suspect you may be mistaken!

  • Comment number 3.

    A few mobile homes parked up on the old Walthamstow dog track would do the job..Within walking distance to the Olympic complex so no travel problems....

    This also has the benefit of being a reusable and mobile option, just relocate to the area that your teams need to work.

    I have solutions to most problems if you are interested, you can have this one for free, but in future I will have to charge at the going rate....

  • Comment number 4.

    The day the Daily Mail stop berrating the BBC over doing their job is the day the BBC isn't doing it's job correctly.

    Of course too the irony of ironies is the people who moan the BBC is too big are often the same people who moan the BBC aren't delivering once their budgets are cut - and generally speaking the same organisations who backed the Tories to come in and slash the budget anyway. As far as I'm concerned whether in London or elsewhere every penny the BBC spends on the Olympics is money spent wisely.

  • Comment number 5.

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

  • Comment number 6.

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

  • Comment number 7.

    Try reading Jake Humphrey,s blog ,relating to accomodation .Allaround the world F1 top class coverage and all done from portable centres .You,ve got 3 weeks all in the same place .Dont tell me you cant cover and edit these events . this is the 21st century!! In our capital ,in which you have numerous buildings ,except the one,s you chose to vacate and move to Salford .Do you know how pathetic you sound .You remind me of the body that gave Murdoch half of your viewers F1 ......Oh yeah ...lol

  • Comment number 8.

    I agree with providing accomodation for staff covering the games and I also think that the BBC will provide a successful coverage of the olympics, but in my opinion sport on the BBC is a joke now! People say that kids are inspired to get into sports maybe due to an event that has happened on TV such as England winning the ashes, but it certainly wont be on the BBC. What do we sporting fans have to look forward to watching on the BBC in future? Football on the BBC this means highlights and a few championship matches a year, hardly inspiring is it! Cricket?Rugby union, you provide the six nations but this is not the only rugby that takes place!Well done on the Athletics with the Diamond league coverage but then to everybodys amazement you did not make sure that you gained the rights to the major event of the year the world championships!

    By the way F1, why want to have joint coverage with Sky and show half the races and deny F1 fans who dont have Sky a chance to watch the other half of the season, This was not to make sure that another channel such as channel 4 could outbid you for the rights, if this is the case you should be ashamed of not putting the publics interest first instead of denying competition and leaving F1 fans with nothing like we now have!

  • Comment number 9.

    I understand where the writer of this blog is coming from. The logistics of covering the biggest sporting event ever held in the country are frightening especially when it's being held mostly in London. Our company (based in Lancashire) had to carried out a job near Wembley recently and we couldn't find accomodation nearby for just three staff due to some sort of event happening at the same time.

    Many on this blog might assume booking a hotel is easy but try booking a room today for next year and see how far you get!

  • Comment number 10.

    @6.Andi Topping

    Of course not, not even when the BBC's own report showed that ...

    Beijing Olympics Cost per Viewer Hour = Miss
    Beijing Olympics Actual Reach 42% = Miss
    Beijing Olympics live Rating = Miss

    While ...

    F1 Cost per Viewer Hour = Hit
    F1 Cost per Viewer = Hit
    F1 Actual Reach 54% = Hit
    F1 Actual Live Rating = Hit

    The BBC has long since stopped putting the viewer at the heart of programming.

  • Comment number 11.

    Come people stop polluting this Blog with their F1 nonsense, its getting beyond a joke now, not everyone cares about F1, especially on a Blog about the Olympics!!!

    Give it a rest, its getting boring!!

  • Comment number 12.

    sorry typo should be could instead of come

  • Comment number 13.

    Fair blog Roger. I work in Weymouth occasionally and spoke about this to a guest house owner who the BBC were negotiating with. He claimed that they were asking for discounts as 'each room would need to be occupied singly'. Many, if not most, of the sports professionals share when away so having the BBC staff share some twin rooms would ease the pressure on costs and room availability around the venues. Other than that if they are worried about public transport delays than a bike is going to be a better option around London... :-)

  • Comment number 14.

    We will be delivering vastly more than we did in Beijing, and it's what our audiences expect.
    ////////////
    Do we ? I don't think so. A bore from start to finish. I think what Mr Mosey means is it's what the BBC wants. We just have to go along with the expensive programme including the overload of presenters, at our expense.

  • Comment number 15.

    Thanks for the comments, and working backwards through the main points:

    Revelation in #14 - 75% of the UK population watched Beijing (so Czar-Orac's figures in #10 are wrong). There was a clear demand from fans for live coverage of more sports, which is what we'll offer for London.

    I agree with Fedster in #11: F1 isn't my responsibility, whereas the Olympics are. I've given the context for the recent F1 decision - which is all about a tough economic climate for the BBC - and with respect I'm not going to discuss that further here.

    Timepasser in #7: we don't have any BBC buildings in East London where we can accommodate people overnight, and the world's media are using the facilities at Olympic Park so it would be very odd for the host nation broadcaster not to do that too.

    Mambo in #3: I can just imagine the "now the BBC buys 'luxury' caravans" headlines!

    ChrisRamsbottom in #2 (and RememberScarborough in #9): yes, we're on the case.

  • Comment number 16.

    I can't help imagining the smug smiles on Simon Walters and Glen Owen's faces with the knowledge that they've successfully baited the BBC's head of Olympics coverage enough to spend some of his valuable time writing another defensive missive.

    Don't get me wrong, Roger, it's decent of you to justify aspects of the BBC's Games coverage but I don't know whether you should feel you have to in order to appease a public who I suspect are pretty clued up on the DM's general views on the BBC anyway.

    Either that or you'll be typing away the night before the Games justifying the quality of the chairs the BBC staff will be sitting on.

  • Comment number 17.

    Jason look at the comments below the DM articles all the negative comments have been red arrowed, and all the postive comments have hundreds of green arrows, it just goes to shows lots and lots of people are ignorant, and take what they read in the DM as gospel.

    Roger is damned if he does damned if he doesn't, if he didnt write this piece, how were we supposed to know what the BBCs position is,are we supposed to rely on a mysterious BBC "Spokeswoman" or a dodgy BBC "Source"?

  • Comment number 18.

    Please ignore the doom and gloom merchants of the right-wing rag. The BBC give great value and is a far move valued organisation. Its not perfect and won't make everyone happy, including the present government (hmmm... what do they have in common with the moaning press?). Let us celebrate the Olympics with great BBC coverage and happy presenters. PS Please will those commenting on all these BBC blogs get over F1, its just a load of mechanics playing - watch some real sport!

  • Comment number 19.

    "The fact that BBC Sport is now based in Salford is of marginal relevance here..." Hmm, I think not. If the relocation had been done post-London 2012, virtually all the BBC Sport staff working at the Games would have been staying in their own homes at no cost to licence fee payers. As it is, most will be in hotels that have all put up their rates for the Olympics. Just admit it's going to cost a small fortune.

  • Comment number 20.

    Something I hope you can clarify Roger as I am a little ignorant on the BBC coverage for the Olympics.

    As host broadcaster does this mean that the BBC is responsible for covering ALL events and that this coverage is transmitted internationally, or do other nations networks cover events too?

    If it is the former, do other nations networks pay the BBC a fee to take this coverage?

    Perhaps if people realise that the BBC is broadcasting the Olympics to the entire world and not just for the UK, then they would realise the scope of the responsibility that is on your shoulders. Good luck ;-)

  • Comment number 21.

    WHY do editors and directors need to even BE at the site? Cameramen yes, presenters? editors? directos? producers? Has anyone at the BBC heard of Green screen technology??? There's also this new stuff called fibre optic too.

    The method of sports coverage does not have to follow the same sad recipe as it did in the 1950's. ITV's world of sport proved that.

    Why can't they ALL stay in Salford? Do the BBC think that it improves the customer experience to listen to some self opinionated expert at the venue telling us what we can see? Most of the current crop have difficulty doing that much.

    Please try a red button option of just the coverage without ANY spurious interuptions, it will save me turning the sound off and greatly improve my customer experience. If it proves popular then it might even save a few quid!

  • Comment number 22.

    StiltonNinja in #20: the host is OBS, and the BBC contributes to that operation - but in common with other major broadcasters then supplements the host coverage with our own cameras, talent and technical support.

    Old_bbc_hand in #19: not so. We would have offered accommodation on the same terms to staff if they'd still been based in London but were outside the 45-minute journey zone to Stratford.

    JasonCrawley in #16: like you, I'm confident the vast majority of people suport what we do. But we've found in the past that if we let our critics own the agenda then "facts" get lodged in the cuttings and in cyberspace without fair-minded folk getting a chance to hear the real story.

  • Comment number 23.

    All I hear from BBC sport is 'tough economic times' followed by an expensive move to Salford in the year before the Olympics in London, Five Live will move to Salford and also have to retain broadcasting capability from London.

    Unfortunately the 'F1 is not my responsibility' argument doesn't wash with me, it says TV Licensing on my Bank Statement, so I can't differentiate between Olympics and F1 as to where the funding goes.

    The license payer wants more live sport, not just from the Olympics, but F1, cricket and athletics has been sold off.

    P.S. What have viewing figures been for today's canoeing compared to last weekends Grand Prix?

  • Comment number 24.

    You will still get the major races live on BBC TV, extensive highlights of the others, every race live on 5live, a dedicated BBC F1 Website, that is more than can be said for live football on BBC TV, people should be glad for what they have got, this "we are going 2 have a tantrum and pollute BBC Blogs with f1 jibberish" is really getting tiresome, you are actually losing supporters to your cause by the lets be frank childish petulance.

  • Comment number 25.

    Mambo in post no. 3 suggests mobile homes. Well the F1 circus has break in August, may be their motor homes could be made available.

    Oh no the BBC staff aren't allowed such luxury.

    Why are the BBC rising to the Mail like this.

  • Comment number 26.

    Thanks for setting out the BBC's position. I agree with some of the comments above that it's a shame you have to continually justify every decision you make, but it is good to read that you are seeking to get the best value for money

  • Comment number 27.

    unclearengineer wrote:
    'What have viewing figures been for today's canoeing compared to last weekends Grand Prix?'

    I for one watched both

  • Comment number 28.

    The BBC could save a fortune here and adopt the F1 policy, hand half the coverage to SKY and save a load of money. There is absolutely no difference between F1 and The Olympics - they are both just sports that have limited appeal to alot of us.

  • Comment number 29.

    I will be refusing to watch a single second of this over-hyped marketing gorge-fest and hugely resent the fact that my TV license fee which I have no alternative but to purchase is being used to subsidise such coverage which will only serve to massage the egos of participants already too full of their own importance who offer nothing to the tax payers of this nation.

  • Comment number 30.

    To #29 of course, the BBC (tax payer) expenditure will actively promote the so called Olympic Family that is P&G, EDF, Lloyds, BT and all the other sponsors of the Olympics.

  • Comment number 31.

    The Daily Mail claim that you will be providing hotels for people who live in Wood Green. According to TfL's own journey planner, the journey from there to Stratford takes as little as 34 minutes, so will you be giving people who live there (are there even any BBC staff living there? I bet the Daily Mail didn't bother to find out) a hotel room? That would seem a bit excessive. I'd be interested to know more about exactly what methods you used to calculate travel times.

  • Comment number 32.

    @29 John

    I agree with your comments completely, I would love to be able to ignore it. I believe we'll be subjected to it 24hrs a day, there will be no escape from the stupid questions based around asking some sweaty individual "and how do you feel?"

    (This fashion of "how do you feel" is always used when the interviewer can't think of anything intelligent to say.)

    I'm planning to turn off the TV and read.

  • Comment number 33.

    No doubt double and triple staff levels, especially presenters, commentators and interviewers asking the usual fascile questions whilst preening and posing at the Track and Field. No doubt all staying at ***** hotel accomodation. Money no object at the BBC, especially as it's our money.

    And I thought this country was almost broke but not so broke that it can't indulge in this gross and disgusting waste of money in this circus. Money that could be spent on investing in really improving the lives of people and the economy. Mr Mosey you are crass in seeking to defend the indefensible. But then that's how the BBC operates isn't it. It thinks it's untouchable and unanswerable to public opinion.

  • Comment number 34.

    Revelation did you not read Rogers piece or are you deliberately ignoring the facts to suit your agenda? They will not be staying at a 5 star hotel, they will be staying in Student digs, i have no objection with how much Money they are spending, they are covering 1 of the biggest if not the biggest Sporting event, as well as being the Host broadcaster.

    The doommongers can pollute this blog all they want, but i agree with Roger that the vast majority are behind the Olympics, and fully behind the BBC.

    The BBC is at its best when covering live sporting events.

  • Comment number 35.

    @Roger - with all due respect, the figures from Czar-Orac's post #10 are correct, in fact, they're from a report on the BBC Trust website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/vfm/sports_rights.pdf - see page 35.

    All of F1 is HIT as per Czar-Orac's post, while only 1/4 for Olympics 2008 was HIT.

  • Comment number 36.

    ^ From that document, Dave:

    [✂ Redacted] is the outstanding success, significantly exceeding all of its reach, average audience and cost per viewer hour target

    "Redacted" is obviously F1.

    Roger, sorry to discuss something non-Olympic on your blog (which I thought was interesting, and which I already commented on above), but perhaps you can understand that with blanket silence coming from the BBC despite endless hundreds of comments and queries across the website about the F1 rights deal, people are getting desperate to make themselves heard, and desperate to get answers. When the BBC Trust declare something such an overwhelming success and then half of it is lost, there should be a better explanation than just "it's good for the sport".

  • Comment number 37.

    I just don't understand why people moan about the BBC losing live sport. The BBC is not a sports channel and has to cater for everyone.
    Anyone heard of the phrase"you get nothing for free?"
    If your all so passionate about sport, GET SKY.
    The can't afford sky argument is also boring. Barter with them, cut down on other rubbish you probably don't need and watch sport 24/7 on a SPORTS CHANNEL.

  • Comment number 38.

    @35
    A very good point, but there's more! from the following page;

    With regards to the performance of the individual rights themselves:

    • [✂ Redacted] is the outstanding success, significantly exceeding all of its reach, average audience and cost per viewer hour targets

    There were only two events that hit all their targets; the second week of Wimbledon and F1 (with almost double the number of people watching F1)

    • In contrast, [✂ Redacted] was the least successful, missing its CPVH target by a significant margin [✂ Redacted……… ………….. …………………. …………].

    The least successful sporting events covered between 2008 and 2010?
    The Winter olympics 2010 and the Olympics 2008.

    MTM put forward 7 recommendations, the most telling being; "More systematic use of performance data when calculating the value of a right to the BBC"

    What they didn't suggest was to improve transparency and accountability.

    8.2.2 Exhibit 27: "Individual rights – performance against targets"

    Mr Mosey, if you wish to be taken seriously when you quote the things you call facts, redacting the "targets" is not the best way to do it.

  • Comment number 39.

    Barter with them? Are you serious? I take your point about the BBC not being a sports channel - though I wonder why you have come to comment on this blog, if you are not interested on sport on the BBC - but that's just stupid. Ever tried filling up a trolley with food at your local supermarket, going to the till, seeing that it comes to £74.93, and saying, "I'll give you fifty"? You'd be laughed out of the store. Similarly, Sky wouldn't give you even a single penny off their subscription fees, I promise you.

    Besides, catering for everyone surely means catering for fans of a sport that regularly gets upwards of five million viewers, more than catering for fans of sports (and other shows) that don't do nearly so well?

  • Comment number 40.

    Dave in #35: there's an essay to be written about targets, and we've learned that auditors prefer hitting a lower target to the ambition of aiming for a stretch one. But there's mixed currency in the report you mention. The reach was 42 million people for the Beijing Olympics, whereas the figure for F1 is 54% of the population - so the former is actually higher.

    Fedster in #34: thank you.

    Blueixus in #30: the Olympics take place in "clean" venues so there's no sponsor signage and therefore no promotion of the kind you suggest.

  • Comment number 41.

    #39, I comment because I love sport and like the BBC. I live in 2011 and realise that if I want to watch sport I can't rely on the beeb. Anything I can watch I treat as a bonus.
    And I urge you to try your luck with the price. If you don't ask.... I've done it myself

    TL

  • Comment number 42.

    15. At 16:07 18th Sep 2011, Roger Mosey - BBC Director, London 2012 wrote:
    Thanks for the comments, and working backwards through the main points:


    Mambo in #3: I can just imagine the "now the BBC buys 'luxury' caravans" headlines!
    ..........................................................................

    Slow down there Roger, why so negative? the way to beat the 'luxury' caravans jibes is to publish the costs and savings up front.

    The BBC's finances are/should be freely available as a publicly owned company and it would be prudent to advise the press, public and media in general of the costs of the mobile homes and the commitment to reuse them in coming events, possibly pointing out the future savings in both sporting and news coverage events.

    With a little openness and honesty from the top table, I am sure that the normal critics will see this as a positive and sound investment of the license payers funds.

    Lets face it, with the savings from Mr J Ross's salary alone, you could probably supply the whole of your outside broadcasting team with a mobile home each, (something that I am not advocating by the way), most standard mobile homes have sleeping quarters for 2 or 3 without the hassle of turning the living quarters into a temporary bedroom.

    The biggest cost would probably be the ground rental, which, properly managed and with a little business acumen, could be vastly reduced with the sub letting to the press and other media.

    Fortune favours the brave.....

  • Comment number 43.

    I've heard a rumour that the blanket coverage of the Olympics is going to be shown only on Channel 5. Is this true? If so why are BBC1 and 2 not being used as in the past? Worryingly many of us ex-pats who live in Europe and are avid sports fans have no means of receiving Channel 5, so will be deprived of watching our 'home' Olympics on TV. A clarification would be helpful and appreciated.

  • Comment number 44.

    Firstly Roger thanks, although it is a shame that a blog like this is even necessary in the first place
    Secondly to all the F1 fans, whether you support the olympics or not i think comparing a once in a lifetime event (olympics in the UK) with an annual single sport championship is rediculous. The BBC has made a business decision in times when tough choices are being made by all and so deal with it.
    Thirdly given the fiasco around the ticketing for the olympics then the BBC providing the best coverage it can is surely a must
    Lastly the olympic ethos and spirt is something that is invaluable for a host nation. the minute we signed up for bidding for the games we committed to the cost and hosting burdens, whether council tax, coverage, transport etc etc. This was done becuase the benefits were deemed to outweigh these 'costs'. Remember Euro 96, the whole country was on a high, even those who were not football fans. Now we have the Games we owe it to ourselves as a nation to do it properly, whether that is facilities, coverage, competitors, or welcoming, otherwise what is the point in the first place?

    As Brits we love to have a moan and critise everything, that is why the press love to raise people up and then knock them down, for once why can't we celebrate the festival of sport that is the olympics.

  • Comment number 45.

    @43 How could you possibly think that having literally just read this blog?

  • Comment number 46.

    @ no 43: Channel 5... are you having a laugh?
    Its going to be on BBC 1 with extra coverage on BBC3 thus leaving BBC2 free for non-olympic programme. thus, the BBC are offering the olympics to those who want to see it while offering other programmes to the non-olympic fans. its not going to be wall-to-wall olympics despite some of the hysterical posts above from kill-joys who can't stand the thought of songs of praise or the antiques roadshow having to be postponed for 3 weeks every 4 years... this is covered in some of Roger's other blogs, they should answer your questions. on a side note, the BBCs prime concern should be to broadcast coverage to those in the UK, not overseas.
    @ Roger, I'm looking forward to the coverage and thanks for the interesting blog, shame the F1 fans keep trolling every single other blog on bbc sport... we get the message, at least you get some coverage, as a boxing fan, we get absolutely nothing from antie beeb but I'm not complaining at every available opportunity and I haven't even started talking about the lack of football, cricket etc.

  • Comment number 47.

    @40 - The 'clean venue' argument is a complete red herring. The IOC uses the BBC to drive the Olympics Status and coverage and then sells this to the sponsors. Do you really think the world's most sophisticated marketing organisations, P&G, Coca Cola etc would pour money into the Games without the BBC coverage.

    Mr Mosely the BBC may not be a 'commercial organisation' but I am sure you can see that we are as licence payers supporting a massive commercial animal. Incidentally your news guys regulative name check the sponsors in news stories as well.

  • Comment number 48.

    steven 180 - many thanks for that. I am not in the U.K. as my submission indicated and I have no idea of how many channels the BBC have, but I was told that the Olympics would not be screened on a channel that we could pick up on the continent of Europe. I thought someone had mentioned channel 5 but maybe I have that wrong as I've no idea who runs channel 5. The cruz of my concern is that I was told that the Olympics would not be seen on BBC 1 or BBC 2, hence my querie to Mr. Mosey. It would be helpful to know now which channels will be used.

  • Comment number 49.

    James, I understood that you weren't in the UK which is why I made my comment that the bbc don't have any obligation to provide you with coverage as you don't live in the UK. a broadcaster in whichever country you are in will no doubt be broadcasting the games though.
    as to which bbc channels will be covering the olympics, didn't I just answer that? I'll post it here again though.
    "Its going to be on BBC 1 with extra coverage on BBC3."
    This is my understanding from one of Rogers other blogs called 'the 2012 broadcasting balancing act' or something like that. its further down this page.
    I hope this helps.

  • Comment number 50.

    From 15. "75% of the UK population watched Beijing", Roger I have no idea where that piece of data research was dreamt up. Its laughable and if you believe it correct then wow the BBC are delusional. Maybe you will get a good audience for the opening ceremony but the rest will be low. I don't intend to get into the F1 matter in any depth but the fact is the F1 ratings are good and probably better than for the Olympics....

  • Comment number 51.

    @ Roger

    Those figures you say are wrong come directly from the BBC Trust's own report into the BBC's sports rights ... Either you don't read BBC reports, or you like to insinuate people are lying, either way it's disgraceful for someone in your position.

  • Comment number 52.

    Just a little thought on the accomodation issue and travelling time.... why do people living within the vicinity of London need accomodation - be it 45mins or even longer away? Surely everyone else who works in London will be expected to turn up to work on time, and therefore will just have to leave home earlier to make sure they are and take longer to get back home? Why should the BBC staff be any different to Nurses, Doctors, Firemen, Policemen - just the first very important jobs that came to mind that could not be done by homeworking, please feel free to add anymore??

    And in reply to the moaners about the moaners - if we all roll over and give in to every decision made by a public funded organisation which is so unpopular still so long after the announcement what will we be left with? Until there is nothing left to fight for the fight will go on....

  • Comment number 53.

    I can't believe how much the BBC blogs are dominated by "trolls" these days. This blog for instance seems to have been invaded by people who hate the BBC, hate the Olympics, and hate what they claim to believe impinges on what they want. The fact they don't appear to have bothered reading the blog, or find it inconvenient that it doesn't fit with their agenda doesn't stop them from posting a series of incorrect assumptions and "facts".

    People are entitled to voice concerns, if they have any, and the author of this blog seems to me, to be doing his best to address those. The problem is that too many people on here don't seem to be voicing "genuine" concerns (i.e. ones based on true facts, not concocted or made up ones). I'm not even going to bother going through each comment that is easily refuted by simply reading the blog as the trolls don't care about anything other than trying to provoke people, and the BBC itself.

    For those of you getting het up about the Olympics intruding upon your television watching next year, and the cost of it, why don't you remove your TV tuner and watch on-demand television instead which doesn't require a license? Job done.

  • Comment number 54.

    steven 180 - thanks for your reply. You may be unaware but we can buy various packages locally, which includes BBC 1, BBC 2, Eurosport 1, Eurosport 2, ESPN, CNN, Discovery etc. etc. and BBC channels 3 & 4 are available if you obviously pay extra. I just want to make sure that I have the channels available to me, so that I can watch as much BBC production of the Olympics as possible.

  • Comment number 55.

    Just to clear up #50 and #51: the 75% reach figure for Beijing is from the industry-standard audience research, and is therefore completely robust. The mistake in #10 is citing Beijing as being watched by 42% rather than 42 million - because the latter is the correct figure as stated in the Trust report.

  • Comment number 56.

    Um Roger you said and I quote "75% of the UK population watched Beijing". This is clearly not true. A reach figure is totally different and refers only to the total number of different people or households exposed to the TV in a given period of time.

  • Comment number 57.

    @50

    F1 fans live in a different world at times. More people watch F1 than Olympics????!!!!!!!!!! Don't make me spit my lunch on my screen!!!

    I would believe whole-heartedly that 75% watched some form of the olympics as i genuinely don't know a nsingle person who isn't interested in one aspects of the Olympics. F1 is a minority sport watched by many and participated by none!! I am SO glad funding has been cut but that is for a different blog.

    Like another post said this is a once in a lifetime opportunity not something that appears on our screens for over half of the year!!

  • Comment number 58.

    For what it is, the license fee is very reasonable (much cheaper than a years subscription to the Daily Mail) and I am looking forward to the Olympic coverage.

    How much of the Olympics will be in HD?

    With regard to staff accommodation costs, although I appreciate these efforts to set the record straight, surely it would just be better to publish the budget figures in context and let people see for themselves. More transparancy is always better.

  • Comment number 59.

    First of all Roger Mosey:
    I would have normally used the 6th Letter of the alphabet and a number between 0 and 2; (Sorry to pinch your metaphor from an earlier blog, but I could not resist it); but you @15 & Fedster @ 11: did use the ‘F1’ word, so that made it to a certain extent ‘on topic’; sorry….I will try my best not too mention it again unless referring to a direct reference or direct answer to that 6th letter of the alphabet and a number between 0 & 2!

    @ 17 Fedster:
    I wish that Roger, would come on over to some of the other BBC blogs! At least he does read all of the comments and try to answer his supporters and/or critics who post comments on his blog!
    It may be not what they want to hear, but nobody is perfect. Least of all the BBC/Licence Fee Payers/F1 Fans/DG Sir Mark Thompson/BBC Trust/Bernie Ecclestone etc etc.

    Where is my mysterious BBC spokesperson; I think she was called Lady Barbara of Slater and her trusty Knight the dodgy BBC source Sir Ben of the Gallop, let’s all hide and perhaps they will go away. I am sorry to disappoint you and sorry Roger, but Fedster brought the subject up; so I am only responding to his comment!

    @18 Kevin Alton & @ 24 Fedster:

    I have not tried to slag you off, or tried to make you look small or tried to use over the top hype. Therefore please do me the courtesy of not doing that to me or other people on this blog. Thank you!

    As this is an Olympic Blog which comes under sport, then I and anyone else can make a comment on here, as long as it is deemed on topic by Roger and/or the Moderators. Kevin, have I ever derided you or any sport that you like? Why are you trying to wind peoples up with offensive remarks on what you like, Yes? No?... So please extend that courtesy to others. Thanks!

    @24 Fedster…Again…..:

    IT is not gibberish, to those who care for their sport and perhaps I too would get tired about other people’s comments, but no I will let them have their say and if I do not agree, then I have that democratic right to answer them politely or not to comment at all or even God forbid not read their comments & treat them as I would a cockroach / scorpion and stand on them or avoid them.

    People like you actually give us a lot more supporters, because they associate you and similar minded bloggers as BBC Stooges. They hate the fact that you try to defend the indefensible. Why hasn’t anybody from%

  • Comment number 60.

    Sorry I hit the return button, not Jensen by mistake..…so here is part 2:

    People like you actually give us a lot more supporters, because they associate you and similar minded bloggers as BBC Stooges. They hate the fact that you try to defend the indefensible. Why hasn’t anybody from the BBC tried to defend this great deal for the taxpayers/licence fee holders over the past 8 weeks, (this Thursday)?

    I could say that you perhaps are acting Childish and Petulance; but I won’t! It must be that you are tired of these people going on about F1; then I am sorry. But throwing your dolls out of the pram with your type of behaviour is certainly not grown up.






    @ 34 Fedster again…Sorry but you really like to comment about and against everybody. (Which is your right as I said in my comment above, as we all are entitled to repose in our free and democratic Country)?

    My reply; I quote you, “The BBC is at its best when covering live sporting events.” If so then why is it only covering 50% or half only of a live sporting event commonly consisting of the 6th letter of the alphabet and a number between 0 & 2, (F1 to you and me?

    @40 Roger: Why are you saying thank you to @34 Fedster? Is it that the BBC is best at covering live sporting events or are you agreeing with his view on Doom-mongers & Polluters? I sincerely hope that it is the former……But if not what can I do about it. I can carry on protesting to the BBC until someone has the Brass Monkey’s to stand up & say, as Dwight D Eisenhower, who had a plaque on his desk at the Whitehouse, said, “The Buck Stops Here!

    @42 & @3 Mambo;
    Well said & spoken….

    @46 Steve 180:

    You cannot complain about the lack of Football, (well the pick of the Premiere etc); and/or Cricket because it is already been sold to Sky…… Oh no! What a calamity. So I think you should or should have. I love Cricket and I made the mistake of not complaining & protesting, so with my apathy, (& most probably that of others like me), it went to the ‘Never Ending Story’, that is known as SKY. My and all the other, what did you call us, Tolls, well please look it up before you accuse me or anyone else a name that we are not. We may be a pain in the proverbial, (although I would disagree, wouldn’t I)! But we certainly are not Trolls or like Trolling. We may or may not lose this fi

  • Comment number 61.

    Part 3:
    It was not me, hitting the return/enter button this time. It was either the moderators or the blog is playing up. Hopefully this is the final Part 3:

    @46 Steve 180:

    You cannot complain about the lack of Football, (well the pick of the Premiere etc); and/or Cricket because it is already been sold to Sky…… Oh no! What a calamity. So I think you should or should have. I love Cricket and I made the mistake of not complaining & protesting, so with my apathy, (& most probably that of others like me), it went to the ‘Never Ending Story’, that is known as SKY. My and all the other, what did you call us, Tolls, well please look it up before you accuse me or anyone else a name that we are not. We may be a pain in the proverbial, (although I would disagree, wouldn’t I)! But we certainly are not Trolls or like Trolling. We may or may not lose this fight, but even if at the worst we do loose F1, completely to Sky Sports, then at least I can hold my head up high and we tried and that the Dunkirk/Battle of Britain/ Falklands Islands, spirit fights on. The first two I was not born, but the last one I was a Para-Medic & did my bit….

    @ 52 Samson 2009:
    Well said! Stirring stuff! You make me want to sing the ‘White Cliffs of Dover’, or ‘Until we Meet Again’. My most popular is that, ‘There will always be an England, as long as there’s a Wales’?

    You guessed it, I am Welsh; and I come from God’s own Country. Well it must be as you have to pay to get unto Wales, England you can get into for free. Oh no! I just realised, why I have to pay, it’s because of the Sky. It’s always raining here, so I can only see the Blue Skies 50% of the time. What a Ffffff….F1 I am…Stand by for the flack…incoming shells & fire in the hold….

    Thank God I can run or I can use my MGBGT 82 in the UK & Tanks for Nuttin that I do not have any Excess Bags to carry! Well at least at the moment anyway…….

    Again sorry Roger if this is very long, but I have tried my the best to keep it either on topic and/or responding to all of the comments that made me want to debate……..

    BNW

  • Comment number 62.

    @ Roger Mosey & all the other bloggers.

    I am looking forward to the Olympics, as believe it or not, I do like the BBC. Well all/most/some/none of the time; delete which ever is not appropiate.......

    I will love them even more if they sort out this mess and, s'Speak to the people, for the People, By the People!.....

    I used to be a stand up commedienne, but I gave it up as I kept falling down... Ta daaa...

    My Granfather fell down a trap door for tekking to many jokes; but he was alright he had a rope around his neck.....Boom! Boom! As a furry Foxey Puppet once said to me. Basil Fawlty. No Just a Brush.....

  • Comment number 63.

    Latest News:

    I wonder if the ODC, or any one at the Olympics will get any of thei Blood Money from MR Rupert Murdoch. Would you want to get into bed & let them write and/or show any of the coverage for the olympics?

    http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions?order=desc&sort=count&state=open

    show him what you feel now by signing this e-petition for F1 & the Media one for No to Sky, sorry Media!!!

    http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions?order=desc&sort=count&state=open

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0147hfq = BBC Radio 2 Jeremy Vine on at 12 noon

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14975549 = BBC report on the Millie Dowler News of the World/SKy/Murdoch £2,0000,000 payment; plus another £1,000,000 payment to a Charity?

  • Comment number 64.

    ButNotWhat you are trolling as this topic is about Accomodating the BBC in 2012 not about the loss of certain sports to other channels.

    I have been to several olympics and Roger is correct, normal journey times go out of the window. I still thinkl transport will be the weak link at the olympics, it has been in many other olympics. Even super organised Beijing had the odd glitch.The security check factors will also play a huge part.Please tell me you can only gain access tothe olympic park with an event ticket ofr that day? If they open it to everyone the queues to get thrugh seurity will be way too long.

    I have met several BBC teams at various sporting events in what I would term nice but certainly not lavish hotels.Roger has the BBC considered places to stay in Essex? Journey times from there seem way quicker.

  • Comment number 65.

    Roger,

    As you mentioned in a previous blog, the BBC funds for the Olymics were ring-fenced once the successful bid was announced so presumably a figure for accommodation was worked out at that time and will not be exceeded.

    Which makes the whole DM article spurious does it not?

  • Comment number 66.

    Zebbers in #65 - we hope to come in at or under budget, yes.

    Taffy in #64 - you're right that one of the unanswered questions is how long it will take for everyone to get through security. But it's always been said there will be Park tickets as well as the ones for venues, and I haven't seen any suggestion that's changed.

  • Comment number 67.

    LOL @ JasonCrawley "Either that or you'll be typing away the night before the Games justifying the quality of the chairs the BBC staff will be sitting on."

    Surely the presenters can stand! ;-)

    Can't wait to soak up every minute I can of the games - just hope the BBC get that 2014/16 deal signed off as the icing on the cake as we had a glimpse last month of Olympic sport on a commercial channel, and we didn't really like it.

    And considering I've had posts deleted for less it's a shame to see some F1 fans still poluting this blog despite polite requests to move on and accept that an event the country pays billions for is of far more importance than an event which makes billions for Bernie Ecclestone.

 

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.