Quote ="kinleycat":7bbuyygy
Well baring in mind, the original post was with a link to the fact that they ran until 2012 and that's what we were discussing, that's a no then.'"
:7bbuyygy
Right. I see where the confusion's occurring - you're using both the present tense and the past tense to refer to the future.
When you ask
Quote :7bbuyygyDoes the BBC have the rights to show the Challenge Cup?'"
:7bbuyygy
you don't mean "does the BBC have the rights to show the Challenge Cup, now?" which is what the the present tense implies, but "Does the BBC have rights now to show the Challenge Cup in the future, from 2012?" and you're right: they don't.
And that's because nobody has the rights to show the Challenge Cup (or the Super League, or the Championships or internationals) in 2012. Those rights haven't been sold yet. What the Beeb and Sky bought in 2008 were three year licences to show SL, the Championship and some international matches (in Sky's case) and the Challenge Cup and some international matches (in the Beeb's case) over the period 2009-2011.
In exactly the same way that Wakefield, or Castleford, or Crusaders or any other club does not have place in Super League for 2012-15 – we were all awarded three-year licenses and have to bid again this year for the next licence period. Similarly, broadcasters have to bid again for the broadcast rights from 2012.
But if you asked "Didn't Wakefield - or Castleford or Crusaders or Wigan or any other SL team - give up its right to a Super League place" the answer would be No. They'll no doubt be bidding for a licence in April (whether or not some fans on here think Trinity should is pretty irrelevant". And if they're successful they'll have a licence for SL for 2012 to 2015. But at the moment they don't have such a licence.
Similarly, the Beeb will no doubt be bidding for the rights to the Challenge Cup this year post 2012, so if you ask, as you did
Quote :7bbuyygyDidn't the BBC give up it's rights to the challenge cup?'"
:7bbuyygy - using the past tense to refer to something which has already happened - the answer is No. They've not. They have the rights they bought until the end of this year, which they've not given up; they don't - at the moment - have any rights beyond this year, which they haven't given up, because they naverhad them in the first place.
So, to go back again, there's no contradiction here:
Quote ="darwoo11":7bbuyygyESPN may well take the challenge cup then leave no rugby on free tv. Then sack it off again after a couple of years.'"
:7bbuyygy
Quote ="tb":7bbuyygyThe Cup (or at least the Final) is still a listed event which must be shown on FTA. See the actual article linked to'"
:7bbuyygy
Quote ="kinleycat":7bbuyygyDidn't the BBC give up it's rights to the challenge cup?'"
:7bbuyygy
Quote ="tb":7bbuyygyNo'"
:7bbuyygy
But this statement
Quote ="kinleycat":7bbuyygyDidn't the BBC give up it's rights to the challenge cup?
If so can't see them bidding for it, espn getting the challenge cup would be disastrous for many tv viewers.
Hopefully sky might get the lot, not good for non situ subscribers, but if the BBC don't care!!!'"
:7bbuyygy
does contradict the facts.
Quote ="kinleycat'Sticking on your point that it (CC Final) must remain on FTATV how does Richard Lewis see much competition occurring,[/quote
There are 5 free to air terrestrial networks. Lewis's statement is that in the past the BBC have been the only one of the five interested in bidding, this time at least one of the other four has shown an interest - hence: competition
[quote="kinleycat'if in reality the BBC are the only broadcaster who can show it[/quote They're not. There are five terrestrial channels who can show it. All the 'list' means is that if it is televised, it must be on one of them
[quote="kinleycat":7bbuyygy and they no longer see it as being important?'"
)?
Oh – and stop forcing me onto Smokey TA's territory of having to break a post into bits and reply point by point to an argument to show the gaping holes in both its assumptions and logic
