Sign the Petition to save BBCRB Commentary

[andyhalls]

Yeah, you got it!

I requested:

We love the Beeb! - by Joel Hufford.
107? No thanks! - By Tim Dellor.
R£ADING F.C. - By Victoria Hazael.

Then kindly asked them to sign the petition.

[thefruits]

Hopefully pick up some coverage in the EP / BBCRB today. Hopefully get a response from the club to the petition. Up to 750 signatures so far. A bit of publicity and we could double this today.

Come on... sign up and stay 'loyal to the royals'

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/ ... BBCBERKS&1

[STAR Voice]

Can I just say to people about to sign this petition that arguing that one commentary is better than another won't be of much use - quality of commentaries is subjective. Credible arguments that a businessman like JM will understand are what is needed .

The key arguments are :

1. Accessibility - over half a million people lose access to free, non-internet commentary of Reading's home and away fixtures. How many OAPs who have supported Reading all their lives have internet access?

2. Support - this will inevitably alienate existing supporters or prevent potential new "floating" supporters from becoming full-time supporters, so will slow down the rise of Reading becoming a bigger club (you can't "build a brand" if that brand is not easily accessible!)

3. Economics - This deal has been justified as benefiting RFC because of the increased income from the deal - but I believe that the sum quoted will not paid in cash - instead it will probably be paid (in part at least) in advertising credits, which costs R107 nothing. In any case, the total sum talked about £68k is equivalent to under 4 weeks of what Steve Sidwell wants to be paid, and is 0.61% of the equivalent TV money - so insignificant in comparison to the Club's overall income in the FAPL.

[Wycombe Royal]

I wonder if we will hear anything more from the club on this issue. They will now be fully aware of the dissapointment of the fans and their anger at this decision and could really do with making a comment on the situation.

Or will they just stay silent and stand by their decision?

['lista]

Can I just say to people about to sign this petition that arguing that one commentary is better than another won't be of much use - quality of commentaries is subjective. Credible arguments that a businessman like JM will understand are what is needed .

The key arguments are :

1. Accessibility - over half a million people lose access to free, non-internet commentary of Reading's home and away fixtures. How many OAPs who have supported Reading all their lives have internet access?

2. Support - this will inevitably alienate existing supporters or prevent potential new "floating" supporters from becoming full-time supporters, so will slow down the rise of Reading becoming a bigger club (you can't "build a brand" if that brand is not easily accessible!)

3. Economics - This deal has been justified as benefiting RFC because of the increased income from the deal - but I believe that the sum quoted will not paid in cash - instead it will probably be paid (in part at least) in advertising credits, which costs R107 nothing. In any case, the total sum talked about £68k is equivalent to under 4 weeks of what Steve Sidwell wants to be paid, and is 0.61% of the equivalent TV money - so insignificant in comparison to the Club's overall income in the FAPL.

What about quality?

[mattyougg]

800 !! wooo!

[thefruits]

Can I just say to people about to sign this petition that arguing that one commentary is better than another won't be of much use - quality of commentaries is subjective. Credible arguments that a businessman like JM will understand are what is needed .

The key arguments are :

1. Accessibility - over half a million people lose access to free, non-internet commentary of Reading's home and away fixtures. How many OAPs who have supported Reading all their lives have internet access?

2. Support - this will inevitably alienate existing supporters or prevent potential new "floating" supporters from becoming full-time supporters, so will slow down the rise of Reading becoming a bigger club (you can't "build a brand" if that brand is not easily accessible!)

3. Economics - This deal has been justified as benefiting RFC because of the increased income from the deal - but I believe that the sum quoted will not paid in cash - instead it will probably be paid (in part at least) in advertising credits, which costs R107 nothing. In any case, the total sum talked about £68k is equivalent to under 4 weeks of what Steve Sidwell wants to be paid, and is 0.61% of the equivalent TV money - so insignificant in comparison to the Club's overall income in the FAPL.

Agree completely. The campaign is to try and convince the club that cutting off 1/2 million potential RFC followers is plain dumb. Not only that but by giving exclusive rights to a poxy radio station that didn't start covering the Royals last season until January is a shocking decision. BBCRB have been 'Loyal to the Royals' for years. Loyalty works both ways RFC.

[Riseley]

Good to see Byron Glasgow, Jenna Jameson, Robert Convey, Jon Tickle, Gary Neville and Uri Geller put their collective weight behind the campaign.
Whilst on the subject-

684. Jamie Butler I am NOT fat!!! I'm curvaceous.

[STAR Voice]

Can I just say to people about to sign this petition that arguing that one commentary is better than another won't be of much use - quality of commentaries is subjective. Credible arguments that a businessman like JM will understand are what is needed .

The key arguments are :

1. Accessibility - over half a million people lose access to free, non-internet commentary of Reading's home and away fixtures. How many OAPs who have supported Reading all their lives have internet access?

2. Support - this will inevitably alienate existing supporters or prevent potential new "floating" supporters from becoming full-time supporters, so will slow down the rise of Reading becoming a bigger club (you can't "build a brand" if that brand is not easily accessible!)

3. Economics - This deal has been justified as benefiting RFC because of the increased income from the deal - but I believe that the sum quoted will not paid in cash - instead it will probably be paid (in part at least) in advertising credits, which costs R107 nothing. In any case, the total sum talked about £68k is equivalent to under 4 weeks of what Steve Sidwell wants to be paid, and is 0.61% of the equivalent TV money - so insignificant in comparison to the Club's overall income in the FAPL.

What about quality?

Quality is completely subjective - you can't make a credible argument based upon something like quality.

[Wycombe Royal]

Can I just say to people about to sign this petition that arguing that one commentary is better than another won't be of much use - quality of commentaries is subjective. Credible arguments that a businessman like JM will understand are what is needed .

The key arguments are :

1. Accessibility - over half a million people lose access to free, non-internet commentary of Reading's home and away fixtures. How many OAPs who have supported Reading all their lives have internet access?

2. Support - this will inevitably alienate existing supporters or prevent potential new "floating" supporters from becoming full-time supporters, so will slow down the rise of Reading becoming a bigger club (you can't "build a brand" if that brand is not easily accessible!)

3. Economics - This deal has been justified as benefiting RFC because of the increased income from the deal - but I believe that the sum quoted will not paid in cash - instead it will probably be paid (in part at least) in advertising credits, which costs R107 nothing. In any case, the total sum talked about £68k is equivalent to under 4 weeks of what Steve Sidwell wants to be paid, and is 0.61% of the equivalent TV money - so insignificant in comparison to the Club's overall income in the FAPL.

What about quality?

Quality is completely subjective - you can't make a credible argument based upon something like quality.

I don't agree. If 95% of people (if not higher) say the quality is better than the alternative then that is a very strong argument.

[STAR Voice]

What about quality?

Quality is completely subjective - you can't make a credible argument based upon something like quality.

I don't agree. If 95% of people (if not higher) say the quality is better than the alternative then that is a very strong argument.

It is indeed - but not one that will make any difference. 107 and JM can just say "we disagree, we think the quality of 107 is better" or "well, we'll be better this season, wait and see" and that's the end of the argument!

Saying "over half a million people now lose access to free, non-internet commentary" is, IMHO, a much stronger (and indeed an unanswerable) argument.

[Gordons Cumming]

Good luck with this, but I really can't see Mr M changing his mind.

[Wycombe Royal]

Quality is completely subjective - you can't make a credible argument based upon something like quality.

I don't agree. If 95% of people (if not higher) say the quality is better than the alternative then that is a very strong argument.

It is indeed - but not one that will make any difference. 107 and JM can just say "we disagree, we think the quality of 107 is better" or "well, we'll be better this season, wait and see" and that's the end of the argument! .

If that is the attitude taken by RFC then they will lose a lot of fans over the next few seasons. It is not THEIR opinion of quality that should count - it is the opinions of their customers, namely us the fans. The commentary of the games is a service provided to us, by the club, through a radio station and what we percieve to be the best quality should be the opinion of the club also.

It seems they do not care what we think and I would be interested to hear what the club has to say on this. Maybe Reading 107 will improve their service but it appears that many fans will not give them the chance.

[Ruud Van Kitson]

no one will be complaining when a 2 million pound signing is announced...Madejski is one of the best businessmen around, and he wouldnt have made this decision if he didnt think it be worth it.

(Obviously the two million is more than this decision has created, but overall with all his changes, increased prices i'm sure its far far more)

If there is no improvement, and we dont see a return then its another story....but he is doing all he can to make the club stable, and be able to run itself...and i would rather know that the clubs long term future was secure, and pay a bit more on season tickets, and not listen to the usual station. Surely real fans can understand its best for the club???

And i don't understand? Arent most of the fans at the game during the commentary, so miss it anyway...the after-match stuff they're still allowed to do right? So for the outsiders, paying £5 for reading world isnt terrible....

[Slightly Hungover]

Madejski replies

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/2002/2 ... d_the_beeb

Pretty feeble response if you ask me. '£65,000 barely pays one of my players a month's salary'. Well, £100,000 only just does so what's the difference?

[Forbury Lion]

A possible solution.

107FM keep live broadcast rights

BBC Berks buy delayed broadcast rights (for less), maybe a 5 or 10 minute delay in transmission would give those in 107FM coverage an incentive to listen to 107FM whilst those outside of coverage can listen to coverage.

107FM keep exclusivity
BBC Berks keep coverage
Reading FC keep 107FM cash, make a bit more from BBC Berks and keep fans in extended catchment area happy.

[Platypuss]

Madejski replies

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/2002/2 ... d_the_beeb

Pretty feeble response if you ask me. '£65,000 barely pays one of my players a month's salary'. Well, £100,000 only just does so what's the difference?

He does sound rather rattled and very close to losing the plot:

When the Evening Post put it to Mr Madejski that half a million listeners would lose out on hearing live matches, he said: “Okay, tell them to send me a pound each and I’ll give it [the rights] back to Radio Berkshire.”

There's also no way 107 can afford £100k cash, so who is he trying to kid?

[PorkyRfc]

Mr. Madejski's response really grates at me. He sounds so intolerable and seems to have misunderstood the situation completely.

These new comments he is making about "the Premiership costing too much" stink to me. Yes, it costs an awful lot, but the turnover of the club is going to treble!!

In this process he seems to be ripping off the fans most of all-hicking up season ticket prices, bringing out numerous new clothing and merchardising. The £40,000 pounds that they will lose out on in these rights is even less than "one player's wages for a month" for crying out loud!!

If you look at the accounts of clubs who have been promoted in previous seasons that haven't spent excessively they have made mega-bucks!

Ridiculous Mr. Mad, and as for suggesting all those fans who lose out pay you a pound each....on yer bike!!

[wehateoxford]

When the Evening Post put it to Mr Madejski that half a million listeners would lose out on hearing live matches, he said: “Okay, tell them to send me a pound each and I’ll give it [the rights] back to Radio Berkshire.”

i know this is out of context, but essentially he's saying don't care, let them pour more money in if they really care...

and to pick up on the person who said mad is a great business man, thats true, we can tell by how he's internalizing his profits here... good business

[Wycombe Royal]

And i don't understand? Arent most of the fans at the game during the commentary, so miss it anyway

Away matches?