I rarely visit the BBC site now. The quality has gone downhill since they shut my 606 account

I have changed my homepage at work and my laptop from BBC Football, to Sky Sports....take THAT BBC

That outta show em!!

I still use the BBC site for the gossip column, Im a sucker for it. When theres no football I needs to get my fix somewhere.

Just seems like the BBC don't like the general public being able to discuss anything anymore, perhaps due to the fact that if anyone WAS to be able to discuss anything, it would be how bad the BBC has become!!

I still use the BBC site for the gossip column, Im a sucker for it. When theres no football I needs to get my fix somewhere.

---------------------------------------

Snap

Sadly i still find myself logging on at midnight to see if they have updated the gossip column

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

The BBC still managed to pay Tim Henman £14k a day to "commentate" on the tennis

Could of got me to do it for free

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Come on now. I bet you don't have 1/10th of the charisma Henman has though.

'Come on Tim'- Err no, f*&k off Tim

-------------------------------



Well Tim commentating was the only way he could get himself on court for a Wimbledon Final

So they can't afford hosting a site where we the consumers made the product for them, for free. An excellent product to, with thousands of consumers. But can afford running live feeds and paying 'professional' BBC commentators?

'All about cost. Running 606 would have been more expensive than paying the 'journo's' contributing to the live newsfeed.'

This argument is far from convincing because if cutting costs was genuinely a serious priority they would be running neither. Who uses live feeds to 'watch' sport anyway? What a pathetic product, in the age of mass media and 24 hour news. Not to mention live streams and Sky Sports. Ask the consumers which they prefer, 606 or reading live feeds.

I'm sorry to say its now clear to me the BBC shut down 606 because it was the only way they could save some money without redundancies, moderators aside. In other words, protecting their people is more important than giving us what we want - the very fundamental problem with state monopolies and the BBC.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

The BBC moved up north because they had this illusion that it would make them more acceptable to the whole country, and not be seen as a "London" station.

This has backfired on them, because presenters do not want to move to Manchester, the celebrities who are London based will not want to travel to Manchester for an interview early mornings....................so what will they do? Well, they will retain studio facilities in London so they can do satellite feeds.......................................the cost of the move in terms of new buildings, staff redundancy payments, travel & hotel costs has been astronomical...................all in all it has been an unmitigated disaster, whoever made the decision is clearly an imbecile.

Thuddasaurus