[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Beetlejuice

Show me someone involved in Channel 5 giving that as the reason for anything other than the axing of the 7 pm live coverage.

I really don't care to search at this time in the morning. Maybe search the terms in google might bring stuff up.

But it's certainly not a bizarre notion that it's not worth the money having a 24/7 feed for a show thats life span is spinning out.

[Beetlejuice]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I really don't care to search at this time in the morning. Maybe search the terms in google might bring stuff up.

But it's certainly not a bizarre notion that it's not worth the money having a 24/7 feed for a show thats life span is spinning out.

Given that no one here knows how much it costs to run and the guy who made the original decision not to do it said that the cost was not the issue, I'm not convinced.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Beetlejuice

Given that no one here knows how much it costs to run and the guy who made the original decision not to do it said that the cost was not the issue, I'm not convinced.

Who said cost wasn't the issue?

I don't need to know how much it costs to get that conclusion. Just like I didn't when channel 4 axed it.

[Beetlejuice]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Who said cost wasn't the issue?

Jeff Ford did.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Beetlejuice

Jeff Ford did.

Source?

[Beetlejuice]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Source?

I see I'm the one who has to source everything.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Beetlejuice

I see I'm the one who has to source everything.

No but you're claiming facts, I'm stating what I assume to be the case based on the information we're discussing.

You're stating outright something was said.

[Beetlejuice]

I remember him saying they could have done the live feed but decided to spend the money on twitter and facebook because people had "moved on from watching people sleeping"