Eurovision Song Contest 2022 #3

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
1 Sort by date Sort by reaction score 2
The six countries who had their jury votes removed are:
  • Azerbaijan
  • Georgia
  • Montenegro
  • Poland
  • Romania
  • San Marino
Instead an "aggregated result" for each country was calculated and used instead. The aggregated result was calculated based on the results of other countries with "similar voting records".

Does anyone think that this was Russian interference? 🤔
 
Scotch Mist said:
The six countries who had their jury votes removed are:
  • Azerbaijan
  • Georgia
  • Montenegro
  • Poland
  • Romania
  • San Marino
Instead an "aggregated result" for each country was calculated and used instead. The aggregated result was calculated based on the results of other countries with "similar voting records".

Does anyone think that this was Russian interference? 🤔
Click to expand...
Some of those country broadcasters have apparently said that their 12 points were going to go to Ukraine instead of whoever they gave them to (I know some were given to the UK). Romania always gives 12 to Moldova too

What’s honestly annoying is that this was an issue since the second semi, and instead of the EBU making a whole scene they seem to have kept it under wraps and made everyone go through the process while knowing full well that they were basically going to pull out those jury votes out of thin air. And then to only announce it during the voting segment of the final

Granted, it seemed like something was wrong with the voting when the hosts had to stall for a little while at the start
 
DanDanTheIceCreamMan said:
https://escxtra.com/2022/05/15/italian-police-intercepted-hacking-attempts-during-eurovision-final/

Well there was a hacking attempt, but whether it was related to the jury votes is unclear.

I also completely missed that the female host disappeared for a while during the voting:

https://escxtra.com/2022/05/15/laura-pausini-absence/
Click to expand...
That was so weird when she disappeared, it seemed like she had maybe taken something imo? seemed kind of short of breathe
What does this removal of votes mean, has the order changed? If it was russian hacking they didn't do very well if ukraine won and the Uk came second :ROFLMAO:
 
DanDanTheIceCreamMan said:
Well there was a hacking attempt, but whether it was related to the jury votes is unclear.
Click to expand...
It seems very unlikely, apparently some of the spokespeople didn’t even know there was a problem and had been preparing to announce the votes:

Note: really don’t like some of the language in this tweet as it seems to spin a bit of a rumour mill about juries being pressured to give Ukraine points. Just throwing it in because I’m too lazy to go find the tweet by the spokesperson 😭

Granted, Azerbaijan had issues with jury votes before, something about trying to bribe them

Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/eurovision...urce=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

Translated statement from the Romanian broadcaster

RE Laura’s disappearance:
Apparently her blood pressure dropped and she needed medical attention. It was nice to see Mika showing concern for her when she finally returned
 
Last edited:
Yel said:
Probably a massively unpopular opinion, but in these cost of living times could the thing not be rejigged to not be such a financial burden on the host? Even if that's just to encourage more tourism to the host to recoup the costs. The baftas are on the BBC and have sponsors I think?

In the grand scheme of things 15-20 million for a wealthy country to host it isn't much but still there seems to be some truth in countries not wanting to win it and have the expense.

---

In 2017, Kyiv (Ukraine) allocated 37 million euros. In 2015, Vienna (Austria) spent 32.8 million euros. In 2019, Tel Aviv (Israel) used €28.5 million. In 2018, Portugal (Lisbon) allocated 23 million euros. In 2021, Rotterdam (Netherlands) spent 19 million and in 2016 Stockholm (Sweden) spent 14 million.
Click to expand...

I worked in major events and the economic impact on the economy for events like this are absolutely enormous and will be felt for years with repeat tourism visits and a multiplier effect.

whilst I don’t think anyone would want the burden of hosting it annually as a one-off to get the benefits would be well worth it.

Personally would advocate for it not to be held in London either for all the reasons above
 
Yel said:
It's a good argument for the 5 or so countries to stop giving so much to automatically qualify only to come last or second last. That poor German guy.
Click to expand...

I've always felt since the semifinals were introduced that no country (apart from the previous years winner) should get a buy into the final. I have no issue with the big 5 paying more, but cash shouldn't equal qualification.
 
I think it very much depends on the event type as to if it's a net gain, some are and provide many many multiples more the investment. Like the Barcelona Olympics, although you could argue it was too successful as they now really hate tourists. This kind of thing where it could just be in a stadium anywhere I'd imagine would be at the other end of the scale, are there any reports into big gains from hosting Eurovision?

There's lots of stories about countries losing money from hosting as it didn't bring in any long term tourism uptick.

www.tourism-review.com

Eurovision 2017 Did Not Bring Much Profit | .TR

.
www.tourism-review.com www.tourism-review.com
 
Yel said:
I think it very much depends on the event type as to if it's a net gain, some are and provide many many multiples more the investment. Like the Barcelona Olympics, although you could argue it was too successful as they now really hate tourists. This kind of thing where it could just be in a stadium anywhere I'd imagine would be at the other end of the scale, are there any reports into big gains from hosting Eurovision?
Click to expand...
It’s not just about the direct stadium - it’s the repeat tourism and the profile. People travel to a place and then come again and bring family etc and stay, they also network and build business connections the list goes on. Its how you make the most the most of it and exploit the opportunity. Some will do this badly others amazingly depends on how it’s managed.
 
https://www.rbs.com/rbs/news/2016/05/the-cost-of-winning-the-eurovision-song-contest.html

I was expecting more sources TBH - If I was still a student (haha) I reckon it would make a really interesting dissertation subject.

The table at the bottom has figures that suggests tourism-wise it's a loss making exercise but probably doesn't take into account TV rights around the world etc and how much the winning country itself pays for (rather than just the total cost which includes money from the EBU). Azerbaijan looks to have made quite a loss but then I'd say that it's ongoing tourism and global recognition is still up there.
 


I love the last picture so much!😂😂


Hope this means we’re going to continue putting in the effort needed to promote it, actually thinking what song would do well and not a quick “oh we’ll just choose that” decision, having DECENT STAGING!!! and an extremely great representative!☺
 
LoopyLou47 said:
At least they got 6 audience points. The ultimate cringe we had last year, with a double nul points was worse!
Click to expand...
I felt sorry for the German guy too because his song and his performance was fine (better than some of the others IMO). I guess it just wasn't very memorable.

Being part of the big five can be seen as a problem because there might be some resentment in other countries that have to compete to get in. Last year the UK's woeful entry would have been knocked out in the semis (if we had to compete) and a better song maybe didn't get a place because we had automatic qualification.

Also being in the semis means that you are showcasing your song before the main event.

If the big five stopped funding and it was a level playing field for everyone that might be an improvement, but where is the money going to come from?
 
DanDanTheIceCreamMan said:
I've always felt since the semifinals were introduced that no country (apart from the previous years winner) should get a buy into the final. I have no issue with the big 5 paying more, but cash shouldn't equal qualification.
Click to expand...
I agree with everyone ideally competing in the semis but why would we pay extra cash if we weren't getting anything for it?

It makes no sense that we would fund for everyone else with no advantage to ourselves, and there's enough people who want to defund the BBC as it is.
 
Scotch Mist said:
I agree with everyone ideally competing in the semis but why would we pay extra cash if we weren't getting anything for it?

It makes no sense that we would fund for everyone else with no advantage to ourselves, and there's enough people who want to defund the BBC as it is.
Click to expand...
Agree. We fund the smaller countries and its something like 300k for a whole nights entertainment. Its only expensive if we win and have to host. The smaller countries would maybe not be able to afford to pay full price ( I assume we would have to pay less and them more)
 
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Back
Top