Latest news with #MyLovelyHorse
Daily Mirror
17-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mirror
Eurovision boss shares major update over one country taking part
Eurovision Song Contest bosses have spoken out about one country taking part and revealed that Vatican City is now eligible to enter the competition Eurovision bosses have shared a major update on one country taking part. Top dogs behind the song contest are beckoning new Pope Leo XIV to grace the stage of their famed song contest. They're eager for Vatican City to throw its hat into the ring for next year's musical showdown. They reckon the Pontiff's involvement would be a smash with Eurovision fans. On The Rest Is Entertainment podcast, Eurovision's Brand Director Martin Green spilt the beans: "You can participate in Eurovision if you are a member of the EBU - the European Broadcasting Union. My understanding is that it's Vatican Radio that is a member of the EBU. So technically, they might be able to enter an act. Frankly, a line-up of dancing cardinals... I'm all for it." Further stirring excitement, Eurovision's Executive Supervisor Martin Österdahl jumped in with: "Me too. I think that could do really well." To which Martin Green chimed: "Let's cross our fingers. It would be a moment.", reports the Daily Star. If Vatican City joins the Eurovision fold, it will echo the unforgettable scene from Father Ted where Ted entered with 'My Lovely Horse'. The Vatican might be the smallest nation around, but Eurovision has never shied away from small – remember San Marino? Though San Marino has yet to clinch the win at Eurovision, Vatican City entering would surely turn heads. And if it seems odd, well, it might be less perplexing than why non-European nations like Israel and Australia are hitting up the Eurostage. Australia got its ticket to the contest as a guest during the 60th anniversary bash in 2015. Their latest entry, Go-Jo, bowed out in this year's semi-finals – probably for the best since they're not on the cards to host, even if they snag first place. Israel is eligible to participate in the competition as they are a member of the European Broadcasting Union, which is the requisite membership for entry. Since their debut in 1973, Israel has been in the contest 49 times and triumphed on four occasions. In addition to Eurovision updates, Saturday night's Grand Final was surrounded by an ironclad security presence. The contest's head has ramped up security measures at the St Jakobshalle arena in Basel, Switzerland, amid concerns of a potential terrorist threat. Armed guards patrolled the venue for the duration of the event. Furthermore, stringent airport-style security checks were implemented at all entry points, with spectators being informed that bags would not be allowed inside. A source commented: "Organisers are taking no chances. They are making sure everyone is safe." Bosses later issued a statement following Israel's controversial participation in the competition. They explained that a Eurovision Song Contest crew member had been hit with paint after two people tried to storm the stage during Yuval Raphael's performance. A spokesman for SRG SSR said: "At the end of the Israeli performance, a man and a woman tried to get over a barrier onto the stage. They were stopped. One of the two agitators threw paint and a crew member was hit. The crew member is fine and nobody was injured. The man and the woman were taken out of the venue and handed over to the police."
The Journal
05-05-2025
- Entertainment
- The Journal
Eurovision brings cash to host cities - but does it pay for national broadcasters to stage it?
IT ALL GOES back to 1996. Two rival groups of priests enter 'A Song For Ireland' – and despite a show-stealing performance from Fr Dick Byrne in the national heats, a rather ramshackle composition played on an out-of-tune guitar by Fathers Ted Crilly and Dougal Maguire – My Lovely Horse – is selected as the Irish entry to compete on the European stage. A producer for the national broadcaster laughs off suggestions that his station is afraid to win the Europe-wide competition because of the costs. The scenario that played out in the 'Eurovision' episode of Fr Ted may have been fictional – but it was playing into jokes that were being widely made in the media around the time, as Ireland enjoyed an unprecedented run of success in the competition, winning the contest (and the right to stage it) five times between 1987 and 1996. The expense of broadcasting the trans-continental contest has been steadily rising ever since – with weeknight semi-finals introduced around 20 years ago and other elements added around the edges of the event turning into a week-long mini-festival for whichever city wins the right to host it. Organisers are always bragging about how much money the Eurovision brings in – but is there any truth to the rumour that broadcasters are still afraid of the costs of staging it? Channel 4 Entertainment / YouTube Major expense What it seems to come down to is – Eurovision is beneficial for its host city. The competition brings in tourism and is a major source of positive word of mouth. But while that may be true for the city as a whole, for the broadcaster in charge of hosting it, Eurovision is a major expense. One which seems to have been growing with time. Essentially – the broadcaster has to take a hit so the wider community benefits. You can perhaps see why some are not so eager to risk sending a song at the level of 'My Lovely Horse'. But taking a look at the wider economic impact first, and the European song contest seems to be a force for bringing in the cash. It's worth noting upfront though – most of the figures around Eurovision's economic impact tend to be a bit woolly. There are a lot of estimates from organisers around the total spend in a city. This can be hard to calculate, as you have to separate out how many people come specifically for Eurovision, and then look at how much this specific group spends. With that caveat in mind, let's look at some examples. Oxford Economics last year looked at Malmö, the Swedish city which hosted Eurovision in 2024 and 2013. Eurovision fans exercise at the Eurovision Village ahead of the first semifinal at the Eurovision in Malmo, Sweden, 7 May, 2024. Alamy Stock Photo Alamy Stock Photo In 2013, it looked fairly straightforward. Approximately 100,000 people visited Malmö for Eurovision. This would both have been people based in Sweden, and foreigners. They were estimated to spend a combined total of €33 million, which breaks down at a pretty reasonable €330 per person. Subtract 'hosting costs' of €28 million, and boom! You're €5 million in profit. Seems a good deal. Liverpool, which hosted Eurovision in 2023, looks to have got an even better one. An economic impact assessment published by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority in January found tourism during the event brought £11.1 million (€13 million) to the economy. This was based on 72,500 tourists going to the city for Eurovision – 67,300 domestic / British tourists, and 5,200 international. Again, the estimate comes out at a fairly reasonable £154 per person. Family of tourists visiting Liverpool for Eurovision 2023 Alamy Stock Photo Alamy Stock Photo It is worth noting that these figures are counted between June 2023 and May 2024 – the year after Liverpool hosted Eurovision 2023. The study found that the rise in trips was largely from 'an increased popularity with domestic tourists, with perceptions of the city improving due to the event'. The Liverpool Authority said its assessment was backed up by studies from other bodies, while the likes of the University of Liverpool also found there was a rise in spending during the event. If we look to 2022, when Eurovision was hosted in the Italian city of Turin, a similar story emerges. A study published by Università di Torino found the rise in tourism to the city caused a direct economic benefit of €22.8 million. '[This was] equal to 2.4 times the value of the investment supported directly by the City of Turin,' it said. Advertisement Official Eurovision 2022 advertising flags on the King Umberto I bridge over the River Po in Turin, Italy. Alamy Stock Photo Alamy Stock Photo And so on, and so on. The pattern seems fairly clear, at least among recent host cities – Eurovision brings in tourists. They spend money, it's good for the economy. Simple, right? So, why are there those rumours about the contest being 'too expensive' to host? This is likely due to the cost taken on by companies which handle broadcasting the competition. Eurovision is an enormous event, which requires high production values over multiple days. Something like that is going to be pricey for a broadcaster to put together. Again, exact figures here are a little sketchy, as we're normally reliant on companies to publicly reveal how much they spend on the competition. But there are a few examples – RTP, Portugal's public service broadcaster, reportedly lost €4 million when the event was hosted in Lisbon in 2018. White ticket sales, advertiser revenue and sponsorship brought in €16 million, organising the event cost €20 million. Eurovision advertisement on a Lisbon square in 2018 Alamy Stock Photo Alamy Stock Photo The exact spending breakdown wasn't announced, but would have included the likes of production costs, such as set design and pyrotechnics, as well as paying for guest accommodation and transport. The amount of cash spent by RTP also tracks with another claim around Eurovision – namely, the competition itself has gotten more expensive to broadcast. In 2016, Sweden's national broadcaster reportedly spent 125 million Swedish krona (€11.5 million) organising the competition, significantly less compared to RTP. While this could have been for a variety of reasons, it tracks with reports that costs have increased substantially in recent years. EBU The bulk of Eurovision's cost is normally covered by national broadcasters across Europe. These operate via the European Broadcasting Union, an alliance of public service broadcasters from across Europe. Each broadcaster pays a participation fee to the EBU - for example, the BBC pays approximately £300,000 annually for the UK's guaranteed place in the final. The UK is one of the so-called 'Big Five' – the others being France, Germany, Italy, Spain – which all pay higher participation fees. Traditionally, these EBU fees covered much of the production costs for the country staging the contest in a given year. But as costs have risen, there is an increasing gap between the participation fees and the actual cost to a host country's national broadcaster of staging the contest. This has been exacerbated by some countries pulling out of the contest. In 2023, Bulgaria, Montenegro and North Macedonia all pulled out of the Liverpool event due to the financial pressure of the likes of the EBU fees. Switzerland' representative Nemo won the 68th Eurovision on 11 May, 2024 in Malmo, Sweden. Alamy Stock Photo Alamy Stock Photo With fewer countries paying participation fees, it means the burden is higher again on the host. Martin Österdahl, Eurovision's Executive Supervisor, acknowledged this issue last year, saying : 'The contest was financed every year by the participation fee, but the production has grown so much and become so much more expensive that today, the fee's a very small part of the required budget'. There are claims that Eurovision actually represents a good return on investment for broadcasters , given the massive audiences which tune in. But given that most of the EBU broadcasters are public entities under budget pressures, it's easy to see why they would be reluctant to deal in the 'cash upfront' business. Finally, what about RTÉ? While it's true that its EBU fees have increased, they're only about €100,000 a year for the Irish broadcaster. While it is under financial pressure, it's a relative drop in the ocean for an organisation with annual revenues of €344 million . Perhaps the legend about it being reluctant to host Eurovision spawned from as far back as 1971. It was the first year that Ireland ever hosted the Eurovision, and RTÉ was under pressure to impress internationally. As a result, the broadcaster spent £250,000 hosting the contest. That's several million euros in today's money, and was a massive chunk of the organisation's annual budget at the time. Writing for RTÉ in 2021 , researcher Morgan Wait described how the spend on the contest 'led to cuts in nearly every department and a cavalcade of programme cancellations'. At least the spend seems to have been worth it as Wait wrote how Eurovision 1971 was 'declared a resounding success'. RTÉ did of course then organise several Eurovision contests throughout the 90s with far less drama. But given previous experience, it's easy to see why Eurovision's pricey reputation stuck. And while it may be good for local economies, it doesn't seem to be so kind to the wallets of the national broadcasters who stage the event. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
Times
05-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Times
The Times Daily Quiz: Monday May 5, 2025
1 Who ruled for longer than any other monarch in British history? 2 The Lord Speaker oversees proceedings in which parliamentary chamber? 3 Active dry, instant, natural and fresh are types of which bread-making ingredient? 4 In a battery, electrons flow from the anode to which other electrode? 5 Built as an Elizabethan gun fort, Upnor Castle is situated on the banks of which river in Kent? 6 Which hangman became a publican in 1946 and ran the Help the Poor Struggler in Oldham? 7 Neil Hannon co-wrote the song My Lovely Horse for which Channel 4 sitcom? 8 In 1980, which British retail chain became the first to sell prepackaged sandwiches? 9 The smallest living rhinoceros species is named after which Indonesian island? 10
Irish Times
03-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Irish Times
Academic questions: Frank McNally on Titanic terriers, epic expense accounts and the rise of the ‘full professor'
At the prestigious annual Theatrical Cavaliers table quiz in Dublin last weekend, held this year in aid of the My Lovely Horse animal rescue charity, they had a round on the theme of dogs. A typical question asked us to identify the Pekinese terrier, named after a famous revolutionary, which was one of only three canine passengers to escape the sinking of the Titanic. This is the sort of utterly useless information that we veteran quizzers pride ourselves on knowing. And I'm half-embarrassed to admit that I did indeed have the answer on the tip of my tongue. Or nearly. I knew the name had three words, all monosyllables. I knew it was Chinese. And I could have written a short (if vague) essay about the revolutionary in question, including the fact that he admired and wrote letters to Michael Davitt – a detail retained from a visit to the Davitt museum in Mayo a few years ago. READ MORE But after rifling through various dusty files in a back office of my brain, I came out with the wrong one. Chiang Kai-shek, I pronounced with confidence, wrongly. Doh! It was of course Sun Yat-sen. Oh well. We won the quiz anyway, the generous prizes for which, as usual, included a potted plant. I have one from last year too, now overgrown. If this run continues, I'll end up with a garden. The journalist Emile Joseph Dillon (1854 – 1933) would have known the right answer that question. He probably knew Sun Yat-sen personally. As the foremost foreign correspondent of his day, the Dubliner befriended many famous statesmen, and as well as writing about them for the Daily Telegraph, became in some cases their confidante and adviser. He was, as we would say today, a player, helping to end the Russo-Japanese war (1905) and the Balkan wars of 1912-13. In recognition of his influence, three of the resulting peace treaties – Portsmouth (1905), London (1913), and Bucharest (also 1913) were signed with his own gold-cased fountain pen. Forgotten for decades after his death, Dillon is now the subject a first-ever biography, the launch of which I attended on Thursday night The book is by Kevin Rafter , professor of political communication at DCU, who drew envy from some of those assembled in Hodges Figgis by describing the glory that was journalism in the early years of last century. Much as some of us today might envy EJ Dillon's influence, more would prefer his expense account. Not only did it allow him to stay in the best of hotels and dine in the finest restaurants, it also covered such essential purchases as silk top hats and Cuban cigars. Even after a 60 per cent cut as part of a Daily Telegraph austerity drive in 1917, which caused him much indignation, he was still allowed expenses of £1,000 a year, the equivalent of £110,000 today. He also at times had the services of two secretaries, one of whom he liked to have play piano for him while he wrote dispatches. Sigh. Try claiming for a piano-playing secretary today and see what happens. To quote Mark Antony: 'O, what a fall was there ...' Rafter was introduced at the launch (by DCU President Daire Keogh) as a 'full professor', a description also used on the book. You hear this curious phrase more and more these days. And for me, at least, it always evokes the image of an academic who has eaten too much. [ The spirit of 1965 – Kevin Rafter on Ireland's first television election Opens in new window ] I suppose the point is to distinguish from the mere assistant and associate professors that proliferate these days, and whose titles can be rounded up in casual usage, to the detriment of their seniors. Even so, there must be versions of that problem in many careers. And yet I can't think of another that uses this construction. You never hear of full doctors, for example, or full plumbers, or full chefs (full-Irish chefs, maybe). Come to think of it, you also don't hear of full columnists, which could be useful to distinguish those of us who write daily from the part-timers and dilettantes who do it once a week and think they're great. In support of my impending expense claim for a piano-playing secretary, I may have to start using the term myself. Somehow it seems to go against native Irish genius to describe people as a full or complete anything. Our preference is drawing attention to inadequacy. Hence the countless diminutives in Hiberno-English, describing people who fall short of something: girleen, maneen, squireen, priesteen, etc, etc. Strange to say, you never hear the junior grades of professor described as professoreens. Maybe that's the problem. Speaking of Irish-English, or vice versa, my thanks to several readers who sent me the picture of a sign over a door in Beaumont Hospital, on which 'Please Knock Before Entry' is translated as 'Le Do Thoil Cnoc Mhuire Roimh Iontrail'. The translator appears to have mistaken the verb 'Knock' ( cnag in Irish) for the Mayo village of the same name. Unless the intended suggestion was that those seeking hospital treatment should first consider a visit to the Marian shrine. That would be a reversal of the usual order of things, certainly, but also one way to cut waiting lists.
