F1 heading to Sky?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/04/19/uk-britain-formulaone-idUKTRE73I5TS20110419

Just seen on Sky News that News corp are interested in buying F1.

Would this see F1 moved to Sky Sports with the dreaded mid race adverts reappearing? :s

[steveaki13]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Dear God Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooo!


I think that gives you my view.

[steveaki13]

Trouble is in the UK the only channel you can watch F1 is BBC, if it comes to the Beeb losing interest or being out bid, there is no where else F1 to go without ruining the race.

Lets hope BBC decide to fight for F1 for a few years.

[Henry Cutts]

Doesn't F1 have to be on a free to view channel? sure its in the contracts Sponsors wouldn't want it moved to pay per view

[yodasarmpit]

This would be a great move, a forward thinking company running the show for the spectators.

I still remember when they showed the race in parallel with ITV, offering multi views of the race including in car - way before anyone else.

[Rollo]

And when Rupert waved his magic chequebook, all the worries of the sponsors went away and the scary little imp called Bernie was happy with his new sack of gold.

[MrJan]

I thought that Bernie was keen to keep it on free to view? I thought he'd run through the idea of making people pay and it didn't really work, afterall F1 has a lot of casual viewers that will move away if it's on the scroat's channels.

[Sonic]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Dear God Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooo!


I think that gives you my view.

+ 1

But may I add;

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o

[steveaki13]

+ 1

But may I add;

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o

Wow.

You must be really opposed to the move.

[MrMetro]

+ 1

But may I add;

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o


+ 2

But may I add;

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[MrJan]

Wow.

You must be really opposed to the move.

Expect it from a lot of people. It probably won't add much (besides some adverts a nice 'commercial radio' feel) but it'll definitely take it away from those of us that don't like lining the pockets of a corrupt and unscrupulous scroat like Murdoch.

[Nikki Katz]

I doubt the government will allow this to happen, I think that F1 is seen as a sporting even that has to be on a terrestrial channel. Unless Murdoch makes a large donation....

[MrJan]

I doubt the government will allow this to happen, I think that F1 is seen as a sporting even that has to be on a terrestrial channel. Unless Murdoch makes a large donation....

The government is largely irrelevant. Bernie infamously tried to 'buy' New Labour on the tobacco thing, with the Tories in charge I'd imagine that the smell of a brown envelope will be even more effective. Bernie calls the shots in F1, no one else has any kind of a say.

[yodasarmpit]

So, what is everyone's actual objection other than the predictable I don't like change?

Sky changed UK TV for the good some 20 years ago by investing heavily, and providing a stable multi channel digital platform (in the last 10 years). They are innovative and willing to spend, whilst delivering what the viewer want's.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

So, what is everyone's actual objection other than the predictable I don't like change?

Sky changed UK TV for the good some 20 years ago by investing heavily, and providing a stable multi channel digital platform (in the last 10 years). They are innovative and willing to spend, whilst delivering what the viewer want's.

Simple. Adverts in the races and extra cost.

[Rollo]

So, what is everyone's actual objection other than the predictable I don't like change?

Sky changed UK TV for the good some 20 years ago by investing heavily, and providing a stable multi channel digital platform (in the last 10 years). They are innovative and willing to spend, whilst delivering what the viewer want's.

The thing is it would be just the UK licences which Murdoch buys. News Corp would more than likely buy a World package and then try to flog that off, it wouldn't be just Sky in the UK.

I don't have Pay TV, and I'm sure that if Murdoch bought the rights it would move to Foxtel in Australia, meaning that'd I'd see no F1 races at all.

[Sonic]

Exactly. Most of us can no longer afford to go and see F1 live (the last time I went was 1999), and I'll be damned if I'm paying for the privilege to watch at home.

[BDunnell]

So, what is everyone's actual objection other than the predictable I don't like change?

Sky changed UK TV for the good some 20 years ago by investing heavily, and providing a stable multi channel digital platform (in the last 10 years). They are innovative and willing to spend, whilst delivering what the viewer want's.

As a broadcaster itself, Sky does not deliver what the viewer wants, other than sporting events that people are forced to watch on Sky if they wish to see them at all. I cannot think of an occasion on which I as a viewer have ever wanted to watch anything on Sky, except for sports. And if you want a shorter, more concise answer to your question: Murdoch.

[Nikki Katz]

I guess that in their defence, the commentators that do IndyCar while the US goes for its many breaks are at least a lot better than both ABC and Versus. But there's still a big dip compared to the BBC or ITV's broadcast, we'd have adverts back, and most importantly we'd have to pay for it! This would only really be good news for Murdoch, the viewing figures would freefall because sky sports is so expensive, any casual fan would just stop watching unless they already have the channel, and some of the more diehard fans might find the fees tough. I don't see it happening, even if we're just saved by Bernie.

[ArrowsFA1]

I still remember when they showed the race in parallel with ITV, offering multi views of the race including in car - way before anyone else.
Bernie was too far ahead of the game with that. He invested heavily in the equipment and the channel only to find few wanted to buy it so he cut his losses. It did mean, however, that FOA tv came about and they now, I think, provide the pictures we all watch.

The difference now is that people are far more used to subscription tv so a "F1 channel" may be more likely to succeed, but still I would have thought that the teams & their sponsors would want the races shown on free-to-air tv in some form or another.

As for Sky/Murdoch owning F1 as a whole...I dread to think what will happen to the sport if that were to happen :eek:

[Mark]

So, what is everyone's actual objection other than the predictable I don't like change?

Sky changed UK TV for the good some 20 years ago by investing heavily, and providing a stable multi channel digital platform (in the last 10 years). They are innovative and willing to spend, whilst delivering what the viewer want's.

Sky Sports is a subscription channel, so I'd have to pay to subscribe to it - if I'm right at current prices that would mean £243 for a season of F1! :eek: . And probably with adverts on top of that. Because not everyone can pay £243 for a sports package F1 will quickly diminish in popularity in the UK, and it'll fast become a minority interest (even more than it is now). It would be the death of F1 in the UK.

[Sonic]

Exactly mark. Much as I love F1, I don't have a spare £250 hanging around. I would simply have to stop watching.

[Dave B]

It's simply impossible to adequately describe how much I loathe the Murdochs. One only has to look to the current phone hacking scandal to see not only how unscrupulous they are, but also how they entangle themselves with the regulators, police, and government.

[Mark]

Exactly mark. Much as I love F1, I don't have a spare £250 hanging around. I would simply have to stop watching.

Quite. I own and run a Formula 1 forum, but even I'd struggle to justify £20 per month...

[BDunnell]

Sky Sports is a subscription channel, so I'd have to pay to subscribe to it - if I'm right at current prices that would mean £243 for a season of F1! :eek: . And probably with adverts on top of that. Because not everyone can pay £243 for a sports package F1 will quickly diminish in popularity in the UK, and it'll fast become a minority interest (even more than it is now). It would be the death of F1 in the UK.

It would. You only have to look at the UK viewing figures for English football matches on Sky to see that. Often they are dismally small.

[ArrowsFA1]

Bernie Ecclestone rubbishes reports that News Corp ready to bid for F1, says sport "not for sale"
https://twitter.com/#!/tomcaryf1/status/60625597885460480

[Mark]

Good news! Although I'm not sure what he means "not for sale". Strange thing for a commercial rights holder to say, when it effectively is always for sale.

Oh edit: That story is very different, he's not talking about Sky having coverage of F1, but News Corp actually buying F1 itself!

[Sonic]

And Bernie has never said one thing and done another...

[ArrowsFA1]

Interesting thoughts from Adam Cooper - https://twitter.com/adamcooperf1

Thinking more about the News Corp/F1 story and fact that the FIA has to approve a sale, perhaps Todt is already in the loop

That would go some way to explain why Bernie has been winding him up lately over the turbo rules and so on.

It's a "can't beat 'em/buy 'em" scenario. Todt hates the 100-year deal but a friendly purchaser might give the FIA a better shake

[MrJan]

So, what is everyone's actual objection other than the predictable I don't like change?

Sky changed UK TV for the good some 20 years ago by investing heavily, and providing a stable multi channel digital platform (in the last 10 years). They are innovative and willing to spend, whilst delivering what the viewer want's.

I have Freeview at the minute so to get Sky Sports I'm looking at £30 set up fee and £40 a month. F*** that!!! And as if the payment thing isn't bad enough I still end up having to watch f***ing adverts even though I'm shelling out silly money for coverage that will no doubt be less well presented than the Beeb manage.

It's not that I don't like change, it's that I don't like having to shell out the best part of £500 every year for the privilege of F1, especially as I'll inevitably miss a few rounds due to them being at a silly time or me being busy competing.

And that's before we start talking about Murdoch himself, who is essentially a professional b****d.

And as Mr Dunnell says it would be a nail in the coffin, Sky have already trashed football and it'll be much easier for them to ruin motorsport.

[ArrowsFA1]

Two distinct issues here:

The ownership of the group of companies responsible for the promotion of the FIA F1 World Championship (currently owned by CVC, JP Morgan & Bernie)[/*:m:3brb38s2]
Broadcasting rights to F1 currently held by the BBC in the UK[/*:m:3brb38s2]

[MrJan]

Two distinct issues here:

The ownership of the group of companies responsible for the promotion of the FIA F1 World Championship (currently owned by CVC, JP Morgan & Bernie)[/*:m:34qmissd]
Broadcasting rights to F1 currently held by the BBC in the UK[/*:m:34qmissd]

IIRC the broadcasting rights are actually held by Bernie and FOM (or whatever acronym he's using at the minute), he contracts this out to the Beeb who use the world feed that is given to all broadcasters :)

[ArrowsFA1]

Selling the broadcasting rights to Sky is one thing, but allowing Murdoch to own the sport is entirely another. Should the chances of that happening increase then we can expect talks of a breakaway to resurface.

[CNR]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/amanda-andrews/8463140/QandA-Murdoch-eyes-F1.html


Is F1 going to be bought by Rupert Murdoch?


Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation has held talks with the world's richest man, Carlos Slim, to form a consortium to buy F1. There are understood to be a number of possible permutations, not simply a purchase or stake sale. Sources said there have been no formal talks with F1 owner, private equity house CVC Capital Partners. F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone has insisted Formula 1 is not for sale. "CVC are not in the slightest bit interested in selling," said Ecclestone.

money talks

[555-04Q2]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/04/19/uk-britain-formulaone-idUKTRE73I5TS20110419

Just seen on Sky News that News corp are interested in buying F1.

Would this see F1 moved to Sky Sports with the dreaded mid race adverts reappearing? :s

Don't bother me cause we get full uninterupted race coverage over here. What would concern me is the commentators they choose.

[nigelred5]

Don't bother me cause we get full uninterupted race coverage over here. What would concern me is the commentators they choose.

Must be nice. We're already under the Murdoch umbrella in the US with the races on SPEED and Fox.

[DazzlaF1]

It's just another step in that slimeball Murdoch's quest for world domination.

I'm sure though that Sky Sports are not allowed to take the broadcasting rights away from terrestrial TV, that is one thing I feel that F1 has prided itself on since the Beeb first got the full rights in 1978. Free-to-air TV brings the sport into the mainstream and has managed as a result to build up a huge following, yes it is costing the Beeb a lot to broadcast F1 but they are getting a great return on it in terms of viewing figures.

Transferring it to subscription TV would simply alienate the vast majority of the fanbase that cannot afford the subscription fees, viewer numbers will shrink, attendances at Grand Prix's would fall and the sport would slowly die. Even the most diehard fan won't pay extortionate subscription charges to watch the sport they love if they can't afford it.

[Mark]

There is no rule to say F1 must be on terrestrial TV.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

There is no rule to say F1 must be on terrestrial TV.

Is it not part of the Concorde Agreement?

[DazzlaF1]

Is it not part of the Concorde Agreement?

According to this, it isnt

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formulaone/article-1378779/Bernie-Ecclestone-denies-Rupert-Murdochs-News-Corp-set-buy-F1.html

But 10 years ago as part of the deal for Bernie to offer a 100 year extension to 2 German TV firms, there was a promise that F1 must remain "free-to-air"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/1295708.stm

So if F1 sells the UK broadcast rights to Sky Sports, would that not be in total breach of that agreement?

[Rollo]

This is from this morning's "The Australian". Which i'd like to point out is not only a News publication but it was also the first national newsppaer in Australia; therefore Rupert's special baby.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news-corporation-leads-bid-for-formula-one/story-e6frg8zx-1226042452050
A POWERFUL consortium led by News Corporation is drafting plans to buy the Formula One motor racing series.
Although commercial rights holder, chief executive Bernie Eccleston has declared the sport was not for sale, it has emerged News Corp is negotiating with Mexican telecommunications billionaire Carlos Slim and leading international carmaker Ferrari to make a bid.
Mr Slim has been linked with Formula One as a potential team owner and sponsors young Mexican driver Sergio Perez, who is with Sauber.

Or if prefer Sky:
http://blogs.news.sky.com/kleinman/Post:ba1e6a4b-b146-4edc-ae17-1bdcdcbeb360
News Corporation, the global media group, is in the early stages of talks about forming a consortium that would seek to acquire control of Formula One (F1) motor racing, I have learned.

News Corp has been in preliminary talks in recent weeks with people connected to at least one of F1’s big car manufacturers, and with Carlos Slim, the Mexican billionaire who is the world’s richest man, about working together on a prospective takeover of F1. JP Morgan, the Wall Street bank (and a former F1 shareholder), is advising News Corp on the situation, which is at an embryonic stage, I’m told.

Participating in a consortium that would buy F1 is only one of several options that News Corp is examining in relation to the sport, which may come up for sale during the next 18 months.

Take it as read that that furry little maggot Rupert is interested in buying F1. This is the beginning of the end I fear.

[CNR]

the one thing i would hate to see if it is taken over is a delayed broadcast it is only the last 2 years that it has been live in australia

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/what-is-behind-murdochs-plot-to-grab-the-wheel-at-formula-one-2270652.html

During the past two decades British sports fans have grown used to watching Mr Murdoch's money transform football, rugby, cricket and boxing.

[call_me_andrew]

As an American I would be most interested to see what would happen if Sky got the rights from BBC. Murdoch already has the rights to the U.S. broadcast; he might try to merge them.

[Mark]

Ah, I thought you were referring to the UK protected sport status, which are the following:

Sports which have protected TV status:


Olympic Games[/*:m:93azm0hw]
Fifa World Cup finals tournament[/*:m:93azm0hw]
European Football Championship finals tournament[/*:m:93azm0hw]
FA Cup final[/*:m:93azm0hw]
Scottish FA Cup final (in Scotland)[/*:m:93azm0hw]
The Grand National[/*:m:93azm0hw]
The Derby[/*:m:93azm0hw]
Wimbledon tennis finals[/*:m:93azm0hw]
Rugby League Challenge Cup final[/*:m:93azm0hw]
Rugby World Cup final[/*:m:93azm0hw]
As you can see it's a very limited list.

[Retro Formula 1]

First. Bernie doesn't own F1 but is a minority share holder. If Sky come up with a commercially acceptable offer, CVC will sell.

Second. Are we talking about the commercial rights, broadcasting rights or the whole lot. Could this be a case of someone trying to "out-Bernie" Bernie. What does Murdock actually want?

Third. F1 has been expanded and grown under Bernie to the global spectacle it is now. I think it rather hypocritical that the same people that slag greedy Bernie off are horrified that Murdock might replace him. WHAT THE F DID YOU EXPECT? I don't think Nelson Mandella is interested in commercial motorsport and Mother Theresa is dead.

Last. I pay £70 per month for a full Sky package including Movies, Sport, Broadband, Line Rental and free call nationally and internationally to any fixed line I want. That represents good value for money in my books so am not too bothered if it goes to Sky as long as the racing isn't ruined by adverts.

What is going to happen is going to happen regardless.

[Mark]

But you can't imagine that if Murdoch / Sky own a substantial stake in F1 that they wouldn't want to also have the coverage on their own network?

[Retro Formula 1]

Yep. No great shakes to me. I'll watch it regardless.

[MrJan]

First. Bernie doesn't own F1 but is a minority share holder. If Sky come up with a commercially acceptable offer, CVC will sell.

I'm currently reading his biography (the one by Tom Bower) and it's interesting to see how he sets up deals to be heavily weighted in his favour. Just last night I was reading about his sale around 2004 where he sells 75% of his ownership but, due to the way he's set up all the different companies, his own company can effectively still call the shots.

And I can't understand how you can label £70/month as good value as you're basically only paying for some of the sports, the broadband and the phone. The rest is so easily available (in good quality) over the internet that it's really not worth paying money for.....if you're so inclined.

[TheFamousEccles]

It will be a cold day in hell before I willingly give any of my hard-earned to Murdoch. The excreable Limited News already has too much influence within my wide brown land - the Australian (aparently our leading journal of record) has gone on record as willing to do anything it may take to destroy a democratically popular political party in Australia (the Greens - say what you like, I didn't vote for 'em, but lots of people did and that gives them legitimacy), amongst a litany of other politically questionable antics from the pathetic 4th estate, so the contempt that mere motor sport enthusiasts would encounter is likely to be withering.

I hope this is just money-men posturing - we don't get free to air World SBK here anymore (haven't for a few years - vanished behind Ruprechts paywall), and crowds at the race at PI have been noticeably down over the same period. I hope it doesn't come to it, but Murdoch will have to wrestle my last dollar from my cold, lifeless hand.

Ok, rant over.

[SGWilko]

I pay £70 per month for a full Sky package including Movies, Sport, Broadband, Line Rental and free call nationally and internationally to any fixed line I want. That represents good value for money in my books so am not too bothered if it goes to Sky as long as the racing isn't ruined by adverts.

I pay £18.50 for unlimited Broadband and calls with Talk Talk (internatinal package) plus my TV licence fee. I get freeview for the cost of a set top box. That's even better value for me, considering all the tut that was on Sky when I had it last before the recession bit - Endless repeats of 'how it's made', an ex vet that builds kit cars/bikes/planes/choppers, and the Sound of Music twice an hour.........

If Sky get hold of it and make it subscription, F1 loses a fan.

[BDunnell]

Third. F1 has been expanded and grown under Bernie to the global spectacle it is now. I think it rather hypocritical that the same people that slag greedy Bernie off are horrified that Murdock might replace him. WHAT THE F DID YOU EXPECT? I don't think Nelson Mandella is interested in commercial motorsport and Mother Theresa is dead.

Why hypocritical? People don't like Bernie running it, but they dislike the notion of Murdoch running it even more. Nothing hypocritical or inconsistent in that.



Last. I pay £70 per month for a full Sky package including Movies, Sport, Broadband, Line Rental and free call nationally and internationally to any fixed line I want. That represents good value for money in my books so am not too bothered if it goes to Sky as long as the racing isn't ruined by adverts.

So you are not bothered by the influence NewsCorp wields in British society by virtue of the extent of its media ownerships?

[MrJan]

an ex vet that builds kit cars/bikes/planes/choppers

I love A....Is Born. My old man was recently made redundant and had a few weeks with nothing to do when they were showing this on Quest (or whatever Freeview channel 38 is called these days). I'd come home from work and he'd be telling me about how matey was doing his Cobra or was making a Caterham, top viewing.

[wedge]

According to this, it isnt

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formulaone/article-1378779/Bernie-Ecclestone-denies-Rupert-Murdochs-News-Corp-set-buy-F1.html

But 10 years ago as part of the deal for Bernie to offer a 100 year extension to 2 German TV firms, there was a promise that F1 must remain "free-to-air"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/1295708.stm

So if F1 sells the UK broadcast rights to Sky Sports, would that not be in total breach of that agreement?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13143365


Any takeover would involve changes to the Concorde Agreement, a commercial arrangement involving the racing teams, CVC and the sport's governing body, the FIA.

This agreement says that the sport should be shown on free-to-air television where possible.

However, the current agreement runs out at the end of 2012, and the signatories are in the process of negotiating a new one.

Personally I can't see Sky show F1 exclusively. Bernie would be daft to let that happen. More likely it would be like a decade ago/German TV rights with Sky showing premium content

[Mark]

I believe it's possible for Sky Sports to be free to air if they so choose. Plus they have the likes of Sky3 on freeview, and Sky1 etc, which aren't free as such but they are part of most standard bundles.

[Retro Formula 1]

I have no ethical dilema with Sky or Murdoch. It doesn't really bother me to tell you the truth.

I'm quite happy to pay my £70 quid and feel I get a good service for my money. It's entertainment for the family and communication via Internet and Phone for £20 per week. I know some people that pay £40 per month just for their mobile phone contract but that's their choice.

Personal choice I suppose and I disregard opinions that say I shouldn't purchase the service I do for some morally debatable view of the owner.

[SGWilko]

I know some people that pay £40 per month just for their mobile phone contract but that's their choice.

I have a 3 data card that I pay £40/month for. However, I get 12GB allowance per month and a Dell Laptop (not netbook) for free too!!!

[BDunnell]

I have no ethical dilema with Sky or Murdoch.

With whom do you have ethical dilemmas if not Rupert Murdoch, then?

[Hawkmoon]

Selling the broadcasting rights to Sky is one thing, but allowing Murdoch to own the sport is entirely another. Should the chances of that happening increase then we can expect talks of a breakaway to resurface.

What happened to rugby league in Australia is an excellent case study in what happens when News Corp buys a sport. They took a sport with an ever increasing fan base and huge TV audience and nearly killed it in less than 5 years. The term "Super League" sends a shudder down the spines of many rugby league fans to this day. They arbitrarily decided they didn't want my team, the South Sydney Rabbitohs, in "their" competiton and kicked them out. Souths took them to court and got back in but by the time the dust had settled several other teams were dead.

People think Bernie's bad with his greed and stupid ideas. He's got nothing on what News would do to the sport.

[MrJan]

I believe it's possible for Sky Sports to be free to air if they so choose. Plus they have the likes of Sky3 on freeview, and Sky1 etc, which aren't free as such but they are part of most standard bundles.

Nah, Sky3 on Freeview seems to have been replaced by something called PickTV or summint

[inimitablestoo]

Same channel, new name. If you look at the schedule it's basically the same old Sky3 programmes, including a very poor Top Gear "rival" called Vroom Vroom

[ArrowsFA1]

What happened to rugby league in Australia is an excellent case study in what happens when News Corp buys a sport. They took a sport with an ever increasing fan base and huge TV audience and nearly killed it in less than 5 years. The term "Super League" sends a shudder down the spines of many rugby league fans to this day. They arbitrarily decided they didn't want my team, the South Sydney Rabbitohs, in "their" competiton and kicked them out. Souths took them to court and got back in but by the time the dust had settled several other teams were dead.

People think Bernie's bad with his greed and stupid ideas. He's got nothing on what News would do to the sport.
Exactly my concern for F1 if Murdoch gets his hands on it. Complain about Bernie all you like, but his "vision" in the 1970's of using television to expand the sport has been hugely successful for everyone concerned. His financial demands (see the news about the Turkish GP) may be excessive but if one doesn't want to pay he's always got another lined up ready to take their place.

However, Bernie does not own the tv channels. He sells a product to them and they decide whether to buy or not.

In Murdoch's case, if this happens (and it's a big if at the moment) he owns the sport and the one tv company. No other broadcaster will get a look in.

Were Murdoch to own F1 then we and the sport are ****ed.

[UltimateDanGTR]

All of this poses the question:

Who is preffered as the man in charge of F1: Bernie or Murdoch?

[Sonic]

^^^^

Well that's a choice between Tofu and Quorn. Both are s**t

[Dave B]

Bernie. No question.

[DazzlaF1]

Murdoch would be a poison on the sport that we would probably never shake off, so I'd go for Bernie, as much as I can't stand him for some of his crackpot ideas, at least he's steadied the ship over the last 30 years well and it's his insistence to have a free reign when it comes to TV deals that has helped the sports fanbase grow in that time.

Murdoch however doesn't give a monkeys about the fanbase unless they have £££'s to pay to watch his ad filled subscription services, F1 is the only major sport in Britain with which Murdoch does not have a stranglehold on, something with this much speculated bid he is trying to put right in his eyes.

[UltimateDanGTR]

Murdoch would be a poison on the sport that we would probably never shake off, so I'd go for Bernie, as much as I can't stand him for some of his crackpot ideas, at least he's steadied the ship over the last 30 years well and it's his insistence to have a free reign when it comes to TV deals that has helped the sports fanbase grow in that time.

Murdoch however doesn't give a monkeys about the fanbase unless they have £££'s to pay to watch his ad filled subscription services, F1 is the only major sport in Britain with which Murdoch does not have a stranglehold on, something with this much speculated bid he is trying to put right in his eyes.

Can't argue with that.

[steveaki13]

I do subscribe to sky sports already, but I think from a purely selfish point of view, I wouldn't be able to stand F1 with ads again.

A bigger point that has already been mentioned is the likely plummit of F1's viewer numbers and it's general popularity in the uk would fall. No casual fans are going to buy Sky Sports for F1 and as mentioned above many hardcore F1 fans would not either.

It would be a bad day for F1 in the UK.

[Ranger]

What happened to rugby league in Australia is an excellent case study in what happens when News Corp buys a sport. They took a sport with an ever increasing fan base and huge TV audience and nearly killed it in less than 5 years. The term "Super League" sends a shudder down the spines of many rugby league fans to this day. They arbitrarily decided they didn't want my team, the South Sydney Rabbitohs, in "their" competiton and kicked them out. Souths took them to court and got back in but by the time the dust had settled several other teams were dead.

People think Bernie's bad with his greed and stupid ideas. He's got nothing on what News would do to the sport.

Absolutely.

[Jag_Warrior]

All of this poses the question:

Who is preffered as the man in charge of F1: Bernie or Murdoch?

Even though I am not Bernie's biggest fan, there's no doubt in my mind that he does love the sport. True, he loves money too. But in the question of Murdoch vs. Ecclestone, I would take Bernie any day of the week and twice on weekends... because ALL that Murdoch cares about is money. Fox/Speed does a very good job covering F1 in the U.S. But I can't say that the prospect of a Murdoch owned Formula One exactly warms my heart.

[yodasarmpit]

So the consensus being that Murdoch would only be in it for the money???

Well guess what, for it to make money then it would have to appeal to the public (i.e. the fans - us), and that's something the news corp do well.

[Jag_Warrior]

I'd be careful about assuming that an owner making more money from a product translates to a higher quality product. If costs are cut harder/faster than one loses revenue, more profit could be garnered from lower revenue. But like Tony George (IRL), Andy Evans (IMSA) and Kevin Kalkhoven (CCWS), I'm leery of a guy, who I don't think knows much about racing, coming in as owner of the biggest racing series in the world.

Other than Fox Business News and Speed Channel, I can't say that I know all that much about Murdoch's other media assets. But I have read that Speed Channel now turns a profit, whereas Speedvision did not. But IMO, the new Speed Channel is a much lower quality channel than Speedvision was - other than F1, GP2 and an occasional Grand Am race, I no longer watch it. And Fox Business News (compared to the gold standard: Bloomberg News) is a rolling joke... but I bet it makes a tidy profit. Murdoch has something of a reputation here for going for the sizzle & flash over substance. He's not really a "substance kinda guy", or so it seems. Maybe others have a different impression of him though.

Maybe Ruppie would be OK for F1. But he strikes me as the sort of guy who would stick the likes of Danica Patrick in a car just to generate higher ratings and ad revenue. But... ol' Bernie isn't going to live forever. And I guess I'd rather see the Faux News guy running the show rather than Tamara & Petra. :p

[Sleeper]

Murdoch buying out the comercial rights to F1 will be a disaster, he will push it towards pay-per-view TV just to make a bit more money. I already subscribe to Sky but I cant afford the extra cost to get the sports package as well and I really dont want the adverts back.

It should be mentioned, though, that story is being broken by News Corp itself, and that Murdoch is a mate of Bernies. James Allen is already speculating that its another move by Bernie against the teams before the proper negotiations on anew Concord Agreement begin, what the specific end result would be I havnt a clue though.

If this does turn out to be real though, I have one thing to say, Murdoch can **** Off!

[gloomyDAY]

This thread cracks me up! Most of the posters here vilify Bernie Ecclestone, but when Murdoch lurks around the corner, everyone sees the FoXXX News mogul as the boogie man. Fact of the matter is that Bernie is a necessary evil in Formula 1. I hope that F1 doesn't go to pay-per-view because ratings and revenue will drop.

[Sleeper]

Bernie is not a necessary evil, he's about 10 years past his sell-by-date, but I'd rather have him running the sport than Murdoch's goons by a very long way.

[Malbec]

However, Bernie does not own the tv channels. He sells a product to them and they decide whether to buy or not.

In Murdoch's case, if this happens (and it's a big if at the moment) he owns the sport and the one tv company. No other broadcaster will get a look in.

Were Murdoch to own F1 then we and the sport are ****ed.

Would Murdoch be allowed to own F1 and have exclusive rights for TV coverage? I suspect this might infringe some EU competition laws though I don't know for sure.

F1 is really quite a specialised sport. Bernie has had money flowing into it by ensuring that the races are aired as widely as possible whilst getting the greatest possible profit to himself. He's always understood that the sport's value to both sponsors and car makers comes from getting as many people across the world to watch it and thats usually done through a free-to-view channel.

Murdoch on the other hand hasn't got to grips with the concept of the internet yet with his messed up takeover of MySpace and his paywall around the Times and Sunday Times. How is he or his organisation going to deal with the intricacies of F1? Will he be willing to stand on the sidelines like CVC has done or will he not be able to resist the temptation to get involved himself?

Purely from a selfish point of view of course I wouldn't want him to buy F1 because I resent the idea of having to pay to watch a race on TV.

[wedge]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_broadcasters

Quite shocking the amount of subscription channels show F1 across the world.

Completely forgot about Star Sports (Murdoch) holds a monopoly across Asia.

Free-to-air in Finland only shows highlights on normal TV!

[Retro Formula 1]

With whom do you have ethical dilemmas if not Rupert Murdoch, then?
Hmmmm. Why should I have an ethical dilemma over some businessman? Should I jump on this Murdoch bandwagon the same way as people jump on the Bernie Bus?

I'm not saying that Murdoch isn't a brilliant, ruthless businessman that has cracked a few eggs on the way to preparing his Omelettes’. He also seems to be a gifted Politician, capable of playing both sides of the game simultaneously and with aplomb.

It is questionable (ethically so???) how he uses his media empire to foster and harness agreement for his political leaning but as a slightly more rounded individual, capable of rational thought, I am capable of making my own mind up about issues. I also think that to single out one person, no matter how powerful, is hypocritical when you look at the media circus that has perpetuated in the Western world. We are obsessed with Celebrity and Stardom while the "Real World" is almost a side show. However, looking at some of the theatre that is media and the questionable tactics used in the gathering of modern Gossip, you have to conclude that the public doesn't have a leg to stand on if they choose to bite the hand that feeds and satisfies their desires for more extravagant titillation. Still, it was quite smugly satisfying to see Tommy Sheridan getting caught out, even for a Mediaphobe like myself ;)

So, all in all, I don't have an Ethical dilemma as it isn't something that disturbs me. I think the ethical argument is something that is influenced and perpetuated by the masses and as such, I guess I am in a minority. I also see this current bid as a blind. A wrangling and positioning game; posturing and performing which will soon blow over with a watered down solution regarding media rights and direction.

It just doesn't bother me. Sorry.

[MrJan]

Hmmmm. Why should I have an ethical dilemma over some businessman? Should I jump on this Murdoch bandwagon the same way as people jump on the Bernie Bus?

I'm not saying that Murdoch isn't a brilliant, ruthless businessman that has cracked a few eggs on the way to preparing his Omelettes’. He also seems to be a gifted Politician, capable of playing both sides of the game simultaneously and with aplomb.

It's not quite as simple as 'cracked a few eggs' with Murdoch, he's real slime.

[inimitablestoo]

I don't like omelettes anyway :s

[BDunnell]

Well guess what, for it to make money then it would have to appeal to the public (i.e. the fans - us), and that's something the news corp do well.

Does it? Does much of Sky TV's output really 'appeal to the public'? The viewing figures for a lot of its English football are pathetic in the UK.

[BDunnell]

Hmmmm. Why should I have an ethical dilemma over some businessman? Should I jump on this Murdoch bandwagon the same way as people jump on the Bernie Bus?

I'm not saying that Murdoch isn't a brilliant, ruthless businessman that has cracked a few eggs on the way to preparing his Omelettes’. He also seems to be a gifted Politician, capable of playing both sides of the game simultaneously and with aplomb.

It is questionable (ethically so???) how he uses his media empire to foster and harness agreement for his political leaning but as a slightly more rounded individual, capable of rational thought, I am capable of making my own mind up about issues. I also think that to single out one person, no matter how powerful, is hypocritical when you look at the media circus that has perpetuated in the Western world. We are obsessed with Celebrity and Stardom while the "Real World" is almost a side show. However, looking at some of the theatre that is media and the questionable tactics used in the gathering of modern Gossip, you have to conclude that the public doesn't have a leg to stand on if they choose to bite the hand that feeds and satisfies their desires for more extravagant titillation. Still, it was quite smugly satisfying to see Tommy Sheridan getting caught out, even for a Mediaphobe like myself ;)

So, all in all, I don't have an Ethical dilemma as it isn't something that disturbs me. I think the ethical argument is something that is influenced and perpetuated by the masses and as such, I guess I am in a minority. I also see this current bid as a blind. A wrangling and positioning game; posturing and performing which will soon blow over with a watered down solution regarding media rights and direction.

It just doesn't bother me. Sorry.

I suggest you would be very much at home in Italy, where it appears the populace are similarly lacking in scruples about the undue influence of certain media moguls.

[Ari]

If it's BBC with no ads versus a 'forward thinking company' web cameras everywhere but ads. I'll take the Beeb thanks!

[ArrowsFA1]

Rupert Murdoch has a "close to zero" chance of buying Formula One and talk of a takeover is being driven by the media and advisers seeking to make money, the sport's supremo Bernie Ecclestone said.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/04/28/motor-racing-murdoch-idUKLDE73R0ZB20110428

[Rollo]

If it's BBC with no ads versus a 'forward thinking company' web cameras everywhere but ads. I'll take the Beeb thanks!

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2010L03383/Html/Text#param11
Motor Sports
12.1 Each race in the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile Formula 1 World Championship (Grand Prix) held in Australia.
12.2 Each race in the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme Moto GP held in Australia.
12.3 Each race in the V8 Supercar Championship Series, including the Bathurst 1000.

The only race on the F1 Calendar which is on ACMA's anti-siphoning list is the Australian GP. Potentially if Murdoch wanted to buy all the rights to F1 in Australia he could. I can't find any evidence that prevents the FIA from selling the exclusive rights to Pay TV in any country.

Also, come 2012 with the AFL being bought by Foxtel, the Sport package increases to $92.50 a month. If Murdoch wanted to buy all the rights to F1 in Australia it would cost $1110 to see all of the races in the championship.

[Retro Formula 1]

I suggest you would be very much at home in Italy, where it appears the populace are similarly lacking in scruples about the undue influence of certain media moguls.

You're getting rather brave all of a sudden ;)

Rather than hiding behind criticising members grammar and spelling, you come right out and accuse a whole Country of lacking scruples :laugh:

As for me, your juvenile personal insults are refreshingly childish :D

Still, for someone privy to the inner decision making process of the Liberal Party, a bit of basic thinking is expected.

[inimitablestoo]

Rather than hiding behind criticising members grammar and spelling...
There should be an apostrophe after "members" in that sentence. And country doesn't need a capital C either. :)

[SGWilko]

There should be an apostrophe after "members" in that sentence. And country doesn't need a capital C either. :)

That really ort to be a double space after the full stop.

corerct sepllnig is vrey impotent yu no!

[yodasarmpit]

If it's BBC with no ads versus a 'forward thinking company' web cameras everywhere but ads. I'll take the Beeb thanks!

One thing I agree with, no ads please.

[BDunnell]

You're getting rather brave all of a sudden ;)

Rather than hiding behind criticising members grammar and spelling, you come right out and accuse a whole Country of lacking scruples :laugh:

As for me, your juvenile personal insults are refreshingly childish :D

Still, for someone privy to the inner decision making process of the Liberal Party, a bit of basic thinking is expected.

And rather than responding to the points made about your opinions, you choose to go on a badly-written, badly-reasoned rant. Unsurprising.

[scaliwag]

Murdock may well get the rights, but he wont be getting my money.

scaliwag.

[Retro Formula 1]

And rather than responding to the points made about your opinions, you choose to go on a badly-written, badly-reasoned rant. Unsurprising.

:laugh: PML :laugh:

Mr Dunnell. You are becoming a paradox within your own lifetime :D

I wrote:


http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Retro Formula 1 http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=912126#post912126)
Hmmmm. Why should I have an ethical dilemma over some businessman? Should I jump on this Murdoch bandwagon the same way as people jump on the Bernie Bus?

I'm not saying that Murdoch isn't a brilliant, ruthless businessman that has cracked a few eggs on the way to preparing his Omelettes’. He also seems to be a gifted Politician, capable of playing both sides of the game simultaneously and with aplomb.

It is questionable (ethically so???) how he uses his media empire to foster and harness agreement for his political leaning but as a slightly more rounded individual, capable of rational thought, I am capable of making my own mind up about issues. I also think that to single out one person, no matter how powerful, is hypocritical when you look at the media circus that has perpetuated in the Western world. We are obsessed with Celebrity and Stardom while the "Real World" is almost a side show. However, looking at some of the theatre that is media and the questionable tactics used in the gathering of modern Gossip, you have to conclude that the public doesn't have a leg to stand on if they choose to bite the hand that feeds and satisfies their desires for more extravagant titillation. Still, it was quite smugly satisfying to see Tommy Sheridan getting caught out, even for a Mediaphobe like myself

So, all in all, I don't have an Ethical dilemma as it isn't something that disturbs me. I think the ethical argument is something that is influenced and perpetuated by the masses and as such, I guess I am in a minority. I also see this current bid as a blind. A wrangling and positioning game; posturing and performing which will soon blow over with a watered down solution regarding media rights and direction.

It just doesn't bother me. Sorry.

To which you replied:



I suggest you would be very much at home in Italy, where it appears the populace are similarly lacking in scruples about the undue influence of certain media moguls.

Now, correct me where I am wrong but I stated my points on Sky and explained the logic behind them. You, on the other hand, made some childish comment insulting the Italian people. You then have the gall to accuse me of ranting and not responding to points.

You may not agree with other peoples opinions but you make yourself look a bit of a twit with your hypocritical, aloof drivel.

Grow up and stop acting like some immature forum grammar policeman. This is a motor sport website and most of us don't really care if someone doesn't hold a BA in English.

[christophulus]

Media group News Corporation has officially confirmed it plans to look into a joint takeover of Formula 1 with an Italian investment company that has close links to Fiat.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/91096

However:


When asked about the possibility of F1 moving onto a pay-TV platform, Ecclestone said: "If, and I think the chances are close to zero, but if Murdoch was to buy certainly he'd have to broadcast some free to air like it is now."

[Brown, Jon Brow]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/91096

However:

I don't think the rest of the team would be too pleased, at what sounds like, Ferrari running F1.

[ArrowsFA1]

I'm not surprised that Ferrari (via Fiat/Agnelli) are a part of this. It's a culmination of years of battles for control of the sport that can perhaps date back to the formation of the Grand Prix Manufacturers Association in 1997, and beyond, that almost culminated in FOTA's breakaway series getting off the ground.

That's in no way a criticism of Ferrari; I just see their involvement in this as a logical conclusion of them not being able to establish sufficient influence over F1. I suspect that many of the other teams, while grateful to Bernie for their income, feel much the same.

The obvious downside is News Corporation's involvement. Apparently this is being done "in the interests of the participants and the fans". Mmmm...why don't I believe that? :dozey:

[Mark]

It's being done in the interests of profit for News Corporation, why else would they do it?!

[inimitablestoo]

I don't think the rest of the team would be too pleased, at what sounds like, Ferrari running F1.
Tempting to ask what would be so different from what we've got now... ;)

[BDunnell]

You have to wonder how any other manufacturer currently participating in F1, or, if such a thing exists, looking to participate in F1, would feel about another manufacturer wielding such influence over the sport as a whole through ownership rather than merely (alleged) favouritism on the part of the governing body.

[BDunnell]

You, on the other hand, made some childish comment insulting the Italian people.

Far from childish, and founded in indisputable fact.

[call_me_andrew]

It's being done in the interests of profit for News Corporation, why else would they do it?!

Between the profits of News Corporation and the profits of Bernie, I think the only real difference is that this:

E6zNFYg6Y7c&feature=related

will be replaced with this:

mPkfLALLXKY

[Retro Formula 1]

It's being done in the interests of profit for News Corporation, why else would they do it?!

None whatsoever.

News Corp are obviously in it for money and power. Ferrari for the same although it will be dressed up in the guise of "protecting the sport".

So, we may end up in a situation where the ex-head of Ferrari controls the FIA and Ferrari control the Commercial rights. If this happens, I predict the return to winning ways for the prancing horse in the near future.

It would be like Manchester United owning the commercial rights for Football and Alex Fergerson controlling FIFA!!

Somehow, I can't see the monopolies and competitions board sanctioning this before we begin worrying about free to air and the Concord agreement.

[Dave B]

I'd like Ferrari and Murdoch to take control of F1 and move it to Sky.

Then for all the remaining teams to form a breakaway series and keep it on the BBC. :D

[555-04Q2]

I'd like Ferrari and Murdoch to take control of F1 and move it to Sky.

Then for all the remaining teams to form a breakaway series and keep it on the BBC. :D

That would cause a sh!t storm for sure :s hock:

[inimitablestoo]

Never good when F1 heads for Sky. Just ask Mark Webber about Valencia last year...

[aryan]

Potentially if Murdoch wanted to buy all the rights to F1 in Australia he could. I can't find any evidence that prevents the FIA from selling the exclusive rights to Pay TV in any country.



Apparently the Concorde Agreement, which is between the teams and FOM (which holds the commercial rights to F1) stipulates that FOM can only sell the TV rights in certain countries to free-to-air channels. This is because sponsors of the Teams want their logos in front of as many viewers as possible.

F1 is already on pay tv in many countries, but in most big European countries it's still on free-to-air due to this agreement. I doubt Australia would be included in the list though, it's simply not big enough, so if a News Corp. takeover of F1 was to happen, I'd expect F1 to move over to Foxtel, with the exception of Australian GP which ACMA will make sure will stay on free-to-air for the forseeable future.

Do I have a problem with that? Not really, but I doubt that will make me subscribe to Foxtel. More probably, I'll simply not watch F1 anymore.

[gloomyDAY]

Never good when F1 heads for Sky. Just ask Mark Webber about Valencia last year... :laugh:

Man, you guys crack me up!

[inimitablestoo]

By complete coincidence, I was flicking through my 2001 Autocourse this morning and this quote from a certain Signor di Montezemolo leapt out at me:

"We will never accept pay-to-view-only television coverage of F1. It is absolutely against the future interest of both Ferrari and F1 as a whole. It is unbelievable. I will never accept it for Ferrari"

Page 35, if you want to see it in full context.

[Mark]

That's true. It's not really up to Bernie. You would hope that the teams and sponsors wouldn't stand for it.

But Sky has free to air channels too.

[MrJan]

That's true. It's not really up to Bernie. You would hope that the teams and sponsors wouldn't stand for it.

But Sky has free to air channels too.

I thought Bernie had pretty much full control over the TV part of things, all stems back to when he realised that TV would be important while none of the teams recognised the possibilities.

Anyway according to Kevin Eason's (Times F1 writer) tweets this morning Bernie has said that move to pay TV would be 'suicidal' and that NewsCorp "hasn't got anything big" to draw in audiences, although as Eason points out don't know where that leaves the Premier League ;)

[BDunnell]

By complete coincidence, I was flicking through my 2001 Autocourse this morning and this quote from a certain Signor di Montezemolo leapt out at me:

"We will never accept pay-to-view-only television coverage of F1. It is absolutely against the future interest of both Ferrari and F1 as a whole. It is unbelievable. I will never accept it for Ferrari"

Page 35, if you want to see it in full context.

Ha! Excellent.

[BDunnell]

I thought Bernie had pretty much full control over the TV part of things, all stems back to when he realised that TV would be important while none of the teams recognised the possibilities.

Anyway according to Kevin Eason's (Times F1 writer) tweets this morning Bernie has said that move to pay TV would be 'suicidal' and that NewsCorp "hasn't got anything big" to draw in audiences, although as Eason points out don't know where that leaves the Premier League ;)

Often with relatively small TV audiences in the UK, actually.

[Dave B]

Exclusive: Bernie Ecclestone on Vettel domination of F1, NewsCorp and succession- James Allen on F1 – The official website (http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2011/07/exclusive-bernie-ecclestone-on-vettel-domination-of-f1-newscorp-and-succession/)

Some revealing thoughts from Mr E about the future of ownership & coverage of F1.

[Mark]

Let's hope that the discrediting of News Corp means they won't get F1