F1 going to Sky [Archive] - Motorsport Forums

Bezza

29th July 2011, 08:46

I thought this may happen sadly, however to be fair it is probably the lesser of all the evils available. I am so relieved that coverage is NOT going to ITV or Channel 4. The races would be ruined by adverts.

Sky Sports' coverage is fantastic and will be good to watch. They will have also learnt off the BBC how to do things when it comes to F1, and at the end of the day we still get 10 races (half of them) on the BBC anyway, including the big races such as Monaco and Silverstone. Yes, we will have adverts again, however I know that this was a moot point with Ecclesotone and part of the negotiations would have made sure adverts were placed around the racing, unlike ITV - where the racing was placed around the adverts!

I already subscribe to Sky Sports for football so this does not make any difference to me in that respect.

I would have preferred the BBC to remain the sole supplier, but we still get highlights of each race on BBC for anybody who can't afford the subscription to Sky. Cost is an issue for the BBC and it is good that they have managed to compromise to keep the coverage in some capacity.

DexDexter

29th July 2011, 09:03

Well I'm not going to buy Sky TV and the only sport I follow religiously has now been cut down simply for money reasons, sod the viewers it seems.

This place will certainly be more quiet on the races we can't watch, and it'll be interesting to see the teams and sponsors reactions to cutting the viewing figures down considerably. I'm furious, and don't really know what else to say at the moment.

Finnish Mtv3 put F1 on a pay channel a few years ago and they've effectively destroyed F1 in this country. F1 used to be one of the most watched sport events in this country but nowadays hardly anyone takes notice of it which can also be seen in the disappearance of the Finnish posters from here as well. I hope it doesn't happen in the UK. If I were a Brit, I wouldn't pay a dime to a channel that is part-owned by Murdoch.

Dr. Krogshöj

29th July 2011, 09:12

I read BBC is under pressure to cut costs. That's Big Society for you guys, you voted for it.

Mikeall

29th July 2011, 09:12

Boycott all sponsors associated with Formula 1 to put pressure on teams to force F1 back to free to air TV.

GOODSPEED

29th July 2011, 09:14

Gutted

Dave B

29th July 2011, 09:15

I'll avoid the results and torrent the non BBC races. I'm not paying Sky a penny more.

ArrowsFA1

29th July 2011, 09:23

Oh dear :rolleyes: It was always going to happen eventually wasn't it :dozey:

This is a bit like going back to the late 70's early 80's if you don't have Sky. Back then the BBC had a 1/2hr highlights show. That was pretty much it for our F1 coverage, although IIRC ITV's World of Sport showed one or two races randomly.

The BBC will have half of the races on live but surely that's going to affect the number of casual viewers tuning in. They've done a fantastic job with their coverage but this 'half live half highlights' package seems rather half hearted.

And the big question: What about the committment from Bernie and that teams that F1 would always remain on free-to-air? Half hour highlights doesn't really cut it as far as that committment goes.

F1 has a remarkable ability to shoot itself in the foot.

Just got to work, live with @chrisdjmoyles (http://twitter.com/chrisdjmoyles) at 8.40 on Radio 1, wonder what topic will be in the agenda today...?
https://twitter.com/#!/jakehumphreyf1/status/96843212941033472

Bezza

29th July 2011, 09:28

To be fair as it stands I probably only watch half the races live anyway - as Sunday afternoons I often have other things to do especially when it is nice and sunny. I certainly would prefer to go out and wait for highlights than sit down watching races on a laptop rather than just pay for Sky ! How sad and pathetic is that!

Still think this is the best we could hope for. At least ITV hasn't got it !

rsmith16

29th July 2011, 09:29

I wonder how much money they are going to save by cutting down on the amount of English football they show...

Robinho

29th July 2011, 09:35

the death of F1 in the UK, casual fans (who make up a lot of the 6+ million viewers on the BBC) won't go to Sky. Most the of he hardcore fans (me included) won't buy Sky sports just to watch F1, unless I can just but the races at a reasonable rate. people won't understand where the race is when they watched it one week on BBC and the next one isn't there and will just turn off. If you can't follow the season most people will not bother.

With all thats going on in the UK regarding anti Murdoch/News International/Newscorp who in their right minds thought moving F1 coverage to Sky was a good idea. I'm sure the coverage will be top notch, but who will see it? I suppose there is the option of going to the pub to watch it, but they'll be showing football whenever there is a clash.

The BBC figures will suffer, Skys figures will be crap and interest in F1 in the UK (which is fantastically high at the moment, partly due to BBC) will plummet. A dark day for F1.

BBC might spend a lot, but they get the viewers, they do a great job and they sell to other regions. They'll still have to come up with an alternative (expect re-runs of Antiques roadshow or live snooker) and no-one wil see it anyway.

Stupid, stupid idea

Robinho

29th July 2011, 09:38

I would far rather ITV, Channel for or even 5. Hell even something on the freeview package like Dave or something would be preferable. I just want to be able to see the races when they happen and not pay stupid money to a bunch of crooks for the privelige for something that was a protected sport not so long ago.

Bernie true to his word as usual, so much for never letting F1 coverage go to pay TV. Morons. This will hurt them in the long run

tommy2k8

29th July 2011, 09:40

It's just a shame that Sky have got the rights, but I suppose the BBC have got half the races - that's good. I could see it going that way - Sky have got the money.
So much for Bernie saying he will never take F1 to Sky.
I wonder who'll be in the Sky F1 team.

metro6r498

29th July 2011, 09:41

This is going the same way as football, within 2 years Sky will have sole rights and then up package costs to make more profit, losers? Joe Public.

ArrowsFA1

29th July 2011, 09:53

I'll be very interested to hear reactions from the teams and, perhaps more importantly, their sponsors.

BDunnell

29th July 2011, 10:00

The BBC figures will suffer, Skys figures will be crap and interest in F1 in the UK (which is fantastically high at the moment, partly due to BBC) will plummet. A dark day for F1.

I agree. I am not surprised in the slightest that this should have happened in the face of all moral arguments relating to Murdoch's companies — after all, if there is one person on a par with the Murdochs in terms of ethics, it's Bernie. The two/three are exceptionally well matched, and, frankly, welcome to one another.

No doubt the home viewing figures in the UK for the Sky coverage will be pathetic, as they are for the majority of Sky's football matches. I certainly wouldn't be paying anything to them if I lived in the UK.

BDunnell

29th July 2011, 10:02

BBC Sport - F1 - BBC and Sky awarded rights in new Formula 1 deal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/9550930.stm)

Oh, and what a load of PR bo11ocks are to be found in that BBC report, which does not deserve application of the word 'journalism'.

chunder27

29th July 2011, 10:05

I dont think sponsors give a damn. They are not really in it for the UK, their market is worldwide, and they are there for association really, nnot much else.

What does matter is the people who maybe used the BBC feed in their countries, from Asia, Australisia etc? What is happening with them?

I would never give News Corop a penny, so a viewer lost here, but I don't pay a tv licence either as I dont have a tv so can't moan too much about the Beeb.

It's truly awful timing, would probably have been released earlier but has obviosuly been kept back due to the recent scrum. Corp want the biggest events and Bernie has sold to the highest bidder.

Beeb are having to keep the licence fee down (in a deal I reckon pushed thru by Murdoch) so can't get more revenue for things like this.

Proper sellout stuff, and an extra little aside to what is already going on in hackgate!!

ArrowsFA1

29th July 2011, 10:06

Whitmarsh said last month: “Our current contracts require that F1 remain on free-to-air and the teams, through FOTA, are clearly going to safeguard their business interests and the interests of the fans in this regard.”
Let’s see if FOTA do what they said they would and safeguard the interests of fans who want to continue watching F1 as they can this year without paying over £600 to do so.
So much for keeping F1 free-to-air | Comment (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2011/07/29/keeping-f1-freetoair/)

SGWilko

29th July 2011, 10:06

Well, there we are then, back to the bad old days of pre-historic F1 coverage.

I wont be buying SKY just to watch the sport I follow.

A spectacular shot in the foot for F1. :down:

Hawkmoon

29th July 2011, 10:07

I suppose that means Australians are screwed. I can't see Channel 10 getting the Sky broadcast as I think Sky Sports is part of Foxtel (pay TV) down here. I'm pissed! Bernie's a ****wit and if the teams agree with this move they can go **** themselves!

Bruce D

29th July 2011, 10:08

This is all very sad. I know I don't live in the UK and in SA we've had only pay-satellite F1 for the past 5 years or more, so all it really does is effect who does the commentary for us, but it's sad for UK people. Most people here don't get to see the races.

All I can see this doing is boosting the illegal torrents of the races as people will flock to them.

Bruce D

29th July 2011, 10:14

So much for keeping F1 free-to-air | Comment (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2011/07/29/keeping-f1-freetoair/)

Actually it's quite funny reading that from my perspective cos I've been paying about GBP600 a year for my F1 coverage for more than 5 years now, so welcome to my world UK people. :s

Sonic

29th July 2011, 10:17

*slow hand clap*

Bravo Bernie. Your senile ways have finally killed the sport you helped create. The greed of the man knows no bounds; unwilling to take a bit of a cut in broadcast fees during this time of worldwide austerity, he does a complete 180 and takes the sport to pay per view.

Well here's some news for ya Bernard, old chum. I ain't paying. Nor will I be watching the few races you 'permit' me to watch on the beeb. I can't see your sponsors being too pleased. Oh but I'm sure you can steady the ship by taking F1 to those oh so popular new markets.

ArrowsFA1

29th July 2011, 10:21

BBC/Sky/F1 2012+. Found out last night, no idea how it will work yet I'm out of contract, will calmly work through options Not impressed
https://twitter.com/#!/MBrundleF1/status/96854735444901888

SGWilko

29th July 2011, 10:21

Can't believe we haven't had a single poster laughing at this decision as we all seem to be in agreement and theres plenty of potential fish in here lol. :p :eek:

He'll be online later no doubt...... ;)

Sonic

29th July 2011, 10:24

Actually it's quite funny reading that from my perspective cos I've been paying about GBP600 a year for my F1 coverage for more than 5 years now, so welcome to my world UK people. :s

No, not welcome to your world. I don't have 600 to spend on a couple of hours of tv every other week...

So my world will now be F1 free. Think of all the spare time I'm gonna have...I could write a book! :D

SGWilko

29th July 2011, 10:30

No, not welcome to your world. I don't have 600 to spend on a couple of hours of tv every other week...

So my world will now be F1 free. Think of all the spare time I'm gonna have...I could write a book! :D

I paid £50 half way through the ninetysomethingorother season just to be rid of the dreaded ITV adverts, but that was when I had SKY basic package and before the recession took a hold......

Not doing it this time around.

BDunnell

29th July 2011, 10:31

So my world will now be F1 free. Think of all the spare time I'm gonna have...I could write a book! :D

Maybe on the history of TV sports coverage?

Dave B

29th July 2011, 10:47

Formula 1 teams seek clarification on new BBC/Sky television deal - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/93455)

Whitmarsh wants more details from Mr E and wonders whether this could breach Concorde Agreement.

Sonic

29th July 2011, 10:57

Maybe on the history of TV sports coverage?

Genius!

Mark

29th July 2011, 10:58

MAX_THRUST

29th July 2011, 11:00

Black Friday, this is gutting. I aint paying for sky. Bernie you muppet. Next to go British GP.

Ranger

29th July 2011, 11:08

Still think this is the best we could hope for. At least ITV hasn't got it !

This is a stupid statement.

£450 for ~40 hours of TV is better than free ITV coverage with 'dreaded' ad breaks? Really??

vhatever

29th July 2011, 11:12

Bezza

29th July 2011, 11:14

2011 the year we finally got excellent F1 coverage after all the years of crap, and it's going to be taken away again. Dark days for F1 and the death of it in the UK.

Formula 1 1950-2011 Rest in Peace

Dear God, it is not suicide time, Mark, cheer up.

F1 will continue in the same way the Premier League has carried on since it moved to Sky.

I would rather it be on the BBC and nobody else. Simply due to adverts and quality of coverage. Sky's football coverage is virtually faultless, if the same is applied to F1 then this is good. HOWEVER, who they employ as commentator is crucial. If they employ James Allen, I will actively cancel my Sky Sports subscription in protest. Having watched some old races on BBC red button with Allen commentating, I remember now why he was so bad.

There is plenty more news to break on this story yet so I am going to wait and see what happens. However as it stands - I will watch every minute of the 10 races the BBC has, and will decide whether to watch the Sky races live or just wait for the highlights on BBC.

What I am interested to know is whether Sky have got round the Concorde Agreement issue by making the 10 races they have exclusively free-to-air? A new channel - Sky F1 - available on Freeview?

SGWilko

29th July 2011, 11:16

Bezza

29th July 2011, 11:16

This is a stupid statement.

£450 for ~40 hours of TV is better than free ITV coverage with 'dreaded' ad breaks? Really??

If you already have Sky for Entertainment / Documentaries etc which a lot of people have, then it isn't that much of a jump up if you are an F1 fan. It is only circa £200/annum.

And, yes, anything is better than ITV. Their attempts at showing any type of sport are embarrassing - with adverts the focus.

SGWilko

29th July 2011, 11:20

If you already have Sky for Entertainment / Documentaries etc which a lot of people have, then it isn't that much of a jump up if you are an F1 fan. It is only circa £200/annum.

And, yes, anything is better than ITV. Their attempts at showing any type of sport are embarrassing - with adverts the focus.

Well, back in the analogue days, Sky was a viable alternative. With Freeview now, the digital changeover has resulted in a much broader range of FTA channels. I personally dumped Sky once the basic charges started creeping up, and was happy with Freeview.

Mark

29th July 2011, 11:24

You may be able to shell out effectively £20 per race, the rest of us don't have that much money to throw around.

Robinho

29th July 2011, 11:25

Dear God, it is not suicide time, Mark, cheer up.

F1 will continue in the same way the Premier League has carried on since it moved to Sky.

I would rather it be on the BBC and nobody else. Simply due to adverts and quality of coverage. Sky's football coverage is virtually faultless, if the same is applied to F1 then this is good. HOWEVER, who they employ as commentator is crucial. If they employ James Allen, I will actively cancel my Sky Sports subscription in protest. Having watched some old races on BBC red button with Allen commentating, I remember now why he was so bad.

There is plenty more news to break on this story yet so I am going to wait and see what happens. However as it stands - I will watch every minute of the 10 races the BBC has, and will decide whether to watch the Sky races live or just wait for the highlights on BBC.

What I am interested to know is whether Sky have got round the Concorde Agreement issue by making the 10 races they have exclusively free-to-air? A new channel - Sky F1 - available on Freeview?

Have you seen the audiences on SKY sports for football matches, they are shocking. but there are hundreds of matches up and down the country where people can watch live week in week out. We don't have that luxury with F1. This will kill interest in the sport in the UK

BDunnell

29th July 2011, 11:27

And, yes, anything is better than ITV.

Even a broadcaster that's part of a company known to have engaged in repeated amoral, criminal behaviour on an industrial scale? I would far rather have F1 back on ITV, even presented by Jim Rosenthal, than go anywhere near the Murdoch media.

AndySpeed

29th July 2011, 11:27

BDunnell

29th July 2011, 11:28

Have you seen the audiences on SKY sports for football matches, they are shocking. but there are hundreds of matches up and down the country where people can watch live week in week out.

Yes, they can watch them — but they don't.

Robinho

29th July 2011, 11:33

How does this change coverage in the UK? Do you guys have to pay specifically for the sky channel or is it like an expanded cable package that includes more than just sky?

In the US, in order to see 90% of the F! races, you need expanded cable that includes SPEED tv, though occassionally they show tape delayed races on the "free" normal broadcast channels.

Presently you can watch all F1 races and qually sessions for free. No subscription, nothing. If you go digital (freeview) you can buy a box for less than £50 one off fee and then you can probably get it in HD as well. Most new telly's have freeview in built.

I personally have a cable packege (not Sky) which includes most of the Sky channels, but not the premium extra movies and Sports channels. I already pay for the privelige of this and I like the package i'm on, but it is in excess of £500 a year. to get the Sky sports i would either have to upgrade to these channels through my cable provider for something around £20 a month more, or I would have to change to Sky and get a package from them to include sports.

Sky do have a Sky 1 and Sky 2 channels which are available on the basic cable and I think the Freeview and Freesat packages, so "could" put the coverage there, but we all know that is not going to happen.

F1 has always been and has been promised to be free to air in the UK, hence it has a very good following and high interest levels. This will drop. Handfuls of people watch the individual Premier League football matches, and most of them are probably in pubs.

If I could pay "just" to watch the F1 race alone on an on demand channel or online, and it was only a few £'s then it might be acceptable too some (most?) but again, this is highly unlikely.

Koz

29th July 2011, 11:35

Meh, I pay over 100$ a month primarily for F1 as it is (in New Zealand). I assume it is the same in Australia, having to watch F1 on Sky Sports...

Asia should be fine, StarTV rules the airways as it is anyway. and is cheap as chips compared to what we pay, I can't see it affecting anyone.

Bezza

29th July 2011, 11:38

You may be able to shell out effectively £20 per race, the rest of us don't have that much money to throw around.

I understand that. As I watch a lot of football as well as F1, along with occasionally watching golf and other sports. So for me it is not £20 per race - just £20 (actually it is £18) per month for many sports.

Most of you guys are motorsport-only focussed, so I understand the situation is different for you.

I would still watch BBC coverage over Sky though anyway, when the two are both on for the same race, it will be BBC every time.

Bezza

29th July 2011, 11:41

I refuse to pay for Sky Sports. It will only serve to support their coverage of the English Prmier league, for which they already pay horrendous amounts. And since I won't really watch anything else on Sky, I guess this is the end of my following F1 like I have for my whole life.

Such a shame. I'll just focus even more attentions on BTCC now I guess!

You will still 10 races live on BBC with qualifying and practice sessions live as there are now. And the other 10 will have full race highlights. So you don't need to stop following F1, that is a blatant over reaction!

BDunnell

29th July 2011, 11:44

You will still 10 races live on BBC with qualifying and practice sessions live as there are now. And the other 10 will have full race highlights. So you don't need to stop following F1, that is a blatant over reaction!

I think the operative words in the post to which you refer are 'like I have for my whole life', meaning through full coverage of each race on terrestrial TV rather than highlights — unless I have misinterpreted it.

Bezza

29th July 2011, 11:46

I think the operative words in the post to which you refer are 'like I have for my whole life', meaning through full coverage of each race on terrestrial TV rather than highlights — unless I have misinterpreted it.

Yeah, I just thought to stop following F1 completely because of this seemed a bit OTT. It is not as if all the coverage has gone to Sky with NO races or highlights on terrestrial TV.

Retro Formula 1

29th July 2011, 11:48

I wonder if the Long Distance races are going to Sky and will be shown by BBC at 13:00 as normal.

The BBC are doing a good job but ultimately they need to cut costs. They could not continue to provide the service they have been so it's a good idea that Sky have stepped in.

I hope it will be a free to air service but if it has to go to the Sky Sports channels, then so be it. What I fundamentally am against is it becoming an additional subscription service.

AndySpeed

29th July 2011, 11:48

You will still 10 races live on BBC with qualifying and practice sessions live as there are now. And the other 10 will have full race highlights. So you don't need to stop following F1, that is a blatant over reaction!

I'm not sure. When I missed a race earlier this year, I never made any effort to watch it again or any highlights. I watched the Turkish Grand Prix hungover in the background - people were raving about it, I didn't see the amazement.

I might watch one or two races admittedly. But I still think that once you break something up, by having the Sky-only races, it will become very, very easy to not follow it even when it returns to the BBC...

AndySpeed

29th July 2011, 11:49

It would be interesting to know how many people commenting in this thread have already got Sky TV?...

Robinho

29th July 2011, 11:53

You will still 10 races live on BBC with qualifying and practice sessions live as there are now. And the other 10 will have full race highlights. So you don't need to stop following F1, that is a blatant over reaction!

I probably haven't missed 10 live races in 5 years. If I can't watch the races live in full (and most of the quallys) then I don't want to watch wany of it. Its about the season, not just one of races. Its a story that develops over a year, not 90 minutes of fun every other sunday. Its like any series, if you miss a couple you lose interest.

If they could provide a delayed but full version of the race on BBC in the evening on BB3 or something then that would just about do, but for me, and i suspect many others, it would simply not be enough to watch a handful of the races over the year

Bezza

29th July 2011, 12:02

Robinho

29th July 2011, 12:04

Currently according to BSkyB they have 10,294,000 Sky subscribers. I do not know how much of that figure receive the Sky Sports package and how many of those are actually interested in F1 but my guess is on the races where Sky have the sole rights, they will not pull in 6 million viewers like the BBC has consistently done. I think they have shot themselves in the foot here and when we have 3 times as many people tuning in for the highlights on the BBC as have watched the race live, we'll see some very interesting figures.

i'll be surprised if the consistently top 1m viewers for Sky, and BBC live races will probably take a 30% dive too

555-04Q2

29th July 2011, 12:07

Boycott all sponsors associated with Formula 1 to put pressure on teams to force F1 back to free to air TV.

No!!!!! Most pay channels (such as DSTV in South Africa) provide full uniterrupted practice, quali, race, podium and interviews coverage. I don't want to go back to third world public broadcast coverage cause some people are tight ar$ed :down:

I am evil Homer

29th July 2011, 12:17

for me cost isn't the issue giving money to Murdoch is, which is why I will never have Sky in my house. Although the initial annoucement took me back, actually BBC still gets Silverstone, Monaco and a few others. Sky can keep Bahrain, Singapore and others - highlights are the best way to watch those bore fests.

AndyL

29th July 2011, 12:37

Yeah, I just thought to stop following F1 completely because of this seemed a bit OTT. It is not as if all the coverage has gone to Sky with NO races or highlights on terrestrial TV.

From my point of view, highlights are pretty worthless. With strategy being so important in F1, it's not really possible to fully understand what's happening through the field without the simultaneous live timing from F1.com.

If the BBC web site could replay the live timing in sync with the TV highlights it might help, but I doubt they'd do that as it draws attention to what you're missing when they cut bits out. Similar to how there's no match clock shown on Match of the Day.

Mark

29th July 2011, 12:43

I guess you mean how many people already subscribe to Sky Sports?

I have Sky but I can't afford Sky Sports. Of course I will just watch the 10 races on BBC and perhaps highlights for the rest, but it depends what time of day, if they are at 11pm and I have work the next day I probably won't. Which means I'll lose track of F1.

The news is also bad for this forum, as many here are UK based and less interest means less posts here.

I wonder if I should base the pickems only on the BBC races!

Mark

29th July 2011, 12:51

Btw it works out to £24.30 per race to watch the missing 10 on Sky. :crazy:

CarlMetro

29th July 2011, 12:51

I think it's a very poor decision by the BBC. I understand that due to the licence fee freeze being enforced by Cameron and his cronies that the BBC need to make some serious cutbacks/savings but cutting the F1 coverage does not make sense. It costs the BBC £45million a year for the TV rights from Bernie & Co. It costs approximately another £10 million to provide that coverage for the season. I dread to think how much it costs to run BBC4 for a year but I would hazard a guess that it costs a great deal more yet each and every F1 race this year has had more viewers per programme that BBC4 gets in a whole week of programmes.

I very much doubt that their are many programmes on any of the BBC channels that receive the same viewing figures as the F1 coverage does so it makes very little sense to me. If the BBC wanted to make serious savings then perhaps they should not have bothered with transferring their headquarters to Salford in Greater Manchester which has cost an estimated £900 million so far.

The cost factor for me personally is not prohibitive as I already subscribe to Sky Sports however I know for many the cost will be a major factor, as will some people's reluctant view to paying anything to Murdoch & Co. Even as a Sky Sports subscriber I will still watch F1 on the BBC whenever possible. With the exception of Eddie Jordan, I believe the coverage we receive is second to none and a vast improvement on anything saw from ITV.

At least Sky have said they will Not be show adverts during the F1 races Sky Sports says it won't show adverts during grands prix next year - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/93461)

On the up side, at least we STILL get 10 races of full coverage on the BBC and if Sky Sports get Valencia and Barcelona then who cares, rather not bother watching either of them ever again.

Mark

29th July 2011, 12:53

Assuming the BBC coverage isn't deliberately crippled to encourage subscription to Sky. Just like happened in the early 2000's

Bruce D

29th July 2011, 13:08

No!!!!! Most pay channels (such as DSTV in South Africa) provide full uniterrupted practice, quali, race, podium and interviews coverage. I don't want to go back to third world public broadcast coverage cause some people are tight ar$ed :down:

Hehe, yeah but these people haven't experienced our lovely SABC in action to understand your total hatred of the idea of returning to free-to-air.

BDunnell

29th July 2011, 13:12

I dread to think how much it costs to run BBC4 for a year but I would hazard a guess that it costs a great deal more yet each and every F1 race this year has had more viewers per programme that BBC4 gets in a whole week of programmes.

I've said it before, and in spite of the fact it's quite a pompous opinion I'll say it again — I would suggest that, in cultural terms, BBC4 is of greater value than F1 coverage, and I am personally very pleased that the BBC is prepared to retain a channel that doesn't just pander to ratings.

wedge

29th July 2011, 13:19

Yeah, I just thought to stop following F1 completely because of this seemed a bit OTT. It is not as if all the coverage has gone to Sky with NO races or highlights on terrestrial TV.

For the casual fans, maybe.

It's almost like stepping back 30 years. Media coverage is far greater now. For hardcore fans who wants to know the results before watching the delayed coverage on BBC?

CarlMetro

29th July 2011, 13:26

I've said it before, and in spite of the fact it's quite a pompous opinion I'll say it again — I would suggest that, in cultural terms, BBC4 is of greater value than F1 coverage, and I am personally very pleased that the BBC is prepared to retain a channel that doesn't just pander to ratings.

I can honestly say that I have watched one programme on BBC4 since it came on air (a documentary about guitarists) but I wonder just how many people would say they have never watched anything on there compared to those who would claim to be regular viewers?

On a slightly different note, just read the BBC statement on Guardian Online. So relieved that one of the main reasons for reaching their decision was so that the BBCs coverage of Wimbledon could continue.

Bezza

29th July 2011, 13:55

I've said it before, and in spite of the fact it's quite a pompous opinion I'll say it again — I would suggest that, in cultural terms, BBC4 is of greater value than F1 coverage, and I am personally very pleased that the BBC is prepared to retain a channel that doesn't just pander to ratings.

I agree, BBC4 has some very good programmes which are unique and worth watching.

However, I also like BBC3 - which I know certain people on the forum don't like, and that is quite pompous in my view (not necessarily you, Ben! I can't remember who it was now!) - for me BBC3 gives me a lot of good programmes. Clearly they aren't intelluctual ones - but I like them and so do many of my friends.

A crumb of comfort from Sky saying they won't show adverts. Fair play to them on that one. Realistically it is the only way they can compete with the BBC.

Bezza

29th July 2011, 14:00

For the casual fans, maybe.

It's almost like stepping back 30 years. Media coverage is far greater now. For hardcore fans who wants to know the results before watching the delayed coverage on BBC?

I am just being realistic. I miss half the races at the moment due to "under the thumb" things to do on a Sunday afternoon, so only watch the races recorded (ironically) through Sky+ !

I think when everyone has calmed down it won't be as dreadful as it is being made out to be. And I think is less of a step backward than in 1997 when it went to ITV.

motetarip

29th July 2011, 14:08

Oh no! I'm going to have to go to the pub some sundays to watch the F1! Damn shame!! :D

nigelred5

29th July 2011, 14:11

How quickly you all were spoiled. ;) Public TV is far different in the UK than here. We would never have had racing of any sort on public television. Sorry. Terrestrial (broadcast) TV is all but a worthless attempt at frustration due to poor signal in my area. I essentially have to have cable or Satellite TV or I can get about two channels, so I already pay for television which includes Speed in my basic package. In the US we get our F1 Coverage from Murdock whether you like it or not. We get 4(?) races broadcast through the Fox Network but the majority of the race coverage and all practice and quallys is on Speed TV, or you don't watch F1 at all. Both have commercials..... Actually the Speed TV coverage package is far superior to the Fox telecasts which are limited to two hours and mostly tape delayed. Fox and Speed simply broadcast the F1 world feed, but with a very good boradcast team announcing from a studio.

Yet again, Bernie is following the lead of Indycars. Splitting broadcasters, half broadcast, half cable/satellite, all poor. There will be no cross promotion, confucion over who is covering what, and no consistency. At least NASCAR which dies a similar split is smart enough to split the races mid season so you only have to really change networks for the second half of hte season, not inconsistently every other race.

Dave B

29th July 2011, 14:22

Another couple of thoughts regarding Sky's costs.

On top of all the other prices discussed you have to pay Sky an extra £10 per month if you want HD, which the BBC already gives if you have the correct equipment.

Then there's the onboards etc. When F1 Digital+ was running you had to choose which feed you wanted, you couldn't do what I do now and have several screens at once without paying a multiroom subscription: yet another £10 per month.

Don't forget that Sky also have a 12 month minimum subscription which rules out only paying during the F1 season (though admittedly the calendar is fast approaching a full year anyway!)

So for me, with the basic Sky package, I'd have to pay nearly £40 per month extra to replicate my viewing exerience. I don't watch much other sport so simply couldn't begin to justify the price.

Robinho

29th July 2011, 14:22

its not like we don't pay for "Public" TV though. We all pay £145 for a TV licence every year, the funds from which go to fund the BBC. The F1 is regularly the highest watched programme on sundays yet they give up the coverage cos it costs too much. So now if you want to watch the sport you have to pay for your TV licence, a cable or satellite pacakge and a premium on top for the sports channels for what was until a few years ago, a protected sport.

I don't care if they are keeping 10 races, thats irrelevant. They woulnd't show half a series of Doctor Who, or let Sky screen 2 episodes of Eastenders every week.

Apparently Sky have already had to come out on the defensive to say there won't be any adverts during the races. Their funders will be thrilled by that, at least in the football they can cram 3 ad breaks into the halftime after a whole 45mins of action. How will they react to 1 and half hrs. Can you imagine what the canadian GP would have been like? wall to wall ads and then "sorry, we've got a Football match to show".

Dave B

29th July 2011, 14:30

its not like we don't pay for "Public" TV though. We all pay £145 for a TV licence every year, the funds from which go to fund the BBC.
Most of the funds. It also pays for the terrestrial broadcast infrastructure and - for the moment - towards the costs of digital switchover. Plus the government recently forced the BBC to fund the World Service, which was previously paid for by general taxation.

The F1 is regularly the highest watched programme on sundays yet they give up the coverage cos it costs too much.
Indeed the German GP last week got the highest viewing figures since 1996.

So now if you want to watch the sport you have to pay for your TV licence, a cable or satellite pacakge and a premium on top for the sports channels for what was until a few years ago, a protected sport.
Only protected by the Concorde Agreement, not by Parliament in the same way as say the World Cup.

Apparently Sky have already had to come out on the defensive to say there won't be any adverts during the races.
Damned right, for that sort of money!

Their funders will be thrilled by that, at least in the football they can cram 3 ad breaks into the halftime after a whole 45mins of action. How will they react to 1 and half hrs. Can you imagine what the canadian GP would have been like? wall to wall ads and then "sorry, we've got a Football match to show".
In fairness to Sky, they do treat their sports well with plenty of buildup and analysis. They'll produce a better experience than ITV ever did. The problem is that I don't know what on earth they'll do to improve on the BBC's coverage. Practice in HD is about the only possible gain, but at considerable expense for us as viewers.

Bezza

29th July 2011, 14:35

Dave B

29th July 2011, 14:35

I think when everyone has calmed down it won't be as dreadful as it is being made out to be. And I think is less of a step backward than in 1997 when it went to ITV.
It's far far worse.

ITV1 is available to over 99% of the population at no cost (usual caveats about TV licence and the loaded cost of advertising apply) even if you've got nothing more than an old analogue telly and a bit of wet string for an antenna.

Sky Sports isn't universally available - plenty of areas aren't allowed dishes and can't receive cable - and requires additional equipment and subscriptions. F1 is routinely netting 4 - 6 million viewers on the BBC, even big-name Premiership matches struggle to get a third of that on Sky. Look at Test Cricket: the interest in the sport has gone through the floor since Sky bought the rights.

Reports of the death of Formula One may be greatly exaggerated, but this is a very poor day for the sport and the viewers.

Dave B

29th July 2011, 14:41

Your several screens you do is very niche mate, you will just have to make do with one TV like the rest of us !

Maybe so, but in this day and age I still regard HD as a minimum requirement. I've just been on Sky's website and it would cost me £30.50 extra per month to watch F1 in HD. On top of the £20 or so I already pay them. On top of the ~£12p/m I already pay for a licence fee.

Also, regarding subscription, Sky Sports subscription can be cancelled at any time. Therefore you can begin in March and cancel it in November at the end of the season, as I currently do with the football season (August - May).
The small print on the website would appear to disagree but I bow to your real-world experience. Besides it's a moot point with the span of the F1 calendar these days!

Dave B

29th July 2011, 14:49

Just a small point, the timing of which sticks in the craw somewhat:

BSkyB has reported pre-tax profits of £1bn in the year to the end of June, as the company announced a £750m share buy-back to appease investors unhappy after the failure of News Corporation's bid to takeover the satellite broadcaster.

BSkyB, which also announced on Friday that it has partnered with the BBC for the live rights for Formula One from 2012 to 2018, said that News Corp will participate in the share buy-back programme but that its 39.1% stake in Sky will remain unaffected.

BSkyB reports £1bn pre-tax profits | Media | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/29/bskyb-reports-1bn-pre-tax-profits)

Fair play for a private company to make a profit, that's the essence of the free market, but it wrankles me that I'd be contributing even more to them if I chose to watch their F1 coverage next year.

I was on holiday for the Canadian GP and didn't record it (I did stay up and watch it though, amazing race!) When I came back it took me three hours to torrent the whole thing in 1080HD. Unlawful perhaps but I didn't lose any sleep over it as I'd only have recorded it off the telly anyway. Now, faced with giving Sky £360 per year for no real gain, what do you suppose I - and many other people - will do next year?

Andrewmcm

29th July 2011, 14:53

Internet streams for the online-savvy I suppose. I use them to watch some of the American racing that is unavailable in the UK and the quality can be very high, if a little temperamental. The casual fan, of course, will not seek out such things and lose out on half the races.

I'm ambivalent to the Sky move. I'm fortunate enough to have Sky Sports (cricket, darts, Indycar, football, etc.) but I appreciate that others are not in the position to be able to obtain Sky.

BDunnell

29th July 2011, 14:59

I'm ambivalent to the Sky move. I'm fortunate enough to have Sky Sports (cricket, darts, Indycar, football, etc.) but I appreciate that others are not in the position to be able to obtain Sky.

Or, increasingly, can but refuse ever to do so.

wedge

29th July 2011, 15:11

Now, faced with giving Sky £360 per year for no real gain, what do you suppose I - and many other people - will do next year?

Interweb stream, live timing and 5Live; or find an F1 friendly pub.

Maybe so, but in this day and age I still regard HD as a minimum requirement.

Why's that since we're living in the the age of YT and streaming?

Sorry, just had to ask.

ArrowsFA1

29th July 2011, 15:16

I think it's a very poor decision by the BBC.
I don't think it was a matter of choice for the BBC. In the current climate F1 is seen as an expensive luxury for them. Whether they can afford it or not, and one has to assume they can, the circumstances dictate the BBC's wings be seen to be clipped and just look who is waiting to pick up the slack.

If you want to watch F1 races live then Sky Sports it is. I have Sky because it's the only place I get to watch a lot of the live motorsport I enjoy besides F1 so "I'm alright Jack" now, but I still think the deal stinks for those to don't, can't or simply won't pay for Sky.

Dave B

29th July 2011, 15:19

Interweb stream, live timing and 5Live; or find an F1 friendly pub.
Pub? Now you're talking. £360 would buy a fair few Sunday lunches :facelick:

Why's that since we're living in the the age of YT and streaming?

Sorry, just had to ask.
I've got a 50" full HD screen, I wouldn't be happy with a crappy internet stream. ITV4 stream the BTCC qualifying and the quality is awful, and that's from a professional broadcaster. Streams like our good friend Justin are all very well as a means to an end, but not really a great alternative to watching the proper broadcast.

The missus and I have just been having a chat about knocking our existing Sky sub on the head and buying a Humax Freesat PVR. In 10 months it would have paid for itself, and on principal I'll feel better not giving Sky any of our hard-earned cash.

Bezza

29th July 2011, 15:33

Just a small point, the timing of which sticks in the craw somewhat:

BSkyB reports £1bn pre-tax profits | Media | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/29/bskyb-reports-1bn-pre-tax-profits)

Fair play for a private company to make a profit, that's the essence of the free market, but it wrankles me that I'd be contributing even more to them if I chose to watch their F1 coverage next year.

I was on holiday for the Canadian GP and didn't record it (I did stay up and watch it though, amazing race!) When I came back it took me three hours to torrent the whole thing in 1080HD. Unlawful perhaps but I didn't lose any sleep over it as I'd only have recorded it off the telly anyway. Now, faced with giving Sky £360 per year for no real gain, what do you suppose I - and many other people - will do next year?

Unlawful indeed, I wouldn't personally do it, but I don't have any issue with you doing that, unless you are anti-Murdoch due to the current criminal investigations. If you refuse to buy Murdoch material on this basis, yet partake in illegal activity yourself, then that is highly hypocritical.

Dave B

29th July 2011, 15:38

Unlawful indeed, I wouldn't personally do it, but I don't have any issue with you doing that, unless you are anti-Murdoch due to the current criminal investigations. If you refuse to buy Murdoch material on this basis, yet partake in illegal activity yourself, then that is highly hypocritical.

I was anti-Murdoch a long time before it became apparent how corrupt his UK publications were, trust me.

Regarding torrents, right now I'm torn because I can quite happily record the races from the BBC coverage onto DVD for my own personal use and nobody bats an eyelid. Torrenting is merely an alternative way of doing this. I'm paying my licence fee, I'm not "stealing" any coverage that I haven't already legally funded, so I don't lose any sleep over it.

Next year, if I were to torrent a Sky broadcast then that would indeed be different. I'd be obtaining something for free rather than paying the broadcaster who had quite correctly paid for the rights. To be honest I think I'd rather just watch the highlights, watch the race in a pub, or miss it altogether.

wedge

29th July 2011, 15:39

Tom34

29th July 2011, 15:48

Dave B

29th July 2011, 15:51

A petition has started to fight against this and is doing well so far. Please visit

Keep F1 coverage on the BBC for ALL races from 2012 - PetitionBuzz (http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/keepf1onthebbc)

On a personal note I think its a disgrace that Sky is stealing F1 away to ruin it!
If anybody can point me in the direction of an internet petition or Facebook campaign anywhere in history that has ever achieved its aim, then I'll sign this one. It's a done deal, Bernie isn't about to hand back millions of BSkyB's pounds because a few hundred people clicked on a website.

ArrowsFA1

29th July 2011, 15:56

If you're on Twitter then let team/drivers know your thoughts on the Sky/BBC deal:

F1 Twitter directory | (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/f1-information/f1-twitter/)

Bezza

29th July 2011, 16:01

Try following NASCAR and Indycar and can't afford Sky. There's isn't really a legal alternative as 10min highlights don't do justice to most races.

No problem if you are not one of the people slating Murdoch (rightly to be fair) and refusing to buy into his products. If you are and then go ahead and get stuff illegally then you are just as bad as him and the rest!

Dave B

29th July 2011, 16:02

If you're on Twitter then let team/drivers know your thoughts on the Sky/BBC deal:

F1 Twitter directory | (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/f1-information/f1-twitter/)

I don't wish to be a Negative Nelly but I'm sure they fall into two camps, the ones who don't care and the ones who already know. The teams are meeting with Bernie today (http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2011/07/ecclestone-to-meet-teams-this-afternoon-over-sky-f1-deal/) to discuss this, as it was apparently as much of a surprise to them as it was to us.

Tom34

29th July 2011, 16:03

4906. thats 200 in the last 20 minutes!
Its that sort of attitude that would have lost us the war!! Keep the faith man!

ArrowsFA1

29th July 2011, 16:04

I don't wish to be a Negative Nelly but I'm sure they fall into two camps, the ones who don't care and the ones who already know.
True :dozey:

Tom34

29th July 2011, 16:09

If anybody can point me in the direction of an internet petition or Facebook campaign anywhere in history that has ever achieved its aim, then I'll sign this one. It's a done deal, Bernie isn't about to hand back millions of BSkyB's pounds because a few hundred people clicked on a website.

4962 since this morning. 200 in the last 15 minutes. whats the point in not even trying thats what i say.

BDunnell

29th July 2011, 16:12

No problem if you are not one of the people slating Murdoch (rightly to be fair) and refusing to buy into his products. If you are and then go ahead and get stuff illegally then you are just as bad as him and the rest!

I'm not sure illegal downloading is to be found at quite the same point on my moral compass as is hacking the voicemail of a dead girl.

Dave B

29th July 2011, 16:13

4962 since this morning. 200 in the last 15 minutes. whats the point in not even trying thats what i say.

I admire your spirit, but I repeat the point that I'd like to see evidence of any internet petition ever having achieved its aim. Bernie will be well aware that a significant chunk of the public are against that, but he cares far more about his bank balance than he does about you or I. Sorry, but that's the reality.

wedge

29th July 2011, 16:14

No problem if you are not one of the people slating Murdoch (rightly to be fair) and refusing to buy into his products. If you are and then go ahead and get stuff illegally then you are just as bad as him and the rest!

Well I refuse to purchase The Times & The Sun, avoid Sky News but, like Apple, I'm not too keen on certain organisations' ambitions trying to take over the world.

Tom34

29th July 2011, 16:14

Also. In this country it is vital for our economy that we hold on to our high end manufacturing. Teams are based here. We have university degrees for engineering of this kind. millions of people tune in and are interested. (Thousands visit Silverstone. I know I go there) I fear that this might be the beginning of loosing all of this overseas. We need to see the wider implications that this could possibly have.

Dave B

29th July 2011, 16:18

I'm not sure illegal downloading is to be found at quite the same point on my moral compass as is hacking the voicemail of a dead girl.

In the various meetings that Cameron and the Murdochs had both before and after the election, I'd be amazed if the subject of weakening the BBC didn't come up. Remember the PM describing (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8097410/Cameron-sparks-row-over-delicious-BBC-cuts.html) the prospect of BBC cuts as "delicious", and the allegation (http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcasting/news/a331547/david-cameron-james-murdoch-did-deal-over-bbc-licence-fee.html) that Cameron and James Murdoch did a deal in 2008 on top-slicing the licence fee. The relationship between the government and the Murdochs stinks to high heaven, and with due respect to any Italians reading this, even Silvio Berlusconi would be ashamed to be part of this.

Tom34

29th July 2011, 16:20

I believe it is vital for our UK economy that we hold on to our high end manufacturing. Teams are based here. We have university degrees for engineering of this kind. millions of people tune in to the BBC and are interested. (Thousands visit Silverstone. I know I go there) I fear that this might be the beginning of loosing all of this overseas. We need to see the wider implications that this could possibly have. It makes me sad that your so willing give in. You might not have the conviction to support this petition but so far many people have. In the last 35 minutes close to 400 people have signed it.

Tom34

29th July 2011, 16:21

I'm not sure illegal downloading is to be found at quite the same point on my moral compass as is hacking the voicemail of a dead girl.

I believe it is vital for our UK economy that we hold on to our high end manufacturing. Teams are based here. We have university degrees for engineering of this kind. millions of people tune in to the BBC and are interested. (Thousands visit Silverstone. I know I go there) I fear that this might be the beginning of loosing all of this overseas. We need to see the wider implications that this could possibly have. It makes me sad that your so willing give in. You might not have the conviction to support this petition but so far many people have. In the last 35 minutes close to 400 people have signed it.

Tom34

29th July 2011, 16:23

I admire your spirit, but I repeat the point that I'd like to see evidence of any internet petition ever having achieved its aim. Bernie will be well aware that a significant chunk of the public are against that, but he cares far more about his bank balance than he does about you or I. Sorry, but that's the reality.

I believe it is vital for our UK economy that we hold on to our high end manufacturing. Teams are based here. We have university degrees for engineering of this kind. millions of people tune in to the BBC and are interested. (Thousands visit Silverstone. I know I go there) I fear that this might be the beginning of loosing all of this overseas. We need to see the wider implications that this could possibly have. It makes me sad that your so willing give in. You might not have the conviction to support this petition but so far many people have. In the last 35 minutes close to 400 people have signed it.

BDunnell

29th July 2011, 16:27

In the various meetings that Cameron and the Murdochs had both before and after the election, I'd be amazed if the subject of weakening the BBC didn't come up.

The idea that they discussed everything other than the most important reason they could have had for meeting stretches credulity to breaking point.

555-04Q2

29th July 2011, 16:28

Hehe, yeah but these people haven't experienced our lovely SABC in action to understand your total hatred of the idea of returning to free-to-air.

:laugh: :up:

Bezza

29th July 2011, 17:05

I'm not sure illegal downloading is to be found at quite the same point on my moral compass as is hacking the voicemail of a dead girl.

It is not at the same level, but are they both wrong? Yes. They are both illegal, therefore it is double standards if you condone any illegal act whilst being very outspoken on the morals of another.

Mark

29th July 2011, 17:22

The rights and wrongs of downloading are a subject for another thread.

Dave B

29th July 2011, 17:32

Autosport have an article on what the move to Sky means for F1:
AUTOSPORT PLUS - What the Sky deal really means for F1 (http://plus.autosport.com/premium/feature/3714/what-the-sky-deal-really-means-for-f1/)

It's behind their paywall. Oh the irony...

slinkster

29th July 2011, 17:43

I was a bit gutted about this- one less thing I didn't mind paying my licence fee for gone!

It'll be the first time I'm actually not ABLE to watch F1 on tv which is going to be wierd. Guess I'll have to start spending more time at my parents house on race weekends! :D

Mark

29th July 2011, 17:49

The BBC have said there will be extended highlights "a few hours" after the end of the race.

Dave B

29th July 2011, 17:50

From Jake:

Here is a blog from Ben Gallop the BBC's Head of F1, on the TV rights announcement... #bbcf1 BBC - Sport Editors: New F1 deal explained (http://t.co/dmColpa)

BDunnell

29th July 2011, 18:07

It is not at the same level, but are they both wrong? Yes. They are both illegal, therefore it is double standards if you condone any illegal act whilst being very outspoken on the morals of another.

So you believe it would be wrong for me to suggest in the same statement that I both believe smoking cannabis to be OK and assault not?

And was what I said really 'very outspoken' about phone hacking? I think not.

AndyL

29th July 2011, 18:13

From Jake:

Here is a blog from Ben Gallop the BBC's Head of F1, on the TV rights announcement... #bbcf1 BBC - Sport Editors: New F1 deal explained (http://t.co/dmColpa)

Looks like most of the money they're saving from F1 will have to go on extra staff to moderate the deluge of comments on BBC blogs.

tfp

29th July 2011, 18:26

Very dissapointed to hear about this, the BBC is obviously going downhill. but if they cant afford it....

Stuartf12007

29th July 2011, 18:36

Watch Brundle and Coulthard jump ship to Sky.

BBC will only be showing live races on the bbc website so i guess they will now use the 5 live commentators.

christophulus

29th July 2011, 18:41

Thoroughly disappointed in this, what is the point of watching half a season? And note the BBC has only confirmed the British, Monaco and "final" GP - I wouldn't be surprised to find out the contract includes such thrillers as Barcelona, Valencia, Singapore...

I cannot afford £600 a year to watch ten races on Sky, that's the best part of two months rent for me, or half the year's council tax, or half the car insurance. I imagine more people are on even tighter budgets than that.

The thing that bothers me most of all is the constant promises about F1 staying on free to air - that promise was comprehensively broken today with this announcement. And what is the BBC going to replace it with? What are they going to find that will draw in six million viewers on a Sunday lunchtime? We pay a licence fee and the BBC should provide what viewers want, and the figures say the public wants F1!

Really bad day for F1 viewers, and could be the start of a very slippery slope for F1 as a whole. Get rid of Ecclestone, now, before the sport is totally torn apart. :down:

BDunnell

29th July 2011, 18:48

Very dissapointed to hear about this, the BBC is obviously going downhill. but if they cant afford it....

My solution is simple. No BBC TV between 0900 and 1300, except in the case of major events. Then off again until the 1800 news. Funding problems solved.

Nikki Katz

29th July 2011, 19:01

Am too angry to type right now. Just as F1 had found its feet again, Bernie's done a deal that will guarantee a huge drop in viewers and therefore overall interest in one of the sport's most important markets. Congratulations. So, which big-name sponsor/manufacturer will walk first?

ArrowsFA1

29th July 2011, 19:23

Well, well, well...after speaking to Bernie Martin Whitmarsh says early indications about the detail of the deal are encouraging for teams.

"Bernie assured me, and I asked him several times, the deferred coverage will not be highlights, it will be a full race."
Whitmarsh sees positives in Sky deal as more details emerge - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/93494)

Meanwhile:
Guess who said this back in May?..."Sky is doing an incredible job but if you look at their audience they are nowhere. With these figures it would be almost impossible for teams to find sponsors. That would be suicidal."
https://twitter.com/#!/NobleF1/status/96983570597425152

That would be Bernie:
“Murdoch hasn’t got anything really big to drive their TV audiences and Formula One would be good for that. They have been trying to buy the TV rights from us for a long time, but we won’t because they are not free-to-air television broadcasters. They are a subscription service.

“Very recently they wanted to do something in Germany, in the UK and in Italy, where they are, but we couldn’t do it. Sky is doing an incredible job but if you look at their audience they are nowhere. With these figures it would be almost impossible for teams to find sponsors. That would be suicidal.”
http://adamcooperf1.com/2011/05/07/bernie-ecclestone-i-hope-these-people-come-to-their-senses/

steveaki13

29th July 2011, 19:24

Sky should get Jim Rosental to present, James Allen to commentate and Mark "Billy" Blundell to summarise.

djparky

29th July 2011, 19:30

It would be interesting to know how many people commenting in this thread have already got Sky TV?...

I've got SKy TV because pretty well everything I want to watch is on Sky- whether that be sports (tennis, Indy Car, NASCAR) or TV series- ok I could probably download most of it from the web, but I can't be arsed to do that

so in that sense having F1 on Sky doesn't make a huge difference to me. The only way i can have TV is either through Sky or through Virgin as I don't have a TV aerial. That said I would have Sky anyway- I'm not pro-Murdoch by any means, I long ago accepted that if I wanted to follow the sports I enjoy (and Sky do provide excellent coverage of sport) then I'd have to pay for it.

However I don't think it's a good move for F1 in general- casual viewers will lose interest if only half the races are broadcast- as evidenced by some of the reaction here. I know people who are huge F1 fans but don't have and will not get Sky. I really don't see how this is good for F1- other than Bernie making more money.

Equally clearly the Beeb couldn't afford to continue by itself (although perhaps culling some of the less popular shows might have been the way to go) so what's the alternative- turning it back into the Lewis Hamilton show on ITV again- or Ch4 and Ch5 who have no real track record with these kind of things. The only other alternative I would have thought would have been Eurosport (which I think is on Freeview?)- they already show GP3, GP2, Porsche Supercup- they did a good job with it back in the 90's

BDunnell

29th July 2011, 19:35

Maybe it's time to remind ourselves of this wonderful clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19G4B0J7bFY

Mark

29th July 2011, 19:40

Eurosport is mostly crap. And not on the basic Sky package but can be had for an extra £1 per month which isn't too bad!

Interesting about the 'highlights' actually being full races. That being the case and half the races on the BBC where's the advantage for Sky in this. It's a lose lose situation for everyone.

christophulus

29th July 2011, 19:42

Bernard has lost the plot:

Asked what he would say to fans who could not afford a Sky subscription, Ecclestone replied: "That's where the problem is, I know, but from what I understand Sky has enormous coverage, 10 million homes.
"For those who can't watch Sky, they can still watch on a Sunday night, which will probably be better than watching the whole race live half the time," he added.

Bernie Ecclestone says Sky pay-to-view TV deal will grow F1's audience - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/93491)

Everyone who has Sky already has the BBC, so there is no way the viewing figures are going to grow! It's transmitting to the same size audience for half the races, and just ten million viewers for the other half. And that's ten million with Sky, not necessarily Sky Sports. If I can't watch the race live I'm not interested, I don't want to watch the race later (full re-run or otherwise) once I've found out what the result was.

MrMetro

29th July 2011, 19:44

Maybe it's time to remind ourselves of this wonderful clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19G4B0J7bFY

Classic

BDunnell

29th July 2011, 19:50

Interesting about the 'highlights' actually being full races. That being the case and half the races on the BBC where's the advantage for Sky in this. It's a lose lose situation for everyone.

Not exactly. The BBC wins, or at least thinks it does, by being able to make a high-profile saving.

christophulus

29th July 2011, 19:51

Also (shock alert!), Sky Sports presenter Keith Heueueuwen thinks Sky is the logical place for live sport:

Pay-to-view sport: why it's the future - AUTOSPORT PLUS (http://plus.autosport.com/free/feature/3717/paytoview-sport-why-it-the-future/)

That's another thing that worries me. Sky's "analysis" of the Indycar is awful, as is Eurosport's GP2/GP3 coverage in my opinion. The only reason I watch either is because it's motor racing! The BBC F1 coverage is top notch, with knowledgeable, experienced presenters (and Eddie Jordan). I wonder who Sky are going to bring in to cover F1?

BDunnell

29th July 2011, 20:22

There will, in effect, have to be formed a whole new commentary team given the division between two broadcasters.

Brown, Jon Brow

29th July 2011, 20:23

A sad say when the BTCC gets better coverage than F1 :(

BDunnell

29th July 2011, 20:26

Also (shock alert!), Sky Sports presenter Keith Heueueuwen thinks Sky is the logical place for live sport:

Pay-to-view sport: why it's the future - AUTOSPORT PLUS (http://plus.autosport.com/free/feature/3717/paytoview-sport-why-it-the-future/)

'...for now fans can relish the battle of two big broadcasters to bring us the best F1 coverage ever seen. It's enough to stand the hairs up on every fan's neck!'

What a load of (as is to be anticipated) tripe. It is no 'battle', because there is no competition between the two. One broadcaster will be offering one thing, the other (for half the time) something else. Competition is only worthwhile and meaningful if those competing are on a level playing field. This will not be the case with the F1 coverage.

Mark

29th July 2011, 20:26

Can we pretend that the non BBC races don't exist and have a 10 race championship?

BDunnell

29th July 2011, 20:34

Can we pretend that the non BBC races don't exist and have a 10 race championship?

Great idea!

tfp

29th July 2011, 20:41

Can we pretend that the non BBC races don't exist and have a 10 race championship?

:laugh:

Daniel

29th July 2011, 20:41

Good news IMHO. Gives the WRC a chance of actually getting some viewers and gaining traction....

tfp

29th July 2011, 20:44

Bernard has lost the plot:

Bernie Ecclestone says Sky pay-to-view TV deal will grow F1's audience - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/93491)

Everyone who has Sky already has the BBC, so there is no way the viewing figures are going to grow! It's transmitting to the same size audience for half the races, and just ten million viewers for the other half. And that's ten million with Sky, not necessarily Sky Sports. If I can't watch the race live I'm not interested, I don't want to watch the race later (full re-run or otherwise) once I've found out what the result was.
Its the bit where he says "it will probably be more exciting than watching the races live half of the time" That gets me...He puts down his own sport, I just dont understand it. And yeah, I wont watch the races unless theyre live either. Not least because I'll probably have already looked up the result on the internet.

Sonic

29th July 2011, 20:59

Its the bit where he says "it will probably be more exciting than watching the races live half of the time" That gets me...He puts down his own sport, I just dont understand it. And yeah, I wont watch the races unless theyre live either. Not least because I'll probably have already looked up the result on the internet.

I was wondering how the poison dwarf was going to spin it, but even I didn't think he would stoop so low as to diss his own sport. F**k him!

steveaki13

29th July 2011, 21:33

I was wondering how the poison dwarf was going to spin it, but even I didn't think he would stoop so low as to diss his own sport. F**k him!

He doesn't care, why not say it if it makes him more money.

From a personal point of view, I love Football and Cricket and already have sky sports so I will be able to watch F1 still and I am glad there will be no ad breaks.

But despite all this I am pretty outraged that F1 is going to sky.

The viewing will plummit as no casual viewer will ever watch and many of you great and ardent fans won't or cant watch it, so who is F1 going to have watch it on the whole.

About 500 people at times by the sound of it.

Bernie is ruining F1 in many ways and this is just another example of it.

It stinks, I hope we can all still manage to watch the sport we love some how.

AndyRAC

29th July 2011, 22:27

Good news IMHO. Gives the WRC a chance of actually getting some viewers and gaining traction....

Only if NorthOne are clever - and realise there's a gap to be filled........

As for the news, I'm not as mad as I thought I'd be - which shows how much F1 has lost it's hold on me in the last 5-10 years. In fact, F1 can now join the rest of Motorsport as a niche/minority sport....
Regarding the BBC - simply, not fit for purpose: think back to the 80's- mid 90's and the BBC Sport output: every weekend there was sport on the Beeb; Grandstand, Sunday Grandstand, Sport on Friday, Sportsnight, etc In fact, lots of minority/niche sports were covered, which is what the BBC should be covering. Where has it all gone? I thought the BBC was public service provider - which means a wide variety of programmes - and importantly, no chasing ratings. They really are a law unto themselves - £900M on a pointless move to Salford, 200 people the other day covering the 'Olympic 1 year to go' party.
What we can expect now on a Sunday lunchtime is another pointless repeat of Kids cooking pets, or Cash in my underpants.........

Sonic

29th July 2011, 22:27

He doesn't care, why not say it if it makes him more money.

From a personal point of view, I love Football and Cricket and already have sky sports so I will be able to watch F1 still and I am glad there will be no ad breaks.

But despite all this I am pretty outraged that F1 is going to sky.

The viewing will plummit as no casual viewer will ever watch and many of you great and ardent fans won't or cant watch it, so who is F1 going to have watch it on the whole.

About 500 people at times by the sound of it.

Bernie is ruining F1 in many ways and this is just another example of it.

It stinks, I hope we can all still manage to watch the sport we love some how.

I think likening the F1 move with cricket is very apt. Cricket's appeal has suffered badly since terrestrial TV got the boot - and I think F1 will suffer the same.

BDunnell

29th July 2011, 22:29

Good news IMHO. Gives the WRC a chance of actually getting some viewers and gaining traction....

You wouldn't be saying that to be deliberately contrary, would you?

BDunnell

29th July 2011, 22:33

Only if NorthOne are clever - and realise there's a gap to be filled........

As for the news, I'm not as mad as I thought I'd be - which shows how much F1 has lost it's hold on me in the last 5-10 years. In fact, F1 can now join the rest of Motorsport as a niche/minority sport....
Regarding the BBC - simply, not fit for purpose: think back to the 80's- mid 90's and the BBC Sport output: every weekend there was sport on the Beeb; Grandstand, Sunday Grandstand, Sport on Friday, Sportsnight, etc In fact, lots of minority/niche sports were covered, which is what the BBC should be covering. Where has it all gone? I thought the BBC was public service provider - which means a wide variety of programmes - and importantly, no chasing ratings. They really are a law unto themselves - £900M on a pointless move to Salford, 200 people the other day covering the 'Olympic 1 year to go' party.
What we can expect now on a Sunday lunchtime is another pointless repeat of Kids cooking pets, or Cash in my underpants.........

It's not all the BBC's fault, to be fair. The loss of sports rights has been down in part to outside commercial influences, and the move to Salford, while utterly pointless and counter-productive, is being made in an effort to placate certain misguided critics. The absurd amount of coverage, which in no sense was news, given to the 'one year to go' thing is less excusable.

I just wish the BBC could cease constantly having to apologise for itself, but as long as the Daily Mail and other forces of conservatism exist this will never be the case.

Daniel

29th July 2011, 22:37

Only if NorthOne are clever - and realise there's a gap to be filled........

As for the news, I'm not as mad as I thought I'd be - which shows how much F1 has lost it's hold on me in the last 5-10 years. In fact, F1 can now join the rest of Motorsport as a niche/minority sport....
Regarding the BBC - simply, not fit for purpose: think back to the 80's- mid 90's and the BBC Sport output: every weekend there was sport on the Beeb; Grandstand, Sunday Grandstand, Sport on Friday, Sportsnight, etc In fact, lots of minority/niche sports were covered, which is what the BBC should be covering. Where has it all gone? I thought the BBC was public service provider - which means a wide variety of programmes - and importantly, no chasing ratings. They really are a law unto themselves - £900M on a pointless move to Salford, 200 people the other day covering the 'Olympic 1 year to go' party.
What we can expect now on a Sunday lunchtime is another pointless repeat of Kids cooking pets, or Cash in my underpants.........

There is so much asinine **** on the BBC it's not funny. The thing with good content is that it can be sold on, take Grand Designs, I'm pretty sure it's shown in Australia and the Australian version is sold here. Now who in Australia or wherever is going to pay to see the crap the BBC is peddling to morons on Three?

BDunnell

29th July 2011, 22:40

There is so much asinine **** on the BBC it's not funny. The thing with good content is that it can be sold on, take Grand Designs, I'm pretty sure it's shown in Australia and the Australian version is sold here. Now who in Australia or wherever is going to pay to see the crap the BBC is peddling to morons on Three?

There is so much asinine **** on all channels now it's not funny. I'm afraid I certainly wouldn't class 'Grand Designs' as something to especially cherish either, but each to their own.

Daniel

29th July 2011, 22:47

There is so much asinine **** on all channels now it's not funny. I'm afraid I certainly wouldn't class 'Grand Designs' as something to especially cherish either, but each to their own.

Oh it's not exactly the greatest programme in the world, but I can see the value in it and the fact that it's shown overseas shows that there is some universal appeal to it.

I just can't stand most of the stuff on Three and also I can stand such weak programming as The One Show.

Malbec

29th July 2011, 22:54

There will, in effect, have to be formed a whole new commentary team given the division between two broadcasters.

Not necessarily. It simply wouldn't make commercial sense for the two companies to have duplicated production teams and the attached logistics for half the number of races they'd usually cover. The deal could involve Sky simply buying the entire race coverage off the BBC and broadcasting it, which would also make sense if the BBC is going to have a commentating team doing the highlights of every race anyway.

This is of course simply my guess.

As for the decision to move half the races to Sky on a personal basis I'm pretty hacked off. If it turns out the BBC will show all races in full with half live and half delayed I'll stick with terrestial. Otherwise I'll have to look into getting a Sky subscription.

As others have pointed out I can't see Sky winning out of this. They will have to pay money for race footage which will push football out of their timetable which is a far more popular sport and I don't think they will get that many conquest sales out of F1 fans buying Sky subscriptions. They will have had to pay a serious fee to the BBC or Bernie for the licence and will have to pay further for the footage and programme production.

I think F1 and Bernie are about to find out the hard way that F1 is nowhere near as popular as they claim it is, and while there may be many very casual fans who will tune in and out on a Sunday afternoon if its for free, few will pay money to watch it.

I've always wondered how if Bernie is to be believed F1 is nearly as popular as football in the UK. Whether amongst my friends or my work colleagues its difficult to find people who are genuinely interested and knowledgeable about F1 whereas most guys seem to support one football team or other and have strong opinions about them. I had that in mind as I heard the BBC announcement that they are strongly committed to covering major sports events that bring the country together. F1 simply doesn't fit that bill.

Malbec

29th July 2011, 22:56

There is so much asinine **** on all channels now it's not funny. I'm afraid I certainly wouldn't class 'Grand Designs' as something to especially cherish either, but each to their own.

Thats because whereas TV companies like the BBC merely had to fill up one or two channels with programmes they now have to make or pay for several times as many channels with the same budget. Something has to give and usually its quality and expense....

BDunnell

29th July 2011, 23:01

I just can't stand most of the stuff on Three and also I can stand such weak programming as The One Show.

I think there might be a typo there, Daniel...

I very rarely watch any of the commercial channels when I'm back in the UK, sticking mainly to the BBC, and was really dismayed at what I saw when I put my hotel TV on in the morning the other day (my mistake, I know). The cretinous nature of daytime programming really has to be seen to be believed, all of it about making money out of something. But at least part of the licence fee goes towards Radio 4, surely the best broadcaster in the world of any sort, so my anger was soon soothed by that thought.

Robinho

29th July 2011, 23:02

the potential for the non-live races on BBC to be "full" rather than highlights is the only chink of light so far for me. I could live with watching it in the evening as long as it was the whole race

BDunnell

29th July 2011, 23:03

Not necessarily. It simply wouldn't make commercial sense for the two companies to have duplicated production teams and the attached logistics for half the number of races they'd usually cover. The deal could involve Sky simply buying the entire race coverage off the BBC and broadcasting it, which would also make sense if the BBC is going to have a commentating team doing the highlights of every race anyway.

This is of course simply my guess.

I wondered exactly the same myself.

I think F1 and Bernie are about to find out the hard way that F1 is nowhere near as popular as they claim it is, and while there may be many very casual fans who will tune in and out on a Sunday afternoon if its for free, few will pay money to watch it.

I wonder how the actual viewing figures for the Sky coverage in the UK will compare to expectations, or indeed what the BBC gets for its highlights?

BDunnell

29th July 2011, 23:03

DazzlaF1

29th July 2011, 23:08

Malbec

29th July 2011, 23:13

Well Bernie, you've just sold a huge chunk of the UK fanbase in search of a quick buck, absolutely disgraceful

Bernie's reaction i think also smacks of a big middle finger to the fans, the vast majority of F1 fans in the UK (including me) cant afford the extortionate prices charged for the Sky Sports package. The quality of the Beeb's coverage to me is worth the licence fee alone whereas I can only see Sky's coverage going the same way as their pitiful attempt to cover A1GP during its 3 year stint

Bernie can pretty much say goodbye to most of the UK viewers (the largest F1 fanbase in the world) but he probably wont give a damn as long as he keeps raking the money in

While Bernie had a hand in negotiations I wonder if he had much say in what happened?

The BBC were looking to offload F1 quickly and pull out of its contract to cut costs. No other terrestial channel was willing to pay decent money to host F1.

Doing a deal with Sky allows both the BBC and Bernie to save face. The BBC will still produce its quality coverage to supply to other English speaking countries which is good for F1. The BBC benefits by getting to keep the flagship races like Silverstone and Monaco and cutting costs massively. Sky gets to test whether there is a future for buying up the rights to F1 without paying full whack.

It is a compromise born out of desperation and really I suspect Bernie himself didn't have much say in the matter, the alternative could have been that the BBC stopped coverage this year and noone else would step up to show it, or Sky could have taken over full broadcasting rights.

DazzlaF1

29th July 2011, 23:21

While Bernie had a hand in negotiations I wonder if he had much say in what happened?

The BBC were looking to offload F1 quickly and pull out of its contract to cut costs. No other terrestial channel was willing to pay decent money to host F1.

Doing a deal with Sky allows both the BBC and Bernie to save face. The BBC will still produce its quality coverage to supply to other English speaking countries which is good for F1. The BBC benefits by getting to keep the flagship races like Silverstone and Monaco and cutting costs massively. Sky gets to test whether there is a future for buying up the rights to F1 without paying full whack.

It is a compromise born out of desperation and really I suspect Bernie himself didn't have much say in the matter, the alternative could have been that the BBC stopped coverage this year and noone else would step up to show it, or Sky could have taken over full broadcasting rights.

I dont know, I've always had thoughts that Sky have long coveted the F1 rights and wanted it for years but the concorde agreement's FTA telly guarantee stopped them bidding for the rights in the UK. Now im thinking its not Bernie thats been getting desperate but rather Sky simply lost patience. And I could have seen Sky taking Bernie and the FOM to court for anti-competition reasons if the Beeb regained the full rights.

In the end I think the only winner is Bernie whose bank balance will be even bigger, the fans are peeved off, the BBC will lose a large chunk of their viewers and Sky didnt get the exclusivity deal they would have wanted

Malbec

29th July 2011, 23:28

In the end I think the only winner is Bernie whose bank balance will be even bigger, the fans are peeved off, the BBC will lose a large chunk of their viewers and Sky didnt get the exclusivity deal they would have wanted

I'm actually not even convinced that Bernie will get to see any extra money. I think Sky will pay the BBC directly and Bernie benefits only by not being left in the lurch by the BBC washing its hands of F1 mid-contract.

smallboy1976

30th July 2011, 00:06

Bernie needs a check up from the neck up!!!
Who would pay £480 for something they can watch later?? Well not many people especially when the races are fixed and will be fixed even more if ratings drop!!! Well Bernie ratings will drop if people have to pay that kind of money!!!! You may not be making any financial gain but you have the say in what happens!!!! You may think that fans wont pay for it initially but believe me I wouldn't pay a penny more than I pay for my TV license to watch the fixed races that Formula1 have shown over the last few years!!!!!
Bernie ecclestone and your cronnies you really are in one very big dream world and need to spend a couple of weeks living in the world of a real life human being~!!!!

CarlMetro

30th July 2011, 00:11

Triumph

30th July 2011, 00:16

Watch Brundle and Coulthard jump ship to Sky.

I was wondering about this. I presume something like that will happen, which will be a shame. Martin Brundle will be sadly missed here if he disappears to Sky. If so, I hope we don't get James Allen as a replacement.

DazzlaF1

30th July 2011, 00:17

Hey guys, look on the bright side, at least we can see where some of the savings are being spent

London 2012 Olympics: BBC to cover EVERY MILE of 70-day torch relay | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020033/London-2012-Olympics-BBC-cover-EVERY-MILE-70-day-torch-relay.html?ITO=1490)

The BBC plans to cover every single mile of the Olympic torch relay live, securing it a first for next year’s Games.
The Olympic flame’s journey around Britain starts on May 19 and ends at the Olympic Stadium in London on July 27.

Read more: London 2012 Olympics: BBC to cover EVERY MILE of 70-day torch relay | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020033/London-2012-Olympics-BBC-cover-EVERY-MILE-70-day-torch-relay.html#ixzz1TXE6eY00)

A relay of people carrying a torch to mark an event that already a majority of britons (if you believe this weeks news) dont give a damn about, nice way to spend what little money you have BBC http://www.footballbanter247.co.uk/forum//style_emoticons/default/doh.gif

Infact i've been reading through one blog post by a man named Ben Gallop, the Beeb's head of F1 coverage,this response has got over 2100 replies, 99.9% of those replies publically slating him, surely that is a sign of something to the Beeb that they are making a fatal error, as if the record viewer figures were not enough of an indication

BBC - Sport Editors: New F1 deal explained (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/sporteditors/2011/07/f1_coverage_to_be_shared_betwe.html)

BDunnell

30th July 2011, 00:24

A relay of people carrying a torch to mark an event that already a majority of britons (if you believe this weeks news) dont give a damn about, nice way to spend what little money you have BBC http://www.footballbanter247.co.uk/forum//style_emoticons/default/doh.gif

Infact i've been reading through one blog post by a man named Ben Gallop, the Beeb's head of F1 coverage,this response has got over 2100 replies, 99.9% of those replies publically slating him, surely that is a sign of something to the Beeb that they are making a fatal error, as if the record viewer figures were not enough of an indication

BBC - Sport Editors: New F1 deal explained (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/sporteditors/2011/07/f1_coverage_to_be_shared_betwe.html)

I feel sorry for anyone having to take that sort of abuse from people they don't know, to be honest. There is often a lack of civility in such comments.

DazzlaF1

30th July 2011, 00:33

I feel sorry for anyone having to take that sort of abuse from people they don't know, to be honest. There is often a lack of civility in such comments.

I do too, I dont envy anyone that hast t take the flak on behalf of more reponsible people who haven't got the courage to speak out in public. But in a way, you can understand their anger

nerdhan

30th July 2011, 01:01

F1 is now dead for me, I outright refuse to give a penny to Rupert Murdoch and his scheming \ manipulative News Corp empire.

BangTidy

30th July 2011, 06:56

I certainly wont be paying into Sky for any of the F1 stuff, and if that means I dont get to see it then so be it....

BBC is the natural home for F1, and this is the stuff we pay our license fees for, i certainly dont pay mine for eastenders or any of the other rubbish they churn out

Hawkmoon

30th July 2011, 07:15

the potential for the non-live races on BBC to be "full" rather than highlights is the only chink of light so far for me. I could live with watching it in the evening as long as it was the whole race

This is interesting. The initial annoucement was that the BBC was showing half the races and "highlights" of the other half. Now there's talk of the highlights actually be full, but delayed, broadcasts of the races. Was the apparent change a case of Bernie, the BBC and Sky reacting to the public backlash (unlikely, given the time frame) or a deliberate attempt to trick fans? They announce that there will only be highlights and then change it to full-but-delayed races thereby getting people to think "it's not so bad after all" and not focusing on how bad this is for the average F1 fan. Put your tinfoil hats on people!

Sonic

30th July 2011, 09:20

This is interesting. The initial annoucement was that the BBC was showing half the races and "highlights" of the other half. Now there's talk of the highlights actually be full, but delayed, broadcasts of the races. Was the apparent change a case of Bernie, the BBC and Sky reacting to the public backlash (unlikely, given the time frame) or a deliberate attempt to trick fans? They announce that there will only be highlights and then change it to full-but-delayed races thereby getting people to think "it's not so bad after all" and not focusing on how bad this is for the average F1 fan. Put your tinfoil hats on people!

Very good point. Typical Bernie 'negotiations'. Initial announcement sounds like madness, before a follow up announcement which makes things sound less bad. Don't fall for it people. The only thing this man understands is his bank balance. Don't pay for Sky, and, as tough as it will be, don't watch any BBC coverage either. If we speak with our feet the powers that be in the sport will see what a huge mistake pay-per-view is.

Retro Formula 1

30th July 2011, 10:45

This could be good for F1 (shock horror)

BBC can still broadcast delayed races but at a fraction of the cost allowing Ben to watch "Inspirational Planes of the 70's" on BBC3 or something and Sky can invest in F1 and if they do the same as they have for Football, actually improve it as well.

OK, you will not have live feed on the BBC for some races but that is your choice. The BBC to me is a waste of money, apart from Radio 2 on occasions and the odd sporting event but others claim that our lives will end if funding for the BBC stops. This way it is a compromise that caters for everyone.

Mia 01

30th July 2011, 10:56

Since five years I have to pay if i want to follow F1, ofcourse it´s expensive, but i pay. Viasat cover all aspect of the competition.

If you are interested and a fan, pay.

There are óther countries in Europe than Brittian or would some like that all races are runned in England?

Dr. Krogshöj

30th July 2011, 11:08

How much does actually a Sky Sports subscription cost? I tried to look it up on the Sky website but it's confusing as hell.

Daniel

30th July 2011, 11:19

In the various meetings that Cameron and the Murdochs had both before and after the election, I'd be amazed if the subject of weakening the BBC didn't come up. Remember the PM describing (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8097410/Cameron-sparks-row-over-delicious-BBC-cuts.html) the prospect of BBC cuts as "delicious", and the allegation (http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcasting/news/a331547/david-cameron-james-murdoch-did-deal-over-bbc-licence-fee.html) that Cameron and James Murdoch did a deal in 2008 on top-slicing the licence fee. The relationship between the government and the Murdochs stinks to high heaven, and with due respect to any Italians reading this, even Silvio Berlusconi would be ashamed to be part of this.

ZING!!!!!

Dave B

30th July 2011, 11:23

How much does actually a Sky Sports subscription cost? I tried to look it up on the Sky website but it's confusing as hell.

Cheapest option is £39.75 per month, minimum 12 month contract. If you want Sky Sports in HD (BBC1 currently broadcasts F1 in HD at no extra cost) it's £50 per month.

Join Sky TV with the Sky Sports Pack - Sky Sports with Sky - Join now (http://www.sky.com/shop/sports/home/join-sky-sports/)

The digibox is currently free but has a £30 setup fee for new customers.

Daniel

30th July 2011, 11:26

Cheapest option is £39.75 per month, minimum 12 month contract. If you want Sky Sports in HD (BBC1 currently broadcasts F1 in HD at no extra cost) it's £50 per month.

Join Sky TV with the Sky Sports Pack - Sky Sports with Sky - Join now (http://www.sky.com/shop/sports/home/join-sky-sports/)

The digibox is currently free but has a £30 setup fee for new customers.

Yep, I really doubt that we'll be spending to watch F1.

Daniel

30th July 2011, 11:28

Andrewmcm

30th July 2011, 12:08

ArrowsFA1

30th July 2011, 12:20

The BBC plans to cover every single mile of the Olympic torch relay live, securing it a first for next year’s Games.
The Olympic flame’s journey around Britain starts on May 19 and ends at the Olympic Stadium in London on July 27.

Read more: London 2012 Olympics: BBC to cover EVERY MILE of 70-day torch relay | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020033/London-2012-Olympics-BBC-cover-EVERY-MILE-70-day-torch-relay.html#ixzz1TXE6eY00)
:mad: :rolleyes: How may people have any interest in Olympic sports other than once every 4 years? What are the audience figures for athletics coverage generally? And yet a fortune is being spent, not just by the BBC, to cover 2012.

Rather than being a once every four years event, F1 has 20 events every year and has an audience of 1.3 billion people in more than 185 countries (link (http://www.btimes.com.my/Current_News/BTIMES/articles/wknote15/Article/index_html#ixzz1TaArY1Xq)).

Retro Formula 1

30th July 2011, 12:37

So do people on this forum genuinely only watch F1? There would be no casual interest in cricket, darts, golf, football, tennis, Indycar, rugby, NFL, speedway, to name some of the other events that Sky Sports show?

Well, I'm watching the test cricket at the moment. Then we have the golf and Live Super League this evening. At the moment the BBC has F1 but after that, you lot are welcome to Athletics :D

Daniel

30th July 2011, 12:37

christophulus

30th July 2011, 13:01

Unsurprisingly, Bernie hasn't broken the Concorde agreement so the deal won't be changed:

High level sources have revealed that the wording of an Appendix in the Concorde Agreement relating to the broadcasting of the sport states: "The Commercial Rights Holder may not permit Formula 1 events to be shown only by pay television in a country with a significant audience if it would materially adversely affect audience reach in that country."

As well as Ecclestone's deal ensuring that not all the races are shown 'only' on pay television, there would be no way of challenging the move to Sky as potentially 'adversely' affecting the audience ahead of the move happening.
Formula 1 teams accept there is no going back on Sky deal - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/93507)

I'm still surprised by the teams response to this, they get an extra £1m per season from the TV rights (not a lot), and Kolles has said:

"[Bernard] has also done fantastic for the fans because it is not only 10 races on BBC live, you also have the other 10 races on at prime time, at 6pm, on BBC - which is even better because I don't believe that someone likes to wake up at 4am to watch an F1 race."

Mark

30th July 2011, 13:06

6pm eh. That's a new detail. Is that going to be for all races?

Still, shame on the teams, they've sold their fans down the river.

Mark

30th July 2011, 13:10

While we'll still be able to see all the races, there's nothing like seeing it live with the live timing and the forum discussion page.

ArrowsFA1

30th July 2011, 13:13

"I don't believe that someone likes to wake up at 4am to watch an F1 race."
He just doesn't get it :mad:

Mark

30th July 2011, 13:16

The BBC already showed 'as live' coverage later in the day for through the night races, so this is zero advantage. He doesn't have a clue.

Mark

30th July 2011, 13:29

Unsurprisingly no mention on the coverage so far.

Daniel

30th July 2011, 13:30

Unsurprisingly no mention on the coverage so far.

They do look a bit muted though....

Dave B

30th July 2011, 13:43

Unsurprisingly no mention on the coverage so far.

I guess there's not much more they can add, and they'd be bound by contract not to say anything overly negative about their employer or the sport, so probably best to get on doing their job - and doing it well.

AndyL

30th July 2011, 13:57

Eurosport is mostly crap. And not on the basic Sky package but can be had for an extra £1 per month which isn't too bad!

I actually like the "bare-bones" coverage you get on Eurosport for a lot of things. It can mean you see more of the sport and less pointless punditry. Athletics is a good example, if the same event is on Eurosport and BBC at the same time I'll invariably watch it on Eurosport. I'm not interested in what Colin Jackson and Denise Lewis think about a British competitor who came 4th in a race half an hour ago; if there's another race (perhaps not involving any British athletes) or some field events going on I want to see that instead, and that's what you get on Eurosport.
The MotoGP coverage is fine too... just the track pictures and commentators over the top. For the World Superbike coverage they do have a "studio presentation" now and to be honest it's pretty worthless.

The worst thing about Eurosport is their horrible low bitrate.

IceWizard

30th July 2011, 14:00

According to James Allen's Blog, BBC sources have indicated that the delayed coverage will be highlights rather than full race coverage, although the show will be around 75 minutes, so longer than the current highlights show.

New details of co-operation between Sky and BBC emerge- James Allen on F1 (http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2011/07/new-details-of-co-operation-between-sky-and-bbc-emerge/)

Mark

30th July 2011, 14:06

So if it's 75 minutes the race itself will be about 60 minutes.

Looks like they are making this stuff up as they go along.

steveaki13

30th July 2011, 14:08

According to that article the commentary team will be shared. Does that mean Brundle and DC will do both. Or will Sky insist on a new duo/trio

CNR

30th July 2011, 14:08

business as usual for F1 coverage in Australia from one tv

Mark

30th July 2011, 14:10

James Allen - The extent of the collaboration between BBC and Sky on the production of the coverage is also becoming clearer. The commentary will be shared between both programmes, but the presentation teams will be different. The BBC is likely to have limited presentation as they will want to get quickly into the race highlights action at the start of the show and then there will be some analysis afterwards.

Mark

30th July 2011, 14:11

According to that article the commentary team will be shared. Does that mean Brundle and DC will do both. Or will Sky insist on a new duo/trio

Brundle just made a comment about the drivers 'that will be in front of us in the job centre queue next year'!

steveaki13

30th July 2011, 14:11

Martin Brundle just said on air " Who will be the 7 drivers out in this session and in front of us in the job centre que next year"

steveaki13

30th July 2011, 14:12

Brundle just made a comment about the drivers 'that will be in front of us in the job centre queue next year'!

Snap/

I was typing that as you you were

Mark

30th July 2011, 14:15

I wouldnt be surprised if Sky employed the current commentary team to keep continuity.

What remains to be seen is the quality of the BBC coverage, I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't allowed to have such a build up and we can probably say goodbye to the F1 forum.

Mark

30th July 2011, 14:19

According to the Daily Mail Channel 4 offered the same money for the rights but Bernie decided to go with Sky.

IceWizard

30th July 2011, 14:27

Mark

30th July 2011, 14:32

Indeed, the idea of Brundle fighting with the Sky person for interviews seems silly indeed.

steveaki13

30th July 2011, 14:38

Indeed, the idea of Brundle fighting with the Sky person for interviews seems silly indeed.

Bernie will have the Sky grid walker pushed in front of Martin every time. After all the money they paid him.

BDunnell

30th July 2011, 14:39

6pm eh. That's a new detail. Is that going to be for all races?

I believe this scheduling will be an utter disaster. Look at what happened when ITV tried putting The Premiership on at prime time on a Saturday evening. It failed dismally (quite apart from the fact that the programme was appalling). How will the same not be true of the F1 coverage, which I assume will be on BBC2?

Sonic

30th July 2011, 14:46

So do people on this forum genuinely only watch F1? There would be no casual interest in cricket, darts, golf, football, tennis, Indycar, rugby, NFL, speedway, to name some of the other events that Sky Sports show?

Yup. Thats exactly what I am saying. I haven't watch an Indycar race for a decade, and have never watched any of the other sports you mention on that list. So, for me at least, it would be £50p/m purely for Formula one, which isn't on for 5 months of the year anyway.

No amount of backtracking (full replays/prime time) will bring me around to thinking this is 'good' for the fans, and the BS from the team bosses in exchange for the extra million quid they are going to get shows how little they respect the people that make the sport possible.

I've already voted with my feet. I've not watched any red button or qually, and tomorrow I will miss my first live GP in many years. If I am not wanted as a fan...no probs.

BDunnell

30th July 2011, 14:48

BBC can still broadcast delayed races but at a fraction of the cost allowing Ben to watch "Inspirational Planes of the 70's" on BBC3 or something and Sky can invest in F1 and if they do the same as they have for Football, actually improve it as well.

I am always confused as to what this miraculous 'improvement' that Sky has brought about in football actually involves, other than a lot of money going to Premiership clubs.

The BBC to me is a waste of money, apart from Radio 2 on occasions and the odd sporting event but others claim that our lives will end if funding for the BBC stops. This way it is a compromise that caters for everyone.

Given the quality of almost all commercial broadcasting in the UK, goodness knows what it is you're watching or listening to that you consider better.

BDunnell

30th July 2011, 14:50

So do people on this forum genuinely only watch F1? There would be no casual interest in cricket, darts, golf, football, tennis, Indycar, rugby, NFL, speedway, to name some of the other events that Sky Sports show?

I would very much like to watch many events that are only covered by Sky Sports, but I would never pay for a Murdoch service.

steveaki13

30th July 2011, 14:50

Yup. Thats exactly what I am saying. I haven't watch an Indycar race for a decade, and have never watched any of the other sports you mention on that list. So, for me at least, it would be £50p/m purely for Formula one, which isn't on for 5 months of the year anyway.

No amount of backtracking (full replays/prime time) will bring me around to thinking this is 'good' for the fans, and the BS from the team bosses in exchange for the extra million quid they are going to get shows how little they respect the people that make the sport possible.

I've already voted with my feet. I've not watched any red button or qually, and tomorrow I will miss my first live GP in many years. If I am not wanted as a fan...no probs.

This is such a shame that extra money gets a bigger say than the fans that watch, fund and love the sport.

Malbec

30th July 2011, 14:54

:mad: :rolleyes: How may people have any interest in Olympic sports other than once every 4 years? What are the audience figures for athletics coverage generally? And yet a fortune is being spent, not just by the BBC, to cover 2012.

Rather than being a once every four years event, F1 has 20 events every year and has an audience of 1.3 billion people in more than 185 countries (link (http://www.btimes.com.my/Current_News/BTIMES/articles/wknote15/Article/index_html#ixzz1TaArY1Xq)).

Do the Olympics cost 60 million quid a year merely for the broadcast rights with the promise that the next contract will be even more expensive?

Like it or not the Olympics have a broader appeal and I'd argue that the London Olympics will be as much a social happening as a sporting one. The official tv viewing figures suggest f1 is as popular as the Olympics or the world cup. Even the most ardent f1 fanatic can see that simply is not true

BDunnell

30th July 2011, 15:03

Do the Olympics cost 60 million quid a year merely for the broadcast rights with the promise that the next contract will be even more expensive?

There is a wider problem here, I think, relating to F1's image. Unfortunately, it still likes to present itself as being immensely cash-rich and glamourous, and the element of (let's call it what it is) vulgarity about it, combined with the widespread public detestation of Ecclestone, all makes it an easy target for the BBC's cuts even if other, greater savings could be made elsewhere.

Hawkmoon

30th July 2011, 15:11

business as usual for F1 coverage in Australia from one tv

Are you talking about now or next year? I missed the start of qualy.

Robinho

30th July 2011, 15:23

will the world be any better when Ecclestone and Murdoch finall pop their clogs or will some other horrible little gimps take their place and carry on their "good" work?

The Black Knight

30th July 2011, 15:47

What disappoints me most about this is Whitmarsh coming out in support of it.

Bernie Ecclestone confident Sky deal will boost UK audiences | Formula 1 | Formula 1 news, live F1 | ESPN F1 (http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/55667.html)

All of us already knew Bernie was a doube crossing piece of ****. That has been clear for years. I never really thought that Whitmarsh would double cross the fans in favour of it. He always seemed to be a man of more integrity than most others on the pit lane. It's such a shame really. No one should have to invest in Sky Box to watch this sport. It turns my stomach.

I already have Sky so it actually doesn't make much difference to me but this deal still absolutely disgusts me. What should really happen here is that the Sponsors should kick up fuss. If they do that then I'd imagine the teams and like would have no choice but to renege on this agreement.

This rubbish about fans being able to watch the entire race at a later date is a load of cock and bull. As a genuine fan, am I going to wait 7 hours to know what is happening in a race. No. I'm going to check online to see what happened after which watching the race simply won't be the same again. Also, as a huge fan of F1, should I be expected to pay Sky €50 (or whatever it is for Sky Sports subscription) per month to watch three races, at most, per month? If I don't have Sky already and this is why I decide to subscribe that's a hell of a lot I'm paying to simply watch and F1 race, in or around €15 per race. This is a steep price to ask any F1 fan. Imagine if Liverpool fans had to pay €15 to watch every football game. There would be uproar.

It's nonsense to think that the audience will increase as well. Anyone that has Sky has BBC on their Sky Box. This is pure fan exploitation and I'm really disappointed that the teams have allowed this to go through.

metro6r498

30th July 2011, 16:02

I think a lot of people are missing a point that has been proven by "Sky" with other sports, yes it will affect a lot of F1 watchers over the next year, but now "Sky" has got it's foot in it will be only a year or two before they will make the BBC an offer they can't refuse to buy them out, (proved contracts do not mean a thing to SOME people when megga bucks are involved) of course they can outbid everyone as once they achieve total coverage they can recoup the money by upping subscriptions, not for just F1 but for anyone who has Sky sports.

Mia 01

30th July 2011, 16:07

It´s a shame, but in the end you have to pay, I do.

It´s a matter of accepting.

Sonic

30th July 2011, 16:59

It´s a shame, but in the end you have to pay, I do.

It´s a matter of accepting.

No MIA, it's not a case of accepting, it's a case of being priced out of the market. I can not justify the expense of two hours of sport every other week, at a time when my family has to give serious consideration to 'luxuries' such as a car journey or putting the central heating on!

I don't know how much you pay for your F1 enjoyment, but over my years as a fan and competitor I have poured £££'s into this industry, not to mention my tv licence and cable fee's (which incidentally I am having to have disconnected because it's beyond our means nowadays).

If you are in a position to pay...bully for you...but there will be plenty more like me - F1 will be poorer.

BDunnell

30th July 2011, 17:28

It´s a shame, but in the end you have to pay, I do.

It´s a matter of accepting.

Why should I have to accept putting money into a company guilty (as it will surely be proved) of repeated criminal behaviour that was not just illegal, but entirely amoral?

(Obviously, I know that many companies get found guilty of criminal activity at one level or another, but the Murdoch companies' behaviour goes beyond the pale.)

Mia 01

30th July 2011, 17:39

Sorry, I like F1, following it for many years. We pay around 35 euros a month for the pleasure + the ordinary license fee. I don´t like it!

But in the end, what´s life whitout F1?

Mark

30th July 2011, 17:47

Personally I don't care about Murdoch at all. If I could afford the subscription I would subscribe, but I simply can't.

AndyRAC

30th July 2011, 17:47

Playing Devil's Advocate - why should F1 be any different to other Motorsport series, which are on satellite TV??
Personally, I think that all the FiA's World Championships should all be on FTA tv.....but that is another discussion.

BDunnell

30th July 2011, 18:07

Sorry, I like F1, following it for many years. We pay around 35 euros a month for the pleasure + the ordinary license fee. I don´t like it!

But in the end, what´s life whitout F1?

Still worth living, I'd say.

BDunnell

30th July 2011, 18:07

Personally I don't care about Murdoch at all. If I could afford the subscription I would subscribe, but I simply can't.

Do you genuinely not care about any of the revelations?

BDunnell

30th July 2011, 18:08

Playing Devil's Advocate - why should F1 be any different to other Motorsport series, which are on satellite TV??

A reasonable question. I don't have an answer to it, really. But equally the same could be said of any sporting event of any type.

Mark

30th July 2011, 18:10

ArrowsFA1

30th July 2011, 18:15

Like it or not the Olympics have a broader appeal...
Is that reflected in viewing figures?

anthonyvop

30th July 2011, 18:31

Even a broadcaster that's part of a company known to have engaged in repeated amoral, criminal behaviour on an industrial scale? .

But weren't you already watching the races on the BBC? I guess you were being sarcastic.

anthonyvop

30th July 2011, 18:33

According to the Daily Mail Channel 4 offered the same money for the rights but Bernie decided to go with Sky.

The daily mail would be wrong........Bernie Derangement Syndrome is at it again.

BDunnell

30th July 2011, 18:34

But weren't you already watching the races on the BBC? I guess you were being sarcastic.

OK then, let's read your evidence as to the BBC having engaged in similar behaviour.

BDunnell

30th July 2011, 18:35

The daily mail would be wrong........Bernie Derangement Syndrome is at it again.

Sources for this assertion?

anthonyvop

30th July 2011, 18:54

OK then, let's read your evidence as to the BBC having engaged in similar behaviour.

The BBC is a Left Wing, Government Propaganda Machine.....Taking money from the UK Citizens by force and using it to further indoctrinate. Much worse as far as I am concerned.

anthonyvop

30th July 2011, 18:56

Sources for this assertion?

Every viable and believable source on the planet has it that it was a BBC decision. What is your source that states it was a 100% Bernie Eccelstone decision?

Mark

30th July 2011, 18:57

Do you genuinely not care about any of the revelations?

Of course I do. But I don't let it affect whatever products or services which may be best for me.

Mark

30th July 2011, 18:58

The BBC is a Left Wing, Government Propaganda Machine.....Taking money from the UK Citizens by force and using it to further indoctrinate. Much worse as far as I am concerned.

LMAO

Brown, Jon Brow

30th July 2011, 19:01

The BBC is a Left Wing, Government Propaganda Machine.

How does this work then when we have a (mostly) Conservative government?....................................... ..........Anthonyvop Derangement Syndrome is at it again

BDunnell

30th July 2011, 19:09

Every viable and believable source on the planet has it that it was a BBC decision. What is your source that states it was a 100% Bernie Eccelstone decision?

Where did I say that it was? Nowhere.

BDunnell

30th July 2011, 19:10

Of course I do. But I don't let it affect whatever products or services which may be best for me.

Fair enough. Apologies if I appeared to be questioning your view unduly.

BDunnell

30th July 2011, 19:10

The BBC is a Left Wing, Government Propaganda Machine.....Taking money from the UK Citizens by force and using it to further indoctrinate. Much worse as far as I am concerned.

Nice to see the forum's finest satirist at it again. Great stuff!

BDunnell

30th July 2011, 19:11

LMAO

Mark, this is not a matter for levity. You should be reporting the BBC to the police!

Daniel

30th July 2011, 19:22

Do you genuinely not care about any of the revelations?

I have to say I do. Whilst we have a sky subscription it is only a farly basic one + HD, but I would NEVER buy a Sky Sports subscription as it's a ridiculous amount to pay unless you're a football fan and even then I think there's probably good reason not to pay......

Other than the cost of HD, I think Sky is fairly reasonably priced considering all the content you get, especially if you pay the extra pound for the news channels so you can see Fox :D

BDunnell

30th July 2011, 19:32

I have to say I do.

As in do care or don't care?

Daniel

30th July 2011, 19:33

As in do care or don't care?

I do care, hence not paying money for Sky Sports.

BDunnell

30th July 2011, 19:52

I do care, hence not paying money for Sky Sports.

Ah, I see. Good for you.

CarlMetro

31st July 2011, 03:12

CNR

31st July 2011, 06:58

Are you talking about now or next year? I missed the start of qualy.
next year

CNR

31st July 2011, 07:08

Parr wants social media push for F1
Parr wants social media push for F1 - Yahoo! Eurosport (http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/14072011/66/parr-wants-social-media-push-f1.html)

Formula 1 teams and the sport's commercial rights holder Bernie Ecclestone should work together to try and better improve grand prix racing's exposure on the Internet - and especially in social media.

That is the view of Williams chairman Adam Parr, who feels that although Ecclestone has done an amazing job in making the sport successful at events and on television, more could be done to expand its profile online.

"What I feel very strongly is that as a sport what Bernie has created at the events, the quality of the events, the places we go, the standards we operate to, everybody is blown away," explained Parr.

"If they come to F1 and have been to tennis, or squash or golf or anything else, this is a different level and the logistics of what we do is phenomenal.

"The second thing is that on the media side, the historical side of creating the global audience we have, the quality of the TV feed and the race direction, which is a very difficult task, is unbelievable; and it's world-class.

"The thing I do believe is that social media, the Internet and even pay TV, how it has grown up in the last decade, must change the landscape. Not only how you communicate with people and how you distribute content, but also economically what is possible.

MAX_THRUST

31st July 2011, 10:22

I can not see any think possitive about this move.

The only way I will get sky again is if they do a SKY Motorsport channel..to include Indy car Nascar, F1 WTCC DTM and so on. But there won't be. Figures for F1 are going to plumet in the UK now.
My dad would have been 66 this year, watched F1 for years. I know he would never have paid for sky sports. I'd imagine there will be alot of people of that age who used to watch and now wont. I think I will probably pas on it to. It kills me that I can only watch Indy Car on the NET, the highlights which are about 10 minutes long. Whats the point in watching it. I hope sky give up on it when they realise they are only getting the same crap viewing figures as before.

Hope Bernie realises this is not going to work, but what does he care?

chac47

31st July 2011, 10:30

I haven't read through all the posts so I may be repeating info about costs in New Zealand. We lost free to air coverage of F1 a few years ago. In addition to the basic Sky package at $41NZ per month I pay $24NZ for Sky Sports 1, 2, 3, ESPN and Highlights . I mostly watch motorsports so I drop Sky Sports during our summer months. We get F1 practices and quali and Motogp including quali, WSBK, Nascar and Indy, GP2 and GP3.

CarlMetro

31st July 2011, 12:54

The only way I will get sky again is if they do a SKY Motorsport channel..to include Indy car Nascar, F1 WTCC DTM and so on

They don't have a seperate motorsports channel yet, however you do get coverage of NASCAR and Indycar on Sky Sports as well as WTCC, DTM, WSBK, BSBK, GP2,GP3 and various GT races on Eurosport and MotorsTV.

BDunnell

31st July 2011, 12:55

So with me having a Sky Sports subscription you might ask why I still don't like the idea of F1 on Sky? It's simple, we as F1 fans suffered probably the worst levels of coverage in recent times when we got stuffed up with ITV coverage. Poor presenters, a very poor commentator (James Allen) and some of the worst directors and ad breaks in the history of TV. Oh how we rejoiced when the BBC announced that it was taking over again and our faith was richly rewarded with what has been perhaps some of the best sport, let alone F1, coverage we have ever seen. I sincerly doubt that Sky will manage to achieve the same levels the BBC F1 team has. Christ the BBC even won a BAFTA for it.

To be fair, ITV won a number of awards for its coverage as well.

SGWilko

31st July 2011, 12:58

To be fair, ITV won a number of awards for its coverage as well.

Probably voted for by the ad companies.... :p

markabilly

31st July 2011, 13:01

pay tv is, of course, the best channel for F1; keeps the poor people from watching and diluting the purity of the race...err..sport.

I dream that someday, they will have a way to block out all the announcer talking, but leave the volume so you can hear the racing engines.....

Daniel

31st July 2011, 13:02

I care about the phone hacking revelations but it does not stop me paying a full Sky subscription. I never have and never will buy one of NI newspapers, unless there is suddenly a world shortage of toilet paper because that's all they're good for in my honest opinion. Like Mark said, I have a Sky subscription because of the content, not because I'm a fan of Murdoch & Co. If there was another provider that had the same levels then I might consider changing but until then I'll stick with what I've got.

So with me having a Sky Sports subscription you might ask why I still don't like the idea of F1 on Sky? It's simple, we as F1 fans suffered probably the worst levels of coverage in recent times when we got stuffed up with ITV coverage. Poor presenters, a very poor commentator (James Allen) and some of the worst directors and ad breaks in the history of TV. Oh how we rejoiced when the BBC announced that it was taking over again and our faith was richly rewarded with what has been perhaps some of the best sport, let alone F1, coverage we have ever seen. I sincerly doubt that Sky will manage to achieve the same levels the BBC F1 team has. Christ the BBC even won a BAFTA for it.

I hope that Sky proves me wrong, I hope they keep the same presenters and commentary teams and that they make as good a job of it as the BBC have. I know that if I didn't already pay for Sky Sports because of football, cricket, golf etc then I wouldn't be adding it just for F1 coverage but perhaps a few people need to look at the bigger picture here too. When you pay for Sky Sports it's not going to be just for F1 is it? It will give you a darn sight more than that.

Fair enough :) If you feel that you get value out of it then that's great. Sadly/thankfully for me there really isn't much on Sky Sports that I enjoy so to have it just for F1 would be madness.

Sometimes I think the problem with the ITV coverage wasn't simply the presenters, I mean you only need to look at how good Ted Kravitz is on the BBC coverage and how bad he was on the ITV coverage. You get the feeling that the people calling the shots just didn't have an idea. It seemed like the presenters were constantly being pestered to talk about the British drivers and Louise Goodman's ability to ask the most ridiculous questions was amazing, the level of contempt shown to her by the drivers was fantastic :D

Daniel

31st July 2011, 13:04

Parr wants social media push for F1
Parr wants social media push for F1 - Yahoo! Eurosport (http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/14072011/66/parr-wants-social-media-push-f1.html)

Why does every moron have to bring social media into it? Sure twitter and facebook add to things, but they are not a substitute for good quality coverage.

Daniel

31st July 2011, 13:05

To be fair, ITV won a number of awards for its coverage as well.

What awards did they win? Probably something as prestigious as having won the 2005 US GP?

BDunnell

31st July 2011, 13:06

What awards did they win? Probably something as prestigious as having won the 2005 US GP?

I am sure they won a Royal Television Society award of some sort, but can't recall exactly.

BDunnell

31st July 2011, 13:08

Sometimes I think the problem with the ITV coverage wasn't simply the presenters, I mean you only need to look at how good Ted Kravitz is on the BBC coverage and how bad he was on the ITV coverage. You get the feeling that the people calling the shots just didn't have an idea. It seemed like the presenters were constantly being pestered to talk about the British drivers and Louise Goodman's ability to ask the most ridiculous questions was amazing, the level of contempt shown to her by the drivers was fantastic :D

The problem was that ITV's sport coverage has almost always been dreadful — utterly inferior to the BBC, no matter which sports you look at.