BBC / Sky Sports

[Mr Alcatraz]

I wish we had an option in the US to pay a TV license fee and get sports commercial free because as much as I respect Hobbs and Matchet (met him a sincerely pleasant gentleman). Speed TV shows a commercial every 12 minutes during the race.
I could Tivo it but I have to watch F1 live!
BTW when is Massa going to pull his head out of his a$$

[dj-8]

I have written a letter of complaint to the BBC

As a licence payer i am the customer !!!!

Please feel free to do the same.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

[dj-8]

very unhappy

[Muulka]

If you really love F1, you'll make the sacrifices necessary to watch it live. If you're really a serious fan, you'll pay the price. It's your choice,

Yep. English rugby and cricket sold out to Sky and I don't watch them anymore either. As someone who used to play rugby and still plays cricket at a low level that's a bit sad.

I do listen to the test matches (cricket) on TMS but that is because it's TMS as much as the for the cricket.

I'll probably just drift away from F1 - I'll watch the BBC races but lose the feel of the suspense over the season. Then I'll end up missing the odd Beeb race "well, never mind, I'll catch the highlights" and then I'll just sort of give up on it. And as someone who has followed the sport for 20 years,who has been to GP, who has spent time in the garages during race weekends and even had a couple of days in the F1 Paddock Club enclosure, that's a bit sad too...

I'm just not prepared to pay Murdoch. The man and his empire are evil.

I don't see what's evil about Murdoch. And don't say that he caused the phone hacking- there's no evidence that he knew anything about it, and he's said he wasn't told by his people. People who are in such high places cannot afford to be found to be lying. And he's an old man- maybe he just forgot he was told! (a bit of a joke that lol)

And you're only 39% paying Murdoch

Personally, I'm quite looking forward to seeing how good a job Sky will do. Certainly there will be more coverage. Do I think that F1 will die becaue of this? No. Firstly, because F1 is global, and this doesn't affect anyone outside of the UK, and also because of some reason which has completely escaped my memory while I was typing the first point... I'll come back later when i remember

[wesley123]

No. Firstly, because F1 is global, and this doesn't affect anyone outside of the UK, and also because of some reason which has completely escaped my memory while I was typing the first point... I'll come back later when i remember

I am outside the UK and this actually affects me, just like the other 9.999.999 viewers that watch F1 on the BBC, and a lot of those are outside of the UK

[Pup]

If this doesn't affect you I suggest you go do one. ThanksYou're just baiting for an argument. Let us brits do what we do best and have a good moan. You've had your say, made your point, now just leave it.

No baiting, just tough love. I think you guys should just buck up and deal with it. You'll have to get over it eventually, so why not start now?

The BBC deal you guys have had the past few years was a fantasy anyway. There was no way it could last. And it's the very fact that F1 is important to Britain that dooms you to pay. It's just the way the market works - the more popular the sport, the more it will cost. Sport is run by capitalists, and if it weren't Bernie, it would be someone else.

[munudeges]

I am outside the UK and this actually affects me, just like the other 9.999.999 viewers that watch F1 on the BBC, and a lot of those are outside of the UK

Right you are. These people who are talking about F1 being 'global' and so it all doesn't matter just don't understand how the sport works.

[munudeges]

F1 isn't food or shelter. Do you really think that you're owed free F1, just because you're British?

I'm afraid this kind of thing shows that people have no idea how F1 works.

Ever since 'Gold Leaf' went on to Jim Clark's car in 1968 Formula 1's financial rise has been based around advertising, sponsorship and getting viewers. Sponsors pump hundreds of millions into the sport that makes any subscription fee seem like pocket change. That means they need as few barriers to entry as possible to people watching the sport, and they need the quality coverage that gives the sport an image they want to be associated with. Without that, the sport dies like Indycar did.

The UK, where Formula 1 is based incidentally, is the only place in the world where those barriers to entry are lessened with free-to-air coverage, and that coverage is exported around the world albeit with adverts in many places. With Sky that means that everyone is going to have to pay for that coverage. Prices go up for the rest of the world, barriers to entry go up and less people watch......making sponsors question their involvement. It's a vicious circle.

If you pay a subscription to watch Formula 1 I'm afraid you're not actually paying to make Formula 1 sustainable. You're a totally insignificant part of where the money comes from.

[wesley123]

I am outside the UK and this actually affects me, just like the other 9.999.999 viewers that watch F1 on the BBC, and a lot of those are outside of the UK

Right you are. These people who are talking about F1 being 'global' and so it all doesn't matter just don't understand how the sport works.

What is even ironic in this deal with the excuse of 'getting the sport global' is that the BBC is available in way more countries then Sky is. For example, if you have a special subscription or ust the regular cable television you always have BBC 1 and 2 available for you. We here in Holland dont have Sky available.

The only reason that this deal ever was done was because it fills Bernies Pockets even quicker. If there is one viewer or one million, it doenst matter to him, he will ge tthe 55 million of the deal. Apart from that, he knows that people rather visit 2 races than watch 10 races o nthe bbc and the rest on a Sky subscription, so there will be more people at the races, so he earns more to that too. It is an really easy deal for Ecclestone, yesterday he had just made himself 70 million dollars richer every year. He isnt so senile as he might look like sometimes...

[ESPImperium]

First reaction was ok, then i read a bit more into it, and it seems to be a decent deal for me, as i have SkyHD+ however i feel sorry for those that cant afford Sky. It seems that Bernie is wanting to use Sky for new technologies and such. We all know that F1 isn't in true HD this year and is still broadcast in MPEG2 and is in effect simulated HD or uprated SD.

Glad to hear that F1 on Sky and BBC will be broadcast with the same commentary, i just hope we get a decent commentary team, i think that a return of James Allan could be on the cards. Yes he has his Ferrari hat and his 'i fancy Lewis' shirt, but compared to what we had with Jonathan Leggard, he is miles better. Others for this job id recon will be Ben Edwards (Who i cant stand), Martin Haven (Who i rate highly) and David Croft (who i also rate highly). As for a Colour commentator, id recon that id say that DC will keep this, or Anthony Davidson will take this job. Both i rate highly, how ever as long as we don't get Tony Jardine or John Watson ill be happy as they both are dated and i just cannot stand them in a commentary.

As for production teams, id expect the BBC to stay same as pretty much. Maybes Martin Brundle will step away from commentary and go into the BBC team with Jake Humphry. Sky will probably go with Keith Huewen or one more hopefully one of the babes that presents on Sky Sports News that follows Motorsport, maybes Georgie Thompson or similar would suffice for me. However id like to see Sky get the hell out of the studio and get into the paddock, and have decent panellists as well, hopefully no John Watson or Tony Jardine here as well.

The good thing i can think of is that Sky Sports could broadcast Testing in some form, and have a weekly 1 hour F1 magazine show on say the Monday after a GP, and also show more insights with that show as well. Sky will take the production to another level, as we see what they do with Football, Tennis and Cricket. Lets just hope that dont have friggen suits on as F1 isnt the type of sport that has suits presenting it any more.

Id say that the foreign broadcasters that are free to air are gonna see F1 go a similar way in their country. Bernie is changing his business model, he sees the need to make as much as possible for F1 Management LTD, and this is what will finance the 200% increase in prize money from 2010 to 2016 in effect, and this is how the sport will be financially viable in the future for the teams.

Advertisers will moan and groan as they will see their audience decrease, by roughly a third by my estimation, but for the long term future of the sport, i think its FOM Prize money where more revenue will come from from sponsors, as F1 in 2008 saw close to €4.83Bn and now its only €1.48Bn that comes into the sport to this stream has shrunk massively.

F1 is a changing sport, we just have to ride with it. The good thing is that BBC have 10GP and are still keeping a relationship with FOM which means once they have enough money and technology, they can take Exclusive rights again. However sport has to be fragmented now to conform to EU Competition law now, this is just F1 conforming with this now.

Ill give Sky their time, but if they piss me off with the commentary, ill switch to 5LiveF1, if the piss me off with poor panel people, ill tune in 5 mins before a GP and tune out 5 mins after. Ill give them a few GPs, but my patience wont last long.

[Pup]

F1 isn't food or shelter. Do you really think that you're owed free F1, just because you're British?

I'm afraid this kind of thing shows that people have no idea how F1 works.

Ever since 'Gold Leaf' went on to Jim Clark's car in 1968 Formula 1's financial rise has been based around advertising, sponsorship and getting viewers. Sponsors pump hundreds of millions into the sport that makes any subscription fee seem like pocket change. That means they need as few barriers to entry as possible to people watching the sport, and they need the quality coverage that gives the sport an image they want to be associated with. Without that, the sport dies like Indycar did.

The UK, where Formula 1 is based incidentally, is the only place in the world where those barriers to entry are lessened with free-to-air coverage, and that coverage is exported around the world albeit with adverts in many places. With Sky that means that everyone is going to have to pay for that coverage. Prices go up for the rest of the world, barriers to entry go up and less people watch......making sponsors question their involvement. It's a vicious circle.

If you pay a subscription to watch Formula 1 I'm afraid you're not actually paying to make Formula 1 sustainable. You're a totally insignificant part of where the money comes from.

I'm pretty familiar with how F1 works. See, there are these cars, and a bunch of guys get together and drive them around a track as fast as they can without killing anyone too often...

Your formula assumes that A) viewership will fall, B) that the fall will be significant enough to affect advertisers, C) that the Sky viewership won't be more valuable to advertisers even if it is smaller, and D) that even if money is lost by individual team sponsorships that it won't be made up for in added broadcast money.

Show me the evidence you have for those things, and I'll buy the argument that this move is bad for F1 as a whole. Which, to be clear, is a different discussion than whether it's bad for the individual British F1 viewer. The only evidence we have one way or the other right now is that the teams are all behind the move, and that's not a point in your favor, I'm afraid.

I'm not sure why you think that if the UK has to pay more for F1, that the rest of the world will, too.

[doink]

F1 isn't food or shelter. Do you really think that you're owed free F1, just because you're British?

It's not free you numpty, every household that owns a television pays £145 per year in licence fees, which pays for BBC programming.

I'm not sure why you think that if the UK has to pay more for F1, that the rest of the world will, too.

Firstly, whilst I am totally against this move to Sky, you can't really blame them - the beeb were cutting costs, sky jumped in and took it. It's a crap for the sport, because there will be less exposure. Not every household can pay £145 per year, plus another £200+ for sky.

That said and in response to your question, Sky will pump an obscene amount of money and resource into the coverage and will most likely to a great job of it, like they have done with the cricket (I still think that should live on c4, even if for just ashes series). The money they pump into it will mean that it'll cost more for the rights. That's just the way it is.

Either way, like it or lump it, this is the way it's going to be. I *expect* that they'll do a great job with good innovation.

[Pup]

You guys can call me names all you want - doesn't change that fact that you're all acting like a bunch of bratty kids. Just wait and come back to this thread this time next year just to remind yourselves of all the idle chatter about leaving the sport, etc, etc. My bet is that viewership in the UK will be up, you'll all be watching the races, and you'll all be happier with the quality of the broadcast and the added choice of having two channels and two different times of the day to watch.

[Pup]

That said and in response to your question, Sky will pump an obscene amount of money and resource into the coverage and will most likely to a great job of it, like they have done with the cricket (I still think that should live on c4, even if for just ashes series). The money they pump into it will mean that it'll cost more for the rights. That's just the way it is.

The feeds come from FOM, not Sky. What Sky spends has no bearing on the cost of broadcast rates in the US.

[horse]

I tell you it will do the economy no good as I was going to invest in a big HD Freeview TV for next season and now I am not.