BBC / Sky Sports

[Ray]

"I can understand why a British fan who has had free non-advert coverage, amazing content, and brilliant presenters will be saying that anything else is going to be less good"

Where does he get 'free' from? I'm not even from England and I know the BBC isn't 'free.' This really is ridiculous. It doesn't affect me in the slightest but this really pisses me off This is double dipping by Bernie. If anyone ever thought that man wasn't a evil money grubbing troll then this is absolute proof he is.

[Richard]

it's the BBC who cut the costs in the first place.

Actually it's the politicians who decided to feeze BBC funding for 5 years who are at fault. With inflation running at 3-5% then it will get worse for the BBC as they try to balance the books. The media seem to think it fair game to bring the BBC down, but the consequence is that it simply puts more money into Sky. Politicians think this is a good thing for 'competition' but all I see is that the cost of viewing is going from £150 a year to having to purchase subscription tv for £500. A decade from now the BBC will be a hollow shell compared to what we know now.

[Tozza Mazza]

I blame the daily mail.

[Sawtooth-spike]

Here’s what i can’t believe:

Sky can own about 80 and 90% of the top level sport viewed in this country. Allowing a few scraps for BBC ITV Channel 5 Etc. So we have to pay a licence fee and some for of subscription. This has no real upside of the Tax payer as they get triple dipped, Tax, Subscription and having to watch adverts. This is all ok in the government eyes.

However if you try to group services (EG. Why do all counties have individual agreements with IT hardware suppliers) you are not allowed due to monopoly laws. When this would bring massive cost savings if managed properly.

Slight off topic but you get my point.

After wile watching the race yesterday i decided i still support the drivers but just not the teams. I support Team UK

[Pup]

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...

I love people who write stuff that has no relevance to what's been written. It tells me what their argument is......

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.

A) Viewership will fall because subscriber channels have less viewers. Barriers to entry and all that.

B) Yes, it will. Any fall in viewers makes advertisers sensitive, and in the case of F1 sponsors they want coverage. Why on Earth do you think DRS was put in and overtaking has been such an issue? To increase viewing figures.

C) Why would Sky viewership be more valuable when there are less of them? A lot less.

D) Broadcast money runs into tens of millions. Sponsorship money, hundreds of millions. Do the maths.

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.

If you can't see how the above is bad, and how all this happened before with Indycar and other sports, there's not much that can be done.

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.

They're not. They were told and are stuck with it.

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.

Because the UK runs F1 and it's based there. As simple as that. Tens of millions also get free-to-air coverage from the UK so there's more at stake than the UK and any coverage they get from Sky will have to be paid for as Sky try and make money from it.

I know a lot of people would love this to be about a lot of British people stamping their feet, but it isn't, and as I said it shows a lack of knowledge about how the sport works and is paid for.

Every bit of that is supposition and opinion. And unless you're a broadcast marketing executive, your opinion is as worthless as mine. And you're not a broadcast executive. You're the same old argumentative, trolling Segundum who was kicked out of here mere months ago.

Again, show me evidence, and I will believe.

[i70q7m7ghw]

it's the BBC who cut the costs in the first place.

Actually it's the politicians who decided to feeze BBC funding for 5 years who are at fault. With inflation running at 3-5% then it will get worse for the BBC as they try to balance the books. The media seem to think it fair game to bring the BBC down, but the consequence is that it simply puts more money into Sky. Politicians think this is a good thing for 'competition' but all I see is that the cost of viewing is going from £150 a year to having to purchase subscription tv for £500. A decade from now the BBC will be a hollow shell compared to what we know now.

The same government that's wrapped around News Corps little finger

[i70q7m7ghw]

Every bit of that is supposition and opinion. And unless you're a broadcast marketing executive, your opinion is as worthless as mine. And you're not a broadcast executive. You're the same old argumentative, trolling Segundum who was kicked out of here mere months ago.

Again, show me evidence, and I will believe.

With all due respect, go do one.

That's a British expression by the way.

[ringo]

You brits just make sure i can continue to watch F1 on my basic cable package. That's all i ask.

But i predict a big shift to online feeds the change over happens.

[Max Speed]

Gradually there seem to be more and more members of the Motor Sport community, ie team members, commentators, journalists, etc, basically telling us all to think of the "positive" in this deal, how it really is a prudent move, sensible for the long term, no need for such a "hysterical" reaction", etc. It should be remembered, though, that none of these people have the kind of financial income that would be in the least troubled by suddenly having to invest in a sky subscription on top of all their other regular outlays - unlike many of F1's most regularly neglected element...the good loyal, die hard F1 fan, with their budgets already streched by things like mortgages, rising petrol prices, domestic bills, kids, ect. As Martin Brundle has remarked, without the fans, F1 may as well take place behind closed doors on a midweek afternoon - and it would not last long.

[Richard]

show me evidence, and I will believe.

OK, I've not dug out the viewing data, but it is a fact that sports on sky have a fraction of those on free to air. The FA cup games are shared and played one after the other. Sky get first pick and still get something like 1/4 of the viewers. W also se the same between BBC and ITV who are both free to air and share Word Cup coverage. The BBC had 6m viewers to ITV 1.5m for the final.

There will be a big drop in viewer numbers on Sky.

[donskar]

IMO, the general sentiment of this thread is opposed to Sky and Bernie. One key element is missing, though: how do the demographics of this forum compare to the general F1 audience? Any guesses? Mods, do you have any factoids that would help? IMHO our importance compared to the F1 audience as a whole is like a Zippo compared to a forest fire. Simply put: Bernie and his co-conspirators don't give a fornicate WHAT we say. (IMHO, of course).

[Richard]

Actually donskar, bernie and sky aren't bothered about what ten million viewers think, as long as one or two million watch on Sky.

[beelsebob]

Actually donskar, bernie and sky aren't bothered about what ten million viewers think, as long as one or two million watch on Sky.

I doubt one or two million will watch on sky though. That would be expecting an average 30% of F1 viewers (the current viewing figures are about 6 million) to pay £600 a year. I'm not convinced they'll even get 1% of F1 viewers switched over.

[Richard]

The sums for Sky are:

Extra £65m out
Some extra revenue from new subscribers
Extra advertising revenue from larger audiences.

The audience for F1 will be a mix of existing subscribers and new subscribers. Existing subscribers watching F1 will result in a reduction watching football. I guess Sky will get a big boost during the summer when the footie isn't on, but it will be less marked in the other months when the football is in full swing.

Of course, this could be a long term strategic move and maybe they are not worried about short term revenue. They are rumoured to be trying to purchase the CVC shares in FOM, then they'll control both broadcasting and operations.

We'll have viewer voting replacing the stewards

[Sawtooth-spike]

The sums for Sky are:

Extra £65m out
Some extra revenue from new subscribers
Extra advertising revenue from larger audiences.

The audience for F1 will be a mix of existing subscribers and new subscribers. Existing subscribers watching F1 will result in a reduction watching football. I guess Sky will get a big boost during the summer when the footie isn't on, but it will be less marked in the other months when the football is in full swing.

Of course, this could be a long term strategic move and maybe they are not worried about short term revenue. They are rumoured to be trying to purchase the CVC shares in FOM, then they'll control both broadcasting and operations.

We'll have viewer voting replacing the stewards

Is this not what they did with rugby league? Own the sport and the tv rights. Back when they did this they got teams to change their names.

Trust me. If Murdock takes over all of f1 world wide, its going to be the end of the f1 we love.