Only half the F1 races on BBC next year
Discussion
SamAlien said:
toasty said:
I, for one, would be sorely pissed if the mandatory TV licence went up so the minority who want to watch F1 can do for less money.
What if they didn't raise the fee, but reduced their output of crap that does nobody any good anyway. Go back to fewer channels and more selective programming I say.toasty said:
They have to produce value for money. Bernie's F1 circus is damn expensive, celebrity dancing is cheap. Both are surprisingly popular.
Well actually the advantage of public funding should be that they don't have to do that... that they can create educational, quality programming without the need for sky-high ratings, as there's no advertising incentive.Unfortunately in the last few years the only measure of success/quality has become ratings. I think that's the problem.
Just seen this 'news' and am disgusted. I already have a Sky HD subscription but still think it is an awful move:
Unfair on those who don't have Sky/will find it hard to justify the extra cost, this is going to hurt a lot of people one way or the other.
Shameful behaviour by the BBC - if our mandatory, 'you can't choose not to pay for it' TV network can't prioritise one of the world's biggest sports, one with a huge UK interest in terms of teams, drivers and industry then what is the f
king point? This shower of st can throw away plenty on its causes (multiple radio stations, over paid 'celeb' presenters and global warming propaganda etc.) so why not F1? And what the fk is BBC 3 for? Scrap it, it's ste.
Worried about the approach Sky will take. Will it be a repeat phrase laden circus approach like some of their areas? What aboutthe excellent presenter team the BBC have used? Will it splinter, or be some one week, others the next? I see John Watson is already being trotted out as a spokes-apologist. Jesus, the last thing I want is that tt commentating again; might as well add Jim Watt. As for promises about adverts, I don't trust this. You even get adverts stopping us hearing what the corner is saying - a crucial interest area for fans - in boxing even when it's an additional ppv show, FFS!
I really think it's time the BBC was fully privatised and we were spared the frustration of paying a license for an outfit some of us hardly use.
Unfair on those who don't have Sky/will find it hard to justify the extra cost, this is going to hurt a lot of people one way or the other.
Shameful behaviour by the BBC - if our mandatory, 'you can't choose not to pay for it' TV network can't prioritise one of the world's biggest sports, one with a huge UK interest in terms of teams, drivers and industry then what is the f
king point? This shower of st can throw away plenty on its causes (multiple radio stations, over paid 'celeb' presenters and global warming propaganda etc.) so why not F1? And what the fk is BBC 3 for? Scrap it, it's ste.Worried about the approach Sky will take. Will it be a repeat phrase laden circus approach like some of their areas? What aboutthe excellent presenter team the BBC have used? Will it splinter, or be some one week, others the next? I see John Watson is already being trotted out as a spokes-apologist. Jesus, the last thing I want is that t
t commentating again; might as well add Jim Watt. As for promises about adverts, I don't trust this. You even get adverts stopping us hearing what the corner is saying - a crucial interest area for fans - in boxing even when it's an additional ppv show, FFS!I really think it's time the BBC was fully privatised and we were spared the frustration of paying a license for an outfit some of us hardly use.
bigbubba said:
I am not really that concerned about it.
I already have sky so it doesn't affect me.
I hope the commentary team will go over to Sky, I can't see why they wouldn't.
I don't blame the rights holders for selling to the highest bidder, why shouldn't they?
It is a commercial decision. In fact getting the most TV money for the teams is the best thing for the little fish.
It can only be a good thing for the sport.
So, I'm all right Jack.I already have sky so it doesn't affect me.
I hope the commentary team will go over to Sky, I can't see why they wouldn't.
I don't blame the rights holders for selling to the highest bidder, why shouldn't they?
It is a commercial decision. In fact getting the most TV money for the teams is the best thing for the little fish.
It can only be a good thing for the sport.
Good for the sport? Let's see what happens to audience figures and the impact on sponsors, advertisers etc.
The issue isn't with the rights holder, it's with the feck-wit BBC.
Precisely.
Sky revolutionised football coverage (and rugby) despite all the doom-mongers' negative forecasts at the time.
They also don't break the action for adverts in either of those sports.
If you want high quality presentations, it costs money, and the licence fee/advertisement pot isn't big enough to cover it all, so subscription service is necessary to fill that shortfall.
Sky revolutionised football coverage (and rugby) despite all the doom-mongers' negative forecasts at the time.
They also don't break the action for adverts in either of those sports.
If you want high quality presentations, it costs money, and the licence fee/advertisement pot isn't big enough to cover it all, so subscription service is necessary to fill that shortfall.
DocJock said:
Precisely.
Sky revolutionised football coverage (and rugby) despite all the doom-mongers' negative forecasts at the time.
They also don't break the action for adverts in either of those sports.
If you want high quality presentations, it costs money, and the licence fee/advertisement pot isn't big enough to cover it all, so subscription service is necessary to fill that shortfall.
What Sky did for footballin 1990 was revolutionary - by the standards of that time. They were also giving football fans something they had never had before - access to live league matches on TV (something which was always denied terrestrial TV stations).Sky revolutionised football coverage (and rugby) despite all the doom-mongers' negative forecasts at the time.
They also don't break the action for adverts in either of those sports.
If you want high quality presentations, it costs money, and the licence fee/advertisement pot isn't big enough to cover it all, so subscription service is necessary to fill that shortfall.
What can they really do to improve what BBC are currently doing with F1.
My hunch is that it will be far closer to ITV's take on what F1 is all about, money, glamour, exotic locations and celebrities - with a far lesser emphasis on the teams, technology, cars and drivers.
The Sky deal, rather than giving F1 fans something extra, is actually taking something away. It is DIMINISHING the choice, not increasing it.
it appears that there are those out there, quoting sky blurb,and all the advert ban during races stuff ,as if its fact ..
this is the same organisation that has lied continuously throughtout the news o t world saga ,lies from the very top down ..
what remote likeleyhood is there that sky will actuallly stick to anything they say to mollify public reeaction? we are looking at a global corp that treated sad bereaved memebers of the public in a despicable way TO MAKE MONEY.
i envisage the ultimate resultt being a tapering wedge of gradually increasing money making additions to the races... a few short adds ,then gradually more and longer ,tickertape items ..led sky adds around tracks ,etc ,etc ..then as audiences dry up and the viewers get fed up to the hilt ,they take thier revenue from adds ,buy another island ,and either come up with a NEW improved F1,, and start the cycle again ,or flog it off to itv, and start that cycle again .
one saving grace ,,,, im really enjoying the thought of the gradually dawning awareness amongst bbc and sky planners along with ecclestone/davros ,as they get a vague inkling of where they should maybe perhaps have drawn the line !
regards
robert
this is the same organisation that has lied continuously throughtout the news o t world saga ,lies from the very top down ..
what remote likeleyhood is there that sky will actuallly stick to anything they say to mollify public reeaction? we are looking at a global corp that treated sad bereaved memebers of the public in a despicable way TO MAKE MONEY.
i envisage the ultimate resultt being a tapering wedge of gradually increasing money making additions to the races... a few short adds ,then gradually more and longer ,tickertape items ..led sky adds around tracks ,etc ,etc ..then as audiences dry up and the viewers get fed up to the hilt ,they take thier revenue from adds ,buy another island ,and either come up with a NEW improved F1,, and start the cycle again ,or flog it off to itv, and start that cycle again .
one saving grace ,,,, im really enjoying the thought of the gradually dawning awareness amongst bbc and sky planners along with ecclestone/davros ,as they get a vague inkling of where they should maybe perhaps have drawn the line !
regards
robert
Edited by ivanhoew on Saturday 30th July 11:05
Eric Mc said:
What can they really do to improve what BBC are currently doing with F1.
With sky you get choice. With football sky gives you the option of cameras to follow one player ect.
Hopefully with F1 we will be able to follow a particular part of the race, following the fight for first place for example. Not chopping and changing and jumping between the fight for first and second, and cutting to the fight for nineth ect.
With the BBC you get what they want you to see. No choice!!!!
If the BBC don't do a good job of the coverage they still get your money.
If sky don't do a good job of the coverage they DON'T get your money. You have the choice not to purchase it next month.
Give it a chance the sky coverage will be fantastic.
Edited by aberdeenelvis on Saturday 30th July 09:53
ivanhoew said:
it appears that there are those out there, quoting sky blurb,and all the advert ban during races stuff ,as if its fact ..
this is the same organisation that has lied continuously throughtout the news o t world saga ,lies from the very top down ..
what remote likeleyhood is there that sky will actuallly stick to anything they say to mollify public reeaction? we are looking at a global corp that treated sad bereaved memebers of the public in a despicable way TO MAKE MONEY.
i envisage the ultimate resultt being a tapering wedge of gradually increasing money making additions to the races... a few short adds ,then gradually more and longer ,tickertape items ..led sky adds around tracks ,etc ,etc ..then as audiences dry up and the viewers get fed up to the hilt ,they take thier revenue from adds ,buy another island ,and either come up with a NEW improved F1,, and start the cycle again ,or flog it off to itv, and start that cycle again .
one saving grace ,,,, im really enjoying the thought of the gradually dawning awareness amongst bbc and sky planners along with ecclestone/davros ,as they get a vague inkling of where they should maybe perhaps have drawn the line !
Can you name a single sport on sky where they do any of things you mention above? You can't of course because it doesn't happen it's all in your head. There will no adverts during the action as with all the other sports they show.this is the same organisation that has lied continuously throughtout the news o t world saga ,lies from the very top down ..
what remote likeleyhood is there that sky will actuallly stick to anything they say to mollify public reeaction? we are looking at a global corp that treated sad bereaved memebers of the public in a despicable way TO MAKE MONEY.
i envisage the ultimate resultt being a tapering wedge of gradually increasing money making additions to the races... a few short adds ,then gradually more and longer ,tickertape items ..led sky adds around tracks ,etc ,etc ..then as audiences dry up and the viewers get fed up to the hilt ,they take thier revenue from adds ,buy another island ,and either come up with a NEW improved F1,, and start the cycle again ,or flog it off to itv, and start that cycle again .
one saving grace ,,,, im really enjoying the thought of the gradually dawning awareness amongst bbc and sky planners along with ecclestone/davros ,as they get a vague inkling of where they should maybe perhaps have drawn the line !
aberdeenelvis said:
With sky you get choice.
With football sky gives you the option of cameras to follow one player ect.
Hopefully with F1 we will be able to follow a particular part of the race, following the fight for first place for example. Not chopping and changing and jumping between the fight for first and second, and cutting to the fight for nineth ect.
With the BBC you get what they want you to see. No choice!!!!
If the BBC don't do a good job of the coverage they still get your money.
If sky don't do a good job of the coverage they DON'T get your money. You have the choice not to purchase it next month.
Give it a chance the sky coverage will be fantastic.
You can do that on the BBCWith football sky gives you the option of cameras to follow one player ect.
Hopefully with F1 we will be able to follow a particular part of the race, following the fight for first place for example. Not chopping and changing and jumping between the fight for first and second, and cutting to the fight for nineth ect.
With the BBC you get what they want you to see. No choice!!!!
If the BBC don't do a good job of the coverage they still get your money.
If sky don't do a good job of the coverage they DON'T get your money. You have the choice not to purchase it next month.
Give it a chance the sky coverage will be fantastic.
Edited by aberdeenelvis on Saturday 30th July 09:53
I would consider paying something to watch F1 but I am absolutely not prepared to pay for Sky Sports for just one sport. i have no interest in most of the other sports they show.
So for F1 it looks like they have lost me as a viewer, that means the advertisers have lost their exposure to me. If others think the same then the advertising on the cars is worth less, the teams get less money and F1 runs the risk of going backwards.
Such a shame for what is probably the sport that Brits are most successful at, where most of the teams are based in the UK and add to our economy. The possible reduction in income to the teams could have a detrimental affect.
I would rather F1 went back to ITV than to Sky
So for F1 it looks like they have lost me as a viewer, that means the advertisers have lost their exposure to me. If others think the same then the advertising on the cars is worth less, the teams get less money and F1 runs the risk of going backwards.
Such a shame for what is probably the sport that Brits are most successful at, where most of the teams are based in the UK and add to our economy. The possible reduction in income to the teams could have a detrimental affect.
I would rather F1 went back to ITV than to Sky
andyroo said:
aberdeenelvis said:
With sky you get choice.
With football sky gives you the option of cameras to follow one player ect.
Hopefully with F1 we will be able to follow a particular part of the race, following the fight for first place for example. Not chopping and changing and jumping between the fight for first and second, and cutting to the fight for nineth ect.
With the BBC you get what they want you to see. No choice!!!!
If the BBC don't do a good job of the coverage they still get your money.
If sky don't do a good job of the coverage they DON'T get your money. You have the choice not to purchase it next month.
Give it a chance the sky coverage will be fantastic.
You can do that on the BBCWith football sky gives you the option of cameras to follow one player ect.
Hopefully with F1 we will be able to follow a particular part of the race, following the fight for first place for example. Not chopping and changing and jumping between the fight for first and second, and cutting to the fight for nineth ect.
With the BBC you get what they want you to see. No choice!!!!
If the BBC don't do a good job of the coverage they still get your money.
If sky don't do a good job of the coverage they DON'T get your money. You have the choice not to purchase it next month.
Give it a chance the sky coverage will be fantastic.
Edited by aberdeenelvis on Saturday 30th July 09:53
That of course, is nonsense as there is no doubt that the Sky audience, by the very nature of how Sky "sell" their product, will ALLWAYS be smaller than what a free to air terrestrial audience will be.
pokethepope said:
It was a toss up between F1 and minority sports IIRC. They really should have dumped darts, athletics, snooker etc etc but I think the cost of F1 would mean they would have to cancel every minority sport, so F1 got the chop, even though it probably gets more viewers than all minority sports combined.
Wimbledon and the open were the big two. Both of which are considerably more popular when they are on than f1. If the tennis went I'd be upset, but f1 gets half the viewers of top gear. Upsetting a few sure, but there would be total outrage if they got rid of Wimbledon. aberdeenelvis said:
Hopefully with F1 we will be able to follow a particular part of the race, following the fight for first place for example. Not chopping and changing and jumping between the fight for first and second, and cutting to the fight for nineth ect.
With the BBC you get what they want you to see. No choice!!!!
You could switch between battles on the track with Bernie's F1 Digital service (which was broadcast on Sky Sports). However this was closed down in 2003 because the viewing figures were virtually non-existant.With the BBC you get what they want you to see. No choice!!!!
Nowadays, however, all broadcasters get the same FOM provided feed, so your chances of switching between battles will be slim to none.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff