F1 2016 - now on C4, not BBC
Discussion
The Hypno-Toad said:
Funny that when the BBC lose the live coverage to Sky, my facebook page was littered with people screaming outrage and organising pages to defend the rights of the public not to pay more to watch F1.
Now its going to CH4, not a whisper. Just because its the same package/different station or is it the state the sport is in?
Channel 4 is "free to air" unlike Sky. The outrage was that you needed to pay for a Sky subscription to see all the races live.Now its going to CH4, not a whisper. Just because its the same package/different station or is it the state the sport is in?
skeggysteve said:
Derek Smith said:
When ITV took over F1 they considered using split screen, with ads on one sides and F1 on the other. Also there was the suggestion of 'ticker-tape' ads throughout the race. The revenue they would have received put paid to both ideas.
I'm sure I read somewhere neither is allowed on British TV. It's been alluded to in other threads that the the production company for the C4 coverage is Whisper Films. Has this been confirmed?
This is Whisper Films that Jake and DC setup with an ex-BBC Sport producer and C4 invested in this year.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/13/chann...
I'll be VERY interested to see how this goes.
This is Whisper Films that Jake and DC setup with an ex-BBC Sport producer and C4 invested in this year.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/13/chann...
I'll be VERY interested to see how this goes.
The Hypno-Toad said:
Funny that when the BBC lose the live coverage to Sky, my facebook page was littered with people screaming outrage and organising pages to defend the rights of the public not to pay more to watch F1.
Now its going to CH4, not a whisper. Just because its the same package/different station or is it the state the sport is in?
Lost the live coverage to Sky? If I remember correctly they gave up their exclusive rights to live coverage of F1 in order to save money.Now its going to CH4, not a whisper. Just because its the same package/different station or is it the state the sport is in?
As for the lack of outrage about CH4 taking over the BBC coverage, I suspect it's because many of us are no longer as passionate about F1 as we once were, there was a time when I might have cared, but no longer. I've got the full coverage on Sky as a legacy HD customer, but even for free I find I miss as many races as I watch, if Sky started charging I'd stop watching altogether.
RYH64E said:
As for the lack of outrage about CH4 taking over the BBC coverage, I suspect it's because many of us are no longer as passionate about F1 as we once were, there was a time when I might have cared, but no longer.....
Why should there be outrage? - there is every chance Channel 4's coverage will be better than BBC.Channel 4, like the BBC, is a public service broadcaster and it has a remit to be innovative, distinctive and educational.
It is a non-profit organisation - profit goes back into content. The main difference with the BBC is that Channel 4 is funded by advertising not the licence fee - but you still need a licence to watch live.
AUTOCAR Magazines thoughts about the BBC dropping F1.
In a way, the BBC’s decision to end its F1 coverage three years early, on money-saving grounds, is immaculately timed, however regrettable it feels.
For one thing, today’s races are really only contests between Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg, and in identical cars at that. And even these battles have become tainted: for a third of them Hamilton hasn’t even needed to put his back into it.
For another, the “British interest” that has reliably attracted local audiences is in rapid retreat. Those with longish memories will never forget the mass appeal and huge audiences generated by “our Nige”, but there’s nothing like that now.
Despite his third championship, Lewis Hamilton’s following is in decline. For all the he’s-finding-himself excuses used to account for his increasingly weird dalliances with dogs, haircuts, earrings, tattoos, funny hats and woeful rap music, it is clear he has lost the interest of the public; the Beeb’s own Sports Personality voting made that clear.
Jenson Button still does a great job (and ironically, might still become a programme-saving element of the new BBC Top Gear), but listening to him putting a brave face on finishing 12th - again - has become a sad part of Sunday afternoon, not entertainment or enjoyment.
Worst of all are the worries most of us lifelong devotees harbour about the direction of the sport itself. The racing isn’t a pure contest. The noise still isn’t right. Efforts to control costs have worked in reverse, which makes it a particular disaster that many sponsors are in reverse. F1’s unintelligible collection of rules, penalties and general bureaucracy would do credit to the civil service of a banana republic. And it’s not even a given that the best drivers find their way to the F1 grid, because as far as teams are concerned, money is a much more of a winning element than skill.
Will future drivers be heroes just for having wealthy sponsors? Sounds like it.
Do you know what’s worst of all? It’s the fact that the sport is governed and run by men of great age, with vested interests every bit as old as they are. People only leave when they die. F1 may have a reputation for immaculate organisation, but it hasn’t seen a new broom in decades. And it needs one every bit as badly as FIFA.
All of which brands poor old Bernie Ecclestone’s lame observation that “the world of Formula One have moved on” as he announced that Channel 4 would henceforth carry the BBC’s ragbag of direct telecasts and highlights shows, as one of his most ironic utterances ever.
There is some hope for the future, however. Sebastian Vettel has put a rocket up Maranello, and how ironic that most of us are praying that the man who dominated the sport for four seasons will come good and save us from another Mercedes whitewash in 2016.
Also, the performances of teenage sensation Max Verstappen are proof that raw talent can occasionally rise to the top.
But Formula One’s core problem is that it hasn’t moved on. Any fool, barring those involved in its governance, can see that it should.
In a way, the BBC’s decision to end its F1 coverage three years early, on money-saving grounds, is immaculately timed, however regrettable it feels.
For one thing, today’s races are really only contests between Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg, and in identical cars at that. And even these battles have become tainted: for a third of them Hamilton hasn’t even needed to put his back into it.
For another, the “British interest” that has reliably attracted local audiences is in rapid retreat. Those with longish memories will never forget the mass appeal and huge audiences generated by “our Nige”, but there’s nothing like that now.
Despite his third championship, Lewis Hamilton’s following is in decline. For all the he’s-finding-himself excuses used to account for his increasingly weird dalliances with dogs, haircuts, earrings, tattoos, funny hats and woeful rap music, it is clear he has lost the interest of the public; the Beeb’s own Sports Personality voting made that clear.
Jenson Button still does a great job (and ironically, might still become a programme-saving element of the new BBC Top Gear), but listening to him putting a brave face on finishing 12th - again - has become a sad part of Sunday afternoon, not entertainment or enjoyment.
Worst of all are the worries most of us lifelong devotees harbour about the direction of the sport itself. The racing isn’t a pure contest. The noise still isn’t right. Efforts to control costs have worked in reverse, which makes it a particular disaster that many sponsors are in reverse. F1’s unintelligible collection of rules, penalties and general bureaucracy would do credit to the civil service of a banana republic. And it’s not even a given that the best drivers find their way to the F1 grid, because as far as teams are concerned, money is a much more of a winning element than skill.
Will future drivers be heroes just for having wealthy sponsors? Sounds like it.
Do you know what’s worst of all? It’s the fact that the sport is governed and run by men of great age, with vested interests every bit as old as they are. People only leave when they die. F1 may have a reputation for immaculate organisation, but it hasn’t seen a new broom in decades. And it needs one every bit as badly as FIFA.
All of which brands poor old Bernie Ecclestone’s lame observation that “the world of Formula One have moved on” as he announced that Channel 4 would henceforth carry the BBC’s ragbag of direct telecasts and highlights shows, as one of his most ironic utterances ever.
There is some hope for the future, however. Sebastian Vettel has put a rocket up Maranello, and how ironic that most of us are praying that the man who dominated the sport for four seasons will come good and save us from another Mercedes whitewash in 2016.
Also, the performances of teenage sensation Max Verstappen are proof that raw talent can occasionally rise to the top.
But Formula One’s core problem is that it hasn’t moved on. Any fool, barring those involved in its governance, can see that it should.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff