F1 on Channel 4
Discussion
SmoothCriminal said:
Nor in many other places from a quick check. I suspect Liberty will be adding countries as soon as they can as broadcast contracts are up for renewal.
Emeye said:
London424 said:
Why would they care? Liberty aren't making money from you buying tat or even attending a race in person.
They'll be making money from TV deals and from tracks looking to host races and sponsors of the series itself.
Silverstone is now paying over 15m a year (and will be one of the cheapest on the calendar) with escalations built in every year.
The exclusive SKY rights deal is 200m a year contract (just for the UK). That money gets filtered through to the teams.
What Liberty are likely wanting to do is go direct to consumer at a cheaper rate than a SKY subscription, but they'll need to have an awful lot of viewers to make up the difference in revenue.
Because Derrick isn’t on his own - There are hundreds of thousands of Derricks who may feel the same. Then they have a problem. They'll be making money from TV deals and from tracks looking to host races and sponsors of the series itself.
Silverstone is now paying over 15m a year (and will be one of the cheapest on the calendar) with escalations built in every year.
The exclusive SKY rights deal is 200m a year contract (just for the UK). That money gets filtered through to the teams.
What Liberty are likely wanting to do is go direct to consumer at a cheaper rate than a SKY subscription, but they'll need to have an awful lot of viewers to make up the difference in revenue.
If they use that subscription model above they'll need to get almost 3m people to subscribe to replicate SKY money. I'm not sure that's ever happening.
London424 said:
Emeye said:
London424 said:
Why would they care? Liberty aren't making money from you buying tat or even attending a race in person.
They'll be making money from TV deals and from tracks looking to host races and sponsors of the series itself.
Silverstone is now paying over 15m a year (and will be one of the cheapest on the calendar) with escalations built in every year.
The exclusive SKY rights deal is 200m a year contract (just for the UK). That money gets filtered through to the teams.
What Liberty are likely wanting to do is go direct to consumer at a cheaper rate than a SKY subscription, but they'll need to have an awful lot of viewers to make up the difference in revenue.
Because Derrick isn’t on his own - There are hundreds of thousands of Derricks who may feel the same. Then they have a problem. They'll be making money from TV deals and from tracks looking to host races and sponsors of the series itself.
Silverstone is now paying over 15m a year (and will be one of the cheapest on the calendar) with escalations built in every year.
The exclusive SKY rights deal is 200m a year contract (just for the UK). That money gets filtered through to the teams.
What Liberty are likely wanting to do is go direct to consumer at a cheaper rate than a SKY subscription, but they'll need to have an awful lot of viewers to make up the difference in revenue.
If they use that subscription model above they'll need to get almost 3m people to subscribe to replicate SKY money. I'm not sure that's ever happening.
On a simple level, if you have a single company putting all the money up, then that company has a lot of power. Something that is bad for Liberty in the long run. For Eccelestone who was only ever looking at short term gain, then this didn't matter, but it appears that Liberty are in this for the longer run, rather than CVC who were only interested in what returns they could get, as quickly as possible.
Of ocurse Liberty are not going to like a decrease in overall revenue, but if they can up revenue in some areas and remove their reliance on TV money, then they will be in a much stronger position and since they appear to not be mugs, then I suspect that is exactly what they are after.
London424 said:
They don't though do they. Liberty get paid 200m a year from sky whether 1 person watches, the 600k they get now or 5 million in the future.
If they use that subscription model above they'll need to get almost 3m people to subscribe to replicate SKY money. I'm not sure that's ever happening.
But it's not either/or in the future? Sky may pitch for a lower amount for live to air, F1 provide OTT. Overall same amount but wider viewer base?If they use that subscription model above they'll need to get almost 3m people to subscribe to replicate SKY money. I'm not sure that's ever happening.
Vaud said:
London424 said:
They don't though do they. Liberty get paid 200m a year from sky whether 1 person watches, the 600k they get now or 5 million in the future.
If they use that subscription model above they'll need to get almost 3m people to subscribe to replicate SKY money. I'm not sure that's ever happening.
But it's not either/or in the future? Sky may pitch for a lower amount for live to air, F1 provide OTT. Overall same amount but wider viewer base?If they use that subscription model above they'll need to get almost 3m people to subscribe to replicate SKY money. I'm not sure that's ever happening.
Emeye said:
The teams and Liberty also get money off sponsors - 600K people watching may not be enough value for the sponsors to continue. Already McLaren are struggling to get a title sponsor - despite their new leader's BS excuses.
That’s a very uk centric view though. The market is massive, the uk is a small fraction of target viewers.Mr Tidy said:
Vaud said:
That’s a very uk centric view though. The market is massive, the uk is a small fraction of target viewers.
True, so given how few people will watch F1 in Wales why is the rest of the UK burdened with Steve "Boyo" FFS? 
glazbagun said:
I know right? And that Chandhok bloke, I'm sure he's an indian! Political correctness gone mad I tell you!
Yeah, and that Coulthard guy. I mean, Scotland isn't even a country......PS. While F1 TV coverage generally seems to be in a shaky state, Channel 4's offering is an oasis of competence and quality. Even their highlights shows are an effectively edited package for those who just want and need the details.
Liberty's streaming TV service seems to have got off to a bad start so they would be in no position to criticise right now, but I do wonder if they considered any quality control issues in how the sport is being presented by any exclusive providers. Sky's presentation team for the UK are woeful (even Brundle is losing his edge and is starting to appear bored and cynical), and the group doing the job for the now exclusive coverage in Italy compare poorly to the experienced group who used to do the job for national FTA providers RAI.
Testing times ahead for F1 TV IMO.
Edited by r11co on Wednesday 16th May 09:30
r11co said:
Yeah, and that Coulthard guy. I mean, Scotland isn't even a country......
Other opinions are available.r11co said:
PS. While F1 TV coverage generally seems to be in a shaky state, Channel 4's offering is an oasis of competence and quality. Even their highlights shows are an effectively edited package for those who just want and need the details.
I watched the highlights on Ch4. I thought their commentary team added to the enjoyment. I then watched F1's own 5-minute highlights on YouTube. Oh dear! The commentary at the start was almost a caricature of an over the top chap with a mic. The C4 grid walkabout seems to consist of planned meets. Much better than the aimless wanderings of yore.
r11co said:
Sky's presentation team for the UK are woeful (even Brundle is losing his edge and is starting to appear bored and cynical)
You're presenting your opinion as a fact. I subscribe to Sky F1 and I don't have any problem with any of the presenters, some I like more than others but that's just human nature.Edited by r11co on Wednesday 16th May 09:30
Having heard Martin give a talk at the campsite in Spa for the last 2 years I can assure you he's neither bored nor cynical about F1 or Sky, he was even asked a straight question "would he ever go back to FTA", his straight answer was no.
Norfolkit said:
Having heard Martin give a talk at the campsite in Spa for the last 2 years I can assure you he's neither bored nor cynical about F1 or Sky, he was even asked a straight question "would he ever go back to FTA", his straight answer was no.
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he. It is a bit naive to think that he would answer anything other than something that would appease his current medium-term employer.
If at some point in the future (say, 2025) a FTA broadcaster who had just secured exclusive rights came a-knocking do you think he would reject a job offer out of principle or because he remembered something he said to a fan nine years previously?
Edited by r11co on Wednesday 16th May 13:39
r11co said:
Norfolkit said:
Having heard Martin give a talk at the campsite in Spa for the last 2 years I can assure you he's neither bored nor cynical about F1 or Sky, he was even asked a straight question "would he ever go back to FTA", his straight answer was no.
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he. It is a bit naive to think that he would answer anything other than something that would appease his current medium-term employer.
If at some point in the future (say, 2025) a FTA broadcaster who had just secured exclusive rights came a-knocking do you think he would reject a job offer out of principle or because he remembered something he said to a fan nine years previously?
Edited by r11co on Wednesday 16th May 13:39
London424 said:
r11co said:
Norfolkit said:
Having heard Martin give a talk at the campsite in Spa for the last 2 years I can assure you he's neither bored nor cynical about F1 or Sky, he was even asked a straight question "would he ever go back to FTA", his straight answer was no.
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he. It is a bit naive to think that he would answer anything other than something that would appease his current medium-term employer.
If at some point in the future (say, 2025) a FTA broadcaster who had just secured exclusive rights came a-knocking do you think he would reject a job offer out of principle or because he remembered something he said to a fan nine years previously?
Edited by r11co on Wednesday 16th May 13:39
Anyone willing to pay 8 times as much as anyone else in the market to win a contract needs to have their head read.
If it is true that Sky are paying £200M a year for TV rights to the UK, then Eccelstone absolutely humped them. Dry. And in a sandy climate...
r11co said:
Norfolkit said:
Having heard Martin give a talk at the campsite in Spa for the last 2 years I can assure you he's neither bored nor cynical about F1 or Sky, he was even asked a straight question "would he ever go back to FTA", his straight answer was no.
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he. It is a bit naive to think that he would answer anything other than something that would appease his current medium-term employer.
If at some point in the future (say, 2025) a FTA broadcaster who had just secured exclusive rights came a-knocking do you think he would reject a job offer out of principle or because he remembered something he said to a fan nine years previously?
Edited by r11co on Wednesday 16th May 13:39
Interesting perspectives. I agree Brundle has a good sense of history and retains a love for the sport (many new viewers dont even know how he raced Senna wheel to wheel in their famous F3 season).
But having said that, one can almost sense his despair through the TV screen when 'Crofty' et al lower the bar to the utterly banal with their talk of darts, 'footy' and beer.. Brundle is a serious F1 guy and I'm sure he's very aware that he is part of what is often an utter clown show in contrast to the informed approach CH4 takes.
But having said that, one can almost sense his despair through the TV screen when 'Crofty' et al lower the bar to the utterly banal with their talk of darts, 'footy' and beer.. Brundle is a serious F1 guy and I'm sure he's very aware that he is part of what is often an utter clown show in contrast to the informed approach CH4 takes.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff