Thank you Bernie!

EGAddick

For putting the final nail in the coffin of F1!  Not just with it's gimmicks like KERS and DRS and pandering to the top few teams, but now having spent the last few months assuring fans and the media you wanted F1 to remain on free-to-air telly, you've now gone and sold half of the races to paid-for telly only, you two-faced liar!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/9550930.stm

Those few of you who enjoy Sky will no doubt have no problem with this, but those of you, including myself, who are continually troubled by the domination of Sky, and the insistence of Mudoch's media empire (which surely has an appalling reputation given recent scandals), cannot be impressed by this.

Ah well, I'll guess I'll have to follow Moto GP more closely now (until that gets sold of course!)

buckshee

I don't get why people moan about having to pay for TV , whether it be sport or anything else. 

In a lovely utopian society then everything would be free unfortunately that's not the way the world works. It's like moaning that you can't go to the Sainsbury and get your weekly shop for free

Rothko

Right, so the BBC wanted to get out of the current deal, they can't really justify the spend on it when everything else is being cut, so they wanted an out, and F1 needed to maintain it's revenue. The deal with Sky seems a good one, you keep 9 or so races including the home GP on the BBC, and the stuff which is hidden on the red button gets proper coverage on Sky Sports. 

Bernie did the BBC a favour, as well as keeping the revenue in the sport.

Henry Irving

Shoplifters of the world unite
You have nothing to lose but your nectar points

tangoflash

Besides, There's always myp2p...........not that i'd condone such actions myself you understand. ;-)

EGAddick

The BBC spends £60m a year on F1, £45m of which is just to have the rights, they spend less than £1m a race on everything else to do with the sport.  Ecclestone has increasingly ramped up the prices of the rights over the last few years because F1 has a shortfall in revenues since the death of tobacco sponsorship.

I always find it incredible how so many people complain about modern football ever since Sky got involved but will readily contribute to the machine every month.  Now Sky have their claws in the world's premier motorsport and they will never give in until they have complete control. 

CatAddick

I think the point is not so much having to pay for TV per se, but the fact that you now have to pay for a programme that used to be 'free'.

Won't bother me too much as I haven't really followed F1 for 10 years and I don't subscribe to SS out of principle as I want to watch my sport and give my money to the club rather than line the PLs pockets

Rothko

Maybe I don't think I have an entitlement to free F1 racing on ITV or BBC.

The BBC have asked to terminate their deal a year early, so how's that Bernie's fault? Also the BBC will still be showing hour long highlight shows after races.

Don't have a problem with Sky Sports, they invest massively in sports, and the coverage of sport

 

EGAddick

Without wishing to bite any further, I intensely dislike Sky and would argue that their investment in sports is purely driven by a bottom line and that those monies rarely reaches the grassroots levels, football being a prime example.  There is no suggestion of entitlement other than the fact free-to-air was promised and the involvement of Sky had been challenged by the teams, manufacturers and even quotes from a few drivers against such a move.

For a purist I do believe F1 has been in a decline for a few years, since the replacement of the V10's to V8's and now in the next few years we'll see the re-introduction of V6 turbos, which are only there to appear to give more fuel economy to the sport (although in reality they actually don't).  It's full of gimmicks like DRS and KERS, though thankfully not all of those gimmicks have been brought to the track, I think I choked on my breakfast when I first read about the 'fake rain' idea, but engine limitations and political arguments over technical complexities has forced the sport into a decline since the mid 90's IMO.  Sky's involvement is another nail in the coffin.

Greenie

Speaking as a fan of motorsport, F1 has been in decline for years, fact is it is dull and generally most races are a procession, it is motorsport equivalent of the Premiership , yes it is the biggest, yes it has the best drivers, but its only 3 teams that can win the championship. Real motorsport fans who go to the tracks go to watch the touring cars and lower formulas. F1 is a circus, even Nascar and Indycar are more exciting and they are mostly oval based.

Moto GP and World and British Superbike are far more exciting than F1, I couldn't care if F1 dissapears up its own exhaust pipe!

BigRedEvil

I love F1 so I'm gutted BBC have decided to lose half it's races, BBC coverage was top notch and it being on Sky is a bit shit in all honesty, we'll probably have ad breaks halfway through.

shirty5

Not a fan of F1 but if the likes of Thompson, Clode, Sawyer, Jackson and Webster are going to be in the pit lane/track for Sky, then Sunday afternoons may become a bit more enjoyable.

Ding Dong

Saga Lout

Speaking as a fan of motorsport, F1 has been in decline for years, fact is it is dull and generally most races are a procession, it is motorsport equivalent of the Premiership , yes it is the biggest, yes it has the best drivers, but its only 3 teams that can win the championship. Real motorsport fans who go to the tracks go to watch the touring cars and lower formulas. F1 is a circus, even Nascar and Indycar are more exciting and they are mostly oval based.

Moto GP and World and British Superbike are far more exciting than F1, I couldn't care if F1 dissapears up its own exhaust pipe!

I agree about F1. I went to Brands last weekend and saw the Formula 2 races, plus many supporting races. It was a great day out and, in my opinion, more exciting than F1 because a) it's more about driving skill and less about technology b) there's more overtaking because the cars are all basically the same, and c) because the drivers are less experienced there are more spills.

I've also been going to the 24-hour race at Le Mans regularly since 1999 - I prefer that to F1, but it has been very much dominated by Audi for the last several years, so is probably less interesting than it was 20/30 years ago.

Strasburger

Does this mean we will get a discount on the licence fee?

BlackForestReds

Does this mean we will get a discount on the licence fee?

It means yiour license won't have to rise.

Strasburger

Does this mean we will get a discount on the licence fee?

It means yiour license won't have to rise.

Are but they are saving £60m are they not?  

BlackForestReds

There's two costs involved in broadcasting F1 - buying the rights in the first place and then shipping cameras, commentators, reporters, producers etc around the world to beam the pictures back for the petrolheads.

 

 

Saga Lout

There's two costs involved in broadcasting F1 - buying the rights in the first place and then shipping cameras, commentators, reporters, producers etc around the world to beam the pictures back for the petrolheads.

 

 

The BBC will still be sending their crews and equipment to all the races, as they will be putting out highlights of the races they can't show live.

charlton_hero

Wimbledon is transferring to sky also.

EGAddick

I agree that other motorsports can be more exciting but I don't agree that similar cars tends towards more over-taking, if anything it's the opposite in that case.  As I stated at the top the Beeb spends less than £15m a year (well under £1m a race) actually broadcasting the sport, it costs them another £45m for the rights.  If the rights were cheaper then the Beeb would've continued it's coverage.  To say that Ecclestone has done them a favour is a joke.  I understand that F1 makes up for its shortfall in tobacco sponsorship by increasing the price of the television rights, but the sport has backed itself long-term into a situation where going to Sky was inevitable.  I just wish this hadn't been the case.

randy andy

It's not the similarities or differences between cars that make overtaking possible/impossible. The fact is that modern F1 cars work the air flow over them incredibly hard to generate the amount of grip they do. This in turn means the air coming off the back off the car is, for want of a better term, messed up. This means the car following behind can't generate as much down force and that is what makes over taking more difficult. As you go down the formulas, or if you look at Indy, etc. they don't generate as much down force and are therefore less effected by the turbulence generated by the car in front. This is why F1 has got more and more of a procession, each year the designers work out how to squeeze that little bit more down force out of their car, and that in turn causes more turbulence for the car behind, making it more difficult each year to over take.

DRS, KERS, smaller wings, etc. are all attempts to reverse this trend, to over come this turbulence to allow overtaking.

EGAddick

That's not always strictly true, air temp, ambient conditions and plenty of other factors on the car ie mechanical grip, traction, tyre degradation etc all play their part, equal cars do have a smaller window to overtake in and in other Formula's you can get less amount of over-taking.

What I don't like about DRS and KERS are that it takes away the skill that does exist between the drivers.  Good aerodynamic toe in a maneouvre can still be achieved without the need for technological enhancements.  The best thing about this season has been Pirelli, not the DRS.  It is not true to say DRS is needed either as it has only accounted for less than 30% of the over-taking maneouvres this season, although I agree that another way to look at it is to say it has increased over-taking, but tyre-deg and strategy accounts for far more.

LenGlover

I don't get why people moan about having to pay for TV , whether it be sport or anything else. 

In a lovely utopian society then everything would be free unfortunately that's not the way the world works. It's like moaning that you can't go to the Sainsbury and get your weekly shop for free

Your analogy is wrong.

I am compelled to pay for a State Broadcast Company propaganda machine whether or not I wish to watch it.

I like Sport the State Broadcaster prefers pro euthanasia, man made climate change and EU propaganda which I have no interest in watching.

I would happily pay to watch my Sport but cannot afford to because I am compelled, under pain of imprisonment or further draconian financial penalties, to finance something that has little or no relevance to me.

cholland

The BBC will still be sending their crews and equipment to all the races, as they will be putting out highlights of the races they can't show live.

I hope they will cut down significantly on how much they send to the circuit - can take a tv feed from the official supplier and have commentators in the studio. The BBC and SKY dont both send TV crews to football matches they share the feed.

cafcdan37

The significant cost to the BBC under the current deal is the rights to show the F1. That is 75%+ of the cost to them at the moment. So allowing Sky to show every race will save them a large amount of money without having to cut down on staffing and output levels.

Algarveaddick

Wimbledon is transferring to sky also.

Are you sure, I thought it was one of the events that law requires to be free to air?

Robert

the only reason I'm dissapointed about this is becuase I love the bbc broadcasting....martin brundle is probably the best analyst/commentator in any sport. I also think jake Humprey, EJ ad DC do an excellent job, as do the pit lane reporters. if they transwer the current set up to sky, then I will happy.

Greenie

Funny how the channel is called Sky Sports when the majority of stuff on it is stuff most people don't recognise as a sport (eg darts, snooker, fishing, car and motorbike races, professional wrestling, etc). Can't believe anyone pays for that garbage.

Car and motorbike racing - Not a sport, great wind up!

charlton_hero

Perhaps you're right Algarve, I just remember hearing that BBC wanted to get rid as part of their cut backs.

last_line

spiritof1947 - so you don't like some of those sports?  Others do, and some won't like the sports you prefer.  It's a matter or choice.  If you want to watch it, them pay for it, if you don't...don't.  To come out with some sweeping childish statement like you have shows a lack of maturity imho.

ken from bexley

Bit of a sad day for the BBC in my opinion, as I enjoy the coverage.

I have sky so no loss to myself on a personnal level.

I have watched every BBC F1 race since it's re-introduction to the bbc, and was involved with the publicity at the time of the F1.

No you will not  get a saving on the annual licence fee, and if Patton goes ahead with his review there may well be other casualties. 

If  it is correct they are going to send the personnel and tv crews to the circuits, to pre-record  I think this is a waste of resources.

The bbc is looking at duplication of this type of thing, and having more than 1 set of 'broadcast journalists' as the vast majority of staff on the editorial side have been 

classified, so that you could work on a multi platform basis.  The same will go for news where the 'local editors' will report, and the likes of Simpson will not be flown in to present front world events. or at least that was the 

idea. This goes to the heart should the bbc output with outsourced material , and then voice over, or make programmes, with it's own flavour and editorial stance.

Golf and Tennis had better watch out, I am sure there is a bean counter somewhere even now making a case for 'outsourcing'........ be interesting to see the effects of Sky and it's lack of standards as so recently exposed has on news coverage.  Perhaps the bbc should  have a sport subscription channel, 'pay on demand', after all if you embrace the 'market  dictates knows best philosophy, then  there seems little point in denying this?.