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?.
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.
From what I have been told, in the rest of Europe, motorbike and car racing are second only to football as a popular sport.
Establishment sports like cricket, rugby and golf are way down the list.
Ken, I'd gladly pay the BBC to watch F1, just not Sky. I hoped that the 4 main free-to-air providers would come to a conclusion whereby they'd share the coverage of the sport, it could've been worked out that the Beeb would retain 9 races and ITV, Channel 4 and 5 would show 3 each. That way the large rights fee of £45m could be divided proportionately between the channels and the sport remains free-to-air. It's such a shame they couldn't work this out.
ITV are mooting the concept of releasing paid for content and surely the Beeb could have thought to do something similar. If Wimbledon and The Open are lost to Sky too maybe then people will start to get the ache of it all. I know one thing for sure, I will not be signing up to Sky to watch F1.
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!
A sport if you're a car or a motorbike, maybe, but not if you're a human. Are they in the Olympics? That's the easy way to define them. In the Summer or Winter Olympics = a sport. Not = not.
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!
A sport if you're a car or a motorbike, maybe, but not if you're a human. Are they in the Olympics? That's the easy way to define them. In the Summer or Winter Olympics = a sport. Not = not.
Its in the olympics so it must be a sport - and yet the person doesn't jump the fence, they sit on a horse who jumps the fence. And shooting is in the olympics and yet a person does not run over to the clay pigeon and pnch it apart, they shoot a bullet at it.
And archers don't hit the target themselves.
I could go on but hopefully this shows that your theory is flawed.
The olympics has sports, but it doesn't have every sport and has never claimed to
This is why every host nation is allowed to introduce a new sport at every games</>
Roger Uttley, British Lion and England rugby international, buggered up his back sufficiently just getting out of his car to miss an international some years back!
And while our coverage from 2012 may not be as extensive as it has been up to now, the bare facts are that the BBC needs to save money. Given the financial circumstances in which we find ourselves, we believe this new deal offers the best outcome for licence-fee payers.In a sense this partnership with Sky is another example of how the landscape of sports broadcasting has been transformed in recent years. There was a time when the BBC and other public service broadcasters could expect to televise all the big sports themselves. Now though we have a 'mixed economy', with some events on satellite while others are on terrestrial.And although this may be the first time the BBC has shared Formula 1 with another broadcaster, there is a long-standing pattern of partnerships between free-to-air and pay TV to cover major sports. So the Champions League can be watched on both Sky and ITV; US Masters golf is now shared between ourselves and Sky (with audiences for that event up this year); and then of course there is the Premier League - with live games on Sky and ESPN, while our ever-popular highlights programme Match of the Day keeps football fans entertained on a Saturday night. Ben Gallop BBC F1.
So there you have it, or not as the case may be?I imagine that all major sports coverage in the near future will be on a shared basis for live/secondary coverage/highlights.Be interesting to see if sky allow the bbc to show live prem football then?...... I will not hold my breath on that one.I wonder if this will be the last Olympics as well that the bbc cover/Grand National.Sky generally do an excellent job on football, and gave the bbc a good, kick up the arse that it needed.Never understood the issue with the bbc's anti paid for subscription service attitude. I think it fails to deliver as a public service broadcaster what the public sometimes wants!If the public want a service that can be financied by subscription, and sponsorship that otherwise would not be available, allbeit, angling, to wrestling, to the Isle of man TT etc I have no issues with that. If Sky want competition in a so called free market let them have it, and the viewer is the winner, albeit they will have to pay for it. I can tell you this view is not as left field as it might appear, and had favour with a number of people at the bbc, but was seen as 'devisive'..... but times change?
Never understood the issue with the bbc's anti paid for subscription service attitude. I think it fails to deliver as a public service broadcaster what the public sometimes wants!If the public want a service that can be financied by subscription, and sponsorship that otherwise would not be available, allbeit, angling, to wrestling, to the Isle of man TT etc I have no issues with that. If Sky want competition in a so called free market let them have it, and the viewer is the winner, albeit they will have to pay for it. I can tell you this view is not as left field as it might appear, and had favour with a number of people at the bbc, but was seen as 'devisive'..... but times change?
Absolutely nail on head. Even if 5m subscribers (bearing in mind that currently there is on average 7-10m viewers) paid 75p per race the Beeb would break even with its coverage of F1. I simply cannot understand the logic of releasing the rights to a rival broadcaster that will only outbid and outmuscle the BBC in any future contract talks regarding the sport. You can bet any money free-to-air coverage of F1 will end indefinitely from 2018, if not sooner.
Long term the BBC has absolutely screwed over the public by bending over for Sky and letting them get away with it. There were ways around this than pandering to them. There is no competition if Sky are the only network with sole rights to any event.
Football has been on sky since 1992, people moaned then as they are now over f1. Truth is f1 is a minority sport in this country in the same league as golf and tennis, and fans should be glad they have had so long of free to air races. Sky has transformed football,darts cricket, Christ they even jazz up fishing with the great fishomania event. If I was an f1 fan then I would be happy that I will still get to see x amount of races on the BBC, when was the last time a top English league game was on the BBC? they can't afford to compete with sky even with ch5 having the boxing last weekend trumped the beeb, sport is dead on BBC it's something we will have to get used to, didn't the old government make a law that certain events such as fa cup, grand national boat race world cup finals will still be on terrestrial tv so at least those without sky or digital tv will get to see some sport at least.
Not sure I agree with you about F1 being a minority sport in the UK Adam...... and if it is such why do sky want to share rights?
The F1 industry is based in the UK, and we have had a string of world champions, and constructors for years, seems one of the few industries that we excell in.
I do not disagree with you re sky and football hence my line........Sky generally do an excellent job on football, and gave the bbc a good, kick up the arse that it needed.
They have also done a pretty good job on cricket!. The genie is out of the bottle with sport, it has been for a time.
The BBC has to devise imaginative solutions to it's position, otherwise it's licence fee position will be not only irrelevant, but impossible to sustain to the public.
The BBC has it's faults, it can be slow to listen, and seem cold to criticism. But it still produces some great programmes and services.
I am biased of course, so my view is tainted with the belief that it has, does and will produce great entertainment and public service broadcasting, and like the NHS not without fault but a great national asset.
Now F1 has been cut in half I'm struggling to think of what I actually watch on BBC. MotD and FL show at a push... nothing really. Sounds like this was BBC decision to cut costs, wonder what else they'll get rid of.
Seems to be the strongest online petition at the moment.
All this has been particularly galling as both Eric Boullier (head of Lotus Renault) and Adam Parr (Chairman of Williams) have stated that this is a good deal for the fans. WTF?!?! Parr even had the audacity to state that fans should be paying more! Hmm so if actually getting to a Grand Prix wasn't almost a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for, I would guess, 99% of the population, now the fact that fans will have to fork out over £500 to watch it on TV, apparently isn't enough? There are too many people running the sport who live on another planet.
Football has been on sky since 1992, people moaned then as they are now over f1. Truth is f1 is a minority sport in this country in the same league as golf and tennis, and fans should be glad they have had so long of free to air races. Sky has transformed football,darts cricket, Christ they even jazz up fishing with the great fishomania event. If I was an f1 fan then I would be happy that I will still get to see x amount of races on the BBC, when was the last time a top English league game was on the BBC? they can't afford to compete with sky even with ch5 having the boxing last weekend trumped the beeb, sport is dead on BBC it's something we will have to get used to, didn't the old government make a law that certain events such as fa cup, grand national boat race world cup finals will still be on terrestrial tv so at least those without sky or digital tv will get to see some sport at least.
Erm Minority sport???
It is the second biggest sport in terms of TV viewing after football. The race that Hamilton won the title attracted 13.2million viewers - not much less than a world cup game featuring England. And most of the races now do 7 to 10million. Miles more than Murray games at Wimbledon (c3-4m) golf (even less) and cricket (even less still).
Thanks for the URL on pitpass, which is quite interesting, either F1 or Wimbledon, seems to be the choice, and the Beeb decided to opt for the tennis.
Of course this is not the first time it has dropped F1, and this does seem a rather half way house, seems a bit like having half a football match, or we will show till Christmas then over to sky.......
I posted a comment on a website and quite a few of my ex BBC colleagues, went on and on about being a public service broadcaster. When i reminded them if the BBC was only interested in having programmes that other commercial organisations would not produce then why do they have a very successful publishing division , that produces non BBC title programmes, Why not sell the radio Times, as well as co-producing exhibition shows, and so forth. You could argue why does it have a national pop station Radio 1 when there are people that could produce a pop station like Virgin and Emap to name just two, so the idea that it has to be a minority, or a venture that would only sustainable without 'public service money' does not stack up?
Do not get me wrong I am a great fan of the bbc and it's general philosophy, but it does have an unsustainable business model, and can reduce competition with it's resources. I am also rather concerned about leaping into partnership with Sky, we have seen there business ethics, and although I am sure no media organisation is whiter than white, Sky seem a darker shade of grey to myself. The so called independent board of governance at Sky/ gave 'digger' a hard grilling on the NI did it. I do not want to discuss that...... oh okay chairman we will move on..... not journalism's finest hour was it.......
I proposed a sport subscription channel, at least it has the transparency of delivering what it say's on the can, as the saying goes, it could also in time transfer tennis, golf, and horse racing, it could also cover boxing, and bike racing on a pay as you go facility. I get the impression that the purist view that others will do this will prevail, I am dubious of this position. I think the bbc will shrink from it's current output, as 'niche tv' along with the internet will deliver it on 'i pad', and other mobile devices........In the meantime enjoy sport on what ever station as I feel it may be limited to the pay to view in the future, the question is how soon?
I think the Beeb is facing fundamental questions to it's long term viability as an organisation if it persists with seemingly illogical decisions such as these. This decision has been made by the bean-counters and from reading hundreds of comments many people are very angry to an extent that they feel betrayed.
I think the sport has under-estimated the UK-F1 market and become very complacent with it. How long will the major sponsors and partners put up with seeing the audience share that their brands are exposed to drop by as much as 80% (or more)? Formula 1 is an event, not a match, you can't just simply turnover onto another channel and catch another race.
Audience figures for next years championship to be shown on the BBC will plummet too IMO, and only then will the powers that be realise what a mistake they have made. Sponsorship drives the sport more than anything and if those sponsors feel as though they are not getting a return they will walk.
There's only one Formula 1 race EG, but there's lots of motor racing going on in the UK and round the world. If the BBC put their weight behind a different Formula, they'd get an audience and it would be two fingers up to Bernie.
Whilst I think it is a shame for the beeb to lose it, it will be interesting how much the sky coverage is better.
I think most sports Sky has invested in from Football, cricket, Darts as well as US sports have improved massively for the armchair fan.
Sky will be able to bring in the best commentators, better camera angles, slicker production so the armchair fan should really enjoy the experience more.
incorrect - bernie has made f1 into the global sport that it has become. Sky will be showing all the races, with the beeb showinf ten races. For me, i dont see this as a bad move. Sky are known for their high quality sports broadcasting i.e football and cricket. In fact, i feel the resurgance of interest in cricket is partly down to sky's fantastic coverage. I dont see why f1 has to be on free to air tv - football isnt, and viewing figures are huge even on sky.
But do sky really offer the best for the armchair fan?
You try watching a prem game with that ex-gooner moron alan smith commentating(talking shite), and then ask yourself... is this the best they have to offer?
I agree with Jarman here - their commentators or pundits, or whatever they're called, are all poor. And I can't stand the Sky concept of the "big four". I hated the way they were so patronising when we were in the prem if we had the gall to score a goal or, heaven forbid, win a game against the "big four". I could go on, but nursey is worried about my blood pressure.
Comments
From what I have been told, in the rest of Europe, motorbike and car racing are second only to football as a popular sport.
Establishment sports like cricket, rugby and golf are way down the list.
ITV are mooting the concept of releasing paid for content and surely the Beeb could have thought to do something similar. If Wimbledon and The Open are lost to Sky too maybe then people will start to get the ache of it all. I know one thing for sure, I will not be signing up to Sky to watch F1.
A F1 race or Spirit of 1947's trolling.
Don't feed the Troll
How does that theory sit with equestrian sports?
Its in the olympics so it must be a sport - and yet the person doesn't jump the fence, they sit on a horse who jumps the fence. And shooting is in the olympics and yet a person does not run over to the clay pigeon and pnch it apart, they shoot a bullet at it.
And archers don't hit the target themselves.
I could go on but hopefully this shows that your theory is flawed.
The olympics has sports, but it doesn't have every sport and has never claimed to
This is why every host nation is allowed to introduce a new sport at every games</>
You can get hurt doing anything.
Roger Uttley, British Lion and England rugby international, buggered up his back sufficiently just getting out of his car to miss an international some years back!
So there you have it, or not as the case may be?I imagine that all major sports coverage in the near future will be on a shared basis for live/secondary coverage/highlights.Be interesting to see if sky allow the bbc to show live prem football then?...... I will not hold my breath on that one.I wonder if this will be the last Olympics as well that the bbc cover/Grand National.Sky generally do an excellent job on football, and gave the bbc a good, kick up the arse that it needed.Never understood the issue with the bbc's anti paid for subscription service attitude. I think it fails to deliver as a public service broadcaster what the public sometimes wants!If the public want a service that can be financied by subscription, and sponsorship that otherwise would not be available, allbeit, angling, to wrestling, to the Isle of man TT etc I have no issues with that. If Sky want competition in a so called free market let them have it, and the viewer is the winner, albeit they will have to pay for it. I can tell you this view is not as left field as it might appear, and had favour with a number of people at the bbc, but was seen as 'devisive'..... but times change?
Absolutely nail on head. Even if 5m subscribers (bearing in mind that currently there is on average 7-10m viewers) paid 75p per race the Beeb would break even with its coverage of F1. I simply cannot understand the logic of releasing the rights to a rival broadcaster that will only outbid and outmuscle the BBC in any future contract talks regarding the sport. You can bet any money free-to-air coverage of F1 will end indefinitely from 2018, if not sooner.
Long term the BBC has absolutely screwed over the public by bending over for Sky and letting them get away with it. There were ways around this than pandering to them. There is no competition if Sky are the only network with sole rights to any event.
for those of you who may have forgotten, the results were as follows
- Leon de Lunden (Belgium) 21 birds killed
- Maurice Faure (France) 20 birds killed
- Donald MacIntosh (Australia) 18 birds killed
My second favourite sport would be Spirit baiting.Seems to be the strongest online petition at the moment.
All this has been particularly galling as both Eric Boullier (head of Lotus Renault) and Adam Parr (Chairman of Williams) have stated that this is a good deal for the fans. WTF?!?! Parr even had the audacity to state that fans should be paying more! Hmm so if actually getting to a Grand Prix wasn't almost a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for, I would guess, 99% of the population, now the fact that fans will have to fork out over £500 to watch it on TV, apparently isn't enough? There are too many people running the sport who live on another planet.
http://www.pitpass.com/44418-BBC-and-Sky-Who-is-really-to-blame-and-who-should-really-stop-it
Erm Minority sport???
It is the second biggest sport in terms of TV viewing after football. The race that Hamilton won the title attracted 13.2million viewers - not much less than a world cup game featuring England. And most of the races now do 7 to 10million. Miles more than Murray games at Wimbledon (c3-4m) golf (even less) and cricket (even less still).
I think the sport has under-estimated the UK-F1 market and become very complacent with it. How long will the major sponsors and partners put up with seeing the audience share that their brands are exposed to drop by as much as 80% (or more)? Formula 1 is an event, not a match, you can't just simply turnover onto another channel and catch another race.
Audience figures for next years championship to be shown on the BBC will plummet too IMO, and only then will the powers that be realise what a mistake they have made. Sponsorship drives the sport more than anything and if those sponsors feel as though they are not getting a return they will walk.
Whilst I think it is a shame for the beeb to lose it, it will be interesting how much the sky coverage is better.
I think most sports Sky has invested in from Football, cricket, Darts as well as US sports have improved massively for the armchair fan.
Sky will be able to bring in the best commentators, better camera angles, slicker production so the armchair fan should really enjoy the experience more.
incorrect - bernie has made f1 into the global sport that it has become. Sky will be showing all the races, with the beeb showinf ten races. For me, i dont see this as a bad move. Sky are known for their high quality sports broadcasting i.e football and cricket. In fact, i feel the resurgance of interest in cricket is partly down to sky's fantastic coverage. I dont see why f1 has to be on free to air tv - football isnt, and viewing figures are huge even on sky.
But do sky really offer the best for the armchair fan?
You try watching a prem game with that ex-gooner moron alan smith commentating(talking shite), and then ask yourself... is this the best they have to offer?