Martin brundle is joining sky sports for their f1 coverage next season..excellent news, brundle is class...looking forward to the new sky sports f1 channel!
No problem with it going to Sky on normal sports subscription, but I think pay per view is a step to far. I purchase boxing on a regular basis, but would not pay extra for F1
Never realised watching f1 on BBC was a human right...
Having the rights to f1 is incredibly expensive....do you think its right the tax payer has to foot the bill for something not everybody watches?
Actually by the BBC Trust's own admission in their annual report earlier this year it was stated that F1 was the best value for money sports event, out of 14 others, that they showed and was also amongst the cheapest on a cost-per-hour basis. It is a total and utter myth they have done this deal with Sky to save money, especially as this week they announced a £160m deal for the Six Nations rugby over the next 5 years.
Bernie Ecclestone blames the BBC for being unwilling to be open to offers from other free-to-air providers, like Channel 4 (who by the way were prepared to meet the current asking price for F1) and the BBC blame FOM/Bernie Ecclestone for being unwilling to re-negotiate an existing contract. Quite clearly from all of the evidence, neither side is telling the truth.
The simple fact is, F1 fans in this country have been given the s**t end of the stick with this deal. FOM wants all that lovely Sky money and the BBC didn't want to lose F1 to another free-to-air provider and so cut their nose to spite their face over it. In the end it's the fans that can't afford Sky, like me, who lose out the most.
Sky have been exceptionally cynical with the introduction of an F1 channel for next season. According to their Twitter feed they have no plans to extend the service to other platforms like BT Vision, Virgin Media or Freeview, you have to be a Sky customer with the full HD package, working out at a minimum of £30.25 per month, to get access to F1 next season.
Never realised watching f1 on BBC was a human right...
Having the rights to f1 is incredibly expensive....do you think its right the tax payer has to foot the bill for something not everybody watches?
Actually by the BBC Trust's own admission in their annual report earlier this year it was stated that F1 was the best value for money sports event, out of 14 others, that they showed and was also amongst the cheapest on a cost-per-hour basis. It is a total and utter myth they have done this deal with Sky to save money, especially as this week they announced a £160m deal for the Six Nations rugby over the next 5 years.
Bernie Ecclestone blames the BBC for being unwilling to be open to offers from other free-to-air providers, like Channel 4 (who by the way were prepared to meet the current asking price for F1) and the BBC blame FOM/Bernie Ecclestone for being unwilling to re-negotiate an existing contract. Quite clearly from all of the evidence, neither side is telling the truth.
The simple fact is, F1 fans in this country have been given the s**t end of the stick with this deal. FOM wants all that lovely Sky money and the BBC didn't want to lose F1 to another free-to-air provider and so cut their nose to spite their face over it. In the end it's the fans that can't afford Sky, like me, who lose out the most.
Sky have been exceptionally cynical with the introduction of an F1 channel for next season. According to their Twitter feed they have no plans to extend the service to other platforms like BT Vision, Virgin Media or Freeview, you have to be a Sky customer with the full HD package, working out at a minimum of £30.25 per month, to get access to F1 next season.
EGA, out of interest, what would you say is an average price to go and watch F1 racing live. I can take it it is more cheaper than a football match????
Never realised watching f1 on BBC was a human right...
Having the rights to f1 is incredibly expensive....do you think its right the tax payer has to foot the bill for something not everybody watches?
Actually by the BBC Trust's own admission in their annual report earlier this year it was stated that F1 was the best value for money sports event, out of 14 others, that they showed and was also amongst the cheapest on a cost-per-hour basis. It is a total and utter myth they have done this deal with Sky to save money, especially as this week they announced a £160m deal for the Six Nations rugby over the next 5 years.
Bernie Ecclestone blames the BBC for being unwilling to be open to offers from other free-to-air providers, like Channel 4 (who by the way were prepared to meet the current asking price for F1) and the BBC blame FOM/Bernie Ecclestone for being unwilling to re-negotiate an existing contract. Quite clearly from all of the evidence, neither side is telling the truth.
The simple fact is, F1 fans in this country have been given the s**t end of the stick with this deal. FOM wants all that lovely Sky money and the BBC didn't want to lose F1 to another free-to-air provider and so cut their nose to spite their face over it. In the end it's the fans that can't afford Sky, like me, who lose out the most.
Sky have been exceptionally cynical with the introduction of an F1 channel for next season. According to their Twitter feed they have no plans to extend the service to other platforms like BT Vision, Virgin Media or Freeview, you have to be a Sky customer with the full HD package, working out at a minimum of £30.25 per month, to get access to F1 next season.
EGA, out of interest, what would you say is an average price to go and watch F1 racing live. I can take it it is more cheaper than a football match????
£130 for the cheapest ticket to this years British GP.
Yep it's very expensive, but you can't compare the two sports. An F1 race is an event, it's not like football where you can watch it anywhere at any level. I've been to Monza twice and both times the weekends, including flights, hotels etc were four figures. But that's two races in 17 years.
The overwhelming majority of F1 fans watch it on TV and this new deal dis-enfranchises too many people IMO.
If it's anything like the last 2 seasons where Vettel gets pole and wins every race then I don't think I'll be that bothered even if I can't watch it. The qualifying is more interesting than the race these days.
I also have it on very good authority that Brundle will be joined by David Croft from 5Live. Steve Rider will be involved in a magazine show format - and their Rugby presenter (Simon somebody or other) will anchor.
Brundle, Croft and pitlane reporter Ted Kravitz have all defected to Sky. Nigel Mansell is set to be announced as guest pundit too, great great driver, but he's dull as dishwater to listen to.
The BBC couldn't sustain the expense of their coverage and sought out this deal. It was the only way they could keep some level of coverage - half the races are still on BBC, and all of them will be available in highlights form. Meanwhile, Sky will do an excellent job. the 'sh*t end of the stick' isn't really that bad.
BT and Virgin are like pathetic children - why the hell should Sky give them free access? They are a business - it's incredible how vilified Sky are for simply being a corporation trying to make money.
If Virgin didn't spend so much time and money making out they are the anti-Sky and slagging the company off in all their comms, maybe they could have endeared themselves to Sky a little more and maybe be better placed to get the carriage deals that they'll inevitably whine to Ofcom about.
P.S. Chris Evans (yes, that one) begged for a presenting role but didn't get it.
If you believe that about the BBC then, I'm sorry to say, you're deluded. Why did they announce a £160m contract with the Six Nations rugby last week? Why have they massively overspent on Olympics coverage already and the move to Salford? Why was it announced the very same day back in July that the story first broke, that senior management were given a £3m increase in car allowances? Why did the BBC Trust produce a report in January this year stating that F1 was the best value for money sport that is shown across their entire network? Why have they insisted on sending full crews to the races they aren't showing, which would have saved them another £10m otherwise?
It is a total, utter, entire fabrication that they have done this deal with Sky to save money. Anyone can see it, it really doesn't take a lot of digging to find out.
I couldn't care less if Sky will do a good job, I can't afford it, I won't get to see the whole season. Why the hell should Sky give other platforms access? I'm sorry do we not live in a democracy? Do we not have a thing called a free market that encourages competition? The question should be, why should Sky have complete and utter control of sports rights? Why isn't there more transparency and openness regarding not only the way this deal was handled but also why Sky are continually allowed to manipulate the market?
Deluded? Jeez, you're a little agressive EGAd. You have your view, fair enough, but it doesn't make everyone else deluded for not agreeing, does it? Then again, I can afford Sky, so maybe being deluded ain't so bad!
I'm clearly no economics expert, but I don't think watching sport on Virgin is a democratic thing, I'd have guessed it's a capitalist thing. F1 is about money. Lots of money. I don't get why you think democracy dictates that you get to watch that for free. Do you believe you should get free tickets to the event too?
Apologies, it's just the subject irritates me (I contribute on another forum that has discussed this issue at length), the BBC side of the deal has been done to death and I can tell you that there is so much evidence that refutes the claim that was originally made that they have done this to save money.
As an aside I dislike Sky's business model generally and have never been a fan of them, they do everything to resist pressure from Ofcom and denying access to F1 on other platforms smacks of greed and arrogance IMO. They've cast the net as wide as possible but with it comes strings attached and an expensive way to view sport, not just F1.
Anyway in many countries F1 is only available on pay-tv, it's just that this move to Sky makes it one of the most expensive platforms for fans to watch anywhere. In Japan and the US, for instance, it works out about £10 a month. As stated above, it will cost a minimum of £30 here.
I personally don't watch F1 to me it's incredibly boring and populated by the biggest and most boring sports anoraks on the planet it just gets to me that there is endless hours of bloody practice shown on TV it's a bit like watching a Football Teams trainnig session the day before the game and before there is a flood of posts explaining the complexities of qualification I am not interested, however that is just my opinion and is only valid for me. But the sport has a huge following as does Test Match Cricket that has also been lost to Sky and if we are not careful Wimbledon, The World Cup and The Olympics will go the same way as it seems the BBC are finding it harder and harder to compete in the sports market place. I guess in the end this is market dynamics where the biggest offer wins and in the case of F1 we are talking big bucks, the option for the BBC would be to have a specifically stated aim to regain these events and put up the licence fee accordingly but I would bet my house that wouldn't be popular either, as the non-sports fans would complain.
I don't like it much either and as someone who hitherto resisted buying Sky I am seriously considering doing so because if you want to watch sport the options are disappearing fast but this isn't "undemoractic" its market forces, whether this is a good or bad thing is debateable but the means of controlling the continued dominance of Sky is rather limited and in fact by doing so would probably be undemocratic as well.
Fair enough! Very interesting to see the logic behind your point - I did a bit of Googling and see what you mean. I don't fully understand the logic if it's not about money - apologies if you made this point above, but I don't fully understand. Why would the BBC not keep exclusive rights if they COULD afford to maintain the current expense? Is it more a case of Bernie and co. holding out for more money no matter what and the Beeb seeing the MotD set up as the next best deal for them?
Sky get exclusive rights to generate more subscribers. That's the business model I'm guessing you object to? I see your point - if you don't want to pay for Sky it's very irritating to not have access to this stuff. But if you do WANT to pay for Sky, then it's bloody brilliant. An F1-dedicated channel in HD? Hell yes please! That's what I'd vote for!
On the Ofcom thing - I should probably admit this now - having worked for the business we're discussing for a considerable amount of time, I have to say, Ofcom are bloody horrible to Sky compared to their competitors, and I am all for resisting them!!
I can also say that the business model is changing over the next few years, and I wouldn't be surprised if you saw an approach that won't require annual subscriptions (probably), multiple packages (hopefully) and dishes (this is for certain) within a year or two.
Good points Jimmy85 what I think is and I am no expert is that the market forces to buy Sport are driving the BBC out of the market or at least that is what appears to be happening which I don't object to but it does mean that you feel that you are getting less for your licence money than before. Don't get me wrong I think the BBC waste a huge amount of funds on salaries etc. but clearly Sky can effectively outbid them anytime they want.
I for one would welcome a change to the BBC TV (but not radio which remains world class by any standards) if it meant we could once again get better access to a bigger variety of Sports and agree that in the future all TV will be subscription based it makes no sense for it to be otherwise as the idea of a licence fee is now outmoded and restrictive.
I think the BBC's decision was two-fold, they didn't want to lose the rights to Channel 4, who they perceive as more of a rival for free-to-air audiences than Sky, and Bernie/FOM were asking for a big raise in the rights fee, from 2013 onwards when the BBC's original contract was due to end. The BBC also faced the problem that they can't ask for a raise in the licence fee as that has been frozen by the current govt for the next 5 years IIRC.
2012 is a year in limbo for both the BBC and the fans, I expect to see an announcement that the rights have been lost entirely on FTA format this time next year. (and before anyone mentions the teams 'demand' that F1 should exist in some part on FTA in the Concorde Agreement, no-one has actually seen that document, as it's a private contract).
Don't forget FOM have wanted F1 on a pay-tv format for many years, who remembers F1 Digital? Bernie Ecclestone lost £25m in that deal, as it was a financial disaster (they projected audiences of 1-2m when, by the time it was pulled off air it was barely topping 10,000 subscribers). FOM/F1 needs greater revenues to fill the gap left by the tobacco giants.
If there was greater flexibility with Sky and they were more compliant at allowing better access to sport, I would warm to them. There was some excitement generated last week when it was claimed that Sky would offer the F1 channel on Freeview and Virgin Media for £10 a month, unfortunately this didn't happen. I think they need to adapt sooner rather than later and be more flexible to the market as there is a finite limit to the number of people who can afford pay-tv IMO.
I personally don't watch F1 to me it's incredibly boring and populated by the biggest and most boring sports anoraks on the planet it just gets to me that there is endless hours of bloody practice shown on TV it's a bit like watching a Football Teams trainnig session the day before the game and before there is a flood of posts explaining the complexities of qualification I am not interested, however that is just my opinion and is only valid for me. But the sport has a huge following as does Test Match Cricket that has also been lost to Sky and if we are not careful Wimbledon, The World Cup and The Olympics will go the same way as it seems the BBC are finding it harder and harder to compete in the sports market place. I guess in the end this is market dynamics where the biggest offer wins and in the case of F1 we are talking big bucks, the option for the BBC would be to have a specifically stated aim to regain these events and put up the licence fee accordingly but I would bet my house that wouldn't be popular either, as the non-sports fans would complain.
I don't like it much either and as someone who hitherto resisted buying Sky I am seriously considering doing so because if you want to watch sport the options are disappearing fast but this isn't "undemoractic" its market forces, whether this is a good or bad thing is debateable but the means of controlling the continued dominance of Sky is rather limited and in fact by doing so would probably be undemocratic as well.
You think F1 supporters are anaracks you are forgetting the ultimate bores - Golfers.
Comments
Having the rights to f1 is incredibly expensive....do you think its right the tax payer has to foot the bill for something not everybody watches?
Bernie Ecclestone blames the BBC for being unwilling to be open to offers from other free-to-air providers, like Channel 4 (who by the way were prepared to meet the current asking price for F1) and the BBC blame FOM/Bernie Ecclestone for being unwilling to re-negotiate an existing contract. Quite clearly from all of the evidence, neither side is telling the truth.
The simple fact is, F1 fans in this country have been given the s**t end of the stick with this deal. FOM wants all that lovely Sky money and the BBC didn't want to lose F1 to another free-to-air provider and so cut their nose to spite their face over it. In the end it's the fans that can't afford Sky, like me, who lose out the most.
Sky have been exceptionally cynical with the introduction of an F1 channel for next season. According to their Twitter feed they have no plans to extend the service to other platforms like BT Vision, Virgin Media or Freeview, you have to be a Sky customer with the full HD package, working out at a minimum of £30.25 per month, to get access to F1 next season.
The overwhelming majority of F1 fans watch it on TV and this new deal dis-enfranchises too many people IMO.
which is good as I only watch about five races each season, although that's more than the amount of football I watch.
Simon Lazenby is the one you're thinking of.
BT and Virgin are like pathetic children - why the hell should Sky give them free access? They are a business - it's incredible how vilified Sky are for simply being a corporation trying to make money.
If Virgin didn't spend so much time and money making out they are the anti-Sky and slagging the company off in all their comms, maybe they could have endeared themselves to Sky a little more and maybe be better placed to get the carriage deals that they'll inevitably whine to Ofcom about.
P.S. Chris Evans (yes, that one) begged for a presenting role but didn't get it.
It is a total, utter, entire fabrication that they have done this deal with Sky to save money. Anyone can see it, it really doesn't take a lot of digging to find out.
I couldn't care less if Sky will do a good job, I can't afford it, I won't get to see the whole season. Why the hell should Sky give other platforms access? I'm sorry do we not live in a democracy? Do we not have a thing called a free market that encourages competition? The question should be, why should Sky have complete and utter control of sports rights? Why isn't there more transparency and openness regarding not only the way this deal was handled but also why Sky are continually allowed to manipulate the market?
I'm clearly no economics expert, but I don't think watching sport on Virgin is a democratic thing, I'd have guessed it's a capitalist thing. F1 is about money. Lots of money. I don't get why you think democracy dictates that you get to watch that for free. Do you believe you should get free tickets to the event too?
As an aside I dislike Sky's business model generally and have never been a fan of them, they do everything to resist pressure from Ofcom and denying access to F1 on other platforms smacks of greed and arrogance IMO. They've cast the net as wide as possible but with it comes strings attached and an expensive way to view sport, not just F1.
Anyway in many countries F1 is only available on pay-tv, it's just that this move to Sky makes it one of the most expensive platforms for fans to watch anywhere. In Japan and the US, for instance, it works out about £10 a month. As stated above, it will cost a minimum of £30 here.
I personally don't watch F1 to me it's incredibly boring and populated by the biggest and most boring sports anoraks on the planet it just gets to me that there is endless hours of bloody practice shown on TV it's a bit like watching a Football Teams trainnig session the day before the game and before there is a flood of posts explaining the complexities of qualification I am not interested, however that is just my opinion and is only valid for me. But the sport has a huge following as does Test Match Cricket that has also been lost to Sky and if we are not careful Wimbledon, The World Cup and The Olympics will go the same way as it seems the BBC are finding it harder and harder to compete in the sports market place. I guess in the end this is market dynamics where the biggest offer wins and in the case of F1 we are talking big bucks, the option for the BBC would be to have a specifically stated aim to regain these events and put up the licence fee accordingly but I would bet my house that wouldn't be popular either, as the non-sports fans would complain.
I don't like it much either and as someone who hitherto resisted buying Sky I am seriously considering doing so because if you want to watch sport the options are disappearing fast but this isn't "undemoractic" its market forces, whether this is a good or bad thing is debateable but the means of controlling the continued dominance of Sky is rather limited and in fact by doing so would probably be undemocratic as well.
Sky get exclusive rights to generate more subscribers. That's the business model I'm guessing you object to? I see your point - if you don't want to pay for Sky it's very irritating to not have access to this stuff. But if you do WANT to pay for Sky, then it's bloody brilliant. An F1-dedicated channel in HD? Hell yes please! That's what I'd vote for!
On the Ofcom thing - I should probably admit this now - having worked for the business we're discussing for a considerable amount of time, I have to say, Ofcom are bloody horrible to Sky compared to their competitors, and I am all for resisting them!!
I can also say that the business model is changing over the next few years, and I wouldn't be surprised if you saw an approach that won't require annual subscriptions (probably), multiple packages (hopefully) and dishes (this is for certain) within a year or two.
Good points Jimmy85 what I think is and I am no expert is that the market forces to buy Sport are driving the BBC out of the market or at least that is what appears to be happening which I don't object to but it does mean that you feel that you are getting less for your licence money than before. Don't get me wrong I think the BBC waste a huge amount of funds on salaries etc. but clearly Sky can effectively outbid them anytime they want.
I for one would welcome a change to the BBC TV (but not radio which remains world class by any standards) if it meant we could once again get better access to a bigger variety of Sports and agree that in the future all TV will be subscription based it makes no sense for it to be otherwise as the idea of a licence fee is now outmoded and restrictive.
2012 is a year in limbo for both the BBC and the fans, I expect to see an announcement that the rights have been lost entirely on FTA format this time next year. (and before anyone mentions the teams 'demand' that F1 should exist in some part on FTA in the Concorde Agreement, no-one has actually seen that document, as it's a private contract).
Don't forget FOM have wanted F1 on a pay-tv format for many years, who remembers F1 Digital? Bernie Ecclestone lost £25m in that deal, as it was a financial disaster (they projected audiences of 1-2m when, by the time it was pulled off air it was barely topping 10,000 subscribers). FOM/F1 needs greater revenues to fill the gap left by the tobacco giants.
If there was greater flexibility with Sky and they were more compliant at allowing better access to sport, I would warm to them. There was some excitement generated last week when it was claimed that Sky would offer the F1 channel on Freeview and Virgin Media for £10 a month, unfortunately this didn't happen. I think they need to adapt sooner rather than later and be more flexible to the market as there is a finite limit to the number of people who can afford pay-tv IMO.
You think F1 supporters are anaracks you are forgetting the ultimate bores - Golfers.
Actually make you 100% right there Bedsaddick I used to play golf myself liked the game but couldn't take the people who play it.