F1 goes to Sky sports

[Marbot]

It hasn't been a week for good news, has it? At least they saved this item for Friday. Always a good day for bad news.

[Fox89]

Commentary will be shared, and other details - according to James Allen. I guess that keeps Martin and DC in the job, Sky would be nuts to get rid of them.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Super Hans

I hear the News of the World hacked Colin Kolles's phone. And put £10 credit on it.

Now that is very good...

[Helicon_One]

This is excellent news!

I was looking at buying a new TV despite the fact that the BBC's F1 coverage is pretty much the only thing I ever watch, now I can save the money I would have spent on that for something else instead. Won't be needing a TV licence either!

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by Fox89

Commentary will be shared, and other details - according to James Allen. I guess that keeps Martin and DC in the job, Sky would be nuts to get rid of them.

Shared production kit on events where the BBC aren't there live is fair enough since it's likely to be SIS or another OB provider, but there will still need to be 2 set of production trucks/Fly away kits for when both are showing Live coverage, unless the BBC are to be totally studio based.

The shared commentary is easy as well since the commentary from the BBC, ITV and before that Murray on the BBC was essentially a English Language world feed anyway with it going to Canada, Australia and many other countries. Plus the fact that it has a nice clear start point at the 5 minute bumper and a reasonably obvious stop point at the end of the podium, where the feeds would separate back to presentation, or in Sky's case more likely voice over into Ad break.

I'm wondering if the on-site production team would create a single 60 minute race edit to be used by both the BBC in their 75 minute highlights programme (if that's what they end up with rather than a full race re-run) and Sky for I'd presume their own "Monday afternoon" highlights if that's included in their package.

[JeremySmith]

So I have read this whole thread, and the response is what I expected most of you are rather angry..

Ecclestone takes a pasting again which is not unusual concerning this latest news..The BBC has had a change of heart? call it whatever you like.
Bernie needs to find an alternative solution...He has.

Let me remind all of you without him, and all he has done for F1 most of you would watching paint dry on your grannies privy..

I have paid to watch F1 races since I first came to live in the United States in 1978, and I continue to do so..

The Speed channel, uses three commentators that watch the world feed with *one* on site pitlane reporter at each race..

My ATT U-Verse costs me $113.00 per month..

So that I can watch my local stations and a F1 broadcast every two weeks or so with ads...

Consider yourselves fortunate that you have had a somewhat free ride up until this point..

[Knowlesy]

But that is no reason to accept what is, ultimately, regression.

It's like saying you've been very fortunate to have cars, trains and planes all this time after being told that the only legal forms of transportation from now on are horse and cart or sailing ship for no good reason.

"You've been very fortunate to have had legs all these years, so you can't complain now we are going to cut them off for the fun of it."

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

But that is no reason to accept what is, ultimately, regression.

It's like saying you've been very fortunate to have cars, trains and planes all this time after being told that the only legal forms of transportation from now on are horse and cart or sailing ship for no good reason.

"You've been very fortunate to have had legs all these years, so you can't complain now we are going to cut them off for the fun of it."

Spoiled brat

[Graz]

F1 teams, drivers, Bernie etc. are all doing financially very well - because of the fans. Now they want the fans to fork out yet more to fuel their personal greed. This deal isn't all down to Bernie either, the teams are in on this too regardless of the 'surprise' being feigned.

Look at the utterly silly money in football since Sky came in with very ordinary footballers on thousands of pounds a week and the likes of the perenially 'poor me' Carlos Tevez on 250k a week...because of Sky money. It's truly obscene.

How much money do these guys need and why ultimately should the fans be paying it? The Sky money may have been good for the players but the fans ticket prices have shot up and it would seem that all clubs are insolvent and being run at a loss due to players salaries.

Some on this thread have said they won't get the Sky subscription to continue watching F1 becasue they can't afford it. I can afford it but will choose not to get it. It simply isn't value for money.

I'm not paying yet more money to watch sport to make the already obscenely rich even richer. I've seen the football, rugby, cricket etc. be hoovered up by Sky over the years and have coped with it. Now the F1 is going piecemeal, eventually to be fully on Sky no doubt. In time, all meaningful sport will be pay per view but you know what, I can live without it. Who cares if the likes of World Cup ends up pay per view - when was the last decent World Cup anyway. It might make me use my time better than watching overpaid primadonna's poncing about - and that goes for F1 too.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Graz

F1 teams, drivers, Bernie etc. are all doing financially very well - because of the fans. Now they want the fans to fork out yet more to fuel their personal greed. This deal isn't all down to Bernie either, the teams are in on this too regardless of the 'surprise' being feigned.

Look at the utterly silly money in football since Sky came in with very ordinary footballers on thousands of pounds a week and the likes of the perenially 'poor me' Carlos Tevez on 250k a week...because of Sky money. It's truly obscene.

How much money do these guys need and why ultimately should the fans be paying it? The Sky money may have been good for the players but the fans ticket prices have shot up and it would seem that all clubs are insolvent and being run at a loss due to players salaries.

Some on this thread have said they won't get the Sky subscription to continue watching F1 becasue they can't afford it. I can afford it but will choose not to get it. It simply isn't value for money.

I'm not paying yet more money to watch sport to make the already obscenely rich even richer. I've seen the football, rugby, cricket etc. be hoovered up by Sky over the years and have coped with it. Now the F1 is going piecemeal, eventually to be fully on Sky no doubt. In time, all meaningful sport will be pay per view but you know what, I can live without it. Who cares if the likes of World Cup ends up pay per view - when was the last decent World Cup anyway. It might make me use my time better than watching overpaid primadonna's poncing about - and that goes for F1 too.

I'm glad you posted this, as this exemplifies exactly how Sky operates regarding televised sport. If what you say is correct, then the irony is that revenue from Sky seems to be paying for players, while the clubs themselves are in debt.

[G.Walker]

Sky and motorsport don't mix imho

Eurosport an ben edwards / john watson was decent I recall, but as already mentioned bbc are superior in motorsport coverage

It was the only reason I paid the license fee,

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Graz

Some on this thread have said they won't get the Sky subscription to continue watching F1 becasue they can't afford it. I can afford it but will choose not to get it. It simply isn't value for money.

I'm not paying yet more money to watch sport to make the already obscenely rich even richer. I've seen the football, rugby, cricket etc. be hoovered up by Sky over the years and have coped with it. Now the F1 is going piecemeal, eventually to be fully on Sky no doubt. In time, all meaningful sport will be pay per view but you know what, I can live without it. Who cares if the likes of World Cup ends up pay per view - when was the last decent World Cup anyway. It might make me use my time better than watching overpaid primadonna's poncing about - and that goes for F1 too.

You know, I think I'm with you. I am not interested enough in any sport to pay for a subscription to Sky (and I have refused for many years to put any money in the Murdoch pocket). F1, Rugby (6 nations), some cricket are the only sports I watch, if they went wholly to Sky, I'd just suck it up and not watch.

We cannot be the only ones.

[browney]

I don't understand this move as surely the reduced viewership by being on PayTV is more of a disadvantage, outweighing the extra money from Sky? It takes all of the casual viewers out. I would have thought it would be a better move for Bernie to reduce the cost of the TV package to the BBC in the long run, rather than loose the people who will tune in and become more interested in the sport (although the guy cares as much about growing the sport as I do about restaurant floral arrangements).

I certainly wouldn't do it without a MotoGP style internet package, that's insane.

One of the things that I think is holding soccer back in Australia is that the A-league is only on paytv.

[Knowlesy]

Graz, it isn't just football that is being distorted by Sky money. Rugby League also has been transformed beyond recognition and not entirely in a good way. They needed to invent a franchise system to stop the permanent bankruptcy of every relegated club.

Eventually everything will end up on Sky, barring the odd protected event. This monopoly is somewhat unhealthy and I find it odd that nobody steps in to try and stop it in all honesty. Sport is something the working class cling to and the working class are simply not well off at the moment. TV coverage should not, under any circumstances, be elitist and yet that is the way it is heading. If it carries on like this then we won't be able to show our kids the sports we love.

Sad times. But sport will one day regret the moment it abandoned the common man.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by browney

I don't understand this move as surely the reduced viewership by being on PayTV is more of a disadvantage, outweighing the extra money from Sky? It takes all of the casual viewers out. I would have thought it would be a better move for Bernie to reduce the cost of the TV package to the BBC in the long run, rather than loose the people who will tune in and become more interested in the sport (although the guy cares as much about growing the sport as I do about restaurant floral arrangements).

I certainly wouldn't do it without a MotoGP style internet package, that's insane.

One of the things that I think is holding soccer back in Australia is that the A-league is only on paytv.

I agree with you entirely.

[Adam43]

I agree with the point about regression. If I could chose it would be on the beeb, the coverage has been great.

This deal seems pretty good though and in context of other sports and other countries looks good.
However, judging from some above it is like Christmas has been cancelled for a five year old. A vicious five year old who feeds worms to his younger sister because he has to share with her.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

So I have read this whole thread, and the response is what I expected most of you are rather angry..

Ecclestone takes a pasting again which is not unusual concerning this latest news..The BBC has had a change of heart? call it whatever you like.
Bernie needs to find an alternative solution...He has.

Let me remind all of you without him, and all he has done for F1 most of you would watching paint dry on your grannies privy..

I have paid to watch F1 races since I first came to live in the United States in 1978, and I continue to do so..

The Speed channel, uses three commentators that watch the world feed with *one* on site pitlane reporter at each race..

My ATT U-Verse costs me $113.00 per month..

So that I can watch my local stations and a F1 broadcast every two weeks or so with ads...

Consider yourselves fortunate that you have had a somewhat free ride up until this point..

If this is the only means that F1 is available in the USA then I am not surprised it has very little following and very few know about it.

It would surely be better for F1 long term to ensure it is on a major network where it can be seen by casual viewers even if it cost FOM money to get it started.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by browney

I don't understand this move as surely the reduced viewership by being on PayTV is more of a disadvantage, outweighing the extra money from Sky? It takes all of the casual viewers out.

it is likely that Bernie has considered this.
It doesn't remove all casual viewers. It is still on FTA and some people do have sky!
Also sponsors don't just pay teams to get exposure to the British viewers. These only make up a fraction of the world wide exposure and they get more than just the name on the car. My mate who knows nothing about motorsport pointed that out to me!

[Adam43]

For those with rage have you thought of using the following:
$ky
Eccle$tone
I think it'll demonstrate what you want it too.

[Sodemo]

Its the perfect marriage. Ecclestone and Murdoch.

[garcon]

World Ends. Murdoch suspected.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Its the perfect marriage. Ecclestone and Murdoch.

I suspect, based on little, that they aren't top mates!

Originally Posted by garcon

World Ends. Murdoch suspected.

Murdoch hanged. Turns out it Paula Jones from Guilford.

[Mr V]

I do think that one thing everyone seems to be forgetting is this. Had Sky and BBC not done this deal, then it's quite possible that we wouldn't have any coverage from 2012 onwards!!

I do sympathise with those who don't have/want to pay for Sky TV. But i'm one of those who do spend £70 a month (multi room and HD) on Sky and maybe i am just funding the evil empire, but before i had Sky i had no access to Premiership football (other than late night highlights) or the Golf. The Ryder Cup coverage that Sky put on is worth that months subscription alone.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where we have to pay for everything, there wasn't enough money to pay for F1 and we'd have lost coverage on the Beeb.

[Knowlesy]

£840 a year.

[browney]

Australia has far fewer people to take advertising dollars from and manages fantastic, live, HD F1 coverage.

Surely if viewership was the prime concern of Mr. Ecclestone then he could have reduced the price of the TV deal.

Also, I have no idea about British television but are there many FTA channels that could have it? I thought F1 used to be on itv? Why did the BBC bid for it then not want it, is it rating that low even with a couple of top class British drivers? The UK has a huge population all paying the TV license, how can that not afford it (surely big shows like Top Gear and Dr. Who aren't cheap, are those shows going to suffer as well)?