F1 goes to Sky sports

[Mystery]

He's not trying to please everyone though. The BBC used to cover a broad range of sport. It's a bit of a joke now.

[mickey29]

Sport is big business and why should a tax payer line the pockets of overpaid over hyped sportstars.

The managers and organisers are perceived as corrupt. Footballers are perceived as spoilt brats, cricketers are tarred by the Pakastani Cheating Scandal, Rugby players are perceived as drunken louts and F1 is seen to be a rich man's toy.

The BBC will be showing the greatest sporting event next year in the form of the Olympics, however it has sensible level of coverage of other sports although it is fixated on that game where 22 people kick a bladder from one end of a field to another.

Ultimately there will be no free to air sport unless there is a reset of the financial incentives for the "professional" bodies, managers and sportstars.

If the rights holders stop making obscene amounts of money and share the wealth public broadcast networks can afford the rights.

Otherwise commercial stations will be the only ones who can afford it.

The people to blame for this are the fans for not standing up to be counted.

I maybe getting Sky because I want to watch Indycar and F1, but since I can watch F1 for free (albeit in a reduced way) I may vote with my wallet.

If everyone votes with their wallets then the sport coverage will change.

Stop going to events, stop buying the shirts, the model cars, the memorabilia, magazines and the bookmakers.

Stop participating in anyway and you will cut of the money and sports coverage will get back to basics.

Is anybody prepared to do this? No.

So we have no right to moan then. The monster was created by ourselves and now we are paying the price.

[strider]

Just in case you thought motor racing was the only sport affected by the BBC cutbacks, have a look at this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...C-TV-deal.html

Things must be dire at the Beeb for the national sport to suffer as well.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by mickey29

....however it has sensible level of coverage of other sports although it is fixated on that game where 22 people kick a bladder from one end of a field to another.

It's the national game, but it seems that even it is losing out to other sports. One can only wonder what level of coverage F1 will get on the BBC in 2013. I feel that it may depend quite a lot on who wins the drivers championship in 2012.

[P38 in workshop]

Originally Posted by mickey29

Sport is big business and why should a tax payer line the pockets of overpaid over hyped sportstars.

The managers and organisers are perceived as corrupt. Footballers are perceived as spoilt brats, cricketers are tarred by the Pakastani Cheating Scandal, Rugby players are perceived as drunken louts and F1 is seen to be a rich man's toy.

The BBC will be showing the greatest sporting event next year in the form of the Olympics, however it has sensible level of coverage of other sports although it is fixated on that game where 22 people kick a bladder from one end of a field to another.

Ultimately there will be no free to air sport unless there is a reset of the financial incentives for the "professional" bodies, managers and sportstars.

If the rights holders stop making obscene amounts of money and share the wealth public broadcast networks can afford the rights.

Otherwise commercial stations will be the only ones who can afford it.

The people to blame for this are the fans for not standing up to be counted.

I maybe getting Sky because I want to watch Indycar and F1, but since I can watch F1 for free (albeit in a reduced way) I may vote with my wallet.

If everyone votes with their wallets then the sport coverage will change.

Stop going to events, stop buying the shirts, the model cars, the memorabilia, magazines and the bookmakers.

Stop participating in anyway and you will cut of the money and sports coverage will get back to basics.

Is anybody prepared to do this? No.

So we have no right to moan then. The monster was created by ourselves and now we are paying the price.

I don't entirely disagree with the points made.I would add that the sponsors have been sold a publicity package based on the numbers that view.If these numbers show a marked drop there may be ramifications when contract renewal time comes round.Similarly if fewer people are watching after the move to Sky,the market for selling related merchandise shrinks.The BBC is having to face a bit of financial restraint and there are lots of fiefdoms fighting for their continued existence.Curiously for a publicly funded body,they seem to arrive at their conclusions without too much consultation with the public that none too willingly provides the funds.

[Paradise City]

Eccelstone puts too high a price for his coverage perhaps by ten fold.There's your problem. A fair price should've been given to the BBC in light of the BBC's unsurpassed reach in audience numbers and prestige. I don't blame the BBC for this at all.

I don't like the predator Sky more generally in that they kidnap all the sports and imprison them behind - not a pay-wall - but a WHOPPER of a pay-wall.

That sort of environment is unhealthy and now it has disfigured F1.

[Sodemo]

If Sky think that their subscribers are all of a sudden going to skyrocket because they now have F1, they are sorely mistaken.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

If Sky think that their subscribers are all of a sudden going to skyrocket because they now have F1, they are sorely mistaken.

That would largely depend on what sort of coverage, if any, the free-to-air channel continues to provide. Emphasis being on the word, 'continues', since the BBC may have already entered into a contract or may be financially forced into a situation that limits even further it's coverage of F1 after 2012.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

If Sky think that their subscribers are all of a sudden going to skyrocket because they now have F1, they are sorely mistaken.

I'm not sure that that's the priority for Sky, as long as people aren't watching the BBC, even if they aren't watching Sky instead, Sky will be happy.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

If Sky think that their subscribers are all of a sudden going to skyrocket because they now have F1, they are sorely mistaken.

Originally Posted by Mr V

I'm not sure that that's the priority for Sky, as long as people aren't watching the BBC, even if they aren't watching Sky instead, Sky will be happy.

From Sky's own Quarterly figures for the 3 Months up to 30th September Last year, of their 10.2 million customers 3.9 million of those have the HD Package meaning that they will be able to get the F1 channel, there isn't a figure in the report but add to that the number of Sky Sports subscribers who don't have HD. I don't think it would be a stretch to say that the F1 channel would have a reach of half it's subscriber base, and that was before they really started advertising their coverage.

I think Sky will see a modest increase in New subscribers, but how much of that could be directly apportioned to the F1 channel would be difficult to judge.
I do think however that Sky may see a more significant increase in existing customers upgrading to HD but that could actually back fire as there is pretty much constant promotions for customers with older boxes to upgrade free or reduced costs, as such with little immediate profit for Sky.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

of their 10.2 million customers 3.9 million of those have the HD Package meaning that they will be able to get the F1 channel,

I have the full Sky package so have to admit that i haven't taken much notice, but do subscribers get F1 with the HD package, or with the HD sports package??

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Its Either HD or Sky Sports

Sky Sports only = F1 Channel
HD Mix only = F1 Channel

[Mr V]

There has just been an advert showing whats on in 2012 and the logo said Sky Sports F1 HD. So, of your 3.9 million subscribers who have the HD package, what percentage of them have sports i wonder?

[Flavio Galtieri]

Originally Posted by Mr V

I'm not sure that that's the priority for Sky, as long as people aren't watching the BBC, even if they aren't watching Sky instead, Sky will be happy.

Absolutely spot on.

This is not and never has been about F1, or even sport. It's about the Murdoch's plan to destroy the BBC. That is their goal, that is the plan. Taking F1 off the BBC is just a gift to them. The BBC Director General, Mark Thompson, by not even considering negotiating with another free to air broadcaster sold F1 fans down the river to save his own skin. Shameful public sector management for which he should be sacked.

As we showed with the petition that thwarted the Murdoch's bid for 100% ownership, they can be defeated.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by Mr V

There has just been an advert showing whats on in 2012 and the logo said Sky Sports F1 HD. So, of your 3.9 million subscribers who have the HD package, what percentage of them have sports i wonder?

For all the channel is Sky Sports F1 HD, like every other Sky Channel there is also an SD version as well. It would be this that Sky Sports (non HD) customers would get, and also multiroom customers who have HD in the main room, but would be able to get the SD channel on any SD multiroom boxes

I have no idea how many HD customers also have Sky Sports, likewise I don't know how many non HD customers have Sky Sports, but like I said earlier, I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to suggest a possible viewership reach of half the customer base. There will be updated figures released at the end of January according to the dates of the document I linked to earlier. The numbers could look different then, but not significantly I wouldn't have thought.