Comments

• Posted by Redheat61 on Sun, 7 Aug 2011 at 07:27 (Reply)

  The most sensible reaction to the BBC/SKY deal I've read. I won't be subscription to Sky next year, but hey it's not the end of the world.

• Posted by Stonecold79 on Sun, 7 Aug 2011 at 08:39 (Reply)

  I agree with everything said here.
  One bit I would like to add though.
  I have a Sky Sports subscription and the amount of people telling me that if I am a true F1 fan then I must cancel it in protest, My response to them is a firm NO.
  This deal was the only one that could have happened and as you have said it will be on live streams, IndyCar is and my friends watch it without any problems.
  People need to think what could have happened if Sky had not got it - No F1 at all...

• Posted by I like potatoes on Sun, 7 Aug 2011 at 09:25 (Reply)

  Here's a cool thing though. If you ARE going to get SKY, you won't just get F1. Today, August 7th, for example, there's the 24 Hrs of the Nurburgring, Rotax Max karting Nationals, Live Indycar from Toronto... plus you get MotorsTV with the Sky Sports package and that's 24 hours of racing from GP3 to DTM, to F3, Formula Ford, basically anything on wheels.

  If you're a motor racing nut, getting Sky Sports could be the best thing you ever did.

• Posted by Kate on Sun, 7 Aug 2011 at 10:01 (Reply)

  You're entitled to the opinion (as are those who are against the Sky deal by the way), but I think your tone is extremely patronizing. And this is coming from someone who has accepted the reality of the deal.

  Also, you may still be watching the sport but I know that interest in the press and public has dropped dramatically in Ireland. And I think you overestimate the interest there will be in delayed highlights, especially as they most likely will not air on BBC1 or maybe even BBC2, unless its after primetime - for which there will be an existing regular schedule on a Sunday night.

  Delayed highlights may have once been how the masses had to watch Formula 1, but today people are used to expecting more than that. Football may be surviving but it has a far larger "die hard" fanbase than F1 does. As you basically said yourself, the fans who will get a Sky Sports subscription for F1, watch the race on illegal streams, or any way possible is proportionally tiny. The sport is reliant on casual fans, and it is the who are most likely to lose interest if they can't see every race live on a Sunday afternoon.

  You probably won't post this comment if you are moderating, but I sure hope you read it - because the tone you chose to take in this blog about those who don't agree with you is certainly not something which is going to entice me to visit your site again.

• Posted by @f1fiend on Sun, 7 Aug 2011 at 12:07 (Reply)

  Naoise, I cant accept that the BBC has done everything possible. Why does it cost so much when the feed is provided for them anyway. Do we "need" Jake, EJ and Crazy Dave for an hour before hand. Do we need them all at the circuit? DI Blundell does need Crazy Dave and Ted to keep him up to date and provide balance but we certainly can do without the others, let alone sharing resources such as Crofty and Ant and the pit babes on both radio and tv are immediate candidates for cost savings

  If the BBC couldnt afford to see thro its contract it should have seen sensible ways to "cut its cloth"

  Sky will improve the quality of the coverage as it has with Rugby so the tv audience will win eventually although £600 to view in HD is step. But if Sky offers sweeteners then great - I will subscribe at a reasonable cost and if it doesnt maybe it is time to watch half the races as highlights in the evening and partake in more socialable and healthy activities during Sunday daytime

  My main issue is the arrogant way Bernie, Parr and the BBC have handled it - pathetic PR

• Posted by Jon Strutt on Sun, 7 Aug 2011 at 13:58 (Reply)

  With respect, you miss some very important details. The BBC coverage isn't just about home audience figures, they sell their feed all around the world (ITV charged Channel 9 in Perth $8000 per second twenty years ago). In addition, you state that the Chinese GP only had 50% UK audience share? That is an astronomic proportion at 8am on a Sunday morning, not poor figures at all.
  To enjoy formula 1, it has to be live, the race plus the qualifying and a short pre-race intro. We cannot compare this with football as there is only one race at one time, anywhere in the world. There is no 'league' where you can watch an alternative race. It is unique. F1 is to motor racing what Wimbledon is to tennis and Le Tour De France to cycling. It is the pinnacle of all racing. It is still, with the exception of the superbowl, Le Tour, and a few soccer cup finals, the largest audience figures per single event, on the planet.
  Why are all these other countries so desperate to sponsor a race which will never make them money? Because the TV base (up to now) will guarantee them a profile. PS after 35 years of watching it live both here in Australia and in the UK, and having ceased to watch soccer at all because it it is only on SKY I would never, ever bother to watch it recorded, there is simply no adrenalyn rush.
  I suspect the financial impact on F1 will be huge, but perhaps Bernie has finally shot himself in the foot. After all, his companies and trusts wind up with all the rake offs and I estimate he could slash all the costs by one third tomorrow and still be a billionaire!

• Posted by Manipe on Sun, 7 Aug 2011 at 14:25 (Reply)

  @4: Kate, I apologise if I came across as patronising, but the hysteria that has surrounded this deal so far has been ridiculous, as set out in the post.

  As regards Ireland, the popularity of F1 was already declining quickly when it switched to Setanta for 2005 and was the reason why RTÉ didn't bid as much for the rights (and hence lost them). Along with the fact that Ireland no longer had a team or driver in the sport (Jordan had been sold that winter and Eddie Irvine retired in 2002), 2004 was a very boring season with Schumacher marching to the title with ease. F1's popularity had therefore waned considerably by the time RTÉ dropped the rights.

  I don't understand your point that casual fans will lose interest if they can't watch every race live on BBC. I'm a casual fan of many sports, such as MotoGP and GAA. I've never watched a full season of MotoGP but still watch it on TV if the time suits (and an evening highlights show would suit me best). I don't switch off a MotoGP race because I haven't seen the previous ones from that season. Similarly, Kilkenny are playing Waterford in the All-Ireland hurling semi-final shortly. I've not seen one hurling match this year, but I'm going to watch it because I expect it will be exciting.

  Highlights will come into their own for exciting races. For example, if you hadn't seen the Canadian Grand Prix and heard on the news that Button came through from last place to win, wouldn't you want to catch up on the highlights later that night?

  Having 50% of the races live means BBC keeps the interest up among viewers. I agree that a highlights-only package (such as what they're doing with soccer) would not work as well, but I think they've struck a great balance with this deal.

• Posted by Manipe on Sun, 7 Aug 2011 at 14:35 (Reply)

  @5: F1fiend, I totally agree with you on this. The number of personnel that BBC flies to races is astronomical. There's a huge crew of people that support Jake, EJ, David, Martin, and compared to other Tv stations it's totally unjustified. The way the sport's heads have handled the deal in its aftermath is also somewhat suspect. Parr's comments have been particularly questionable, but F1 doesn't have a great history of marketing itself very well.

  @6: Jon, I suspect that instead of BBC selling their commentary, Sky will do it instead, as it's an easy moneymaker for them, as you say. As regards the 50% audience share for the Chinese GP, that means that of all the people who were watching TV on that Sunday morning, 50% were watching the race. Given that most people are in bed that early on a Sunday morning, the total number of people watching TV would be quite low, so 50% of it would be a small crowd.

  You say you don't watch soccer any more, but 50% of the races will still air live on the BBC, so the situation is completely different. The interest will be kept high by having live races, so surely you and your friends will continue to keep in touch with the sport?

  Also, the majority of casual fans don't watch qualifying or the padding pre- and post-race. They only want to watch exciting on-track action.

• Posted by dangerous1 on Sun, 7 Aug 2011 at 16:10 (Reply)

  I have tried to watch as many live F1 races, practices and qualifying sessions on ITV and the BBC even on Sunday grandstand, back in the mid nineties.
  I had Sky a few years ago, and I wasn't impressed all that much. Even so I have to bring to question why the announcement came when it did, Rupert Murdoch, trying to buy BSKYB, and with the mess he made with News International, anyone would have tried to keep their nose clean, but lo and behold, here comes Rupert Murdoch, with a multi million offer to share the rights with the BBC, I'm not here to blame either party, but surely the BBC could have done something to save some money, especially when they announce how much they are spending on a controversial move from London to Salford. it all seems very fishy to me.
  as for Sky sports subscribers, the majority of them are all Football fans, and I do not feel that they will have similar viewing figures. there fore I doubt that the sponsors will feel they have VFM, bear in mind the majority of Nascar and indy car fans are in america, so therefore the Sponsors won't mind so much because their logos will be seen on American screens although F1 is mainly made up of European and Asian sponsors it is a totally different set up. F1 has been a part of this country's heritage for 61 years, I don't think we will see it in 10 years time.

  That is just my opinion.
  

• Posted by wilko on Mon, 8 Aug 2011 at 11:30 (Reply)

  "hysteria and mellowdrama" Whether you like F1 or not I feel the issue here is timing and detail. Everyone is affected in these economic difficulties I personally have lost my job, how many others will have the same problem not to mention pay cuts or pay freezes. The Beeb have been told to freeze the insane TV licence fee by the government thus have had to make cuts to this bloated organisation. I think it would have been better taken if other entertainment areas have been "shaved" as well i.e. Eastenders, and the vast amount of cash here, antiques there programmes. How many people would be happy/unhappy at Eastenders being shown 2 days a week?? They have cancelled there exclusive contract and entered into a deal with SKY who have been itching to get F1 for years now all in a bid to save money. But only days later we see reports that they have spent 22milion on rights to show an American Talent show. (Not even touching on the fees for Robbie Williams and George Michael) mentioned to host the show. The bottom line is F1 will suffer as most people cant afford sky anyway let alone for F1. If we need to cut our "cloth accordingly" how can we, even going to the pub's and clubs to view is out of the question. Any way just my view for what is worth.

• Posted by Tomato on Mon, 8 Aug 2011 at 15:58 (Reply)

  My head hurts with various analogies / assumptions made in the article:
  Why bring up an example of printed-megazines? The printed press is dying because of the availability of free / more instantenous alternatives, such as YOUR WEBSITE, and people can actually coment on! Die hard fans and casual fans alike do not necessary have to spend the money to buy megazines to get their fix. The megazines sales simply does not necessary reflect the reality of the number and / or the make up of the F1 fan base. The article is comparing apple and orange. I think its fuzzy logic at best.

  I do agree with the article that F1 has a VERY wide casual fan base - thats how I got started 17 years ago to now become one of those so-called "die-hard" fans. But the article proceed to assert the benefits of a sky / bbc shared deal; I don't have a clear mind to disect the claims made within the article, but two things I am very sure of:
  1) I do not think that a "casual" fan, which make up the majority of the viewers according to the article, would splash out £400+ a year to watch F1.
  2) I do think that, satistically-speaking, the casual fans will be disappointed 50% of the time when they switch on the TV expecting F1 coverage live and free. Presto! the BEST strategy to turn of casual fans completely.
  It really does not take a rocket scientist to realised that the best way to increase "casual" fans is to improve coverage and exposure. Thats what the movie industry does to sell horrible films. Take away Free to Air F1 is the best way to slash your fan base. Its simplez!

  F1 fans have been spoilted in the last few years, I admint, by the excellent coverage, F1 forum, tweets / sms comenting system provided by the BBC. Its revolutionary, its excellent, its HD LIVE BROADCASTING. Its everything casual / die hard fans wants. Take away 50% of that and its just not the same thing. ITs not the same for die hard fans, and its certainly not the same for casual.

  Slightly off topic: If you ask your dear other half whether they want to watch x-factor or F1, what answer are you expecting? At least on the sunday afternoon there isn't any "must-see" competing with F1!!!

• Posted by Schmorbraten on Mon, 8 Aug 2011 at 22:22 (Reply)

  Leigh O'Gorman's blog says that Sky's guaranteeing no intra-race ad breaks for 2012 only: http://theformulaoneandmotorsportsarchive.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/formula-1-and-television/
  - I guess there are clauses in the contract which allow Sky to run ad-breaks from 2013 onwards if the subscription pickup doesn't cover the costs they're incurring.

• Posted by Sir JGP on Mon, 8 Aug 2011 at 22:28 (Reply)

  You Say "Complaints from F1 fans have also been greatly over-exaggerating. It's clear to see now that the joint BBC/Sky deal was the only one in town from F1's perspective".

  As no other free to air channel was allowed to enter into the bidding process for the rights to air F1 it is wrong to say this was the only deal in town. Cha4 showed an interest in purchasing the rights but the BBC has done a shady deal with sky to ensure no other free to air channel could get their hands on it. The BBC have a duty to ensure that any deal they make is in the best interests of the licence payer, how can a deal whereby the licence pay will have to pay £400+ on top of the £145 they already have to pay for a TV licence is in their best interest and the best deal in town?

  My mind boggles at the above article.
  

• Posted by ripper on Tue, 9 Aug 2011 at 11:36 (Reply)

  If the UK 'die hard' fans only make up a very small percentage of veiwers in the UK then SKY are not going to sell many more packages then are they... Because I can't see the 'casual fans' going out to get sky to watch it.. I think Naoise Holohan should have put a bit more thought into this article before publishing.....
  My mind boggles too...
  

• Posted by Bobdredds on Tue, 9 Aug 2011 at 15:51 (Reply)

  I resent the implication that I am not a true fan if I dont buy into the Sky deal and the suggestion that it was inevitable isnonsense. Having looked at several petitions and polls including http://www.enterf1.com/f1/Which-of-thes ... season.asp it looks like they will lose around 20%+ of their audience from longtime F1 fans for the Sky races. However this is misleading because none of them seem include casual viewers who wont be bothered to vote in polls or give their views in forums. No casual viewer is going to pay £60 per race and definately wont pay £600 for all ten so whatever happens the viewership is going to fall. IMHO the experts who predict that all sports will eventually go to pay per view are way off the mark and are ignoring the current financial situation worldwide and many of the trends that seem to be emerging. By keeping F1 free to air the sport had control over it's own destiny and was able to weather many fluctuations in the past including a horrific death rate during the first 30+ years of racing. This independence will be lost and the sport will be more identified with outside groups like Sky and not with the legendary figures and marques that made it what it is and it will do a lot of damage to the way it is percieved. I believe that F1 and the teams are in for a big shock in 2012 and will have to act accordingly to reverse this or go to a new series. I want to watch the drivers and teams race. I am prepared to tolerate F~0~M and it's partners profiteering up to a point but not unconditionally. Nor are a lot of others it seems. This is not about people being mean or tight fisted or not true fans as has been suggested but about a price hike from zero to £600 if you are a fan, during the worst recession the world has ever seen. Quite simply F1 has lost the respect and support of the vast majority of people that had insulated and helped it grow in the past. I can afford Sky coverage but I dont like the Sky package as there is nothing in it for me and the costs are way too high for ordinary families and therefore that just makes it unacceptable whatever BS anyone says. Also to Murray and Martin Et Al, better to say nothing at all rather than the watered down, muted responses that the powers that be are "allowing" in an effort to railroad this unfortunate turn of events. At least one thing I am sure of is that whatever gains were made in this deal will be lost and then some or I will change my name to Bernie. One more point to consider, the revenue spent on team gear will also fall and it is the lower end of the grid that will suffer most and I doubt that there will be as many new countries lining up once the impact of this move to Sky is felt.

• Posted by Manipe on Wed, 10 Aug 2011 at 13:45 (Reply)

  @10: Wilko, you say how many Eastenders fans would be happy/unhappy about it being shown only 2 days a week. Firstly, Eastenders is significantly more popular than F1 in the UK, and secondly, F1 isn't only being shown 50% of the time. The other 50% of the races will be given extensive highlights in a primetime TV slot.

  Most people probably can't afford Sky, but they will still get 50% of the races live and the other 50% with delayed highlights. That's pretty good coverage compared to other sports (soccer, cricket, golf etc).

• Posted by Manipe on Wed, 10 Aug 2011 at 13:55 (Reply)

  @11: Tomato, magazine sales are indeed suffering with the increased consumption of Internet media, but that's why I included the figure for unique visitors to Autosport.com as another reference. However, magazine sales still do give a picture of the die-hard fanbase of a sport. However, I probably should have compared it to other magazine sales to give a fuller picture (such as saying that the football magazine FourFourTwo sells over 100,000 copies per month, twice as many as F1 Racing).

  Fans may take time to get used to the idea of viewing 50% of the races live and the rest through highlights, but it's wrong to say that it will contribute to a colossal decline in the popularity of the sport. Also, remember that F1 is a global sport and the UK is only one market.

  Also, given the popularity of X Factor, as you say, I suspect BBC won't be suicidal enough to schedule its F1 highlights programme for the same time.

• Posted by Manipe on Wed, 10 Aug 2011 at 13:58 (Reply)

  @12: Schmorbraten, I doubt there's anything in the contract disallowing Sky from showing ads next year, from what I understand it was a decision taken to please the fans, given that they've been used to uninterrupted coverage since the switch from ITV. I doubt they'll ever show ads during the races, given that they'll still be in competition with BBC for viewers for 50% of the races.

• Posted by Manipe on Wed, 10 Aug 2011 at 14:07 (Reply)

  @13: The only other option for F1 was to go to Channel 4 or 5 with a huge drop in the value of the contract. However, when the option of a higher-value deal was there, taking up Channel 4 or 5's offer would have devalued the price of F1 the world over, costing the sport many more tens of millions in TV contracts and more.

  The beauty of the deal is that viewers don't have to shell out £400+ to watch F1, they still get 50% of the races as they do this year (i.e. live, free, HD, uninterrupted) with extensive coverage of the other 50%. For those who are lucky enough to be able to pay for Sky, I'm sure they'll be well rewarded with pre- and post-race analysis, wall-to-wall coverage throughout a race weekend and historical races at other times of the year. Sky haven't invested so much money in this new deal for it to fail.

  @14: Ripper, Sky subscribers get much more than just F1. Adding F1 to their package is just another feather Sky's cap and makes it more attractive to sports fans around the UK. It fits into their bigger picture of being a premier sports broadcaster.

• Posted by Manipe on Wed, 10 Aug 2011 at 14:19 (Reply)

  @15: First of all, it's misleading to suggest it will cost £60 per race to watch F1 on Sky. A Sky subscription (with Sky Sport 1 & 2) costs £477 per year and as I've said in a previous reply, I'm sure you'll get extensive F1 coverage like you've never seen before. It's therefore less than £24 per race. We'll have to wait until we actually see Sky's coverage to decide whether or not it's worth £24 per race to watch. (HD costs £10 extra per month, but only a small percentage of BBC viewers watch F1 in HD anyway)

  Remember that the above costs do not take into account any deals that Sky will probably give to encourage people to subscribe ahead of the F1 season.

  Given its global prominence, I think F1 is strong enough not to be directly associated with Sky, especially since BBC retain a strong foothold in the sport. Also, I don't see how keeping the sport free-to-air allowed F1 to keep control of its own destiny. It's all about the quality of coverage, and if Sky can deliver a better quality of coverage then we should all be supporting it, especially if BBC can piggyback on its success.

• Posted by Bobdredds on Wed, 10 Aug 2011 at 21:22 (Reply)

  The figures were read from other F1 news sites but the exact amount is not important heree, it's they way it being presented as inevitable is the "lie" I question.
  http://www.graphicalhouse.co.uk/#/projects/channel-4
  Here is the Channel 4 offer that was aknowledged by Bernie as "innovative"and I see nothing wrong with it and if properly implimented could prove to be even more valuable than the Sky deal which will wipe out viewing for thousands of fans. All the value surrounding the Sky deal is tied up with other packages and many have no interest or cannot afford it. £477 per year is the same as £600 to many and casual viewers not already Sky contributers will simply not bother. They wouldn't pay £4.77 not to mind the rest of it. With the current financial downturn predicted to last a decade, this is at least bad timing. If they feel if they have so much to offer over freeview let them offer on the open market vs freeview and let the quality of the product decide. It is simply not fair to take away a privilage from fans who were there before Sky existed and who actively helped to make F1 what it is today. Also the subscription will have a direct impact on team merchandise and not in a good way. Yes the BBC raised the standard of broadcast to a new level but with certain commercial restrictions. C4 have no such restrictions and could easily make it work IMHO. So far I have seen nothing anywhere that would make me believe that it was inevitable. Furthermore I dont understand why those who choose to oppose the Sky deal should bother you, after all it is we who have a right to be outraged, you can simply choose to ignore it as it doesn't seem to affect you.

• Posted by Manipe on Wed, 10 Aug 2011 at 21:53 (Reply)

  @21: I don't have anything against people who are opposed to the Sky deal, what I do have a problem with (and the whole point of the article above) is people saying the new deal will result in the popularity of F1 in the UK plummeting. It's very convenient for publications (be it fan sites, blogs or reputable sites and magazines) to publicly criticise the new deal, because the majority of die-hard fans (the people who read these websites and buy these magazines) are opposed to it. I could have written a piece entitled "Sky deal bad for F1" like all the others, and attracted significant praise from fans, but that's simply not true.

  The popularity of F1 is driven by the quality of the product (i.e. the excitement of the racing) and that will continue to be the case with extensive coverage remaining on free-to-air.

  Thanks for the link to the C4 presentation document. I hadn't seen it before, interesting reading!

• Posted by Bobdredds on Wed, 10 Aug 2011 at 23:07 (Reply)

  You're welcome!
  "The popularity of F1 is driven by the quality of the product (i.e. the excitement of the racing) and that will continue to be the case with extensive coverage remaining on free-to-air."
  IMHO you omit 1 important factor and thats accessability to the product. How much of a factor is an unknown but it would be safe to say it is significient. When I said earlier that F1 freeview was a privilage I forgot to add that the privilage was also hard earned and shouldn't just be taken away. You point out that only 11000 fans voted against the deal. I put it to you that most of those fans are hardcore fans who rarely miss a race and are well informed and they would be a loss to any sport. IMHO The model on which F1 was build has fundamentily changed in the midst of global financial uncertainty and growing alternatives for peoples attention and no one can predict the outcome. Regardless, the C4 model would have been more successful and a better alternative IMHO. It certainly looks up to the job.
  Surely they could have taken time to explore alternatives before commiting. F1 has more than enough resources to support one more full year of racing with the BBC and not least because of the value they brought to the sport, paid with taxpayers money. That would give them time to do a proper job on the next step and give some of the value back. You have to agree that the way it was announced sucked by any standard of decency.They way that all references to it in the last race appeared to have been censored didn't help. Anyway I am confident the teams will eventually come to their senses. They must have reservations and when they look closer at the model they will see that they will lose more than they will gain IMHO.

• Posted by donkzz on Fri, 12 Aug 2011 at 14:59 (Reply)

  All us f1 fans spread the word off it's greatness

• Posted by F1supporter on Fri, 12 Aug 2011 at 23:05 (Reply)

  What condescending nonsense. Sky is a minority channel with a monopoly. The UK model is for licence payers to receive coverage of national and international events in exchange for universal fee. If the model was different i.e. a range of competing fee based satellite providers then that would be fine, but it isn't. 10m people subscribe to Sky, with a range of packages (reducing their 'universal' audience); there are 25m licence fee payers in the UK who can watch what they want - on freesat as well. Every time a sport moves to Sky greedy sports administrators rub their hands together, but in fact their fans are disenfranchised and customer choice is reduced. Look it up - that's the definition of a monopolistic market,
  ... oh and I didn't even mention whether anyone should support an organisation whose majority owners allegedly indulge in criminal activities such as phone hacking.
  Please get your arguments in context...
  

• Posted by Manipe on Sat, 13 Aug 2011 at 20:18 (Reply)

  @25: Perhaps your anger would be better directed at the BBC who failed to properly manage their colossal budget. You also seem to forget that BBC still have a large hold on the rights, that's the only reason this deal ever went ahead. The sport knows that having F1 on subscription TV only in the UK would not be wise, which is why they didn't go with Sky alone (something which would have netted them considerably more money than they're getting at present). The 25m licence fee payers will still be able to watch F1 for free, with significantly better coverage than fans of other sports get on free to air.

• Posted by Davyhulme on Wed, 17 Aug 2011 at 12:21 (Reply)

  Manipe
  Your article is very poor and totally misses the issues at stake and the reasons for BBC viewer complaints.

  1. The BBC has reneged on a deal to show live races until 2013.
  2. They have teamed with Sky to block potential bids from FTA broadcasters like Channel 4.
  3. They have closed all F1 blogs to prevent the thousands of viewers wishing to air their grievances.
  4. The blog of Ben Gallop attracted 8416 posts before it was closed.
  5. Official complaints to the BBC complaints dept are met with a copy of the original BBC statement.
  6. No one has responded to any complaint and Ben Gallop and Barbara Slater are still out of office.
  7. The BBC has resorted to censorship of complaints.
  8. Cost cutting is not a valid reason. They are spending £900m to move to Salford from London. They have just bought a US show for £22m. Managers car allowances alone for 2010 totalled £3m.
  9. The F1 broadcasting won them a BAFTA award.
  10. To date there have been over 45m F1 viewers this year not an insignificant proportion of their viewing audience.

  Is that enough reasons for you?

• Posted by Manipe on Thu, 18 Aug 2011 at 09:58 (Reply)

  @27: Davyhulme, as I'm not a British resident and not a British taxpayer (or license payer) the way the BBC is handling the fans' reaction is not of my concern. In fact, I'm not surprised that the BBC has stopped reacting to complaints since the fans have been so hysterical (remember BBC is still showing 50% of the races live with extensive highlights of the other 50% just hours after the race). The issue of cost-cutting, censorship of comments, etc, are issues for British citizens and license-payers. Perhaps it's best to get in touch with your local representative on this matter.

  In the article I'm not tackling the issue of whether it was right or not for the BBC to team up with Sky, what I'm saying is that the new deal won't decimate the popularity of F1 in the UK. The substance of the article is further supported by the fact that, some weeks later, fewer than 20,000 people have signed a (very) well-publicised petition on the government's website. There may be 45m viewers, but the vast, vast majority of these are not concerned by the deal with Sky, as the vast, vast majority are casual viewers, hence 50% live and 50% deferred coverage is more than satisfactory for them. Remember, soccer fans get no Premier League games live on free-to-air and have to wait until the night-time for a highlights show. F1's highlights show on the BBC will air in a primetime slot, at approx 6/7pm.

  You say that BBC teamed up with Sky to block other bids, yet we know that Channel 4 did bid for rights. We don't know what went on behind the scenes but it's clear that C4's bid fell short, likely on the amount of money they were offering. When there's another offer on the table (that of BBC/Sky) that is sure to keep F1 beaming into millions of homes, that ensures a solid income and that ensures superb coverage (for Sky customers), why should F1 have gone for C4? Put another way, why should Sky be blocked from ever broadcasting F1?

  I don't think the winning of a BAFTA holds any credence given that ITV won one for their coverage of the 2007 Canadian Grand Prix (Hamilton's maiden F1 win), a race which attracted so many complaints from fans that ITV had to issue an apology! In that instance the programme was cut short right after the podium ceremony. BBC F1's BAFTA win is worthless as a result in my opinion.

• Posted by Jeremy on Thu, 18 Aug 2011 at 10:50 (Reply)

  > It's absurd to think that some fans might stop watching F1 altogether because they can't watch all the races live for free.

  You are mistaken. I for one won't be watching F1 next year when F1 moves to Sky. It will be sad as I've been watching F1 since the late 70s but no doubt I will find other things to do on Sunday afternoons. Reasons for giving up on F1 are the absurd high cost of Sky plus I don't want anything to do with Murdoch after what has happened with News International. I also don't agree with the illegal approach that you mention.

• Posted by Leigh O'Gorman on Thu, 18 Aug 2011 at 13:21 (Reply)

  @Schmorbraten and others

  I feel I must clarify something here.

  Sky have acknowledged that there will be no adverts during races during 2012, primarily because they seemed to only be addressed about the immediate future of their coverage.

  No information at all has been revealed about their plans from 2013 onward making it impossible to judge what they will do from that point.

  In fact, little in the way of any detail has been announced by Sky regarding their broadcasts, though I feel there may well be adverts eventually (if not from 2013 onwards).

  As @Manipe knows well, I am not an insider, just a blogger writing and responding as I see fit to situations that arise in motorsport.
  With that in mind, one should probably take my blog with a pinch of salt. My speciality is British F3 - that is something that I genuinely report on - so if folks want to chat to me about that, please feel free.

  Thanks again,
  Leigh O'Gorman

• Posted by Davyhulme on Thu, 18 Aug 2011 at 16:04 (Reply)

  Manipe
  To ignore answering some of the key issues at stake simply because you are not a British resident is a lame excuse and shows how poorly thought you have understood the issue. Many UK viewers will not subscribe to Sky and have openly stated this so there will be fewer viewers for the live races whose whole viewing audience figures are LESS than a the number of viewers for ONE race on the BBC. Your response is lame and you really have no place to make any comment on the matter until you consider and understand the full picture.

  What are all these "casual"viewers you speak of and from what source are you basing this on?

  In the case of football the BBC deal to show live matches ran to termination of the broadcasting rights contract, in F1 case they are reneging 2 years early.

• Posted by Manipe on Thu, 18 Aug 2011 at 21:46 (Reply)

  @31: I don't think the way in which the BBC is dealing with complaints is a key issue at all. It's an internal matter for the BBC and, by virtue of it being a public company, a matter for all British taxpayers. Ditto with regard to the BBC reneging on their exclusive rights deal 2 years ahead of schedule.

  In terms of casual viewers, it's a widely acknowledged fact that there are very few diehard viewers, as explained in the article (viewing figures for morning/afternoon/evening races and popularity of F1 websites/magazines). By having extensive highlights in a primetime slot, you have the possibility to reach a greater number of casual viewers, because more people watch television in the evening than in the afternoon (as demonstrated by the Canadian GP being the most-watched race this year; evening races were most-watch last year too).

• Posted by The Rab on Fri, 19 Aug 2011 at 15:13 (Reply)

  simple comparison for me is Rugby Union, since England sold out to Sky, tried to watch the highlights but could not get into the game as so much was missed out so stopped watching within one year now will only watch the other British Teams you know the one that did not sell thier fans out!!
  next , i have collected over 28 years of merchandise from F1 but stopped buying anything now, canceled my sky subscription within 2 days of finding out will be getting Michelin or Dunlops as next set of tyres on car not pirelli have canceled my vodaphone contract and told them why, have canceled subsciption to Autosport,any other sponsers that i realise i have bought or may buy will get same treatment.
  F1 is going to die quickly in the UK only real ignorant people would believe this will be a good deal for f1.
  out of the 6 of us that get together to watch F1 i would say i was the real fanatic the only one who never misses a race and always watch live i even make ssure i can watch F1 when on holiday again always live, not 1 of my friends will bother next year so in the large group i know only 6 of us watched regularily and only 2 watched every race, none will watch next year.
  so my friend open your eyes and have alook at what is really going on before you spout the utter rubbish you have written above!!!!

• Posted by ShaGGy on Tue, 23 Aug 2011 at 02:02 (Reply)

  Naoise Holohan

  May i point out one important factor you seem to have missed, that being the BBC and Bernie cleverly made the announcement early on in the Saturday practice session where (as you have pointed out already, most non enthusiast fans would not have been watching the lead up to Qualifying) most would have it one and wait until the sessions start to watch, as a result the VAST majority of Formula One (Fans / casuals / liker's) will not even be aware of the changes.

  I personally know of four people who watch the races but only watch the Qualifying IF they are free to watch on the Saturday and none of these five were even aware of the deal.

  This seems to be a point most of the so called journalists who don`t get all the facts beforehand end up embarrassing themselves by posting articles without knowing the facts.

  Now think of the Sunday race program, was it mentioned during that show so the majority of fans would be aware of it? well the BBC would say yes but a quick comment between Eddie and Jake does not count.

  They cancelled the F1 forum why? the virtually hid the news for most of Saturday and all Sunday, why? it was on the news on the BBC 3 times then dropped why?

  Because they wanted to let it fade away without most F1 viewers even being aware of it.

  The only point in your article I agree with is is if they DO show the full race later, especially the early morning races then viewing figures will increase as they will gain more casual viewers, but you also have to look at the bigger picture and what most True fans are upset about and that is that the BBC have now Handed F1 to SKY come 2018 as no FTA provider will be able to outbid SKY therefore SKY will have exclusive rights to it.

  You also failed to mention in your report the fact that Channel 4 had put together a package to buy the rights when the BBC's contract ended but the BBC knew this ans approached SKY so as not to let another direct competitor get to play with their toy.

  We just hope that the OFT refer this to the competitions commission as I think it anti-competition laws.

  Will that be good for the sport? NO

  Think A1GP, NASCAR etc and you have your answer.

• Posted by ExBBCF1Fan on Tue, 23 Aug 2011 at 02:31 (Reply)

  One factor is the Murdoch factor and phone hacking. To me Sky and Murdoch are one and the same and this tie-in between BBC and Sky says the BBC approves of hacking the phone of a murdered girl and the mother of a murdered girl. In a year's time the investigations may tell us that the Murdochs are 100% innocent but as of July 2011 they are under suspicion and as more news filters out the dirtier it looks for them.

• Posted by peter-27 on Tue, 23 Aug 2011 at 21:34 (Reply)

  Move to sky = less viewers for half of the F1 viewers, fact.

  Less viewers = less fans = bad for the sport.

  Sure the BBC need to cut costs, but they didn't need to drop F1, they could have done it in a much better way.

• Posted by nqwazi on Tue, 23 Aug 2011 at 21:57 (Reply)

  I am fed up with the "If we don't have it why should you", if nobody ever stands up and voices their opinions then we all end up losing out. Next time it might be something more serious but if they know we will just roll over they wont stop. Whoever that they ends up being.

• Posted by Angellla on Tue, 23 Aug 2011 at 22:06 (Reply)

  Just for information you said 11,000 had signed a petition??? Well this government epetition has had alot more and is still growing http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/57 , please look, and for ur info i am a sky subscriber, but i don't subscribe to sky sports and it would cost me an extra £240+ a year JUST to watch F1, i don't watch any other sport..... and yes im a fan that watchs practices, quali the lot!!! £24 a race may not sound alot to you, but when your partner was made redundant and u have young kids to feed, its a hell of a lot of money. So please don't give us sanctimonious rubbish about not losing fans. i pay my licence fee and i am pretty certain the ONLY things i watch on BBC are F1, Strictly come dancing and occasionally top gear!!!

• Posted by Angellla on Tue, 23 Aug 2011 at 22:20 (Reply)

  i dont know if my post vanished or u didn't allow it. but u were wrong about the petitions. its not 11,000 ppl signed, if u look http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/57 it is so fr over 21,000 and growing..... i am a sky subscriber, buti do not subscribe to sky sports, i have spoken to sky and it will cost me £20.25 every month to be able to watch F1 fully (bear in mind u cant just watch one month and drop it) that is an addition of £243 on top of my normal bill, one i cannot justify when my partner was made redundant and i have a toddler to clothe and feed, Yes i am a die hard fan, i watch quali, practices and races, live! i pay £145 to bbc a year and don't mind even tho i only actually watch F1 and Strictly on their channels, i don't watch bbc for anything else at all.... From what i read Ch4 offered the same amount of money (i can probably research and find the article to show) and i have bought autosport magazine but pretty much 100% of the time i get the info direct from the teams on the net so why would i need to pay almost £5 for a magazine???

• Posted by Karen on Tue, 23 Aug 2011 at 22:25 (Reply)

  Everyone is entitled to a point of view and their own opinion, which your piece is. I wont re-hash many of the comments offering you counter views and facts. However, i represent a small percentage of the UK viewers who are truly disenfranchised by this deal. I choose not to give my spare money, meagre as it is to Murdoch, however in this case I have a major challenge. I cant get Sky - simple as that. Tell me how this deal is good for me. Oh, yes i can listen to the radio, but no, there isnt a good enough signal here, and the digital signal via the TV is highjacked for Gaelic TV. Or i could watch online with the crappy 2MB bband, i expect thats off too.
  So do continue to offer your opinions, but perhaps some of the measly 10,000 like me have a legitimate cause for complaint.

• Posted by EmilyB on Tue, 23 Aug 2011 at 22:56 (Reply)

  i cant even explain how much hatrid i have for this article.

  Every F1 race should be free to air.
  simple.

• Posted by DaveyH on Tue, 23 Aug 2011 at 23:13 (Reply)

  totally agree with EmilyB.

  also, the final sentence annoys me big time. 'Quit complaining'. no i wont quit complaining, because listen, having watched every race LIVE since i first channel flicked to F1 in 2005, F1 has grown and grown on me, and eventually became my #1 sport. and now i got idiots like the person who wrote this article telling me to 'quit complaining'. you clearly aint as big a fan as myself or EmilyB. go take a hike.

• Posted by Pip on Tue, 23 Aug 2011 at 23:29 (Reply)

  @3: It is very nice of you to laud Motors TV ... but: Motors TV is very much like I remember Eurosport in the early, analogue days - with a lot of airtime and not much real content. They use obviously amateur 'commentators' who have little or no apparent knowledge or sympathy with the event they're covering and as for the racing, it seems to be mainly magazine programmes with a bit of the action tacked on at the end.

  Fortunately (or perhaps not, considering my scathing opinion) you do not need a Sky Sports sub to watch it, as it works for me without one - but it really isn't very good. At all.

• Posted by Smudger on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 at 01:29 (Reply)

  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but yours is in the minority from the posts I have read on various web sites since the announcement and you seem to miss the point, we want 100% of the races live and free to air as we have had for years not 50%! Its not good value at all to get Sky Sports for only half the races if that's the reason you would sign up for and with people with less disposable income now or not being able to afford Sky Sports, the viewer is losing out.
  The Internet has allowed us to utilise live liming apps either paid for or free supplied by the BBC or Forumla1.com and this has enhanced on the information we get from the commentator and on screen but you have to be using them live. For 50% of the races and if you don't want to subscribe to Sky, yes you could watch the timings or listen to F1 on Radio5 but you need DAB, Sat, Cable or Freeview to get a good quality broadcast instead of AM and its not the same when you have been watching for so many years on a Sunday at whatever time but there is another use for Radio5 later in my post.
  The BBC are greedy and they they wanted to keep the large viewing figures and by doing the deal with Sky, it allows them to pay less and show the saving to the Governors . The BBC are a public broadcaster and the deal they have signed is NOT good value for money for the licence payer and F1 fan as watching the other races live will cost you a lot extra plus a premium for HD. The BBC should not of been allowed to do a deal with a pay TV company that blocks live coverage to the licence payer when there was another 'public broadcaster' ready to step in and pay more than what the BBC would have paid in the last few years and this wouldn't of cost the licence payer any extra at all. Channel 4 are a public broadcaster, commercially paid for and their board is appointed by OFCOM and the Government. It will be interesting to see if this deal will be investigated considering one of the bidders was Channel 4.
  The reaction from the F1 fans and licence payers has been huge and the silence is unusual for the BBC. I have only seen a few seconds interview with Barbara Slater trying to justify why they did the deal and with the amount of complaints they would normally roll out the big guns to make a statement and we have heard nothing at all. Why the blackout if its such a 'good' deal?
  I will be watching all the races next year, legally but not subscribing to Sky Sports. I will buy a Satellite receiver and I will move my old dish to receive RTL, as the German broadcaster show all the races free to air until 2015 I think, then mute the TV and listen to Radio 5 through my amp for commentary. And you can get a Sat receiver for around the same price as a portable DAB radio.

• Posted by J@z on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 at 07:17 (Reply)

  My understanding is that only THREE races will be shown live and in full on BBC1: Monaco, Silverstone and the last race of the season. The BBC will have other coverage (Practice sessions and Qualifying) on half of the race weekends (the idea that half the races will be screened on BBC is a deliberate piece of misinformation). It is not yet clear whether BBC will screen highlights of every race the same weekend, or only on half of the weekends.
  F1 is a series of GPs that builds up through the season. Take away that continuity and it's no longer a sport to follow. I certainly won't be getting Sky just to watch F1, so I will find other things to do with my Sundays.

• Posted by MarkR on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 at 12:50 (Reply)

  I'd like to understand what (or rather who) gave the BBC the right to renegotiate their contract with Sky?

  I'll be trying to watch next year on illegal online streams and failing that - buying a sat dish to watch RTL with the 5-Live commentary.

  When Bernie says 'it's not about the money' - of course it is, it's ONLY about the money for him - it's his business. He's being disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
  

• Posted by chrisf1 on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 at 13:53 (Reply)

  F1 is the pinnacle of motor sport with a world wide audience of some 527 million; of which 10% is the British audience. The BBC should be the pinnacle of British broadcasting offering free to air coverage of these sporting events. No one needed yet another talent show.
  What is really better for the reputation of the BBC and the edification of its audience; the most prestigious sporting series on the planet or an American import talent show?
  The BBC really needs to sort out its priorities.

• Posted by What a load of **** on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 at 15:20 (Reply)

  What a load of rubbish, I have never heard such tripe in my life, I think the majority of people angered about this, are well within their rights to do so, and, most would rather have ad breaks in the TV coverage and have it free on C4 or 5, then paying £50 or £60 of our money, which goes to the government, and Rupert Murdoch. Most F1 viewers are willing to compromise, but not to that extent. And let's not forget, the BBC are blaming the economic climate for this, urm, when you took the rights, in 2008 for 2009-2013, we were in a recession, and we aren't at the moment. There, some common sense!!!

• Posted by JenB on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 at 21:25 (Reply)

  The problem with F1 is that it does nothing to help draw those casual fans in. You mention football in your article, and yes, most matches are on Sky, but to go and watch the national England team at the next match - a Euro qualifier against Wales - the most an individual will have to pay for the ticket itself is £65 (not sure about booking fee(s)). That's it. Maximum £65 to watch the (apparently) 4th best team in the world play at Wembley Stadium. £65. To go and watch Man Utd - arguably one of the most well-known football teams, if not sports team, in the world - the most you'd be paying for a seat in a normal league game is £50. £60 is the most in a Champions League semi-final. In fact, even though the Beeb don't show live matches, it has Score/Final Score, a live update show with pundits and analysis.

  What I'm trying to show is that, whilst a lot of matches are shown on Sky, it is comparatively cheap to go and watch a match 'live'. This is not the case in F1. Having good coverage on BBC, coverage that not only showed the race, but gave the viewer the impression that they were going 'backstage', made F1 come to life for those who consider themselves casual viewers - those who wouldn't stump up the cash to go and watch live. This coverage was so good in fact, it won awards.

  There's even evidence to suggest that the Beeb have increased the amount of casual fans. An example is the Monaco GP. With ITV, 2007's average was 3.7 million. 2008's average was 3.9 million. 2011 on the BBC, the average was 5.08 million. The Beeb's coverage has, I believe, increased the amount of casual fans, through their consistent and good quality coverage. The BBC/Sky F1 deal is not going to help break the stereotype from some quarters that F1 is a sport made for rich people, by rich people and potential casual fans might be alienated by it. Are those fans going to stick with the sport? Who knows. Some might not follow anymore, since they're only getting half live. It might be the case that they won't be bothered. But this is a case of 'mights' and 'coulds'. I do know, however, that F1 needs the casual fans.

  With going and watching a race 'live' not affordable to everybody, something that football suffers less from, why should fans be coerced into shelling out a considerable amount of money to watch it 'live' on the TV? As a British tax payer, and someone who pays their TV licence, I care about where my money is spent, and yes, part of me is resentful that I cannot afford a Sky subscription. F1 should be catering to the casual fans, because without them, where are the next die-hards going to come from?

• Posted by Manipe on Fri, 2 Sep 2011 at 10:21 (Reply)

  @33: You appear to be giving up on the coverage before you've seen a single minute of it. Should you not give BBC the benefit of the doubt and at least hold judgement until you see what it's going to be like?

  @34: The announcement was made on Friday morning, not Saturday morning. Also, I know now that Channel 4 had put together a proposal to broadcast F1, but did not at the time of writing.

  @35: If F1 refuses to deal with organisations with a dodgy past, then there will be very few left. How and where does one draw the line?

  @38: Sadly I cannot see into the future. At the time of writing there were just 11,000 signatures. Clearly that has now rise, and now stands at 24,000 (still a paltry figure for such a popular sport in the UK).

  @41: Perhaps you could expand on your argument? Why should all races be free to air?

  @42: If you think I'm an idiot, please point me to any other respected F1 journalist who has wholly opposed the deal? I think you'll find that the vast, vast majority of the paddock is in favour of the deal because they actually know the detail.

  @44: There's a simple reason for most other websites being against the deal: It panders to the opinion of the fans that read their site. Sadly, most websites (other than Autosport which isn't vehemently against the deal) don't have a clue what the ins and outs of the deal are because they are sitting at home on their couch keeping up with F1 through their TVs and PCs. Would you read a newspaper that has zero professional journalists and contacts in the field?

  @45: The BBC will show half the races (10) live, and the other half with highlights/delayed re-run. It appears that the method in choosing the races will be 3 each (i.e. BBC chooses 3, Sky chooses 3, BBC 3, Sky 3, etc). Therefore the first 3 that the BBC has chosen are Britain, Monaco and season finale.

  @46: The fact is that the BBC had the contract, so they had the power. How the BBC had the rights to negotiate a deal beyond the length of their current contract is a question that remains unanswered however.

• Post a reply

  • Nickname (required)
  • E-mail (required, will not be published)
  • Remember my details
  • @46: Allowed BBcode: [b][/b], [u][/u], [i][/i], [url=][/url], [url][/url]