F1 goes to Sky sports

[garcon]

Originally Posted by 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!!

Nonsense.

I do sympathise with those who don't have/want to pay for Sky TV.

I don't need your sympathy, thanks. My choice not to have Sky is entirely that - a choice, based on little more than my abhorrence of everything that Rupert Murdoch stands for.

Plus, I don't want to become some kind of brainwashed vegetable, glued to hours and hours of televised sport and never going out.

I have Freeview HD only. And a life.

[johntt]

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..

Bernie has done a lot for F1, but he's outstayed his welcome by a very long time, and there is no clear sucession plan for whats going to happen when he dies.

[Knowlesy]

For £29 I am going to see two friendly games at The Emirates today, including the wonderful Boca Juniors.

Add on my tube fare and that is still half the price of a Sky package. Add on the train fare for both me and the good lady to Pompey tomorrow for my brothers wedding and still it is less.


These are the choices some have to make.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by garcon

Nonsense.


I don't need your sympathy, thanks. My choice not to have Sky is entirely that - a choice, based on little more than my abhorrence of everything that Rupert Murdoch stands for.

Plus, I don't want to become some kind of brainwashed vegetable, glued to hours and hours of televised sport and never going out.

I have Freeview HD only. And a life.

While discussing this yesterday with someone, we agreed that to any get real value from the SS subscription, you really need to watch a lot of TV. More than I am willing to do. And I'm with you on the abhorrence thing.

[Knowlesy]

I do find the refusal to pour money into Rupert Murdoch thing slightly disingenuous. Again, I ask, do you people properly source everything you purchase or buy? Are you entirely sure of the ethics and control behind all your possessions and services?

I despise Murdoch intensely, but still have an online subscription to The Times. I despise Tory government but still reside in the UK. My phone was probably built by slave labour, but I still like it. I work with a Brummie and a Scouser but I won't quit my job over it.

[Adam43]

I had (well chose) to subscribe to ESPN because they starting sharing the rugby coverage. Now that was annoying.

As other FTA channels getting it? It is better that it isn't shown than ITV show it! Although Channel 4 might be OK.

Oh yes, and it is still on the beeb and they didn't drop it! That is quite good.

[jondownunder]

Apologies if this has been posted:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/93507

Formula 1 teams accept there is no going back on Sky deal

Saturday, July 30th 2011, 09:30 GMT

Formula 1 teams will have to accept Bernie Ecclestone's decision to put some races on pay television only next year, AUTOSPORT has learned, with there being no protection in the Concorde Agreement against taking it off free-to-air viewing.

...

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by garcon

Nonsense.

So you think that the BBC would have stumped up the money anyway had Sky not come in?

ps, you wouldn't be the first person i'd give my sympathy to anyway

[Paulaweybridge]

8000 views and over 350 posts !!!

Is this a record in such a short time span?

Must admit this has been one of the most interesting threads to read in ages.

Talking to a good friend of mine the other day, life is full of chapters and very often these chapters do not have links or relevance to previous ones.

F1 has entered a new era and we shall see what happens.

Nothing remains the same and all you can do is hope that life is good in the future.

Enjoy the Hungarian GP everyone.

Paula

[Knowlesy]

Well Channel 4 and ITV were interested.

If Bernie truly had the best interests of the sport at heart with this matter, he'd help the BBC out a bit. £40million a year, plus operating costs, is staggering and just so very hard for terrestrial networks to justify in a world of leftie diwmits and reactionary idiots who cry at the first sign of what they see as waste of public funds.

[Sodemo]

As a protest, im going to ignore today's qualifying.

[garcon]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

I do find the refusal to pour money into Rupert Murdoch thing slightly disingenuous. Again, I ask, do you people properly source everything you purchase or buy? Are you entirely sure of the ethics and control behind all your possessions and services?

I despise Murdoch intensely, but still have an online subscription to The Times. I despise Tory government but still reside in the UK. My phone was probably built by slave labour, but I still like it. I work with a Brummie and a Scouser but I won't quit my job over it.

I wholly accept that as a fair cop. My withdrawal of financial support on grounds of ethics is entirely selective, and probably limited to Murdoch's empire and not a whole lot else. And even then I can't be sure my money doesn't somehow slip into his grasp from other sources.

[garcon]

Originally Posted by Mr V

So you think that the BBC would have stumped up the money anyway had Sky not come in?

Not necessarily the BBC, but I'm absolutely sure Bernie would have managed to do a deal with somebody. There's no way we'd have ended up with no coverage at all.

ps, you wouldn't be the first person i'd give my sympathy to anyway

[Stephen H]

Would rather spend my money going to circuits and watching motorsport live than pay for sky.

Sorry Bernie you have lost another viewer.

[Jamesy-18]

Originally Posted by Stephen H

Would rather spend my money going to circuits and watching motorsport live than pay for sky.

Sorry Bernie you have lost another viewer.

Well said. No way in hell I'm paying £600 a year for Sky for something I'd only be getting for F1. Utterly pointless.

It seems all the people in the paddock don't give a damn what the fans seem. No-one's spoken out about it. They've all got it in their stupid heads that this deal is somehow good for the sport. Idiots. IDIOTS!

[Pingguest]

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.

The series is about to be drained. Bernie Ecclestone gets his short-term profits and considering his age it's unlikely he'll have to face the long-term consequences.

If a motorsport-loving country like the UK is going to lose its free-to-air live broadcasting, it's inevitable that countries like Germany and Italy will follow suit.

This will undoubtedly cause the TV-ratings to decline and hence sponsors to lose interest. More rule changes will be necessary to reduce costs and 'improve' the show. Imagine the consequences on the quality of the racing.

[BazBarrow]

That's it for me.

I have just spoke with Sky who tell me the F1 coverage will be split over sky sports 1 and 2!

So the basic package is approx £20 per month then add both sports channels and HD and you looking at a total of approx £55a month!

What a joke. They allow comments on the sky sports website but insist on approving them!, therefore no sign of my unhappy comment!

All the press releases say sky has 10-13 million subscribers...that may be the case but how many pay for the sports channels? I reckon a small percent although strangley sky could not give me that figure. The sponsors will be happy at the severe reduction in brand exposure.

Bernie is quoted as saying the BBC would have had to cut the pre show and post race show. So what? The BBC coverage is excellent and I as many others would have been happy to keep it on the BBC just to watch the race instead of being held to ransom to pay approx £55 a month (£660) a year!!!

I have watched every race live since they have been braodcast but now I will not.

Bernie, the decision you have made is outrageous. Did you really need the money!? Perhaps if you had'n't given a german banker £27m the BBC may have been able to afford it!

My opinion of Mr ecclestone has completely changed.

[BazBarrow]

Originally Posted by 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.

Absolute rubbish...Do you think the sponsors would have accepted no TV coverage?! ...and Bernie knew that. He would have simply had to reduce the price he was asking for the TV rights that he allegedly owned because Max sold them to him for a 100 years...or so I am led to believe. Oh well Bernie you must need the money because surley no one can be this greedy ? However, you will now ruin F1 a sport that you have spent years building.

[Graz]

Originally Posted by 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.

Unfortunately it's like everything else - the small percentage who are in control make money out of it so it runs and runs. It's the same in every company, business, country, worldwide.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

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.

The exact same thing has happened to Indy Car regarding TV coverage, with most of it being shown on Versus, therefore getting little exposure resulting in a small TV audience. In their wisdom the live feed, from the web-site was scrapped this year, making it even harder for those living outside the US to follow.

One of the consequences of the bad TV coverage in Indy Car is the lack of major sponsors. During the CART era, they were falling over themselves to get exposure and since CART's demise the vast majority have gone to NASCAR. The few that remain have been coveted by Ganassi and Penske and they dominate Indy Car, practically to the exclusion of everyone else.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

For £29 I am going to see two friendly games at The Emirates today...

couldn't you have held out for more money?

Originally Posted by Jamesy-18

Well said. No way in hell I'm paying £600 a year for Sky for something I'd only be getting for F1...!

What you could do is watch it on the BBC next year. I know that might be a radical suggestion!

Originally Posted by Sodemo

As a protest, im going to ignore today's qualifying.

I've recorded it out of protest.

[Graz]

Originally Posted by 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.

But why do we have to pay for everything? Who says the World we live in is correct in its approach?

What does paying for everything achieve - it makes already obscenely rich sports people and businessmen like Murdoch and Ecclesstone even more obscenely rich - all due to the normal everyday fan. I have a serious problem being asked to put my hand even further into my shortening pockets. Why should I?

Without basic fans, these sports do not exist - if nobody watches, nobody sponsors etc. etc. and income disappears. So if everyone said sod it, I'm not paying for this anymore, the prices would plummet and the fans would be in control. I'm dreaming however.

Surely audience figures will dip by moving to Sky? It would seem that a significant number of F1 fans without Sky aren't going to get a subscription. The majority of existing Sky subscribers do so for the football I would assume. Are these guys just going to start watching the F1 now it's on Sky even where they may not have watched it on the BEEB?

Maybe Ecclestone feels that this is worth the gamble - he takes a big fee and if Sky decide in a few years they don't want it anymore, someone else will. However, I'm going to lose touch with F1 in the meantime.

[shy tot racing]

Originally Posted by garcon

Nonsense.


I don't need your sympathy, thanks. My choice not to have Sky is entirely that - a choice, based on little more than my abhorrence of everything that Rupert Murdoch stands for.

Plus, I don't want to become some kind of brainwashed vegetable, glued to hours and hours of televised sport and never going out.

I have Freeview HD only. And a life.

Totally agree

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

As a protest, im going to ignore today's qualifying.

Hell, I'm going to watch qualifying and get my TV Licence's worth.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Graz

However, I'm going to lose touch with F1 in the meantime.

What you could do is watch it on the BBC next year.

Don't worry, I'm glad to help.