BBC and Sky to share F1 Coverage

First topic message reminder :

from BBC

"The BBC and Sky Sports will broadcast Formula 1 in the UK between 2012 and 2018 under a new rights deal.

The BBC has been the exclusive broadcaster of F1 in the UK since 2009 but its contract with Formula One Management was due to expire after the 2013 season.

Sky Sports will show every race, qualifying session and practice live.

BBC Sport will broadcast half the races live, as well as the qualifying and practice sessions from those races.

Both companies will broadcast in high definition.

The BBC will have highlights on TV and mobile for any race it it is not showing live, and all races will be broadcast on BBC Radio 5 live.

Barbara Slater, director of BBC Sport, said: "We are absolutely delighted that F1 will remain on the BBC.

"The sport has never been more popular with TV audiences at a 10-year high and the BBC has always stated its commitment to the big national sporting moments.

"With this new deal not only have we delivered significant savings but we have also ensured that through our live and extended highlights coverage all the action continues to be available to licence-fee payers."

Races shown live on BBC TV will include the British Grand Prix at Silverstone, the Monaco GP and the concluding race of the season.

Barney Francis, managing director of Sky Sports, said: "This is fantastic news for F1 fans and Sky Sports will be the only place to follow every race live and in HD.

"We will give F1 the full Sky Sports treatment with a commitment to each race never seen before on UK television."
"


I hate this news, Free to Air TV just took a HUGE hit.....discuss

What a sad, sad day for Formula 1 in British. Does Formula 1 really need Sky Sports in Britain? I think not. This is just a huge kick in the teeth to all the British F1 fans.

Does Bernie Ecclestone not realize that not only viewing figure will drop drastically but also interest. Who only wants watch a few races? Let's just hope the BBC gets races like Australia, Canada, Monaco, Silverstone, Spa, Brazil and Japan or else no one will be watching.

How can a move like this that will see viewing figures drop by around 5m people be a good move?

I wonder how the teams and sponsors such as Red Bull, Santander and Vodafone feel about having 10 two hour adverts taken off terrestial television.

The trouble with the BBC is it has outgrown the licence fee. The licecne fee has increased 40% in 15 years but the number of tv channels has tripled and the number of radio stations doubled.

The licence fee should not pay for BBC3, BBC4, BBC News etc or 1 Xtra, Radio 6 Muisc, Radio &, the Asian Network and 5 Live Extra. They should all be made commercial and the licence fee should only fund what it used to before the digital age came in.

Once this is a poor decision by F1 and Ecclestone and shows no respect to Britsih F1 fans.

Boo to Ecclestone, Boo to Sky Sports.

Davie wrote:I think this is great news.

Better coverage for fans (Sky have improved every other sport they cover so why not F1?). HD pictures which are long overdue

And for those who don't like F1, less of their license fee being devoted to something they don't want

Win all round

Well that's fine for all those who can afford £45 a month for Sky Sport but not everyone can and this will be shown when the viewing figures drop by 5m. This is bad news for all Britsh motor sport fans.

The coverage on Sky Sport maybe great but what is the point if the majority of fans don't get to see it?

I can understand the Premier League and cricket being on Sky but does Formula 1 really need it?

Good news for fans?? Good how? That their coverage will be better? Are they going to have their own feed rather than the one we get from each country at the moment? If not, then what is going to improve? Interviews?
And not forgetting that only a small percentage of the population with access to SKY. NOT good news for fans!

Are you suggesting the football and cricket fans can afford Sky but F1 fans can't? Strange comparison to make...

It sounds to me as if most people who are saying this is bad are actually saying "I don't want to pay for it". Kinda reminds me of the Kevin and Perry "It's not fair" whine.

Davie wrote:Are you suggesting the football and cricket fans can afford Sky but F1 fans can't? Strange comparison to make...

It sounds to me as if most people who are saying this is bad are actually saying "I don't want to pay for it". Kinda reminds me of the Kevin and Perry "It's not fair" whine.

You're very effusive of Sky and critical/dismissive of anyone (one actually being the majority in this case) who seeks to criticise them, are you a shareholder/employee or has 606v2 got a link-up with Sky now like it does with Primetime so all criticism/negative publicity has to be censored by the admin/mods team??

Davie wrote:It sounds to me as if most people who are saying this is bad are actually saying "I don't want to pay for it".

If that's the case, then what of it?

Or maybe some of those people just don't want to put more money into Murdoch's pocket.

TopHat24/7 wrote:
You're very effusive of Sky and critical/dismissive of anyone (one actually being the majority in this case) who seeks to criticise them, are you a shareholder/employee or has 606v2 got a link-up with Sky now like it does with Primetime so all criticism/negative publicity has to be censored by the admin/mods team??

No and No

I sincerely hope that, at least, there are some good commentators, even one (MB). I can't listen to Legard again for another minute, let alone 20 races a year.

My ideal team would be the one we have at the moment. They're pretty good. Come on EJ, give them an earful!!

It'll only be a matter of time before Sky Sports has taken all the tennis (except Wimby), the snooker and the World Cup from the BBC, leaving it with namby pamby sports like Diving and Dressage.

BBC commentator and former F1 driver Martin Brundle said on Twitter that he was "not impressed" with the deal.

"BBC/Sky/F1 2012+. Found out last night, no idea how it will work yet I'm out of contract, will calmly work through options. Not impressed," he wrote.

Davie wrote:Are you suggesting the football and cricket fans can afford Sky but F1 fans can't? Strange comparison to make...

It sounds to me as if most people who are saying this is bad are actually saying "I don't want to pay for it". Kinda reminds me of the Kevin and Perry "It's not fair" whine.

No Davie, I'm not.

You are squashing two seperate points together.

The point about the Premier League and cricket needing Sky is that the Sky money is essential for the Premier League teams and ECB to progress and compete internationally.

Barcelona and Real Madrid had huge tv deals and the Premier League needed Sky. Similarly the ECB needed the money to develop and be able to compete with India and Australia?

Why does F1 need Sky? It is already a global brand and the top of its sport. Does it need the Sky money? All this deal does is lessen the popularity of the sport.

Perhaps Bernie Ecclestone should have insisted Sky could have the races if they shown them free-to-view? The audiences would be almost five fold to what they will get on Sky Sports and Sky could still make a bucket loads through advertising. to what they will get on Sky Sports and Sky could still make a bucket loads through advertising.

After watching the fuss that sky sports news are making out of it Sky will do a brilliant job of F1

sky sports news are making a fuss but no1 working there has a clue about f1. basically there gonna employ blundell and jardine along with that bloody OAP Watson - truly shocking. If A1GP is anythin to go by then this is gonna be truly awful. Barney Francis has one idea about everything and that is, get a pretty blonde presenter and make her talk about something she has no idea about.

John wrote: Barney Francis has one idea about everything and that is, get a pretty blonde presenter and make her talk about something she has no idea about.

Isn't that what they do on SSN all day long?

I hope Martin and DC are the new commentators, I'd hate to see them losing their jobs. Let's hope EJ rants about this tomorrow.

Is it me or are the admins on this forum employed by Sky?

No it's just you

strike 2 fantantonio - one more and you're out

I don't like Sky. They take away all good terrestrial TV. They are a greedy organisation. They charge you per month and they show too many adverts. Another disappointing day for terrestrial sport.

Easy to see how 'Fantantonio' might get that impression
Davie you're in a minority of about 1.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/sporteditors/2011/07/f1_coverage_to_be_shared_betwe.html

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12433_7066182,00.html

No ads apparently ^^

Terrible decision, Sky Sports ruins the sporting experience.

What the point of a TV licence, if everything is being shipped off to Sky?

Just heard an interesting footnote regarding the F1 teams - basically they could scurper the new deal if they feel it doesn't honour the terrestrial tv stipulation regarding deals with broadcasters.

fingers crossed then.

According to this article, you wont have to purchase sky sports.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/93461

Reading this there is a lot of hate for Sky for getting this deal.
Why isn't the same hate shown towards the BBC for dropping F1?

BBC rumoured last year about F1 not being shown on the BBC (and also dropping Wimbledon). Is it Sky's fault for putting together a package? Hardly.

BBC are obviously looking for ways to save the cash, just be thankful that Sky have come up with a deal to show ALL the races whilst BBC can only commit to showing half of them.

And I'm with Davie on this.
I'm a sky sports subscriber, and Sky always put on a better show than BBC for sports. It costs more money for a reason. Better coverage.

Y I Man wrote:
And I'm with Davie on this.

What was that Fantantonio posted earlier...

i think the main problem is not everyone cant afford sky so can't view all the races. although i do think sky will have better coverage provided they get the right commentators and presenters.

In my opinion Sky put on a better show. If you disagree, then that's fine.

It's not so much a question of 'a better show', it's more a question of money! For people who currently don't have Sky, it will work out about 50 quid per race should they choose to subscribe?

What will the 'better show' entail? Will they have a feed other than the one each host country currently provides?

We get the main show at the moment - the race itself.

I don't think the BBC or Sky are to blame as much as the people who run Formula 1 like Bernie Ecclestone.

If Ecclestone is asking for too much and the BBC can't afford it then they can't afford it. If Sky have the opportunity to buy the rights than it is a free market.

My disappointment is that Formula 1/ Ecclestone have shown such little regard to the British Formula 1 fans with this deal.

Around 5 million fans will now miss out on half the live action. That equates to a 50% drop in total viewers for a 20 races season. That means that the likes of Red Bull, Vodafone and Santander will only have half the advertising consumers that had this season.

As GeeMonkee states above this is not a question of whether Sky will be better to watch (remember that F1 provide the coverage of the race) but rather than many millions of fans will simply be priced out of watching the sport.

longhopmerchant wrote:Terrible decision, Sky Sports ruins the sporting experience.

What the point of a TV licence, if everything is being shipped off to Sky?

Over the past 15 years the licence fee has increased by 40% yet the number of BBC tv channels has trebled (300% increase) and the number of BBC radio stations has doubled (200% increase).

I believe it is time the Government and BBC look at what the licence fee is for. I would like to see the licence fee be solely for BBC1, BBC2, Radio 1-5 and local programming (what it always used to be for).

Everything else BBC3, BBC4, 1Xtra, 5 Live Extra etc would become commercial. The BBC have already shown they can run a successful commercial business with BBC Worldwide.

There would have to be certain agreements as to standards on BBC1 and BBC2 etc regarding different types of programming etc but it could work.

I would also like to see the Government act on the 'crown jewel' sporting events. This is where I think Sky can gain massively.

The idea is to change these events from must on terrestial to must be free-to-view. Therefore Sky could bid for the say Wimbledon or the World Cup as long as they show it free-to-view. Sky have channels on most platforms so this could be very achievable.

Just wanted to add that the BBC blog to explain this decision now has 4500 comments in just under 24 hours.

The similar blog explaining the closure of the BBC 606 website only got 380 in total.

@Y I Man

I agree that Sky put on a better show e.g SS football better than BBC football (comparing the championship games last year).

Surely, though, you would be disappointed if they put a bimbo in charge of presenting it and universally hated commentators?

basically i can see sky really pissing alot of the drivers and teams off next season trying to act like the new big boys in town.

presenter - georgie thompson (was shocking at A1GP)

pundits - tony jardine & john watson (boring OAP's)

pit lane reporter - charlie webster (dont mind her seeing as she has done GP2 before)

basically when bbc have the occasional race sky is gonna have zero viewers as many will switch to football so i dont see the point

Theres no way in hell Sky could do a better job of coverage of F1 than the BBC, If anyone has ever watched big event boxing from USA on sky sports you will know how poor sky are t covering the entre thing, as soon as the winner is announced they cut back to the panel of 'experts' with no coverage of post fight interviews, oh and adverts every 3 minutes.... SKY YOU SUCK. BBC you to, cant understand how this would benifit F1

Y I Man wrote:In my opinion Sky put on a better show. If you disagree, then that's fine.

did you watch todays qually (hungary)? Martin B done an in depth presentation on tyre rules. Sky would not do that no way.

dangerous_mouse wrote:did you watch todays qually (hungary)? Martin B done an in depth presentation on tyre rules. Sky would not do that no way.

How can you possibly say that? You have NO idea what sky have planned.

What we can say is that Sky will show all races live, all qualifying live and all free practices live. Plus you can be they will also show race previews and reviews - and with the money they are putting in, probably at least one magazine program per week.

Does that compare to what the BBC gives us?

I think a lot of people here are jumping the gun. No one knows what SKY is going to do with F1 so why don't we wait and see before nailing them to the cross.

SKY's football shows are fantastic, so I would expect the same level of quality.

Whilst I have SKY sports, I understand peoples frustrations but truth be told, if I was a business man, I would do what SKY is doing and get F1 as well.

Instead of venting at SKY, energies should be directed at the BBC and Bernie for messing this up.

I hope they hire the current crew as it's a great team. One good thing to come out of this is we won't be seeing Jake Humphries anymore. Yayy

whoops sorry, post fail, lol. ignore or delete.

The BBC will show every grand prix in full, half of them live and half of them delayed, so free to air is available to everyone.

Disastrous news!

Not really outraged as the BBC is having to slash costs and maybe this was the best compromise. You do have to wonder though how long it will be before they decide to ditch F1 entirely and hand it all over to Sky.

Would have preferred ANY of the terrestrial channels to get it. Okay they may interrupt the coverage with ads but at least you don't have to fork out a subscription to Satan's broadcasting service. No way in hell I'm going to be held hostage by the money-grabbers.

If Sky don't ruin their coverage with constant ad breaks I will come back here and eat as much humble pie as you can throw at me. They do it with all their other sports coverage, so why not F1?

Fair enough the Beeb needed to cut costs, but they're also going to lose a hell of a lot in ratings. Hope its worth it.

Also reckon they should freeze the licence fee for the next 10 years. Actually to hell with it. The Beeb should be forced to go commercial and show ads like everyone else. Its not like they have anything left that can't be interrupted.

SCRAP THE LICENCE FEE!

fernando wrote:The BBC will show every grand prix in full, half of them live and half of them delayed, so free to air is available to everyone.

Still not the same though, is it? Only being able to watch highlights of half the season and by the time they're aired you'll already have heard or read the result somewhere else.


Its a real shame. F1 is almost unique amongs sports in that once the race starts, there are no breaks, unless severe weather or a bad accident brings the safety car out or requires the race to be red-flagged. So its easy to miss important events if you're constantly cutting to ad breaks.

Its also a ridiculously expensive sport to acquire the rights for (thanks Mr Ecclestone) and the BBC is in a Catch 22 situation. It can't compete with the likes of Sky because it doesn't enjoy the kind of revenue that can be generated from ads. Yet if it showed adverts, the coverage would be compromised.

Since they've gone down this route they may as well join the 21st century and start showing adverts. Why the hell should we fork out £140 a year for 4 stations that show very little worth watching anyway. Also, the BBC would be far better funded and able to start operating more free to air channels, with a wider range of programmes than just art programmes, awful sitcoms and "talent" shows.

The blame lies firmly at the door of Bernie Ecclestone in my eyes. A greedy little man who is already a multi-millionaire and his tactics are clear. He takes the sport to ITV when they stumped up the biggest cash sum but once it came up for tender again and the BBC could put in a more lucrative offer he sold ITV down the river without really giving them a fair chance to bid for it (according to reliable sources) and has now down the same with the BBC. He couldn't really give a stuff about quality coverage as long as the millions keep rolling in.

I really do think this is a very bad deal for everyone. The fans in general as a big percentage cannot afford Sky's extortionate fees. The sport as it will get less exposure on national television to the widest spectrum of audience. The teams and their sponsors will also not get full exposure. Also I cannot possibly see how Sky's coverage will be better. They have no experience whatsoever of F1 so who will be on their commentary team whereas the BBC team has it all in terms of experience, ex-drivers, ex-team principles and dedicated coverage.

PS And this comes from someone with the full Sky package.

CaledonianCraig wrote:The blame lies firmly at the door of Bernie Ecclestone in my eyes.

Bernie is payed to get CVC the best deal possible for their F1 coverage, BBC couldn't pay their price so it's going elsewhere to someone who can.

fernando wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:The blame lies firmly at the door of Bernie Ecclestone in my eyes.

Bernie is payed to get CVC the best deal possible for their F1 coverage, BBC couldn't pay their price so it's going elsewhere to someone who can.

Yes but do believe there is also a stipulation amidst the teams that it is on terrestrial television which has been disregarded here by Bernie. All this after he was on BBC a few weeks ago drooling over their coverage then he stabs them in the back. Bernie is king at this and with grand prixs around the world to extort money from telvision companies and race tracks. I'll stand by what I said - a greedy little man.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

fernando wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:The blame lies firmly at the door of Bernie Ecclestone in my eyes.

Bernie is payed to get CVC the best deal possible for their F1 coverage, BBC couldn't pay their price so it's going elsewhere to someone who can.

Yes but do believe there is also a stipulation amidst the teams that it is on terrestrial television which has been disregarded here by Bernie. All this after he was on BBC a few weeks ago drooling over their coverage then he stabs them in the back. Bernie is king at this and with grand prixs around the world to extort money from telvision companies and race tracks. I'll stand by what I said - a greedy little man.

There was no stipulation about it being have to be all on Free to Air TV due to the way it was worded apparently. it's back to the point he's out to get the best deal weather it be with BBC, ITV or Sky Sports. The BBC can't afford to keep F1 therefore it goes elsewhere it's better then it not being on tv at all.

Perhaps not the way its worded but well nigh certain the teams all want it on terrestrial television as we hear team principles constantly saying this. Yes I understand about getting the best deal but F1 and those that run it aren't exactly paupers (extremely far from it actually) so I am sure a deal with the BBC could have been done but for Bernie (the greedy one) it wasn't enough for him. Very sad F1's fat wallet comes before the fans.

Davie wrote:

dangerous_mouse wrote:did you watch todays qually (hungary)? Martin B done an in depth presentation on tyre rules. Sky would not do that no way.

How can you possibly say that? You have NO idea what sky have planned.

What we can say is that Sky will show all races live, all qualifying live and all free practices live. Plus you can be they will also show race previews and reviews - and with the money they are putting in, probably at least one magazine program per week.

Does that compare to what the BBC gives us?

606v2 still defending paid tv to the hilt I see and completely against the grain of mass public opinion. You attack other peoples comments/opinions aggressively ("How can you possibly say that?") and then go on to make a number of equally unsupportable claims. Everything you've suggested is no more certain than my claims that coverage will be ruined by ITV-esque advert breaks, a claim you were instantly dismissive of.

We already get live race and qualifying (as well as delayed when the time difference is significant), so no improvement there. They (might) show practices, great, when we're all at work, that's a useful improvement....and then race pre-views/reviews which also is already part and parcel of the bbc service. So to answer your question, does it compare? Yes, but that's different from your claims of instant obvious unquestionable improvement. The mid-week magazine word be good (I like Ringside for boxing for example), but that's it.

And how will sky's team compare to bbc's - Jordan, Coulthard, Humphreys, Brundle and Kravitz amongst others? Judging by its recent motorsport coverage, and its SSN line-up, frankly appalling.

Spot on TopHat.

Once they have their greedy mits on it I wonder how long it will take them to put it on pay-per-view. I mean don't they ALREADY get too much money off of us?

[quote="TopHat24/7"]

Davie wrote:

dangerous_mouse wrote:did you watch todays qually (hungary)? Martin B done an in depth presentation on tyre rules. Sky would not do that no way.

606v2 still defending paid tv to the hilt I see and completely against the grain of mass public opinion. You attack other peoples comments/opinions aggressively ("How can you possibly say that?") and then go on to make a number of equally unsupportable claims. Everything you've suggested is no more certain than my claims that coverage will be ruined by ITV-esque advert breaks, a claim you were instantly dismissive of.

And how will sky's team compare to bbc's - Jordan, Coulthard, Humphreys, Brundle and Kravitz amongst others? Judging by its recent motorsport coverage, and its SSN line-up, frankly appalling.

I agree. Well done mate. I hope 606v2 allows itself to be questioned. Beeb have failed miserably on this, not one response to 6000 comments. Threatening to ban someone for disagreeing with a half baked bit of reasoning seems incredibly unfair.

I'd like to point out (again) that anything I've said here - apart from the bits in red telling people not to break the rules - are being said by me as a member and not in any way representing the opinions of v2.

606v2 is NOT "still defending paid tv". I am.

Don't understand what you mean about 606v2 allowing itself to be questioned. 606v2 has NOT made any pronouncements on this - and even if it had, we are nothing to do with the BBC anyway

It was the red bit to Fantantonio. I think most of us appreciate your efforts at organising and running the site. Having said that, on this argument I feel you're wrong and your insensitivty on the issue is bound to provoke comments like his.