BBC possibly to drop F1 coverage...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Basher said:
So you don't think the viewing figures would go down if it was paid for :confused:

Of course they would.
Click to expand...

And your point is? I simply pointed out the real cost of F1 to the viewers with the BBC and the disparity with what Sky will effectively charge to watch it.

And it's hardly in anyones interest, least of all the fans, to broadcast to a smaller audience at a hugely higher cost is it? Unless you simply want to see Murdoch get even richer.
 
mnemonix said:
And your point is? I simply pointed out the real cost of F1 to the viewers with the BBC and the disparity with what Sky will effectively charge to watch it.

And it's hardly in anyones interest, least of all the fans, to broadcast to a smaller audience at a hugely higher cost is it? Unless you simply want to see Murdoch get even richer.
Click to expand...

My point is that the BBC could not host full coverage of all the F1 races for £10 per person per year.
 
Basher said:
My point is that the BBC could not host full coverage of all the F1 races for £10 per person per year.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it cost them this year.

Even if Bernie charged double for the rights next year this would rise to £20. I originally put this cost in context with the price of Sky, and the disparity is still enormous. I don't really see why you're challenging me like this. It's a situation that only exists because of Sky's monopoly, which is wrong.
 
Are you both arguing about a fact that we all know?

Bottom line, with licence fee's fixed and no other income to fund it the BBC simply cannot afford to continue with the current F1 coverage they show.

Its the fact that is at the core of this whole situation. I don't get what your arguing about?

The BBC cant afford it, Sky can, simples.
 
Skeeter said:
The BBC cant afford it, Sky can, simples.
Click to expand...

I'd love the BBC to retain it yes, but I used the numbers to illustrate the real cost of putting F1 on and show the extortionate prices for Sky for what they are.

If we had real competition Sky would have to completely rethink their pricing and broadcast policy. A reasonable profit could still be made by broadcasting the season to Freesat/Freeview/TopupTV and charging say, £50 for a season pass to view.

Sky's model however is predicated on the basis of extorting the maximum anount of money from viewers based on their monopoly because viewers have no other choices. Why else for example would they swap a sport around between Sky 1 & 2? So you have to buy an even more expensive package, let alone the fact that their basic package isn't cheap, and requires you to buy a whole range of services and products from them you might not want.

Simples right?
 
Last edited:
Skeeter said:
Yep, but living in the real world rather than some fictional one where Sky aren't a monopoly, what other option is there?
Click to expand...

Opposing this deal to prevent the growth of their monopoly, and actually allow an alternative to come forth, which had the government & the BBC not rolled over so easily in the face of the Murdochs, might have been more forthcoming. The argument that the BBC can't afford it is a question of priorities anyway and therefore not so clear cut. As a matter of principle it would have been in the BBCs interests and ours as fans and paying customers through the license fee to hold out for anything but Sky.

There is proven demand for affordable F1 coverage with very decent viewing figues, and the costs as illustrated are really not that high. It needn't have ended this way.
 
Basher said:
This pretty much sums it up.
Click to expand...

You're born, you die. That pretty much sums up our life on this planet.

Trotting out these near monosylabic replies contributes nothing to a debate on the issue, considering the alternatives, or simply making people aware of all the facts. Do you really not believe we can't do better or do you simply accept all the **** that's thrown at you in life? Perhaps you're a Sky shareholder and want the sheeple to accept what Sky gives them without a thought, for the sake of your bottom line.
 
Last edited:
Basher said:
I personally don't think Sky TV, Broadband, Phone and HD recorder for £600 per year is that bad.
Click to expand...

It is a bad deal if you do not want their broadband.
It is a bad deal if you do not want their TV (only want to see the 20 odd F1 races...nothing else).
It is a bad deal if you don't want their phone line.
It is a bad deal if you don't want their HD recorder.

In my case, if I get SKY, it will be only to watch 20 odd races. I'm not interested in their other stuff. Even if they gave it to me for free, I would take it. No joke.
 
Last edited:
mnemonix said:
You're born, you die. That pretty much sums up our life on this planet.

Trotting out these near monosylabic replies contributes nothing to a debate on the issue, considering the alternatives, or simply making people aware of all the facts. Do you really not believe we can do better or do you simply accept all the **** that's thrown at you in life? Perhaps you're a Sky shareholder and want the sheeple to accept what Sky gives them without a thought, for the sake of your bottom line.
Click to expand...

The deal went out to tender, Sky won it.

F1 isn't a priority for the BBC next year - what do you propose we do about it?

No, I don't accept all the **** that is thrown at me in life, but this deal doesn't worry me, it isn't that much of an issue. I pick my battles, this certainly isn't worth any stress.
 
sunama said:
It is a bad deal if you do not want their broadband.
It is a bad deal if you want their TV (only want to see the 20 odd F1 races...nothing else).
It is a bad deal if you don't want their phone line.
It is a bad deal if you don't want their HD recorder.

In my case, if I get SKY, it will be only to watch 20 odd races. I'm not interested in their other stuff. Even if they gave it to me for free, I would take it. No joke.
Click to expand...

Ok, but I want all of those things which is why I don't think it's a bad deal, and you won't get all of those things anywhere cheaper.
 
Basher said:
Ok, but I want all of those things which is why I don't think it's a bad deal, and you won't get all of those things anywhere cheaper.
Click to expand...

Great for you.

Bad for the rest of us.

There are a number of reasons why people won't get Sky.

That includes:

A. Can't put a dish up.
B. Can't afford it.
C. Can't see why they should pay £600 a year or £50 a race just to watch F1.

And probably others too.

For me I was paying the £150 license fee to watch F1. So it's five times more to get the same thing again. £600+£150 = £750 = 5 times more.

I won't pay that because it's not worth it, and nor will many others.

Full race viewing numbers will drop. If total numbers drop is another matter, because the BBC could put the highlights on at Prime Time, therefore artificially inflating the numbers.
 
Concorde Rules said:
I won't pay that because it's not worth it, and nor will many others.
Click to expand...

I think many, many people will.

It doesn't represent too bad value if you get a number of packages (as I have done) and the coverage will be great.

Given that there will be no other way to watch all of the races, LOTS of people will subscribe.
 
Last edited:
mnemonix said:
Opposing this deal to prevent the growth of their monopoly, and actually allow an alternative to come forth, which had the government & the BBC not rolled over so easily in the face of the Murdochs, might have been more forthcoming. The argument that the BBC can't afford it is a question of priorities anyway and therefore not so clear cut. As a matter of principle it would have been in the BBCs interests and ours as fans and paying customers through the license fee to hold out for anything but Sky.

There is proven demand for affordable F1 coverage with very decent viewing figues, and the costs as illustrated are really not that high. It needn't have ended this way.
Click to expand...

Ok, lets get this straight.

The BBC have effectively had their budget cut by the freeze on licence fees, and therefore have to make cuts. They have looked at numerous options and decided F1 is part of what needs to go.

You can get all technical if you want, but the simple result is still the same. The BBC cannot afford to continue to provide the same level of F1 coverage they currently do. With their financial situation, it is unsustainable.

So yes, the result is that the contract was opened up to offer. I expect numoueus people made bids in different forms. Channel 5 was mentioned as was Sky and maybe some others. However, your opinon that the government should have helped out and held out is again a clouded one. The government hate motorsport. It flys right in the face of their 'Green' campaigns and no government press office wants to answer to hippies about why programs about saving polar bears are being put on hold to show a bunch of guys driving round in circles for 2 hours.

So again, getting simple, the BBC cant afford it, the government wont help.

So what are you left with? Private companies willing take up the coverage, and FOM looking for the best deal they can get.

So, again, in simple terms, Sky offer the best deal in terms of money and coverage, and FOM agree.

Whilst I fully hate this new deal and am very annoyed about it, I can fully understand why it has happened. Dreaming of the BBC suddenly finding money or the Government suddenly trying to help wont get you anywhere.

The key point for me will be whether or not I can put a Sky disk up on my flat. If I can't, I will be very annoyed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom