IMPORTANT news about watching F1 on sky this season

What a pain in the arse. I've just heard about this.

I'm moving in to a new house in May, and living temporarily with my parents at the moment. Therefore I can't sign up to Sky until at least mid April. May need to just stick with BBC as I don't care about anything on the sports channels really.

Will see how good a deal I can get on quidco or similar before commiting.
 
Skeeter said:
Are you going to fund that, then?

Sky and the BBC have a contract to 2018. For BBC to drop their part of the deal, or Sky to drop theirs will mean either someone buying out the contract, or them faulting on it and Bernie suing them to hell and back.

Sky will outbid everyone. No terrestrial channel has a chance of buying out Sky's contract, they simply can't afford it. However the reverse is entirely possible, Sky could buy out the BBCs part of the contract quite easily.

So for all the races to end up back on the BBC live the BBC need to somehow find the money to buy out Skys current contract, a contract worth a lot more than the one the BBC had between 2009 and 2011. Considering the whole reason Sky have F1 is because the BBC couldn't afford to keep it, this seems highly unlikely.

The way I see it going is either Sky buying BBC's Live rights which will then allow them to put adverts in the race, leaving the BBC with just highlights, or Formula 1 just being absorbed into the current 4 Sky Sports channels which will force those viewers like me who have HD but not Sports to get the Sports pack.

Now that Sky have their claws in F1, I do not see any possible way that it will ever end up back on terrestrial TV. F1 on TV is all about money, and F1 on Sky will always be worth more money to FOM than F1 on any terrestrial channel. Viewing figures are irrelevant.

Edit: Top Gear Maths:

BBC were paying 'around £20m' (cant find an exact figure) annually for exclusive live coverage between 2009 and 2013.
The new deal with Sky meant the above was scrapped and replaced with a deal from 2012 to 2018 where BBC pay £7m and Sky pay £25m annually.

For all races to end up back on the BBC they would need to buy out Sky's contract for at least £25m x years left, so for 2014 onwards thats £125m. The BBC do not have this money.
For Sky to get exclusivity they would need to buy out the BBCs contract so would need to find £7m x years left, so for 2014 onwards thats £35m. Sky can easily find £35m.
For anyone else to take the rights from both BBC and Sky and show it exclusively, they would need to find (£25 + £7m) x years left, so for 2014 onwards that is £160m. No terrestrial channel has this.

Sky are in the driving seat on this.
Click to expand...

Terrestrial channels don't, others might like BT (who now have some football rights), Tiscali or whatever their rubbish TV thing is.

You never now in the future we might get the likes of Canal+ entering the UK market like ESPN did (before they sold out to BT).
 
Right are their any super cheap ways of getting all the races this year?

Hated last season not having access to every race and don't really want to cough up £15 a month to improve the virgin media deal down stairs (though it could be an option).

Things I have at home at the moment are a satellite dish (needs recabling), broadband and virgin media and just want the cheapest way to enjoy the season.

Any ideas?
 
Cheapest way to get it on SkyTV is £30.25 (Entertainment and the HD Pack), providing you get it before 9th April.

Cheapest (only) way to get it on Virgin is to add the Sky Sports Collection to your TV package for £25.75 a month, but this is only in SD.

Cheapest (proper) way to get it via Boadband (i.e. without a Sky TV subscription) is to buy a SkyGo Monthly Pass for £35 a month which means you can stream all 6 Sports channels.

Cheapest (vaugly dodgy) way to get it is to find a mate/family member with Sky TV and ask to borrow one of their slots for a SkyGo device and add your PC/Xbox/etc to it and stream it, which costs £beer tokens.

There is also I belive a NowTV 24 hour pass that will be coming soon allowing you to buy a 24 hour Sky Sports streaming pack for £10. If you're only after a few races this might be cheaper than a SkyGo Monthly pass.
 
Skeeter said:
NASCAR is on ESPN and MotorsTV. ALMS is on MotorsTV. WTCC is on Eurosport.

They do have IndyCar, I'd forgot that, but that is about it.



The UK market accounts for about 5% of global F1 viewing figures. We are insignificant.
Click to expand...

It isn't all about the audience size.

As I understand it we are the most valuable individual market for F1. British F1 fans are, per capita, wealthier than any others. Couple that with the size of our market and we are a market sponsors want to retain.

500,000 Brits are worth more to sponsors than 500,000 Brazilians for example.
 
True, but that 500k are customers that have been advertised to and marketed to for years. There's a thought that if they were going to ever be Vodafone customers (for example) they either have been or are. Those 500k Brazilian customers have more potential than those in the UK.
 
If we - as in, the British F1 viewing population - were worth half a dime then the full season would be on free-to-air TV. We aren't, apparently. And that's fine! They're trying to make money, they aren't a charity, it's fair enough.

It's not Bernie's fault. It's not Sky's fault. It's not the BBC's fault. It's the FIA's fault, for making the show so utterly ordinary that this split-broadcaster scenario started in the first place.

Maybe they'll fix it with the 2014-on regulations. I'm not holding my breath.



***edit***

You know how you occasionally get those posts where you think 'hmmm, maybe I shouldn't?'....bugger it, it's posted. :p
 
Last edited:
Must... resist... posting link to the the "then vs now" thread... :p

The root cause of this is not the FIA, it's the freeze on TV licence fees. F1 coverage costs money, and the funds available to the BBC were squeezed meaning something had to give. Unfortunately for us it was F1 that got the chop.
 
Skeeter said:
Must... resist... posting link to the the "then vs now" thread... :p

The root cause of this is not the FIA, it's the freeze on TV licence fees. F1 coverage costs money, and the funds available to the BBC were squeezed meaning something had to give. Unfortunately for us it was F1 that got the chop.
Click to expand...


The BBC said they gave up F1 for a crap singing show which cost 100mil it bombed.

"TV Licensing collected £3.7 billion in revenue in 2010/11, up £99 million from the previous year."


That's just from the licence fee not from the sales or over seas TV!
Imagine what the interest would be on that a month? the F1 fee was just pocket money to the BBC.

edit="Total BBC turnover topped £5bn for the first time last year"
 
Last edited:
None of the BBC board members or the BBC trust have gone on record to say they're Motorsport or F1 fans. I'm sure most of them are far more into Polo, Tennis, Rowing and Rugby rather than anything that 'normal' people are into. Had there been at least one voice trying to keep F1 on the BBC then things might have been different. Hell the BBC trusts own reporting said it was consistently hitting above their own targets for viewing and was often the most watched program by several million in its broadcast timings and was consistently most watched by its target demographic, it's just no one who makes the decisions was the slightest bit interested in keeping it.

Also some of the Licence fee is creamed off for improving rural Broadband and even Channel Four wanted some! As a commercial station I'm appalled that they even managed to argue they should get some and nearly succeeded!
 
Last edited:
Skeeter said:
Must... resist... posting link to the the "then vs now" thread... :p
Click to expand...

What, the thread I made? :D:p

Skeeter said:
The root cause of this is not the FIA, it's the freeze on TV licence fees. F1 coverage costs money, and the funds available to the BBC were squeezed meaning something had to give. Unfortunately for us it was F1 that got the chop.
Click to expand...

Nope, don't agree. If F1 was a fantastic, can't miss, utterly spectacular show then the BBC might have fought harder to maintain their contract.

It isn't, so they didn't.
 
MissChief said:
None of the BBC board members or the BBC trust have gone on record to say they're Motorsport or F1 fans. I'm sure most of them are far more into Polo, Tennis, Rowing and Rugby rather than anything that 'normal' people are into. Had there been at least one voice trying to keep F1 on the BBC then things might have been different. Hell the BBC trusts own reporting said it was consistently hitting above their own targets for viewing and was often the most watched program by several million in its broadcast timings and was consistently most watched by its target demographic, it's just no one who makes the decisions was the slightest bit interested in keeping it.

Also some of the Licence fee is creamed off for improving rural Broadband and even Channel Four wanted some! As a commercial station I'm appalled that they even managed to argue they should get some and nearly succeeded!
Click to expand...


Agree
 
Deuse, I suggest you look up the meaning of 'turnover'.

The BBC didnt go through a massive restructure and implement efficiency targets while sitting on £5bn.

Without including the sale of the BBC Worldwide magazine service and some savings from a reform of the pensions, the BBC groups surplus for last year was £249m. Exclusive live coverage of F1 used to cost the BBC £20m a year. Is it any wonder they weren't keen to keep it.
 
Personally I'd have been quite happy if they lost the dozens of local BBC radio stations around the UK. Some TOWNS even have a local BBC station. BBC Scotland covers the WHOLE of Scotland. Get rid of half the local stations and you'd save a fair bit! There are 59 BBC Radio stations in the UK! 59!! half that number and you'd save millions. The BBC haven't been known for keeping staff levels or spending in check. Someone told me that BBC Radio 1 newsbeat, that produce no more than half a dozen shortish bulletins a day have something like 50 staff and they had the most staff of any National broadcaster covering the US elections. Even more than the US networks themselves!
 
Last edited:
Skeeter said:
Deuse, I suggest you look up the meaning of 'turnover'.
Click to expand...

I think you have forgot they started in 1936 and every company puts a bit aside each year
especially when they have a guaranteed income every year and it's getting bigger as time goes on.


MissChief said:
Personally I'd have been quite happy if they lost the dozens of local BBC radio stations around the UK. Some TOWNS even have a local BBC station. BBC Scotland covers the WHOLE of Scotland. Get rid of half the local stations and you'd save a fair bit! There are 59 BBC Radio stations in the UK! 59!! half that number and you'd save millions. The BBC haven't been known for keeping staff levels or spending in check. Someone told me that BBC Radio 1 newsbeat, that produce no more than half a dozen shortish bulletins a day have something like 50 staff and they had the most staff of any National broadcaster covering the US elections. Even more than the US networks themselves!
Click to expand...

Again I agree
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom