I have just received an update from Sky confirming that the new F1 channel would be available free to Sky HD and Sky Sports 1 & 2 customers..............not bad hugh?! At least I would not have to now subscribe to the Sky Sports Channels!!! 
Free Sky Sports F1 channel
- Thread starter rs6mra
- Start date
I would'nt worry to much for those who feel the need to purchase sky, the BBC still have the rights to show 2hours of the race though highlights and as many races don't go past 2 hours you will still get almost full coverage, it will just be a little later in the day
professorhat
Well-known member
- Dec 28, 2007
- 992
- 22
- 18,895
landzw said:
Only 2 hours of coverage for those in the Far East - European races only get 90 minutes. And you're assuming those 2 hours will be dedicated to the race - more likely that at least an hour will be pre and post analyses, meaning highlights are likely to be around 45 mins to 60 mins at the very most.
All in all, it's not great. There's no way I'm purchasing Sky just for those races, but I will be seeking out friends who have it to watch those 10 races live.
eggontoast
Well-known member
- Feb 23, 2011
- 453
- 12
- 18,895
I won't personally bother with F1 next year.
There is no point in watching a few full races, bits of others and unfortunately its not exciting enough to warrant a sky subscription just for F1 for me. Granted this season was slightly better than the last few but still lacked some actual thrilling racing.
IMO it is just another nail in the coffin for F1 which is not a patch on what it once was. Touring cars are much more exciting
There is no point in watching a few full races, bits of others and unfortunately its not exciting enough to warrant a sky subscription just for F1 for me. Granted this season was slightly better than the last few but still lacked some actual thrilling racing.
IMO it is just another nail in the coffin for F1 which is not a patch on what it once was. Touring cars are much more exciting
professorhat said:
I don't know, given the circumstances and the outcry I can't see the BBC being stupid enough to devote 2/3rds of a 90 minute program to analysis when they know the public are already complaining about not getting the races in full.
Come and watch at mine if you want, probably only take you, what, 4 hours to get here?
eggontoast
Well-known member
- Feb 23, 2011
- 453
- 12
- 18,895
No. There's no way they'll do the same level of pre and post race nonsense that they do with the live races, even BBC management aren't that stupid.
Of course that's assuming they're allowed to show as much of the race as they want, if the deal with F1M and Sky only allows them to have 45 minutes of each race it's a different matter.
Of course that's assuming they're allowed to show as much of the race as they want, if the deal with F1M and Sky only allows them to have 45 minutes of each race it's a different matter.
'BBC management aren't that stupid'.?????????????????????????????????????
Whose Hugh, that's where you'll find him.
Whose Hugh, that's where you'll find him.
eggontoast
Well-known member
- Feb 23, 2011
- 453
- 12
- 18,895
eggontoast said:
FFS, they INITIATED the deal, because they can no longer justify the expense of showing all the races live, blame Bernie for charging too much or the government for cutting the license fee. There are plenty of people to blame for the situation, find the right one for a change.
daveh75
Well-known member
- Jul 31, 2008
- 726
- 135
- 19,070
I suspect the deal will be short lived.
Judging by the number of complaints and comments over the net, and the number of people seeking other solutions to watch the races that will be shown on Sky, very few will be subscribing to Sky just for F1, and if all that money they've spent doesn't equate to extra subscribers they'll drop it.
Judging by the number of complaints and comments over the net, and the number of people seeking other solutions to watch the races that will be shown on Sky, very few will be subscribing to Sky just for F1, and if all that money they've spent doesn't equate to extra subscribers they'll drop it.
daveh75 said:
Thing is only the complainers will be visible on the net, the people who WILL subscribe to Sky won't say so, for fear of being accused of being sheep or supporting Murdoch or whatever (or they just won't be bothered to tell anyone). Also I presume the deal is for a fixed period, so Bernie will have something to say is Sky try to get out of it early.
If it does happen though it'll be back to ITV, if they want it, the BBC won't take it on again. If ITV don't want it or won't pay the asking price, well...
'Cutting the licence fee'??
I thought the TV licence fee had been frozen not cut.
Is there some rebate I am unaware of?
The-Lhc do tell.
:doh:
I thought the TV licence fee had been frozen not cut.
Is there some rebate I am unaware of?
The-Lhc do tell.
:doh:
lordy said:
You don't understand the concept of inflation then...? I believe the figure given was that it works out as a real-world (you know, where everybody else lives...) cut of around 16%. I imagine that figure was calculated before inflation hit >5% as well...
eggontoast
Well-known member
- Feb 23, 2011
- 453
- 12
- 18,895
No sorry that's rubbish, the BBC pays certain staff exorbitant amounts of money and is full of waste. The money is there to pay for F1 coverage if the BBC were to be managed correctly and efficientlyThe_Lhc said:
professorhat
Well-known member
- Dec 28, 2007
- 992
- 22
- 18,895
The_Lhc said:
Well, I read a number of comments that Channel 4 bid the same amount of money as Sky - a lot of people seemed to be angry it had gone to Sky for that reason as at least it would still have been free to air if C4 had got it.
However, these were just comments written on the web - I haven't bothered to check if this was in fact true (mostly because it's largely irrelevant now). If it was, then they might still be interested were any deals about in the future.
chebby
Well-known member
- Jun 2, 2008
- 1,251
- 24
- 19,195
I can't see many more years passing before James Murdoch demands that the Government hand the entire BBC over to him. (It doesn't actually belong to the Government but that won't stop them.)
It won't be the first time that David Cameron has been instructed in major decisions over BBC license fee policy by James Murdoch if they threaten BSkyB's interests...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8657058/Tories-did-deal-with-Murdoch-over-BBC-licence-fee.html
James Murdoch set out his contempt for non-commercial broadcasting in his hissy-fit against the BBC, the Government and OFCOM in his 2009 MacTaggart lecture so there is no mystery about his ultimate intent.
This year's events have 'spoilt the pitch' a bit for Jimmy and Dave, but it won't stop them. Murdoch Inc. still wants that £3.7 billion for themselves and - even more importantly - won't stop until the BBC's unique style of public service broadcasting is destroyed and Dave hands over the goods.
I give it 4 years.
It won't be the first time that David Cameron has been instructed in major decisions over BBC license fee policy by James Murdoch if they threaten BSkyB's interests...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8657058/Tories-did-deal-with-Murdoch-over-BBC-licence-fee.html
James Murdoch set out his contempt for non-commercial broadcasting in his hissy-fit against the BBC, the Government and OFCOM in his 2009 MacTaggart lecture so there is no mystery about his ultimate intent.
This year's events have 'spoilt the pitch' a bit for Jimmy and Dave, but it won't stop them. Murdoch Inc. still wants that £3.7 billion for themselves and - even more importantly - won't stop until the BBC's unique style of public service broadcasting is destroyed and Dave hands over the goods.
I give it 4 years.
eggontoast said:
The number of staff earning that sort of money has been cut and, relative to the income the BBC gets it's actually a trivially small amount (please note the use of the word "relative", I know £10million is a large amount of money in absolute terms but relative to the total license fee, it isn't).
No organisation of that size is capable of operating without waste, it's not realistic to think otherwise. Things could be done, yes, but it will never run with the sort of efficiency that people seem to expect.
It isn't really relevant, the simple fact is the BBC don't want to spend the money anymore, I suspect the only reason the current deal was thrashed out is because it would have cost them as much in penalty fees to drop out completely as it would to keep showing it, so this deal was probably the cheapest option. As soon as they're able to BBC will drop F1 completely, they would have done already if they could.
I spoke to one of the people involved in the channe l4 deal, it was Mr Ecclestone who deciced not to pursue their bid. The money on the table did not match the Sky/BBC deal.
The_Lhc said:
They initiated the deal because they throw money about like confetti. Refurbishing broadcasting house and the move to Salford, total cost £2 billion. They already get too much money, as I see it the problem with the BBC is they are trying to do far too much.
But by far the worst thing they did was getting in bed with Sky when C4 were interested. The fact is the BBC didn't want a terrestrial competitor. The BBC are a bunch of hypocrites.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram