Death of F1

[tomatwark]

Well after years of watching F1 on ITV and then the BBC, another thing I like to do is being taken away so that Murdoch can earn more money to pay people to hack more phones.

Why do we have to pay a licence fee when you then have to pay Sky to watch things that should be free to air.

I hope someone in the teams decide that Ecclestone should not be in charge as he is obviously going insane.

Tom

 

[Scouse]

:-({|= Good ridance.

I don't understand why you feel it 'should be free to air'? It's a niche market at best, and the definition of an armchair sport.

With F1 costing the BBC £50 million per year, with an average audience of 3 million, do you seriously think it's good value for license fee payer's money? I read that it was F1 or BBC4 that had to go, so in reality this seems like a fair compromise, especially considering that BBC4 as an entire channel only has a £50 million annual budget.

I appreciate that everyone has their own taste in sports coverage, but you still get half of the races free, including the British and Monaco races and highlights of the rest. So really you've got nothing to moan about, have you?

 

[knappers]

Sorry, but if it was between F1 and BBC4, no contest, BBC4 has to go.

Si.

 

[Blister]

Paying a TV licence and not seeing anything

is no different to

Paying Road Tax and does it get used for roads .............. NO

 

[Racers]

Hi,

Yes its great isn't it, I heard BBC still had the British and Monaco GPs

Back to adverts in F1, I shan't be watching as I don't subscribe to sky sports, and won't be.

Pete

 

[Dibs-h]

Paying a TV licence and not seeing anything

is no different to

Paying Road Tax and does it get used for roads .............. NO

A TV license has nothing to do with seeing anything - own a TV that works and you need a TV license.

My understanding (someone one can correct me if I'm wrong) doesn't pay for lardies in Westminster - it pays for the BBC.

Dibs

 

[RogerP]

Murdoch already stole Test cricket now he's after F1 to stack up more cash ... BSkyB only made 1bn last year.

 

[tomatwark]

Maybe the BBC should let sky show half of all its shows, that would really suit me as I would only have to put with only 2 episodes of Eastenders every week instead of 4.

If I want to follow the season I would like to be able to watch all the races and there is no way I can afford £35 a month to watch telly.

What has really made me angry is I half expected this to happen when the BBC's contract ran out, but to do this part way through is really unfair.

What they should have done is sold the rights of the Olympics to Sky, and I bet there would have been uproar if that happened.

If the BBC is in that much financial trouble maybe they should look at how they report news for example as they seem to send at least 10 different reporters to every minor news event.

basically Rupert Murdoch will end up owning everything in this country and he is trying to do it as soon as possible so he can bury the criminal acts his son and him authorized at News Corp.

There is no getting away from it everything will either be owned by Sky, Virgin or Tesco's in 20 years.

Tom

 

[bugbear]

Sorry, but if it was between F1 and BBC4, no contest, F1 has to go.

I've fixed your obvious typo for you.

BugBear

 

[Karl]

It is a real shame that coverage will be split next year. I have become so engrossed in the last few seasons (even starting to watch FP1, 2 & 3 if I can get time off work) that I have been seriously considering whether to take out a Sky subscription. :shock:

 

[marcros]

It is a shame to loose it from the BBC, because it is something that they have provided good coverage of- far better than when it was on ITV. Looking at the sports coverage that ky have provided, I dont doubt that they will do a good job of it. Personally, I can only hope that there will be the option of paying only for the F1, on a reasonable pay per view basis. I have no interest in football- the full sports package is probably reasonable value if you do, but literally all I would watch on it would be the F1.

Somebody mentioned the number of viewers vs the cost, and I agree- it is probably not justifiable. The shame here is not the cost of broadcasting the sport, but the competition to have the rights- the BBC will never be able to compete with the commercial stations that can make a profit from selling the advertising space. As for the argument about F1 or BBC4- well does BBC4 have any viewers?

The sad thing is that F1 wont go to make room for some up and coming sports, that can be given coverage. The space wont be filled with anything original, instead it will be more tired repeats of repeats. With a bit of commercial sense, the BBC could secure contracts to the TV rights of up and coming sport (for instance), develop the interest in them, and then sell the remaining years worth of rights on.

 

[Paul Chapman]

I hate watching sporting events (or anything else for that matter) on commercial TV. I watched most of the Tour de France but the adverts nearly drove me nuts :evil:

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[RogerP]

.... that I have been seriously considering whether to take out a Sky subscription. :shock:

... okay if you don't mind paying to watch advertisements for 12 minutes each hour

 

[RogerP]

I hate watching sporting events (or anything else for that matter) on commercial TV. I watched most of the Tour de France but the adverts nearly drove me nuts :evil:

Cheers :wink:

Paul

Same here, mute the sound and make another cup of tea/coffee .. but you can only drink so much ... I gave up after a while watching live and recorded it to skip the ads. Anyone experimented with pause or rewind TV .. maybe there's a way there around the ads problem ... but I expect they’ve covered that

 

[Harbo]

I watched last weekends F1 on American TV - there were more adverts than the actual race!
At the end you only saw them spray each other with Fizz for a few seconds and about 30secs of Hamilton's interview sandwiched in between adverts.
TV in the States is a big turn off?

Rod

 

[marcros]

surely much of the annoyance is missing what is going on whilst the adverts are on, although I can sympathise with the constant interruptions

 

[Harbo]

Er no I find the adverts themselves annoying?

Rod

 

[Scouse]

Perhaps it is unfair to blame either broadcaster; the BBC for not being able to afford or justify the annual fee or Sky for being rich enough to pay it.

There was a deal to be done and if F1 management really cared about the quality of coverage re. adverts, or those fans who watch it, they may have considered lowering their price to allow the BBC to maintain ad-free coverage while still, I'm sure, pulling in a nice healthy profit for Bernie et.al.

 

[studders]

A TV license has nothing to do with seeing anything - own a TV that works and you need a TV license.


Dibs

Not strictly true, though they like to give that impression, along with the belief that they have an automatic right of access to check for a TV.

 

[tomatwark]

I have a basic Sky Package already, but can't justify the extra for F1.

Since I started this thread, whilst woodworking away I have worked out that all the channels my wife and I watch except 1 are on Freeview, and the thing we watch on that one is available on DVD box set.

Just done the sums and the cost of the box set and a freeview recorder ( I like the record bit on Sky ) will save me about £ 100 in the first year and nearly £300 after that, so I think a call will be made to Sky in the next few days.

So while I am not happy about the F1, it looks like Sky has done me a favour in that I will save some money.

Tom