Thread: [UK] So, how are you watching it?

Originally Posted by AndyL

And to think I said they should have got him to do F1 instead of Legard I didn't know he was doing BTCC... does he know anything about it? He's certainly an F1 fan and he mentions it from time to time in MotoP commentary, but I don't know about touring cars.

He's commentated on Silverstone Classic and knows his stuff.

Unfortunately he doesn't come across as being professional in BTCC and made quite a few errors and an over reliance on his notes. Ben Edwards has commentated on various forms of motorsport, David Croft not only commentated on F1 but FIA GTs as well as darts and boxing and have been consummate professionals.

Originally Posted by henners88

The figures overall may be up slightly but I still can't get my head around the fact Bernie is prepared to allow the majority audience to have the reduced coverage. It just goes to show Bernie is not bothered about people being interested in the racing but purely tuning in and just seeing enough to notice sponsor boards at the side of the track. Having watched both channels covering the sport I would say both are doing what we expect but the BBC is still superior at delivering the action to the viewers. I would be pretty annoyed had I shelled out a lot of money for sky purely for f1 alone. Sky will no doubt improve but its all becoming abit of a chore for me to tune in and the Chinese gp was enough to convince me to stick with the beeb.

Indeed, China has convinced me too that Sky have a long way to go. One problem is that they are trying to be a clone of the BBC, even down to "Jake 2.0" holding an iPad. If you just try and copy you are never going to beat the original.

Originally Posted by henners88

but I still can't get my head around the fact Bernie is prepared to allow the majority audience to have the reduced coverage. It just goes to show Bernie is not bothered about people being interested in the racing but purely tuning in and just seeing enough to notice sponsor boards at the side of the track.

Why is it always Bernie's fault?

But Ecclestone revealed: “They [The BBC] had a contract in force already, from 2012 all the way through to 2014.

“They got to grips with Sky themselves. I spoke with ITV too, and came up with the same problem as Channel 4 had. We had a contract with the BBC which didn’t run out until 2014.

“We couldn’t very well do a deal with other people for them to start doing *something next year, because we had that contract.

“Other broadcasters wouldn’t want to wait until 2014 to decide what they wanted to pay.”

The F1 supremo believes the BBC – led by Director of Sport Barbara Slater – were looking to make savings in the region of £25million a year.

They wanted to renegotiate their broadcasting rights into a shared deal with another network, but simply didn’t want to share the sport with a terrestrial rival.

Asked whether the BBC “held all the cards” over the new deal, he added: “Yes, absolutely. If they [Channel 4] had said they wanted to sign a contract today to start broadcasting for £45m a year, then we would have probably done it.

“But that’s the problem. We couldn’t deal with them, even if they had wanted to.”

Formula One supremo Bernie Ecclestone: My hands were tied over BBC/Sky deal - Mirror Online

Originally Posted by wedge

Why is it always Bernie's fault?

Because he completely runs the sport, don't be fooled by his patter, he's very good at giving long speeches about how nothing was his fault but he's got far more control than that.

Originally Posted by MrJan

Because he completely runs the sport, don't be fooled by his patter, he's very good at giving long speeches about how nothing was his fault but he's got far more control than that.

Bernie is all to easy the hate figure and the BBC is all to easy the innocent after being told by the government to cut costs.

Of course Bernie's reaction to the deal is a PR stunt to make himself look less evil. He usually speaks cryptically when he knows he holds the trump card but with the BBC/Sky deal Bernie doesn't because he gains little from the deal.

It's the BBC who holds the trump card with their FTA rights.

The people I mainly blame are the ones who decided it would be a good idea for the BBC to spunk a billion quid of licence-payers' money on relocating half their operation to Manchester. That wasn't the BBC by the way.

It's true that the BBC got to decide where to make the budget cuts to pay for it, and while we might not like what they chose to cut, they do have other viewers to consider too. Many of those viewers prefer Eastenders and The Antiques Roadshow to F1. Why, I can't imagine, but there it is.

Originally Posted by henners88

Seeing how low the viewing figures for sky were at the weekend, I just can't understand how it is good for the sport in the UK.

I thought combined BBC & Sky viewing figures had seen an increase in the number of people watching compared with last year...

Originally Posted by henners88

I didn't blame Bernie for the deal itself or for insinuating it was his idea, I questioned why he supported it and allowed it to happen. He is powerful enough to have a say and stop or approve where the BBC chose to deal. Seeing how low the viewing figures for sky were at the weekend, I just can't understand how it is good for the sport in the UK. I just hope this trend continues because I think it is rather embarrassing on the whole.

BBC are contracted up to 2014. The power lays with the BBC, not Bernie. BBC wants to make immediate cut in costs but also darnedest want to keep F1 on their portfolio - given the criticism FTA sports coverage and the cost of negotiating rights.

And of course Bernie supports it, he wants a resolution to the TV rights. He'll support any deal and spin it to make the sport look good. If it's BBC and another terrestrial network then its great for the general public, if its BBC & Sky then it great for giving greater coverage of F1.

Originally Posted by Mark

Indeed, China has convinced me too that Sky have a long way to go. One problem is that they are trying to be a clone of the BBC, even down to "Jake 2.0" holding an iPad. If you just try and copy you are never going to beat the original.

Aye I've noticed that too, apart from the on-track studio and the lack of post race forum, it does seem they are trying to cut and paste the BBC's template, thats not a bad thing on the whole but you do want to see a bit of originality on each channel's part

There is one thing I have noticed (its sort of stupid in one way but common) in all 3 races, watch the driver interviews in the pen on the BBC's coverage, i dont know if its a pre-arranged spot in the line or broadcasters get to pick and choose whey they want to be situated but Natalie Pinkham (the Sky Sports pit interviewer) always seems to manage to get herself into the background for every pen interview Lee McKenzie does (you can see it clearly in the China forum) it might sound daft but maybe trying to give her channel a bit of a plug on its main rival perhaps?

Is Martin Brundle alright? I don't think he's mentioned that he drove the Ferrari once all day. He normally brings the subject up at least twice per session

Now comes the real test of whether BBC's highlights package will work out.

80mins of race day of coverage for Bahrain, as opposed to 2 hrs for the flyaways.

I wonder if we'll still get the full 70mins of highlights?

Apologies in advance for posting something off topic, the thread about cancelling Bahrain was closed before I had a chance to post this so I'll use this thread as my platform. I want to tip my hat to those that did not watch the race for philosophical and humanitarian reasons. You have my admiration.
Cheers

Originally Posted by henners88

We don't really know what the figures would be like if the BBC covered it along with channel 4 or 5 and I can't see how it would be massively different.

When I said it was great for the general public its great for Free to Air sports coverage.

Ch4 proposed to alternate coverage between BBC.

Anyone happy with the 50mins coverage? I wasn't. Chop off post-race stuff for more race action unless this is part of the deal for continental/Euro-friendly races.

Originally Posted by henners88

Thats fair enough, free to air coverage is good for everybody as even those with satelite subscriptions have access to it, hence delivering the sport to a wider audience. I was aware of the Channel 4 offer but for reasons which will never be made clear, the BBC were not interested.

BBC want to keep F1 on their portfolio, they want to keep FTA as their trump card.

Ch4 bid is roughly the same amount as Sky so Bernie gains very little.

If Ch4 & BBC showed F1 then it gives Ch4 some leverage in the negotiating table in the next round of negotiations. If you were on the BBC would you want this? Of course not, so what's the next best thing? You go off and make a deal with Sky.

Originally Posted by wedge

BBC want to keep F1 on their portfolio, they want to keep FTA as their trump card.

And no ads, of course.

I had both broadcasts on today, relying mainly on Sky for commentary, and they seem to have upped their game. The Beeb were continuing their trend of desperately trying to shoehorn the Olympics into everything during the buildup, whereas Sky cut back on the pointless VTs and provided a solid 90 minutes of interviews and relevant features - with the notable exception of Georgie sightseeing in Barcelona.

During the race the Beeb's red button coverage of the onboards totally missed the first few laps, then had an unnecessarily large PiP window blocking the view and some very odd placement of the lap counter and results ticker.

I think the BBC's coverage is at least on par with their coverage from last year, which is good to see. I haven't watched any Sky coverage this year so I'm happy the BBC aren't cutting back yet.

Sky went off air while covering the pit lane fire. Why? For some documentary they'd shown 500 times already.

I thought the idea of a dedicated channel was that you didn't have to go off air due to some other broadcast.