F1 going to Sky

[wedge]

It's simple, we as F1 fans suffered probably the worst levels of coverage in recent times when we got stuffed up with ITV coverage. Poor presenters, a very poor commentator (James Allen) and some of the worst directors and ad breaks in the history of TV. Oh how we rejoiced when the BBC announced that it was taking over again and our faith was richly rewarded with what has been perhaps some of the best sport, let alone F1, coverage we have ever seen. I sincerly doubt that Sky will manage to achieve the same levels the BBC F1 team has. Christ the BBC even won a BAFTA for it.

ITV pushed F1 coverage to another level with over 3 hrs of coverage on Sunday and over 2 hrs on Saturday which has become obligatory on the Beeb now.

They had Tony Jardine and Simon Taylor doing analysis but the Steve Rider years were poor by the fact that Mark Blundell couldn't add anything useful.

James Allen wasn't that bad and even Legard had his share of haters.


Sometimes I think the problem with the ITV coverage wasn't simply the presenters, I mean you only need to look at how good Ted Kravitz is on the BBC coverage and how bad he was on the ITV coverage. You get the feeling that the people calling the shots just didn't have an idea. It seemed like the presenters were constantly being pestered to talk about the British drivers and Louise Goodman's ability to ask the most ridiculous questions was amazing, the level of contempt shown to her by the drivers was fantastic :D

Ted Kravitz was a suspect appointment and appeared to be out of his depth but actually got better as the years went by. His pit notes after each GP on ITV's website was essential reading.

ITV never fully embraced multimedia.

[Mark]

Yep ITV coverage (adverts aside) was way better than what BBC had been doing up to that point.

The BBC improved on that immensely and with no adverts.

When did we start getting every race live? A long time ago I think, a run broken at one point by ITV when they failed to cover the USA grand Prix live.

[BDunnell]

Yep ITV coverage (adverts aside) was way better than what BBC had been doing up to that point.

The BBC improved on that immensely and with no adverts.

And on the presentation, though Steve Rider had been a big improvement over Jim Rosenthal.



When did we start getting every race live? A long time ago I think, a run broken at one point by ITV when they failed to cover the USA grand Prix live.

Early 1990s, I think, though the commentary from Canada (and South Africa when it returned briefly to the calendar) was not done live from the circuit for quite some while.

[IceWizard]

I'm wondering whether Top Up TV could be a relatively cost effctive way to get Sky for the F1 next year? It's cheaper than getting Sky Sports through Sky (and saves me an argument with my landlord about putting a dish on his precious wall!) but only SS1 and SS2 are available. What's the betting that F1 gets shunted to SS3 or SS4 when it clashes with Premier League football and England cricket?

[AndyL]

Amazingly ITV won 3 BAFTAs for their coverage, even though the actual racing was produced by FOM.

I'm guessing not for the '05 Imola race.

The BBC haven't had an Ofcom complaint upheld against their coverage so they've got one over ITV there.

[Dr. Krogshöj]

According to worldsalaries.org the average monthly employment income in the UK is £1400 which means that a Sky Sports HD subscription of £50 is about 3.5% of the average net income. I would be more than happy to roll that out for full-season in-depth high-definition coverage of Formula 1 and IndyCar, the only two sports series I really follow.

[Sonic]

According to worldsalaries.org the average monthly employment income in the UK is £1400 which means that a Sky Sports HD subscription of £50 is about 3.5% of the average net income. I would be more than happy to roll that out for full-season in-depth high-definition coverage of Formula 1 and IndyCar, the only two sports series I really follow.

No offence pal, but that's cloud cuckoo land. Not that I doubt the figures, but I wonder how many households have 3.5% of their income just sitting around unaccounted for at the end of each month...I know we don't.

[52Paddy]

I haven't had time to trawl through the 250+ posts on here but, firstly, I'm gutted over this TV deal. Looks like it will adversely affect the dynamics of our future F1 coverage. However, as an Irish viewer, I do have free access to Setanta Sports and I wonder if that will still be the case for 2012. The commentary, while previously done by Setanta Sports men Declan Quigley and David Kennedy, has been done by the Beeb commentary team on all of the races this season. The feed is obviously borrowed from them. Fingers crossed that they can do the same with Sky though, admittedly not knowing much about either company, it doesn't seem like a very likely scenario. Anybody know any more about this?

[manta400]

As far as I have read, the commentators will be the same for BBC and Sky while the will have different presenting teams. Hopefully Jake and CO will follow the money to sky

[Mark]

In the F1 forum the team were talking to the crowd and one of them shouted to Jake 'Don't go to Sky!'

[steveaki13]

I hoped F1 you be exclusively on BBC for years but as it is going to Sky and it was announced the commentators will be the same, I hope those commentators will be Martin and DC. They are the best for BBC and Sky for me, not a new Sky duo for use by both.

[djparky]

Do you genuinely not care about any of the revelations?

yes I do care and I am a Sky Subscriber-

But I'm not going to stop having Sky because as a TV viewer I get too much out of it- if I didn't have Sky I'd get the same channels through Virgin Media.

[Mark]

Indeed betrayal is the correct word.

[Mark]

I hope you are right!

[Daniel]

Well Bernie wants the fans who can only afford to follow the sport through the BBC to have just 1 hour highlights on the races not covered live on free to air. Yeah why watch it completely live enjoying the build up of tension as teams use strategies when we can watch a cut down version? This interview shows what a tw@ Bernie can be and his obvious awkwardness when direct questions are put to him shows he knows he has done the wrong thing by the fans and its purely down to money. :down:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=023nH20Kc8w

Wasn't this the same Bernie whom is responsible for F1 being the sport it is now? Tbh I think if Bernie had never been born F1 would still be where it is now, perhaps it'd be worse, perhaps it'd be better, but it would still be.

[Robinho]

So Bernie admits BBC "can" show the full re-run, but he'd prefer to have highlights, presumabley cos that would cheapen the share Sky have probably paid him a lot of money for. What a cock.

Hopefully the BBC will go for the full re-run option, they are undoubtedly feeling the heat from the fans, but how much will Sky squeeze Bernie to ensure that this doesn't happen and the BBC gradually gets pushed out until the only viable option for a serious fan is to pay a lot of money. I'm on Virgin and I "may" put out for a sky sports subscription on top against my better judgement and instincts, if the BBC delayed race does prove to be rubbish highlights. It also appears we won't be able to watch qually either on the BBC, i think they only have the race deal and everything else is on Sky.

[Sonic]

So Bernie admits BBC "can" show the full re-run, but he'd prefer to have highlights, presumabley cos that would cheapen the share Sky have probably paid him a lot of money for. What a cock.

Hopefully the BBC will go for the full re-run option, they are undoubtedly feeling the heat from the fans, but how much will Sky squeeze Bernie to ensure that this doesn't happen and the BBC gradually gets pushed out until the only viable option for a serious fan is to pay a lot of money. I'm on Virgin and I "may" put out for a sky sports subscription on top against my better judgement and instincts, if the BBC delayed race does prove to be rubbish highlights. It also appears we won't be able to watch qually either on the BBC, i think they only have the race deal and everything else is on Sky.

stick to your instincts mate. The only thing Bernie understands is the zero's in his bank balance, and giving your hard earned green to Sky is just what he wants us to do.

[CarlMetro]

Bernie has made himself and his shareholders very rich promoting the sport we have today.

And as a businessman he's done exactly what his shareholders would have wanted him to do. Like it or not , his role has always been to get the best deal for his company, not the fans. Thats why we see Bahrain and Abu Dhabi on the calendar and we almost saw the loss of Silverstone, these venues were willing to pay what FOM demanded and Silverstone wasn't.

As much as I, and the majority of F1 fans for that matter, would like to think of Bernie as the bad man in all this, the real people to blame is the BBC. They are the one's who have decided that they were pulling out of F1 coverage to save costs so Bernie negotiated a deal for his company that ensured he still got paid for UK broadcasts. We might also look at it that he has convinced the BBC to STILL broadcast half of the races live when they would have prefered to dump it completely.

Add to that the fact that the BBC have extended their coverage deal to the end of 2018 instead of letting the current deal just run out at the end of 2013 whe we would more than likely have seen Sky take an exclusive deal as the current Concorde agreement ends at the end of 2012 add the teams would be likely to agree to whatever was going to pay them the most money.

The BBC are very unlikely to listen to the Britsh public, if they did then Eastenders would have been cancelled years ago....

[Mark]

As I understand it for the 10 races BBC is covering they are doing qualy too. However for the others it's race highlights / rerun only; no qualy.

I'd be interested to find out the detail of the highlights requirements, i.e. does it have to be a certain number of hours after the live race.

[BDunnell]

The BBC are very unlikely to listen to the Britsh public, if they did then Eastenders would have been cancelled years ago....

Why? Millions of people watch it, which hardly backs up your assertion.

It is very difficult to apportion blame in this instance.

[TMorel]

Does all of Bernies "this is possible" and "that might happen" mean that none of this is actually signed and sealed yet or is he just delaying until all the required bribes have been paid?

[Robinho]

Why? Millions of people watch it, which hardly backs up your assertion.

It is very difficult to apportion blame in this instance.

So why don't the Beeb go halves with Sky and let them show Eastenders on a wednesday and Friday and the BBC keeps the other episodes. That would save a fortune.

Why is F1 any different - as a series (or season) it is meaningless to watch the odd race without knowing the whole story, which comes from access to all qually sessions, the entire race and the surrounding features.

Why don't they share Dr Who with Fox, won't don't they only show Mens Athletics and let Eurosport show the womens. Why don't they only show the bottom half of the tennis court at Wimbledon and Sky can have the top half.

Its ridiculous, either show it or don't bother. this can't be shared with different access to each platform

[ATF]

Loved Jake's intro and sign-off to the programme yesterday - "Welcome to live, uninterrupted coverage...on the BBC" and "See you after the break!"

In fact, there were a few digs from the team over the weekend - wonder if we'll all be calling them hypocrites come next March!!

[Rollo]

Channel Ten | Lachlan Murdoch Appointed Interim CEO (http://www.smh.com.au/business/cash-drain-meant-change-was-inevitable-20110223-1b5mq.html)

Lachlan Murdoch is the CEO of Channel 10 group which also owns One HD.

The fact that on SD every telecast has been broadcast at least 90 minutes late in 2011, and that One HD ha mysterious "technical faults" resulting in every quali session breaking down this year and an increase to the amount of ads on average to 22 minutes, makes me think that F1 will go to Pay TV in 2013 in Australia.

If F1 goes to Sky or Fox, then I seriously hope that the sport falls over. Bernie can go to a little island in the Pacific and stay there... AND NEVER COME BACK YOU DIRTY LITTLE TOERAG.

[Malbec]

The BBC are very unlikely to listen to the Britsh public, if they did then Eastenders would have been cancelled years ago....

Yeah of course, the BBC should have cancelled what is still the most consistently highest rating programme viewed in Britain (along with Coronation street).

http://www.barb.co.uk/report/weeklyTopProgrammes?

The bizarre thing about the F1 deal is that the BBC is merely doing what many of its critics have pressured it to do for years, drop expensive minority interest items and concentrate on what most viewers want. Many of the same critics have now rounded on the BBC for cutting a compromise whereby the flagship F1 races are still on the BBC and highlights from the races not shown live are shown in the evening, still for free.

[AndyL]

The bizarre thing about the F1 deal is that the BBC is merely doing what many of its critics have pressured it to do for years, drop expensive minority interest items and concentrate on what most viewers want.

Surely one of the main purposes of publicly funded broadcasting is to cater for minority interests. The lowest-common-denominator trash that the majority want (if ratings are to be believed) will always be abundantly provided by commercial broadcasters.

[Mark]

still for free.

No no and thrice no!!

It's included in the licence fee, it is NOT free.

[Malbec]

Surely one of the main purposes of publicly funded broadcasting is to cater for minority interests. The lowest-common-denominator trash that the majority want (if ratings are to be believed) will always be abundantly provided by commercial broadcasters.

I agree with you but tell that to the likes of the Daily Mail which are hitting the BBC with any tool available.

[ArrowsFA1]

We were warned about the Tory future for the BBC:

"They'll dismantle it slowly. It'll get smaller and smaller until it just supports Radio 4 and some news."
TORIES WILL EXTERMINATE BBC IF THEY GET ELECTED - mirror.co.uk (http://www.mirror.co.uk/latest-news/celebs/2009/12/23/tories-will-exterminate-bbc-if-they-get-elected-115875-21917549/)


"We are looking into whether it would be appropriate to rip up the charter in the middle of it, or whether one should wait."
BBC NEWS | UK | Tories could 'rip up' BBC charter (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8313694.stm)


"But do we want the BBC to constrain its ambition beyond that core broadcasting? Absolutely."
Tories would constrain BBC to 'core broadcasting' - TV & Radio, Media - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/tories-would-constrain-bbc-to-core-broadcasting-1789550.html)

As with the NHS the Tories would far prefer not to have a publicly funded broadcaster at all.

I don't have high hopes of the BBC retaining F1 for very long, certainly not until 2018 or whenever it is this new deal runs, and expect more programming to disappear in the coming years.

:mad:

[Malbec]

We were warned about the Tory future for the BBC:

TORIES WILL EXTERMINATE BBC IF THEY GET ELECTED - mirror.co.uk (http://www.mirror.co.uk/latest-news/celebs/2009/12/23/tories-will-exterminate-bbc-if-they-get-elected-115875-21917549/)


BBC NEWS | UK | Tories could 'rip up' BBC charter (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8313694.stm)


Tories would constrain BBC to 'core broadcasting' - TV & Radio, Media - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/tories-would-constrain-bbc-to-core-broadcasting-1789550.html)

As with the NHS the Tories would far prefer not to have a publicly funded broadcaster at all.

I don't have high hopes of the BBC retaining F1 for very long, certainly not until 2018 or whenever it is this new deal runs, and expect more programming to disappear in the coming years.

:mad:

Come on... Please don't try to argue that Labour were any different, and lets not forget Labour's attempts to emasculate the political independence of the BBC with the 45 minute WMD affair.

Both political parties have attacked the funding of the BBC when they're in power because taxpayers want more for less as usual and bashing the BBC on spending is a populist move.

[AndyL]

No no and thrice no!!

It's included in the licence fee, it is NOT free.

I guess that depends on how you define the word free. By the strictest definition, very few things in life are truly free! BBC broadcasts are free in the same sense that NHS medical treatment is free. Everyone ultimately pays for it through taxation. If they renamed the "licence fee" to "television tax," it would be a better description of the thing.

[Dave B]

Come on... Please don't try to argue that Labour were any different, and lets not forget Labour's attempts to emasculate the political independence of the BBC with the 45 minute WMD affair.

Both political parties have attacked the funding of the BBC when they're in power because taxpayers want more for less as usual and bashing the BBC on spending is a populist move.

The whole "sexed up dossier" affair demonstrated that, contrary to popular belief, the BBC weren't afraid to go head-to-head with Labour on controversial issues.

Cameron and Osborne had numerous meetings with the Murdochs before and after the election - indeed the very first person to meet Cameron as PM was Rupert Murdoch. The incoming PM described the prospect of BBC cuts as "delicious"; an ex-Conservative Party chairman was appointed as head of the BBC Trust and immediately declared that the public should expect savage cuts; the deal for the Murdochs to take full control of the BBC's biggest rival was about to be rubber-stamped by Jeremy Hunt, a man who despite having an impartial role described Rupert Murdoch as a great man on his website; we now know that in '08 that the Murdochs had a direct influence on the Conservatives' plan to top-slice the licence fee.

Maybe both major parties have, as you say, attacked BBC funding when it seems opportune. But the Conservatives are the only ones to actually cut their funding by dint of a licence fee freeze in the face of rising costs, and the desicion to make the BBC pay for the (previously government funded) World Service.

[ArrowsFA1]

Come on... Please don't try to argue that Labour were any different, and lets not forget Labour's attempts to emasculate the political independence of the BBC with the 45 minute WMD affair.

Both political parties have attacked the funding of the BBC when they're in power because taxpayers want more for less as usual and bashing the BBC on spending is a populist move.
Labour's 45 minute WMD affair was not confined to the BBC, it was a ploy aimed at the media in general to justify their policy.

The independence of the BBC is something that any government in power objects to, and every government complains about BBC bias so in that sense Labour were no different. However, the current government have an ideological objection to a publicly funded broadcaster above and beyond the acceptance that cuts should be made. Bashing the BBC may be a populist move with the Daily Mail, unsurprisingly, but I don't see evidence that it is popular with the electorate as a whole.

[BDunnell]

Come on... Please don't try to argue that Labour were any different, and lets not forget Labour's attempts to emasculate the political independence of the BBC with the 45 minute WMD affair.

Both political parties have attacked the funding of the BBC when they're in power because taxpayers want more for less as usual and bashing the BBC on spending is a populist move.

I agree completely, but I do believe that one significant difference exists in terms of the attitudes of the respective parties to the very notion of the existence of a publicly-funded public service broadcaster.

[BDunnell]

Labour's 45 minute WMD affair was not confined to the BBC, it was a ploy aimed at the media in general to justify their policy.

But no other media outlet lost its boss as a result of said affair, did they?

[BDunnell]

The whole "sexed up dossier" affair demonstrated that, contrary to popular belief, the BBC weren't afraid to go head-to-head with Labour on controversial issues.

And then meekly backed down, in spite of the fact that we all know, and knew, who was at fault. That affair has been responsible in the eyes of many for a sea change in the very culture of the BBC, and not for the better — a sea change exacerbated by the absurd reaction to the Ross/Brand business. The BBC is now scared to defend itself, scared to fight its corner and often too scared to be genuinely controversial, such has been the influence of a fairly right-wing Labour government, the Tory element of a fairly right-wing coalition government, and certain more right-wing segments of the printed media.

[BDunnell]

Surely one of the main purposes of publicly funded broadcasting is to cater for minority interests. The lowest-common-denominator trash that the majority want (if ratings are to be believed) will always be abundantly provided by commercial broadcasters.

Culturally, this would be a very good thing, but to which sector would the public gravitate towards? The lowest-common-denominator trash, sadly.

[Dave B]

Culturally, this would be a very good thing, but to which sector would the public gravitate towards? The lowest-common-denominator trash, sadly.

I believe now would be an appropriate time to link to this:

Nv_TvSB-9Mk

[BDunnell]

I believe now would be an appropriate time to link to this:

Nv_TvSB-9Mk

A genuinely laugh-out-loud moment. Thanks Dave!

[AndyL]

I believe now would be an appropriate time to link to this:


I hardly remembered there was a time when Stephen Fry was so thin :)

[Malbec]

Cameron and Osborne had numerous meetings with the Murdochs before and after the election - indeed the very first person to meet Cameron as PM was Rupert Murdoch. The incoming PM described the prospect of BBC cuts as "delicious"; an ex-Conservative Party chairman was appointed as head of the BBC Trust and immediately declared that the public should expect savage cuts; the deal for the Murdochs to take full control of the BBC's biggest rival was about to be rubber-stamped by Jeremy Hunt, a man who despite having an impartial role described Rupert Murdoch as a great man on his website; we now know that in '08 that the Murdochs had a direct influence on the Conservatives' plan to top-slice the licence fee.

Maybe both major parties have, as you say, attacked BBC funding when it seems opportune. But the Conservatives are the only ones to actually cut their funding by dint of a licence fee freeze in the face of rising costs, and the desicion to make the BBC pay for the (previously government funded) World Service.

So Cameron met up with Murdoch several times, pre and post-election and smoothed over a business deal. How is that different to, say, Blair talking to Berlusconi to support a Murdoch business deal in Italy?

The great Murdoch conspiracy - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8638614/The-great-Murdoch-conspiracy.html)

I'm surprised that the serious pressure from the Labour party to keep licence fee increases to a minimum when it was reviewed under their rule seems to be forgotten, or that the Tory party would face intense criticism if the licence fee was increased while overall spending was slashed.

There are double standards at work here whether discussing the BBC or the NHS. I really don't see much difference between the behaviour of either party but some people seem too willing to overlook Labour transgressions and all too willing to criticise the Tories when they do the same.

[ArrowsFA1]

There are double standards at work here whether discussing the BBC or the NHS. I really don't see much difference between the behaviour of either party but some people seem too willing to overlook Labour transgressions and all too willing to criticise the Tories when they do the same.
I don't see double standards but differences.

As has been said:

I do believe that one significant difference exists in terms of the attitudes of the respective parties to the very notion of the existence of a publicly-funded public service broadcaster.
I agree and see that as a fundamental difference.

Also, while previous governments are far from blameless they are previous governments. Their decisions have been made and are in the history books, along with those who made them. That doesn't mean they should be ignored or forgotten, but it is more important IMHO to deal with the here and now.

[BDunnell]

So Cameron met up with Murdoch several times, pre and post-election and smoothed over a business deal. How is that different to, say, Blair talking to Berlusconi to support a Murdoch business deal in Italy?

The great Murdoch conspiracy - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8638614/The-great-Murdoch-conspiracy.html)

I'm surprised that the serious pressure from the Labour party to keep licence fee increases to a minimum when it was reviewed under their rule seems to be forgotten, or that the Tory party would face intense criticism if the licence fee was increased while overall spending was slashed.

There are double standards at work here whether discussing the BBC or the NHS. I really don't see much difference between the behaviour of either party but some people seem too willing to overlook Labour transgressions and all too willing to criticise the Tories when they do the same.

Again, agreed, but would you not also concur that the Tories' underlying attitude towards the notion of a publicly-funded public service broadcaster is very different to that held by even the private sector-friendly Labour administrations of recent times?

[Malbec]

I don't see double standards but differences.

I see people kicking up a fuss claiming the Tories are in bed with the private healthcare system and are privatising the NHS, seemingly unaware or unwilling to admit that the Labour party had done exactly the same.

I see people kicking up a fuss claiming the Tories are in bed with Murdoch and assisting them both by supporting their business deals and clipping the wings of the BBC, seemingly unaware or unwilling to admit that the Labour party had done exactly the same.


Also, while previous governments are far from blameless they are previous governments. Their decisions have been made and are in the history books, along with those who made them. That doesn't mean they should be ignored or forgotten, but it is more important IMHO to deal with the here and now.

While that is true your initial post suggested that the decision made by the BBC to drop F1 was somehow linked to the Tories being in power, as if having a Labour party in office would have resulted in a different decision. I disagree, and I believe that the Labour party would not have allowed the licence fee to increase either given the downward pressure on all government spending.

[BDunnell]

Also, while previous governments are far from blameless they are previous governments. Their decisions have been made and are in the history books, along with those who made them. That doesn't mean they should be ignored or forgotten, but it is more important IMHO to deal with the here and now.

But the actions of those previous governments are of great importance when discussing anything to do with the Murdochs, not least because one is left with the inescapable conclusion that while Labour might be making some capital out of the hacking scandal at the moment, one is left with the inescapable conclusion that little would have been different had Labour been returned to power at the last election. After all, while a Labour PM would, like as not, not have employed Andy Coulson, a Labour PM did employ as his official spokesman somebody who was once the most loyal of journalistic lieutenants to Robert Maxwell. I don't see an awful lot of difference there, except that Maxwell was long dead by the time Blair came to power with Alastair Campbell at his side.

The difference comes in the fact that Labour, despite their desire to cosy up to the Murdochs, are not ideologically opposed to the notions of public funding and public service that are central to the BBC, whereas the Tories at heart are. That the Tory position on the BBC is inherently contradictory in many ways — as Ian Hislop pointed out, the Tories and readers of the Tory press love all the things the BBC, and only the BBC, does like Today, The Archers, the costume dramas and so forth — is perhaps a matter for a separate discussion.

[Malbec]

Again, agreed, but would you not also concur that the Tories' underlying attitude towards the notion of a publicly-funded public service broadcaster is very different to that held by even the private sector-friendly Labour administrations of recent times?

I haven't yet seen the Tories attack and discredit the BBC to quite the extent that the Labour party did, particularly at the time of the Iraq war. Not that I'm defending the Tories, I do not know how they would have behaved in a similar situation with the BBC broadcasting an inconvenient view of government policy.

I also don't see the importance of looking at 'underlying attitudes' when there are actual policy decisions to look at. I just don't see how any government could justify allowing a rise in licence fees (which many media outlets particularly on the right portray as a form of tax) when entire ministries are seeing budgets slashed by up to 10-15% with thousands unemployed as a result.

[BDunnell]

I haven't yet seen the Tories attack and discredit the BBC to quite the extent that the Labour party did, particularly at the time of the Iraq war. Not that I'm defending the Tories, I do not know how they would have behaved in a similar situation with the BBC broadcasting an inconvenient view of government policy.

How they would have behaved is quite clear from the Falklands war, when Thatcher herself accused Peter Snow and Newsnight of being 'anti-British' or some such nonsense. So, you are quite right to suggest that, in certain circumstances, there would have been no difference at all.



I also don't see the importance of looking at 'underlying attitudes' when there are actual policy decisions to look at.

I think they are important in terms of understanding why people feel — misguidedly, perhaps, but genuinely — that there is an added sense of danger inherent in the Tories' closeness to the Murdochs, when compared with Labour's. This is certainly something I feel, for one, in spite of Labour's own indefensible record.

[Malbec]

I think they are important in terms of understanding why people feel — misguidedly, perhaps, but genuinely — that there is an added sense of danger inherent in the Tories' closeness to the Murdochs, when compared with Labour's. This is certainly something I feel, for one, in spite of Labour's own indefensible record.

And do you feel that the Tories are inherently closer to the Murdochs, or that the Murdochs simply get close to whoever looks as if they'll be gaining power and that the Tories have had power for longer over the past three decades?

[BDunnell]

And do you feel that the Tories are inherently closer to the Murdochs, or that the Murdochs simply get close to whoever looks as if they'll be gaining power and that the Tories have had power for longer over the past three decades?

Both.

[Malbec]

Both.

Fair enough. Its impossible for an outsider to identify the difference. My feeling is that the latter is a more important factor.

[CarlMetro]

Why? Millions of people watch it, which hardly backs up your assertion.

Because I have sent several letters asking them to stop making/broadcasting it :D

It was meant to be a tongue in cheek comment but somewhat factual too. Sorry I should have used some sort of smiley, out of forum practice and forgot the etiquete :p .

The BBC will never listen to public opinion, no matter who or how many shout, it will be a futile exercise. The deal is already done and we the British public still get decent F1 coverage for all races, albeit either pay to view or highlights. I think it's time to accept it.

It's nice to see that some things never change on here and what started out as a simple discussion has turned into a political rant match.......

[Daniel]

Because I have sent several letters asking them to stop making/broadcasting it :D

It was meant to be a tongue in cheek comment but somewhat factual too. Sorry I should have used some sort of smiley, out of forum practice and forgot the etiquete :p .

The BBC will never listen to public opinion, no matter who or how many shout, it will be a futile exercise. The deal is already done and we the British public still get decent F1 coverage for all races, albeit either pay to view or highlights. I think it's time to accept it.

It's nice to see that some things never change on here and what started out as a simple discussion has turned into a political rant match.......
To be fair, what Murdoch's minions did was rather terrible and it's understandable that a Sky thread would go off topic.

[BDunnell]

The BBC will never listen to public opinion, no matter who or how many shout, it will be a futile exercise.

What, like it was when it reversed the decision to scrap 6Music?



It's nice to see that some things never change on here and what started out as a simple discussion has turned into a political rant match.......

This is, to be fair, a deeply political issue — not just F1 politics either, but actual politics.

[CarlMetro]

It's got nothing to do with politics unless you wish to make it so, but then why am I surprised that you wish to make it so?

[BDunnell]

It's got nothing to do with politics unless you wish to make it so, but then why am I surprised that you wish to make it so?

It has everything to do with politics! I'm not sure the reason why truly needs explaining, either — after all, there is hardly a long and convoluted journey between how government cuts are impacting upon the BBC and its decision to go for this F1 deal with Sky.

[Daniel]

It's got nothing to do with politics unless you wish to make it so, but then why am I surprised that you wish to make it so?

Ah come on Carl, F1 has everything to do with politics.

[CarlMetro]

The Government have enforced a budget freeze on the BBC, not cuts. The BBC have made the decision to cut budgets. This is nothing to do with Murdoch, Cameron, Brown, Blair or Churchill. The BBC have decided that they wanted to dump F1 and save around £55 million a year, still not seeing the political connection here. Bernie, who has an obligation to the F1 teams under the Concorde agreement, to provide live television coverage for every single race into the main viewing areas across the globe. Bernie did what anyone of us in his position would have done. He went out and got the best deal for himself and his shareholders.

At no point did I hear the BBC say over the weekend that they have been forced into this decision by Cameron, Clegg, Brown or any other political measure. At no point did I hear Bernie say that he wanted to take F1 away from the BBC, far from it in fact, he's just treid to do what is best for FOM and still tried to keep the BBC involved when they would probably prefer to just dump it completely. Which is exactly what they would have done at the end of 2013, if not sooner.

There were many different ways in which the BBC could have made similar savings but the chose the route they have. Accept it and move on.

[BDunnell]

The Government have enforced a budget freeze on the BBC, not cuts. The BBC have made the decision to cut budgets. This is nothing to do with Murdoch, Cameron, Brown, Blair or Churchill. The BBC have decided that they wanted to dump F1 and save around £55 million a year, still not seeing the political connection here. Bernie, who has an obligation to the F1 teams under the Concorde agreement, to provide live television coverage for every single race into the main viewing areas across the globe. Bernie did what anyone of us in his position would have done. He went out and got the best deal for himself and his shareholders.

At no point did I hear the BBC say over the weekend that they have been forced into this decision by Cameron, Clegg, Brown or any other political measure. At no point did I hear Bernie say that he wanted to take F1 away from the BBC, far from it in fact, he's just treid to do what is best for FOM and still tried to keep the BBC involved when they would probably prefer to just dump it completely. Which is exactly what they would have done at the end of 2013, if not sooner.

There were many different ways in which the BBC could have made similar savings but the chose the route they have. Accept it and move on.

With respect, you are missing the point somewhat, except regarding Bernie's primary motivation (though I would question his level of altruism towards the BBC). It is simply impossible to discuss anything relating to BBC cuts and the Murdoch press without politics entering into the equation, because they are deeply interconnected. No-one is suggesting that the PM contacted the BBC and advised them to drop live F1 coverage, but I am surprised that you can't see how this decision forms part of a wider issue, and that issue is a highly political one. I don't think it's that hard to comprehend why this discussion has itself come onto politics. Sorry if it bores you, but it is, I feel, relevant.

[CarlMetro]

Yeah well, whatever blah blah blah.....bored now.

I'll leave you to make up your political conspiracies and let you turn yet another perfectly good discussion into yet another political rant. I've got better things to do.

:dozey:

[BDunnell]

Yeah well, whatever blah blah blah.....bored now.

I'll leave you to make up your political conspiracies and let you turn yet another perfectly good discussion into yet another political rant. I've got better things to do.

:dozey:

Just because you aren't interested in politics doesn't mean to say that this goes for everyone — still, I am surprised you can't see the direct relevancy. And, frankly, saying that we're on about conspiracy theories is way wide of the mark.

[tfp]

Does anyone know what channel it will be on?

[BDunnell]

Does anyone know what channel it will be on?

I would suggest not BBC1. F1 will take up too much time in the Sunday night schedule, especially if the coverage turns out to involve full races.

[CarlMetro]

Does anyone know what channel it will be on?

Nobody outside of the BBC and Sky Sports management knows anything yet, but if you phone Dave Cameron, he'll ask his mate Rupert and probably get back to you....

[Malbec]

The Government have enforced a budget freeze on the BBC, not cuts. The BBC have made the decision to cut budgets.

With inflation rates as they are, even budget freezes are in reality budget cuts. Also the BBC now has to pay for things like the BBC world service which was previously paid for by the FCO. That is why the BBC has to cut budgets.

I agree with you though that actually the viewer won't get that bad a result. Half the races live as now and the other half still free to view.

[Dave B]

What, like it was when it reversed the decision to scrap 6Music?


In fairness the situations are different. 6Music was simply to be closed, no contract had been signed with another company. It was an easy decision to reverse, whereas if they changed their mind over F1 I'd imagine there'd be a hefty penalty clause to Bernie and/or BSkyB.

[Mark]

It's very difficult as a licence payer. Of course I want them to keep F1 and I'd pay a subscription to have BBC coverage! But I also believe that for too long the BBC has been able to have pretty much whatever money they wanted, they have to learn to live within their means. But there are better ways than dropping F1

[AndyL]

It's nice to see that some things never change on here and what started out as a simple discussion has turned into a political rant match.......

At least it hasn't descended into schoolyard bickering like so many other threads on here lately. I think this has actually been a comparatively measured discussion by current standards!

[wedge]

It's nice to see that some things never change on here and what started out as a simple discussion has turned into a political rant match.......

Difficult not to, considering the circumstances.

[BDunnell]

At least it hasn't descended into schoolyard bickering like so many other threads on here lately. I think this has actually been a comparatively measured discussion by current standards!

And an interesting one, too. For most.

[ArrowsFA1]

I'm fortunate enough to have Sky Sports so will be able to watch all F1 races live, but if I did not I suspect my interest in watching the highlights after the event would suffer as much as my enjoyment of NASCAR has.

Sky had NASCAR live last year, but dropped that for hour long highlights on the Monday evenings after the race. Almost inevitably during the course of Monday I will, accidentally, see the result simply because I keep up with motorsport news generally.

Once you know the result the sense of anticipation and excitement of what's going to happen, who will be challenging and who will win, will be lost and half the time I don't get around to watching the highlights because of that. Not only that, but by watching the live event you pick up on snippets of news and information that add to your interest so that interest in what's going on around the sport can fade.

When, in the 1970's & 80's, all we had was half-hour highlights of the F1 races it didn't matter so much because that was the only option available to us!

[Brown, Jon Brow]

There is some hope that I can cope with this and it depends if the BBC are allowed to show full race re-runs and are able to choose which races they show live.

If the BBC are clever then they will show re-runs of the early morning races. This way many of us can watch them after we have cured our Sunday morning hangovers.

11/03 BHR Bahrain
18/03 AUS Australia ------- Re-run at midday
01/04 MYS Malaysia-------- Re-run at midday
08/04 CHN China------------ Re -run at midday
22/04 KOR Korea------------ Re-run at midday
20/05 ESP Spain
27/05 MCO Monaco ---------- Live on BBC
10/06 CAN Canada------------ Live on BBC
17/06 USA United States-------Live on BBC
01/07 ESP Valencia, Spain
15/07 GBR Great Britain ------- Live on BBC
29/07 DEU Germany ------------ Live on BBC
05/08 HUN Hungary
02/09 BEL Belgium-------------- Live on BBC
09/09 ITA Italy -----------------Live on BBC
30/09 SGP Singapore
14/10 JPN Japan ---------------Re-run at midday
28/10 IND India ----------------Re-run at midday
11/11 ARE Abu Dhabi
25/11 BRA Brazil --------------Live on BBC

I've highlighted 8 races that the BBC must show live and marked the early morning races that are best suited to a re-run.

I'm not too bothered about Bahrain, Spain, Valencia, Hungary, Singapore and Abu Dhabi. Two of them can be live, but highlights are usually enough for those races.

[wedge]

I'm fortunate enough to have Sky Sports so will be able to watch all F1 races live, but if I did not I suspect my interest in watching the highlights after the event would suffer as much as my enjoyment of NASCAR has.

Sky had NASCAR live last year, but dropped that for hour long highlights on the Monday evenings after the race. Almost inevitably during the course of Monday I will, accidentally, see the result simply because I keep up with motorsport news generally.

Once you know the result the sense of anticipation and excitement of what's going to happen, who will be challenging and who will win, will be lost and half the time I don't get around to watching the highlights because of that. Not only that, but by watching the live event you pick up on snippets of news and information that add to your interest so that interest in what's going on around the sport can fade.

When, in the 1970's & 80's, all we had was half-hour highlights of the F1 races it didn't matter so much because that was the only option available to us!

The Hungarian GP was a wonderful example of a race whereby highlights wouldn't do the race justice because of the complexity of race strategy.

Highlights of the 1993 European GP is up on the Beeb's website and I remember watching that for the first time in ages it felt unsatisfactory.

[Mark]

Yes, this is the point, you might think there is nothing happening in a race but there is the tension building of can the driver build up enough gap for a pit stop, how are they managing the tyres etc

[52Paddy]

I'm sure we've all had the scenario where we've missed the live showing of a really great race and had to make do with the highlights. It's never the same - no matter how good the action was. It just doesn't cut it. Fingers crossed it's full race re-runs we will be getting.

[ifacompare]

Its a sad day fir F1

[JDPower]

100,000 signatures and it gets debated in parliament, may be as much use as a chocolate teapot but worth a try I suppose: Keep Formula 1 Free To Air in the UK - e-petitions (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/57)

[Dave B]

The cabinet office have already indicated that the F1 decision is not up for debate.

[Daniel]

The cabinet office have already indicated that the F1 decision is not up for debate.

I think this is right, whilst I don't like the fact that F1 is going to Sky, it's NOT something which should be debated in parliament, though I do feel that perhaps feel that there should be a review of how the BBC chooses what to show and how much to bid or spend on a program. IMHO the BBC should focus on content which can be sold on elsewhere in the world. The quality of British TV in the 80's and 90's was legendary and back in Australia I would say that most tv which wasn't Australian made was British back in the 80's and this tailed off in the 90's somewhat.

[AndyL]

I think this is right, whilst I don't like the fact that F1 is going to Sky, it's NOT something which should be debated in parliament, though I do feel that perhaps feel that there should be a review of how the BBC chooses what to show and how much to bid or spend on a program.

I think there is a case for debating whether the political decision to spend £900 million on relocating BBC staff and facilities to Salford was to the benefit or detriment of the licence fee payer.

[Daniel]

I think there is a case for debating whether the political decision to spend £900 million on relocating BBC staff and facilities to Salford was to the benefit or detriment of the licence fee payer.

Certainly.

[steveaki13]

With all the stuff going on in Britain at the moment and the realisation that laws and police powers need to be changed, I think any debate on F1 would be wrong.

I think as much as people hate it, F1 is staying on Sky

[jonny hurlock]

What i've seen on the Mirror website

Formula One could have stayed on terrestrial TV but Channel 4 bid was snubbed - mirror.co.uk (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/08/13/formula-one-could-have-stayed-on-terrestrial-tv-but-channel-4-bid-was-snubbed-115875-23340542/#.TkaAhEJu-Mc.twitter)

Who cares where it goes ? It all ends up on the internet anyway.

[SGWilko]

No plans to be able to get basic Sky package, then buy an F1 season ticket sadly....

[quote="my conversation with a sky chat bod"]Please wait for a Sky Advisor to respond.

You are now connected with Sushil

Sushil : Hi. Welcome to Sky, home of HD. You're chatting to Sushil . Can I take your name please?

You: Sushil, Hi. My name is Stuart, and I am enquiring into what packages will be available in order to follow F1 next year, as it will no longer be available on FTA channels for the entire season.

Sushil : Hi Stuart

Sushil : You will need to take a basic pack and then add the sports pack to enjoy the F1

Sushil : Do you mind if I ask you a few questions? That way, I can make sure you get the right information and check to see if you are eligible for any offers.

You: Aha, but if the only sport I follow is F1, will I not be paying through the nose for hours of Sports that I will never watch.....

You: Ask away!

Sushil : Thanks

Sushil : Well i can understand that however, to get the F1 you have to take the TV package

You: I guess it's not going to be for me then - budgets are tight as it is...!!

Sushil : well even basic will be £19.50 +£ 20.25 = £39.75

You: Ouch!

Sushil : yes

Sushil : Do you have an active land line at your place?

You: Don't forget to add £10.25 if I wanted the HD box to show HD content...... then I'm almost paying £600 a year, just for F1!

Sushil : well not just F1 you will even enjoy watching rest of the channels

You: Yes, currently with Talk Talk, but out of contract - paying circa £19 for unlimited downloads and on the international package.

You: I would enjoy all the other channels if I was interested in the other sports, and as I am at work all day.......

Sushil : Okay..

Sushil : So would you like to get a deal from us

Sushil : You can only take TV package also from us

You: I'd like to look at prices but not ready to commit just yet.

Sushil : Only Tv if you go it will be £39.75 per month

You: What would a broadband/calls/TV package cost - assuming unlimited D/L and similar calls to the Talk Talk international package?

Sushil : Let me tell you the cost

Sushil : Variety pack £19.50 + Sports pack £20.25+ Sky line rental £12.25 + unlimited calls £5 + BB unlimited £7.50 = £64.50

You: Is that a deal, or standard price?

Sushil : Its a deal

You: Blimey, what is the standard price then?

Sushil : Unlimited BB is £15

Sushil : rest are standard price

You: I think, realistically, I'm gonna have to only watch 10 races live next year. I can go out and get an HD Freeview box for £50, and watch the other races as highlights. I simply cannot afford £39.75 every month to watch F1 in SD.

Sushil : Okay.. this is the option we have for you

Sushil : I can't make any cheap deal

You: I understand that - but I recall, back in the days before SKY+ and HD, I had the original SKY subscription, and was able to buy a season ticket to watch F1 and avoid the dreaded adverts on ITV. I cancelled my SKY at a later date due to the escalating costs, and we were not watching many of the channels.

Sushil : well i would suggest you to call up our customer service team and check with them if they can do something for you

You: Will do, thanks for your time.

Sushil : Your welcome

Sushil : Is there anything else that I can help you with today?

You: This weeks lotto numbers in advance.... ]

[JDPower]

The cabinet office have already indicated that the F1 decision is not up for debate.
BBC to be quizzed by MPs over new F1 UK TV deal | F1 News | Sep 2011 | Crash.Net (http://www.crash.net/f1/news/172622/1/bbc_to_be_quizzed_by_mps_over_new_f1_uk_tv_deal.ht ml) ;)

[Dave B]

This comes from a Daily Mail journalist with a questionable record of accuracy (more like making multiple guesses until one of them happens to be right) but anyway:


Sky Sports, who are expected to announce their F1 line-up for next year’s coverage after the Brazilian Grand Prix, have former world champion Nigel Mansell in their sights as lead pundit.

Martin Brundle and David Croft will commentate, with Ted Kravitz the paddock reporter after his BBC colleague Lee McKenzie opted to stay put. Sky rugby presenter Simon Lazenby is expected to host the programme, while Steve Rider is line to do a series of legends interviews.

Source: Charles Sale: Now Old Firm plan to take 39th step | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2064484/Charles-Sale-Now-Old-Firm-plan-39th-step.html#ixzz1eRsB6SjB)

Nigel Blummin' Mansell? Pass the Red Bull to help me stay awake... :z

[Mark]

Nige is hardly a good presenter :s . Pretty sure Jake Humprey will stay put as he does more with the BBC than F1. The big question is Brundle and DC.

[Bezza]

The only loss there is Brundle really. The rest are average. I am not a fan of David Croft so won't be going out of my way to watch him.

However, if Brundle goes from the BBC who do they turn to? Back to Legard? Charlie Cox? James Allen!!!???

[BDunnell]

The only loss there is Brundle really. The rest are average. I am not a fan of David Croft so won't be going out of my way to watch him.

However, if Brundle goes from the BBC who do they turn to? Back to Legard? Charlie Cox? James Allen!!!???

Leigh Diffey has been mentioned. Ben Edwards would probably be best.

It does seem clear that the split will end up with two average teams rather than one good one.

[BDunnell]

I can't imagine those who are lucky enough to afford Sky are too pleased with the proposed line up? I wouldn't be if I was paying £40 p/m as I'd expect it to either be on par with what the BBC offer now, or better.

I can't imagine that those who, even after everything we now know, continue to pump money into NewsCorp by paying for its services are going to be the most discerning people on the planet.

[wedge]

Leigh Diffey has been mentioned. Ben Edwards would probably be best.

It does seem clear that the split will end up with two average teams rather than one good one.

Leigh Diffey will be an excellent good choice. He has previously done WSB, V8SC and now covers endurance racing for Speed TV in America.

[ArrowsFA1]

Nigel Blummin' Mansell? Pass the Red Bull to help me stay awake... :z
Oh dear lord :eek: :hmh: