Fair enough 'bro', we can agree to disagree on that one.
Printable View
Fair enough 'bro', we can agree to disagree on that one.
There's nothing to disagree on 'bro'Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
BBC never had any coverage of pre-season testing until Sky took over
The news channel often did a brief round up as part of Sportsday, but nothing like Sky have at the moment.
Sent from my monkey seat using a helmet.
My stance on this again, is that the BBC always covered testing be it through 'live text' or video's on their website, but they have never covered it to the extent Sky are now.
My previous comments were in relation to the claim the BBC completely 'ignored' testing when we know that is not the case. Either way testing is testing and there is enough information out there for any fan to get what they want whether its on TV or not.
Yes it has been good etc, but with the money that a subscriber pays for Sky Sports F1, surely the testing coverage should be expected.
This is true, plus they have a dedicated F1 channel, the only reason they don't have live coverage of the tests is that FOM don't send their cameras and production crew to them! wouldnt expect anything less to be honest, the coverage of the car launches was also pretty decent on Sky. To be honest I like both the Beeb and Sky's coverage of F1, but for sheer quality & completeness Sky's coverage takes a lot of beating IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by acescribe
This goes some way to answer why the sport went on a pay channel. Italy has also lost half its coverage to Sky for 2013. The teams are in financial trouble and somebody has to pay for it. Hopefully interest will dwindle and the sport will continue to slip further in to financial decline. I think in years to come the sport will be forced to seek this interest back and they'll realise bums on seats and popularity in where the long term money comes from rather than the quick buck.
BBC Sport - Formula 1 teams 'are in survival mode', says Whitmarsh
But moving to a pay channel will only make things worse for the teams. They claim the main reason is that sponsorship money is down. Well in order to get sponsorship up you need people watching the races, as many as you can possibly get.
F1 is different from football and the same model cannot be applied here.
I think that's why it'll go this route for a few years and then the reality will come to the surface. In Italy the passion for F1 is high and with it now going the same way it has done in the UK, I think we'll see a similar decline in viewer-ship there too. Sponsors aren't going to want to pay full price to the teams if they know some live races are only going to attract 800k viewers. Initially teams like McLaren were dead against the switch to Sky and sought assurance full coverage would remain on the Beeb even if it was delayed somewhat. This opinion quickly changed when they realised they would each get a little bit more money through the new broadcaster and suddenly the number of fans watching didn't seem to matter. I think that's short sighted and hopefully they'll realise dumping 3m of their audience wasn't great for the long term.
A few million less viewers in the UK and potentially a few million less in Italy will hardly affect a (potential) global sponsor's decision to get involved in F1 or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Sponsor money will become easier to come by once the economy bounces back.
Whitmarsh just wants a bigger slice of CVC's pie for the teams hence that article.
Money that predominantly comes from selling TV rights such as the very lucrative deals with Sky.
Pay TV and/or Pay per View for live sports and highlights or re-runs Free to Air is what the future holds for sports like F1 imo