Printable View
Expect it from a lot of people. It probably won't add much (besides some adverts a nice 'commercial radio' feel) but it'll definitely take it away from those of us that don't like lining the pockets of a corrupt and unscrupulous scroat like Murdoch.Quote:
Originally Posted by aki13
I doubt the government will allow this to happen, I think that F1 is seen as a sporting even that has to be on a terrestrial channel. Unless Murdoch makes a large donation....
The government is largely irrelevant. Bernie infamously tried to 'buy' New Labour on the tobacco thing, with the Tories in charge I'd imagine that the smell of a brown envelope will be even more effective. Bernie calls the shots in F1, no one else has any kind of a say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikki Katz
So, what is everyone's actual objection other than the predictable I don't like change?
Sky changed UK TV for the good some 20 years ago by investing heavily, and providing a stable multi channel digital platform (in the last 10 years). They are innovative and willing to spend, whilst delivering what the viewer want's.
Simple. Adverts in the races and extra cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by yodasarmpit
The thing is it would be just the UK licences which Murdoch buys. News Corp would more than likely buy a World package and then try to flog that off, it wouldn't be just Sky in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by yodasarmpit
I don't have Pay TV, and I'm sure that if Murdoch bought the rights it would move to Foxtel in Australia, meaning that'd I'd see no F1 races at all.
Exactly. Most of us can no longer afford to go and see F1 live (the last time I went was 1999), and I'll be damned if I'm paying for the privilege to watch at home.
As a broadcaster itself, Sky does not deliver what the viewer wants, other than sporting events that people are forced to watch on Sky if they wish to see them at all. I cannot think of an occasion on which I as a viewer have ever wanted to watch anything on Sky, except for sports. And if you want a shorter, more concise answer to your question: Murdoch.Quote:
Originally Posted by yodasarmpit
I guess that in their defence, the commentators that do IndyCar while the US goes for its many breaks are at least a lot better than both ABC and Versus. But there's still a big dip compared to the BBC or ITV's broadcast, we'd have adverts back, and most importantly we'd have to pay for it! This would only really be good news for Murdoch, the viewing figures would freefall because sky sports is so expensive, any casual fan would just stop watching unless they already have the channel, and some of the more diehard fans might find the fees tough. I don't see it happening, even if we're just saved by Bernie.
Bernie was too far ahead of the game with that. He invested heavily in the equipment and the channel only to find few wanted to buy it so he cut his losses. It did mean, however, that FOA tv came about and they now, I think, provide the pictures we all watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by yodasarmpit
The difference now is that people are far more used to subscription tv so a "F1 channel" may be more likely to succeed, but still I would have thought that the teams & their sponsors would want the races shown on free-to-air tv in some form or another.
As for Sky/Murdoch owning F1 as a whole...I dread to think what will happen to the sport if that were to happen :eek: