F1 heading to Sky?

This is from this morning's "The Australian". Which i'd like to point out is not only a News publication but it was also the first national newsppaer in Australia; therefore Rupert's special baby.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...-1226042452050
A POWERFUL consortium led by News Corporation is drafting plans to buy the Formula One motor racing series.
Although commercial rights holder, chief executive Bernie Eccleston has declared the sport was not for sale, it has emerged News Corp is negotiating with Mexican telecommunications billionaire Carlos Slim and leading international carmaker Ferrari to make a bid.
Mr Slim has been linked with Formula One as a potential team owner and sponsors young Mexican driver Sergio Perez, who is with Sauber.

Or if prefer Sky:
http://blogs.news.sky.com/kleinman/P...7-1bdcdcbeb360
News Corporation, the global media group, is in the early stages of talks about forming a consortium that would seek to acquire control of Formula One (F1) motor racing, I have learned.

News Corp has been in preliminary talks in recent weeks with people connected to at least one of F1’s big car manufacturers, and with Carlos Slim, the Mexican billionaire who is the world’s richest man, about working together on a prospective takeover of F1. JP Morgan, the Wall Street bank (and a former F1 shareholder), is advising News Corp on the situation, which is at an embryonic stage, I’m told.

Participating in a consortium that would buy F1 is only one of several options that News Corp is examining in relation to the sport, which may come up for sale during the next 18 months.

Take it as read that that furry little maggot Rupert is interested in buying F1. This is the beginning of the end I fear.

the one thing i would hate to see if it is taken over is a delayed broadcast it is only the last 2 years that it has been live in australia

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...e-2270652.html

Quote:

---

During the past two decades British sports fans have grown used to watching Mr Murdoch's money transform football, rugby, cricket and boxing.

---

As an American I would be most interested to see what would happen if Sky got the rights from BBC. Murdoch already has the rights to the U.S. broadcast; he might try to merge them.

Ah, I thought you were referring to the UK protected sport status, which are the following:

Sports which have protected TV status:

• Olympic Games[/*:m:93azm0hw]
• Fifa World Cup finals tournament[/*:m:93azm0hw]
• European Football Championship finals tournament[/*:m:93azm0hw]
• FA Cup final[/*:m:93azm0hw]
• Scottish FA Cup final (in Scotland)[/*:m:93azm0hw]
• The Grand National[/*:m:93azm0hw]
• The Derby[/*:m:93azm0hw]
• Wimbledon tennis finals[/*:m:93azm0hw]
• Rugby League Challenge Cup final[/*:m:93azm0hw]
• Rugby World Cup final[/*:m:93azm0hw]

As you can see it's a very limited list.

First. Bernie doesn't own F1 but is a minority share holder. If Sky come up with a commercially acceptable offer, CVC will sell.

Second. Are we talking about the commercial rights, broadcasting rights or the whole lot. Could this be a case of someone trying to "out-Bernie" Bernie. What does Murdock actually want?

Third. F1 has been expanded and grown under Bernie to the global spectacle it is now. I think it rather hypocritical that the same people that slag greedy Bernie off are horrified that Murdock might replace him. WHAT THE F DID YOU EXPECT? I don't think Nelson Mandella is interested in commercial motorsport and Mother Theresa is dead.

Last. I pay £70 per month for a full Sky package including Movies, Sport, Broadband, Line Rental and free call nationally and internationally to any fixed line I want. That represents good value for money in my books so am not too bothered if it goes to Sky as long as the racing isn't ruined by adverts.

What is going to happen is going to happen regardless.

But you can't imagine that if Murdoch / Sky own a substantial stake in F1 that they wouldn't want to also have the coverage on their own network?

Yep. No great shakes to me. I'll watch it regardless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Retro Formula 1

First. Bernie doesn't own F1 but is a minority share holder. If Sky come up with a commercially acceptable offer, CVC will sell.

---

I'm currently reading his biography (the one by Tom Bower) and it's interesting to see how he sets up deals to be heavily weighted in his favour. Just last night I was reading about his sale around 2004 where he sells 75% of his ownership but, due to the way he's set up all the different companies, his own company can effectively still call the shots.

And I can't understand how you can label £70/month as good value as you're basically only paying for some of the sports, the broadband and the phone. The rest is so easily available (in good quality) over the internet that it's really not worth paying money for.....if you're so inclined.

It will be a cold day in hell before I willingly give any of my hard-earned to Murdoch. The excreable Limited News already has too much influence within my wide brown land - the Australian (aparently our leading journal of record) has gone on record as willing to do anything it may take to destroy a democratically popular political party in Australia (the Greens - say what you like, I didn't vote for 'em, but lots of people did and that gives them legitimacy), amongst a litany of other politically questionable antics from the pathetic 4th estate, so the contempt that mere motor sport enthusiasts would encounter is likely to be withering.

I hope this is just money-men posturing - we don't get free to air World SBK here anymore (haven't for a few years - vanished behind Ruprechts paywall), and crowds at the race at PI have been noticeably down over the same period. I hope it doesn't come to it, but Murdoch will have to wrestle my last dollar from my cold, lifeless hand.

Ok, rant over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Retro Formula 1

I pay £70 per month for a full Sky package including Movies, Sport, Broadband, Line Rental and free call nationally and internationally to any fixed line I want. That represents good value for money in my books so am not too bothered if it goes to Sky as long as the racing isn't ruined by adverts.

---

I pay £18.50 for unlimited Broadband and calls with Talk Talk (internatinal package) plus my TV licence fee. I get freeview for the cost of a set top box. That's even better value for me, considering all the tut that was on Sky when I had it last before the recession bit - Endless repeats of 'how it's made', an ex vet that builds kit cars/bikes/planes/choppers, and the Sound of Music twice an hour.........

If Sky get hold of it and make it subscription, F1 loses a fan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Retro Formula 1

Third. F1 has been expanded and grown under Bernie to the global spectacle it is now. I think it rather hypocritical that the same people that slag greedy Bernie off are horrified that Murdock might replace him. WHAT THE F DID YOU EXPECT? I don't think Nelson Mandella is interested in commercial motorsport and Mother Theresa is dead.

---

Why hypocritical? People don't like Bernie running it, but they dislike the notion of Murdoch running it even more. Nothing hypocritical or inconsistent in that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Retro Formula 1

Last. I pay £70 per month for a full Sky package including Movies, Sport, Broadband, Line Rental and free call nationally and internationally to any fixed line I want. That represents good value for money in my books so am not too bothered if it goes to Sky as long as the racing isn't ruined by adverts.

---

So you are not bothered by the influence NewsCorp wields in British society by virtue of the extent of its media ownerships?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

an ex vet that builds kit cars/bikes/planes/choppers

---

I love A....Is Born. My old man was recently made redundant and had a few weeks with nothing to do when they were showing this on Quest (or whatever Freeview channel 38 is called these days). I'd come home from work and he'd be telling me about how matey was doing his Cobra or was making a Caterham, top viewing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazzlaF1

According to this, it isnt

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/for...et-buy-F1.html

But 10 years ago as part of the deal for Bernie to offer a 100 year extension to 2 German TV firms, there was a promise that F1 must remain "free-to-air"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/moto...ne/1295708.stm

So if F1 sells the UK broadcast rights to Sky Sports, would that not be in total breach of that agreement?

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13143365

Quote:

---

Any takeover would involve changes to the Concorde Agreement, a commercial arrangement involving the racing teams, CVC and the sport's governing body, the FIA.

This agreement says that the sport should be shown on free-to-air television where possible.

However, the current agreement runs out at the end of 2012, and the signatories are in the process of negotiating a new one.

---

Personally I can't see Sky show F1 exclusively. Bernie would be daft to let that happen. More likely it would be like a decade ago/German TV rights with Sky showing premium content

I believe it's possible for Sky Sports to be free to air if they so choose. Plus they have the likes of Sky3 on freeview, and Sky1 etc, which aren't free as such but they are part of most standard bundles.

I have no ethical dilema with Sky or Murdoch. It doesn't really bother me to tell you the truth.

I'm quite happy to pay my £70 quid and feel I get a good service for my money. It's entertainment for the family and communication via Internet and Phone for £20 per week. I know some people that pay £40 per month just for their mobile phone contract but that's their choice.

Personal choice I suppose and I disregard opinions that say I shouldn't purchase the service I do for some morally debatable view of the owner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Retro Formula 1

I know some people that pay £40 per month just for their mobile phone contract but that's their choice.

---

I have a 3 data card that I pay £40/month for. However, I get 12GB allowance per month and a Dell Laptop (not netbook) for free too!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Retro Formula 1

I have no ethical dilema with Sky or Murdoch.

---

With whom do you have ethical dilemmas if not Rupert Murdoch, then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Selling the broadcasting rights to Sky is one thing, but allowing Murdoch to own the sport is entirely another. Should the chances of that happening increase then we can expect talks of a breakaway to resurface.

---

What happened to rugby league in Australia is an excellent case study in what happens when News Corp buys a sport. They took a sport with an ever increasing fan base and huge TV audience and nearly killed it in less than 5 years. The term "Super League" sends a shudder down the spines of many rugby league fans to this day. They arbitrarily decided they didn't want my team, the South Sydney Rabbitohs, in "their" competiton and kicked them out. Souths took them to court and got back in but by the time the dust had settled several other teams were dead.

People think Bernie's bad with his greed and stupid ideas. He's got nothing on what News would do to the sport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

I believe it's possible for Sky Sports to be free to air if they so choose. Plus they have the likes of Sky3 on freeview, and Sky1 etc, which aren't free as such but they are part of most standard bundles.

---

Nah, Sky3 on Freeview seems to have been replaced by something called PickTV or summint

Same channel, new name. If you look at the schedule it's basically the same old Sky3 programmes, including a very poor Top Gear "rival" called Vroom Vroom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkmoon

What happened to rugby league in Australia is an excellent case study in what happens when News Corp buys a sport. They took a sport with an ever increasing fan base and huge TV audience and nearly killed it in less than 5 years. The term "Super League" sends a shudder down the spines of many rugby league fans to this day. They arbitrarily decided they didn't want my team, the South Sydney Rabbitohs, in "their" competiton and kicked them out. Souths took them to court and got back in but by the time the dust had settled several other teams were dead.

People think Bernie's bad with his greed and stupid ideas. He's got nothing on what News would do to the sport.

---

Exactly my concern for F1 if Murdoch gets his hands on it. Complain about Bernie all you like, but his "vision" in the 1970's of using television to expand the sport has been hugely successful for everyone concerned. His financial demands (see the news about the Turkish GP) may be excessive but if one doesn't want to pay he's always got another lined up ready to take their place.

However, Bernie does not own the tv channels. He sells a product to them and they decide whether to buy or not.

In Murdoch's case, if this happens (and it's a big if at the moment) he owns the sport and the one tv company. No other broadcaster will get a look in.

Were Murdoch to own F1 then we and the sport are ****ed.

All of this poses the question:

Who is preffered as the man in charge of F1: Bernie or Murdoch?

^^^^

Well that's a choice between Tofu and Quorn. Both are s**t

Bernie. No question.

Murdoch would be a poison on the sport that we would probably never shake off, so I'd go for Bernie, as much as I can't stand him for some of his crackpot ideas, at least he's steadied the ship over the last 30 years well and it's his insistence to have a free reign when it comes to TV deals that has helped the sports fanbase grow in that time.

Murdoch however doesn't give a monkeys about the fanbase unless they have £££'s to pay to watch his ad filled subscription services, F1 is the only major sport in Britain with which Murdoch does not have a stranglehold on, something with this much speculated bid he is trying to put right in his eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazzlaF1

Murdoch would be a poison on the sport that we would probably never shake off, so I'd go for Bernie, as much as I can't stand him for some of his crackpot ideas, at least he's steadied the ship over the last 30 years well and it's his insistence to have a free reign when it comes to TV deals that has helped the sports fanbase grow in that time.

Murdoch however doesn't give a monkeys about the fanbase unless they have £££'s to pay to watch his ad filled subscription services, F1 is the only major sport in Britain with which Murdoch does not have a stranglehold on, something with this much speculated bid he is trying to put right in his eyes.

---

Can't argue with that.

I do subscribe to sky sports already, but I think from a purely selfish point of view, I wouldn't be able to stand F1 with ads again.

A bigger point that has already been mentioned is the likely plummit of F1's viewer numbers and it's general popularity in the uk would fall. No casual fans are going to buy Sky Sports for F1 and as mentioned above many hardcore F1 fans would not either.

It would be a bad day for F1 in the UK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkmoon

What happened to rugby league in Australia is an excellent case study in what happens when News Corp buys a sport. They took a sport with an ever increasing fan base and huge TV audience and nearly killed it in less than 5 years. The term "Super League" sends a shudder down the spines of many rugby league fans to this day. They arbitrarily decided they didn't want my team, the South Sydney Rabbitohs, in "their" competiton and kicked them out. Souths took them to court and got back in but by the time the dust had settled several other teams were dead.

People think Bernie's bad with his greed and stupid ideas. He's got nothing on what News would do to the sport.

---

Absolutely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UltimateDanGTR

All of this poses the question:

Who is preffered as the man in charge of F1: Bernie or Murdoch?

---

Even though I am not Bernie's biggest fan, there's no doubt in my mind that he does love the sport. True, he loves money too. But in the question of Murdoch vs. Ecclestone, I would take Bernie any day of the week and twice on weekends... because ALL that Murdoch cares about is money. Fox/Speed does a very good job covering F1 in the U.S. But I can't say that the prospect of a Murdoch owned Formula One exactly warms my heart.

So the consensus being that Murdoch would only be in it for the money???

Well guess what, for it to make money then it would have to appeal to the public (i.e. the fans - us), and that's something the news corp do well.

I'd be careful about assuming that an owner making more money from a product translates to a higher quality product. If costs are cut harder/faster than one loses revenue, more profit could be garnered from lower revenue. But like Tony George (IRL), Andy Evans (IMSA) and Kevin Kalkhoven (CCWS), I'm leery of a guy, who I don't think knows much about racing, coming in as owner of the biggest racing series in the world.

Other than Fox Business News and Speed Channel, I can't say that I know all that much about Murdoch's other media assets. But I have read that Speed Channel now turns a profit, whereas Speedvision did not. But IMO, the new Speed Channel is a much lower quality channel than Speedvision was - other than F1, GP2 and an occasional Grand Am race, I no longer watch it. And Fox Business News (compared to the gold standard: Bloomberg News) is a rolling joke... but I bet it makes a tidy profit. Murdoch has something of a reputation here for going for the sizzle & flash over substance. He's not really a "substance kinda guy", or so it seems. Maybe others have a different impression of him though.

Maybe Ruppie would be OK for F1. But he strikes me as the sort of guy who would stick the likes of Danica Patrick in a car just to generate higher ratings and ad revenue. But... ol' Bernie isn't going to live forever. And I guess I'd rather see the Faux News guy running the show rather than Tamara & Petra. :p

Murdoch buying out the comercial rights to F1 will be a disaster, he will push it towards pay-per-view TV just to make a bit more money. I already subscribe to Sky but I cant afford the extra cost to get the sports package as well and I really dont want the adverts back.

It should be mentioned, though, that story is being broken by News Corp itself, and that Murdoch is a mate of Bernies. James Allen is already speculating that its another move by Bernie against the teams before the proper negotiations on anew Concord Agreement begin, what the specific end result would be I havnt a clue though.

If this does turn out to be real though, I have one thing to say, Murdoch can **** Off!

This thread cracks me up! Most of the posters here vilify Bernie Ecclestone, but when Murdoch lurks around the corner, everyone sees the FoXXX News mogul as the boogie man. Fact of the matter is that Bernie is a necessary evil in Formula 1. I hope that F1 doesn't go to pay-per-view because ratings and revenue will drop.

Bernie is not a necessary evil, he's about 10 years past his sell-by-date, but I'd rather have him running the sport than Murdoch's goons by a very long way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

However, Bernie does not own the tv channels. He sells a product to them and they decide whether to buy or not.

In Murdoch's case, if this happens (and it's a big if at the moment) he owns the sport and the one tv company. No other broadcaster will get a look in.

Were Murdoch to own F1 then we and the sport are ****ed.

---

Would Murdoch be allowed to own F1 and have exclusive rights for TV coverage? I suspect this might infringe some EU competition laws though I don't know for sure.

F1 is really quite a specialised sport. Bernie has had money flowing into it by ensuring that the races are aired as widely as possible whilst getting the greatest possible profit to himself. He's always understood that the sport's value to both sponsors and car makers comes from getting as many people across the world to watch it and thats usually done through a free-to-view channel.

Murdoch on the other hand hasn't got to grips with the concept of the internet yet with his messed up takeover of MySpace and his paywall around the Times and Sunday Times. How is he or his organisation going to deal with the intricacies of F1? Will he be willing to stand on the sidelines like CVC has done or will he not be able to resist the temptation to get involved himself?

Purely from a selfish point of view of course I wouldn't want him to buy F1 because I resent the idea of having to pay to watch a race on TV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...e_broadcasters

Quite shocking the amount of subscription channels show F1 across the world.

Completely forgot about Star Sports (Murdoch) holds a monopoly across Asia.

Free-to-air in Finland only shows highlights on normal TV!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

With whom do you have ethical dilemmas if not Rupert Murdoch, then?

---

Hmmmm. Why should I have an ethical dilemma over some businessman? Should I jump on this Murdoch bandwagon the same way as people jump on the Bernie Bus?

I'm not saying that Murdoch isn't a brilliant, ruthless businessman that has cracked a few eggs on the way to preparing his Omelettes’. He also seems to be a gifted Politician, capable of playing both sides of the game simultaneously and with aplomb.

It is questionable (ethically so???) how he uses his media empire to foster and harness agreement for his political leaning but as a slightly more rounded individual, capable of rational thought, I am capable of making my own mind up about issues. I also think that to single out one person, no matter how powerful, is hypocritical when you look at the media circus that has perpetuated in the Western world. We are obsessed with Celebrity and Stardom while the "Real World" is almost a side show. However, looking at some of the theatre that is media and the questionable tactics used in the gathering of modern Gossip, you have to conclude that the public doesn't have a leg to stand on if they choose to bite the hand that feeds and satisfies their desires for more extravagant titillation. Still, it was quite smugly satisfying to see Tommy Sheridan getting caught out, even for a Mediaphobe like myself ;)

So, all in all, I don't have an Ethical dilemma as it isn't something that disturbs me. I think the ethical argument is something that is influenced and perpetuated by the masses and as such, I guess I am in a minority. I also see this current bid as a blind. A wrangling and positioning game; posturing and performing which will soon blow over with a watered down solution regarding media rights and direction.

It just doesn't bother me. Sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Retro Formula 1

Hmmmm. Why should I have an ethical dilemma over some businessman? Should I jump on this Murdoch bandwagon the same way as people jump on the Bernie Bus?

I'm not saying that Murdoch isn't a brilliant, ruthless businessman that has cracked a few eggs on the way to preparing his Omelettes’. He also seems to be a gifted Politician, capable of playing both sides of the game simultaneously and with aplomb.

---

It's not quite as simple as 'cracked a few eggs' with Murdoch, he's real slime.

I don't like omelettes anyway :s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yodasarmpit

Well guess what, for it to make money then it would have to appeal to the public (i.e. the fans - us), and that's something the news corp do well.

---

Does it? Does much of Sky TV's output really 'appeal to the public'? The viewing figures for a lot of its English football are pathetic in the UK.