F1 going to Sky

Btw it works out to £24.30 per race to watch the missing 10 on Sky. :crazy:

I think it's a very poor decision by the BBC. I understand that due to the licence fee freeze being enforced by Cameron and his cronies that the BBC need to make some serious cutbacks/savings but cutting the F1 coverage does not make sense. It costs the BBC £45million a year for the TV rights from Bernie & Co. It costs approximately another £10 million to provide that coverage for the season. I dread to think how much it costs to run BBC4 for a year but I would hazard a guess that it costs a great deal more yet each and every F1 race this year has had more viewers per programme that BBC4 gets in a whole week of programmes.

I very much doubt that their are many programmes on any of the BBC channels that receive the same viewing figures as the F1 coverage does so it makes very little sense to me. If the BBC wanted to make serious savings then perhaps they should not have bothered with transferring their headquarters to Salford in Greater Manchester which has cost an estimated £900 million so far.

The cost factor for me personally is not prohibitive as I already subscribe to Sky Sports however I know for many the cost will be a major factor, as will some people's reluctant view to paying anything to Murdoch & Co. Even as a Sky Sports subscriber I will still watch F1 on the BBC whenever possible. With the exception of Eddie Jordan, I believe the coverage we receive is second to none and a vast improvement on anything saw from ITV.

At least Sky have said they will Not be show adverts during the F1 races Sky Sports says it won't show adverts during grands prix next year - F1 news - AUTOSPORT.com

On the up side, at least we STILL get 10 races of full coverage on the BBC and if Sky Sports get Valencia and Barcelona then who cares, rather not bother watching either of them ever again.

Assuming the BBC coverage isn't deliberately crippled to encourage subscription to Sky. Just like happened in the early 2000's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

No!!!!! Most pay channels (such as DSTV in South Africa) provide full uniterrupted practice, quali, race, podium and interviews coverage. I don't want to go back to third world public broadcast coverage cause some people are tight ar$ed :down:

---

Hehe, yeah but these people haven't experienced our lovely SABC in action to understand your total hatred of the idea of returning to free-to-air.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CarlMetro

I dread to think how much it costs to run BBC4 for a year but I would hazard a guess that it costs a great deal more yet each and every F1 race this year has had more viewers per programme that BBC4 gets in a whole week of programmes.

---

I've said it before, and in spite of the fact it's quite a pompous opinion I'll say it again — I would suggest that, in cultural terms, BBC4 is of greater value than F1 coverage, and I am personally very pleased that the BBC is prepared to retain a channel that doesn't just pander to ratings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

Yeah, I just thought to stop following F1 completely because of this seemed a bit OTT. It is not as if all the coverage has gone to Sky with NO races or highlights on terrestrial TV.

---

For the casual fans, maybe.

It's almost like stepping back 30 years. Media coverage is far greater now. For hardcore fans who wants to know the results before watching the delayed coverage on BBC?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I've said it before, and in spite of the fact it's quite a pompous opinion I'll say it again — I would suggest that, in cultural terms, BBC4 is of greater value than F1 coverage, and I am personally very pleased that the BBC is prepared to retain a channel that doesn't just pander to ratings.

---

I can honestly say that I have watched one programme on BBC4 since it came on air (a documentary about guitarists) but I wonder just how many people would say they have never watched anything on there compared to those who would claim to be regular viewers?

On a slightly different note, just read the BBC statement on Guardian Online. So relieved that one of the main reasons for reaching their decision was so that the BBCs coverage of Wimbledon could continue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I've said it before, and in spite of the fact it's quite a pompous opinion I'll say it again — I would suggest that, in cultural terms, BBC4 is of greater value than F1 coverage, and I am personally very pleased that the BBC is prepared to retain a channel that doesn't just pander to ratings.

---

I agree, BBC4 has some very good programmes which are unique and worth watching.

However, I also like BBC3 - which I know certain people on the forum don't like, and that is quite pompous in my view (not necessarily you, Ben! I can't remember who it was now!) - for me BBC3 gives me a lot of good programmes. Clearly they aren't intelluctual ones - but I like them and so do many of my friends.

A crumb of comfort from Sky saying they won't show adverts. Fair play to them on that one. Realistically it is the only way they can compete with the BBC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

For the casual fans, maybe.

It's almost like stepping back 30 years. Media coverage is far greater now. For hardcore fans who wants to know the results before watching the delayed coverage on BBC?

---

I am just being realistic. I miss half the races at the moment due to "under the thumb" things to do on a Sunday afternoon, so only watch the races recorded (ironically) through Sky+ !

I think when everyone has calmed down it won't be as dreadful as it is being made out to be. And I think is less of a step backward than in 1997 when it went to ITV.

Oh no! I'm going to have to go to the pub some sundays to watch the F1! Damn shame!! :D