They don't have a seperate motorsports channel yet, however you do get coverage of NASCAR and Indycar on Sky Sports as well as WTCC, DTM, WSBK, BSBK, GP2,GP3 and various GT races on Eurosport and MotorsTV.Quote:
Originally Posted by MAX_THRUST
Printable View
They don't have a seperate motorsports channel yet, however you do get coverage of NASCAR and Indycar on Sky Sports as well as WTCC, DTM, WSBK, BSBK, GP2,GP3 and various GT races on Eurosport and MotorsTV.Quote:
Originally Posted by MAX_THRUST
To be fair, ITV won a number of awards for its coverage as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlMetro
Probably voted for by the ad companies.... :pQuote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
pay tv is, of course, the best channel for F1; keeps the poor people from watching and diluting the purity of the race...err..sport.
I dream that someday, they will have a way to block out all the announcer talking, but leave the volume so you can hear the racing engines.....
Fair enough :) If you feel that you get value out of it then that's great. Sadly/thankfully for me there really isn't much on Sky Sports that I enjoy so to have it just for F1 would be madness.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlMetro
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
Why does every moron have to bring social media into it? Sure twitter and facebook add to things, but they are not a substitute for good quality coverage.Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbolt
What awards did they win? Probably something as prestigious as having won the 2005 US GP?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I am sure they won a Royal Television Society award of some sort, but can't recall exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
The problem was that ITV's sport coverage has almost always been dreadful — utterly inferior to the BBC, no matter which sports you look at.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Amazingly ITV won 3 BAFTAs for their coverage, even though the actual racing was produced by FOM.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlMetro
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
ITV never fully embraced multimedia.
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.
And on the presentation, though Steve Rider had been a big improvement over Jim Rosenthal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
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?
I'm guessing not for the '05 Imola race.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
The BBC haven't had an Ofcom complaint upheld against their coverage so they've got one over ITV there.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Krogshöj
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?
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
In the F1 forum the team were talking to the crowd and one of them shouted to Jake 'Don't go to Sky!'
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.
yes I do care and I am a Sky Subscriber-Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
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.
Indeed betrayal is the correct word.
I hope you are right!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinho
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
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....
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.
Why? Millions of people watch it, which hardly backs up your assertion.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlMetro
It is very difficult to apportion blame in this instance.
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
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
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!!
Channel Ten | Lachlan Murdoch Appointed Interim CEO
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.
Yeah of course, the BBC should have cancelled what is still the most consistently highest rating programme viewed in Britain (along with Coronation street).Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlMetro
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
No no and thrice no!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
It's included in the licence fee, it is NOT free.
I agree with you but tell that to the likes of the Daily Mail which are hitting the BBC with any tool available.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyL
We were warned about the Tory future for the BBC:
TORIES WILL EXTERMINATE BBC IF THEY GET ELECTED - mirror.co.ukQuote:
"They'll dismantle it slowly. It'll get smaller and smaller until it just supports Radio 4 and some news."
BBC NEWS | UK | Tories could 'rip up' BBC charterQuote:
"We are looking into whether it would be appropriate to rip up the charter in the middle of it, or whether one should wait."
Tories would constrain BBC to 'core broadcasting' - TV & Radio, Media - The IndependentQuote:
"But do we want the BBC to constrain its ambition beyond that core broadcasting? Absolutely."
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
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.