http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/0...73I5TS20110419
Just seen on Sky News that News corp are interested in buying F1.
Would this see F1 moved to Sky Sports with the dreaded mid race adverts reappearing? :s
Printable View
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/0...73I5TS20110419
Just seen on Sky News that News corp are interested in buying F1.
Would this see F1 moved to Sky Sports with the dreaded mid race adverts reappearing? :s
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Dear God Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooo!
I think that gives you my view.
Trouble is in the UK the only channel you can watch F1 is BBC, if it comes to the Beeb losing interest or being out bid, there is no where else F1 to go without ruining the race.
Lets hope BBC decide to fight for F1 for a few years.
Doesn't F1 have to be on a free to view channel? sure its in the contracts Sponsors wouldn't want it moved to pay per view
This would be a great move, a forward thinking company running the show for the spectators.
I still remember when they showed the race in parallel with ITV, offering multi views of the race including in car - way before anyone else.
And when Rupert waved his magic chequebook, all the worries of the sponsors went away and the scary little imp called Bernie was happy with his new sack of gold.
I thought that Bernie was keen to keep it on free to view? I thought he'd run through the idea of making people pay and it didn't really work, afterall F1 has a lot of casual viewers that will move away if it's on the scroat's channels.
+ 1Quote:
Originally Posted by aki13
But may I add;
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o
Wow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic
You must be really opposed to the move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic
+ 2
But may I add;
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
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:
Sky Sports is a subscription channel, so I'd have to pay to subscribe to it - if I'm right at current prices that would mean £243 for a season of F1! :eek: . And probably with adverts on top of that. Because not everyone can pay £243 for a sports package F1 will quickly diminish in popularity in the UK, and it'll fast become a minority interest (even more than it is now). It would be the death of F1 in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by yodasarmpit
Exactly mark. Much as I love F1, I don't have a spare £250 hanging around. I would simply have to stop watching.
It's simply impossible to adequately describe how much I loathe the Murdochs. One only has to look to the current phone hacking scandal to see not only how unscrupulous they are, but also how they entangle themselves with the regulators, police, and government.
Quite. I own and run a Formula 1 forum, but even I'd struggle to justify £20 per month...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic
It would. You only have to look at the UK viewing figures for English football matches on Sky to see that. Often they are dismally small.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
https://twitter.com/#!/tomcaryf1/sta...25597885460480Quote:
Bernie Ecclestone rubbishes reports that News Corp ready to bid for F1, says sport "not for sale"
Good news! Although I'm not sure what he means "not for sale". Strange thing for a commercial rights holder to say, when it effectively is always for sale.
Oh edit: That story is very different, he's not talking about Sky having coverage of F1, but News Corp actually buying F1 itself!
And Bernie has never said one thing and done another...
Interesting thoughts from Adam Cooper - https://twitter.com/adamcooperf1
Thinking more about the News Corp/F1 story and fact that the FIA has to approve a sale, perhaps Todt is already in the loop
That would go some way to explain why Bernie has been winding him up lately over the turbo rules and so on.
It's a "can't beat 'em/buy 'em" scenario. Todt hates the 100-year deal but a friendly purchaser might give the FIA a better shake
I have Freeview at the minute so to get Sky Sports I'm looking at £30 set up fee and £40 a month. F*** that!!! And as if the payment thing isn't bad enough I still end up having to watch f***ing adverts even though I'm shelling out silly money for coverage that will no doubt be less well presented than the Beeb manage.Quote:
Originally Posted by yodasarmpit
It's not that I don't like change, it's that I don't like having to shell out the best part of £500 every year for the privilege of F1, especially as I'll inevitably miss a few rounds due to them being at a silly time or me being busy competing.
And that's before we start talking about Murdoch himself, who is essentially a professional b****d.
And as Mr Dunnell says it would be a nail in the coffin, Sky have already trashed football and it'll be much easier for them to ruin motorsport.
Two distinct issues here:
- The ownership of the group of companies responsible for the promotion of the FIA F1 World Championship (currently owned by CVC, JP Morgan & Bernie)[/*:m:3brb38s2]
- Broadcasting rights to F1 currently held by the BBC in the UK[/*:m:3brb38s2]
IIRC the broadcasting rights are actually held by Bernie and FOM (or whatever acronym he's using at the minute), he contracts this out to the Beeb who use the world feed that is given to all broadcasters :)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.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalis...h-eyes-F1.html
money talksQuote:
Is F1 going to be bought by Rupert Murdoch?
Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation has held talks with the world's richest man, Carlos Slim, to form a consortium to buy F1. There are understood to be a number of possible permutations, not simply a purchase or stake sale. Sources said there have been no formal talks with F1 owner, private equity house CVC Capital Partners. F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone has insisted Formula 1 is not for sale. "CVC are not in the slightest bit interested in selling," said Ecclestone.
Don't bother me cause we get full uninterupted race coverage over here. What would concern me is the commentators they choose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
Must be nice. We're already under the Murdoch umbrella in the US with the races on SPEED and Fox.Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
It's just another step in that slimeball Murdoch's quest for world domination.
I'm sure though that Sky Sports are not allowed to take the broadcasting rights away from terrestrial TV, that is one thing I feel that F1 has prided itself on since the Beeb first got the full rights in 1978. Free-to-air TV brings the sport into the mainstream and has managed as a result to build up a huge following, yes it is costing the Beeb a lot to broadcast F1 but they are getting a great return on it in terms of viewing figures.
Transferring it to subscription TV would simply alienate the vast majority of the fanbase that cannot afford the subscription fees, viewer numbers will shrink, attendances at Grand Prix's would fall and the sport would slowly die. Even the most diehard fan won't pay extortionate subscription charges to watch the sport they love if they can't afford it.
There is no rule to say F1 must be on terrestrial TV.
Is it not part of the Concorde Agreement?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
According to this, it isntQuote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
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?