Last Live race on the BBC? (even last one full stop)

The BBC have to save money and apparently they have asked Bernie if they can negotiate for highlights from next season. (They want to concentrate on Six Nations Rugby (of which they are now the junior partner too), Winbledon, MOTD, and the FA Cup). However, I get the feeling F1 highlights will be sacrificed and may to go another channel.
I do not think ITV will want it back.
So the future may look bleak for F1 on terrestrial.
Bernie, Bernie, Bernie, £45 million from Ch4 for ALL races LIVE seems a good deal noe eh?!

Bernie has said he wants to keep F1 on free-to-air somehow. With even Sky not necessarily interested in seeing out their contract, it'll be interesting to see what happens next...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inimitablestoo

Bernie has said he wants to keep F1 on free-to-air somehow. With even Sky not necessarily interested in seeing out their contract, it'll be interesting to see what happens next...

---

If Bernie wants to keep it on Free-to-air, why has be driven out all the free-to-air broadcasters and gone behind the paywall? I think Austria and Germany are the last European countries that cover all races on free-to-air.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inimitablestoo

Bernie has said he wants to keep F1 on free-to-air somehow. With even Sky not necessarily interested in seeing out their contract, it'll be interesting to see what happens next...

---

I did read somewhere that Sky renewed their contract from 2017.

If it is the BBC's last race, they can't exactly say 'see you in march'!

No wonder since the cars will probably be running on compressed air pretty soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inimitablestoo

Bernie has said he wants to keep F1 on free-to-air somehow. With even Sky not necessarily interested in seeing out their contract, it'll be interesting to see what happens next...

---

Ten Network Holdings which is the free-to-air network in Australia, is 15% owned by FOXTEL Management Pty Limited (15%). Its one time CEO was none other than Lachlan Murdoch.
I can only assume that Ten Network Holdings will dump free-to-air viewers of F1 like a plate of cold sick; leaving us with 1 race in 2016. The Australian GP is currently protected by anti-siphoning regulations and News Corp in particular has been pushing to have that legislation repealed for a long time.

If F1 is reduced to not much, then Bernie has himself to blame; he will have had willing partners putting the gun to its head as well.

As for Aunty, that same Rupert who has his fingers in the pie in Australia is the same Rupert who controls Sky and wants to see Aunty murdered.

It'll be the end of F1 in the UK if it goes off FTA. Sky can't maintain a healthy following due to their limited outreach and let's face it the BBC coverage is head and shoulders above them.

Bernie chased the quick dollar and the combination of several boring seasons has been incredibly damaging for its British following. I think it needs to die though in order for it to start repairing itself. F1 simply isn't worth the price Bernie has placed on it and fans simply didn't pay through the nose in the numbers he expected.

One thing's for certain, yesterday's highlights package was the last on BBC3 (as a non-online-only service anyway)...

The BBC have a contract with F1 - they would have to buy their way out of that contract (remember with their previous one it was they who did the deal with Sky to do half and half, who took it to Bernie, who agreed) It is possible they could go highlights only, but that would still need a renegotiation.

I think the BBC dropping F1 - infact ALL sport - is probably inevitable, but it wont be for 2016.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acescribe

The BBC have a contract with F1 - they would have to buy their way out of that contract (remember with their previous one it was they who did the deal with Sky to do half and half, who took it to Bernie, who agreed) It is possible they could go highlights only, but that would still need a renegotiation.

I think the BBC dropping F1 - infact ALL sport - is probably inevitable, but it wont be for 2016.

---

I have my reservations about the BBC being the ones who came up with the idea of approaching Sky. It has been a pattern across Europe where satellite channels have been picking up the rights and in some case all of the rights. I think the BBC tried to get out of their contract completely back in 2012 and Bernie gave the option of splitting he coverage. There were too many coincidences with what is happening with other countries around the same time.

The sad thing is this approach has ruined the following in countries like Italy, France and Portugal. Britain is down terms of viewers yet it's all being largely ignored because the money is there. It could still be a possibility that Sky do not renew their current contract and it makes you wonder where it will be offered. BT Sport is an obvious choice I think, but they need at least highlights on a FTA channel if F1 wishes to remain relevant in many of these economies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

I have my reservations about the BBC being the ones who came up with the idea of approaching Sky.

---

I agree with this.
The more likely story is that the Mad Bad Uncle approached the Troll and got the Troll to put up the price; to the point where Aunty couldn't afford it. Money talks, or in this case, screams.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mot...xt-season.html

Looks like ITV has got it but I would be surprised if they had any live races.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mot...xt-season.html

Looks like ITV has got it but I would be surprised if they had any live races.

---

If ITV get it again then Sky will be getting my money again. I had cancelled it earlier this year due to the predictable season to save some money. But I simply can't put up with F1 being structured around advert breaks again. The BBC are absolutely bonkers. They will have nothing left worthy of watching at this rate, apart from their bizarre infatuation with Wimbledon.

I'm sure I'd read elsewhere that ITV were looking to continue with the BBC's contract of half live/half highlights only. Not too bothered about ads, it would mean I get more room for, ahem, comfort breaks. Also it's unlikely we'd get Ted "Lenny" Kravitz inflicted upon us again, unless ITV were to take highlights only and simply take the Sky feed...

Daily Mail are reporting that F1 has "gone to ITV" too, but no word from the BBC yet and it would appear the specialist press is waiting for that. Let us not lose sight of the fact that ITV gave up the rights to F1 ahead of the end of their previous contract because they couldn't justify the cost. This was in 2008! My bet is that it will be largely a highlights deal that ITV will show...

Well sadly it has happened. My viewership will be even less than it already was. Sad times.

BBC to end Formula 1 television contract early
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35149963

Indeed but it's Channel 4 who will take up the contract not ITV.

Apparently the races will be uninterrupted by ads but the pre and post race will be like Sky where ads are regular.

We all saw this coming though and the BBC are getting worse in all departments. I can't see the license fee being around much longer as we are gradually getting less for our money. It's getting difficult to justify.

If any of you UK viewers voted Conservative either in 2010 or this year, you might like to consider that you're partly to blame. It's purely because the BBC is under ideological pressure to cut costs that moves like this are being made. That pressure comes from a government led by a man who socialises not with senior BBC figures, but senior News Corp ones. It hardly takes a rocket scientist to see the link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

If any of you UK viewers voted Conservative either in 2010 or this year, you might like to consider that you're partly to blame. It's purely because the BBC is under ideological pressure to cut costs that moves like this are being made. That pressure comes from a government led by a man who socialises not with senior BBC figures, but senior News Corp ones. It hardly takes a rocket scientist to see the link.

---

To be honest though Labour were not exactly in bed with F1 either. Murdoch has been heavily involved with British governments since the 1980's with News Corp doing their bit to influence every election. I get the impression the government have been receiving back handers from Murdoch for decades. Labour refused to help fund Silverstone which I can understand even though Bernie made a payment to the Labour Party. It's always been a corrupt yet disinterested link.

I can see the BBC going PPV before long to be honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Murdoch has been heavily involved with British governments since the 1980's with News Corp doing their bit to influence every election.

---

Well, the relationship between New Labour and Murdoch was undoubtedly unhealthy as well. But it is surely obvious that, unlike then, we now have in power a government ideologically opposed in its highest echelons to the very notion of the BBC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Labour refused to help fund Silverstone which I can understand even though Bernie made a payment to the Labour Party.

---

And quite right too, surely? No 'even though' about it. I'd add that the road network around Silverstone was upgraded during one of Blair's administrations, so some support for the facility from central government was forthcoming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

It's always been a corrupt yet disinterested link.

---

Why should it have to be 'interested' in F1? There's enough money in the sport for it not to require central government help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Well, the relationship between New Labour and Murdoch was undoubtedly unhealthy as well. But it is surely obvious that, unlike then, we now have in power a government ideologically opposed in its highest echelons to the very notion of the BBC.



And quite right too, surely? No 'even though' about it. I'd add that the road network around Silverstone was upgraded during one of Blair's administrations, so some support for the facility from central government was forthcoming.



Why should it have to be 'interested' in F1? There's enough money in the sport for it not to require central government help.

---

I don't think any government money should go into F1 either. I was just commenting that the government don't help F1 regardless of their relationship with Sky and the BBC.

The main problem is Bernie demanding so much for an overpriced product. Broadcasters are walking away from it and it's slowly killing the sports global audience.

Channel 4 it is...

10 of the 21 races live, including practice sessions (as per the BBC deal) They have already announced that it will be "a totally new commentary and presenting team"

Thankfully that hopefully does mean the end of Eddie Jordan on TV! Odds on DC rocking up on Sky???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acescribe

Channel 4 it is...

10 of the 21 races live, including practice sessions (as per the BBC deal) They have already announced that it will be "a totally new commentary and presenting team"

Thankfully that hopefully does mean the end of Eddie Jordan on TV! Odds on DC rocking up on Sky???

---

If DC replaced Brundle I might be tempted to watch Sky more often. Sad that they are not adopting the team on C4. I actually like EJ to be honest. He adds character unlike the sterile Sky broadcast IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

I don't think any government money should go into F1 either. I was just commenting that the government don't help F1 regardless of their relationship with Sky and the BBC.

---

There's no question in this instance of the government helping F1. This is about the BBC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

The main problem is Bernie demanding so much for an overpriced product. Broadcasters are walking away from it and it's slowly killing the sports global audience.

---

It is one problem. Viewers walking away from it is another. But this wouldn't be happening without the funding pressures on the BBC, and they are ideologically-driven by this government.

The BBC needs sorting out from top to bottom with the things that have been going on there over the last 30 years. You saw cuts are made, but they are still paying the likes of Chris Evans huge sums of money to be a prat for a living.

My main concern was ads and now that it is confirmed as Channel 4 and ad-free (during the race) then I'm satisfied. ITV would never have agreed to ad-free, and that is probably how Channel 4 have won the deal.

I think, BDunnell, to suggest it is Conservative voters that caused this is a bit far-fetched...! At the end of the day, the BBC has been a declining force for many years now, long before the year 2010!

Indeed BBC sport has been in decline for nearly a decade now. The recent pressures are not helping but it is from what I gather a continued pressure to downsize the BBC and that started under Labour. I am tempted to challenge the license fee next year as I really don't watch many BBC broadcasts any more. The F1 was probably the most legitimate program in that claim. Perhaps i'll partake in cost cutting measures and only watch channels that are funded by advertising? My Sky box is chipped so I don't pay for that either lol.

I can't see BBC lasting much longer now myself. We are seeing a changing of the guard of TV currently. NOW TV, Amazon Prime and Netflix are the new ways of doing things and BBC are way behind the curve on this. Why pay a license fee for TV that isn't very good - when you can pay a monthly subscription (that costs less) for one of those and have instant access to all sorts of different programmes and movies?

Only programmes left on BBC that I watch are Match of the Day and Graham Norton Show on a Friday night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

We all saw this coming though and the BBC are getting worse in all departments. I can't see the license fee being around much longer as we are gradually getting less for our money. It's getting difficult to justify.

---

We're getting a lot more for our money than we did a few years ago when there were only two BBC channels. Especially considering the license fee is at the lowest level since 1984 in real terms. And added to that the BBC has had to shoulder government-imposed costs like £900m for the move to Manchester and taking over funding the World Service from the Foreign Office.

I think your view of the BBC shows that successive governments have been quite successful in undermining the BBC in favour of their prominent commercial media friends.

More than likely the BDO darts will be dropped from the BBC as well, after the next Lakeside world championship. They already had a split-coverage deal with BT Sport last year, somewhat like the deal they did with Sky for F1.

I wonder how much the annual Wimbledon coverage costs. Perhaps Wimbledon doesn't award its TV contract on the basis of highest bid.

Um, also according to the F1 article, the BBC are not immune to financial troubles, like cutting F1 because of the cost, but can someone please tell me how retaining half Six Nations rights is saving money?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyL

We're getting a lot more for our money than we did a few years ago when there were only two BBC channels. Especially considering the license fee is at the lowest level since 1984 in real terms. And added to that the BBC has had to shoulder government-imposed costs like £900m for the move to Manchester and taking over funding the World Service from the Foreign Office.

I think your view of the BBC shows that successive governments have been quite successful in undermining the BBC in favour of their prominent commercial media friends.

---

We also have a lot more choice in terms of programming in this day and age. In 1984 people paid the license fee happily because it was the core choice on TV. I just think now with so much choice there is less of a need with the license fee.

Don't get me wrong I think the BBC make superb programs and have completely out done Sky in terms of the quality of the F1 coverage. But we have known for a long time they would eventually drop it and I think the BBC's portfolio is weaker now as a result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

The BBC needs sorting out from top to bottom with the things that have been going on there over the last 30 years. You saw cuts are made, but they are still paying the likes of Chris Evans huge sums of money to be a prat for a living.

My main concern was ads and now that it is confirmed as Channel 4 and ad-free (during the race) then I'm satisfied. ITV would never have agreed to ad-free, and that is probably how Channel 4 have won the deal.

I think, BDunnell, to suggest it is Conservative voters that caused this is a bit far-fetched...! At the end of the day, the BBC has been a declining force for many years now, long before the year 2010!

---

Politically naive, as ever. And your view typifies one of the most tiresome heard in any situation like this: "why should the BBC pay X for Y that I personally don't like?" Because others do, perhaps? Just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

I can't see BBC lasting much longer now myself. We are seeing a changing of the guard of TV currently. NOW TV, Amazon Prime and Netflix are the new ways of doing things and BBC are way behind the curve on this. Why pay a license fee for TV that isn't very good - when you can pay a monthly subscription (that costs less) for one of those and have instant access to all sorts of different programmes and movies?

Only programmes left on BBC that I watch are Match of the Day and Graham Norton Show on a Friday night.

---

Again, just because that's what you do doesn't mean that others are the same, you know. Millions of people consider the notion of a public service broadcaster deeply valuable. It would be even more so were it not forced to bow to commercial and governmental pressures. And it's not just the TV channels. I would happily pay the licence fee for Radio 4 and the World Service alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyL

We're getting a lot more for our money than we did a few years ago when there were only two BBC channels. Especially considering the license fee is at the lowest level since 1984 in real terms. And added to that the BBC has had to shoulder government-imposed costs like £900m for the move to Manchester and taking over funding the World Service from the Foreign Office.

I think your view of the BBC shows that successive governments have been quite successful in undermining the BBC in favour of their prominent commercial media friends.

---

Exactly — and that bone-headed sections of the electorate are perfectly happy in being complicit in doing so, without any thought as to the wider consequences. Yes, that does mean the likes of some people on here, for whose views I have no respect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Exactly — and that bone-headed sections of the electorate are perfectly happy in being complicit in doing so, without any thought as to the wider consequences. Yes, that does mean the likes of some people on here, for whose views I have no respect.

---

Am I included in that?
I'm still trying to understand the tone of your responses to me yesterday as I felt we shared similar views ultimately.

Worth pointing out that, of course, we haven't had the last live race on the BBC - because at the same time as announcing they were dropping the TV coverage, they did point out they've extended the radio contract to 2021.

Meanwhile, I suspect we haven't seen the last of Eddie Jordan. With his incomprehensible logic, dodgy wardrobe and curious financial decision making history, he's a shoo-in for the relaunched Top Gear, surely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inimitablestoo

Worth pointing out that, of course, we haven't had the last live race on the BBC - because at the same time as announcing they were dropping the TV coverage, they did point out they've extended the radio contract to 2021.

Meanwhile, I suspect we haven't seen the last of Eddie Jordan. With his incomprehensible logic, dodgy wardrobe and curious financial decision making history, he's a shoo-in for the relaunched Top Gear, surely.

---

I think EJ will possibly go over to sky as C4 have announced a new line up for 2016. I'm not sure about DC as he turned Sky down a few years ago. He may simply become a guest pundit.

Let's face it though neither EJ or DC need the money and only do it for pleasure. I can't see EJ doing Top Gear as he's known more as an F1 boss than a car enthusiast. I'm not sure it's his bag.

henners . PM .