I H8 feckin sky, they will soon have ALL sport its only a matter of time :(

Thee Beebs current deal was quite a good bargaining chip for extending their overage. Trust me, the Beeb didn't think they would be doing any F1 in just over 2 years time. This is the best result they could have hoped for.

I H8 feckin sky, they will soon have ALL sport its only a matter of time :(

You'll always have the alternative of paying Virgin Media instead of Sky, as i believe you can get most sky content through them too.

I suspect there is a political element to the BBC's decision to reduce its F1 coverage on cost grounds, as it'll get more publicity than if they said, for instance, that they were going to shut down BBC3. There's a good chance no one would notice the demise of BBC3.

It's the same as councils saying they're going to close libraries, it has a much bigger public impact. Sadly the BBC is a political animal and it generally acts as such.

As for reducing the cost of coverage, they could probably save quite a bit by reducing the pre race coverage to say 20 minutes, scrap the Brundle technical films and the red button coverage and reduce the number of people they send to each race. I'm sure peak F1 viewing figures start about 5 or 10 minutes before the race and finish 5 minutes after it's finished.

With viewing figures likely to at least halve for the Sky races, sponsors aren't going to be too impressed either.

Guys, there is no conspiracy, no clever manipulation of events and no saving of money for rich celebs pay packets involved here. BBC Sport gets a budget from the BBC and simply put, it couldn't afford to renew the full race coverage when it's current deal ran out. Therefore you would probably have zero coverage (or highlights at best) for the foreseeable future on terrestrial telly. The deal it did was the best possible option and overall a pretty good one.

If you want to blame anyone, blame F1 for making the racing better and attracting the sharks like SKY to splash out the big money for it.

Its not in the concorde agreement to have it only on FTA but cannt to only on pay tv. I think BBC where in a better position than they thought as f1 needed a FTA partner to get sky through. Teams only see a extra Bernie in their pockets.

If BBC had held firm then sky would have been out.

Its not in the concorde agreement to have it only on FTA but cannt to only on pay tv. I think BBC where in a better position than they thought as f1 needed a FTA partner to get sky through. Teams only see a extra Bernie in their pockets.

If BBC had held firm then sky would have been out.

The advertisers (and the teams) are apparently a little surprised by this deal, but it isn't yet clear whether the overall audience will go up or down. I guess if it goes up, then things will stay as they are (the shared deal). Interestingly enough, the BBC paid well over the odds for the current deal and they know they did.

The advertisers (and the teams) are apparently a little surprised by this deal, but it isn't yet clear whether the overall audience will go up or down. I guess if it goes up, then things will stay as they are (the shared deal). Interestingly enough, the BBC paid well over the odds for the current deal and they know they did.

It's hard to imagine how the audience figures would go up in the UK when half the events will only be available live to subscibers of Sky (which probably amounts to 6 or 7M with the right package, versus 25 to 30M license fee payers).

The BBC did the deal when Labour gave them a six year license fee deal and they were obviously feeling "flush". Now the the coalition has rained back the deal and frozen the fee for the next 6 years, the BBC have chosen to cut back on the high profile sporting events. I'm sure if BBC Sport looked at reducing operational and back office costs they could probably afford to pay more for the rights to this and other sports coverage.

It's hard to imagine how the audience figures would go up in the UK when half the events will only be available live to subscibers of Sky (which probably amounts to 6 or 7M with the right package, versus 25 to 30M license fee payers).

The BBC did the deal when Labour gave them a six year license fee deal and they were obviously feeling "flush". Now the the coalition has rained back the deal and frozen the fee for the next 6 years, the BBC have chosen to cut back on the high profile sporting events. I'm sure if BBC Sport looked at reducing operational and back office costs they could probably afford to pay more for the rights to this and other sports coverage.

The BBC has reduced it's operational cost by a large amount already and there are further cuts to come. I am already feeling the squeeze as a freelancer working for them. They have no money and scrimping and saving wont affect the big issues of buying rights for tv coverage. F1 also has pretty low viewing figures for many of it's live races, so if the BBC targets those for it's highlights package, then relatively few people will be affected

Its not in the concorde agreement to have it only on FTA but cannt to only on pay tv. I think BBC where in a better position than they thought as f1 needed a FTA partner to get sky through. Teams only see a extra Bernie in their pockets.

If BBC had held firm then sky would have been out.

FTA= Free to Air, right?

To me FTA means Free Trade Association like the EU, NAFTA etc.

TLA explanation please before first usage, thank you kindly.

FTA= Free to Air, right?

To me FTA means Free Trade Association like the EU, NAFTA etc.

TLA explanation please before first usage, thank you kindly.

Linky

The BBC has reduced it's operational cost by a large amount already and there are further cuts to come. I am already feeling the squeeze as a freelancer working for them. They have no money and scrimping and saving wont affect the big issues of buying rights for tv coverage. F1 also has pretty low viewing figures for many of it's live races, so if the BBC targets those for it's highlights package, then relatively few people will be affected

So basically it's a done deal and "tough" by the sound of things...

I am one of those who does watch the live races and therefore "will be affected". Although, if Mr V keeps winning, finding the off switch will be relatively easy.

So basically it's a done deal and "tough" by the sound of things...

I am one of those who does watch the live races and therefore "will be affected". Although, if Mr V keeps winning, finding the off switch will be relatively easy.

I hope it isn't a done deal, but excluding a minor miracle or pressure from the teams and advertisers, I can't see us getting it back on FtA for the foreseeable future :(

big question I thought of today is how many of the F1 tv team will remain? They must have get-out clauses for if the beeb lost coverage before the 5yrs.

So will they jump to Sky?

big question I thought of today is how many of the F1 tv team will remain? They must have get-out clauses for if the beeb lost coverage before the 5yrs.

So will they jump to Sky?

Well I guess the commentary team will still commentate for about 75% of all race footage seen on BBC (50% live and 25% from the fact that the highlights will be about half race time) so maybe they wont jump ship. I couldn't car less personally about the rest. Please SKY, take Eddie Jordon (I asked my bin men but they said they hadn't got a special wheelie bin for his kind of rubbish :( )

Can't stand watching the highlights.

I also wont be getting Sky as well as paying TV License. You shouldn't have to pay for this if you subscribe to Sky IMO.

The BBC has reduced it's operational cost by a large amount already and there are further cuts to come. I am already feeling the squeeze as a freelancer working for them. They have no money and scrimping and saving wont affect the big issues of buying rights for tv coverage. F1 also has pretty low viewing figures for many of it's live races, so if the BBC targets those for it's highlights package, then relatively few people will be affected

If my experience of working in the public sector is anything to go by, I doubt the BBC has even scratched the surface of efficiency savings, they simply do not know how. As a freelancer you'll be the first to be affected because it's easy and that way they can carry on with their internal inefficiencies whilst showing savings.

BBC1 has a budget of about £1.2B a year, I'd hardly call that "having no money". Also they broadcast F1 coverage in a number of other countries too (well that's what Brundle keeps saying during the commentary), for which they must receive money for.

This years Monaco GP had peak viewing figures of 6.1 million, which isn't a low figure in todays multi channel broadcasting world and averages around 4.5 to 5.5 million which is easily on a par with Top Gear (hardly a cheap show to produce).

I don't like it one bit, to be honest.

What I think would have been acceptable to the public would have been the BBC getting the standard race day coverage only, including HD images.

There could then have been the option to give sky the practice days, qualifying, race days and additional camera angles, such that they could have made an offering where people could choose to follow certain groups of cars that they were interested in.

That way the viewers who just want the race and would never pay for it don't give up on the sport and the people who want everything can pay for it, but also get some added benefits over what is there today.

As for the cost items, well yes to a point, but bearing in mind an F1 car and driver are covered in adverts then there is money coming in there.

Add more adverts to it in the form of commercial breaks and it's ruined and that's before you have to add in paying £50 a month to watch HD F1 through sky. (Don't forget the extra £10 a month charge for HD

Edited 2 August, 201114 yr by cheezemonkhai

If my experience of working in the public sector is anything to go by, I doubt the BBC has even scratched the surface of efficiency savings, they simply do not know how. As a freelancer you'll be the first to be affected because it's easy and that way they can carry on with their internal inefficiencies whilst showing savings.

BBC1 has a budget of about £1.2B a year, I'd hardly call that "having no money". Also they broadcast F1 coverage in a number of other countries too (well that's what Brundle keeps saying during the commentary), for which they must receive money for.

This years Monaco GP had peak viewing figures of 6.1 million, which isn't a low figure in todays multi channel broadcasting world and averages around 4.5 to 5.5 million which is easily on a par with Top Gear (hardly a cheap show to produce).

Actually the BBC staff are bearing a lot of the initial brunt of things. Some sections are recieveing massive pay cuts.

The viewing figures for the popular races have always been good, it's the unpopular ones that have poor ratings. The difference with Top Gear is TG can be sold on to other countries, the BBC owns nothing about F1. It didn't (and as far as I know still doesn't) have automatic access to the races from the Hunt/Walker days as F1 has copyright on the coverage.

I spoke to some of the BBC Sports production team last weekend and no doubt will be doing the same this weekend and they seemed to think they got of lightly. SKY could have stuffed them a lot worse than they did.

I stopped watching F1 when it went to ITV, the ad breaks in the middle of the race was a pain. When BBC got it back I at least made an effort to watch it.

being on Virgin i already get Sky sports, however with sky introducing new channels, & charging extra for HD, W would refuse to pay extar even if Vrigin offered them @ extra cost, I might watch one of the 1st races when sky get it, provided its not exclusively on HD to see if the break up the race with ads, if so , i will stop watching it completely again & if the football goes HD exclusive , Sky sports will go completely as an option.

Actually the BBC staff are bearing a lot of the initial brunt of things. Some sections are recieveing massive pay cuts.

According to the figures, the BBC wage bill rose by £9M last year to £1.02B, so not sure who's taking the massive pay cuts except those at the very top. Staff numbers haven't changed either (well actually they increased by 9, but that's neither here nor there).

I suspect the message the BBC staff want to pedal to anyone who'll listen and reality, might not be too closely related.

It would be interesting to know what other 4 to 6 million viewing figure shows the BBC were planning to axe to save costs? The Wimbledon's mens singles final, for instance, only got 5.5M viewers, so why don't the BBC drop that instead?

Sadly the BBC has been protected from the realities of economics by a succession of governments too scared of the "Murdochesque" influence of the broadcaster.

As an ex BBC employee and still someone who has many friends still there, as well as working them on a regular basis (Actually I am working with them tomorrow until Saturday), that is not what I hear. it isn't as simple as just money, but more hours being worked for the same money. Over at SiS they have been told a 7 hour day is now considered a half days work (so half a days pay)

The move to Salford is shedding a staggering number of jobs and it's only a few years since Pebble Mill was closed down with many people not being able to relocate out of work.

As an ex BBC employee and still someone who has many friends still there, as well as working them on a regular basis (Actually I am working with them tomorrow until Saturday), that is not what I hear. it isn't as simple as just money, but more hours being worked for the same money. Over at SiS they have been told a 7 hour day is now considered a half days work (so half a days pay)

The move to Salford is shedding a staggering number of jobs and it's only a few years since Pebble Mill was closed down with many people not being able to relocate out of work.

Not unlike the UK economy. The question they need to ask themselves is where the **** is all the money going because it's being spent somewhere.

Not unlike the UK economy. The question they need to ask themselves is where the **** is all the money going because it's being spent somewhere.

The Beeb spreads itself too think imho. 7 national radio stations, zillions of local ones and 5 network TV channels, to say nothing of the many regional TV facilities. I am only counting England in these figures too. Plus things like the iplayer, teletext and a huge amount of original programming add too the cost. Oh and then there are the many world class orchestras and such like. The result is in Manchester at least, they are leaving the bespoke city center broadcast facility and moving to a sort of timeshare office block with semi professional studios and semi skilled staff (they are a lot cheaper than the real pros). Sad times for everyone, you would think there was a global problem or something?

Plus when you look at the cost of modern technology it sometimes beggars belief. Just one 3D camera costs £500,000

As an ex BBC employee and still someone who has many friends still there, as well as working them on a regular basis (Actually I am working with them tomorrow until Saturday), that is not what I hear. it isn't as simple as just money, but more hours being worked for the same money. Over at SiS they have been told a 7 hour day is now considered a half days work (so half a days pay)

All depends what your contracts say. Usually will stipulate hour and days worked.

Cant see many signing up for 14 hour days willingly or knowingly, so seems like some creative interpretation of contracts is going on. Something a lot of firms are try on these days.