BBC and Sky awarded rights in new Formula 1 deal

[TheLegendOfMart]

I think its time for FOM to get with the times, in America all their big sporting events like MLB, NBA, etc.. all have web portals that you can pay a subscription for and watch all the games in HD over the internet. If FOM did something like that but for F1 with HD feeds, camera angles and stuff like Fanvision i would definately pay it just for F1.

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

Formula 1 teams seek clarification on new BBC/Sky television deal

Formula 1 teams are to seek clarification from Bernie Ecclestone on the new BBC/Sky television deal amid concerns about the sport moving away from free-to-air television in 2012.

In a shock announcement on Friday morning, the BBC and Sky announced that they would be sharing coverage of F1 in Britain next year - with Sky showing every race on its subscription channels and the BBC showing only half of them.

That move has led to outrage from fans, who are unhappy that they will not be able to follow every race on free-to-air television.

Team principals have also expressed some surprise at not having every race shown on free-to-air television, but they want more details from Ecclestone to find out what the specifics of the deal are.

McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh said that he would seek more information from Ecclestone, especially because he felt it important F1 was not taken off free-to-air.

"As I understand BBC are covering half the grands prix, and Sky are doing every practice session and everything else. It's interesting," he told AUTOSPORT. "I don't think anyone should be immediately reacting to say this is good, bad, or indifferent.

"What we need to understand is whether the large audience we currently enjoy in Formula 1 will be maintained. I think we also need to understand exactly how this is being done."

Whitmarsh said moves to take F1 off free-to-air could be viewed as a breach of the Concorde Agreement, with him claiming that there were clauses in the deal that ties the teams, Ecclestone and the FIA together that guarantees the sport's broadcast platform.

"We've got a range of safeguards within Concorde, and the right thing to do is to explore how the Formula 1 coverage is going to be dealt with in the future, and take a view from there," he said. "I don't know how many homes in the UK have Sky, but it is a pretty high proportion."

Williams chairman Adam Parr said the key was understanding the finer details of the arrangement - because what teams lose in widespread television viewing figures could be gained in an increased revenue from Sky.

"In principle I have no issue with optimising the balance between the revenues that we need, and getting a good reach in the audience," he told AUTOSPORT. "The devil is in the detail.

"I think it is a balance and, without knowing the details, you cannot comment on whether it is good or bad. What I do know is that Bernie is a very passionate believer in getting the broadest audience possible and I think he has almost certainly done this in order to do that. "

When asked what his message would be to disappointed fans, Parr said: "I am sympathetic to them. I understand it is difficult - but English Premier League fans have had that for a while haven't they?

"The one thing I would say, which I have said before, I know that whether you are coming to a race or are watching the sport at home and have to do that on pay TV which seems expensive, people have to bear in mind what it costs to put on this show. It is part of the character of F1.

"For us to design and build the two cars that we will have on the grid on Sunday here, without putting an engine in them, without putting a driver in them, without accounting for the 70 staff that we bring to each race ? without all of that those cars cost ?2 million. You multiply that by all the cars on the grid and that is ?24 million minimum of the costs just to make the parts. That is part of the show.

"It is not a bloke or two blokes with a tennis racket and a pair of plimsolls with zero cost. It is a very, very expensive sport. The best thing we can do for fans, whether they want to come to the races or want to watch it on TV, is to reduce the cost of the sport without spoiling the show."

Parr also pointed out that the Sky/BBC deal was part of a changing media platform ? and he drew comparisons between it and the 'freemium' platform of AUTOSPORT.

"I think that media distribution has changed so much, whether you have gone from paper magazines to a combination of magazine and online," he said. "For example, if you are a lover of AUTOSPORT you have a subscription service there as well as a free-to-air element. The whole media landscape is changing so quickly.

"The argument from AUTOSPORT would be: we cannot do this for free. We can get some revenue from advertising on the website, some from selling magazines, but we have to optimise our income ? and if you want the really good quality of the coverage that you love it is not free, we have to pay to get people to the events.

"It is a question of degree and balance but also recognising that the way media is distributed is changing. It may well be that the next time around it is not Sky because Google has won the bid and we are all watching it live on the Internet."

BBC commentator and former F1 driver Martin Brundle said on Twitter that he was "not impressed" with the deal.

"BBC/Sky/F1 2012+. Found out last night, no idea how it will work yet I'm out of contract, will calmly work through options. Not impressed," he wrote.

Source: Autosport

[Lilrich]

This is horse ****

[TheLegendOfMart]

Whitmarsh what a ****. He was blathering on about how F1 needed to stay free to air, now hes saying as long as the money is right from Sky he doesnt give a **** about the fans. I wont be renewing my Mclaren Team Membership when it runs out.

[SoyoS]

Why the hell do Sky get to show all the races and the BBC only get half? How in anyway is that a compromise? ****ing *******s at Sky can't keep their noses out of anything!

Whitmarsh what a ****. He was blathering on about how F1 needed to stay free to air, now hes saying as long as the money is right from Sky he doesnt give a **** about the fans. I wont be renewing my Mclaren Team Membership when it runs out.

That wasn't Martin that was Parr, Martin was remaining indifferent until he got all the facts, Parr was just thinking of the monies.

[Axel]

THIS IS A BULLSH**! :angry:

[tomwarren Veteran]

The more I think about this, the more I think the BBC shoulders the blame here. We pay a hefty licence fee and what do we really get in return? The BBC has decided to cut costs to save its other investments in BBC 3 etc.

[DrCheese]

I think it's a little unfair to blame the BBC for this. The license fee has been frozen for 6 years so they are having to make large cuts across the board. It's unlikely they would spend the kind of money per viewer that F1 demands on anything else, so it was cut.

As for the BBC 3 argument, they won't cut BBC3 or 4 because it exists for the same reasons that other companies such as ITV/C4 have multiple digital channels. It allows people to watch a variety of programming from one provider (i.e the BBC) during prime time, rather than being forced to look elsewhere to find something to watch.

[He's Dead Jim]

Sad day, for motorsport, for motorsport fans, just go and jump in the lake already Bernie... :(

[Depicus]

This is the worst day of my life! :cry:

worst day of your life ... so far :D

[anthdci]

I am not at all happy about this. I do blame the BBC to which I pay my license fee for them to have crap like BBC3/BBC4/Radio6 that no one watches or listens to, sure they are going to loose more viewers by not having the F1 than they would loose by cutting those pieces of trash.

[TheLegendOfMart]

I think it's a little unfair to blame the BBC for this. The license fee has been frozen for 6 years so they are having to make large cuts across the board. It's unlikely they would spend the kind of money per viewer that F1 demands on anything else, so it was cut.

As for the BBC 3 argument, they won't cut BBC3 or 4 because it exists for the same reasons that other companies such as ITV/C4 have multiple digital channels. It allows people to watch a variety of programming from one provider (i.e the BBC) during prime time, rather than being forced to look elsewhere to find something to watch.

Cut costs elsewhere, they dont need 10 TV channels and 16 or so Radio channels. Stop giving 'talent' double figure million wages.

[Olive Game Studio]

Cut costs elsewhere, they dont need 10 TV channels and 16 or so Radio channels. Stop giving 'talent' double figure million wages.

My thoughts are that you cant spread your budget across so much. You either show F1 properly or you don't. What is the point of seeing half live and then the other half in some other way. It's not even delayed transmission but highlights. That's not much fun. This goes back to the way it has been on ITV and BBC with an inadequate budget.

I have no objections to watching it on Sky (bar the cost) but it has to be completely live on one channel and that seems the way it's going to be.

[DrCheese]

You missed what I said above, multiple channels allows them to show a wide range of programs that appeal to different people at the same time. In the past if the main channels were clogged up with sports you had no choice but to look outside the BBC for something to watch. They don't want you to do this.

In the case of their "16" radio channels, if you are referring to the local stations, that's quite a large part of the BBC's whole "PSB" remit. They would never get away with scrapping those in favour of F1. Even if you aren't, look at the amount of abuse they got when they tried to close 6 music.

Stop giving 'talent' double figure million wages.

I think people overstate this. In the case of Jonathan Ross's big contract when he worked there, the millions he earnt were split between his entire production company, i.e all the staff + costs of making the show.

Like it or not, F1 only appeals to a certain amount of viewers and the BBC simply do not feel it's worth the investment anymore considering they are in a budget freeze in terms of ? spent per viewer and ? taken from their more popular entertainment shows and/or their PSB obligations. Remember, the BBC has to appeal to everyone and it looks silly if money is taken from other projects to fund a single sport.

If you want to blame anyone, blame the government for forcing the license fee freeze on them at the 11th hour last year (It's frozen until 2016, no increases, not even inflation) and forcing them to fund the world service from their own pocket, rather than the gov funding it directly via the foreign office. Not to mention the government refusing to give the BBC back the bit of license fee that is currently used to help fund digital switchover after 2012.

[SoyoS]

You missed what I said above, multiple channels allows them to show a wide range of programs that appeal to different people at the same time. In the past if the main channels were clogged up with sports you had no choice but to look outside the BBC for something to watch. They don't want you to do this.

In the case of their "16" radio channels, if you are referring to the local stations, that's quite a large part of the BBC's whole "PSB" remit. They would never get away with scrapping those in favour of F1. Even if you aren't, look at the amount of abuse they got when they tried to close 6 music.

I think people overstate this. In the case of Jonathan Ross's big contract when he worked there, the millions he earnt were split between his entire production company, i.e all the staff + costs of making the show.

Like it or not, F1 only appeals to a certain amount of viewers and the BBC simply do not feel it's worth the investment anymore considering they are in a budget freeze in terms of ? spent per viewer and ? taken from their more popular entertainment shows and/or their PSB obligations.

If you want to blame anyone, blame the government for forcing the license fee freeze on them at the 11th hour last year and forcing them to fund the world service from their own pocket, rather than the gov funding it directly via the foreign office. Not to mention the government refusing to give the BBC back the bit of license fee that is currently used to help fund digital switchover after 2012.

F1 pulls in 5 million+ viewers every time it's on, that's a huge amount for a Motorsport and significantly more than Sky get for their sports coverage.

[DrCheese]

Again tho, that's only one group of people who watch it. There's plenty other viewers that the BBC has to appeal to and justify the license fee for them. They'd be mighty peeved if their shows were canceled or if something like news was cut back to fund F1.

BBC has to appeal to all license fee payers, Sky sports does not.

I'm sure the BBC would much rather show the entire thing, however the license fee freeze + increased funding commitments + the F1 Management wanting more ???? prevents that.

[TheLegendOfMart]

Again tho, that's only one group of people who watch it. There's plenty other viewers that the BBC has to appeal to and justify the license fee for them. They'd be mighty peeved if their shows were canceled or if something like news was cut back to fund F1.

BBC has to appeal to all license fee payers, Sky sports does not.

I'm sure the BBC would much rather show the entire thing, however the license fee freeze + increased funding commitments + the F1 Management wanting more ???? prevents that.

Its not like F1 is on constantly though, its on one or two weeks a month for 2/3 hours on sat and sun its not going to interrupt much programming. I welcome the freeze, with raises and inflation think how much it would cost in 10 years time for a licence, well over ?200 probably. They need to change how they work.

[DrCheese]

It has nothing to do with how often it's on, as the BBC have a ton of channels they can put it on... It's entirely an issue with funding and return from that funding.

Also that arguement can easily backfire. If it's not on that much, it doesn't justify the cost?

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

Sky to show F1 races without adverts in 2012

Sky has confirmed its F1 race coverage in 2012 will be free of adverts.

A spokesperson told F1 Fanatic: ?There won?t be any ad breaks. Every second of every race will be live and uninterrupted.

?It will be the only place to watch every race live.?

Sky?s plans are at an early stage having just announced the deal, and decisions are yet to be taken on who will be involved in its coverage.

While Sky has begun broadcasting some sports in 3D the spokesperson said it was ?way too early to say? whether this could also be used for F1 ? which has only made its debut in HD this year.

The spokesperson said the price of a Sky subcription would not increase before September 2012 and added: ?We?ll give it the full Sky Sports treatment: it will be on Sky Sports News, Sky Sports dot com, across mobile and online.?

Source: F1fanatic

[123456789A]

As long as the announcers shut up about Lewis Hamilton, I don't care who broadcasts it.

[therat]

Should really be staying on the BBC, at least Sky wont have any ad breaks.

[acnpt]

At least the BBC didn't pull out altogether, which they were considering.

[TheLegendOfMart]

For those that cant get satellite you should look into Sky Go, you can buy a streaming subscription and stream them in HD over internets, there is no price yet its coming next month, maybe something to look into it should be a fraction of a sky subscription.

Sky Go Monthly Ticket

With a Sky Go Monthly Ticket you can enjoy great TV from Sky online at home or on the go without an annual contract or dish. Watch up to 32 live channels - including Sky Sports 1-4, Sky Movies, Sky Atlantic, Sky 1 and more - plus hundreds of shows and movies on demand.

Sky Go Monthly Tickets will be available from August. Simply register your details to be one of the first to hear when it?s ready.

here

[vanx]

For those that cant get satellite you should look into Sky Go, you can buy a streaming subscription and stream them in HD over internets, there is no price yet its coming next month, maybe something to look into it should be a fraction of a sky subscription.

here

Read the small print...

Sky Go: Available in UK and ROI only. Broadband (minimum 2Mbps recommended per device) or 3G connection (180-1400Kbps recommended depending on content/device) required. Available on 2 registered compatible devices. Non-Sky TV Customers: Subscriptions ?15-?40/?18-55 per month. ESPN ?9-?12/?12-16 p/m extra (or standalone at ?16/?20 p/m). Monthly subscriptions renew automatically until you unsubscribe. Some content only available to Sky TV subscribers. General: Sky Go content is SD. Residential customers only. Registration required. Mobile network, broadband and/or Wi-Fi charges may apply. To access Sky Go on your Xbox 360 you need an Xbox Gold Live subscription. Some programmes from live Sky TV channels are unavailable via Sky Go (see www.go.sky.com ). Availability of content may depend on your device type. PC with Microsoft Windows XP, Windows 7 or Vista, Intel based Mac, or iPhone (3G, 3GS or 4), iPad or iPod touch with iOS 4.0 or above and Sky Go app installed required. Further terms apply.

So no HD, can't watch on PC at home, laptop in hotel and a mobile device of choice. And some content is for Sky TV viewers only as well.

[Elessar]

I'll be sticking to my online streams. I live in the US anyway so no option to watch it on TV here unless SPEED somehow covers it. I feel extremely bad for the viewers over in Europe who have BBC and will now have to pay for Sky or go without. Terrible decision by Bernie...clearly a money-orientated douchebag who needs to be removed. Sadly, he's just ruined F1 further for the next 7 years.