formula 1 Formula 1 World Championship 2016 Season Discussion

[what]

20 hours ago, vanx said:

Guys, I get how you feel, but good Formula 1 coverage is not cheap to produce and we are far from the days when advertising could subsidise it 100%. And the fact that broadcasting teams have to jet around the world with all their equipment etc is not helping. Could BBC/Channel4 get a couple of people to sit in a situation back in UK and just commentate on what they see on their screens? Sure, but just that kind of coverage would suck and Bernie would still want his slice.

 

Formula 1 coverage is not going away: live radio is still here and there are and will be highlights. Better than nothing, you have to admit. Finally, if you're such a hardcore F1 fan, forking out for a sub or sky sports pass on Now TV would be worth it, because Sky's coverage is fantastic.

Don't try and defend this. You shouldn't have to be well off to enjoy a global sport - especially one that has been free to view for decades. Moreover Bernie is the one complaining most about declining viewer figures and then he signs the sport up to a deal that will lock many fans out of the live coverage. Radio does NOT work in motorsport and highlights is nothing compared to the live action. The move is motivated by greed and again proves how away with the fairies F1s management is. 

 

F1 coverage need not cost a lot to produce. If they cared, the governing bodies could subsidise a basic coverage package from the enormous fees they take from teams and tracks. As for saying Sky's coverage is fantastic - it's highly recycled material with a lot of irritating hosts. Flashy intro videos do not make it worth the money.

[+John. Subscriber¹]

2 hours ago, what said:

Don't try and defend this. You shouldn't have to be well off to enjoy a global sport - especially one that has been free to view for decades. Moreover Bernie is the one complaining most about declining viewer figures and then he signs the sport up to a deal that will lock many fans out of the live coverage. Radio does NOT work in motorsport and highlights is nothing compared to the live action. The move is motivated by greed and again proves how away with the fairies F1s management is. 

 

F1 coverage need not cost a lot to produce. If they cared, the governing bodies could subsidise a basic coverage package from the enormous fees they take from teams and tracks. As for saying Sky's coverage is fantastic - it's highly recycled material with a lot of irritating hosts. Flashy intro videos do not make it worth the money.

Agreed 100%

 

Plus, Martin Brundle is possibly the most annoying presenter currently on TV. Every single race it's always about something he's done like it, or what he would have done better *cough* never won a race *cough* 

 

First thing he said when Alonso crashed was "I remember when that happened to me!" and? 

[i11usive]

4 hours ago, John. said:

Agreed 100%

 

Plus, Martin Brundle is possibly the most annoying presenter currently on TV. Every single race it's always about something he's done like it, or what he would have done better *cough* never won a race *cough* 

 

First thing he said when Alonso crashed was "I remember when that happened to me!" and? 

Brundle is one of the best commentators in F1 ever...his attention to detail is incredible!

[+John. Subscriber¹]

12 hours ago, i11usive said:

Brundle is one of the best commentators in F1 ever...his attention to detail is incredible!

Each to their own i guess

[vanx]

On 26/03/2016 at 2:28 PM, what said:

Don't try and defend this. You shouldn't have to be well off to enjoy a global sport - especially one that has been free to view for decades. Moreover Bernie is the one complaining most about declining viewer figures and then he signs the sport up to a deal that will lock many fans out of the live coverage. Radio does NOT work in motorsport and highlights is nothing compared to the live action. The move is motivated by greed and again proves how away with the fairies F1s management is. 

 

F1 coverage need not cost a lot to produce. If they cared, the governing bodies could subsidise a basic coverage package from the enormous fees they take from teams and tracks. As for saying Sky's coverage is fantastic - it's highly recycled material with a lot of irritating hosts. Flashy intro videos do not make it worth the money.

Paying £30-something a month is not a privilege reserved for well-off people. That's an affordable price. It's in the region of average broadband or mobile phone bill amount. And just because a sport has been on free to view TV for years in the past, it does not mean that it is a model that is always sustainable. Look at Italy, Germany, Latin America, USA, etc: F1 coverage in those countries is on pay TV as well. Look at Premier League coverage in the UK: there is not a single match in the whole season that is shown live on free, terrestrial TV. There are no riots, people manage.

 

I think the proof will be in the pudding. If Sky's exclusive stance tanks in the long run, perhaps there will be a return of live F1 on free-to-view TV. As it stands, neither BBC nor Channel 4 have been able to build a long-term pipeline of coverage.

[MightyJordan]

Quote

McLaren has hit upon a radical plan to improve its F1 fortunes – ask Honda to give everything to Ross Brawn and then ###### off.

 

‘After conducting extensive analysis of our current non-optimal situation, we have concluded that the problem is Honda,’ said a team insider. ‘We have also noticed that it worked really well that last time Honda gave something to Ross Brawn and then ######ed off.’

 

Sources say McLaren has drawn up a road map of how their plan would work, starting with Honda handing ‘all their stuff’ to Ross Brawn and then ‘######## right off’.

 

‘For Honda, there are two key elements here,’ explained someone close to the project. ‘One, give Ross the ######. And two, ###### off’.

 

‘I like the sound of this,’ said Jenson Button, wistfully.

http://sniffpetrol.com/2016/03/29/mclaren-comes-up-with-brawn-based-recovery-plan/#.Vvpa8qcrKUl If only...

[Skiver Veteran]

13 hours ago, vanx said:

Paying £30-something a month is not a privilege reserved for well-off people. That's an affordable price. It's in the region of average broadband or mobile phone bill amount. And just because a sport has been on free to view TV for years in the past, it does not mean that it is a model that is always sustainable. Look at Italy, Germany, Latin America, USA, etc: F1 coverage in those countries is on pay TV as well. Look at Premier League coverage in the UK: there is not a single match in the whole season that is shown live on free, terrestrial TV. There are no riots, people manage.

 

I think the proof will be in the pudding. If Sky's exclusive stance tanks in the long run, perhaps there will be a return of live F1 on free-to-view TV. As it stands, neither BBC nor Channel 4 have been able to build a long-term pipeline of coverage.

I'm sorry but I'm with others on this. 

 

Looking at Sky right now it tells me It would cost me £25.50 per month with a "no more than £2 price rise" on June 1st. So you're looking at something that's going to cost upwards of £300 a year just to enjoy a single sport? If you like football, Golf or one of the many other sports then sure it's not a big deal but I cannot justify that cost. 

I know there are alternatives like a £10 Sky Sports Now TV Pass but still paying £10 per race doesn't sit well for me. 

 

As others have stated, complaining about declining viewer ship and then moving to a paid service has got to be the stupedist thing I've ever heard, taking a quote from James Allen it's not hard to see with the differences between some free to view races having an average of more than three times what Skys paid service provides. I'd have liked to see a like for like comparison where both channels had full race but that seems to be the best I can find at a quick search.

Quote

The audience for F1 in the UK, once it moves exclusively behind a paywall, will be interesting to monitor. It should settle at somewhere around 1 to 1.5 million. Last year live coverage of the US Grand Prix championship decider, live on Sky Sports 1 and Sky Sports F1, attracted a combined average audience of 1 million, with a peak of 1.2m. As a reference, BBC 1’s live audience for the Hungarian GP was watched by an average 3.9m with a peak of 5m. When Lewis Hamilton won the 2008 world championship the title decider in Brazil on ITV was watched by 9m average and peaked at over 12m.

 

[vanx]

3 hours ago, Skiver said:

I'm sorry but I'm with others on this. 

 

Looking at Sky right now it tells me It would cost me £25.50 per month with a "no more than £2 price rise" on June 1st. So you're looking at something that's going to cost upwards of £300 a year just to enjoy a single sport? If you like football, Golf or one of the many other sports then sure it's not a big deal but I cannot justify that cost. 

I know there are alternatives like a £10 Sky Sports Now TV Pass but still paying £10 per race doesn't sit well for me. 

 

As others have stated, complaining about declining viewer ship and then moving to a paid service has got to be the stupedist thing I've ever heard, taking a quote from James Allen it's not hard to see with the differences between some free to view races having an average of more than three times what Skys paid service provides. I'd have liked to see a like for like comparison where both channels had full race but that seems to be the best I can find at a quick search.

 

With Sky Sports NOW TV pass, you can buy monthly and March to November would be 8 months, so it will be £250-260. And you'll get loads more live sports, not just F1. And no contract either, so you can cancel and not pay for future months. As you mentioned, with a day pass, you will pay even less. Just because you are unwilling to pay that amount, it does not mean that other people are not and Sky should reduce the price and/or relinquish its exclusivity clause.

 

Also, it's clear that F1 was not sustainable on free-to-view TV. If figures on terrestrial were so good, why haven't C4 been able to make it work for more than a few years? You need to embrace reality that big players in pay TV market, for better or for worse, are going to keep investing in exclusive rights to content in order to attract people to their services. Free-to-view highlights, British GP in its entirety and live radio coverage are there for those who are not willing to part with their hard-earned. However, given how little there is of live football on free-to-view TV (and football is a bigger sport, at least in UK, than F1), the initial reaction from fans was always going to be a storm in a tea cup.

 

 

[Noir Angel]

The question of sustainability isn't one I could easily answer, but a large portion of the prize pot comes from the equally extortionate circuit hosting fees. What this came down to was Bernie going with whoever writes him the biggest cheque (as per usual). If it wasn't for that poisonous man and the amount of profit he and his companies drain from F1, the sport would be perfectly sustainable on FTA TV. If you want to retain viewers, moving it to such an expensive TV platform is, without doubt, an asinine decision.

[Skiver Veteran]

2 hours ago, vanx said:

With Sky Sports NOW TV pass, you can buy monthly and March to November would be 8 months, so it will be £250-260. And you'll get loads more live sports, not just F1. And no contract either, so you can cancel and not pay for future months. As you mentioned, with a day pass, you will pay even less. Just because you are unwilling to pay that amount, it does not mean that other people are not and Sky should reduce the price and/or relinquish its exclusivity clause.

 

Also, it's clear that F1 was not sustainable on free-to-view TV. If figures on terrestrial were so good, why haven't C4 been able to make it work for more than a few years? You need to embrace reality that big players in pay TV market, for better or for worse, are going to keep investing in exclusive rights to content in order to attract people to their services. Free-to-view highlights, British GP in its entirety and live radio coverage are there for those who are not willing to part with their hard-earned. However, given how little there is of live football on free-to-view TV (and football is a bigger sport, at least in UK, than F1), the initial reaction from fans was always going to be a storm in a tea cup.

 

 

The problem is thats £250-260 I and many others are not paying today. Formula one is pretty much the only sport I watch, I'd watch MotoGP but that's gone off to BT now so that's a no go. So paying that for one sport, for effectively 20 weekends of the year for me is hard to justify when my money could be best spent elsewhere. I know it's a very personal point of view here but I just find this so infuriating that I work hard to bring in and provide for my family, I have very few wants in the world. A new Xbox game now and then and to be able to sit down and watch the F1 when it's on are pretty much the closest things I can call a hobby outside of family time. So to suddenly have to watch the thing you've loved to enjoy slowly be taken away and put behind a paywall is just a bit crappy.

 

Could I afford it? Sure I probably could but for me it's just not the point.

I think the question around why has C4 not been able to make it work is a bit early to even ask. I don't think this is a case of a channel, that  is literally only months into its contact with one race down, not having the ability to put on a good show. This is more about the money, as it always has been with Bernie. and no doubt Sky being able to offer a bigger amount to buy that exclusivity.

 

If a sport like Formula 1 is not sustainable it has nothing but it's ridiculous escalating costs, which again is more to do with Bernie and the governing body then it is to do with anything else that has put the sport in this position. This is why we see the likes of Monza and Silverstone being put under the chopping block year in and year out, the money demands from those in charge are the problem.

 

At the end of the day I know I'm not entitled to my sport of choice being available for free when many others are not, I get that, but it does not make the pill any easier to swallow.

[what]

If your opinion is that £250 to watch the farce that is modern F1 is good value then that's fine, but I'm not going to sit here agreeing with it.

 

Fortunately we are in a world where pirate streams are excellent quality and easily available so in reality no one has to miss out.

[+John. Subscriber¹]

1 hour ago, what said:

If your opinion is that £250 to watch the farce that is modern F1 is good value then that's fine, but I'm not going to sit here agreeing with it.

 

Fortunately we are in a world where pirate streams are excellent quality and easily available so in reality no one has to miss out.

The trouble is with that quote is that it means less people will be willing to pay for a high quality stream, and this is what causes companies like Sky to raise its prices. 

 

Say you're a company that wants to stream a race at £5. I guarantee you'll find 5 people that will pay £1 a stream, rather than 1 person willing to pay £5 a stream. The company still makes the same money, and their ads will potentially reach more people, but Sky just doesn't see that.

[what]

10 minutes ago, John. said:

The trouble is with that quote is that it means less people will be willing to pay for a high quality stream, and this is what causes companies like Sky to raise its prices. 

 

Say you're a company that wants to stream a race at £5. I guarantee you'll find 5 people that will pay £1 a stream, rather than 1 person willing to pay £5 a stream. The company still makes the same money, and their ads will potentially reach more people, but Sky just doesn't see that.

They will raise their prices exponentially when the exclusivity contract comes into effect anyway. It might be £250 now but I bet it isn't in 2020.

[vanx]

On 29/03/2016 at 6:01 PM, Skiver said:

The problem is thats £250-260 I and many others are not paying today. Formula one is pretty much the only sport I watch, I'd watch MotoGP but that's gone off to BT now so that's a no go. So paying that for one sport, for effectively 20 weekends of the year for me is hard to justify when my money could be best spent elsewhere. I know it's a very personal point of view here but I just find this so infuriating that I work hard to bring in and provide for my family, I have very few wants in the world. A new Xbox game now and then and to be able to sit down and watch the F1 when it's on are pretty much the closest things I can call a hobby outside of family time. So to suddenly have to watch the thing you've loved to enjoy slowly be taken away and put behind a paywall is just a bit crappy.

 

Could I afford it? Sure I probably could but for me it's just not the point.

I think the question around why has C4 not been able to make it work is a bit early to even ask. I don't think this is a case of a channel, that  is literally only months into its contact with one race down, not having the ability to put on a good show. This is more about the money, as it always has been with Bernie. and no doubt Sky being able to offer a bigger amount to buy that exclusivity.

 

If a sport like Formula 1 is not sustainable it has nothing but it's ridiculous escalating costs, which again is more to do with Bernie and the governing body then it is to do with anything else that has put the sport in this position. This is why we see the likes of Monza and Silverstone being put under the chopping block year in and year out, the money demands from those in charge are the problem.

 

At the end of the day I know I'm not entitled to my sport of choice being available for free when many others are not, I get that, but it does not make the pill any easier to swallow.

You are sending mixed messages here. You say that you can afford it, believe that you are not entitled to your sport of choice for free and highlight it as being something that is near and dear to your heart, yet you are not willing to part with your hard-earned sums for the pleasure. Sounds like you are just bitter about free stuff that you like a lot going away and this is your initial reaction.

 

Everyone wants more money: the drivers, the teams, the track circuits, the investors, etc. So long as there are parties willing to pay increasing sums, that spiral is going to continue its course.

On 29/03/2016 at 7:30 PM, what said:

They will raise their prices exponentially when the exclusivity contract comes into effect anyway. It might be £250 now but I bet it isn't in 2020.

Prices go up for most things with time due to inflation and other factors. Sure, Sky is not about to complain about that, but it's still how the cookie crumbles.

[what]

12 minutes ago, vanx said:

Prices go up for most things with time due to inflation and other factors. Sure, Sky is not about to complain about that, but it's still how the cookie crumbles.

Just to make the point more obvious: as soon as Sky becomes the only broadcaster offering live races, they will be able to charge whatever the hell they want. Inflation won't come into it, they can just name the price.

[vanx]

35 minutes ago, what said:

Just to make the point more obvious: as soon as Sky becomes the only broadcaster offering live races, they will be able to charge whatever the hell they want. Inflation won't come into it, they can just name the price.

Agreed but there will be, as there are now, a number of price tiers at which people can access the content they produce. However, as a public business, they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximise revenue and increasing prices is one way of doing so. Those who do not like it can vote with their wallet.

[MightyJordan]

10 minutes ago, vanx said:

Agreed but there will be, as there are now, a number of price tiers at which people can access the content they produce. However, as a public business, they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximise revenue and increasing prices is one way of doing so. Those who do not like it can vote with their wallet.

Hopefully they will. Formula 1's loss could be another series' gain; at the moment, either Formula E or the BTCC, since - to my knowledge - they're the only other motorsport series (on four wheels) that get shown on Freeview over here in a serious capacity.

 

EDIT: I just remembered Motors TV is on Freeview (albeit HD-only, so I can't watch it on my SD tuner), so there's probably a few other series to add to the list, but I couldn't say which ones off the top of my head.

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

 

 

[simonlang]

guess which lucky guy just yesterday placed a bet on alonso? 

[MightyJordan]

He's got a fractured rib, and there's a chance he could be out of the Chinese GP, too: http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2016/03/31/rib-fracture-could-delay-alonso-return/

[vanx]

Crash in Barcelona last year, this thing this year. Maybe the F1 gods are trying to tell him something...or maybe he wants to send a message of his own.

[Skiver Veteran]

18 hours ago, vanx said:

You are sending mixed messages here. You say that you can afford it, believe that you are not entitled to your sport of choice for free and highlight it as being something that is near and dear to your heart, yet you are not willing to part with your hard-earned sums for the pleasure. Sounds like you are just bitter about free stuff that you like a lot going away and this is your initial reaction.

 

Everyone wants more money: the drivers, the teams, the track circuits, the investors, etc. So long as there are parties willing to pay increasing sums, that spiral is going to continue its course.

Prices go up for most things with time due to inflation and other factors. Sure, Sky is not about to complain about that, but it's still how the cookie crumbles.

Of course I am, who wouldn't be? I don't think it's a bad thing to be frustrated by something you enjoy for free being taken away? The problem with committing to any sort of payment is where could that money have gone otherwise and right now I have a longer list for places to put my money (and better places imo) then I can afford so to start subscribing to Sky Sports OR to buy now TV passes, for me personally, is not money well spent.

 

So what will happen, as it has already started to happen with the loss of all races being live, is my interest will decrease more and more until the point I just don't bother. Watching a race almost used to be religion with me, getting up at 5am to watch the fly aways, refusing to work that weekend because a race was on. I even joked about my daughter not having her Birthday party one year because her party could have been the same weekend as Silverstone. The races that are live are the only ones I try to watch but if work comes up then oh well I'll avoid the internet or radio and watch it when I'm home because it's not such a big deal anymore when I'm missing half the races anyway.

 

Anyway, we can talk about this forever but it doesn't matter at the end of the day, 2019 is still far away and who knows what will change between now and then.

[Chasethebase Reporter]

Quote

F1 Agrees To Do What’s Best For Fans And Not The Money

 

Fed up with all the negative press, Formula One chiefs have met up and finally agreed to sort things out and get the sport back in track. Bernie Ecclestone, Jean Todt and F1’s Team Principals all agreed they’d start making decisions that made F1 better for the fans and not just for themselves during a meeting on April 1st.

 

“I’m just so bloody rich already and I thought to myself, maybe I’m too rich,” the 85-year-old revealed in a video on YouTube before FOM took it down for copyright infringement. “Perhaps at my age it’s time to stop thinking about money and make the sport that made me so rich, better for everyone.”

 

During the controversial video Ecclestone admitted he’d fund classic circuits like Monza himself as it was basically “pocket change” for him.

Source: WTF1

[dipsylalapo Supervisor]

Ah if only ^

[MightyJordan]