Forum home Commuter cycling forum Commuting chat

Ta ta Decent F1 Coverage

prawnyprawny Posts: 5,407
edited August 2011 in Commuting chat
Saracen Tenet 3 - 2015 - Dead - Replaced with a Hack Frame
Voodoo Bizango - 2014 - Dead - Hit by a car
Vitus Sentier VRS - 2017
«1345

Posts

  • Paul EPaul E Posts: 2,052
    Oh well, not that I watch sky sports anyway but the bit's I have seen are very erm american and over the top graphics and stats wise.
    bartman100 wrote:
    The OP is a troll = moron
    The OP actually believes this = moron
  • iPeteiPete Posts: 6,076
    BOOO.

    Does this mean Sky have to offer this on freeview though or will the Concord agreement change?
  • Paul EPaul E Posts: 2,052
    iPete wrote:
    BOOO.

    Does this mean Sky have to offer this on freeview though or will the Concord agreement change?

    Yeah I am not sure if the concord agreement will allow only half the races to be free to air only

    You can guarantee that the most lucrative races will be cherry picked by sky to be shown only by them too.
    bartman100 wrote:
    The OP is a troll = moron
    The OP actually believes this = moron
  • CyclingBantamCyclingBantam Posts: 1,299
    I don't watch F1 but why is this bad news? IMO Sky televise sport brilliantly. For everything you can throw at them I find their actual coverage untouchable. Certainly a lot better than BBC or ITV (I'm comparing Football and Cycling here).

    Seems good news for coverage if you ask me.
  • KoncordskiKoncordski Posts: 1,009
    That sucks but to be fair there's no way the BBC could outbid Sky for all the races. Oh well, enjoy it upto 2013.

    #1 Brompton S2L Raw Lacquer, Leather Mudflaps
    #2 Boeris Italia race steel
    #3 Scott CR1 SL
    #4 Trek 1.1 commuter
    #5 Peugeot Grand Tourer (Tandem)
  • asprillaasprilla Posts: 8,440
    edited July 2011
    I don't watch F1 but why is this bad news? IMO Sky televise sport brilliantly. For everything you can throw at them I find their actual coverage untouchable. Certainly a lot better than BBC or ITV (I'm comparing Football and Cycling here).

    Seems good news for coverage if you ask me.

    One of the biggest issues F1 fans seem to have is that Sky will break for ads, like ITV used to to and this would usually correspond to the exact time when the only overtake in the entire dreary procession took place.

    Also, if you don't have sky but do like F1 you've not got to fork out £55 a month for the pleasure.

    What's that? Sky announce record profits?
    Koncordski wrote:
    That sucks but to be fair there's no way the BBC could outbid Sky for all the races. Oh well, enjoy it upto 2013.

    Actually, this is the BBC exiting their current deal early in order to save cash.
    Mud - Genesis Vapour CCX
    Race - Fuji Norcom Straight
    Sun - Cervelo R3
    Winter / Commute - Dolan ADX
  • nichnich Posts: 888
    I think as a virginmedia customer it would cost me about £25 a month to get a sub to the channel on sky.

    Not sure I can really justify this, but I am a massive F1 fan, a sad sad day for me :(
  • DonDaddyDDonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    edited July 2011
    I don't watch F1 but why is this bad news? IMO Sky televise sport brilliantly. For everything you can throw at them I find their actual coverage untouchable. Certainly a lot better than BBC or ITV (I'm comparing Football and Cycling here).

    Seems good news for coverage if you ask me.

    It is, arguably, a British institution to have F1 on terrestrial TV. And to that point BBC's F1 coverage has been superb as was it's World Cup coverage and in the past so has it's Athletics coverage. (IMO)

    Moreover I don't have Sky (or Virgin) and have no intention of forking out upto and above £50 to watch programmes that should really be provided as part of my TV licence fee.

    Sport (the more mainstream ones) should be accessible to all IMO via ordinary TV, funded in part by the TV licence and Sky TV should remain a luxury choice. However, it is quickly becoming compulsory should you own a TV and leaves me questioning why I have to pay for a TV licence anymore...
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • greg66_tri_v2.0greg66_tri_v2.0 Posts: 7,172
    I don't watch F1 but why is this bad news? IMO Sky televise sport brilliantly. For everything you can throw at them I find their actual coverage untouchable. Certainly a lot better than BBC or ITV (I'm comparing Football and Cycling here).

    Seems good news for coverage if you ask me.

    If you have Sky, it's a matter of complete indifference.

    If you don't, and have no desire to have Sky, it's utterly censored .

    So, let's see, which camp are you in, and which camp am I in...?

    [steeples fingers]
    Might have to install a slingbox at mother's and take a feed from that. Hmm.
    [/steeples fingers]
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • DonDaddyDDonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    Could you imagine if the Olympics or the World Cup were only available on Sky...

    Isn't there some media ethics this encroaches.

    Disgusting.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • Paul EPaul E Posts: 2,052
    I don't watch F1 but why is this bad news? IMO Sky televise sport brilliantly. For everything you can throw at them I find their actual coverage untouchable. Certainly a lot better than BBC or ITV (I'm comparing Football and Cycling here).quote]

    I don't watch football on bbc or anywhere but the bits I saw of it on sky were awful and over the top, the BBC do an amazing job with F1 and I don't see how SKY can cover it with the same level of expertise and respect the sport deserves.
    bartman100 wrote:
    The OP is a troll = moron
    The OP actually believes this = moron
  • Rich158Rich158 Posts: 2,348
    asprilla wrote:
    I don't watch F1 but why is this bad news? IMO Sky televise sport brilliantly. For everything you can throw at them I find their actual coverage untouchable. Certainly a lot better than BBC or ITV (I'm comparing Football and Cycling here).

    Seems good news for coverage if you ask me.

    One of the biggest issues F1 fans seem to have is that Sky will break for ads, like ITV used to to and this would usually correspond to the exact time when the only overtake in the entire dreary procession took place.

    Also, if you don't have sky but do like F1 you've not got to fork out £55 a month for the pleasure.

    What's that? Sky announce record profits?
    Koncordski wrote:
    That sucks but to be fair there's no way the BBC could outbid Sky for all the races. Oh well, enjoy it upto 2013.

    Actually, this is the BBC exiting their current deal early in order to save cash.

    I seem to remember many moons ago when the original BSB/SKY merger was put it front of the monopolies & mergers commision that the issue of sports coverage was raised and Murdoch claimed that that side of business was effectively bankrupt anyway and would be out of business pretty soon so it wasn't an issue. Oh how things change
    pain is temporary, the glory of beating your mates to the top of the hill lasts forever.....................

    Revised FCN - 2
  • ahem...so if I didn't want to watch a stream of the live coverage in future where would I not go?

    If not and on the positive side though, if BBC still do extended highlights of the ones they can't be arsed to show live, it'll leave more time for Sunday training rides. Absolutely no way I'm paying twice to watch F1.

    Also - I really dislike Sky with a passion regardless of this news. Of course I want the riders to do well but for me it makes the one 'British' cycling team really hard to like. I know it's just a name and a logo but it makes me cringe.
  • To be honest, the BBC could never really schedule enough time for F1, which requires long-blocks. It was also very expensive for them. Better to be on a devoted channel, IMO.
  • nicklousenicklouse Posts: 81,520 Lives Here
    "Do not follow where the path may lead, Go instead where there is no path, and Leave a Trail."
    Parktools :?:SheldonBrown
  • colsoopcolsoop Posts: 217
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    I don't watch F1 but why is this bad news? IMO Sky televise sport brilliantly. For everything you can throw at them I find their actual coverage untouchable. Certainly a lot better than BBC or ITV (I'm comparing Football and Cycling here).

    Seems good news for coverage if you ask me.

    It is, arguably, a British institution to have F1 on terrestrial TV. And to that point BBC's F1 coverage has been superb as was it's World Cup coverage and in the past so has it's Athletics coverage. (IMO)

    Moreover I don't have Sky (or Virgin) and have no intention of forking out upto and above £50 to watch programmes that should really be provided as part of my TV licence fee.

    Sport (the more mainstream ones) should be accessible to all IMO via ordinary TV, funded in part by the TV licence and Sky TV should remain a luxury choice. However, it is quickly becoming compulsory should you own a TV and leaves me questioning why I have to pay for a TV licence anymore...

    Totally agree with the above..
  • prawnyprawny Posts: 5,407
    It blows for me, I've got sky but I'm not forking out for sky sports again.

    Hopefully Formula 1 will be the ones that really lose out. If they want to move coverage away from the masses I'm not desperate to follow them.

    I'll switch my alleigence to semi free to air motorsport. V8 Supercars anyone?
    Saracen Tenet 3 - 2015 - Dead - Replaced with a Hack Frame
    Voodoo Bizango - 2014 - Dead - Hit by a car
    Vitus Sentier VRS - 2017
  • CyclingBantamCyclingBantam Posts: 1,299
    Oh I absolutely appreciate that if you don't have Sky it is very annoying but that is basically the issue isn't it. That people are going to have to pay for something that they didn't have to previously.

    I can quite easily come back with the question as to why should I have to pay for F1 within my TV licence when I don't watch it. With it being so expensive to the BBC it is taking a disproportionally high percentage of the license fee.

    To me it just seems a bit tough luck if you are a fan of F1 but you can't really be outraged.

    As for the old, British Institution, that is a load of old rubbish. It is no more an institution than the Tour de France.
  • jamescojamesco Posts: 687
    What would be the most effective way of ensuring the broadest coverage at the lowest price? Any game-theorists on here?

    How about if it was forbidden to have exclusive coverage? If broadcaster A negotiates coverage for X pounds, then all other broadcasters can stream the same coverage for 0.95X pounds. This takes away the exclusivity and therefore the incentive for Sky to pay so much for coverage.
  • suzybsuzyb Posts: 3,449
    I'll be getting a load more Sunday's back then.
  • DonDaddyDDonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    Is this the BBC's retaliation for not being able to put up license fees? Is F1 broadcast on free-to-air TV channels in other Countries? Is this just another case of rip-off Britain because a number of the F1 teams are based in Britain ergo relatively large fanbase so many will make the switch to Sky, as the British often do, quietly disgruntled while the BBC maintains it's profit margins and Sky lines it's pockets more so.

    I'm - mybreakfastconsisted levels of - annoyed at this.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • jamescojamesco Posts: 687
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    quietly disgruntled while the BBC maintains it's profit margins
    DDD, if you think that the BBC has "profit margins" the you seriously misunderstand the purpose of the Beeb.
  • Paul EPaul E Posts: 2,052
    As for the old, British Institution, that is a load of old rubbish. It is no more an institution than the Tour de France.

    It is, the modern F1 championship started at silverstone, the vast majority of teams are based here and so are most of the skills so you can say it's an institution here.
    bartman100 wrote:
    The OP is a troll = moron
    The OP actually believes this = moron
  • DonDaddyDDonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    jamesco wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    quietly disgruntled while the BBC maintains it's profit margins
    DDD, if you think that the BBC has "profit margins" the you seriously misunderstand the purpose of the Beeb.

    I know what I mean.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • nationnation Posts: 609
    Well that's a bit censored .

    There's no way I'm paying for Sky purely for F1. Can probably stream
    the Sky-only races from a foreign broadcaster though. I wonder if they'll have the commentary on the radio?
  • CyclingBantamCyclingBantam Posts: 1,299
    DDD - Sorry but as soon as someone comes out with phrases like "Rip off Britain" people with a brain stop listening. You should post your comment on www.DailyMail.co.uk I'm sure you will find equally disgruntled people!

    Also you need to listen to Jamesco.

    Why is it such a big deal? The licence comes up for renewal. If you don't want a TV licence nobody forces you to get one. Why do people think that you TV is a 'need' like Gas or electric?

    I totally get that if you are a fan it is probably really annoying but it isn't 'wrong' or 'disgusting' it's just the way of the world. I am annoyed I can't watch cycling on 'free' tv but I have decided to get Sky so I can watch it. If I got to the point where I was struggling to afford it I would get rid.

    I used to buy loads of bike stuff but as stuff seems to get more expensive I have cut back. Annoying but just a fact of life.
  • jamescojamesco Posts: 687
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    I know what I mean.
    You might know what you mean, but I haven't got a clue ;)

    The Beeb isn't around for profit - it's a public service broadcaster. If you're gonna blame anyone, blame Sky, as this is straight from Murdoch 101: use exclusive sports coverage as a wedge to get people to pay for subscriptions.
  • nationnation Posts: 609
    I suppose the BTCC and MotoGP audiences will benefit.

    I haven't seriously followed the BTCC in ages. I should probably check it out again.
  • CyclingBantamCyclingBantam Posts: 1,299
    Paul E wrote:
    As for the old, British Institution, that is a load of old rubbish. It is no more an institution than the Tour de France.

    It is, the modern F1 championship started at silverstone, the vast majority of teams are based here and so are most of the skills so you can say it's an institution here.

    But it isn't a 'TV' institution though. Nothing is.

    The BBC has a pretty hard job IMO. They should work out how much they are prepared to pay for sports and not just keep upping the budget to keep them. Why should inflated prices for sport (which are way above most other programming) take so much budget. I think the fans should have to pay for stuff that is so expensive (like I do for Football and Cycling)
  • I thought the Beeb were getting the rights to the British GP and the last race of the season anyway.
Sign In or Register to comment.