110 replies to this topic

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer]

Its about £400 to £500 for the year.

And I do bloody object because:

1) Bernie gave a commitment as part of the Concorde agreement that F1 would remain free to air

2) Bernie brokered this deal with no regard to fans

3) I would rather stick needles in my eyes than give money to the Murdoch empire


Not being a martyr, I could afford it if I wanted to. Just if you are a true F1 fan I can't see how you could be comfy with this. Its not the money its the principle of the thing.

Obviously I am the only one who thinks this way so I'll shut up...

Edited by Grabthaw the Hammerslayer, 03 March 2012 - 03:13 PM.

[AleHop]

Grabthaw the Hammerslayer, on 03 March 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

Its about £400 to £500 for the year.

And I do bloody object because:

1) Bernie gave a commitment as part of the Concorde agreement that F1 would remain free to air

2) Bernie brokered this deal with no regard to fans

3) I would rather stick needles in my eyes than give money to the Murdoch empire


Not being a martyr, I could afford it if I wanted to. Just if you are a true F1 fan I can't see how you could be comfy with this. Its not the money its the principle of the thing.

Obviously I am the only one who thinks this way so I'll shut up...

I see, no way I would pay that ammount for the whole season. I don't really know how BBC work with the money, they get it from taxes, fees, ads... I don't know. I just don't want tax money paying F1, football or any other non essential service, it should be fans or companies (ads, sponsors) who pay that.

So I would pay a reasonable ammount of money on a race by race basis so I decide what I want and what I don't want to pay for. At the same time I understand you don't like Murdoch empire. Same things happens in Spain with most sport right holders and broadcasters.

I defend your rights to complain.

[Massa]

You're not the only one; I feel like you're the majority.  I think people are just frustrated hearing about it when it's all we've heard for months.  People act entitled to see F1, but unfortunately, they are not.  I'll give you 1; I'll also raise that these aren't circumstances you really foresee.  I think 2 can be debated.  No regard to the fans is not putting highlights on BBC.  No regard to the fans is saying "we'll only show half the races, and the other half won't even be televised at all, since no free-to-air channel can pick up the rest."  No regard to the fans is not making any TV contract revenue and the sport having to make serious cuts to things.  No regard to the fans is reminding them how people in other countries, time zones, and eras had to follow F1...ranging from just about every race being on at 4:30 AM, to races not being shown at all, to a time when F1 was going to the race at Watkins Glen and reading about the rest in National Speed Sport News.

I realize F1 has a strong history and following in the U.K.  But that doesn't entitle anything to defy the marketplace.  The cost and level of viewership landed it where it went.  It's easy to criticize the cost as terrible and greedy without knowing the expense, and let us never question how many people actually are watching on BBC.

I don't think it's unfair to be upset about it, I really don't, and I am really disappointed that a lot of great guys (Hammers Layer, George, Steve, Jimmy) may not be able to contribute as much out of difficulty even seeing the races.  But I do think it's unfair to say you would rather stick needles in your eyes than subscribe to Sky, only to then complain that you chose not to subscribe to Sky.  I sympathize with the situation, but I don't sympathize with the complaints (but you have every right to complain, and I have every right not to read it, so post what you like).

It just always seems to be the business (Ecclestone, Murdoch, etc). is the "bad guy" and the customers that choose to support their businesses (us, by watching F1 on TV, and attending races, at the very least support FOM, and therefore have no right to criticize Bernie when we empower him) need protection from their own choices.  Never mind the fact we only see the people at the top, and never the people they employ who wouldn't be feeding their families otherwise...

But that's all going in a bad direction.  All this to say: everything has a cost.  The cost of things often change.  The cost of F1 has changed.  Figure out what you value, if F1 is worth £25 per race (or £50 per race if you watch the rest on BBC) or not...

...and then remember that decisions change and some people dead-set on not ever getting Sky are going to miss this stuff and subscribe.  And some people who jumped on board with Sky are going to decide it wasn't worth it and cancel...

...and then remember that the cost of F1 will change again and you'll be making decisions again...

There's no right or wrong way, but I wonder if there would be anything to be gained by focusing on the races you can watch, and not on the ones you can't.  It's something I've been doing for years, which doesn't make it right, or better, just that it keeps me content to enjoy the races I see and not worry about how hard it is for me to watch the USAC stuff I grew up with for years before I even knew what NASCAR and F1 and the Indy 500 were.  Maybe someone would find themselves more content with that perspective.  Maybe not.

I wish you all well in finding ways to watch and enjoy the 2012 season with the rest of us, I truly do.

[JHS18]

Grabthaw the Hammerslayer, on 03 March 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

Its about £400 to £500 for the year.

And I do bloody object because:

1) Bernie gave a commitment as part of the Concorde agreement that F1 would remain free to air

2) Bernie brokered this deal with no regard to fans

3) I would rather stick needles in my eyes than give money to the Murdoch empire


Not being a martyr, I could afford it if I wanted to. Just if you are a true F1 fan I can't see how you could be comfy with this. Its not the money its the principle of the thing.

Obviously I am the only one who thinks this way so I'll shut up...

Completely agree, well said.

A lot has been said about the Sky deal already here, and I know you lucky b#####ds guys are sick of us talking about it.

But seriously - okay I know F1 is a business and blah di blah bullsh*t bullsh*t. I recognise if it wasn't for this deal it may not be on BBC at all etc, etc, etc...

But primarily, F1 is a sport, a sport that exists because of the FANS. For too long, F1 hasn't given a monkeys about the fans, and this is just more evidence that's exactly the case.

You can dismiss it all you want - but the facts are that the UK remains one of the biggest fan bases of F1. The British Grand Prix is one of the highest attended races EVERY season, without fail. It's where more than half the teams choose to base themselves.

People stuck by the sport through rough times, and F1 has seen a huge upsurge in interest in recent years thanks to the sport being on free-to-view TV. How do they repay the loyalty British fans have shown? First, they try to get rid of the British Grand Prix because Bernie's a butt hurt, senile old fool who has hated Silverstone all his life, and now this.

It is just so completely hypocritical, after all the years of Bernie saying it would never go to a subscription channel, and only a few weeks before the deal was announced saying (and I quote) "It'd be suicide for F1 to go to Sky."

If F1 only cares about covering it's own a** in sponsors with all this talk of "Oh we're a business" - F1 never was a business to start with. It was a sport for people to enjoy. Recently, it's got too corporate, and that has just made the whole thing an increasing joke.

You'll probably be sat there thinking "Oh so what doesn't apply to me" and a lot of you are good guys - but it is frustrating to read that. It is frustrating to me to see that something I've been so interested in for most my life suddenly gets taken away for most the year. It's beyond frustrating, and I don't think a lot of you guys outside the UK really understand that, because, oh wait, you aren't in that same position. I bet you'd sound very different if it DID suddenly apply to you. You'd find it isn't so easy to simply "build a bridge".

For some people it isn't so easy as just getting Sky or watching an illegal online stream.

I could afford Sky, but it is expensive. When the economy is this crap and so many people are struggling - you really think everyone's just going to get Sky at the drop of a hat? What about other people who may not even have internet? What about them? I know of some older people who have been F1 fans for 50+ years, but because they can't have Sky and they don't have internet, they're stuck with some watered down, half baked crappy highlights at a random time of the day.

Don't you feel a little bit sorry for people like that? Oh wait, you probably don't.

What is even more frustrating for me is how this COULD have been avoided. At Hungary there was talk that BBC would get tape delayed coverage of the entire race, but Bernie said crap like "I'd rather they just have highlights".

That is clear evidence for me F1 is rapidly becoming a joke. They don't care about the fans at all, they don't even care about the sport. All they're after is financial gain.

This probably comes across as very ranty - so I apologise in advance, but let's just say the "Oh shut up and just deal with it" attitude other members hold is becoming annoying.

Okay, I'm done. I'll say no more.

Edited by JHS18, 03 March 2012 - 05:40 PM.

[Insider]

The biggest disadvantage, especially for fans who travel a lot in their jobs is that Sky will not be streaming the F1 channel broadcasts live through Sky Go. BBC iPlayer was perfect for this.  Pay your $10 a month for a VPN service and Bob's your uncle - even on an iPad! That option is depleted somewhat now.

My wife Jan is disabled and likes F1 as much as I do and as much as anything, it is why we added the channel to our existing package - no Virgin Media in the Hampshire boonies, I'm afraid. However, there are some third party services who will be streaming the live Sky F1 feed.

[LabradoRacer]

Much as I hate Murdoch, I don't really see anything wrong with him or Bernie trying to make money. Promises count for nothing; we all love and want money.


That said, Sky's rates do seem exorbitant. In such cases, market forces will always force such a company to make a suitable correction in pricing later on (though viewers may lose out on a season).

[Massa]

The great thing about posting, I feel, is inviting your views to be critiqued.

Quote

But seriously - okay I know F1 is a business and blah di blah bullsh*t bullsh*t. I recognise if it wasn't for this deal it may not be on BBC at all etc, etc, etc...

So how is it BS to say F1 is a business?  Describe to me how making a profit, breaking even, and suffering a loss all result in the same outcome for F1, and then you can say it is not a business.

Quote

But primarily, F1 is a sport, a sport that exists because of the FANS. For too long, F1 hasn't given a monkeys about the fans, and this is just more evidence that's exactly the case.

Do you suppose that the fact the fans still watch and still attend races has made it unnecessary for F1 to change whatever attitude it is you are perceiving?  Whether they care or not about fans, they know that the fans are still coming back for more, no matter what they say.  Why should they change their attitude when everyone detests it in their words but accepts it in their choices?  You vote with your money.  We give money to FOM voluntarily, when we go to races, when we watch, even on benevolent old BBC.  If F1 doesn't care about you, and you are upset by that, don't give them your money.  The business will keep doing what it's doing when the customer enable it to.

Quote

You can dismiss it all you want - but the facts are that the UK remains one of the biggest fan bases of F1. The British Grand Prix is one of the highest attended races EVERY season, without fail. It's where more than half the teams choose to base themselves.

No one denies that.  It doesn't mean you're entitled to anything, though.  You earn things in the marketplace.  They earned this TV deal based on all the factors.

Quote

People stuck by the sport through rough times, and F1 has seen a huge upsurge in interest in recent years thanks to the sport being on free-to-view TV. How do they repay the loyalty British fans have shown? First, they try to get rid of the British Grand Prix because Bernie's a butt hurt, senile old fool who has hated Silverstone all his life, and now this.

I sure wish I could make that much money being senile and butthurt.  I'd love evidence of 1) his state of mental health and 2) his deep resentment for Silverstone.  Or are those just assumptions that, when someone does something that we don't agree with, they must be mentally unwell, or have a vengeful motive?

Quote

It is just so completely hypocritical, after all the years of Bernie saying it would never go to a subscription channel, and only a few weeks before the deal was announced saying (and I quote) "It'd be suicide for F1 to go to Sky."

Do we fully know the situation?  What if, for example, Bernie knew that Sky was the only option he had?  So he decides, well, if we have to go to Sky, which he doesn't really want to do and is only doing reluctantly, we need to get as much money out of the Sky deal as possible so we can at least gain something (that could perhaps be put back in justifying airing highlights on BBC).  As such, he criticizes Sky publicly, in hopes that they'll raise their bid even higher since there is no competition to drive it up.

Obviously, that's not factual at all: that's just to show you that these things can all work in so many different ways that we wouldn't even be able to guess.

Quote

If F1 only cares about covering it's own a** in sponsors with all this talk of "Oh we're a business" - F1 never was a business to start with. It was a sport for people to enjoy. Recently, it's got too corporate, and that has just made the whole thing an increasing joke.

It was a sport for people to enjoy?  When?  When did F1 not require money to exist?  It was always a business.  Now it's just a bigger business, one that we have all empowered and validated by contributing our money toward, directly or indirectly (you watch races - viewership goes up - TV revenues increase - FOM makes money).

It still is a sport of people to enjoy, if they choose to enjoy it.  It's a sport, not a legal right.

Quote

You'll probably be sat there thinknig "Oh so what doesn't apply to me" and a lot of you are good guys - but it is frustrating to read that. It is frustrating to me to see that something I've been so interested in for most my life suddenly gets taken away for most the year. It's beyond frustrating, and I don't think a lot of you guys outside the UK really understand that, because, oh wait, you aren't in that same position. I bet you'd sound very different if it DID suddenly apply to you. You'd find it isn't so easy to simply "build a bridge".

Actually, this has applied to me.  The Truck Series went to SPEED before I ever had it.  USAC disappeared from U.S. TV; I saw my first USAC race before you were born, or so I'm told.  ALMS races are shown next-day as highlights.  Go in the other racing section.  Find the threads about why I am being screwed because it's not easy for me to watch USAC and ALMS, easily two of my favorite series, if not my top two.  Find the threads about why I am being screwed because Champ Car doesn't exist.  I talk about the races I do watch, not the ones I can't.  I focus on what I have and just enjoy that.  I realize I've been a huge whiner in the past, but you don't hear us saying F1 should change it's start times to benefit our countries, or whatever.  It doesn't make me right or a bigger person, but don't call us out and make it personal.  Don't tell us how we would act when we haven't acted.  You don't know the situations of everything we are interested in and how it gets televised.  Favorite TV shows get canceled, hockey games are only shown regionally, etc.  It happens.  Some people care a lot about what they don't have, some people just appreciate what they do have.  Two different perspectives, I've been trying to take the latter the older I get.

At the end of the day, I don't see threads where the British posters are outraged when there are changes to TV deals in foreign countries.  And that doesn't make you bad people, at all, it just means it's silly to say "YOU ALL SHOULD CARE" and that "YOU WOULD CARE IF IT WERE YOU" but really, a lot of times what we fault in others, is really just what we fault in ourselves.  I think you'd find a lot of us sympathize with the fact your situation isn't ideal; I think you'd find a lot of us even empathize with it.

[Massa]

Quote

I could afford Sky, but it is expensive. When the economy is this crap and so many people are struggling - you really think everyone's just going to get Sky at the drop of a hat? What about other people who may not even have internet? What about them? I know of some older people who have been F1 fans for 50+ years, but because they can't have Sky and they don't have internet, they're stuck with some watered down, half baked crappy highlights at a random time of the day.

No, we don't.  We don't expect you to.  But life is full of choices and there's not always a good one.

I like that we have never seen what the BBC highlights are like, and they are already "watered down, half-baked, and crappy."  An F1 race rarely lasts longer than 80 minutes.  I have a feeling you could really make a compelling highlights package with a race that short and not miss much.  Give the highlights a chance before you say they're so terrible.

Quote

Don't you feel a little bit sorry for people like that? Oh wait, you probably don't.

I sympathize with the people who don't go looking for sympathy.

Quote

What is even more frustrating for me is how this COULD have been avoided. At Hungary there was talk that BBC would get tape delayed coverage of the entire race, but Bernie said crap like "I'd rather they just have highlights".

See his side.  If BBC don't pay for coverage of the whole race, you can't give it to them.  If Sky are entering a contract, they need to be served, just like everyone else does.  If Sky wanted exclusivity for their races, and paid for exclusivity, that's how it goes.  And you can call that greedy and terrible and all that, but remember, there are "normal" people making "normal" incomes who work at Sky, I am sure of it.

Quote

That is clear evidence for me F1 is rapidly becoming a joke. They don't care about the fans at all, they don't even care about the sport. All they're after is financial gain.

They're after financial gain so that they can put the sport on for the fans to watch.  You may not like that, but if you're asking for sympathy, would you sympathize with all the team employees getting laid off if the sport stopped making money?

If you hate F1 so much, it would seem to me that it's not a problem that it isn't on TV!

Quote

This probably comes across as very ranty - so I apologise in advance, but let's just say the "Oh shut up and just deal with it" attitude other members hold is becoming annoying.

I do this, James, because you're better than this, and we all know it, and I would hope that people would do the same to my posts.  Please, please, please don't take it personally.

[LabradoRacer]

Grabthaw the Hammerslayer, on 03 March 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

Its about £400 to £500 for the year.

And I do bloody object because:

1) Bernie gave a commitment as part of the Concorde agreement that F1 would remain free to air

2) Bernie brokered this deal with no regard to fans

3) I would rather stick needles in my eyes than give money to the Murdoch empire


Not being a martyr, I could afford it if I wanted to. Just if you are a true F1 fan I can't see how you could be comfy with this. Its not the money its the principle of the thing.

Obviously I am the only one who thinks this way so I'll shut up...

Maybe I shouldn't have used the word 'martyr' as it sounds unnecessarily harsh & critical.

The only 'justification' I've is that the numerous complaints here sounded straight out of a "First World Problem" meme.

[Rainmaster]

Just to clarify my position and answer a few points raised by various posts: I'm not "anti business" in the sense I can see why it happened. I just don't think the deal is a good one, and I'd prefer something like what Alehop suggested where you pay for individual sessions. I think there are other ways of doing it that are better value. Like Lab says, hopefully the price will go down a bit next year.

I don't see Bernie as a bad guy, just a somewhat shady but effective businessman, who is for me a racer at heart. Murdoch is a different story, and any reasonable person who knows about how his media empire has impacted on this country, and how his newspapers operate  and what they have done, could not be happy to give money to his organisation. You can make the "he's just a good businessman" argument as much as you like, but eventually you have to face the ethical questions of what he represents. He makes Bernie look like a Saint. But I'm sure there are plenty of well meaning people working in his companies, but for most people it's pretty hard to look past the top guys and what the companies themselves seem to stand for.

I'm also not saying it is the biggest issue in the world, either, there are far worse things and watching F1 free to air was always a luxury. But this is an F1 forum with many British members, and the season is coming very close, so I wonder why it is that some people seem so surprised or annoyed that the issue is being discussed here (in this one specific thread). And I don't think anybody has been going on about it either, it's hardly been discussed except when the announcement was made and now So stop complaining about us complaining, and be thankful you can enjoy coverage wherever you are.

[AleHop]

#46, on 03 March 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

So stop complaining about us complaining, and be thankful you can enjoy coverage wherever you are.

They can't stop, they've been for years coping with awful race times and it seems they're on a rage in revenge mode.

[JHS18]

Not at any time have any Brits said all you guys should care - go back to the start of this topic, and we didn't invite you to talk about it. In fact, if you don't care about it, and it doesn't have an impact on you, then why are you even talking about it? I think it is evident from all the negative comments that Brits have made since the deal was announced is that very few people are simply going to build a bridge.

It's great it doesn't have an impact on you - by all means enjoy the season. But don't expect Brits to just accept this.

The anger comes because since Formula One was shown on British TV, it has always, ALWAYS been on free to view channels. At one stage, it was only as highlights on BBC before I was born - but it has always been on free-to-view channels like BBC and ITV.

The anger comes from the fact that THERE WERE alternatives. Channel 4 put in a pitch for F1, but it was turned down.

The anger comes from the fact that everyone in F1 doesn't give a sh*t and don't see how it is a bad thing.

For instance - Bernie has been putting the cost of the rights up and up? Why? For what reason? I can't see why you'd keep putting the cost of the rights up. He has effectively caused this by himself - because when the Coalition Government came in to power, they froze the BBC license fee. That means they get less money to make programmes, etc, Bernie being the money grabbing idiot he is still decides it is a good time to put the cost of the rights up - then this happens. Sure, BBC could have done things differently - but this is ALL F1 and Bernie's doing for being too damn greedy. There's making profit, then there's being greedy.

The fact is - as you can see from all the negative comments - that THIS is going to negatively impact on F1. If half F1 fans in the UK don't buy Sky, don't stream it online or whatever - then that is a huge loss for the sport. Only last season the BBC was seeing record viewing figures for both qualifying and the race. It is clear that viewing figures are going to drop substantially thanks to this. There's no two ways around it.

You can all say it is our loss for not buying into F1 - but in fact it is F1s. People will more on - but not in the way you mean. Quite a few will stop watching. Others will watch other forms of motorsport instead - the BTCC for one will no doubt come out of this very well, but that's for another topic.

Eric - Bernie has ALWAYS had a problem with Silverstone ever since the BRDC refused to sell it to him. Whatever they've done, whatever the crowd has been, he has never had a positive word for them. He criticised them even after the recent multi-million development. What does the place have to do? Gold plate the grandstands or something? Meanwhile, he heaps praise on places like Abu Dhabi, and sure, whilst they may be great facilities, there's only one man and his dog there to watch the race.

It's pretty obvious he has an issue with Silverstone - again, no two ways around it.

You honestly think that Bernie's ideas have been great?

What about his medal idea?
What about tracks having "short cuts"?
What about artificial rain, of all things?

This could have been avoided - that is why everyone's angry.

Sure - F1 isn't free. But firstly, they price people out of going to races with ridiculous ticket prices when other sports offer much, much better value for money, then they price people out of watching the damn thing on TV! You guys are honestly having a laugh if you think we're all going to pay £400 to £500 for Sky just like that. Like I've said - maybe my family could afford it, but right from the start I've said no because that's ridiculous money when the economy's weak and that money could rightly be used on more important things than TV.  F1 is important to me, but it isn't that important. As I've said already, a lot of the times like when F1 isn't on, I wouldn't be watching it anyway. It's not worth the money.

Highlights will suck because F1 isn't a sport that you can just do that to. Like, just as in football you wouldn't just show the goals and the final score, you wouldn't just show the overtakes in F1. F1 is about the build up to overtakes, the changing strategy, the unpredictability of the weather, etc, etc, etc - and there's no way highlights will ever do that sort of thing justice.

As I've said elsewhere - I'm not watching it in pubs because if you can find one that'll show F1 on a day football's on...well, good luck.

And I'm refusing to watch it online, because for one there probably won't be any streams anyway and I wouldn't be comfortable doing so. Okay, I stream things like NASCAR live, but only because otherwise I can't watch it at all. But if BBC's showing highlights, well I'll wait till that than use an illegal stream.

Again - it's not my loss - it's F1 loss. Because it is evident I'm not alone in my views. F1's forgotten the golden rule - the customer is always right. I don't know when the heck they're doing to wake up and see sense - maybe later this year when they see viewing figures have been down after years of them increasing.

Sure, perhaps this is all a load of sour grapes after years of being spoiled - but as I've said, if it doesn't apply to you, no need to worry about what we think, right?

Edited by JHS18, 03 March 2012 - 06:40 PM.

[LabradoRacer]

Damn it, Jim, you corrected your post before I could point out the "view <---> few" typo.

[Quiet One]

Criticizing the critics is valids...I rule...you may go on

[Massa]

Sensing that I have caused the problems here, I:

1) Apologize for responding to people and not to points, though I still disagree.

2) Maintain that you have every right to post what you would like, and I have every right to read, reply, or not read, and not reply.  There need not be any discussion there, and I hope it never came across as if I were trying to tell you what not to say.  I was just trying to provide perspective, because I have been here before with things I want to watch not being televised in the way I want them to be, and I, as well as the others who replied, was addressed under the assumption that I 1) had never experienced anything like this (false), 2) only care about myself (sometimes ), and 3) the people who care about this would care when it happens to others (which I am in no position to evaluate; I just perceive, maybe wrongfully, that it is easy, and I am not saying anyone was doing this, for the self-interested to fault the self-interested when interests don't align.  I saw, and maybe I saw wrongly, or should have just not engaged, that there were a lot of people looking for sympathy over situations that all of us deal with, whether it was F1 or something else we care about, and situations that are trivial to the people who we really should be sympathizing with, none of whom are on computers reading and posting.  But then I say that we can say whatever we want, so I can't really fault anyone, which is why I don't fault anyone as a person or as a poster, for talking about it; I just handle it differently than I see people handling it here but that does not make my way right, or your way wrong, and I've tried to be clear).  I just hate assumptions, as often as I use them.  When I said we only fault in others what we fault in ourselves, I meant it applied to me, too.

and

3) Pose some questions:

Do we factually know what options were explored?  Was the viability of live races on BBC2 or BBC3 investigated?  Was there any interested from another channel like ITV?

What do we know about the bidding process?  Was there one?  If there was, who else, besides Sky, made a bid, and what were there bids?

What do we know about the final terms of the Sky contract?

I ask to understand, and because this information is almost always readily available when U.S. TV contracts come up, but I had not seen anything really about the process, so I was curious if they keep this more confidential in F1 than I am used to with other racing and ice hockey.  We always know what the alternatives were, and why they weren't chosen, and what the exact deals (beyond just these are the races, this is the money) constitute.  Curious if we know that here, because it may help me in understanding this better.

[freaky2]

Hmmm, James, you're placing too much importance in the British market for F1. The viewing figures are surely a small fraction of the world viewing figures, and Silverstone is going to be packed anyways... At most you might find one or two anti-SKY banners. And well... SKY already paid for the deal, so who exactly is going to be concerned? Not Bernie, I'm sure.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer]

Massa, on 03 March 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

Do we factually know what options were explored?  Was the viability of live races on BBC2 or BBC3 investigated?  Was there any interested from another channel like ITV?

What do we know about the bidding process?  Was there one?  If there was, who else, besides Sky, made a bid, and what were there bids?

What do we know about the final terms of the Sky contract?

I ask to understand, and because this information is almost always readily available when U.S. TV contracts come up, but I had not seen anything really about the process, so I was curious if they keep this more confidential in F1 than I am used to with other racing and ice hockey.  We always know what the alternatives were, and why they weren't chosen, and what the exact deals (beyond just these are the races, this is the money) constitute.  Curious if we know that here, because it may help me in understanding this better.

Sadly Eric, Sky, BBC and F1 Administration have refused to release details.

This is why I made a Freedom of Information Request - this is a right enshrined in law in the UK to gain information from public bodies. They can use an excuse not to provide, if say it is confidential, or as BBC did they refused to supply information to me on "artistic" grounds. So what does that say to you...? A publicly owned body  hiding behind a technicality so the details cannot be released....

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer]

Massa, on 03 March 2012 - 04:44 PM, said:

But I do think it's unfair to say you would rather stick needles in your eyes than subscribe to Sky, only to then complain that you chose not to subscribe to Sky.  I sympathize with the situation, but I don't sympathize with the complaints (but you have every right to complain, and I have every right not to read it, so post what you like).

Do a bit of Googling on Rupert Murdoch and they you will understand why I will not spend a penny of my money on the products of his empire. Like I said its not about the money.

Massa, on 03 March 2012 - 04:44 PM, said:

There's no right or wrong way, but I wonder if there would be anything to be gained by focusing on the races you can watch, and not on the ones you can't.  It's something I've been doing for years, which doesn't make it right, or better, just that it keeps me content to enjoy the races I see and not worry about how hard it is for me to watch the USAC stuff I grew up with for years before I even knew what NASCAR and F1 and the Indy 500 were.  Maybe someone would find themselves more content with that perspective.  Maybe not.

Ah Eric, missing half the races is like sex without the stockings (well I try not to wear them too often ) or trying to eat dinner with a spoon. Its as pointless as subscribing to the Encyclopedia Britannica and only getting the volumes that cover J, Q and N......

[Massa]

Grabthaw the Hammerslayer, on 03 March 2012 - 09:25 PM, said:

Sadly Eric, Sky, BBC and F1 Administration have refused to release details.

This is why I made a Freedom of Information Request - this is a right enshrined in law in the UK to gain information from public bodies. They can use an excuse not to provide, if say it is confidential, or as BBC did they refused to supply information to me on "artistic" grounds. So what does that say to you...? A publicly owned body  hiding behind a technicality so the details cannot be released....

That's interesting, thanks.

I can see plausibility that something not-so-grand happened.  For all I can criticize quick judgments, I may have trusted that this was an entirely fair, best-option-won process far too quickly, and for that I'd apologize.

There's a lot I'm not going to agree with in this thread, obviously, and I will always be less apt to be open-minded to views when they are presented in the context of quick judgments of people never met, and I'm always going to ask for some care when it comes to actions not reflecting the views being posted, which is largely why I've been quick to jump on people, which really I shouldn't have done to any of you regardless of what was said.

I would hate to think there were realistic alternatives (prior to now I had really just assumed the only other alternative was to give BBC all the races for half the price which I personally would not call very realistic) that were either ignored or not allowed to even be part of the decision.  That would make an unfortunate situation worse, though I guess we'll never really know, or at least not in a timely fashion, if there were other directions or would have been other directions had they been invited.  I guess the players don't exactly invite confidence from a lot of posters here, and that's understandable, because while I am not going to call Bernie "senile" or "greedy," I am also not going to lay on my stomach and block shots for him.

End of the day, though, I still maintain that the situation doesn't change, and things we love aren't going to be immune to the reality that few choices ever have a "good" option unless you have the perspective to embrace one and make it work for you.  I'd at least give highlights a chance before passing judgment.  I often think highlights can be done really well and the BBC coverage was always popular here, so I see no reason why it wouldn't be something worth watching.  There's got to be some kind of positive in this, and as I challenge myself to try to learn more about the situation, I'd challenge anyone else upset by it to look for one and see where that leads them.

[Massa]

Grabthaw the Hammerslayer, on 03 March 2012 - 09:40 PM, said:

Do a bit of Googling on Rupert Murdoch and they you will understand why I will not spend a penny of my money on the products of his empire. Like I said its not about the money.

Oh, I know about Murdoch, and I have my judgments and you have yours and that's very much fine, we can express those views with the money we do and do not spend.  I just mean to say, whether you wanted the choices you had or not, there was still a decision.  I think I was trying to point out: you may not like the deal, but because you choose not to subscribe Sky, you can at least say you are in a better position for not subscribing, since that is what you decided and obviously had reasons to decide.  If you aren't happier about not giving Murdoch money than you would be if you had and were watching F1, then you made the wrong choice.  If you are happier, you made the right choice, and should feel good about what you've done.  Yes?  No?  Possibly?

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer]

LabradoRacer, on 03 March 2012 - 05:33 PM, said:

Maybe I shouldn't have used the word 'martyr' as it sounds unnecessarily harsh & critical.

Didn't take it personally!

LabradoRacer, on 03 March 2012 - 05:33 PM, said:

The only 'justification' I've is that the numerous complaints here sounded straight out of a "First World Problem" meme.

No. Not really. I've watched F1 for 38 years without having to pay.

I've paid for TV before and can afford to do so.

I'm not looking for sympathy. I just want to vent my anger that Bernie yet again is screwing the punters for money.

If I want to go see the race, the cost for a normal ticket is £334 for the weekend. That's one person for one race. 2 people with travel, food, lodging - well over £1,000. I have a holiday booked for a week in the Mediterranean in April and it is costing me half that for two people for a week.

Or I can watch every race by spending £500 on Sky.

What has gone wrong with F1 that it has got to this? Its a rich man's game now - not to take part, but to watch. Who do we, as fans just let them get away with it?

I like F1 but not going to watch it at any price....

[JHS18]

freaky2, on 03 March 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

Hmmm, James, you're placing too much importance in the British market for F1. The viewing figures are surely a small fraction of the world viewing figures, and Silverstone is going to be packed anyways... At most you might find one or two anti-SKY banners. And well... SKY already paid for the deal, so who exactly is going to be concerned? Not Bernie, I'm sure.

Maybe so, but I just find it amazing the disregard shown by F1 to fans, not just in the UK, but around the world.

I mean, it seems whenever a decision is made in F1 it upsets one fan base. Maybe it is impossible to please everyone at the same time - but when I look at how other forms of racing manage themselves compared to F1, it makes you realise most the time they don't listen to the fans and they don't really care what the fans think.

Okay, the fans don't own the sport, but we spend money buying merchandise, we give up time to watch races, some of us even spend eye-watering amounts of money to get to races live, and all to effectively keep them in business, because again without the fans, there is no F1.

But seemingly they hardly take any notice of the fans. Okay, they invented DRS, but that was only after years and years of people complaining that there wasn't enough overtaking.

I've defended F1 again and again in debates with friends over the years - yet with this I can really understand how F1 can be considered just a rich toff's sport.

If for once they listened to the fans on some issues, some of my prejudices would be wrong.

Grabthaw the Hammerslayer, on 03 March 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

Didn't take it personally!



No. Not really. I've watched F1 for 38 years without having to pay.

I've paid for TV before and can afford to do so.

I'm not looking for sympathy. I just want to vent my anger that Bernie yet again is screwing the punters for money.

If I want to go see the race, the cost for a normal ticket is £334 for the weekend. That's one person for one race. 2 people with travel, food, lodging - well over £1,000. I have a holiday booked for a week in the Mediterranean in April and it is costing me half that for two people for a week.

Or I can watch every race by spending £500 on Sky.

What has gone wrong with F1 that it has got to this? Its a rich man's game now - not to take part, but to watch. Who do we, as fans just let them get away with it?

I like F1 but not going to watch it at any price....

Again - very well said. Can't add too much more to that.

For too long F1 has just assumed fans will stick by it, but rest assured, viewing figures will be down this year in the UK.

Edited by JHS18, 03 March 2012 - 11:58 PM.

[Massa]

But that's the problem, isn't it?

The fans say it bothers them, but:

Do they stop attending races?  Do they stop watching races, even the ones live on BBC?  Do they stop posting images of cars on forums, giving bonus advertising to the sponsors?  Do they stop talking about F1 with co-workers, peers, friends, family, etc.?  Do they stop visiting F1-related websites?  Do they take down anything F1-related in their homes that may pique the curiosity of a visitor?

F1 will "listen" to the fans when the fans are speaking.  But they aren't speaking.  Talking isn't speaking.  Doing is speaking.  If you want to take a stand, you have to really, really, really do a lot to take one, it goes beyond just not subscribing.

I just find an irony in calling out the sport so much as being so awfully run and treating fans so poorly, yet then being sad that you can't see it.  Why would you want live, free-to-air coverage of something you don't enjoy or won't miss or is somehow mistreating you?

Now, I personally like F1, I am satisfied with how it is run.  I'll be at the American Grand Prix at Port Imperial in June 2013, no matter what the ticket costs, I am there, mostly to meet up with some friends, but still, I am voting with my money that I am pleased.

Just not subscribing to Sky and saying "this makes me angry" isn't going to change the way F1 operates.  After all, if they don't even need to show you the races to get you to help F1 by all the little things we do to advertise and support the sport, knowingly or not, well, what have they lost?  They still get the revenue from Sky and they still get all the little services we do for F1 by talking about it, posting it, buying things, watching the races we do/can watch, etc.

Worst-case, viewing figures devalue certain U.K.-focused sponsorships and someone on some team gets laid off while the targets of your anger go unscathed.  Best-case, viewing figures decline and nothing changes because there's a whole lot more to being a sponsor than put logo on car, get people to watch, people see it, people buy it.  Super best-case, highlights packages at the right time appeal to a whole new demographic of fans and viewing figures either increase or represent a more attractive group of people for sponsors and this TV deal propels the sport to ultimate glory.

I'll give it a rest now...I think I've done my opinion on all this to absolute death and I just want to get back to the racing so I'm going to do do that...but if this starts seeping into other threads (i.e. race threads for the ones on Sky or whatever)...

...there is absolutely nothing I can or will do about it...

...but know that I won't be nice about it.

[Massa]

Anyway, a final thing...

This might be a good place for people to voice if they will be looking for streams for this year.  Then you can all make a group PM together and share resources.

[Quiet One]

When I read these kind of things I get so tempted to voice my opinion on piracy and IP, but, regretfuly, it would get me promptly banned everywhere

[yurp]

Quiet One, on 04 March 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

When I read these kind of things I get so tempted to voice my opinion on piracy and IP, but, regretfuly, it would get me promptly banned everywhere

me too!
as someone who used to write a lot of digital music the whole music 'industry' sucks balls. power in the hands of a greedy few is always a bad thing,

a quick word on the bbc...

as someone who spent my formative years in Britain and now 10 years in China I can see both sides of the arguments above.

often times it isn't really appreciated how lucky the UK is to have such an amazingly productive, instructive and high quality institution. I was bought up on David Attenborough's wildlife documentries / bbc science programming / bbc news / blue peter etc etc.

for those in other countries (like China / US) where ad based TV rules supreme, it's hard to fathom why people in the UK feel they deserve F1 for free, without ads (or at least for the small TV licence cost). but actually I think everyone, the world over should be demanding more services like the bbc. it's not entirely impartial (impartiality is always subjective and therefore an oxymoron to a certain extent), but the bbc does pretty well at providing facts rather than opinion (masquerading as fact) when it comes to news - that is an undervalued but extremely important distinction.

it's sad that the bbc is being dismantled (much like the NHS and state education system) in the UK by people supporting the premise that business can always do things better because the money making model benefits them and their friends. I keep hearing 'why should you get things for free?' or 'why should our taxes pay for your TV entertainment' - bulls##t. the bbc makes money from selling top-notch programming to other countries and yes it does get some taxes/tv license money, but the service it provides is unmatched by any similar body the world over. the spurious argument that the bbc should be swept aside in favour of channels that 'pay their own way' is always put forward by people with vested interests in supporting the world view of the murdochs of the world - i.e. that if you support our take over of tv/press etc etc, we will support you politically with our new found (and powerfully corrupting) voice.

here we're talking about F1. 10 years ago it was the loss of premiership football. once the dust settles we'll have an even more poorly funded bbc without the means to produce high quality programming of the past and a bunch of very rich, politically manipulative b#####ds pushing their own agendas across the globe and a whole Sh#tload of crappy channels that are bundled in with the two or three we might actually like to watch. I'm waiting for FOX to start a kids channel where they teach children the evils of socialism and the utopia of a greedy society using puppets.

the bbc and it's remit should be defended to the hilt. unfortunately that will never happen. why? firstly - because we brits have been far to guilty of taking it for granted for far too long - we have ourselves to blame for that. secondly - because each time a little more is eroded, the powers that be hide behind 'necessity in today's market'. and each time the defenders of intellectual honesty accept 'just a little bit more', because hey it's only a little bit. those little bits add up though. it's the long term game plan that satellite providers can afford to play - a little bit at a time until their money allows them to encroach enough that the bbc ends up an emptied out carcass filled with eastenders and neighbours.

but still - as someone who was fortunate enough to benefit from the BBC as a youth, I count myself extremely lucky and I can understand why Eric et al are saying what they are. Brits shouldn't take what the bbc provides as a god-given right and cry when they loose it. if you want great programming, F1, etc etc, then appreciate that you've been extremely lucky to have it for free all these years. at the same time, fight for the right to keep it that way. don't pay for sky. **** sky.

don't ban me please

i already posted my predictions/hopes for the season above. EDIT in the predictions thread.

Edited by yurp, 04 March 2012 - 03:09 AM.

[HandyNZL]

I stopped reading at post 40-something when Jimmy was saying that us others just don't understand (or was that the Fresh Prince)....Jimmy buddy....F1 was hardly ever shown here, or was shown as a 1-hour highlight THREE weeks after the fact, then it showed select races live on free-to-air, like Monaco, Spa etc, and the rest just as highlight packages, then Sky was started here in NZ and they broadcast all races live, so us fans signed on to Sky, and as a bonus, we got lots of other sport and access to a much broader range of motorsport, American sports, movies, Discovery channel etc etc etc....then free-to-air got the rights back again, and the screened every race, but not all of them live, because, sometimes screening a six year old movie was more important than a live sporting event, even one that was on a midnight on a Sunday NZ time.

Then Sky got the rights again, and I subscribed for myself (the first time around was on the parent's dime)...the first season saw every race screened live.  The next season we got every qualification and every race live.  The third season, and every season since, we have had all practice sessions live, as well as qualification and the race, plus a replay during the week.

From where I am standing, Sky is not the baddy.  Free-to-air was holding us to ransom.

I pay for a service, and I get it, and it cost's not much every week, and F1 is not the only thing I watch on Sky, as it would be for anyone in the UK if they bought a subscription.

Rant, out...peace and love and hugs not drugs

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer]

<sigh>

You guys still don't get where I'm coming from. You're right Adam, I know we are lucky with the BBC and coverage we have had so far, and I can feel much of sentiment. Its either:

"Stop bloody grumbling, we get a crappy F1 tv programme late at night, sandwiched in between 40 adverts and you are whingeing about losing the BBC's coverage??" OR

"Just pay the money and shut up"


You see, this is entirely my point. F1 should not be in either of these places. Why are we as fans putting up with Sh#t coverage? or having to pay a premium? It shouldn't be this way.

Bernie's out of touch with reality. In these cost-conscious times, who can really afford £1,000 to go and watch the sport for a weekend; and is the average fan happy/able to pay the subscriptions?

And Eric - you're also right fans should vote with their feet. I think many will. I stopped watching the 2010 season because it was boring and because I was sick of all the politics and crap going on. The funny thing was I did not miss it. And yes, Eric I stopped doing all the things you mention. F1 disappeared from my life. Completely. I gave it another chance in 2011 to see if it had improved.

So my choice is: watch half the races (what's the point?) pay £500 to watch on Sky (Hell no) or download/stream illegally (which I don't want to do either). So I'll probably just do what I did in 2010.

Which is sad.

Edited by Grabthaw the Hammerslayer, 04 March 2012 - 07:02 AM.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer]

Massa, on 03 March 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

If you aren't happier about not giving Murdoch money than you would be if you had and were watching F1, then you made the wrong choice.  If you are happier, you made the right choice, and should feel good about what you've done.  Yes?  No?  Possibly?

Not really. I'm happy not to give Murdoch one penny of my income. I'm unhappy that he has such a monopoly and that Bernie from one billionaire to another has just handed him a further slice of monopoly.


And the other thing, Adam. Remember the BBC is not free. Every person owning a TV pays a license fee. Public money funds the BBC.

It also annoys me that the BBC bid for the rights then a few years into a long-term contract, went "oops, can't afford it any more". If I ran my job like that I would be fired.....

Edited by Grabthaw the Hammerslayer, 04 March 2012 - 07:14 AM.

[HandyNZL]

As a matter of interest, what is the licence fee?