BBC To Drop F1?

[Furinkazen]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-save-digital-channels.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

It would be a shame, but would not surprise me...

 

[Ardius]

Lets bear in mind that the Daily Mail always publish articles when they can take a dig at the BBC, so I would always take what they say with a pinch of salt. (If you didn't already with anything the DM say).

For the moment its only rumours, so we can just hope it doesn't become reality.

It should also be pointed out that ITV are unlikely to stump up the money again and Bernie has to try and show F1 on free-to-air (the teams wouldn't have it any other way) so it would be silly for it to go to Sky or any other pay-service. So even F1 will try to make sure it stays on the BBC.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I've found the following over at Digital Spy:

1) "Its contract to screen F1 for five seasons until 2013 will cost £300m."
- Incorrect. It is well known that the contract costs BBC about £200m over 5 years, with the next contract increased to £235m. I guess that may factor in production costs, but as far as I know they are minimal and definitely would not amount to an extra £20m per year.

2) "At about £3m per race, it is the most expensive BBC programme being broadcast."
- Incorrect. As the first point of £300m is wrong, the second point is also wrong. At 19 races, each race costs BBC about £2.1m. In my book, that is not £3m. The point "it is the most expensive BBC programme being broadcast" is factually incorrect. You cannot compare 5 hours of programming on BBC1 at £3m with a drama at 9pm on BBC1 which typically costs about £600,000. In fact, going on the £2.1m figure, F1 costs BBC about £420,000 per hour. I've even excluded things like the F1 Forum and Practice with that figure and all the other stuff they do, in reality the figure will be lower than that. Some dramas on BBC1 only get 4.5m viewers and cost £600,000, whereas with F1 you get you're hard to reach 16 to 34 audience, it doesn't cost much and you get at least 4.5m viewers on average per race. Everyone wins.

3) "An insider said the cost of covering 19 F1 races was more than the entire budget of BBC4."
- Again depends on whether the £60m per year figure is correct, because its the first time I've seen it. BBC4 costs £55m per year, so if the £60m per year figure for F1 is wrong, then the entire article is spouted with inaccuracy and riddles.

4) "The source said the BBC did not intend to rebid for the F1 contract when it expired in November 2013."
- In which case, why did you have a scaremongering title saying 'BBC AXES FORMULA ONE'. Axes suggests you're terminating the contract early. No early termination is being seeked hear if you are to believe the article. Besides, they would not rebid for a contract an entire one and a half years before you would even begin discussing it.

5) "It has emerged that F1 costs £1 a head for every viewer, compared with the average 7p an hour broadcast cost for BBC1 and BBC2."
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets...rts_rights.pdf ; page 35
- Formula 1 2009 - hit in every category, only one of two events to do this.
- As a said at the time (page 36) : "[✂ Redacted] is the outstanding success, significantly exceeding all of its reach, average audience and cost per viewer hour targets" - is almost certainly referring to F1
- Hence this on Page 4: "Formula 1 has been a significant success in 2009/10, exceeding all of its reach, average audience and cost per viewer hour target"
- The report was done earlier this year into the process of acquiring sports rights
- See page 33: "Formula 1 and Premier League highlights attract a younger (16-34) male audience that is otherwise hard to reach...."

6) "Apart from the British Grand Prix, most races attract between 2m and 4m viewers."
- Only one race has dipped under 4m, and that was because it was against a Ford Super Sunday triple header on Sky Sports

7) "It costs more for each hour than even the most expensive dramas such as South Riding, Cranford and Doctor Who."
- Again, this depends on whether the £60m figure is actually true. I mean, why have we only just heard about this now? They've had the rights for 2 and a half years, yet we've only just heard about the £60m figure despite numerous source saying £40m.

8) "The proposal to dump F1 will be among a package of measures to be put to the BBC Trust in the Autumn."
- So, only towards the end of the article do you actually tell us that they haven't axed it, despite the headline saying to the contrary?

In short: The newspaper is pro-Tory. It's F1 editor is openly wanting F1 to go to Sky. Hence, the article is best ignored as it is inaccurate throughout.

This isn't the first time Murdoch's papers have done something like this.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I don't often agree with Interludes, but this time I do so quite resoundingly.

The Daily Mail is one of those papers that forms the background of Britain's tabloid culture. It's filled with stuffing and piffle and, in the absence of any house prices to make a story out of resorts to making up the facts.

News Corp have an obvious interest in talking down the BBC (which they do at every opportunity) as they are the main rival in UK broadcasting. News Corp has also stated (via it's working-class satellite channels) that it wishes to purchase F1 and place it on their pay-per-view service.

The current Concorde agreement prevents F1 from being broadcast on anything other then free-to-view services, it remains to be seen if the new Concorde agreement will hold any such limitations.

Like a lot of people I would refuse to buy a 'B-Sky-B' service on principle, it would be great shame if F1 ended up their. Sky make no secret of the fact that their programming is 'dumbed down' for their target audiences, I don't think F1 would be much different sadly. News Corp's output is a cycle of politicised, glitzy sensationalism that becomes tiresome after a while - I think F1 coverage has left that behind at ITV and personally I have no wish to see it reattain the 'dumb' credentials.

 

[Famine]

The current Concorde agreement prevents F1 from being broadcast on anything other then free-to-view services

There is no, live, free-to-view television service in the UK.


Just throwing that one out there.

 

[Sohvakettu]

In Finland F1 is only shown on a pay channel so i wouldn't say it's impossible unless this Concorde deal makes special case out of UK (That's the main reason for me to use BBC streaming ).

 

[RTSolvalou]

I think we should start hanging people for printing lies in newspapers to be honest.

 

[Tired Tyres]

I think we should start hanging people for working for lie machines pretending to be newspapers to be honest.

fixed for you.

 

[Robin]

The current Concorde agreement prevents F1 from being broadcast on anything other then free-to-view services, it remains to be seen if the new Concorde agreement will hold any such limitations.

Really? All over Asia its only broadcast on expensive cable channels.

 

[dhandeh]

Daily mail, if it isn't bashing the BBC, its pippa middletons ass, if its not that, its immigration, if its not that, its the environment, if its not that, its princess Diana, if its not that, its middle class being hammered again with taxes, if its not that, its bashing the BBC, repeat to fade.

Try it yourself.

http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I think we should start hanging people for printing lies in newspapers to be honest.

Part of the problem is that newspapers - at least in England - are protected by the courts. If someone sues them, there is an upper limit to the amount that can be paid out. In the event that someone does sue them, all the papers have to do is draw the proceedings out long enough that the plantiff's legal expenses outweigh the amount they could be paid out.

This was a problem back in 2008 when QUANTUM OF SOLACE was filming in Colon in Panama. There was a labour union strike in Panama City, but the tabloids made it out to be a violent gang war that the production crew had inadvertently started. All of this was completely untrue, and understandably caused massive distress for the families of the film crew (who had no idea this was going on). But nothing could be done about it, because of the damages cap.

 

[C-ZETA]

Daily mail, if it isn't bashing the BBC, its pippa middletons ass, if its not that, its immigration, if its not that, its the environment, if its not that, its princess Diana, if its not that, its middle class being hammered again with taxes, if its not that, its bashing the BBC, repeat to fade.

This deserves a spot in the Oxford Dictionary.

 

[dhandeh]

Murdoch will do anything to get his piece of the f1 pie, this is just the start of it.

 

[MagpieRacer]

He is trying to unsettle it by the sounds of it. Its a silly move considering he wanted to buy F1 a few months ago.

 

[Centura]

https://twitter.com/#!/jakehumphreyf1/status/82413732394844160

Jake Humphrey: Lots of 'Sunday Times' questions. SO MANY inaccuracies in that article. F1 does incredible business on the BBC-it's spiritual home! #bbcf1

https://twitter.com/#!/jakehumphreyf1/status/82414449859887106

Jake Humphrey: I've no inside info on it's future...but I know little else gets the audience share and the millions that we do. #bbcf1 is a huge success.

In Finland F1 is only shown on a pay channel so i wouldn't say it's impossible unless this Concorde deal makes special case out of UK (That's the main reason for me to use BBC streaming ).

Same in Sweden. They only show highlights of the race on one commercial based channel.

 

[MagpieRacer]

Technically the BBC is a pay channel as we in the UK have to pay a TV license for it.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Its a silly move considering he wanted to buy F1 a few months ago.

It would appear this article is designed to facilitate - or at least lend weight to - Murdoch's supposed bid for the sport.

 

[MagpieRacer]

It would appear this article is designed to facilitate - or at least lend weight to - Murdoch's supposed bid for the sport.

Thats what I was trying to say I just couldn't write it for some reason. Silly hangover

 

[Centura]

Technically the BBC is a pay channel as we in the UK have to pay a TV license for it.

Yes, but it is forced upon you. I would love it if SVT* had the F1 license in Sweden, but they don't.

* Sweden's equivalent of BBC, just a lot worse.

 

[Submerged]

Read that in the Sunday Times. I disregarded the article as it used a mis-leading headline (saying "axes F1" rather than "not to renew F1"). I was rather disappointed at the newspaper itself when I read it as it was quite a low blow.

So yeah, that paper kinda gave me a bad taste in my mouth. Not surprising it is from the Head of Sky....

 

[TenEightyOne]

Technically the BBC is a pay channel as we in the UK have to pay a TV license for it.

That's a fallacy... you have to pay a licence to own any equipment that allows you to watch a live TV signal. You don't actually have to own a TV to require a TV licence either.

That money in turn is given to the state-supported TV channel, but the fee isn't actually for them.

The difference with Sky packages et. al. is that you pay for a supplied signal as opposed to paying for the right to operate receiving equipment.

 

[Famine]

That's a fallacy... you have to pay a licence to own any equipment that allows you to watch a live TV signal. You don't actually have to own a TV to require a TV licence either.

Hence my statement that there is no, live, free-to-view television station in the UK. If you watch anything as it is being broadcast - even the as-aired feed of BBC iPlayer - you are required to pay the equivalent of a £12 a month subscription.

So it's not possible to watch F1 in the UK on a live, free-to-view channel, as none exist.

 

[lbsf1]

The f1 has been broadcast on the beeb since the 1960's (accept for 5 years at ITV).

I don't think the bbc would want to stop broadcasting it, their coverage is widely praised and it gains them a large audience. If they want to cost cut then they could do it more easily on other things.

 

[Ardius]

I think the point is that the BBC is one payment while Sky or "Pay per view" is subscription on top of the license fee. So either you view Sky as a double payment service or the BBC as "free".
The point is the viewing figures would fall quite dramatically for F1 if it moved to Sky. While I'm sure many people would probably pay for Sky just to watch it, there are many many casual fans who wouldn't bother and actually watch F1 because it is on BBC or ITV. This is the audience that the teams and sponsors would like to keep.

The f1 has been broadcast on the beeb since the 1960's (accept for 5 years at ITV).

I don't think the bbc would want to stop broadcasting it, their coverage is widely praised and it gains them a large audience. If they want to cost cut then they could do it more easily on other things.

5 years? I'm pretty sure I endured 11 years of the ITV advert bonanza. Missing such important live moments as Damon Hill taking the lead of the Hungarian GP in an Arrows. 👎

 

[Centura]

5 years? I'm pretty sure I endured 11 years of the ITV advert bonanza. Missing such important live moments as Damon Hill taking the lead of the Hungarian GP in an Arrows. 👎

You're right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV_F1#Formula_1

ITV covered Formula One from 1997 to 2008, after the BBC lost the rights.

 

[Famine]

I think the point is that the BBC is one payment while Sky or "Pay per view" is subscription on top of the license fee. So either you view Sky as a double payment service or the BBC as "free".

The former.

Broadcast television is a subscription service (and almost run as a cartel, like the car insurance industry) in the United Kingdom and there is no provision for any live, free-to-view channel.

 

[Moot]

That's a fallacy... you have to pay a licence to own any equipment that allows you to watch a live TV signal. You don't actually have to own a TV to require a TV licence either.

That money in turn is given to the state-supported TV channel, but the fee isn't actually for them.

The difference with Sky packages et. al. is that you pay for a supplied signal as opposed to paying for the right to operate receiving equipment.

That is not true you are completely entitled to own a Television and even recording equipment and not pay the TV licence fee. What you must not do is watch live television or record live television. It is fine to have a big TV and use it for DVD/Blu-ray and to play PS3 games.
Just because it is "capable" of receiving live television is not evidence that it has been used for such activity. The law clearly states this. Enforcers rely on statements of guilt to prosecute. Or by looking through a window and observing you watching live TV.

 

[DK]

I really hope the Daily Scaremonger is the next target of LulzSec.

 

[FCB-Rizla-TML]

if BBC stop covering F1 i will die. Here in Canada TSN usually broadcasts the BBC feed, occasionally they give us the SPEED feed which is terrible. Too many commercials and they don't know what they are talking about! So i hope BBC never stops covering F1 !!!

 

[lbsf1]

5 years? I'm pretty sure I endured 11 years of the ITV advert bonanza. Missing such important live moments as Damon Hill taking the lead of the Hungarian GP in an Arrows. 👎

My bad.