BBC to axe F1 from 2013? Confirmed - F1 will be on Sky from 2012
- Thread starter Quintessentially
- Start date
- Status
landogeorgelewis1
Champion Elect
Ah sorry didn't see that thread.
In real terms, it will be a decrease in funding for the BBC. But as people have said, there are plenty of other areas where savings could be made (consolidating BBC3/4, cutting coverage of other sports, etc), but I think we just have to admit that F1 can't come out of this unhurt. Everything at the BBC will have to be cut to some extent, including F1.
I dont know if it is quite as much as that? Reports I can find suggest it was £200m over 5 years. Even so, £40m when there are no viable alternative bidders would seem excessive, especially when using quasi-public funds.
The key for me is that the sponsors need it to be free to air. More people watched the Canadian Grand Prix than have Sky Sports. Even the biggest football games on Sky get less than half the audience of an average grand prix on BBC.
In my view, F1 would prefer to lose the £40m per year rights fees and keep the sponsorship revenues flowing.
Martin Whitmarsh has spoken about it.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/...rsh-hits-out-at-bbc-axes-formula-one-article/
Also this from Ecclestone:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/...rsh-hits-out-at-bbc-axes-formula-one-article/
Also this from Ecclestone:
http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/262472/ecclestone-pushing-for-bbc-f1-continuation/
I think it is interesting to follow each of the possibilities to their extreme position and then see which makes more sense. Usually, if you do that, I find you can get a good handle on where the balance should be.
Possibility 1: Free-to-air imperative. As there is little / no competition from broadcasters, payments from TV companies trend to zero. F1 then makes most of its money from advertisers wanting massive exposure. Included in this are car companies and nation states (wanting exposure by subsidising races, so track fees are also high).
Teams get lower % of their revenues from FOM and make the rest themselves. Bigger gap between rich and poor.
ie. the current model with BBC (or heaven forbid ITV)
Possibility 2: Pay per view / subscription channel TV. Greatly increased revenues from television, even though audiences are a fraction of what they would be with free-to-air. Sponsorship dries up into small niches (technology partners), so teams are almost wholly reliant on much larger FOM payments. Smaller gap between rich and poor, centrally managed, franchises essentially.
eg. NFL
Looking at it this way, I think the independence of the teams and their identity is the reason F1 is what it is. For me, the PPV view option kills this by making the teams much more dependent on FOM, until eventually it is more like the WWF than F1.
Obviously, the problem exists because the BBC is what it is, essentially a compulsory subscription channel for anyone in the UK who has a TV set. Anyone who has ever tried to do business with the BBC has eventually come across this problem and they use it brilliantly in their negotiations. "You can't charge us as much as the other guy because we have to spend the license fee wisely."
I would not be at all surprised if in a year's time, the BBC has agreed an extension but at say £15-£20m a year rather than the £40m they pay now. This is in the press because the BBC want it to be, I suspect...
Possibility 1: Free-to-air imperative. As there is little / no competition from broadcasters, payments from TV companies trend to zero. F1 then makes most of its money from advertisers wanting massive exposure. Included in this are car companies and nation states (wanting exposure by subsidising races, so track fees are also high).
Teams get lower % of their revenues from FOM and make the rest themselves. Bigger gap between rich and poor.
ie. the current model with BBC (or heaven forbid ITV)
Possibility 2: Pay per view / subscription channel TV. Greatly increased revenues from television, even though audiences are a fraction of what they would be with free-to-air. Sponsorship dries up into small niches (technology partners), so teams are almost wholly reliant on much larger FOM payments. Smaller gap between rich and poor, centrally managed, franchises essentially.
eg. NFL
Looking at it this way, I think the independence of the teams and their identity is the reason F1 is what it is. For me, the PPV view option kills this by making the teams much more dependent on FOM, until eventually it is more like the WWF than F1.
Obviously, the problem exists because the BBC is what it is, essentially a compulsory subscription channel for anyone in the UK who has a TV set. Anyone who has ever tried to do business with the BBC has eventually come across this problem and they use it brilliantly in their negotiations. "You can't charge us as much as the other guy because we have to spend the license fee wisely."
I would not be at all surprised if in a year's time, the BBC has agreed an extension but at say £15-£20m a year rather than the £40m they pay now. This is in the press because the BBC want it to be, I suspect...
Nothing is final yet. This is only 1 of the options.
DONT PANIC ! DONT PANIC ! DONT PANIC ! DONT PANIC !
yup thats what youll be hearing in place of F1. More Dads Army repeats.
Lets wait until its official before falling into a depression and a panic.
DONT PANIC ! DONT PANIC ! DONT PANIC ! DONT PANIC !
yup thats what youll be hearing in place of F1. More Dads Army repeats.
Lets wait until its official before falling into a depression and a panic.
The Artist.....
Champion Elect
I find it amazing that the Sunday times gets away with printing complete lies.
Ok, so let's say that each race costs £3million. This is spread over 6 and a half hours of broadcasting (Not including the red-button practice sessions). - That's £461,538 per hour - significantly LESS than the average cost of any drama - or in fact almost any other piece of tv.
F1 is CHEAP for the BBC.
Personally, I just see this as Murdoch papers stirring....
Ok, so let's say that each race costs £3million. This is spread over 6 and a half hours of broadcasting (Not including the red-button practice sessions). - That's £461,538 per hour - significantly LESS than the average cost of any drama - or in fact almost any other piece of tv.
F1 is CHEAP for the BBC.
Personally, I just see this as Murdoch papers stirring....
I certainy won't be going to Sky.
If it happens then the sport will either lose me or I'll find another way to watch it, beit live or a full re-run after the event.
I bet all kinds of tea cups, saucers and sandles were flying that afternoon/evening.
That line is strikingly Daily Mail, isn't it?
VanChallis
Points Scorer
VanChallis
Points Scorer
I can see it ending up on Sky if the Beeb decide to get rid of it. At the moment, it looks like either axing the F1 or BBC4. I know where my choice would be.
BBC3 really needs to go.
VanChallis
Points Scorer
AS long as Russel Howard's good news gets promoted to BBC 1 or 2, I'm fine with that!
Jos the Boss
Champion Elect
I can see this debate going down the partisan route.
BBC 4 this, BBC 3 that...
I am firmly in the BBC 4 camp, as I find the channel has programmes that I would like to watch.
Whereas, I think that I'd rather bathe my eyes in hydrochloric acid than watch BBC 3.
However, I think that both these channels have a right to exist. OK, I obviously 'don't like' BBC3
, but I can appreciate that some misguided souls do.
So, I reckon that the channel that should be binned is CBBC. I mean, the channel is on all day when children are at school, children's programmes can be shown on BBC 1 or 2 when they get home from school and children don't pay for the licence fee anyway! Cbeebies can stay, as it's informative for the pre-schoolers and they are justified in being at home, but CBBC! No!
So, bin CBBC. Probably won't save much money, but then this is all about penny pinching. Isn't it..?
BBC 4 this, BBC 3 that...
I am firmly in the BBC 4 camp, as I find the channel has programmes that I would like to watch.
Whereas, I think that I'd rather bathe my eyes in hydrochloric acid than watch BBC 3.
However, I think that both these channels have a right to exist. OK, I obviously 'don't like' BBC3
, but I can appreciate that some misguided souls do.So, I reckon that the channel that should be binned is CBBC. I mean, the channel is on all day when children are at school, children's programmes can be shown on BBC 1 or 2 when they get home from school and children don't pay for the licence fee anyway! Cbeebies can stay, as it's informative for the pre-schoolers and they are justified in being at home, but CBBC! No!
So, bin CBBC. Probably won't save much money, but then this is all about penny pinching. Isn't it..?
- Status
Similar threads
