Sky subscription will be worth it to avoid the shambles that is now the BBC

The bias and spin evident in the commentary has finally pushed me over the cliff. From Coulthard and his almost embarrassingly obvious and unprofessional promotion of Red Bull, Webber and Vettel, to Brundle and his ridiculous man love for Button and disdain for MS, Hamilton, Kobayashi, thank the heavens that there will be an alternative coverage by non partisan employees.

The whole time Lewis was in front today, it was almost silence about his progress compared to the gushing superlatives that were used for Button who was merely having a rare day when his measured and cautious approach paid dividends. The lengthy defence of Webber was almost nauseating.

The sly underhand digs about their employers the BBC and the Sky deal and Brundles tweets about impending unemployment are a face slap to those getting made redundant in the real world on a daily basis.

The handling of the BBC's cuts to F1 were just like their handling of the 606 forum, mickey mouse style not helped by having useless employees in the first place (mods/commentators) that had no sense of fairness or equanimity, just personal bias and nepotism.

Shame on the whole rotten edifice is what I say, just like any State funded enterprise, full of staff that are second rate and sloppy and have no fear of the summary dismissal found in private enterprise.
I would rather pay Sky than watch the Brundle show, where the drivers on his shit list get nothing and those that kiss his behind get praised to the heavens.
 

Bus Stop Chicane

Points Scorer
As much as it pains me to say it, I have to partly agree with you.

I really struggled to watch the podium and the post-race forum. It was an absolute joke the amount of backside-kissing Button was getting during and after the race. Jake Humphrey is the worst of the lot. I couldn't give a toss if he hugged every team member afterwards. And what they don't realise is saying he's the master of changeable conditions is a bit like saying he's absolutely pants in the dry!

However, I still want it to remain on the BBC. How could you possibly not? The Button-bias is a small price to pay really.
 
The fact is that it was never going to compete with tennis etc and was always going to be cut. Now it has I am positive about trying the Sky service because at least they are professional about their coverage, they cant afford not to be as the nee subscribers, whereas the BBC dont care about the numbers and Brundle is on course to turn the coverage into the Brundle show with his cronies.
This is the man who coins monikers like Koba Bashi and picked on the poor chap for a while with the usual cliches about banzai, kamikazi etc etc
Will probably be doing pre race pieces about his sons driving career soon.
 

Brogan

🦶 Leg end
Staff Member
One positive is those who do purchase the Sky Sports subscription will be able to watch all the other motorsport such as GP2, etc.

I'm still loathe to give any more money to them though.
 
One positive is those who do purchase the Sky Sports subscription will be able to watch all the other motorsport such as GP2, etc.

I'm still loathe to give any more money to them though.

Yes, that will be a very good sweetner, the support races and others. I had SS for the football years ago and stopped because I never saw much and it was a waste. So I am reluctant as well to pay the Murdochs anything again.
However I reckon there will be lots of extra goodies for the geek in me. Will try for a while as the half hearted BBC coverage is not going to be anything other than frustration I suspect.

Hopefully they will be smart enough to pick the 10 races that dont start at ungodly hours here in the UK, but I bet somehow they wont.
 

Galahad

Not a Moderator
Valued Member
I don't know if you are old enough to remember the supremely high-quality, non-partisan coverage that the last commercial F1 broadcaster provided.

If you were I don't know how you would be so critical of the BBC, whose output has been a night-and-day improvement. Live coverage of practice sessions, F1 forum, iPlayer etc. Some of the features are a bit frivolous, admittedly, but I have found many to be enlightening. They naturally have to cater to a wide audience, and Sky will be no different.
 
True the BBC coverage was better than ITVs

The bias towards Red Bull and Button though, ruins this.

Would Sky let a Manchester United fan and promoter commentate on matches and allow them the freedom to assume the roles of kingmaker?

ITVs coverage might have been perceived as pro Lewis but he was the one British driver who was likely to win
 

Galahad

Not a Moderator
Valued Member
From 2004-06, ITV's output was massively centred on Button as the only competitive British driver, in spite of him winning only one race in that period, and in cars competitive enough to win none.

I've no problem with focusing on the British driver(s) if he/they are at the front, but I'm afraid ITV lost all perspective as far as JB was concerned.
 

cider_and_toast

Exulted Lord High Moderator of the Apex
Staff Member
Premium Contributor
There was a time on Sky when an ex Everton football player, who'd never managed a football club in his life spent every waking moment telling proffesional football managers exactly how they were doing it all wrong.

Almost every single football game on any channel has an ex (or even sometimes current) player in the comm box with the summeriser and they aren't exactly unbiased in their opinions.

It's very rare for any one to not have at least some natural leanings towards one team or another.

I don't recall the whole world being up in arms when Murrey Walker declared he'd "have to stop now becuase he had a lump in his throat" over Damon winning the 1996 World Title.

Anyone want to have a long debate about just how wrong it was for Harry Carpenter in an excited moment of joy to shout "Go on Frank" as Bruno briefly had the upper hand in the first Tyson V Bruno fight?

What if you're a Button or RBR fan, don't expect you'd have too much of a problem with it then?

How about fans of Ricardo Patrese who had to put up with James Hunts total dislike of the man based on a misguided belief that it was Patrese who caused the crash that led to Ronnie Petersons death. He didn't but that didn't stop James Hunt criticising Patrase at every opportunity.

I'm not the biggest fan of DC or MB myself but I'd have to say their commentary this year has been a marked improvement of MB and Legard and way better than James Allan and MB. Lets not forget that James Allan was such a Ferrari fan he called his son Enzo and yet every race he was accused of being in love with Lewis Hamilton.

You can't please all of the people all of the time but fair play you are the first person I've read say this Sky deal is actually a good thing.
 
I don't recall the whole world being up in arms when Murrey Walker declared he'd "have to stop now becuase he had a lump in his throat" over Damon winning the 1996 World Title.

Anyone want to have a long debate about just how wrong it was for Harry Carpenter in an excited moment of joy to shout "Go on Frank" as Bruno briefly had the upper hand in the first Tyson V Bruno fight?
snip/

You can't please all of the people all of the time but fair play you are the first person I've read say this Sky deal is actually a good thing.

Murray getting excited over an Englishman on the BBC is understandable, as is Carpenter over the rank underdog. Not worth debating as these things happen.

Its just that for me I am glad now that there is an alternative to these guys, who are a very good commentating team, but for me their bias and spin border on corruption, media deals, pay offs and cosy relationships
 

Brogan

🦶 Leg end
Staff Member
It's worth pointing out that Sky are going to make an obscene amount of money from this deal.

Let's take a conservative figure of say 1,000,000 new subscribers who don't currently have Sky and want to watch it in HD.
That will work out to £600 x 1,000,000 which is £600,000,000 in the first year alone.
 

Galahad

Not a Moderator
Valued Member
I think 1m new subscribers, all in HD, is extremely generous, not conservative, Bro.

As for the coverage, they'll take what FOM gives them, just as the BBC have done.
 

dave

Rookie
Just looked through this thread and I'm wondering when there ever has been a commentator or summariser that isn't biased.

A commentator will explain what he/she shes which will be influenced by who they are, what they think of people involved and maybe what they think should have happend or what soneone should have done.
A summariser will explain, or try to explain why something has happend and when asked for their opinion will give it. Their opinion will be influenced, sometimes greatly, by past experiences and will no doubt be biased towards someone/something in some way.
 
Dave

Of course the human has biases. Hopwever a professional human is paid to provide a service. Yes many stray over, but the nature of Coulthards relationship with Red Bull is not what I pay a licence fee to watch

With Brundle, I dont accept the fact that he assumes the role of F1 kingmaker and does not tell us what is there but what his bias is

If anything Jordan is the most professional as he will report on anyone.

I have never liked commentators, summarisers or reporters telling me their own agendas when I have paid for news. Yes I am not forced to listen, I am jut saying that Sunday has allowed me to find a silver lining in the Sky cloud. The BBC as a corporation have spent fortunes and the standard is generally very high, recently its all become bit of a shambles, especially with finances and thats not just F1
 

cider_and_toast

Exulted Lord High Moderator of the Apex
Staff Member
Premium Contributor
If anything Jordan is the most professional as he will report on anyone.

And yet in a recent newspaper article (sorry I can't remember which one) they wrote of Jordan this:

"It's widely believed that if Eddie Jordan sneezes it's because Bernie Ecclestone has a cold"

Hardly what you would call non-bias then?
 

jez101

Bookies drive nice cars because of people like me
Contributor
There was a time on Sky when an ex Everton football player, who'd never managed a football club in his life spent every waking moment telling proffesional football managers exactly how they were doing it all wrong.

Even more so, the same ex player actually turned down the chance to manage so he could keep his nice little earner and indulge in his sexist banter with his mates.

And Richard Keys was worse. He was the most anti-Arsenal commentator you could imagine. Don't try telling me that Sky only employ fair and honest people!

It's worth pointing out that Sky are going to make an obscene amount of money from this deal.

Let's take a conservative figure of say 1,000,000 new subscribers who don't currently have Sky and want to watch it in HD.
That will work out to £600 x 1,000,000 which is £600,000,000 in the first year alone.

I think 1m new subscribers, all in HD, is extremely generous, not conservative, Bro.

I think your underlying point is right - this is good business for Sky, but I'm with G on this. I'd be surprised if 1/10th of your new subs materialise. If you think that only 2m could be bothered to get up at 7am to watch the season opening Australian GP (that's your hardcore fanbase), then consider how many of those already have Sky (50% perhaps), how many of these could justify £50 a month for 10 races..?

My guess is that this is for retention, now new subscribers. I might have been under pressure to downgrade before this deal, as might quite a few others in this financial climate. This helps Sky keep me on board. Churn prevention is much more important in monthly subscription businesses than anything else once the land grab phase is done (as it was on premium TV 10 years ago).
 
Top Bottom