Why are the people that are attacking the sky coverage saying that if they where to buy the coverage they would get the package with all the extras, so it inflates the price so they can justify their point.

Get over it, nearly every country has to pay for subscription fees to get international sport coverage, you are no different.

Reminds me of those uni thugs having a riot over the fact the government won't pay for there degree.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Not really. I used to have Sky when I was at uni. MotorsTV is either crap cars or motorsport you wouldn't want to watch.

There are no benefits, especially if you don't watch much television.

This is true but to suggest most people wouldn't benefit from sky is false. The difference is you may not watch much TV but who is to say with sky that it wouldn't give you more variety and therefore you'd watch TV more? I think sky definately benefits some more than others for sure.

Quote from Mustafur :

Why are the people that are attacking the sky coverage saying that if they where to buy the coverage they would get the package with all the extras, so it inflates the price so they can justify their point.

Get over it, nearly every country has to pay for subscription fees to get international sport coverage, you are no different.

Reminds me of those uni thugs having a riot over the fact the government won't pay for there degree.

BECUZ ITS OUR RITE TO HAZ FREE F1 ON TEH BBC COS WE PAY FOR IT!?1/!/?!1/11?!/

Seriously just have a read of any F1 blog on the BBC Website that has comments. It's hilarious. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/h ... t/formula_one/default.stm

Martin Brundle
Can confirm I'll be commentating on Sky Sports F1 in 2012. All races live on dedicated F1 channel + more tech features is what motivates me
https://twitter.com/#!/MBrundleF1/status/140726736831774720

translation "they offered me a boatload of money"

Glad that Brundle moved to Sky, I probably won't watch a single race on BBC next year.

Quote from DeKo :

Glad that Brundle moved to Sky, I probably won't watch a single race on BBC next year.

Can you explain your reasons why? Just curious.

I'm gonna lol if Legard goes back on the BBC

Quote from J@tko :

BECUZ ITS OUR RITE TO HAZ FREE F1 ON TEH BBC COS WE PAY FOR IT!?1/!/?!1/11?!/

Seriously just have a read of any F1 blog on the BBC Website that has comments. It's hilarious. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/h ... t/formula_one/default.stm

I know, some of the pro-Sky trolls are unbelievable!

Quote from Mustafur :

Get over it, nearly every country has to pay for subscription fees to get international sport coverage, you are no different.

Nearly every country, however as part of the Concorde agreement F1 cannot be shown only on pay TV in the UK and other major TV markets. The BBC had a year remaining on their contract and instead of letting it lapse to allow another FTV broadcaster to take their place, they got into bed with Sky for the next 5 years. At that point, if no FTV broadcasters were willing to step up to the plate, then Bernie would have to reduce his price to keep it on FTV.

In the end it will not increase viewers contrary to what Bernie says, so for F1 it's a bad move.

I don't think there were any decent deals on the table from ITV or C4. It was Sky or nothing decent at all.

Bernie has been able to suckle on the tax payers tit for fair too long whether it be through heavily inflated broadcast rights costs (via the BBC) or overly priced race fees. Time for F1 to grow up and f1 fans get a reality check. F1 isn't a sport for the masses... it's a sport for the top .0005% in society. F1 to sky is a perfect marriage. You want to watch it and partake in it as a fan... pay for it.

doesn't matter if it's a bad move for F1. it's a good move for those who do not wish to have their taxes subsidise a sport exclusive to the most wealthy in society. It's about time the BBC actually realised what they were supposed to be.

Quote from Intrepid :

It's about time the BBC actually realised what they were supposed to be.

Period dramas, comedy panel shows, and antique programs? :-)

It's all just programming in my opinion. If lots of people want it, then it's worth more money being spent on it.

I know what you mean though, and it's probably an inevitability we can be grateful to the beeb for postponing. It is a bit annoying that the commercial rights are so expensive because so many people love f1, though, and this is why the bbc both should but also probably never will again be able to broadcast it for free. Not a sport for the masses, but the masses love it and sustain it. Sponsorship is worth nothing without viewing figures.

Sky do a tremendous job of their sports coverage. There's nothing wrong with the BBC coverage right now, but if they don't want to do it then Sky is the only other broadcaster who can do it properly.

I see Brundle has moved for more money. Who wouldn't? Makes the BBC/Sky choice when they are both live pretty simple.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Can you explain your reasons why? Just curious.

Eddie Jordan mainly, Brundle and Croft should be great, practice sessions in HD and I think Sky do a great job of showing sports (Football mainly, their football coverage is great), so if the F1 is similar I won't bother with the BBC at all. If Sky don't do a forum I will probably watch the BBC forum if it even exists next year though. Jake is a good presenter of F1, but I never really watch pre-race at all apart from the grid walk.

Quote from Intrepid :

I don't think there were any decent deals on the table from ITV or C4. It was Sky or nothing decent at all.
.

ITV actually stated that they did not want F1, and there's no way C4, C5 etc would be able to come up with the budget, channel 4 just made £40 million profit in total in 2010 and channel 5's former owners lost that much financing it in the first 6 months of 2010. given that BBC had to cut their costs and given that bernie has shown before now that he's quite prepared to not make a deal rather than cut the cost of it, the sky solution is probably the best outcome that was going to happen.

any channel apart from the BBC has to directly finance the coverage somehow or run it as a loss making flagship, one of the reasons ITV stated they didn't want F1 was the amount of complaints they got over adverts which made it unattractive to premium advertisers, any program on C4 / 5 would face the same issues and they couldn't afford not to run adverts for maybe 2 hours in a weekend, sky has the finances and business model to support uninterupted coverage, even at high viewing demand times and avoid the hostility that commercial breaks cause,

You guys get a channel dedicated for f1 (thou it costs way too much) and we here in Finland have only a shitty channel with shitty programs (except rally and f1) or then a ''free'' 1h program what comes few hours after race and theres some parts cut off...

Quote from DeKo :

Eddie Jordan mainly, Brundle and Croft should be great, practice sessions in HD and I think Sky do a great job of showing sports (Football mainly, their football coverage is great), so if the F1 is similar I won't bother with the BBC at all. If Sky don't do a forum I will probably watch the BBC forum if it even exists next year though. Jake is a good presenter of F1, but I never really watch pre-race at all apart from the grid walk.

Agreed with that. Eddie Jordan makes me laugh, but not in a good way. And he has an incessant need to put his arm round whoever they're interviewing...

I've never really understood the Jake haters on the Beeb website. I think he's excellent At least Sky are making a decent effort at it, should be better than ITV at least

Considering where he came from Jake is very good, but I heard he got alot of tips from Steve Ryder which was a nice touch of Steve.

Quote from tinvek :

ITV actually stated that they did not want F1, and there's no way C4, C5 etc would be able to come up with the budget, channel 4 just made £40 million profit in total in 2010 and channel 5's former owners lost that much financing it in the first 6 months of 2010. given that BBC had to cut their costs and given that bernie has shown before now that he's quite prepared to not make a deal rather than cut the cost of it, the sky solution is probably the best outcome that was going to happen.

You forgot about http://www.graphicalhouse.co.uk/projects/channel-4 and the fact that even if Channel 4 went to Bernie with shitloads of £, he couldn't do anything because the BBC had the contract:

Quote from Bernie :

“I spoke with ITV too, and came up with the same problem as Channel 4 had. We had a contract with the BBC which didn’t run out until 2014.”

Asked if the BBC “held all the cards” when it came to selecting a co-broadcaster, Ecclestone insisted: “Yes, absolutely.

“If they (Channel 4) had said they wanted to sign a contract today to start broadcasting for 45 million pounds a year, then we would have probably done it.

“But that’s the problem. We couldn’t deal with them, even if they had wanted to.”

I certainly hope there are going to be Sky streams or even better something like we had for BBC, a whole player dedicated to the channel which gives a triple better quality. Sadly if this doesn't happen there are only 6 races on BBC afaik to be broadcasted. Please share these things if you find them before me.

It will no doubt find it's way onto the Sky internet player, which is available to subscribers and works quite well as the quality is scaleable.

Quote from Intrepid :

I don't think there were any decent deals on the table from ITV or C4. It was Sky or nothing decent at all.

Bernie has been able to suckle on the tax payers tit for fair too long whether it be through heavily inflated broadcast rights costs (via the BBC) or overly priced race fees. Time for F1 to grow up and f1 fans get a reality check. F1 isn't a sport for the masses... it's a sport for the top .0005% in society. F1 to sky is a perfect marriage. You want to watch it and partake in it as a fan... pay for it.

doesn't matter if it's a bad move for F1. it's a good move for those who do not wish to have their taxes subsidise a sport exclusive to the most wealthy in society. It's about time the BBC actually realised what they were supposed to be.

F1 should be available for the masses. There's a huge shortage of engineers in this country, and one of the main reasons is that a lot of people don't understand what engineering is, or how it can be cool. Most of the people I studied with would say that they were drawn to engineering by F1/motorsport (or jet planes). Taking it away from the general public will slow down the number of people getting interested in engineering even more, which will have serious affects down the line.

Quote from spookthehamster :

F1 should be available for the masses. There's a huge shortage of engineers in this country, and one of the main reasons is that a lot of people don't understand what engineering is, or how it can be cool. Most of the people I studied with would say that they were drawn to engineering by F1/motorsport (or jet planes). Taking it away from the general public will slow down the number of people getting interested in engineering even more, which will have serious affects down the line.

Well this is highly debatable and almost unprovable.

Also, for all we know F1 could be attracted engineers away from more lucrative and productive engineering projects. Our shortage in engineers might be because they are fannying about playing race cars.

I however do appreciate the value of motorsport in the UK and understand your viewpoint.

Quote from N I K I :

I certainly hope there are going to be Sky streams or even better something like we had for BBC, a whole player dedicated to the channel which gives a triple better quality. Sadly if this doesn't happen there are only 6 races on BBC afaik to be broadcasted. Please share these things if you find them before me.

Sky Go can stream in HD, so someone will be able to set that up into a normal stream, no problem.

Quote from Storm_Cloud :

It will no doubt find it's way onto the Sky internet player, which is available to subscribers and works quite well as the quality is scaleable.

It should be, it's available to anyone who has Sky Sports 1 and 2, and they are both on Skyplayer.

Having lived in houses with Sky with a plethora of the different packages and tech add ons they offer on and off since it was first introduced and now given the choice being the principle bill payer in my current house, I would never choose to pay on top of the licence fee for sky. 900 channels, all of which are pretty much pap.

In my last house you could have renamed sky the 'two and a half men' box. Because that was really all that was watchable for any amount of time.

For me, it's not the content per se, but the adverts. Can't stand being told what to buy in the comfort of my own home. I have kids and a missus for that.

Plus I'm already paying for a very reasonable and comprehensive service and can receive enough FtA channels already without paying out another half a grand a year. If i had been the principle bill payer for sky for all the years I've been around it then they would have over 8000 quid of mine. I will not give anything Murdock related any money willingly.

Look into what your putting your money into, it's not all about your selfish indulgence to be entertained.