Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 3 votes

F1 Coverage Thread - 2014 Season (BBC and Sky)


  • Please log in to reply
1725 replies to this topic

#1 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,249 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 04 January 2014 - 10:55

BBC F1
- to be officially confirmed, but no major changes are expected...

 

BBC will screen
1) LIVE coverage of 9 race weekends: Practice (BBC Two), Qualifying, Race and Forum (BBC Red Button)

- March 30th: Malaysia
- May 11th: Spain
- June 8th: Canada
- July 6th: Britain
- August 24th: Belgium
- September 7th: Italy
- October 5th: Japan
- October 12th: Russia
- November 16th: Abu Dhabi

 

2) Highlights of 10 race weekends: Qualifying, Race and Forum (BBC Red Button)

- March 16th: Australia (afternoon)
- April 6th: Bahrain (evening – 90 minutes)
- April 20th: China (afternoon – 120 minutes)
- May 25th: Monaco (evening – 90 minutes)
- June 22nd: Austria (evening – 90 minutes)
- July 20th: Germany (evening – 90 minutes)
- July 27th: Hungary (evening – 90 minutes)
- September 21st: Singapore (evening – 90 minutes)
- October 26th: USA (late night – 120 minutes)
- November 2nd: Brazil (???)

 

BBC 5 Live F1
- to be confirmed

BBC F1 is...
- available to watch/listen to again for up to 7 days on BBC iPlayer
- available to watch live online for the 10 races that they cover
- available to listen to live online for every race in 2014

Sky Sports F1
- to be officially confirmed, but no major changes are expected...

Sky Sports F1 will screen...
- every Qualifying and Race LIVE uninterrupted advert free
- every F1 Practice session LIVE
- The F1 Show every Friday from March 7th
- GP2 and GP3 LIVE uninterrupted advert free
- along with a Legends programme and extra programming outside of race weekends
- interviews and other tidbits on Sky Sports News with Rachel Brookes and Craig Slater reporters

Sky Sports F1 is...

- available to people with Sky on Channel 406 who have the Sports package, or the legacy HD Pack pre-dating April 2013
- available to people with Virgin Media on Channel 516 who have the Sky Sports package (SD only, HD channel is Sky exclusive)
- not available to people with Freeview or BT Vision
- available on Sky Go with the relevant subscription
- available on Xbox 360 for Sky customers with an Xbox LIVE Gold subscription
- available on Now TV for £9.99 per day

 

Other bits
- The BBC and Sky Sports deal is 2012 through to 2018 inclusive
- BBC's theme tune is Fleetwood Mac - The Chain
- Sky's theme tune is Alistair Griffin - Just Drive

Archive
ITV (2003 to 2008)
- BBC (20092010 and 2011)
BBC and Sky confirmation
- BBC and Sky (2012 [12], 2013)

And the UK ratings can be found here.

Updated on January 4th, 2014



Advertisement

#2 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,249 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 04 January 2014 - 10:57

For reference, the 2013 teams:

 

BBC F1

- Suzi Perry (Presenter)
- Ben Edwards (Commentator)
- David Coulthard (Commentator + Pundit)
- Eddie Jordan (Pundit)
- Lee McKenzie (Pitlane)
- Gary Anderson (Pitlane)
- Tom Clarkson (Pitlane)
 
BBC 5 Live F1
- James Allen (Commentator)
- Jonathan Legard (Commentator) - part time
- Allan McNish (Commentator)
- Jennie Gow (Pitlane)

 

Sky Sports F1

- Simon Lazenby (Presenter - Main)
- Ted Kravitz (Presenter - Magazine + Pitlane)
- Natalie Pinkham (Presenter - Magazine + Pitlane)
- Steve Rider (Presenter - Legends)
- Martin Brundle (Commentator)
- David Croft (Commentator)
- Anthony Davidson (Commentator + Pundit)
- Damon Hill (Pundit)
- Johnny Herbert (Pundit)
- Natalie Pinkham (Pitlane)
 
I haven't posted these above as nothing has been officially confirmed. Okay, there almost certainly won't be major changes, but nothing official yet, although that will change over the next week or two as things are confirmed.
 
Plus, I'd expect BT Sport to confirm their MotoGP team within the next week or two, so we shall see if anyone has been poached.


#3 jonpollak

jonpollak
  • Member

  • 13,647 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 04 January 2014 - 11:06

PLEASE No... Not more of this mind numbing, circular bicker fest?!?!?!?

Jp



#4 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,803 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 04 January 2014 - 11:33

The BBC's decline as the dominant UK broadcaster is on the slide.The licence fee is not really going to be a serious thing in 10 or so years as the internet finally put thats to bed. Also, i suspect the BBC would happily say goodbye to F1. It's not a relevant sport. it's completely elitist reserved for only the very very wealthiest in society and costs a bucket load to get broadcasst rights. It's not really a'public service' to broadcast. Not any more anyway it's quite clear with Sky the actual REAL demand fo F1 is quite low (which shouldn't be a shock for anyone who is a fan of motorsport as we all know how little our friends are interested in it) .The days of F1 and FTA are gone.

With all due respect I think you have not looked at the bigger picture. I don't agree Sky have demonstrated the REAL demand at all. They have simply shown but a small fraction of it. If the real demand was there to see, then all the diehard fans would be watching on their channel, but that is far from the case. I know the BBC picks up a casual audience too but it would be naive to suggest all of their 3.5m average are casual viewers. We have to remember Sky is not available to all UK households and comes at a price not everybody can afford or can justify. If the channel was obtainable by all, your statement might carry some weight, however it's false in the grand scheme. :)

PLEASE No... Not more of this mind numbing, circular bicker fest?!?!?!?
Jp

The discussion has been far from a bicker feet Jon for some time. The last thread ended because it reached the end of the year but the discussion was healthy and informative. There was no bickering or squabbling in the discussions I was involved in :)

#5 billm99uk

billm99uk
  • Member

  • 2,981 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 04 January 2014 - 12:22

If the BBC / Sky deal is not renewed then I don't think the BBC is going to be interested in the full season any more. The rationale for the licence fee is failing and it's struggling to justify any sport without a mass viewership. All the pressure is on them to spend less money not more. Doubt ITV would want to use the time slots for a minority sport either. So really, you're looking at niche broadcaster like Channel 4, with ads. And whether that model is sustainable in the long run I doubt too.

#6 jonpollak

jonpollak
  • Member

  • 13,647 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 04 January 2014 - 12:42

With all due respect I think you have not looked at the bigger picture.

I don't agree Sky have demonstrated the REAL demand at all. 

We have to remember Sky is not available to all UK households and comes at a price not everybody can afford or can justify.

If the channel was obtainable by all, your statement might carry some weight, however it's false in the grand scheme. :)

The discussion has been far from a bicker feet Jon for some time. 

There was no bickering or squabbling in the discussions I was involved in :)

I dunno what to say here...

Jp

 

EDIT: Go Nigerian


Edited by jonpollak, 04 January 2014 - 12:43.


#7 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,803 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 04 January 2014 - 12:47

You have to love auto correct Jon. It's very rare my posts don't have some form of howler in them because of it. I would turn it off but in some cases I just can't spell.

#8 chunder27

chunder27
  • Member

  • 1,043 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 04 January 2014 - 12:50

I can see F1 being available in an NFL way soon, Ie you pay per race, no actual broadcaster. Yes you can watch NFL in the states on sports channels, but over here it is selective, you can watch your teams games on their site, or at least you could a few years back when a few friends did this.  OK not maybe an option exactly for F1 as unless you are a huge Ferrari fan and only want to watch them, I doubt there would be takers, but I can see subscribing to F1.com for a year being an option, it is what MotoGP after all, albeit most of it is in Spanish!

 

Maybe not in some countries like ours, Spain, Germany, but in others like France where they don't give a chuff about F1 I can see F1 not being on any tv channel. If FOM are charging extortionate rates for the tv firms, then this is a backout for them. Throw in the towel.

 

Someone would pick up F1 in this country if the Beeb ran away, all you would really need is an F1 friendly sports director, as at the moment they are more into minority sports like Paralympics, womens sports etc. 

 

As I have said before their budget for showing premier league games will be HUGE as they show them same day, 100 hundreds of million and probably more than F1 for a full year.



#9 onemoresolo

onemoresolo
  • Member

  • 400 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 04 January 2014 - 13:37

I can see F1 being available in an NFL way soon, Ie you pay per race, no actual broadcaster. Yes you can watch NFL in the states on sports channels, but over here it is selective, you can watch your teams games on their site, or at least you could a few years back when a few friends did this.  OK not maybe an option exactly for F1 as unless you are a huge Ferrari fan and only want to watch them, I doubt there would be takers, but I can see subscribing to F1.com for a year being an option, it is what MotoGP after all, albeit most of it is in Spanish!

 

 

It's already going that way you could argue with Now TV, with the 24 hours access for £9.99 thing. Which is massively overpriced in my opinion.



#10 billm99uk

billm99uk
  • Member

  • 2,981 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 04 January 2014 - 13:50

It's already going that way you could argue with Now TV, with the 24 hours access for £9.99 thing. Which is massively overpriced in my opinion.

 

Yes I thought the same about Bernie TV, years ago. It's basically the 'unbundling' debate which has been going on for years now (most recently in 'Game of Thrones' fandom). "Why do I have to pay £40 a month for a cable/satellite package when I only get hundreds of channels but only watch 1? Can't I have the one channel for 1/100th price?". The answer is no because the vast majority of the costs of the TV company are in supplying the product as a whole (e.g. admin buildings, support staff etc.), not the individual channels. They'd have to pay most of them whether they offered 100 channels or 1. This is why Sky offer you a trivial amount of money for cutting large numbers of channels off your package - it just doesn't save them much. And it means "one channel only" packages always look ridiculously overpriced to the potential purchasers.


Edited by billm99uk, 04 January 2014 - 13:55.


#11 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,803 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 04 January 2014 - 15:10

Yes I thought the same about Bernie TV, years ago. It's basically the 'unbundling' debate which has been going on for years now (most recently in 'Game of Thrones' fandom). "Why do I have to pay £40 a month for a cable/satellite package when I only get hundreds of channels but only watch 1? Can't I have the one channel for 1/100th price?". The answer is no because the vast majority of the costs of the TV company are in supplying the product as a whole (e.g. admin buildings, support staff etc.), not the individual channels. They'd have to pay most of them whether they offered 100 channels or 1. This is why Sky offer you a trivial amount of money for cutting large numbers of channels off your package - it just doesn't save them much. And it means "one channel only" packages always look ridiculously overpriced to the potential purchasers.

That philosophy suits Sky's business needs but puts off consumers like me who don't want everything they offer. If they charged £20 a month then I would likely sign up tomorrow, but at £43.50 a month I can't justify that additional monthly expense with a young family. The F1 channel may advertise itself as having all races live and uninterrupted but the problem they have is fans can watch half the season live on the BBC and do in larger numbers. Sky have the resources to pump into it full time and it's not paying off as much as they had hoped. Can see the races moved onto an existing channel in the coming years as it has more chance of picking up viewers that may not necessarily be interested in F1. At the moment it has it's own channel and viewers are less likely to turn it on unless they are actually interested in the sport beforehand.the beauty FTA has is it generates interest through chance. We all started somewhere with our interest levels. Unfortunately Sky prevent this system because of their structure.

It's all about choice I suppose and this is an industry where I fully support piracy if it delivers what people want. Everyone wins. The sport get their money, Sky get just enough subscribers to break even on their investment and the rest of us get to watch without a monthly fee. :)

#12 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,871 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 04 January 2014 - 15:18

Great opening post as always, DMN, thank you. Will be interesting to see whether there are any team changes at Sky because I think Ant will be busy driving in 2014 and although I think they already have too many pundits, I get they replace him with Karun.

#13 chunder27

chunder27
  • Member

  • 1,043 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 04 January 2014 - 15:57

THe now TV was staggering]

 

When I first heard the advert on the radio I nearly crashed!  10 quid a day!   Utterly insane pricing really!

 

Shows how far removed these poeple are from the real world and how much they rate what they do!

 

Simply put all you do is download an app I presume, and click watch, does that REALLY cost that much to do?

 

Utterm, complete and total greed. And i hope it fails shambolically!



#14 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,871 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 04 January 2014 - 16:12

You've forgotten bandwidth cost which, while not particularly filling the price gap, is quite expensive. An HD movie will eat quite a lot at 2.5-4gb a go. A 3hr HD F1 show is likely to be at the top end of that. If you're paying for a day, it's likely you'll want to max out your value with a movie after you've watched the show too.

However, Netflix at £5.99 a month on two devices shows what's possible at a far better price point, though I suspect they rely on a lot of redundant accounts to make that work. For example, I have not watched anything using my account for almost two weeks.

#15 Shambolic

Shambolic
  • Member

  • 652 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 04 January 2014 - 16:17

Yes I thought the same about Bernie TV, years ago. It's basically the 'unbundling' debate which has been going on for years now (most recently in 'Game of Thrones' fandom). "Why do I have to pay £40 a month for a cable/satellite package when I only get hundreds of channels but only watch 1? Can't I have the one channel for 1/100th price?". The answer is no because the vast majority of the costs of the TV company are in supplying the product as a whole (e.g. admin buildings, support staff etc.), not the individual channels. They'd have to pay most of them whether they offered 100 channels or 1. This is why Sky offer you a trivial amount of money for cutting large numbers of channels off your package - it just doesn't save them much. And it means "one channel only" packages always look ridiculously overpriced to the potential purchasers.

 

The answer is no because they've calculated they can get enough people willing to pay for an entire package to watch one channel. If the calculations found that they'd get enough extra subscribers at lower cost to make the same or more offering single ot selected channel pacjages, they'd do that. Overheads are a factor in pricing, but Sky would take the highest profit option, and currently that is bundling channels into packages and then selling it as a good deal (I'm not saying it is a good deal, only they can argue "Well it is a little expensive, but look how much you get").



#16 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 1,182 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 January 2014 - 16:30

You've forgotten bandwidth cost which, while not particularly filling the price gap, is quite expensive. An HD movie will eat quite a lot at 2.5-4gb a go. A 3hr HD F1 show is likely to be at the top end of that. If you're paying for a day, it's likely you'll want to max out your value with a movie after you've watched the show too.

However, Netflix at £5.99 a month on two devices shows what's possible at a far better price point, though I suspect they rely on a lot of redundant accounts to make that work. For example, I have not watched anything using my account for almost two weeks.

 

That's the point, pay-per-view (or per-day, as in the case of Now TV) is not regular income. Even with the best predictive tools, it's not easy to judge how much income will be generate month by month.The subscription model is a much safer options if you're going to invest a lot of money to provide a service.

 

If you fail to invest enough in equipment to cover the peek demand, with subscribers, you can try to convince them that it will not happen again. You still have their money, though. With PPV though, if you get it wrong, people will feel they've wasted their money with you (as 100% of the money they spent was for the event that failed). You may have to return all/part of the money they paid and they will still be very reluctant to buy from you in the future.

 

Couple that with the fact that PPV is perceived as an ad-hoc purchase and, as such, you can look at it in terms of how much someone might pay for a nice bottle of wine with their meal or take-away vs cooking at home, then a £10 figure seems quite reasonable to those trying to sell the service.

 

Personally, I can't see either would work with F1. I don't think the numbers add up. 



#17 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,424 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 04 January 2014 - 16:41

You've forgotten bandwidth cost which, while not particularly filling the price gap, is quite expensive. An HD movie will eat quite a lot at 2.5-4gb a go. A 3hr HD F1 show is likely to be at the top end of that. If you're paying for a day, it's likely you'll want to max out your value with a movie after you've watched the show too.

However, Netflix at £5.99 a month on two devices shows what's possible at a far better price point, though I suspect they rely on a lot of redundant accounts to make that work. For example, I have not watched anything using my account for almost two weeks.

 

A lot of people do think streaming is virtually costless for a company, but still £10 a day? It's certainly a ridiculous price and I honestly can't imagine they get much business at that price. Netflix is much more in line with what people are prepared to pay.* If Sky brought their prices in line they would probably get plenty of interest, but that would cut into their subscription base, which would explain why they don't want to do that. Makes you wonder why they bother though.

 

*Incidentally, I've got a free trial, and am currently watching as much as is physically possible. I bet they love me :p



#18 Slackbladder

Slackbladder
  • Member

  • 1,196 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 04 January 2014 - 16:43

You've forgotten bandwidth cost which, while not particularly filling the price gap, is quite expensive. An HD movie will eat quite a lot at 2.5-4gb a go. A 3hr HD F1 show is likely to be at the top end of that. If you're paying for a day, it's likely you'll want to max out your value with a movie after you've watched the show too.

However, Netflix at £5.99 a month on two devices shows what's possible at a far better price point, though I suspect they rely on a lot of redundant accounts to make that work. For example, I have not watched anything using my account for almost two weeks.

E....
Does Netflix show any sport?...The costing for drama and movies and is market is very different.

There will always be a default audience when it comes to the BBC as it's position in the UK is so unique, so it's audience levels even for F1 are not really a clear position of the fan base of the sport. Neither is Sky, as it is granted, fairly expensive...

#19 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,871 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 04 January 2014 - 17:44

People are prepared to pay upwards of $30 to watch a single boxing match. So yes, sport is a very different market.

Advertisement

#20 billm99uk

billm99uk
  • Member

  • 2,981 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 04 January 2014 - 18:00

People are prepared to pay upwards of $30 to watch a single boxing match. So yes, sport is a very different market.

 

Boxing is slightly different though, as every fight is a "one-off" event. And the ratio of "hits" to "misses" in buys is very erratic. The only sport PPV model that seems to work consistently as a reliable income stream is Wrestling (and then we get into the argument over whether that is a sport or not!).

 

The answer is no because they've calculated they can get enough people willing to pay for an entire package to watch one channel. If the calculations found that they'd get enough extra subscribers at lower cost to make the same or more offering single ot selected channel pacjages, they'd do that. Overheads are a factor in pricing, but Sky would take the highest profit option, and currently that is bundling channels into packages and then selling it as a good deal (I'm not saying it is a good deal, only they can argue "Well it is a little expensive, but look how much you get").

 

Maybe, if it was Sky only, but almost all Satellite/Cable channels use this methodology which seems to indicate it is the market rather than Sky just being ornery.



#21 chunder27

chunder27
  • Member

  • 1,043 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 04 January 2014 - 20:14

The thing with Neflix is they offer a library! and once on there you are basiclaly streaming legally, nothing more, most of the stuff there is yonks old!

 

For sport I see the point about making a bigegr charge over pay per view, I hadnt thought of it that way, so they are prepared to put off millions of potentials over a few hundred thousands guaranteed?

 

What an interesting lifestyle that algorithmist has.

 

Much like the one in Fight Club who decides whether to do recalls on cars after an accident when they find a problem!

 

All a long way from what you shoudl expect from tv companies, who lets face it are mainly interested these dyas in reality tv and getitng 10 millionpeople watching a bunch of halfwits on an island/trying to sing/cooped up in a house together and sepected coz theya re all social outcasts none else likes!

 

Isnt the world of telly odd!



#22 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 04 January 2014 - 20:22

The only sport PPV model that seems to work consistently as a reliable income stream is Wrestling (and then we get into the argument over whether that is a sport or not!).


There is no debate ;-)

But it is a good example in that, as entertainment, each PPV is carefully set up and guaranteed to mean something (in the context of WWE). A mid season snorefest on some empty soulless oil-state track is going to be hard pushed to gain much in the way of PPV audience...

#23 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 1,182 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 January 2014 - 22:06

Netflix is trying to capture the market and eliminate all competition. It's something Sky did when they started. There's a new emerging market in video streaming and, at the moment, everyone is trying to get in on it. Netflix are big enough to make sure that they can make it very difficult, pricewise, for anyone to provide a similar offering. Once there's only a couple of players left in the market, then they will all start to see how much the customer can be fleeced for.



#24 jonpollak

jonpollak
  • Member

  • 13,647 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 04 January 2014 - 22:23

As Slack asked....
Does Netflix do sport?

Sorry for the noob question.
Jp

#25 HammyHamiltonFan

HammyHamiltonFan
  • Member

  • 210 posts
  • Joined: June 13

Posted 05 January 2014 - 02:34

lol I pity the BBC viewers, Suzy Perry knows **** all about the sport and just sounds like an idiot in the paddock, Coulthard is so far up Red Bull's backside he may as well be called the Red Bull man rather than a "pundit", and Ben Edwards is dreadful at commentary, listening to him after Brundle it's like watching a non league team after watching Barcelona.

 

Sky have totally destroyed the BBC as soon as they got the coverage, the only particularly good things about the BBC were Jake Humphrey (now gone) and Eddie Jordan (underused), it's sad to see them fall so far so fast, amazing that they wanked away the BBC sport budget on shit like athletics and now the gay bashing games in Russia, great job whoever made those choices (NOT), the BBC should start afresh with everyone on their coverage, sack them all except EJ and maybe some of the radio guys, but the TV team is dire, the BBC won't even show F1 after this deal ends almost guaranteed so I doubt they will bother, probably the coverage will just get worse to turn viewers off and then say they had to axe it cause nobody watched.



#26 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,803 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 05 January 2014 - 08:13

lol I pity the BBC viewers, Suzy Perry knows **** all about the sport and just sounds like an idiot in the paddock, Coulthard is so far up Red Bull's backside he may as well be called the Red Bull man rather than a "pundit", and Ben Edwards is dreadful at commentary, listening to him after Brundle it's like watching a non league team after watching Barcelona.

Sky have totally destroyed the BBC as soon as they got the coverage, the only particularly good things about the BBC were Jake Humphrey (now gone) and Eddie Jordan (underused), it's sad to see them fall so far so fast, amazing that they wanked away the BBC sport budget on shit like athletics and now the gay bashing games in Russia, great job whoever made those choices (NOT), the BBC should start afresh with everyone on their coverage, sack them all except EJ and maybe some of the radio guys, but the TV team is dire, the BBC won't even show F1 after this deal ends almost guaranteed so I doubt they will bother, probably the coverage will just get worse to turn viewers off and then say they had to axe it cause nobody watched.

Many of us still choose to watch the BBC over Sky and the viewership speaks volumes in that regard. I have no problem with any of the BBC team and can't relate to any of your annoyances thankfully. If you think the BBC are doing a terrible job and will drop the coverage because nobody watched, you might want thread this:

http://f1broadcastin...rease-slightly/

This comprehensive blog is he only source on the internet that truly compares and analyses the way fans view the sport in the UK. It's an impartial source and shows the BBC's audience grew throughout 2013 whilst Sky's decreased. We may have a different scenario in 2014 but right now the BBC is the primary source for watching F1 in the UK. They don't deserve pity, they deserve respect for delivering quality broadcasting and beating a rival that has on paper the better end of the deal.

Edited by tifosiMac, 05 January 2014 - 08:15.


#27 chunder27

chunder27
  • Member

  • 1,043 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 05 January 2014 - 11:43

Hamilton whatever

 

Humphrey good?  Are you serious!  He ran for more money no other reason and he didnt like F1!  He is so talented he now pops up on youtube selling his soul for Shell! 

 

Anyway the Beebs market has gone up, for many reason already detailed.

 

I do agree about some of your comments, Suzi isnt really that great, not bad but not great. EJ is a disgrace, anyone with such a poor command of his mother tongue should not be on BBC coverage!  DC is fine and Ben is far superior to any BBC commentator recently. Sorry fella but thats the truth!



#28 AlexanderF1

AlexanderF1
  • Member

  • 83 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 05 January 2014 - 12:45

Hamilton whatever

 

Humphrey good?  Are you serious!  He ran for more money no other reason and he didnt like F1!  He is so talented he now pops up on youtube selling his soul for Shell! 

 

 

 

I do agree about some of your comments, Suzi isnt really that great, not bad but not great. EJ is a disgrace, anyone with such a poor command of his mother tongue should not be on BBC coverage!  DC is fine and Ben is far superior to any BBC commentator recently. Sorry fella but thats the truth!

 

i thought humphery was going to be terrible in 09 having only done cbbc but he learned his stuff and it worked realy well as he is a natural presenter as he has done other sports him ej and dc really worked.

 

i suppose everyone has there opinons of bbc .here is mine: suzi i dont like  because of too many mistakes. i like EJ as he brings entertainment for better or worse and has some good insights such as driver line ups. really like DC he has good knowledge and he brings a bit of humour to the show both in and out of the com box.

 

the way i see it ben edwards is like marmite( i like him)but others cant stand them. on sky in the race or quali ive heard david croft and i though his voice is terrible (just my opinon) he was better as a practise com on bbc r5l with ant. at least we still dont have Jonathon `problems' Legard doing tv commentary


Edited by AlexanderF1, 05 January 2014 - 12:49.


#29 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,803 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 05 January 2014 - 13:19

Hamilton whatever
 
Humphrey good?  Are you serious!  He ran for more money no other reason and he didnt like F1!  He is so talented he now pops up on youtube selling his soul for Shell! 
 
Anyway the Beebs market has gone up, for many reason already detailed.
 
I do agree about some of your comments, Suzi isnt really that great, not bad but not great. EJ is a disgrace, anyone with such a poor command of his mother tongue should not be on BBC coverage!  DC is fine and Ben is far superior to any BBC commentator recently. Sorry fella but thats the truth!

To be fair Jake was offered a better deal by BT all round. Firstly he's always loved football before any other sport and made no secret of that even whilst he worked for the BBC. They did also offer him more money and i know I've moved jobs for more money in the past. The details of that were published at the time and jake didn't deny it unlike Brundle who claimed his move had nothing to do with money, yeah right. I think the major appeal of the BT deal for jake was the fact it enabled him to remain in the UK. His wife was expecting their first baby and travelling around the world for 9 months of the year is not practical. Jake did what was best for himself and his family and I respect that immensely. You also don't need to be a long term fan of the sport to be lead presenter. He came into the job as a non fan and left as a fan.

I also like EJ. He's one of the reasons I think the BBC excel in delivering to the viewer. Its relaxed, honest and doesn't seem to follow a script unlike Sky's more corporate attempt IMO. EJ shoots his mouth off often, but its entertaining and he's clearly popular with fans across the world, as displayed on many a post race forum.

#30 Dolph

Dolph
  • Member

  • 5,069 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 05 January 2014 - 13:24

Hamilton whatever

 

Humphrey good?  Are you serious!  He ran for more money no other reason and he didnt like F1!  He is so talented he now pops up on youtube selling his soul for Shell! 

 

Being any good at smth and wanting to be paid less are not the same thing. You argument makes no sense. It seems that you are just angry and ranting away.



#31 Slackbladder

Slackbladder
  • Member

  • 1,196 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 05 January 2014 - 15:21

There is no debate ;-)

But it is a good example in that, as entertainment, each PPV is carefully set up and guaranteed to mean something (in the context of WWE). A mid season snorefest on some empty soulless oil-state track is going to be hard pushed to gain much in the way of PPV audience...


Indeed that's the ultimate point. WWE or boxing or whatever PPV you have is a one off 'event' TV which you buy into or not on a one off basis. That's very different from a 20 race a year series of events which F1 is.

The only real choices are either races on a Free to air broadcaster, ie BBC or Channel 4, or a subscription service, like Sky or BT. The BBC have already made their choice not to show all the races, and that's done, so the range of options from that is always going to be limited.

#32 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,803 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 05 January 2014 - 15:58

It seems both channels suffered a drop in viewers for their official 2013 season reviews. The BBC recorded their lowest viewership since taking the sport back in 2009 with 880k viewers. The first time it has dropped below 1.1m. It was a terrible season but you'd expect a little more interest IMO.

The BBC can take comfort in Sky's effort though as it only managed to attract a measly 1000 viewers! It hardly seems worth while making the program with a figure like that lol. It may make no difference to them in the long run, but shocking nonetheless. Lets hope 2014 stirs more interest for both. :)

#33 Shambolic

Shambolic
  • Member

  • 652 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 05 January 2014 - 16:04

Being any good at smth and wanting to be paid less are not the same thing. You argument makes no sense. It seems that you are just angry and ranting away.

 

Being good at something, and being an arrogant prat who grew more and more cocky and irritating as he got his feet well under the F1 table, are not the same thing.

 

That he lost his devotion to bringing the best in F1 coverage in the world when a larger paycheck came along is irrelevent, his actual presentation grew more and more the "Three Pricks in the Pitlane, featuring JH" and less and less "Here's some actually insightful, yet entertaining, pre and post race television".

 

As for someone arguing EJ is one of the highlights of the BBC - EJ is a compelling reason for me to sell a kidney and get Sky.


Edited by Shambolic, 05 January 2014 - 16:05.


#34 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,803 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 05 January 2014 - 16:31

Being good at something, and being an arrogant prat who grew more and more cocky and irritating as he got his feet well under the F1 table, are not the same thing.
 
That he lost his devotion to bringing the best in F1 coverage in the world when a larger paycheck came along is irrelevent, his actual presentation grew more and more the "Three Pricks in the Pitlane, featuring JH" and less and less "Here's some actually insightful, yet entertaining, pre and post race television".
 
As for someone arguing EJ is one of the highlights of the BBC - EJ is a compelling reason for me to sell a kidney and get Sky.

As said before Jakes wife was having their first child and the allure of travelling the world on the F1 circus wasn't practical. He chose not to renew his then current contract and BT offered him more money to stay at home. He cant be criticised for that at all. The chemistry between him, DC and EJ wasn't to everybody's taste and i fully understand that, but i felt he was a great presenter and is sorely missed. I do like Suzi though and think the Beeb made a good choice there. EJ seems to annoy a few people and again i fully understand that, but it doesn't make much difference to my opinion of him. I enjoy his input to be honest and he is a major reason why i prefer to watch on the BBC. Its just my honest opinion. I would sooner have EJ on my screen than the ever growing ego of Martin Brundle. I can't tolerate that guy at all but then again I've voted with my remote officially. I never thought I would say this but watching the Sky feed with James Allen commentating has been much better. I used to hate JA with a passion but he has mellowed i feel.

#35 FullThrottleF1

FullThrottleF1
  • Member

  • 511 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 05 January 2014 - 16:52

I think JA is better now than since he had a major commenting job.

#36 chunder27

chunder27
  • Member

  • 1,043 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 05 January 2014 - 20:04

Not ranting at all

 

If he was that busy with kids and stuff he wouldnt be selling his soul to Shell and a few other folk would he? All about money let's be fair and I guess who can blame him.

 

I know it's a business, but he is as bad as James Corden for selling out!

 

I guessw e would all do it if we could, but when you get paid that much, really do you have to?

 

Never was that keen on Jake, he got a bit sarcastic and rude towards the end, whereas you never see that from the guys now.



#37 sennafan24

sennafan24
  • Member

  • 3,982 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 05 January 2014 - 20:25

 

I know it's a business, but he is as bad as James Corden for selling out!

 

That is a harsh comparison

 

Difference is Jake is actually quite likable and seems to pursue careers in stuff he actually enjoys. Corden might do the same if I am fair, but he is one smug arrogant so and so, I remember I newspaper article with him banging on about doing well with women speaking like he had the good looks of Ayrton Senna or Brad Pitt

 

Jake is actually quite humble, saying to fans once "Come and say hello at Silverstone, I will be the lanky one". Plus he did seem really moved when he left D.C and E.J, whom it was clear he was fond of. I thought he did a excellent job.



#38 Dalton007

Dalton007
  • Member

  • 3,033 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 05 January 2014 - 20:56

LOL. The complaints in this thread are typical. Yesterday everyone wanted Ben Edwards - and now he's not good enough. Before that fans were crying out that Murray Walker should retire - and now he's looked back on as a national treasure. Martin Brundle sold out. BLAH BLAH BLAH. Jake SOLD OUT BLAH BLAH BLAH.

 

And by the way, does anybody actually go to work here? What would you do if someone offered you money or a promotion? Why are the rules different for people in media? Jake and Martin got better offers.

 

What fans want cannot necessarily be delivered - the dream team is a load of balls, because one man's chalice is another man's poison. 



#39 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 1,880 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 05 January 2014 - 20:58

Not ranting at all
 
If he was that busy with kids and stuff he wouldnt be selling his soul to Shell and a few other folk would he? All about money let's be fair and I guess who can blame him.

How unlike most of the F1 drivers then - Red Bull, Vodophone, Santandar, etc somehow seem to spring into the back of my mind

Edited by ExFlagMan, 05 January 2014 - 20:59.


Advertisement

#40 chunder27

chunder27
  • Member

  • 1,043 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 05 January 2014 - 21:39

I never met the bloke obviously, but seemed to me rather mocking of F1 towrdas the end of his time in the pitlane, he obviouly knoew he was leaving.

 

But everyone has different tastes, I ahve always liked Edwards, preferred him on Eurosport in the 90's to Murray and Palmer (yuck), but Wattie was a bit poor.

 

As for Croft, seems a bit smug again, like he cant quite believe he is the main man at Sky, and I cant either!! 

 

Buy whoever you have folk will like and dislike.

 

For me the perfect combo were Murray and Brundle, they were funny, Martin was excellent at taking the mick, Murry seemed to thrive and ask brilliant questions which he rarely did with hunt or Palmer. Only thing that let that show down were Blundell and woefully awful Jardine who has made a career out of being an F1 pundit without ever doing anything in the sport really!! lola I could even put up with Jim!



#41 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,702 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 05 January 2014 - 22:01

I'm more uncomfortable with presenters also doing advertising work on the side. Especially when they're with the BBC, even though the employment terms create loopholes.



#42 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 14,312 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 05 January 2014 - 22:09

woefully awful Jardine who has made a career out of being an F1 pundit without ever doing anything in the sport really!! lola I could even put up with Jim!

 

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Tony_Jardine

 

Not a big name but a lot of experience in the F1 world. Sort of a minor Peter Windsor.



#43 billm99uk

billm99uk
  • Member

  • 2,981 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 05 January 2014 - 22:51

I'm odd - I like both commentary teams (EJ apart!). I watch Sky because I like seeing the races live and the red button stuff. Plus I have it anyway, for other sport.

#44 Longtimefan

Longtimefan
  • Member

  • 3,170 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 05 January 2014 - 23:20

Brundle I like, I followed his career from Tyrrell onwards so have always been a bit of a fan.

Crofty I'm not a fan of, he yells too much.  if something exciting is happening I can see it, you don't have to scream to tell me.

EJ I find amusing, yes he can be an idiot and his opinon changes with the wind, but still he's amusing.

DC I was never a fan of, but after he and Brundle did the commentating in uh.. 2010 was it?  I grew to like him, just wish he wasn't so biased towards RBR.

Edwards I like and dislike.  I like his commentary and used to like it a long time ago on Eurosport but I really HATE it when he starts yelling. 

 

I watch on SKY (thankfully I get to share a very kind and generous persons SKY stream without paying) I used to like it on the BBC but these days even if I didn't have the Sky stream I wouldn't watch the BBC out of my disgust of their treatment of F1 but thats another story.

 

For me the perfect commentating team will always be Murray Walker and James Hunt. Nothing comes close, ever!


Edited by Longtimefan, 05 January 2014 - 23:23.


#45 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,803 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 06 January 2014 - 08:41

I used to like Brundle and indeed was quite dismayed when he announced he was going off the coverage to join Sky. I couldn't imagine watching a race without his input. My opinion of him has changed since through things he has said on Twitter and from a couple of his run in's on the grid with DC when trying to poach interviews. I've also watched a fair few Sky races and don't think his commentary works with Croft. I think Croft was better on 5Live as he didn't often lose the plot shouting, especially over re-plays that he hadn't realised were re-plays. Brundle sounds quite arrogant at times to me and I've developed a dislike for him losely based on this. Not the end of the world though. Ted Kravitz is a face you really don't want in front of the camera IMO. His obvious enthusiasm of the sport is great and its like having a fan like us in the pitlane, but in front of the camera I find him awkward to watch as he stares ahead making strange faces whilst someone else talks. I don't think he is suited to having a presenting role and is more suited to being a pitlane reporter. I attempted to watch the midweek F1 show and it just seems like very little news stretched into a gossip hour more than anything else, with awkward Ted again. I know it doesn't get many viewers. DC annoys me on ocassion with his obvious Red Bull bias and thankfully since the BBC/Sky deal has been running, the over the top Red Bull show has quietened down a little. I'm very happy with the current BBC line up however. I don't dislike any of them really and feel in hindsight it has refreshed the program with the replacements. The loss of the live races has been the only blow, but again this hasn't been bad news to everybody. Highlights to some people have been a godsend, however I do like the choice even if I spend some races fast forwarding through the dull bits.

 

Its weird. Before this split deal we rarely let any of these people annoy us but now many of us have a preferred program of choice and you notice annoyances. In reality if either of these channels had sole coverage and were available to all of us, we'd just put up with these people like we did before. I still think the BBC deliver the show better, but they have a long history of broadcasting and Sky are very brand conscious and almost Americanized in their delivery IMO. I am still in shock that they only averaged a 1000 viewers for their end of season review though! That is poor and some programs on S4C in Wales get more viewers than that! lol :p


Edited by tifosiMac, 06 January 2014 - 08:43.


#46 Elissa

Elissa
  • Member

  • 234 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 06 January 2014 - 09:47

Okay Mac we get it, you don't like Sky!! It's the same thing for the past month whenever I visit this thread. 
 
How are you managing to watch the midweek report if you don't have a subscription? You pilfering that feed to? I don't really have time for people who'll slate a certain channel at every chance, then go ahead and rob their feed to watch the race when it suits them. Coverage can't be that terrible when you'll happily nick a feed to watch a live race. My SSF1 coverage costs me nothing extra (part of my HD pack) and I see nothing fundamentally wrong with the channel. It's splitting hairs on preferring personalities that constitute the majority of the arguments in these threads.
 
Many people prefer the BBC because it's free, it's hardly a shocker.
 
This thread is utterly pointless, it's a never ending circle jerk of arguments. this year will just be the same as every other...."My channel is better than you channel blah blah"....It's repetitive dribble.  

Edited by Elissa, 06 January 2014 - 10:11.


#47 TrollHunter

TrollHunter
  • New Member

  • 26 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 06 January 2014 - 10:12

I get a little tired of people banging on about ratings. There is only about 5000 homes that are used to 'monitor' who's watching what and even then a person only has to register their presence in a room where a TV is turned on, so 5 people on one viewing board are playing monopoly whilst one other member is watching some 'Katie Price's big fat gypsy geordie get me out of here' crap and that one show is then registered as having 6 people viewing that show and that figure is then turned into 30,000 views for the ratings of that one god awful show. that is of course if the people in that room have pressed their button to register their presence in that room while the tv is on and that there also shows a problem, we forget things at times ,so it's totally plausible that some show's ratings should have been a lot higher. Then there is also the other human factor of temptation, how many of that 5k will want to manipulate the results themselves? I'd bet a fair few would try to at times.

Anyway, sorry for that little rantette. I came here to say that I am a big supporter of Sky's F1 coverage but even I can't defend the ludicrous pricing of their NOW TV offerings. To watch Qualifying and the race would be £20! No thanks Mr Sky, maybe for the races that I'm passionate about I'll subscribe, but if it's going to be a season like 2013, then I'd more than likely find a stream offered to me by some Del Boy site and use my 10 or 20 quid for something much more worthwhile like...................OH F**K I, Who am I kidding!? Any spare cash will be lifted by my dear wife in order that she can buy something we ''really need coz it's reeeeeeeeallllyyyyy pretty!!!!!'' 



#48 TrollHunter

TrollHunter
  • New Member

  • 26 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 06 January 2014 - 10:13

 

Okay Mac we get it, you don't like Sky!! It's the same thing for the past month whenever I visit this thread. 
 
How are you managing to watch the midweek report if you don't have a subscription? You pilfering that feed to? I don't really have time for people who'll slate a certain channel at every chance, then go ahead and rob their feed to watch the race when it suits them. Coverage can't be that terrible when you'll happily nick a feed to watch a live race. My SSF1 coverage costs me nothing extra (part of my HD pack) and I see nothing fundamentally wrong with the channel. It's splitting hairs on preferring personalities that constitute the majority of the arguments in these threads.
 
 
 

 

Exactly what I think too. Well said. :clap: 


Edited by TrollHunter, 06 January 2014 - 10:14.


#49 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,803 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 06 January 2014 - 10:17

 

Okay Mac we get it, you don't like Sky!! It's the same thing for the past month whenever I visit this thread. 
 
How are you managing to watch the midweek report if you don't have a subscription? You pilfering that feed to? I don't really have time for people who'll slate a certain channel at every chance, then go ahead and rob their feed to watch the race when it suits them. Coverage can't be that terrible when you'll happily nick a feed to watch a live race. 
 
Many people prefer the BBC because it's free, it's hardly a shocker.
 
This thread is utterly pointless, it's a never ending circle jerk of arguments. 

 

I've given it a chance and just know what I like. I have a Sky Go login I was given early last year but found that to be quite unreliable and jumpy so haven't bothered to use that for well over a year. I tend to watch a live stream that seems to come from Europe somewhere or pop around my father in laws who has a Skybox f5 system which is free, however its watch only and you can't record unless you hook up a fairly fast hard drive which he hasn't done. I watched a couple of races last season on Sky when I've been home and didn't wish to wait for the highlights so have just formed opinions on what I have seen. There are ways to watch for free and I don't see a problem with F1 fans doing that. I know many foreign fans who have been watching illegal British streams for years and its not annoyed me as we just want to watch the action sometimes as it unfolds. The race coverage is the same on both channels as its the feed they get so watching it on Sky with 5live commentary is not much different to watching on the Beeb really. The ironic thing is some of the streams are better quality than Sky's official Sky go feed. They are never in HD but scaled up on my TV from my laptop they appear very crisp indeed. My issue with Sky has always been the cost. Sure I don't like some of the aspects of the program, but I would likely not let it annoy me if it was just a standard broadcast. Third world problems eh? :p  :yawnface:



#50 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,803 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 06 January 2014 - 10:22

Exactly what I think too. Well said. :clap: 

I am trying to bring forward a decent argument even if I repeat myself a little. Sorry guys. ):