1568 replies to this topic

[D.M.N.]

I'm reading the book at the moment, a gift from my little girl for Christmas. I See DMN's point already and am only about 30 pages in.

Here is some insight for you though DMN. I was in the paddock in Hungary 2011 and what was immediately noticeable before the story broke in the paddock is the way that Jake and the rest of the BBC team sloaped in. It was totally different to usual and so very obvious. When the story broke about 30 mins later, up and down the paddock in the motorhomes (that day I was in Red Bull, Mclaren, Team Lotus (Caterham) and Lotus) it was THE hot topic of conversation. Later on that morning when I was in the Pirelli motorhome (which was near the paddock entrance) Bernie was driven into the paddock and then driven down to the bottom where he jumped straight into his bus. That might sound normal for a thursday but it wasn't. All the media wanted to jump on him for it; the story for them let's remember was not the BBC being dropped but the potential for the TV distribution model to be changed from free to air to pay per view. Hence he did what he does best and ignored the situation.

It was fun to be in the paddock that morning and the only BBC person to really show their face was the misery guts that is Lee McKenzie.

Happy Christmas all...

The announcement was made Friday morning, the BBC team found out Thursday evening. It definitely was Friday morning, because David Croft and Anthony Davidson were on practice live on Friday morning that weekend telling the viewing audience the press release.

[Ross Stonefeld]

So the Humphrey book is basically a novelisation of what you already saw on-screen.

[f1fan1998]

I was there for the Thursday and Friday and flew home on Saturday morning. My mistake and if your memory is better than mine it's even less normal to be driving down the paddock on the Friday morning!

[dank]

So the Humphrey book is basically a novelisation of what you already saw on-screen.

As is Rider's, to some degree.

He spends an inordinate amount of time - about a third of the book - going over what happened on-track during 2007 and it verges on becoming a mini-review of the season. And the biggest televisual revelation in all this? Lewis Hamilton's arrival attracted a few hundred thousand more viewers. Who'd have thought it, eh?

The first half of his book is interesting and insightful, though.

Edited by dank, 30 December 2012 - 15:40.

[D.M.N.]

2007 is a particularly interesting one though because of 'spygate' and considering the TV coverage that got, I can see why he wanted to go into detail about it in there from ITV's perspective. You can't avoid the racing altogether. In my view, Rider got the balance right between broadcasting and racing whereas Humphrey's is mainly about the racing.

[tifosiMac]

I don't care whether he fronts F1 or not, but do believe he could have dropped F1 and remained at the BBC if he wanted. I agree having kids is life changing, but I still think the money was the clincher.

If the bbc covered his passion (football) I'm sure he would have stayed there but they don't. I don't believe for a second Jake went purely for the money. I also have no problem with him deciding to leave the bbc after they showed no loyalty to the team when they dumped f1.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Wtf? Loyalty to the team? What great sacrifice did they make taking a high profile and well paid job?

[Clatter]

Wtf? Loyalty to the team? What great sacrifice did they make taking a high profile and well paid job?

+1

Add to that, what difference did the dumping of half the live races make to the team anyway? They still went to all races and carried on exactly the same whether the race was live or not. Having dumped the races on the ground of cost saving the BBC should have made big cuts on the production side as well.

[Moore]

Just seen the BBC end of season review and thought it was excellent and better than Sky's. Just had a more natural flow and to be honest I can't stand Simon Lazenby.

[tifosiMac]

I don't think you quite got what I meant.

[Clatter]

I don't think you quite got what I meant.

What did you mean then? Afterall they didn't sack anyone. As far as I can see they honoured their contracts. How much more loyalty do you expect the BBC to give an employee?

[tifosiMac]

Just seen the BBC end of season review and thought it was excellent and better than Sky's. Just had a more natural flow and to be honest I can't stand Simon Lazenby.

Yeah I agree, I enjoyed the bbc version much better due to it being a good length with plenty of footage and analysis. I watched sky's effort today at a family members house and found myself fast forwarding through the tedious bits. Far too much time with Brundle, lazy, Hill, and Herbert sat on a sofa going over multiple incidents from the season. I'm a big fan but found it a bore. The been may have done a similar thing with jake, dc, and ej chatting, but it was backed up with footage and delivered in a more relaxed and comfortable manner. I really hate sky sports and their formal corporate approach.

[tifosiMac]

What did you mean then? Afterall they didn't sack anyone. As far as I can see they honoured their contracts. How much more loyalty do you expect the BBC to give an employee?

I don't wish to have a multiple post exchange going down that route and don't wish to explain further. Please believe what you want me to have meant, I'm not bothered.

[olliek88]

I really hate sky sports and their formal corporate approach.

We noticed that during the duration of this thread. That ends any of the credibility you had left for critiquing Sky, i enjoy good, objective debate but when people clearly have twisted and subjective opinions their opinion is completely void, frankly.

[tifosiMac]

We noticed that during the duration of this thread. That ends any of the credibility you had left for critiquing Sky, i enjoy good, objective debate but when people clearly have twisted and subjective opinions their opinion is completely void, frankly.

Well I'm heart broken you feel I don't have any credibility ollie. I prefer the bbc's delivery and if you don't agree with that then that's your problem. I'm never going to be positive towards sky because they've alienated too many people by charging obscene prices to receive the channel. If it was a 10 pound a month bolt on that fans could purchase on freeview then it would be more attractive. As it stands they are demanding 32 quid a month at least and that's totally unreasonable. The fact their coverage isn't as good as the beebs also doesn't make it any easier to accept. People who think its a great deal are kidding themselves and I'll repeat that as many times as I like. If you don't want to read it then ignore me.

[olliek88]

Well I'm heart broken you feel I don't have any credibility ollie. I prefer the bbc's delivery and if you don't agree with that then that's your problem. I'm never going to be positive towards sky because they've alienated too many people by charging obscene prices to receive the channel. If it was a 10 pound a month bolt on that fans could purchase on freeview then it would be more attractive. As it stands they are demanding 32 quid a month at least and that's totally unreasonable. The fact their coverage isn't as good as the beebs also doesn't make it any easier to accept. People who think its a great deal are kidding themselves and I'll repeat that as many times as I like. If you don't want to read it then ignore me.

I've said several times that i like the beebs coverage and, bar EJ, i more often than not prefer their build up over Sky's, you liking the BBC isn't any problem whatsoever and wasn't my point, not being able to look past your own prejudice against Sky as a whole was what i took up issue with, how can you objectively judge their coverage if you have such a strong dislike of the organisation? Evidently you can't.

[Clatter]

Well I'm heart broken you feel I don't have any credibility ollie. I prefer the bbc's delivery and if you don't agree with that then that's your problem. I'm never going to be positive towards sky because they've alienated too many people by charging obscene prices to receive the channel. If it was a 10 pound a month bolt on that fans could purchase on freeview then it would be more attractive. As it stands they are demanding 32 quid a month at least and that's totally unreasonable. The fact their coverage isn't as good as the beebs also doesn't make it any easier to accept. People who think its a great deal are kidding themselves and I'll repeat that as many times as I like. If you don't want to read it then ignore me.

In my opinion it's the BBC who have done the alienation, not Sky. It was the BBC that reneged on their contract, it was the BBC that started the negotiations with Sky. It is the BBC who have done the dirty on the fans.

[tifosiMac]

I've said several times that i like the beebs coverage and, bar EJ, i more often than not prefer their build up over Sky's, you liking the BBC isn't any problem whatsoever and wasn't my point, not being able to look past your own prejudice against Sky as a whole was what i took up issue with, how can you objectively judge their coverage if you have such a strong dislike of the organisation? Evidently you can't.

I can judge their coverage because I have stated I dislike their delivery not them as a company. I'm not new to the sky sports experience and have watched it for many years (football). Not always by choice as I am by no means a football fan. I dislike the in your face graphics constantly advertising the channel and the way presenters are expected to behave. It's very formal and corporate. Contrast it to the bbc who are a lot more comfortable around the paddock and deliver the sport in a more friendly manner and you can see why so many fans choose the beeb. The fact they have chosen Suzi Perry also suggests they are keen to keep the quality of a high standard.

As I said I am never going to be fully positive of sky because I don't like the way fans are now forced to pay to view. That's not sky's fault I know, but it prices fans out like myself and its the fans who keep the sport popular. Other countries don't provide free coverage or license paid coverage, but in the uk the following is high in relation to the population. More people tune in to a gp than your average top flight football match. It's all money driven and its bad for fans, the people who are expected to support this great sport. Paying 32 quid a month for one channel and only 10 races a year is not a reasonable amount of money. I will admit I am very bitter about the deal and its unlikely to ease in the coming years. This doesn't mean I can't give my opinion here as to the quality of the coverage. I don't appreciate being told how I am to think of behave thanks ollie.

[tifosiMac]

In my opinion it's the BBC who have done the alienation, not Sky. It was the BBC that reneged on their contract, it was the BBC that started the negotiations with Sky. It is the BBC who have done the dirty on the fans.

Partially yes. I have made that point many times myself.