Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Sky to broadcast F1 exclusively in UK from 2019 [UPDATE: C4 highlights for 2019]


  • Please log in to reply
2185 replies to this topic

#151 Doughnut King

Doughnut King
  • Member

  • 624 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 23 March 2016 - 20:22

I wondered about F1 when I heard about the Sports Mix channel that Sky are launching. This all fits in well. They will show the highlights and a few races live on the Sports Mix channel and their hope will be to increase general (non-sport) subscriptions. I think that's what the Sports Mix channel is all about - they know that the premium sports market is somewhat over-subscribed now and they are trying to sell to a different market now - those who don't want the premium sports but might be attracted by F1 for 'free'.

 

I suspect that might mean the F1 channel is jettisoned at some point though.



Advertisement

#152 Lotus53B

Lotus53B
  • Member

  • 4,163 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 23 March 2016 - 20:22

Another idea - what if in, say, November 2018, FOM announce a pay per race internet service starting in 2019.

 

That would **** on a lot of folks' strawberries.



#153 Number62

Number62
  • Member

  • 522 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 23 March 2016 - 20:23

Watched F1 for 40 years since a kid  - been to live races in UK, Brazil, Oz, Spain, Italy; attended test sessions pre-season at Barcelona twice, regularly buy magazines and very regular visitor to F1 websites and this and other forums so I've been a serious fan.

 

This has killed it for me.  I'll enjoy two more years of the sport, then I'll start following touring cars, and any other racing that's free to air.

 

Anyone who thinks this is a good move for the future of F1 is too stupid to argue with.

 

Hear hear, i started in 1976 and stopped last Sunday because i won't pay for Sky anymore and couldn't be bothered with the Ch4 highlights.

 

1st race for 40 years where i've been near a TV and found something better to do.



#154 Cozzie

Cozzie
  • Member

  • 171 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 23 March 2016 - 20:28

Soon enough you'll have no Alonso, Hamilton, Button, Raikkonen etc. There won't be enough fans of the next generation to generate any excitement.

This is very true. The next generation is ricciardo and Verstappen and Sainz and thats it. I mean who else is there that actually inspires emotion in you bad or good on the grid.

F1 has almost competed swallowing itself.



#155 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 20,044 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 23 March 2016 - 20:31

If all fall apart viewing wise I will end up following F1 as I did for the most part of 1970ies and 1980ies the written media. I travel every second year to watch a race live, I will (hopefully) find outlets giving insightful coverage of the sport, and when ever possible avail myself to free snips of what is happening.

 

A poor commercial decision on TV coverage will not chase me away from the sport, just push me to follow in another way.

 

:cool:



#156 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 35,259 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 23 March 2016 - 20:33

Another idea - what if in, say, November 2018, FOM announce a pay per race internet service starting in 2019.

 

That would **** on a lot of folks' strawberries.

Won't happen. The contracts they give to the TV companies gives them exclusive coverage in their region.



#157 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 31,253 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 23 March 2016 - 20:34

This is very true. The next generation is ricciardo and Verstappen and Sainz and thats it. I mean who else is there that actually inspires emotion in you bad or good on the grid.

F1 has almost competed swallowing itself.

This isn't even the problem. With F1 disappearing behind a paywall, nobody of the next generation will even have a real chance to inspire people and so F1 will disappear more and more....



#158 SophieB

SophieB
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,321 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 23 March 2016 - 20:34

I have Sky already, so I'm not bitching about the price. However, I am furious that the longterm health of the Motorsport industry, which involves thousands of UK jobs, can be jeopardised so carelessly and easily by this greedy, short-term action. They are making a nice tasty roast dinner out of the goose that lays golden eggs.



#159 JHSingo

JHSingo
  • Member

  • 6,483 posts
  • Joined: June 13

Posted 23 March 2016 - 20:35

As a South African I don't get the cries honestly...we lost free to air sport (including F1) 10 years ago. Pay TV really is where the sport broadcasting is going...it was bound to happen.

 

As a Brit, I don't know why people are failing to understand the anger.

 

Since F1 began being televised, it has (to the best of my knowledge, anyway) always been on a free to view channel in this country. Whether ITV, BBC or Channel 4, live or highlights, that's the way it has always been. If you can't understand why people are displeased that it will no longer be on free to view in any form (bar one race) from '19, then there's little point in continuing this discussion.

 

Yes, the British fans have arguably been spoilt by the coverage they've enjoyed over the years. Maybe it has been inevitable since 2011. But that still doesn't make it any easier to accept for a great many people including myself. As I said earlier, I'm not a Sky subscriber and still won't be subscribing even now. If there are others who feel like me, it is ultimately F1's loss.

 

It's a sad day.



Advertisement

#160 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Administrator

  • 33,805 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 23 March 2016 - 20:37

I honestly don't mind paying for a dedicated f1 channel.

The problem I have is paying for 5 other sports channels I have no need for. Also the quality had been in decline for the last 3 seasons.

The price for the Sky Sports package is £25 + £5.50 for HD.

That's £360 a year! Damn you Sky!

I would happily pay £10 per month to just watch Practice, Qualifying & Race without all these boring pre & after shows.

Having watched the MotoGP, I am impressed. They have fantastic graphics that really submerge you into the action without distrscting you from the main show. You can choose to pay €199 and get access to all the live action as well as classic races too.

I hate that the sport I love is doing its best to alienate it's fans.

For Shame Bernard, For Shame.

I'm sure you're not alone. I'd pay for a dedicated F1 or motor sport channel (at a reasonable price). I'd pay for a dedicated cricket channel too. But there is literally nothing else in Sky's package of sports that I'd want to watch.



#161 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 15,676 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 23 March 2016 - 20:39

Honestly all it would take is Ferrari. If they would jump then it's on.


They are easily bought. Just like Red Bull and the rest.

#162 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 5,511 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 23 March 2016 - 20:40

Forgive me, and I don't want to encourage any illegal activities... but it takes me 10 seconds to find 'an alternative way' to watch F1 on Sky when for some dark reason I can't view BBC or, now, Channel 4. How on earth are Sky going to force anyone paying for their services? The only way their calculations are going to work is if F1 fans find it worth the money for the subscription.

 

Wink. Wink. And so forth...



#163 LORDBYRON

LORDBYRON
  • Member

  • 1,645 posts
  • Joined: May 13

Posted 23 March 2016 - 20:41

 

Regarding the FTA question

 

Adam Cooper @adamcooperF1 41m41 minutes ago

Sky says the British GP will be shown live for free and highlights will be free. But if you don't have Sky, that's it, it would appear

Free to Sky users ie you don't have to pay for the F1 channel specifically

 

They will show the highlights via pick tv as that is on all tv platforms ,And most likely the British gp will be shown for this reason alone i suspect 



#164 TomNokoe

TomNokoe
  • Member

  • 18,858 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 23 March 2016 - 20:42

Can I just say, this is how I got into F1:

I was 12 years old, didn't want to go to school the next day. The best way to avoid the morning is to go to sleep really late, that way it feels like you've been alive for longer.

Anywho, I switched on my awful 21" 4:3 CRT TV in my bedroom and watched highlights of Monaco at about 1am on ITV. That was that.

It was the most fleeting and accidental of beginnings. This has been totally extinguished.

#165 LongTooth

LongTooth
  • Member

  • 169 posts
  • Joined: February 16

Posted 23 March 2016 - 20:42

It's a great deal for Bernie and a white elephant for Sky. Their will be no British challengers for titles after Hamilton retires about that time. Sky are going have trouble shifting the F1 channel as interest in the sport continues to wane. Bernie knows this and was glad to take their money.



#166 WilliamsF1Fan

WilliamsF1Fan
  • Member

  • 1,112 posts
  • Joined: February 15

Posted 23 March 2016 - 20:43

The great thing about this is that Sky are also about to put the price up on their Sports Package by another £2 per month to £27.50 so the Sports alone will cost £330 per year.  Likewise the HD pack is going up by 75p to make that £6 per month.  So that is £33.50 per month for HD F1 on Sky and that is before the other basic parts of the subscription.  I've been in a Sky subscribing household for years and have gradually cut back on the things we take up due to prices (movies first, then HD) now it is looking like having to make extra cuts.  Sky are almost adding an extra month to each year's subscription costs and honestly even as a big F1 fan, the racing hasn't been compelling enough to warrant the costs.  



#167 Tosh

Tosh
  • Member

  • 390 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 23 March 2016 - 20:45

So many bad news lately. I had a little hope left but after this they are all gone. Sad,sad.



#168 Coral

Coral
  • Member

  • 3,991 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 23 March 2016 - 20:46

I have Sky...not out of choice, but necessity. I want to see every race live, so I have no option but to subscribe, more fool me. I feel so terribly sorry for those who cannot afford or are unwilling to pay for Sky. In a few years' time I doubt there will be any free to air sport, except Wimbledon probably. It's so sad.  :cry:  :mad:



#169 TomNokoe

TomNokoe
  • Member

  • 18,858 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 23 March 2016 - 20:46

In 20 years when I'm telling my kids about Formula 1, they'll probably ask me why I was so interested in some dumb chemistry show.

#170 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 31,253 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 23 March 2016 - 20:48

Losing a sport completely to the Pay TV is crucial. People who are paying for it are already fans of this sport, but the people who aren't fan of this sport will never pay for it and so you will never reach new (young) fans. Let alone the fact that you will generally reach less audience...

 

Not many countries are stil broadcasting F1 completely FTA and I would bet that this is also one reason for the decline of this sport...


Edited by Marklar, 23 March 2016 - 20:49.


#171 jr80

jr80
  • Member

  • 137 posts
  • Joined: March 15

Posted 23 March 2016 - 20:53

I don't really see what uk fans can complain about. The country has consistently had governments that cozy up to sky,slash bbc funding,supported privatisation of channel 4 and slimmed down the crown jewels list. In that situation this was inevitable given the short term profit motive of F1.

Is it a stupid long term move?yes of course as cricket proved but given the shareholder incentives yes F1 is saying it doesn't need you as fans. But much like cricket, golf and many other minority interest sports f1 will continue as a highly profitable business for years to come.

Edited by jr80, 23 March 2016 - 20:56.


#172 Frood

Frood
  • Member

  • 3,356 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 23 March 2016 - 20:55

In my current situation, I would not be able to pay for the Sky package in order to be able to watch F1. I'm sure there are plenty of other fans in this country in the same boat.

 

Also, losing FTA coverage in the UK is undeniably A Bad Thing. Most of the teams are based here. If the coverage is so scarce/out of reach, what will inspire the next generation of engineers/aerodynamicists to push themselves to get into motorsports? When the old guard retire, who will replace them? When you start jeopardising the future as badly as this, there won't be a talent pool for Formula 1 teams to hire from...



#173 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • Admin

  • 19,094 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 23 March 2016 - 20:56

Well that's me out from 2019 then.  Someone remember to switch off the lights.



#174 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 7,292 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 23 March 2016 - 21:02

I don't really see what uk fans can complain about. The country has consistently had governments that cozy up to sky,slash bbc funding,supported privatisation of channel 4 and slimmed down the crown jewels list. In that situation this was inevitable given the short term profit motive of F1.

Is it a stupid long term move?yes of course as cricket proved but given the shareholder incentives yes F1 is saying it doesn't need you as fans. But much like cricket, golf and many other minority interest sports f1 will continue as a highly profitable business for years to come.

 

Profitable for who?

 

Are these government funded tracks going to keep pumping $50million a year into FOM's back account if nobody in Europe is watching the sport?



#175 ConsiderAndGo

ConsiderAndGo
  • Member

  • 5,537 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 23 March 2016 - 21:02

I'm a fan of F1 because I stumbled across it 20 years ago as a kid, flicking through terrestrial TV.

The new generation of fans won't get this opportunity. This is why F1 will ultimately fall down the toilet.

#176 Talisman

Talisman
  • Member

  • 5,568 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 23 March 2016 - 21:03

I'm sure you're not alone. I'd pay for a dedicated F1 or motor sport channel (at a reasonable price). I'd pay for a dedicated cricket channel too. But there is literally nothing else in Sky's package of sports that I'd want to watch.

 

F1 is the only sport I'm prepared to pay for.  Sky did the intelligent thing in the first year of coverage by making it part of an HD package with no requirement to pay for other sport subscriptions which was worthwhile.  I gather this has changed.  There is no way I would pay for an overinflated subscription package so I get access to Premier league football and other sports I have no interest in just to maintain access to F1.



#177 Talisman

Talisman
  • Member

  • 5,568 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 23 March 2016 - 21:11

They are easily bought. Just like Red Bull and the rest.

 

The teams have made it clear if the numbers add up they're happy with the switch to pay-TV.  They know that sponsorship income might fall but if FOM payments from TV increase more then they are fine.  So far this model is delivering for the powerful teams so why bite the hand that feeds them?


Edited by Talisman, 23 March 2016 - 21:11.


#178 chunder27

chunder27
  • Member

  • 5,775 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 23 March 2016 - 21:12

More fool anyone who pays for it, your selfishness and ignorance is going to put F1 out of the reach of millions of future F1 fans.

Every single one of us grew up watching F1 on BBC, ITV or the like free to air.

 

I know this is the modern way, but it DOES NOT mean it is right.

 

Solidarity is the only weapon you have.  I feel sorry for people who pay for it, I really do, especially as they are part of a legacy that will destroy the romance, amazement and shock and awe of kids seeing F1 for the first time. F1 will forver get further and further away from normal people and go further into the pockets of the rich and cretinous who would pay 100 quid a month to watch it regardless of even thinking about it.

SKY is still a minority viewership, it is not the terrestrials fault they cannot bid for sport, SKY have to find billions every single year to fund football and the premier league, they will keep doing it any way they can, including fleecing sheep-like F1 fans who can't survive without watching what is really a very dull car advert.

 

How do you feel F1 SKY fans, knowing that all you are REALLY funding is the ability for Manchester City or Chelsea to fund 300 grand a week salaries, F1 is a bit part in this game, and its about time you realised whst it is you are really paying for?



#179 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 31,253 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 23 March 2016 - 21:14

Sky will pay 50m per year apparentely

 

http://www.telegraph...attack-obsolet/



Advertisement

#180 Jamiednm

Jamiednm
  • Member

  • 2,546 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 23 March 2016 - 21:15

Forgive me, and I don't want to encourage any illegal activities... but it takes me 10 seconds to find 'an alternative way' to watch F1 on Sky when for some dark reason I can't view BBC or, now, Channel 4. How on earth are Sky going to force anyone paying for their services? The only way their calculations are going to work is if F1 fans find it worth the money for the subscription.

Wink. Wink. And so forth...



F1 isn't funded in a vacuum on Sky though. They increase their sports packages and triple play packages in general as a whole, at above inflation levels every year, primarily to pay for their exorbitant football rights. F1 can easily be factored in to this. Having F1 will hoover up some F1-only viewers, help to retain existing subscribers, and gives them another big name in their portfolio to help in their war against BT. I suspect F1 is a loss-leader for Sky, or at best, makes a small profit.

I doubt they're overly bothered about how easy it is to obtain 'unofficial' streams for F1, considering it is extremely easy to get streams for Premier League football matches - their biggest money spinner. As long as they can squeeze their subscribers to cover these massive fees, they aren't bothered how many people watch it, or whether illegal streams are readily available, unfortunately.

#181 jondon

jondon
  • Member

  • 590 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 23 March 2016 - 21:15

Ah well, bye bye F1 



#182 ConsiderAndGo

ConsiderAndGo
  • Member

  • 5,537 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 23 March 2016 - 21:16

Sky will pay 50m per year apparentely

http://www.telegraph...attack-obsolet/


That seems biblically low...

#183 EthanM

EthanM
  • Member

  • 4,812 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 23 March 2016 - 21:18

More fool anyone who pays for it, your selfishness and ignorance is going to put F1 out of the reach of millions of future F1 fans.

Every single one of us grew up watching F1 on BBC, ITV or the like free to air.

 

I know this is the modern way, but it DOES NOT mean it is right.

 

Solidarity is the only weapon you have.  I feel sorry for people who pay for it, I really do, especially as they are part of a legacy that will destroy the romance, amazement and shock and awe of kids seeing F1 for the first time. F1 will forver get further and further away from normal people and go further into the pockets of the rich and cretinous who would pay 100 quid a month to watch it regardless of even thinking about it.

SKY is still a minority viewership, it is not the terrestrials fault they cannot bid for sport, SKY have to find billions every single year to fund football and the premier league, they will keep doing it any way they can, including fleecing sheep-like F1 fans who can't survive without watching what is really a very dull car advert.

 

How do you feel F1 SKY fans, knowing that all you are REALLY funding is the ability for Manchester City or Chelsea to fund 300 grand a week salaries, F1 is a bit part in this game, and its about time you realised whst it is you are really paying for?

 

 

While I appreciate where you 're coming from, you 're exaggerating. You can watch the whole season for 250 quid or whatever. Is it worse than free? Yeah. Is it exclusively for millionaires? nah

 

Ultimately who's driving this is the people buying up the ad space. If advertisers are willing to pay a premium for the what? three quarters of a million? set of eyes watching each SKY broadcast well then son, you 're **** out of luck ... cause they just made it profitable for the sport to be behind a paywall.



#184 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 3,103 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 23 March 2016 - 21:27

I guess I'll just keep my fingers crossed RTL keep coverage in the future and I'll continue my long and so far fairly fruitless attempt to learn German. 



#185 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 31,253 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 23 March 2016 - 21:31

I guess I'll just keep my fingers crossed RTL keep coverage in the future and I'll continue my long and so far fairly fruitless attempt to learn German. 

It's not worth it, they are talking all the time BS. I mute it whenever I'm watching RTL....



#186 jules153

jules153
  • Member

  • 201 posts
  • Joined: August 15

Posted 23 March 2016 - 21:35

I will never give a single penny to Murdoch.

Terrible news

#187 ArchieTech

ArchieTech
  • Member

  • 1,150 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 23 March 2016 - 21:36

While I appreciate where you 're coming from, you 're exaggerating. You can watch the whole season for 250 quid or whatever. Is it worse than free? Yeah. Is it exclusively for millionaires? nah

 

Ultimately who's driving this is the people buying up the ad space. If advertisers are willing to pay a premium for the what? three quarters of a million? set of eyes watching each SKY broadcast well then son, you 're **** out of luck ... cause they just made it profitable for the sport to be behind a paywall.

The latter. Prices for new subscribers:

SD: £50.00 per month = £600 per year.
HD: £71.50 per month = £858 per year.

 

You have to take a basic TV package to be able to buy the sports package, and to get HD you can't be on the "original" bundle, you have to be on the more expensive "family" bundle. There are introductory deals available in various places, but those are the headline prices AFAIK.

 

Ah wait, there's always NowTV passes though I suppose - I guess that might be do-able with in the £250?


Edited by ArchieTech, 23 March 2016 - 21:39.


#188 Kucki

Kucki
  • Member

  • 1,472 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 23 March 2016 - 21:37

Ooh Bernie what will all that money be good for in the grave?



#189 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 3,103 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 23 March 2016 - 21:37

I'm a fan of F1 because I stumbled across it 20 years ago as a kid, flicking through terrestrial TV.

The new generation of fans won't get this opportunity. This is why F1 will ultimately fall down the toilet.

I do agree, the loss of live free to air is a huge blow. 

 

But I wonder how much the model of usual TV will change. There are a good number of Netflix or Amazon exclusive dramas out there that you can watch when ever you want and you will most likely come to know about through advertising. It's not implausible for this to happen to sports too, with providers allowing you to access streams, which I already do with IndyCar through BT Sport. If this is the case then F1 might be able to survive with good promotion and advertising, but not if it's tied to expensive 'sport packages' or if F1 still seems to think it can get away with relying broadly on it's reputation for new fans (and banning almost any footage that makes it's way onto YouTube). 

 

In the mean time, loss of live free to air is no good at all in my view. 



#190 JHSingo

JHSingo
  • Member

  • 6,483 posts
  • Joined: June 13

Posted 23 March 2016 - 21:39

The other issue with discussion of price -

It's not so much to do with whether it's too expensive, and more to do with whether it's worth it. Would I pay to watch F1 right now, when it is in such a poor state? Absolutely not. I'm not in the least bit inspired to.

There would have to be a lot of changes between now and 2019 for me to even consider the thought of subscribing, truthfully. And that applies to Sky's coverage and not just the sport as well.



#191 JRizzle86

JRizzle86
  • Member

  • 2,096 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 23 March 2016 - 21:39

The latter. Prices for new subscribers:

SD: £50.00 per month = £600 per year.
HD: £71.50 per month = £858 per year.

 

You have to take a basic TV package to be able to buy the sports package, and to get HD you can't be on the "original" bundle, you have to be on the more expensive "family" bundle.

 

There are introductory deals available in various places, but those are the headline prices AFAIK.

21 races

 

In SD £28.57 per race

In HD £40.86 per race

 

Bargain.......



#192 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 3,103 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 23 March 2016 - 21:41

It's not worth it, they are talking all the time BS. I mute it whenever I'm watching RTL....

Ha, thanks for warning me! I have it already but only pick out the odd phrases here and there, maybe I'll understand enough to see what you mean one day 



#193 TomNokoe

TomNokoe
  • Member

  • 18,858 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 23 March 2016 - 21:41

If Bernie suddenly died would anyone be actually sad, seriously? Tarnished the sport beyond recognition. Cannot wait until he croaks. He's probably paid Petronas to come up with special life fuel to keep him going for a few more decades.

Truly, at first he was sort of funny, just the silly old man who was out of touch who said some funny things and always looked lost on the grid, but honestly now he's just a desperate, vindictive soul.

#194 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 31,253 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 23 March 2016 - 21:42

Ooh Bernie what will all that money be good for in the grave?

Tamara and Petra



#195 ConsiderAndGo

ConsiderAndGo
  • Member

  • 5,537 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 23 March 2016 - 21:49

21 races

In SD £28.57 per race
In HD £40.86 per race

Bargain.......


Yikes!

#196 EthanM

EthanM
  • Member

  • 4,812 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 23 March 2016 - 21:50

The latter. Prices for new subscribers:

SD: £50.00 per month = £600 per year.
HD: £71.50 per month = £858 per year.

 

You have to take a basic TV package to be able to buy the sports package, and to get HD you can't be on the "original" bundle, you have to be on the more expensive "family" bundle. There are introductory deals available in various places, but those are the headline prices AFAIK.

 

Ah wait, there's always NowTV passes though I suppose - I guess that might be do-able with in the £250?

 

 

21 races

 

In SD £28.57 per race

In HD £40.86 per race

 

Bargain.......

 

 

21 races = 21 weekly passes x  £10.99 each = £230.79 and you watch the whole coverage, from press conferences to FP to quali to race, you can go cheaper with day passes if you just wanna watch the race

 

£10.99 for the whole weekend ain't that expensive. Yeah it's more expensive that FTA but ...



#197 davidlan

davidlan
  • Member

  • 366 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 23 March 2016 - 21:57

When I was younger we followed our sport by going to watch it, I liked bikes so weekend trips were many and fun. 

The TV coverage in the great days of our 4 channels was not only spotty but sometimes just strange, "try watching

a chess match followed by Rally Cross".

Now I have 600 TV channels and many are dedicated to a single sport, my children don't even bother with TV as

the Phone and Tablet are their toys. The price of a ticket to see a race now is way beyond the means of most people

but the cost for the TV channel or Net stream is much cheaper.

Times have changed, the sports make more money from TV and sponsors than bums in seats. A stadium will only

hold 75k but  TV'S watching  could be millions. I don't like it but the writing is on the wall all profitable sports will

be behind pay walls.

 

I thought my first post here should very depressing. :lol:



#198 chunder27

chunder27
  • Member

  • 5,775 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 23 March 2016 - 22:02

David, you hit so many vaild points there

 

Modern tv is dying as we know it, the few voewers that will pay for it and their favourite sports are being ever more squeezed.

 

All sport can EXIST behind a paywall, but I still, long term, see only one that can thrive there.

And that aoint a sport for rich people, watched by rich people, performed by rich people, owned by rich people and largely viewed by rich people.

That, in reality is an ever decreasing circle



#199 billm99uk

billm99uk
  • Member

  • 3,807 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 23 March 2016 - 22:02

I'm sure you're not alone. I'd pay for a dedicated F1 or motor sport channel (at a reasonable price). I'd pay for a dedicated cricket channel too. But there is literally nothing else in Sky's package of sports that I'd want to watch.

 

The problem is not enough people will pay what they think a 'reasonable' price is to even come close to the income they can get from an exclusive satellite deal. We found out that with Bernie TV. And FTA sport is just dying these days.



Advertisement

#200 smr

smr
  • Member

  • 1,096 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted 23 March 2016 - 22:02

This isn't good news, less viewers and less fans isn't a good thing in the UK.

 

But I don't entirely agree with some of the posts people have made about coverage on Sky being crap...

 

I actually enjoy it - an hour and a half of build up compared to just one hour the BBC used to offer - so more time to see videos/interviews/pre-race build up coverage

The post race is the only thing which can drag but I always watch it all anyway and enjoy it

The race doesn't have adverts

The practice sessions always have a 15-30 minutes of build up and post coverage.

Same goes for Qually 

I like Ted, he really carries a lot of the pre and post event stuff

And I like Crofty as a lead commentator and Brundle as the second technical commentator.

I also like listening to Crofty and Davidsons ramblings and technical insights (from AD) during practice sessions. All in all I for one enjoy the Sky coverage.