Stupid decision. More so in that apparently they're paying 1/3 less than the existing contract, for only half the races.
+ They are still showing every race, but only selective live and in full. The rest in a highlights package presumably like the 60mins highlights show on BBC Three.
Stupid decision. More so in that apparently they're paying 1/3 less than the existing contract, for only half the races.
But the current deal is 3 years old. You wouldn't expect to pay the same again in Sports rights terms for a popular sport like F1, particularly when Sky had already expressed a strong interest in it. Sports rights inflation is still pretty steep - so you'd certainly expect to pay a lot more for the next deal.
So paying less than currently AND keeping some of the sport - when the BBC couldn't afford to continue to pay what it pays currently, let alone pay the significant increase that Bernie would no doubt have wanted, is probably not a bad result.
The BBC has 16% (+4% extra) savings to make as a result of the frozen licence fee AND taking over funding of S4C and World Service Radio. This is on top of the savings processes that have been running for the last 5 years or so. There is only so much that efficiency savings can deliver - the BBC now has to decide what it can and can't afford to continue to do. This is just the beginning of pretty drastic cuts I suspect.
I'm well aware of the reasons behind this, and understand the difficult choices that have been made and that are yet to come, but IMHO, they should have released all of the rights. It's pointless showing half the races. Especially if they're only getting 1/3 of the current budget saved this way, they should just save the lot, and save something else from the cuts.
Stupid decision. More so in that apparently they're paying 1/3 less than the existing contract, for only half the races.
It is, and talking to my petrol headed friends, the whole stupid idea could well back fire on Sky.
F1 fans generally are not interested in other sports, so AIUI few are Sky Sports, or even Sky subscribers. None of my five friends have any intention of lining the pockets of, quote;
"those greedy c**ts at Sky"
so I do wonder how much revenue (Sky's only motive) will be generated ?
Also it's done the Beeb no favours amongst a section of audience, another nail in the coffin for licence fee avocation.
Also it's done the Beeb no favours amongst a section of audience, another nail in the coffin for licence fee avocation.
That's the problem with major cuts. Nobody wants the services or programmes they like to be cut, and think that other cuts should be made instead.
20% on top of the savings that the Beeb have been making over the last few years is going to be very painful... This F1 decision is the tip of a big iceberg.
Anyone would think that the Tory licence-fee policy had been influenced by a major pay-TV operating rival who had plenty of senior meetings with government ministers, and who also had the ability to give the Tories the backing of a major newspaper... But that would never happen.
I'd much rather see Sky have exclusive rights to all the F1 races for a couple of years. This deal just sounds like the BBC promoting Sky. It would be like the BBC showing the first episode of a drama and Sky showing the concluding part.
I think if Sky had exclusive rights then it would really dent the popularity of F1 and it would have to come back to terrestrial within a few years.
Currently over 700 comments, of the about 300 that have been approved, it looks like there's about 0 supporting the decision.
Although there are also some fairly big errors amongst them, my favourite being that the reason the F1 is scrapped is because the BBC are paying £9 billion to televise the Olympics next year, and that the IOC are cheeky and won't let them sell the rights.
I think any more "we're covering more of the Olympic's than ever before" style posts like last week will not be met with the same level of enthusiasm.
Also it's done the Beeb no favours amongst a section of audience, another nail in the coffin for licence fee avocation.
That's the problem with major cuts. Nobody wants the services or programmes they like to be cut, and think that other cuts should be made instead.
Yes, but in F1's case, the pre and post race 'analysis' is seen by many as superficial. If the Beeb had cut back to their pre ITV days level of pres, and just introduced the race from W12, without all the on site presence, that would have been taken far more favourably. I know, and you know, that the cost of the on site pres is small compared to the rights costs, but it would have been a far more 'understandable' step for the audience, and sent a more positive message that Beeb were trying to make savings. If they made similar cuts to other sports coverage, there might not have been any need to lose F1 or another sport at all ? (Yes, I know F1 has not been 100% lost, but you get the drift)
What worries me about this is the idea of the BBC being there may have propped up Sky's bid, having said that no other terrestrial broadcaster may be interested and if the BBC didn't step in it may have all ended up on Sky.
It might not be too bad if the BBC get their free choice of races and can leave the very early starts to Sky.
I can't help but feel this is a tester for F1, if this works out of the whole thing will go pay on the next contract renewal.
I wouldn't be shocked if Jake went to Sky Sports, the likes of Martin Brundle will have a big decision to make.
I think the Olympics will be too big of a pursuader for Humphreys, plus he is very much the golden boy at the BBC. Although if he did have a desire to venture into football more obviously Sky can cater for that much more.
I'm no sports fan, and find F1 about as exciting as watching the traffic on a local roundabout, however a lot of my colleagues are F1 fans. Their unanimous view is that if the Beeb need to cut back on the cost, then ditch all the the pre and post race preamble floss. Go back to the days where the coverage starts 5 mins before race start, and 5 mins after the podium. I'm told the MotoGP coverage on Sunday night followed that format, and was a refreshing change. No need for any on site presence by the Beeb just MB and JC via ISDN in sound only.
It's the rights though which are the bigger burden, not the production - and scaling back coverage as such (as a non-F1 fan I question the need for an hour of build up both days) wouldn't save the cash.
Currently over 700 comments, of the about 300 that have been approved, it looks like there's about 0 supporting the decision.
Although there are also some fairly big errors amongst them, my favourite being that the reason the F1 is scrapped is because the BBC are paying £9 billion to televise the Olympics next year, and that the IOC are cheeky and won't let them sell the rights.
I think any more "we're covering more of the Olympic's than ever before" style posts like last week will not be met with the same level of enthusiasm.
I know fans are upset but have they been living in a bubble - it was no secret at all the BBC would likely cut F1 completely from 2014 anyway, so although this deal is far from ideal it could have been a lot worse as ITV had indicated they wouldn't bid and I doubt C4 or C5 could afford too.
If they can't afford to show the whole thing, they should have just used the opt out clause and dropped the whole thing at the end of this season. Showing half the races is just stupid, especially since the championship can be won at any of the last few races - it's not like a football tournament where it all comes down to the last match.
Are they going to do a similar time share with Wimbeldon? Sky get Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays, and BBC Tuesdays, Thursdays & the Weekend? It'll all be fine though, because they'll have the finals.
I agree these splits aren't great at all, but unfortunately it may be the way we're going and such deals are already common place elsewhere, especially in the US, where events will have a pay-TV and FTA broadcaster and in the case of tennis and golf it often comes down to a weekday/weekend split.
Quote:
Stupid decision. More so in that apparently they're paying 1/3 less than the existing contract, for only half the races.
I saw that price quoted earlier on the Guardian website and thought exactly the same, although they're now saying the BBC will save £25-£30m a year, so half of the contract price. Speculation is though Sky will pay £40m, so the overall value of the deal goes up - and hence those in F1 who insisted it should be FTA a week ago are quickly changing their opinions.
Of course though the deal has now inflated the price for the next deal (probably from 2017 considering the last two years keep getting torn up) so it's probably out of the reach of the BBC completely.
Also it's done the Beeb no favours amongst a section of audience, another nail in the coffin for licence fee avocation.
That's the problem with major cuts. Nobody wants the services or programmes they like to be cut, and think that other cuts should be made instead.
Yes, but in F1's case, the pre and post race 'analysis' is seen by many as superficial. If the Beeb had cut back to their pre ITV days level of pres, and just introduced the race from W12, without all the on site presence, that would have been taken far more favourably. I know, and you know, that the cost of the on site pres is small compared to the rights costs, but it would have been a far more 'understandable' step for the audience, and sent a more positive message that Beeb were trying to make savings. If they made similar cuts to other sports coverage, there might not have been any need to lose F1 or another sport at all ? (Yes, I know F1 has not been 100% lost, but you get the drift)
The cost of production is pretty close to insignificant when compared to the rights costs - for F1 and for other sports. The BBC could have cut all on-site production, done the entire presentation operation off-tube from a studio in the UK, had no on-site presence at all, and still couldn't have paid for the rights.
It certainly wouldn't have come close to saving 20% - it would probably have still cost more than is currently being spent, as I'm sure the rights costs will have increased after the current deal came to an end.
The only way of making savings in sports coverage of the level required is to cut the rights spending. The production costs disappear into the margins in comparison.
(And whilst some people may find the pre- and post-race production superficial, many others have praised it. The ratings are increasing year-on-year, so it's finding an audience. I don't think Bernie would allow a return to entirely studio-based production. Don't forget he has control over a lot more than the host broadcast feed. If he's not happy with the way the rights holders produce their coverage he has a lot of say. You may notice that the BBC's coverage has a different copyright line to most other sport productions...)