I have no desire to get into a rights and wrongs of Pay / FTA etc.
But one question - to what extent is there a disconnect here? - ie team owners want to maximise their income (ie sponsorship + only some share of TV) whereas the likes of CVC are skewed much more heavily towards TV revenue - though presumably they get some sponsorship income too?
.
It's a good point and I don't understand the motivation either, maybe someone like Joe Saward, or James Allen could be asked to write a peice explaining the motivations/desires of CVC in lieu of raising money. IIRC though CVC are looking to get out soon, they've got what they wanted and there's a lot of talk surrounding middle eastern investment groups. I've just finished reading an auto biography of Bernie (No Angel: The Secret Life of Bernie Ecclestone) and there's a lot of insight into the deal making going on behind closed doors. Well worth a look if you fancy depressing yourself with the shady goings on!
I kinda get the feelings the teams just put up and shut up as they get a lot of money from 'commerical ventures' and pay lipservice regarding FTA to placate fans.
Paying for rights is one thing, broadcasters and circuits having to pay huge sums to service debts is another. If Max and Bernie weren't allowed to run riot with sports assets, we might not be in this situation. Team owners kept quiet because their pockets were being lined, now those same people are struggling to stay afloat and many have since gone bust.
Meanwhile Bernie got his fat payday and the viewers are expected to pay large sums to follow the sport. You would think the FIA would do something about it, but now have no say after Max signed off the rights for 100 years for next to nothing.
I think we can be very confident BBC will see out their contract to 2018.
We don't know exactly what BBC is now paying but it must be around £15m per year for the rights + production costs. That is very, very good value when you look at the volume of content and viewing figures it gets.
There is no reason for the BBC to drop out early. All their major sports rights contracts are now in place for at least approx the next 4 years and they know their income so there isn't going to be a need to make extra unplanned cuts.
I kinda get the feelings the teams just put up and shut up as they get a lot of money from 'commerical ventures' and pay lipservice regarding FTA to placate fans.
Yes, but presumably if the teams were overall losing out badly from the switch to Pay then they would make some noise.
ie: It's possible that going Pay is net positive for Bernie / CVC and net negative for the teams.
But if it was badly negative for the teams surely we would hear something?
But one question - to what extent is there a disconnect here? - ie team owners want to maximise their income (ie sponsorship + only some share of TV) whereas the likes of CVC are skewed much more heavily towards TV revenue - though presumably they get some sponsorship income too?
I believe 100% of trackside advertising/sponsorship goes to FOM (and therefore CVC). So I guess they take a hit if sponsors decide to decrease how much they pay based on lower viewing figures (not that we have any evidence that suggests this has happened yet).
But one question - to what extent is there a disconnect here? - ie team owners want to maximise their income (ie sponsorship + only some share of TV) whereas the likes of CVC are skewed much more heavily towards TV revenue - though presumably they get some sponsorship income too?
The teams get an increased rev share of CVC's income to compensate for the loss of eyeballs. That was a sticking point of the recent negotiations around the latest Concord, some hoped the teams would band together and take more control of the sport, maybe even buy it out and put the money back into the sport, reduce ticket prices and rights fees.
But as usual, they settled for a few extra quid and signed up. :rolleyes: Think thats why Adam Parr resigned.
The teams get an increased rev share of CVC's income to compensate for the loss of eyeballs. That was a sticking point of the recent negotiations around the latest Concord, some hoped the teams would band together and take more control of the sport, maybe even buy it out and put the money back into the sport, reduce ticket prices and rights fees.
But as usual, they settled for a few extra quid and signed up. :rolleyes:
Many thanks. But the question is are they being fully compensated? ie are they net no worse off?
I think we can be very confident BBC will see out their contract to 2018.
Thats what i mean, wont be long.
Plus if you think the economy is in a mess now, will be worse in a few years. Wouldnt be surprised if the pound is devalued again, which point you can forget the BBC stumping up for another contract.
For those asking:
yes, every session on Sky Italy will have commentary (and no commentary option)
yes, they seem to take the Sky Sports F1 model (and rightfully so) but improving it, like for instance staying live all day from the circuit (unlike Sky UK) with continuity studios between the events, the F1 Show (our version at least) live every day, the Drivers Parade live and so on. I hope Sky UK follows that road too pretty soon.
Sky's live coverage of day 4 of the Barcelona test is currently scheduled to start at 13.00 and finish at 15.55, 5 minutes before the test finishes, hope this is a mistake.
Sky's live coverage of day 4 of the Barcelona test is currently scheduled to start at 13.00 and finish at 15.55, 5 minutes before the test finishes, hope this is a mistake.
Sky's live programme runs from 2pm to 4.30pm on Thur, Fri and Sat and then 1pm to 3.55pm on Sun.
Is it just that the Sun session starts and finishes earlier?
I have never really understood the much mentioned "loss of advertising revenue" that is mentioned about the switch to Sky in this country.
There is no advertising on the BBC - so the switch to Sky - if anyhting, had the potential to gain advertisers because of the increased platform. The on car/trackside advertising is a global thing - not exclusively for British viewers and still gets exposure via the BBC anyway via replay on its taped races.
Anyone care to point out where I am wrong on this ?
I think we can be very confident BBC will see out their contract to 2018.
We don't know exactly what BBC is now paying but it must be around £15m per year for the rights + production costs. That is very, very good value when you look at the volume of content and viewing figures it gets.
There is no reason for the BBC to drop out early. All their major sports rights contracts are now in place for at least approx the next 4 years and they know their income so there isn't going to be a need to make extra unplanned cuts.
Agreed they will not let more go. I think us F1 fans have seen the pain. after 2018? As I don't have sky it could be the end for me. They will not get me !!! NEVER!
Okay a overreaction there but I just wouldn't pay. For the same reason I stopped going to races.
I have never really understood the much mentioned "loss of advertising revenue" that is mentioned about the switch to Sky in this country.
There is no advertising on the BBC - so the switch to Sky - if anyhting, had the potential to gain advertisers because of the increased platform. The on car/trackside advertising is a global thing - not exclusively for British viewers and still gets exposure via the BBC anyway via replay on its taped races.
Anyone care to point out where I am wrong on this ?
The advertising earned by Sky will go to Sky - not anyone in F1.
The issue is the potential loss of on car/trackside advertising/sponsorship - of course this is a global thing and the UK is only a small part. But the UK is a significant market and the point about Canal+ is that France is also a significant market and it suggests they are happy doing Pay only deals which will reduce overall audiences. Of course this is mitigated to some degree by FTA highlights but not fully.
The advertising earned by Sky will go to Sky - not anyone in F1.
.
but adverts drive more sales (the reason they do them) so an additional platform for advertising should in theory generate more interest from sponsors to F1...
I have never really understood the much mentioned "loss of advertising revenue" that is mentioned about the switch to Sky in this country.
There is no advertising on the BBC - so the switch to Sky - if anyhting, had the potential to gain advertisers because of the increased platform. The on car/trackside advertising is a global thing - not exclusively for British viewers and still gets exposure via the BBC anyway via replay on its taped races.
Anyone care to point out where I am wrong on this ?
Sponsorship of the teams, not the broadcaster. The sponsors like GE and Airbus.
Quite why you got mixed up I do not know.
Sponsorship of Sky Sports F1 in tiny in comparison to the sponsors involved in F1.
but adverts drive more sales (the reason they do them) so an additional platform for advertising should in theory generate more interest from sponsors to F1...
Additional platform?
Any sponsors involved in F1 already pay money to advertise to every country that can receive F1, why would they then pay more money to a broadcaster to advertise to just one country?
Comments
It's a good point and I don't understand the motivation either, maybe someone like Joe Saward, or James Allen could be asked to write a peice explaining the motivations/desires of CVC in lieu of raising money. IIRC though CVC are looking to get out soon, they've got what they wanted and there's a lot of talk surrounding middle eastern investment groups. I've just finished reading an auto biography of Bernie (No Angel: The Secret Life of Bernie Ecclestone) and there's a lot of insight into the deal making going on behind closed doors. Well worth a look if you fancy depressing yourself with the shady goings on!
I kinda get the feelings the teams just put up and shut up as they get a lot of money from 'commerical ventures' and pay lipservice regarding FTA to placate fans.
Meanwhile Bernie got his fat payday and the viewers are expected to pay large sums to follow the sport. You would think the FIA would do something about it, but now have no say after Max signed off the rights for 100 years for next to nothing.
I think we can be very confident BBC will see out their contract to 2018.
We don't know exactly what BBC is now paying but it must be around £15m per year for the rights + production costs. That is very, very good value when you look at the volume of content and viewing figures it gets.
There is no reason for the BBC to drop out early. All their major sports rights contracts are now in place for at least approx the next 4 years and they know their income so there isn't going to be a need to make extra unplanned cuts.
Yes, but presumably if the teams were overall losing out badly from the switch to Pay then they would make some noise.
ie: It's possible that going Pay is net positive for Bernie / CVC and net negative for the teams.
But if it was badly negative for the teams surely we would hear something?
I believe 100% of trackside advertising/sponsorship goes to FOM (and therefore CVC). So I guess they take a hit if sponsors decide to decrease how much they pay based on lower viewing figures (not that we have any evidence that suggests this has happened yet).
The teams get an increased rev share of CVC's income to compensate for the loss of eyeballs. That was a sticking point of the recent negotiations around the latest Concord, some hoped the teams would band together and take more control of the sport, maybe even buy it out and put the money back into the sport, reduce ticket prices and rights fees.
But as usual, they settled for a few extra quid and signed up. :rolleyes: Think thats why Adam Parr resigned.
Many thanks. But the question is are they being fully compensated? ie are they net no worse off?
Thats what i mean, wont be long.
Plus if you think the economy is in a mess now, will be worse in a few years. Wouldnt be surprised if the pound is devalued again, which point you can forget the BBC stumping up for another contract.
Who knows, cant be that bad otherwise they wouldnt have signed up.
Teams rarely release whether they are making profits or not, so I doubt we will ever know the answer to that question.
yes, every session on Sky Italy will have commentary (and no commentary option)
yes, they seem to take the Sky Sports F1 model (and rightfully so) but improving it, like for instance staying live all day from the circuit (unlike Sky UK) with continuity studios between the events, the F1 Show (our version at least) live every day, the Drivers Parade live and so on. I hope Sky UK follows that road too pretty soon.
I'd move to back to Italy yesterday if I could convince my ever so British loving wife.
Enjoying reading the posts from Elissa Richards !!!
Jp
And MotoGP from 2014.
Sky's live programme runs from 2pm to 4.30pm on Thur, Fri and Sat and then 1pm to 3.55pm on Sun.
Is it just that the Sun session starts and finishes earlier?
No, my guess is because live football starts at 15:55 on sky 3D, though why they can't just continue on Sky Sports F1, I don't know.
There is no advertising on the BBC - so the switch to Sky - if anyhting, had the potential to gain advertisers because of the increased platform. The on car/trackside advertising is a global thing - not exclusively for British viewers and still gets exposure via the BBC anyway via replay on its taped races.
Anyone care to point out where I am wrong on this ?
Agreed they will not let more go. I think us F1 fans have seen the pain. after 2018? As I don't have sky it could be the end for me. They will not get me !!!
Okay a overreaction there but I just wouldn't pay. For the same reason I stopped going to races.
Ken
Generally teams tend to stop running before the session ends on the final day. They just want to pack up and go home.
The advertising earned by Sky will go to Sky - not anyone in F1.
The issue is the potential loss of on car/trackside advertising/sponsorship - of course this is a global thing and the UK is only a small part. But the UK is a significant market and the point about Canal+ is that France is also a significant market and it suggests they are happy doing Pay only deals which will reduce overall audiences. Of course this is mitigated to some degree by FTA highlights but not fully.
Fewer eyeballs seeing the logo, means less value to a sponsor.
but adverts drive more sales (the reason they do them) so an additional platform for advertising should in theory generate more interest from sponsors to F1...
Sponsorship of the teams, not the broadcaster. The sponsors like GE and Airbus.
Quite why you got mixed up I do not know.
Sponsorship of Sky Sports F1 in tiny in comparison to the sponsors involved in F1.
And then less money they are prepared to offer in sponsorship. Which will affect the smaller teams the most.
Any sponsors involved in F1 already pay money to advertise to every country that can receive F1, why would they then pay more money to a broadcaster to advertise to just one country?