I pay for BBC and get Sky (inc Sports HD) for free - watched both for the second week running - and I still prefer the BBC's coverage.
Lazenby has improved, no doubt about that. And Sky have learnt not to have 27 pundits all trying to interview the same person at once. And Ted is absolutely fantastic and I will always watch him. Meanwhile DC was an embarrassing watch post-race - BBC definitely need another post-race pundit when EJ isn't there - McNish maybe?
But the BBC has Ben (We should really consider how lucky we are in that we now have three great commentary teams when a few years ago we only had one - Crofty and Ant on the radio), it has the Chain, it has Lee who has developed into a far better interviewer then Pinkham could ever be, and most of all it has style, class and inventiveness - not for them pointless musical montages around the the breaks to stretch a programme out (even though they extend it by 30 mins and still run out of time) - but Queen's "You're my best friend" at the end. Sky basically have looked at what BBC do and copied everything they can - but they've not been able to copy their spirit. I find all the brash "Your home of Formula 1" combined with their increasingly obvious attempts to take over all broadcasting of the sport leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Ultimately different people want and get different things out of the coverage. I actually quite liked Pinkhams feature on the ice with Raikkonen despite everything I've said here (and everyone else's opinion!). I enjoy most of your posts Elissa but if you didn't see any of the BBC coverage then maybe you should not attack "traditional BBC boys" just because some people do have criticism of an aspect of Sky's coverage or praise for part of the BBCs coverage.
Thanks for the words etc...
Let me clarify this. firstly...by 'Traditional BBC Boys' In the context I mean (and it was written in) it's the posters that will deride Sky at every chance without any comprehension that people might prefer that element of coverage to the BBC. I've watched BBC coverage many times, just not this Sunday. There's nothing wrong with having opinons one way or another (and your post's a perfect example of that) and I hope they're always encouraged, but it's another thing to continually and only slate Sky yet rob a feed for free. Can you see where I'm going with that? Also an important point to note is that I haven't criticised ANY of the BBC's coverage as I didn't see it this week. I don't recall anything in my post that did criticise them this week.
In regards to the rest of your post:
I'm a big McNish fan (more so because of WEC) and I like him as a personality. I think he may have some issues with viewers warming to him as he can seem abrupt in responses sometimes, which is just the method and pattern his words come out. Viewers are a fickle bunch!!
I understand the comments regarding 'spirit' of coverage, and has been noted many times in here before that the BBC took a well tested formula and improved on it, same as what Sky are doing. I personally prefer the more technical 'cold' approach of Sky (ignoring pinkham's lighter moments) to the BBC more 'friendly' style of coverage. I'm a geek as such I much prefer data and small detail. It's fair to say the 3 mates appeal of BBC utterly turned me off them and I'm wishing for it to lessen off with Suzi's arrival.
I take issue with Lee being a better interviewer, because in all fairness I think both of them aren't that great at interviewing full stop. Natalie is far too silly and 'matey' for my liking, whereas Lee never really asks any ground breaking questions either. Holding a mic up to someone and saying 'So Jenson...not the best race today' and then letting the driver speak isn't great journalism, it's lazy imo (they both do it). But it works and keeps many people happy, I'm sure the drivers would soon shut off if faced with more probing questions after a race.
So they pay more money and get less viewers What are they getting out of it? Must be very expensive for them to put their equipment everywhere as well.
And do the viewers have to pay extra to see this?
The majority of the cost is rights based. Per year, from 2009 to 2011, BBC were spending £50 million on Formula 1, £40 million on the rights and £10 million on production.
They needed to reduce that for reasons well known. So the option they took was to go to Sky, meaning that their rights reduced to £20 million (it might have been £15 million), meaning that they are saving £20/25 million per year, a significant amount of money.
We all pay the license fee, no matter what we watch, so you do not pay directly for the BBC.
Just curious, how do you get sky for free?
Watching it online somewhere I assume
There looks to be a crackdown this year to stop that and in pubs, have seen the random numbers appearing like for the football
I really enjoyed reading that
You have an interesting writing style
The whole sky weekend for me was well played out
I too am not a fan of Nat, she needs to grow up, surprised they let her come over like that
The others, Ted, Martin are good professionals and show up her poor style
I watched a little of the beeb, by accident late afternoon changing channels
Suzi did push David a little to get his reaction, but she came over as knowledgeable and interested in how she was presenting
I really enjoyed reading that
You have an interesting writing style
The whole sky weekend for me was well played out
I too am not a fan of Nat, she needs to grow up, surprised they let her come over like that
The others, Ted, Martin are good professionals and show up her poor style
I watched a little of the beeb, by accident late afternoon changing channels
Suzi did push David a little to get his reaction, but she came over as knowledgeable and interested in how she was presenting
Hey thanks...
What was Suzi and David like chemistry wise? I recall watching them the first week and they seemed a little unsure of each other. Are they warming to each other?
What was Suzi and David like chemistry wise? I recall watching them the first week and they seemed a little unsure of each other. Are they warming to each other?
I think Suzi still needs to settle in. Jake had to. Things will improve.
Have Sky shortened their post race coverage ? Wonder if it will be longer once they're competing with the BBC F1 Forum.
BBC's practice schedule for China suggests just 5 mins pre and post the session - the same as the Red Button/R5 broadcasts. Hoping there's some proper presentation added.
China will be interesting both from the broadcast POV and also the Red Bull happenings.....
The Malaysia broadcast was actually longer, a very good decision by them to do so.
Thanks. The BBC tend to vary depending on how long they stay live on BBC1. On their best days there can be around 40 mins post race on BBC 1 followed by an hour (or even a bit more) on the Forum. How did Sky compare there last year ?
I think I've decided that I'd prefer it was simply on one channel or the other rather than both.
Sky if you read this, how about having a 3 day pass for F1 ONLY on NowTV as an alternative to one day's access to all sports channels. Sort of a race pass.
Let me clarify this. firstly...by 'Traditional BBC Boys' In the context I mean (and it was written in) it's the posters that will deride Sky at every chance without any comprehension that people might prefer that element of coverage to the BBC. I've watched BBC coverage many times, just not this Sunday. There's nothing wrong with having opinons one way or another (and your post's a perfect example of that) and I hope they're always encouraged, but it's another thing to continually and only slate Sky yet rob a feed for free. Can you see where I'm going with that?
Who exactly? You're acting like there are huge numbers of these people and yet at most you have maybe one or two posters who act like that.
What was Suzi and David like chemistry wise? I recall watching them the first week and they seemed a little unsure of each other. Are they warming to each other?
Suzi was less nervous this time
They digested the stories of the day well together with the right amount of humour
Suzi does like to strut herself around, professionally of course, wheras David holds up all prim and proper, that may project them as an odd looking couple
Feeling it will work well
Who exactly? You're acting like there are huge numbers of these people and yet at most you have maybe one or two posters who act like that.
Well it's unfair to directly name people, and I think it's against forum T's and C's....and etiquette, which yourself was quite keen to bring up to me last week in the other thread. Which by the way you're very welcome for ignoring my posts back to you responding to your criticisms. Interestingly I note that despite the large post I wrote you only respond directly to the BBC bit. Especially considering the 'heated' words exchanged between yourself and another poster earlier I found it remarkable you didn't also note on my LH vs NR opinion considering it was quite different to yours and of the same ilk you chastised another poster for.
It may only well be a 'few' posters but imo there's some overtly critical anti-Sky posters on here that dominate discuss at times. People are entitled to their opinions, just as I'm entitled to mentally note the overtly biased anti Sky posters and question their method of watching Sky which is at odds with their posting history. I don't need to single out individual posters to do that.
Let me make this crystal clear, I have no issue with anybody saying things about either broadcaster that is negative. But I do take issue with people spending a large proportion of their posting between races deriding a channel (and it's broadcaster), and then using it to view the race, and then continuing to deride it after. Ultimately it means nothing, but it does IMO cheapen their viewpoint and their inevitable criticism.
you keep going on about subjective opinions, but if you are going slate large portions of this thread as "traditional BBC boys" when to any impartial observer that is clearly NOT the case, then really you are coming across as trying to stir up trouble in this thread.
And maybe it will drop even more now that all those without the Sky Sports pack still have to pay the full whack HD charge just to keep one F1HD channel and they one's taking the new reduced HD pack won't be getting F1HD.
So with those not getting it in their reduced HD pack and those who think that paying the same £10.25 HD pack that Sports and Movie pack people do but only get one extra channel for that, and so downgrading to the cheaper HD pack, they may lose a lot more people.
This last stunt by Sky of reducing the HD pack for some whilst those who want to keep F1HD are charged the higher HD charge like they getting the movies and sports pack when they are not, is quite insulting.
For F1 fans without the Sports pack it's: Pay us the full HD charge like you are getting all the HD sport channels but you don't get them or lose F1HD. Pay the same as others but only get one channel for the same HD charge.
Seriously Kolin, what are you complaining about this again for.
You still can't see the good deal we are getting. We could have needed to get the Sky Sports pack if Sky decided to drop it from the HD pack for all customers.
This new Entertainment Extra+ pack is aimed at those who want the Entertainment channels in HD but don't want to pay the full £10.25 for them.
Not us existing HD customers who are willing to pay the £10.25 cost, and we are eligible to get the premium channels in HD, which customers on the new pack will not be.
You would only get one more channel if you did not have the Sports or Movies packs, if you have them you get more.
Can you not see the great deal we are getting. It is better than paying £21 (+ £10.25 if you want it in HD) for the Sky Sports pack to get the channel.
Interestingly I note that despite the large post I wrote you only respond directly to the BBC bit.
I didn't find the rest of your post that interesting to be honest, other people with the motivation appear to be engaging with your other points so I really see no need to write any more than is necessary.
Especially considering the 'heated' words exchanged between yourself and another poster earlier I found it remarkable you didn't also note on my LH vs NR opinion considering it was quite different to yours and of the same ilk you chastised another poster for.
chastised we had a difference of opinion, the thing i chastised him about was him doing the "oh you have that point of view because you hate Lewis" bit which is beneath contempt really.
you keep going on about subjective opinions, but if you are going slate large portions of this thread as "traditional BBC boys" when to any impartial observer that is clearly NOT the case, then really you are coming across as trying to stir up trouble in this thread.
You don't surprise me in your reply....you often ignore large parts of my posts, especially where I've rebutted your criticisms and seemingly only respond to opinions where there is no comeback....ie my subjective opinion quote.
I think you should think very carefully what you're saying considering the abuse you directed at a poster earlier today.
I could've worded the 'traditional BBC Boys' better and made it crystal clear, which I went on to do in a following post(s). I should've made it clear from the onset I was talking about the overtly biased BBC fans...ie 'the bisaed BBC berties' or something more obvious to discern from those who do watch BBC but don't go on long anti sky diatribes.
I feel it's pretty apparent you don't like my posts, that's fine...you do have the option to ignore me if you choose. I have many strong opinons on some posters in here (I have lurked for many years, I know how it works in here) and would love to be more direct but I try and keep things as civilised as possible. I have noted you do seem to go at my posts/me with real gusto and probably best in future you ignore or start to actually tackle the meat and bones of my posts rather then just throwing insults. From where I sit you offer nothing in discussing with me apart from insults and attempts at underminding me, much opposed to a genuine desire to discuss F1 coverage in a progressive manner. It seems with me at least, you prefer to pick fault and argue.
You don't surprise me in your reply....you often ignore large parts of my posts, especially where I've rebutted your criticisms and seemingly only respond to opinions where there is no comeback....ie my subjective opinion quote.
Honestly am losing the will to live with these exchanges, I am responding to your points and am getting back two stock responses: a) its all subjective opinion b) you're ignoring large portions of my posts. This is a very poor troll my friend.
I think you should think very carefully what you're saying considering the abuse you directed at a poster earlier today.
As there is nothing that can be construed as abuse I don't need to think about anything at all, you're the one on dodgy ground here.
I could've worded the 'traditional BBC Boys' better and made it crystal clear, which I went on to do in a following post(s). I should've made it clear from the onset I was talking about the overtly biased BBC fans...ie 'the bisaed BBC berties' or something more obvious to discern from those who do watch BBC but don't go on long anti sky diatribes.
There are one or two users here (at most) who are clearly a bit too pro BBC for anyones liking. Interesting that the couple of posters in here who are just as pro Sky don't get any mention from you. If you want to imply that this thread is a hot bed of illogical BBC propaganda don't go and complain when you get called out to explain yourself.
Honestly am losing the will to live with these exchanges, I am responding to your points and am getting back two stock responses: a) its all subjective opinion b) you're ignoring large portions of my posts. This is a very poor troll my friend.
As there is nothing that can be construed as abuse I don't need to think about anything at all, you're the one on dodgy ground here.
There are one or two users here (at most) who are clearly a bit too pro BBC for anyones liking. Interesting that the couple of posters in here who are just as pro Sky don't get any mention from you. If you want to imply that this thread is a hot bed of illogical BBC propaganda don't go and complain when you get called out to explain yourself.
You getting frustrated is not my issue, this is the last post I'll make in here to you on this subject, you're welcome to mail me direct, lest we get accused of hijacking the thread in our own personal spat, it's continued long enough. I find it funny you're calling me out as a troll, by all means have a good delve through my posting history and you see if you can steadfastly sit there and call me a troll, feel free. I think my posts stand alone and speak for themselves, I'm here to discuss F1 coverage and won't suffer fools gladly. Trying to smear somebody as a troll is the typical last chance tactic of someone losing a debate. I'm sorry you feel pushed to that tactic.
BIB....you were very short and rude to a poster earlier. And I quote:
I don't think you really understand F1 to be honest, maybe best if you stick to boring everyone by going on about viewing card numbers appearing on peoples screens and leave the in depth chat to the old timers in this thread like me and davepusey.
Again as I keep pointing out to you, you are more then welcome to report me if you feel I'm crossing a line and 'trolling' which is what you're implying. I see it as taking your criticisms to task and deconstructing by point them to prove there baseless foundations.
That's a valid point regarding overtly anti BBC posters, I have mentioned many times that I despise bias from either side, although on this occassion I singled out the BBC biased posters. In the interests of balance though i'll make a point of calling them out to placate you if I see it.
Ok, questions/comments on what is, frankly, a very scary thread to post on sometimes... some posters are quick to dismiss the opinions of others... so with reservations I'm putting my head above the parapet!
Here goes!
Is there any reason to doubt Lewis's comment today that he asked Ross if he could move over for Nico, but Ross insisted that his (Ross's) word was law and not to be contradicted? Personally, I believe Lewis, and I also believe Ted's gut feeling that the ruling would have been the same no matter who was in front at that point. Therefore Lewis and Nico, tough though it was in the heat of the moment, have a good working relationship intact between friends with trust in evidence.
Red Bull, on the other hand... I'd always suspected, from the 'off', that Seb might be a Michael in sheep's clothing. I'd hoped I was wrong, but the signs were there. I didn't want the signs to be there - my 18 year old daughter had liked Seb (along with Lewis) right from their earliest pre-F1 careers. She even has a signed photo of Seb from 2010. However, over the last couple of years her liking for Seb has faded gradually (whilst her support for Lewis has been maintained), and yesterday she more or less called time on Seb completely.
So - was any pretence of Seb being anything otherwise than a Michael in sheep's clothing more or less stripped away yesterday? Comments from respected people in the sport haven't disagreed with that assessment. The difference is that this time the 'number 2 driver' is not taking it lying down or keeping his mouth shut - Mark has nothing to lose by speaking his mind. What are they going to do - sack him? And if so, what will that serve, other than make Mark look (and be) the wronged party with the sympathy of the majority? He's close to the end of his career - he's no compliant, well-paid team mate who's going to put up and shut up. And good on him for that!
Do I agree with races being 'won' on team orders? No - we want to see racing, not overt (as opposed to covert - not that it's any more forgiveable!) manipulation being the name of the game. It is ironic that the 'best bit of racing' yesterday came from the battle between Mark and Seb over the few laps that made all the difference to the result yesterday, and yet weren't ever supposed to happen!
FWIW, and however naive others may feel my opinion may be, I believe that the team sport element of motor racing should only go up to getting the cars onto the grid and deciding a basic race strategy (i.e. rough timings of pit stops and tyre choices barring rain). After that, between those five lights going out and chequered flag, it should be down to the (highly paid) drivers to do their jobs and make the best of it. If they take each other out, or run out of fuel, then so be it - but the team should not be allowed to do any more other than advise over team radio that they should be careful/conserve fuel. If the driver cocks it up then so be it - that is what they are paid for, and surely what most of them would like to do?
Seb kept saying, "If I could make up for it (i.e. my *ahem* 'mistake') I would". Ok Seb, is there anything in the rules which prevents you from showing you're serious by means of swapping points with Mark? Mark won't give two hoots who gets the credit for the win in terms of the number of wins he and Seb have when the record books are written for 2013 - he's not that sort of person - but (rightly or wrongly) the team had put Mark's position ahead of Seb's on the track and wanted it to stay that way until the end of that particular race (I wonder if #multi 21 trended on twitter?!). So following the team's logic, rightly or wrongly, Mark should have had all 25 points, and Seb only 18. However, that isn't what the tables show today... but they could show that IF they swapped points. Either way, the team would still have 43 points, therefore the impact on Red Bull's constructor points is nil, so the team have no reason not to support this... unless Seb is so 'protected' as to make it not an option?
Of course, Lewis could make the same offer to Nico. But the difference is that it would make Ross/Mercedes look bad/undermine Ross/Mercedes' respect if he did - and crucially Nico did not disobey anyone or make silly excuses afterwards about why he did; he did as he was told, whether he liked it or not, and the respect will now go both ways, and also with fans.
On the other hand, Seb has made Red Bull look bad/undermined their respect by going against an explicit instructions in a way Nico could have, but didn't. So that, to me, is the crucial difference - Lewis, if he offered to swap points with Nico, would weaken the position of Mercedes, and the respect the drivers themselves have for the team management; Seb, if he offered to swap points with Mark, would strengthen the position of Red Bull, and the respect the drivers should have for the team management. Some will see no difference between the two, but like it or not the differences are there.
I hate being so cynical - and we shouldn't even be having this discussion, to be honest - but it would heal a lot of wounds, and rebuild a lot of trust, if Seb made the simple gesture to swap points. It would mean more than an apology (words are easy - points are less easy to give up) and Mark would then have the onus on him to look the bigger man by accepting or still sulking - but I think he'd accept and want to move on. After that, the team might be able to approach the rest of the season with things slightly more positive within the team and between their drivers (though it will probably never be totally healed). Because, let's be honest, there is a lot of 'the rest of the season' to go! One week in is not the time to have something like this happen and not have it affect subsequent races and team morale - this could turn very ugly, even uglier than it is now, and yet a simple swap of points (if not record book wins) could go a long way to preventing that.
Is Seb confident/big enough to do that? It would also stop the boos... or at least go some way to lessening them... and would also stop the negative comparisons to the Michael at his worst... unless he really is the one person Seb wants to emulate above any other... but I really hoped the sport had moved on since those days
The sport today is not the one I grew up loving - whilst there has always been manipulation to a degree, it was never as bad as it's become in recent times. When I was born in 1967 my parents were amateur rally drivers (huge array of silverware in the loft!) and I went to many club meets at Sliverstone (my first when I was two weeks old in 1967!) as it was our local circuit, being only an hour from where I grew up. Because of my Dad's connections we knew many people and often watched races with the benefit of hospitality in the paddock. Whilst money was always an issue in terms of control, it wasn't as overtly managed as it was now - at least, it didn't seem to be.
On the subject of 'token' women, as a woman I don't like them any more than anyone else does if they can't make a good job of it - the female gender does not need representing just for the sake of it. And if they think it's necessary to get more men watching, then those men are not true fans! Even having a background/family history in motor racing, or broadcasting, doesn't make you good at interpreting that on TV - Louise Goodman used to annoy the life out of me with her obvious/closed questions which, frankly, didn't even deserve the dignity of an answer most of the time! I shouldn't say that because Louise's Dad and mine were very good friends and Friday night drinking pals, but knowing about a sport doesn't mean you can interpret it for TV. My 18 year old daughter can name you every single world champion in chronological order (she learned them just 'for fun') and knows more stats than anyone has a right to know off the top of her head (she answers the questions the pundits ask on TV before they do - and they have the answers in front of them!). She scares me, quite frankly! But would she be any good on TV? (Rhetorical question!) She has the knowledge, the stats, the who, why, where, when, how and where at the tips of her fingers (in her brain) in a very Ted-like way (but without the notebook ) but has that ever been enough? Maybe Natalie knows more than she is able to show/is allowed to show, and she's pigeon-holed into 'eye-candy with a fortunate bit of knowledge thrown in'?
But as for the fall-out from this weekend, Mercedes at least still have a positive outlook which will serve them well this season - respect for each other as drivers, and respect for Ross's decisions, even if they don't agree with them.
Comments
Thanks for the words etc...
Let me clarify this. firstly...by 'Traditional BBC Boys' In the context I mean (and it was written in) it's the posters that will deride Sky at every chance without any comprehension that people might prefer that element of coverage to the BBC. I've watched BBC coverage many times, just not this Sunday. There's nothing wrong with having opinons one way or another (and your post's a perfect example of that) and I hope they're always encouraged, but it's another thing to continually and only slate Sky yet rob a feed for free. Can you see where I'm going with that? Also an important point to note is that I haven't criticised ANY of the BBC's coverage as I didn't see it this week. I don't recall anything in my post that did criticise them this week.
In regards to the rest of your post:
I'm a big McNish fan (more so because of WEC) and I like him as a personality. I think he may have some issues with viewers warming to him as he can seem abrupt in responses sometimes, which is just the method and pattern his words come out. Viewers are a fickle bunch!!
I understand the comments regarding 'spirit' of coverage, and has been noted many times in here before that the BBC took a well tested formula and improved on it, same as what Sky are doing. I personally prefer the more technical 'cold' approach of Sky (ignoring pinkham's lighter moments) to the BBC more 'friendly' style of coverage. I'm a geek as such I much prefer data and small detail. It's fair to say the 3 mates appeal of BBC utterly turned me off them and I'm wishing for it to lessen off with Suzi's arrival.
I take issue with Lee being a better interviewer, because in all fairness I think both of them aren't that great at interviewing full stop. Natalie is far too silly and 'matey' for my liking, whereas Lee never really asks any ground breaking questions either. Holding a mic up to someone and saying 'So Jenson...not the best race today' and then letting the driver speak isn't great journalism, it's lazy imo (they both do it). But it works and keeps many people happy, I'm sure the drivers would soon shut off if faced with more probing questions after a race.
Probably one of my precceding posts where I was asking about the point of Natalie Pinkham and if she's being kept on as some equal opportunites thing.
We all pay the license fee, no matter what we watch, so you do not pay directly for the BBC.
Just curious, how do you get sky for free?
The majority of the cost is rights based. Per year, from 2009 to 2011, BBC were spending £50 million on Formula 1, £40 million on the rights and £10 million on production.
They needed to reduce that for reasons well known. So the option they took was to go to Sky, meaning that their rights reduced to £20 million (it might have been £15 million), meaning that they are saving £20/25 million per year, a significant amount of money.
Watching it online somewhere I assume
There looks to be a crackdown this year to stop that and in pubs, have seen the random numbers appearing like for the football
I really enjoyed reading that
You have an interesting writing style
The whole sky weekend for me was well played out
I too am not a fan of Nat, she needs to grow up, surprised they let her come over like that
The others, Ted, Martin are good professionals and show up her poor style
I watched a little of the beeb, by accident late afternoon changing channels
Suzi did push David a little to get his reaction, but she came over as knowledgeable and interested in how she was presenting
Hey thanks...
What was Suzi and David like chemistry wise? I recall watching them the first week and they seemed a little unsure of each other. Are they warming to each other?
I think Suzi still needs to settle in. Jake had to. Things will improve.
Have Sky shortened their post race coverage ? Wonder if it will be longer once they're competing with the BBC F1 Forum.
BBC's practice schedule for China suggests just 5 mins pre and post the session - the same as the Red Button/R5 broadcasts. Hoping there's some proper presentation added.
China will be interesting both from the broadcast POV and also the Red Bull happenings.....
3 weeks feels so long....
It certainly seemed to me like you could hear The Chain better this week.
The Malaysia broadcast was actually longer, a very good decision by them to do so.
Suzi Perry said on Twitter after Australia that they were going to adjust it.
Thanks. The BBC tend to vary depending on how long they stay live on BBC1. On their best days there can be around 40 mins post race on BBC 1 followed by an hour (or even a bit more) on the Forum. How did Sky compare there last year ?
I think I've decided that I'd prefer it was simply on one channel or the other rather than both.
Sky if you read this, how about having a 3 day pass for F1 ONLY on NowTV as an alternative to one day's access to all sports channels. Sort of a race pass.
Who exactly? You're acting like there are huge numbers of these people and yet at most you have maybe one or two posters who act like that.
Suzi was less nervous this time
They digested the stories of the day well together with the right amount of humour
Suzi does like to strut herself around, professionally of course, wheras David holds up all prim and proper, that may project them as an odd looking couple
Feeling it will work well
Well it's unfair to directly name people, and I think it's against forum T's and C's....and etiquette, which yourself was quite keen to bring up to me last week in the other thread. Which by the way you're very welcome for ignoring my posts back to you responding to your criticisms. Interestingly I note that despite the large post I wrote you only respond directly to the BBC bit. Especially considering the 'heated' words exchanged between yourself and another poster earlier I found it remarkable you didn't also note on my LH vs NR opinion considering it was quite different to yours and of the same ilk you chastised another poster for.
It may only well be a 'few' posters but imo there's some overtly critical anti-Sky posters on here that dominate discuss at times. People are entitled to their opinions, just as I'm entitled to mentally note the overtly biased anti Sky posters and question their method of watching Sky which is at odds with their posting history. I don't need to single out individual posters to do that.
Let me make this crystal clear, I have no issue with anybody saying things about either broadcaster that is negative. But I do take issue with people spending a large proportion of their posting between races deriding a channel (and it's broadcaster), and then using it to view the race, and then continuing to deride it after. Ultimately it means nothing, but it does IMO cheapen their viewpoint and their inevitable criticism.
As always....it's a subjective opinion.
you keep going on about subjective opinions, but if you are going slate large portions of this thread as "traditional BBC boys" when to any impartial observer that is clearly NOT the case, then really you are coming across as trying to stir up trouble in this thread.
You still can't see the good deal we are getting. We could have needed to get the Sky Sports pack if Sky decided to drop it from the HD pack for all customers.
This new Entertainment Extra+ pack is aimed at those who want the Entertainment channels in HD but don't want to pay the full £10.25 for them.
Not us existing HD customers who are willing to pay the £10.25 cost, and we are eligible to get the premium channels in HD, which customers on the new pack will not be.
You would only get one more channel if you did not have the Sports or Movies packs, if you have them you get more.
Can you not see the great deal we are getting. It is better than paying £21 (+ £10.25 if you want it in HD) for the Sky Sports pack to get the channel.
I didn't find the rest of your post that interesting to be honest, other people with the motivation appear to be engaging with your other points so I really see no need to write any more than is necessary.
chastised
You don't surprise me in your reply....you often ignore large parts of my posts, especially where I've rebutted your criticisms and seemingly only respond to opinions where there is no comeback....ie my subjective opinion quote.
I think you should think very carefully what you're saying considering the abuse you directed at a poster earlier today.
I could've worded the 'traditional BBC Boys' better and made it crystal clear, which I went on to do in a following post(s). I should've made it clear from the onset I was talking about the overtly biased BBC fans...ie 'the bisaed BBC berties' or something more obvious to discern from those who do watch BBC but don't go on long anti sky diatribes.
I feel it's pretty apparent you don't like my posts, that's fine...you do have the option to ignore me if you choose. I have many strong opinons on some posters in here (I have lurked for many years, I know how it works in here) and would love to be more direct but I try and keep things as civilised as possible. I have noted you do seem to go at my posts/me with real gusto and probably best in future you ignore or start to actually tackle the meat and bones of my posts rather then just throwing insults. From where I sit you offer nothing in discussing with me apart from insults and attempts at underminding me, much opposed to a genuine desire to discuss F1 coverage in a progressive manner. It seems with me at least, you prefer to pick fault and argue.
Honestly am losing the will to live with these exchanges, I am responding to your points and am getting back two stock responses: a) its all subjective opinion b) you're ignoring large portions of my posts. This is a very poor troll my friend.
As there is nothing that can be construed as abuse I don't need to think about anything at all, you're the one on dodgy ground here.
There are one or two users here (at most) who are clearly a bit too pro BBC for anyones liking. Interesting that the couple of posters in here who are just as pro Sky don't get any mention from you. If you want to imply that this thread is a hot bed of illogical BBC propaganda don't go and complain when you get called out to explain yourself.
It's only a programme about fast brum brums
You getting frustrated is not my issue, this is the last post I'll make in here to you on this subject, you're welcome to mail me direct, lest we get accused of hijacking the thread in our own personal spat, it's continued long enough. I find it funny you're calling me out as a troll, by all means have a good delve through my posting history and you see if you can steadfastly sit there and call me a troll, feel free. I think my posts stand alone and speak for themselves, I'm here to discuss F1 coverage and won't suffer fools gladly. Trying to smear somebody as a troll is the typical last chance tactic of someone losing a debate. I'm sorry you feel pushed to that tactic.
BIB....you were very short and rude to a poster earlier. And I quote:
Again as I keep pointing out to you, you are more then welcome to report me if you feel I'm crossing a line and 'trolling' which is what you're implying. I see it as taking your criticisms to task and deconstructing by point them to prove there baseless foundations.
That's a valid point regarding overtly anti BBC posters, I have mentioned many times that I despise bias from either side, although on this occassion I singled out the BBC biased posters. In the interests of balance though i'll make a point of calling them out to placate you if I see it.
Here goes!
Is there any reason to doubt Lewis's comment today that he asked Ross if he could move over for Nico, but Ross insisted that his (Ross's) word was law and not to be contradicted? Personally, I believe Lewis, and I also believe Ted's gut feeling that the ruling would have been the same no matter who was in front at that point. Therefore Lewis and Nico, tough though it was in the heat of the moment, have a good working relationship intact between friends with trust in evidence.
Red Bull, on the other hand... I'd always suspected, from the 'off', that Seb might be a Michael in sheep's clothing. I'd hoped I was wrong, but the signs were there. I didn't want the signs to be there - my 18 year old daughter had liked Seb (along with Lewis) right from their earliest pre-F1 careers. She even has a signed photo of Seb from 2010. However, over the last couple of years her liking for Seb has faded gradually (whilst her support for Lewis has been maintained), and yesterday she more or less called time on Seb completely.
So - was any pretence of Seb being anything otherwise than a Michael in sheep's clothing more or less stripped away yesterday? Comments from respected people in the sport haven't disagreed with that assessment. The difference is that this time the 'number 2 driver' is not taking it lying down or keeping his mouth shut - Mark has nothing to lose by speaking his mind. What are they going to do - sack him? And if so, what will that serve, other than make Mark look (and be) the wronged party with the sympathy of the majority? He's close to the end of his career - he's no compliant, well-paid team mate who's going to put up and shut up. And good on him for that!
Do I agree with races being 'won' on team orders? No - we want to see racing, not overt (as opposed to covert - not that it's any more forgiveable!) manipulation being the name of the game. It is ironic that the 'best bit of racing' yesterday came from the battle between Mark and Seb over the few laps that made all the difference to the result yesterday, and yet weren't ever supposed to happen!
FWIW, and however naive others may feel my opinion may be, I believe that the team sport element of motor racing should only go up to getting the cars onto the grid and deciding a basic race strategy (i.e. rough timings of pit stops and tyre choices barring rain). After that, between those five lights going out and chequered flag, it should be down to the (highly paid) drivers to do their jobs and make the best of it. If they take each other out, or run out of fuel, then so be it - but the team should not be allowed to do any more other than advise over team radio that they should be careful/conserve fuel. If the driver cocks it up then so be it - that is what they are paid for, and surely what most of them would like to do?
Seb kept saying, "If I could make up for it (i.e. my *ahem* 'mistake') I would". Ok Seb, is there anything in the rules which prevents you from showing you're serious by means of swapping points with Mark? Mark won't give two hoots who gets the credit for the win in terms of the number of wins he and Seb have when the record books are written for 2013 - he's not that sort of person - but (rightly or wrongly) the team had put Mark's position ahead of Seb's on the track and wanted it to stay that way until the end of that particular race (I wonder if #multi 21 trended on twitter?!). So following the team's logic, rightly or wrongly, Mark should have had all 25 points, and Seb only 18. However, that isn't what the tables show today... but they could show that IF they swapped points. Either way, the team would still have 43 points, therefore the impact on Red Bull's constructor points is nil, so the team have no reason not to support this... unless Seb is so 'protected' as to make it not an option?
Of course, Lewis could make the same offer to Nico. But the difference is that it would make Ross/Mercedes look bad/undermine Ross/Mercedes' respect if he did - and crucially Nico did not disobey anyone or make silly excuses afterwards about why he did; he did as he was told, whether he liked it or not, and the respect will now go both ways, and also with fans.
On the other hand, Seb has made Red Bull look bad/undermined their respect by going against an explicit instructions in a way Nico could have, but didn't. So that, to me, is the crucial difference - Lewis, if he offered to swap points with Nico, would weaken the position of Mercedes, and the respect the drivers themselves have for the team management; Seb, if he offered to swap points with Mark, would strengthen the position of Red Bull, and the respect the drivers should have for the team management. Some will see no difference between the two, but like it or not the differences are there.
I hate being so cynical - and we shouldn't even be having this discussion, to be honest - but it would heal a lot of wounds, and rebuild a lot of trust, if Seb made the simple gesture to swap points. It would mean more than an apology (words are easy - points are less easy to give up) and Mark would then have the onus on him to look the bigger man by accepting or still sulking - but I think he'd accept and want to move on. After that, the team might be able to approach the rest of the season with things slightly more positive within the team and between their drivers (though it will probably never be totally healed). Because, let's be honest, there is a lot of 'the rest of the season' to go! One week in is not the time to have something like this happen and not have it affect subsequent races and team morale - this could turn very ugly, even uglier than it is now, and yet a simple swap of points (if not record book wins) could go a long way to preventing that.
Is Seb confident/big enough to do that? It would also stop the boos... or at least go some way to lessening them... and would also stop the negative comparisons to the Michael at his worst... unless he really is the one person Seb wants to emulate above any other... but I really hoped the sport had moved on since those days
The sport today is not the one I grew up loving - whilst there has always been manipulation to a degree, it was never as bad as it's become in recent times. When I was born in 1967 my parents were amateur rally drivers (huge array of silverware in the loft!) and I went to many club meets at Sliverstone (my first when I was two weeks old in 1967!) as it was our local circuit, being only an hour from where I grew up. Because of my Dad's connections we knew many people and often watched races with the benefit of hospitality in the paddock. Whilst money was always an issue in terms of control, it wasn't as overtly managed as it was now - at least, it didn't seem to be.
On the subject of 'token' women, as a woman I don't like them any more than anyone else does if they can't make a good job of it - the female gender does not need representing just for the sake of it. And if they think it's necessary to get more men watching, then those men are not true fans! Even having a background/family history in motor racing, or broadcasting, doesn't make you good at interpreting that on TV - Louise Goodman used to annoy the life out of me with her obvious/closed questions which, frankly, didn't even deserve the dignity of an answer most of the time! I shouldn't say that because Louise's Dad and mine were very good friends and Friday night drinking pals, but knowing about a sport doesn't mean you can interpret it for TV. My 18 year old daughter can name you every single world champion in chronological order (she learned them just 'for fun') and knows more stats than anyone has a right to know off the top of her head (she answers the questions the pundits ask on TV before they do - and they have the answers in front of them!). She scares me, quite frankly! But would she be any good on TV? (Rhetorical question!) She has the knowledge, the stats, the who, why, where, when, how and where at the tips of her fingers (in her brain) in a very Ted-like way (but without the notebook
But as for the fall-out from this weekend, Mercedes at least still have a positive outlook which will serve them well this season - respect for each other as drivers, and respect for Ross's decisions, even if they don't agree with them.