Considering the beeb is cash constrained at the moment i wonder where the rumoured £25 million has appeared from? I hope its not at the expense of future seasons of F1 on the BBC? When digital switchover has finished then won't the BBC have the extra funding from that pot in the future?
Having just read that article on the TwitPic, you can tell they don't like BBC, because the entire article is filled with bulls**t and crap.
1) "Its contract to screen F1 for five seasons until 2013 will cost £300m.
- incorrect. It is well known that the contract costs BBC about £200m over 5 years, with the next contract increased to £235m. I guess that may factor in production costs, but as far as I know they are minimal and definitely would not amount to an extra £20m per year.
2) "At about £3m per race, it is the most expensive BBC programme being broadcast."
- incorrect. As the first point of £300m is wrong, the second point is also wrong. At 19 races, each race costs BBC about £2.1m. In my book, that is not £3m. The point "it is the most expensive BBC programme being broadcast" is factually incorrect. You cannot compare 5 hours of programming on BBC1 at £3m with a drama at 9pm on BBC1 which typically costs about £600,000. In fact, going on the £2.1m figure, F1 costs BBC about £420,000 per hour. I've even excluded things like the F1 Forum and Practice with that figure and all the other stuff they do, in reality the figure will be lower than that. Some dramas on BBC1 only get 4.5m viewers and cost £600,000, whereas with F1 you get you're hard to reach 16 to 34 audience, it doesn't cost much and you get at least 4.5m viewers on average per race. Everyone wins.
3) "An insider said the cost of covering 19 F1 races was more than the entire budget of BBC4."
- again depends on whether the £60m per year figure is correct, because its the first time I've seen it. BBC4 costs £55m per year, so if the £60m per year figure for F1 is wrong, then the entire article is spouted with inaccuracy and riddles.
4) "The source said the BBC did not intend to rebid for the F1 contract when it expired in November 2013."
- in which case, why did you have a scaremongering title saying 'BBC AXES FORMULA ONE'. Axes suggests you're terminating the contract early. No early termination is being seeked hear if you are to believe the article. Besides, they would not rebid for a contract an entire one and a half years before you would even begin discussing it.
5) "It has emerged that F1 costs £1 a head for every viewer, compared with the average 7p an hour broadcast cost for BBC1 and BBC2."
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/vfm/sports_rights.pdf ; page 35
- Formula 1 2009 - hit in every category, only one of two events to do this.
- as a said at the time (page 36) : "[✂ Redacted] is the outstanding success, significantly exceeding all of its reach, average audience and cost per viewer hour targets" - is almost certainly referring to F1
- hence this on Page 4: "Formula 1 has been a significant success in 2009/10, exceeding all of its reach, average audience and cost per viewer hour target"
- report was done earlier this year into the process of acquiring sports rights
- see page 33: "Formula 1 and Premier League highlights attract a younger (16-34) male audience that is otherwise hard to reach...."
6) "Apart from the British Grand Prix, most races attract between 2m and 4m viewers."
- http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?showtopic=112436 - enough said at this point
- only one race has dipped under 4m, and that was because it was against a Ford Super Sunday triple header on Sky Sports
7) "It costs more for each hour than even the most expensive dramas such as South Riding, Cranford and Doctor Who."
- again, this depends on whether the £60m figure is actually true. I mean, why have we only just heard about this now? They've had the rights for 2 and a half years, yet we've only just heard about the £60m figure despite numerous source saying £40m.
8) "The proposal to dump F1 will be among a package of measures to be put to the BBC Trust in the Autumn."
- so only towards the end of the article do you actually tell us that they haven't axed it, despite the headline saying to the contrary?
In short: The newspaper is pro-Tory. It's F1 editor is openly wanting F1 to go to Sky. Hence, the article is best ignored as it is inaccurate throughout.
Will be a sad day if F1 goes to pay TV. It really is a jewel in the BBC's sporting crown. I actually think that it is good value for money with the amount of TV time it provides over the course of a racing weekend and then repeated highlights. I'm not bothered if it's on BBC1, 2, 3 or 4 as long they show it somewhere.
I'll be really annoyed if they pull F1 in favour of saving BBC4 and some random radio stations works?
Are the regular 5million viewers suddenly going to swich to BBC4 and start listening to the Asian Network?
It's like cutting your nose of to spite your face.
And they've gone and bought an Xfactor rip off - that'll fail purely on the basis they can't compete with the sensationalism of the Xfactor, due to it all being funded by the license fee.
Not to mention how many millions they'll allegedly spend on wooing Cheryl Cole onto the judging panel.
Maybe if they stopped re-commissioning crap thats well past its sell by date like 2pints they could pump that cash into BBC4?
Hopefully there'll be a bit of a public outcry like there was with 6music.
This This This
As much as I like tot hink there might be an outcry like 6music.
Think Zen. BBC could just go ahead.
The F1 has been good and is really home on the bbc
Until I see something official, eg a press release by the BBC, then it's all bullsh*t to me. Any paper can make up rumours, or say "a source close to the BBC said this", doesn't mean any part of it is actually true. When something official comes out, I'll believe it, and not before then.
Do BBC not make any money for allowing other countries to use their coverage of F1? I know that the main feed isn't provided by the BBC but I believe lots of other countries use the BBC commentary and pre-race stuff.
As much as I like tot hink there might be an outcry like 6music.
Think Zen. BBC could just go ahead.
The F1 has been good and is really home on the bbc
It's hardly the same as F1 won't shut down, but just be shown on another channel.
No, No, No!!
The coverage on the BBC is markedly better than that of ITV.
I do hope that it is not true. As pp's have suggested their would be more effective ways of saving money.
Now what you dont remember how the coverage was before ITV took it over. The coverage was ok but not brilliant. No trackside team, no pitland reporters (well they did in the last year or 2) but when ITV took it over they done really well. Now BBC have it back it has raised the bar again, so when and IF ITV have it back I suspect they will raise it again.
Given that the BBC isn't going to reveal exactly how much it paid for the show I think this is as close to definitive as we are going to get. Let's put it this way, it's unlikely that the BBC has paid less than £20 million for it.
I actually think this is good value for licence fee payers, given the number of people that are likely to tune in for it on a Saturday night.
I think this is a waste of Money. £20M over 2 years for a reality show when they are cutting back on BBC2. I think possibly of moving BBC4 to BBC2 during the day and parts of the evening, or have a mix of BBC3 & BBC 4 rolled into 1?
I also Think that BBC should stop doing game shows where they give away there money when BBC are having tough times!!
It's not the first time that idle speculation, uninformed rumour and gossip has been picked up by other parts of the media. However, IF the programme is successful;, then it just might be money well-spent (IF those figures are correct)
Quite, i wouldn't mind betting it's the usual newspaper trick.
One journalist guesses at a figure, all the others copy it, it becomes the "truth".....
It's hardly the same as F1 won't shut down, but just be shown on another channel.
What other channel? BBC's coverage of the F1 was amazing, it felt like the BBC was the home of the F1.The BBC needs to invest in sports.
Axe the daytime schedules (property, antiques, make-over shows), stop paying ridiculous amounts for rip off x factor formats.
There are savings the BBC can make, axing F1, sports or drama budgets isn't the way.
What other channel? BBC's coverage of the F1 was amazing, it felt like the BBC was the home of the F1.The BBC needs to invest in sports.
Axe the daytime schedules (property, antiques, make-over shows), stop paying ridiculous amounts for rip off x factor formats.
There are savings the BBC can make, axing F1, sports or drama budgets isn't the way.
Whilst i agree F1 should kept, axeing daytime TV would be very unpopular with those who watch it - not to mention the fact that is it is very cheap anyway.
Bernie should sell race only with no add ons to what ever UK broadcaster wants it. No add on means you give the world feed but no live presence at the track.
Sky then pay for the proper package of everything
Real sports fans(7 million) of them who actually do have Sky Sports are happy and it's business as usual with un interrupted race and all the before and and after analysis with none of budget constrains from the BBC.
With a ridiculous comments, I am a real sports fan who can easily afford Sky Sports but chooses not to line with the pockets of Murdoch.
I also have season tickets for local sports team as well.
Big shame if this happens because BBC do a fantastic job with it.
If anyones going to get it then it's more in the interests of Sky I suppose. F1 is all about money, Sky is all about money, Sky needs more things during the summer...so it's a perfect fit really.
Having just read that article on the TwitPic, you can tell they don't like BBC, because the entire article is filled with bulls**t and crap.
1) "Its contract to screen F1 for five seasons until 2013 will cost £300m.
- incorrect. It is well known that the contract costs BBC about £200m over 5 years, with the next contract increased to £235m. I guess that may factor in production costs, but as far as I know they are minimal and definitely would not amount to an extra £20m per year.
2) "At about £3m per race, it is the most expensive BBC programme being broadcast."
- incorrect. As the first point of £300m is wrong, the second point is also wrong. At 19 races, each race costs BBC about £2.1m. In my book, that is not £3m. The point "it is the most expensive BBC programme being broadcast" is factually incorrect. You cannot compare 5 hours of programming on BBC1 at £3m with a drama at 9pm on BBC1 which typically costs about £600,000. In fact, going on the £2.1m figure, F1 costs BBC about £420,000 per hour. I've even excluded things like the F1 Forum and Practice with that figure and all the other stuff they do, in reality the figure will be lower than that. Some dramas on BBC1 only get 4.5m viewers and cost £600,000, whereas with F1 you get you're hard to reach 16 to 34 audience, it doesn't cost much and you get at least 4.5m viewers on average per race. Everyone wins.
3) "An insider said the cost of covering 19 F1 races was more than the entire budget of BBC4."
- again depends on whether the £60m per year figure is correct, because its the first time I've seen it. BBC4 costs £55m per year, so if the £60m per year figure for F1 is wrong, then the entire article is spouted with inaccuracy and riddles.
4) "The source said the BBC did not intend to rebid for the F1 contract when it expired in November 2013."
- in which case, why did you have a scaremongering title saying 'BBC AXES FORMULA ONE'. Axes suggests you're terminating the contract early. No early termination is being seeked hear if you are to believe the article. Besides, they would not rebid for a contract an entire one and a half years before you would even begin discussing it.
5) "It has emerged that F1 costs £1 a head for every viewer, compared with the average 7p an hour broadcast cost for BBC1 and BBC2."
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/vfm/sports_rights.pdf ; page 35
- Formula 1 2009 - hit in every category, only one of two events to do this.
- as a said at the time (page 36) : "[✂ Redacted] is the outstanding success, significantly exceeding all of its reach, average audience and cost per viewer hour targets" - is almost certainly referring to F1
- hence this on Page 4: "Formula 1 has been a significant success in 2009/10, exceeding all of its reach, average audience and cost per viewer hour target"
- report was done earlier this year into the process of acquiring sports rights
- see page 33: "Formula 1 and Premier League highlights attract a younger (16-34) male audience that is otherwise hard to reach...."
6) "Apart from the British Grand Prix, most races attract between 2m and 4m viewers."
- http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?showtopic=112436 - enough said at this point
- only one race has dipped under 4m, and that was because it was against a Ford Super Sunday triple header on Sky Sports
7) "It costs more for each hour than even the most expensive dramas such as South Riding, Cranford and Doctor Who."
- again, this depends on whether the £60m figure is actually true. I mean, why have we only just heard about this now? They've had the rights for 2 and a half years, yet we've only just heard about the £60m figure despite numerous source saying £40m.
8) "The proposal to dump F1 will be among a package of measures to be put to the BBC Trust in the Autumn."
- so only towards the end of the article do you actually tell us that they haven't axed it, despite the headline saying to the contrary?
In short: The newspaper is pro-Tory. It's F1 editor is openly wanting F1 to go to Sky. Hence, the article is best ignored as it is inaccurate throughout.
4) "The source said the BBC did not intend to rebid for the F1 contract when it expired in November 2013."
- in which case, why did you have a scaremongering title saying 'BBC AXES FORMULA ONE'. Axes suggests you're terminating the contract early. No early termination is being seeked hear if you are to believe the article. Besides, they would not rebid for a contract an entire one and a half years before you would even begin discussing it.
...
In short: The newspaper is pro-Tory. It's F1 editor is openly wanting F1 to go to Sky. Hence, the article is best ignored as it is inaccurate throughout.
An 'axe' is when a channel decides to drop a particular show. It's got nothing to do with early termination. If the BBC has decided it isn't interested in renewing their F1 contract, then technically it is 'axing' their F1 coverage.
The article may be inaccurate but imho there is no smoke without fire. We'll see what happens but the BBC have dropped F1 before and i'm sure they'll have no problem with doing so again if the figures don't add up. There is a lot of talk about 'spiritual home' etc etc but let's not kid ourselves, F1 is a luxury sport investment and it's a niche audience. It has no devine right to remain on the BBC just like it had no devine right to stay on ITV. If the BBC are looking at making cuts, and the current climate would suggest they are, then F1 is a legitimate target. There is nothing special about F1 that makes it a protected sport like say, Wimbledon or the Grand National.
We'll see how it pans out but I think this is the writing on the wall. It could be worse, at least they're seeing out their contract and we've 2.5 years more of coverage to enjoy. Best make the most of it just incase F1 does end up on Sky.
8) "The proposal to dump F1 will be among a package of measures to be put to the BBC Trust in the Autumn."
- so only towards the end of the article do you actually tell us that they haven't axed it, despite the headline saying to the contrary?
Something that should be shouted from the rooftops as far as this thread is concerned.
BBC Radio 4 stated it costs BBC £3 million to cover each GP, There were 19 races in 2010 so that's £57 million.
I think this is an expensive waste of money.
That said, I also think the BBC waste other vast sums of money on reality shows, overpaid presenters, Glastonbury etc.
At the end of the day the BBC has to spend its money on something. It gets 3.5 billion per year with which to provide information, education and entertainment to licence fee payers. With all the talk of cuts, its forgotten that its still an immense amount of money. Whatever an individual sees no value in often becomes a waste of money in their opinion. If everyones waste of money was taken into account the BBC would be just playing a test card and chamber music.
I would say to the BBC, keep getting out there and covering as much as possible-there is far more chance of fee payers finding something they like.
What other channel? BBC's coverage of the F1 was amazing, it felt like the BBC was the home of the F1.The BBC needs to invest in sports.
Axe the daytime schedules (property, antiques, make-over shows), stop paying ridiculous amounts for rip off x factor formats.
There are savings the BBC can make, axing F1, sports or drama budgets isn't the way.
I agree the BBC's F1 coverage is good, however their Saturday night entertainment record is largely dreadful in the last decade at least. Strictly aside, its produced an alarming number of cheap very poor shows which havent seen second runs. The Voice is a chance for them to rectify that. Its reported that ITV offered up to 5 million pounds more for the rights so it might be considered a bargain, and out of a separate pot to sports rights.
Comments
I never knew that :eek:
Considering the beeb is cash constrained at the moment i wonder where the rumoured £25 million has appeared from? I hope its not at the expense of future seasons of F1 on the BBC? When digital switchover has finished then won't the BBC have the extra funding from that pot in the future?
I think this is an expensive waste of money.
That said, I also think the BBC waste other vast sums of money on reality shows, overpaid presenters, Glastonbury etc.
1) "Its contract to screen F1 for five seasons until 2013 will cost £300m.
- incorrect. It is well known that the contract costs BBC about £200m over 5 years, with the next contract increased to £235m. I guess that may factor in production costs, but as far as I know they are minimal and definitely would not amount to an extra £20m per year.
2) "At about £3m per race, it is the most expensive BBC programme being broadcast."
- incorrect. As the first point of £300m is wrong, the second point is also wrong. At 19 races, each race costs BBC about £2.1m. In my book, that is not £3m. The point "it is the most expensive BBC programme being broadcast" is factually incorrect. You cannot compare 5 hours of programming on BBC1 at £3m with a drama at 9pm on BBC1 which typically costs about £600,000. In fact, going on the £2.1m figure, F1 costs BBC about £420,000 per hour. I've even excluded things like the F1 Forum and Practice with that figure and all the other stuff they do, in reality the figure will be lower than that. Some dramas on BBC1 only get 4.5m viewers and cost £600,000, whereas with F1 you get you're hard to reach 16 to 34 audience, it doesn't cost much and you get at least 4.5m viewers on average per race. Everyone wins.
3) "An insider said the cost of covering 19 F1 races was more than the entire budget of BBC4."
- again depends on whether the £60m per year figure is correct, because its the first time I've seen it. BBC4 costs £55m per year, so if the £60m per year figure for F1 is wrong, then the entire article is spouted with inaccuracy and riddles.
4) "The source said the BBC did not intend to rebid for the F1 contract when it expired in November 2013."
- in which case, why did you have a scaremongering title saying 'BBC AXES FORMULA ONE'. Axes suggests you're terminating the contract early. No early termination is being seeked hear if you are to believe the article. Besides, they would not rebid for a contract an entire one and a half years before you would even begin discussing it.
5) "It has emerged that F1 costs £1 a head for every viewer, compared with the average 7p an hour broadcast cost for BBC1 and BBC2."
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/vfm/sports_rights.pdf ; page 35
- Formula 1 2009 - hit in every category, only one of two events to do this.
- as a said at the time (page 36) : "[✂ Redacted] is the outstanding success, significantly exceeding all of its reach, average audience and cost per viewer hour targets" - is almost certainly referring to F1
- hence this on Page 4: "Formula 1 has been a significant success in 2009/10, exceeding all of its reach, average audience and cost per viewer hour target"
- report was done earlier this year into the process of acquiring sports rights
- see page 33: "Formula 1 and Premier League highlights attract a younger (16-34) male audience that is otherwise hard to reach...."
6) "Apart from the British Grand Prix, most races attract between 2m and 4m viewers."
- http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?showtopic=112436 - enough said at this point
- only one race has dipped under 4m, and that was because it was against a Ford Super Sunday triple header on Sky Sports
7) "It costs more for each hour than even the most expensive dramas such as South Riding, Cranford and Doctor Who."
- again, this depends on whether the £60m figure is actually true. I mean, why have we only just heard about this now? They've had the rights for 2 and a half years, yet we've only just heard about the £60m figure despite numerous source saying £40m.
8) "The proposal to dump F1 will be among a package of measures to be put to the BBC Trust in the Autumn."
- so only towards the end of the article do you actually tell us that they haven't axed it, despite the headline saying to the contrary?
In short: The newspaper is pro-Tory. It's F1 editor is openly wanting F1 to go to Sky. Hence, the article is best ignored as it is inaccurate throughout.
This This This
As much as I like tot hink there might be an outcry like 6music.
Think Zen. BBC could just go ahead.
The F1 has been good and is really home on the bbc
It's hardly the same as F1 won't shut down, but just be shown on another channel.
Which channel though?
Now what you dont remember how the coverage was before ITV took it over. The coverage was ok but not brilliant. No trackside team, no pitland reporters (well they did in the last year or 2) but when ITV took it over they done really well. Now BBC have it back it has raised the bar again, so when and IF ITV have it back I suspect they will raise it again.
Practice could be on ITV4
I think this is a waste of Money. £20M over 2 years for a reality show when they are cutting back on BBC2. I think possibly of moving BBC4 to BBC2 during the day and parts of the evening, or have a mix of BBC3 & BBC 4 rolled into 1?
I also Think that BBC should stop doing game shows where they give away there money when BBC are having tough times!!
Quite, i wouldn't mind betting it's the usual newspaper trick.
One journalist guesses at a figure, all the others copy it, it becomes the "truth".....
What other channel? BBC's coverage of the F1 was amazing, it felt like the BBC was the home of the F1.The BBC needs to invest in sports.
Axe the daytime schedules (property, antiques, make-over shows), stop paying ridiculous amounts for rip off x factor formats.
There are savings the BBC can make, axing F1, sports or drama budgets isn't the way.
Whilst i agree F1 should kept, axeing daytime TV would be very unpopular with those who watch it - not to mention the fact that is it is very cheap anyway.
With a ridiculous comments, I am a real sports fan who can easily afford Sky Sports but chooses not to line with the pockets of Murdoch.
I also have season tickets for local sports team as well.
If anyones going to get it then it's more in the interests of Sky I suppose. F1 is all about money, Sky is all about money, Sky needs more things during the summer...so it's a perfect fit really.
Extremely well said.
An 'axe' is when a channel decides to drop a particular show. It's got nothing to do with early termination. If the BBC has decided it isn't interested in renewing their F1 contract, then technically it is 'axing' their F1 coverage.
The article may be inaccurate but imho there is no smoke without fire. We'll see what happens but the BBC have dropped F1 before and i'm sure they'll have no problem with doing so again if the figures don't add up. There is a lot of talk about 'spiritual home' etc etc but let's not kid ourselves, F1 is a luxury sport investment and it's a niche audience. It has no devine right to remain on the BBC just like it had no devine right to stay on ITV. If the BBC are looking at making cuts, and the current climate would suggest they are, then F1 is a legitimate target. There is nothing special about F1 that makes it a protected sport like say, Wimbledon or the Grand National.
We'll see how it pans out but I think this is the writing on the wall. It could be worse, at least they're seeing out their contract and we've 2.5 years more of coverage to enjoy. Best make the most of it just incase F1 does end up on Sky.
Something that should be shouted from the rooftops as far as this thread is concerned.
It's the only way to protect the average licence fee payer from the enormous costs of sports rights.
I'd certainly be willing to pay extra for a BBC sports channel.
Yay. Then you can have another whinge about "empire building"...
At the end of the day the BBC has to spend its money on something. It gets 3.5 billion per year with which to provide information, education and entertainment to licence fee payers. With all the talk of cuts, its forgotten that its still an immense amount of money. Whatever an individual sees no value in often becomes a waste of money in their opinion. If everyones waste of money was taken into account the BBC would be just playing a test card and chamber music.
I would say to the BBC, keep getting out there and covering as much as possible-there is far more chance of fee payers finding something they like.
I agree the BBC's F1 coverage is good, however their Saturday night entertainment record is largely dreadful in the last decade at least. Strictly aside, its produced an alarming number of cheap very poor shows which havent seen second runs. The Voice is a chance for them to rectify that. Its reported that ITV offered up to 5 million pounds more for the rights so it might be considered a bargain, and out of a separate pot to sports rights.