BBC F1 Coverage - 2011 Season: The Verdict (Part 2)

1107108110112113125

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,624
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    SouthCity wrote: »
    It was Charles Sale in the Mail who correctly predicted that the BBC wouldn't bid for Football League rights or Test Match cricket.

    There is no reason why he would deliberately put out incorrect information.

    The same Charles Sale who was consistently claiming my team (QPR) will get a 15 point deduction.

    Norwich would have then won the league and guess which team he supports?

    If theres a reason behind it, the Fail, Sale and all Murdoch papers will flat out lie. Thats why I take no notice of them if theres an agenda behind it.
  • DelennDelenn Posts: 1,269
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Everyone,

    Stop moaning on here and start campaigning. Start complaining to various people in the BBC. It worked for 6 music, a decision has not been made here.

    If everyone is silent, it will get axed.
  • wolvesdavidwolvesdavid Posts: 10,831
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    SouthCity wrote: »
    It was Charles Sale in the Mail who correctly predicted that the BBC wouldn't bid for Football League rights or Test Match cricket.

    There is no reason why he would deliberately put out incorrect information. As I said before these are strong rumours going around the BBC but not yet officially confirmed, so it isn't just Murdoch propaganda - there is more substance to it than that.

    Is there any evidence though, or is it just opinions?

    I also said that BBC would drop the football league rights. I also predict they will drop the 6 nations (instead of F1.)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 95
    Forum Member
    Flyer 10 wrote: »
    Wrong, any Murdoch paper ceased to be a legitimate source about F1 since they were interested in acquiring it.

    As posted, the writer is a supporter of moving it to sky so its nothing but propaganda.

    And over the last 2 years the Times has moved steadily to the right, which an increasing lack of impartiality on several issues.

    While an article cannot be discounted on the basis of which paper, it come from, a large does of salt is needed.

    The reply from BBC or lack of it of the next few days may be telling.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 95
    Forum Member
    Is there any evidence though, or is it just opinions?

    I also said that BBC would drop the football league rights. I also predict they will drop the 6 nations (instead of F1.)

    They shouldn't be forced to drop either quite frankly.
  • Red DevilRed Devil Posts: 13,665
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Delenn wrote: »
    Everyone,

    Stop moaning on here and start campaigning. Start complaining to various people in the BBC. It worked for 6 music, a decision has not been made here.

    If everyone is silent, it will get axed.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/contact/

    I really hope it stays with the BBC, but it's looking increasing unlikely.
  • F1-AddictF1-Addict Posts: 811
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    "It's contract to screen F1 for five seasons until 2013 will cost £300m. At about £3m per race.." That's not right, £200 at about £2m per race if i'm not mistaken so only got to the second paragraph before some fabrication creeps in. "...most races attract only between 2m and 4m viewers." Season average of 4.7m so far so not telling the whole story there. Some sneaky wording too by saying "F1 costs £1 a head for every viewer, compared with the average 7p an hour broadcast cost for BBC1 and BBC2." Seems to be an attempt at making F1 appear massively expensive (not saying £20m a year is cheap though) compared to the network average by changing the unit of measurement.

    From a personal point of view, it'd be a shame to see the BBC keep Wimbledon (a 2 week tournament) but more so the Six Nations (a 5 weekend tournament at £40m a year, i.e. the same cost as F1) over Formula One (21 weekends a year from next season). For comparison;

    Six Nations: 80mins x 15games = 1200mins, £40m/1200mins = £33.3k per min.
    F1: (40mins + 90mins) x 21races = 2730mins, £40m/2730mins = £14.6k per min.

    That's only taking into consideration the action itself on BBC1 and BBC2. Also, Formula One and Wimbledon were the only 2 sports on the BBC to meet all their targets for 2010.

    I believe it was stated the BBC had bid £20m more than ITV back when the Six Nations rights were last up and it has being speculated they could offer below the previous MOTD bid of £57m. If the Beeb could make savings on those two and negotiate Bernie down to around £30m a year (the figure touted as ITV's potential offer for F1 should the BBC drop it), could they keep all three? Clutching at straws here I suspect.
  • dansusdansus Posts: 2,559
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    For this to be published with words of such certainty, this may have come from the BBC themselves as a way of sending a message to CVC;

    'We really cant afford this, if you want the exposure we can give you, what are you going to do to make it affordable.'
  • D.M.N.D.M.N. Posts: 34,167
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    As F1-Addict points out, the article is full of bullshit and crap, it is not worth reading time into it.
  • D.M.N.D.M.N. Posts: 34,167
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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.
  • _SpeedRacer__SpeedRacer_ Posts: 6,718
    Forum Member
    The BBC will show F1 next year, that I'm absolutely certain of. It's too late in the year now to back out.

    The question isn't whether F1 will leave the BBC - it's whether it's in 2013 or 2014.
  • dsweetenhamdsweetenham Posts: 2,115
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    D.M.N. wrote: »
    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.

    Brundle (who writes for them) has mentioned the inaccuracies on Twitter this morning...

    MBrundleF1
    @chrisspyrou This Sunday Times article is badly inaccurate, audiences for Monaco+ Canada 6.2m and 8.3m e.g. F1 is at risk in BBC cuts though
  • BenFranklinBenFranklin Posts: 5,814
    Forum Member
    nice deconstruction DMN, beat me to it !
  • BenFranklinBenFranklin Posts: 5,814
    Forum Member
    also you make the point they don't like the BBC, the also come across as not liking f1, strange tactic to be slagging it off to such a degree if you're interested in bidding for it..
  • stevvy1986stevvy1986 Posts: 7,054
    Forum Member
    Flyer 10 wrote: »
    Yes, theyve wanted it for a good few months (the giveaway was SSN started reporting F1 stories when theyve ignored it previously), isnt the football a later KO so it means 1-2pm F1 starts are ok?

    Sky usually show football at 1.30pm as well as at 4pm (oh and on Saturdays they also usually show a game at 12.45pm).
  • stevvy1986stevvy1986 Posts: 7,054
    Forum Member
    Quite frankly I'll believe this whole 'BBC axes F1' stuff when something official, from the BBC, in a press release, is shown to me. Until then, it's in papers, and so as far as I'm concerned means nothing. Any paper can come out and say 'a source close to the BBC' or 'my source at the BBC has heard' and such like, and so again I don't buy it. Until I see something official, it's bullsh*t to me.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,624
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    D.M.N. wrote: »
    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.

    Exactly why I didnt bother reading it in the 1st place, I knew it was lies to try to change public opinion into wanting F1 dropped.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,624
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Brundle (who writes for them) has mentioned the inaccuracies on Twitter this morning...

    MBrundleF1
    @chrisspyrou This Sunday Times article is badly inaccurate, audiences for Monaco+ Canada 6.2m and 8.3m e.g. F1 is at risk in BBC cuts though

    They could start with not flying the presenters and TV crews to every race, it would mean no pit walk but on the other hand, no Eddie Jordan.

    Id rather F1 stayed on the BBC and we joined them 15 mins before the start than it go back to ITV.
  • D.M.N.D.M.N. Posts: 34,167
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    BenConsty
    BBC to axe F1.....not a hope in hell! Saying its to expensive when they know Bernie likes it, strategic propaganda
    5 minutes ago

    That's a different perspective on it. Except I can't see Bernie reducing the rights.
  • alexj2002alexj2002 Posts: 3,930
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Most F1 races attract between two and four million viewers except the British Grand Prix.Last Sunday more than eight million turned in to see Jenson Button's British triumph in Canada

    No editing of the above - the Daily Mail really did just print those two statements right next to each other.

    On a side-note, I thought it was the case that each department within the BBC had to cut their budget by x amount to compensate for the reduced income from the licence fee freeze. Hence cutting F1 would help the sports department reach it's target, rather than that money being used to save BBC Three and Four?

    Or have I misunderstood, in which case why the hell have the BBC just spent £10million/year (nearly 20% of BBC4's annual budget) on an X-Factor type-format?
  • BenFranklinBenFranklin Posts: 5,814
    Forum Member
    well who know what ITV will be able to bid? definite scope for BBC OR ITV to get F1 for less than it is currently going for
  • D.M.N.D.M.N. Posts: 34,167
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    well who know what ITV will be able to bid? definite scope for BBC OR ITV to get F1 for less than it is currently going for

    If BBC are paying £60m now (which I don't think is true whatsoever), then ITV would have to bid £65m. Over 5 years though £325 million, which is a ridiculous amount, and one I don't think ITV will be able to afford.

    If the £60m is true, then I think the only two options are BBC and Sky, unless Bernie is willing to reduce the rights substantially.

    I don't think there is true, the cost of rights would not double between contracts from ~£35m to £60m.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 6,126
    Forum Member
    D.M.N. wrote: »
    BenConsty
    BBC to axe F1.....not a hope in hell! Saying its to expensive when they know Bernie likes it, strategic propaganda
    5 minutes ago

    That's a different perspective on it. Except I can't see Bernie reducing the rights.

    A valid point....but...and is`t there always a but....The economy is flat...cut`s are being implemented and not only in the UK....Just look at the Euro zone and Greece...In summary...money is tight...and that means even Bernie may have to reduce the cost of the rights to broadcast F1...and not just here in blighty...but world wide.
  • _SpeedRacer__SpeedRacer_ Posts: 6,718
    Forum Member
    Joe Saward calling the viewing figures "disappointing" despite the fact they're up year on year since the BBC took over:

    http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/bbc-to-drop-f1/
  • BenFranklinBenFranklin Posts: 5,814
    Forum Member
    D.M.N. wrote: »
    If BBC are paying £60m now (which I don't think is true whatsoever), then ITV would have to bid £65m. Over 5 years though £325 million, which is a ridiculous amount, and one I don't think ITV will be able to afford.

    If the £60m is true, then I think the only two options are BBC and Sky, unless Bernie is willing to reduce the rights substantially.

    I don't think there is true, the cost of rights would not double between contracts from ~£35m to £60m.

    well we come back to the basic question here, does f1 have to stay on fta? i think it does so a compromise will be reached with bbc or itv

    or maybe we are looking at a joint fta/pay bid for f1? enjoy live practise, live qualifying, driver tracker, free f1 timings whilst you can..
This discussion has been closed.