• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Broadcasting
F1 Coverage - The Verdict: 2016 Season
<<
<
73 of 226
>>
>
clewsy
25-03-2016
Some people need to stop and think about how silly what they are saying sounds.

Why is 1 broadcaster going to dictate to a global movement what will and won't happen?

If one did, imagine what the others would say and start demanding.

Simply put they buy the rights to broadcast the show. What happens in the show and how it happens isn't what the broadcaster controls, they just pay to show it.
BenFranklin
25-03-2016
Originally Posted by clewsy:
“Why is 1 broadcaster going to dictate to a global movement what will and won't happen?”

It's not a movement, it's a business containing lots of different stakeholders. And Sky have made themselves one of the most important stakeholders by the sheer amount of money they are going to put in. Not silly at all the point out this means Sky will be more influential, just common sense.

Quote:
“If one did, imagine what the others would say and start demanding.”

The difference is, Bernie can turn around and say "if you want to make more demands, pay me as much as Sky are".

Quote:
“Simply put they buy the rights to broadcast the show. What happens in the show and how it happens isn't what the broadcaster controls, they just pay to show it.”

With the greatest of respect, that's a bit of a simplistic way of looking at things. Look at any other sport where a broadcaster has come in and paid big money to show the sport, I struggle to think of a sport where that hasn't led to the product being adjusted to suit the big money broadcaster.
tgabber
25-03-2016
Look at what's happened to interest in MotoGP in this country (a much better spectator sport IMHO) since it stopped being shown free-to-air. You're going to see exactly the same thing happen to F1.

Sky have overpaid and everyone, fans, broadcaster and the sport itself will suffer in the long term.
Clarat
25-03-2016
Interesting from DC on Twitter just now:

"When I was young I aspired to be part F1, today I apologise more often than not when people mention it, it's my fault for being a follower"
derek500
25-03-2016
Originally Posted by clewsy:
“
Simply put they buy the rights to broadcast the show. What happens in the show and how it happens isn't what the broadcaster controls, they just pay to show it.”

Do you think that FOM upgrading to UHD coverage from 2017 isn't related to the new Sky deal?
TheSubaru2012
25-03-2016
I thought I would update my investigation into post #1575 which is what Sky Sports channel F1 would be on if the F1 channel did not exist. I've use the BBC Sport website as a source of what F1 might or might not clash with. I thought I would update this list to include all 21 races.

Note: Events listed in Italic are events that are not shown by Sky Sports

First Half Of Season:
Australia: Sky Sports 1 (No direct clash)
Bahrain: Sky Sports 3 (Clashes with Football and World T20 Final)
China: Sky Sports 1 (No direct clash)
Russia: Sky Sports 2 (Clashes with Football)
Spain: Sky Sports 4 (Clashes with final day of PL)
Monaco: Sky Sports 2 (Clashes with FL Playoff final)
Canada: Sky Sports 1 (Clashes with Euro 2016)
Azerbaijan: Sky Sports 1 (Clashes with Queen's Club Tennis)
Austria: Sky Sports 1 (Clashes with Tour De France)
Britain: Sky Sports 1 (Clashes with Wimbledon Final, European Athletics Championship and Tour De France)
Hungary: Sky Sports 1 (Clashes with England V Pakistan Second Test and London Anniversary Games)
Germany: Sky Sports 1 (Clashes with the Woman's British Open Golf, although I don't think that will affect F1)

Second Half Of Season:
Belgium: Sky Sports 2 (Clashes with Football)
Italy: Sky Sports 1 (Clashes with Start Of Premiership Rugby season, MotoGP Britain and Tour Of Britain)
Singapore: Sky Sports 2 (Clashes with Football, Davis Cup Semi-Finals and Paralympic Games)
Malaysia: Sky Sports 1 (No direct clash)
Japan: Sky Sports 1 (No direct clash)
USA: Sky Sports 1 (No direct clash)
Mexico: Sky Sports 1 (Clashes with Football although not a direct clash)
Brazil: Sky Sports 1 (No direct clash)
Abu Dhabi: Sky Sports 2 (Clashes with Football and Davis Cup Final)

Analyses:
I have not included practice/qualifying clashes above, just clashes with the race so stuff like the Royal Ascot is not included. If we did include qualifying clashes then races like Bahrain, Russia, Belgium, Singapore and Singapore would clash with Football and would have to moved to Sky Sports 2. You would also have to include La Liga in there as possibly some big matches would clash with F1 and therefore F1 would also have to move channels.

Going to the race clashes though... If you at the above then 14 races would be on Sky Sports 1 which would be a surprising amount although the amount above may not be final though as pre-season football may affect the amount of races shown on Sky Sports 1. If we didn't include possible pre-season football clashes then 5 races would be on Sky Sports 2 and 1 on Sky Sports 3/4

You may think some of my channel decisions listed are strange however it's not as I should explain. I've listed Bahrain as Sky Sports 3 as it would directly clash with the Super Sunday football and the World T20 final plus I believe Cricket has to be on Sky Sports 2 so Sky Sports 3 would be the only best spot to put F1 on. I've listed Sky Sports 4 for Monaco because even though the race would probably finish by the time the Football had finish it would affect the Super Sunday build up on Sky Sports 1 and in case of a red flag the race could end up overrunning with the Football and it would look pretty silly if Sky had to change channels during the final laps, so the safe and best decision would be to put the F1 on Sky Sports 4. If I was the person deciding which channels to put F1 I would simulcast Bahrain and Monaco on Sky1 to make up for the loss of audience.

The good thing about the calendar is that Italy and Brazil are placed on World Cup qualifiers weekends so Sky should be able to place them both on Sky Sports 1 although why do FOM and Dorna think it's a great idea for the Italian GP and British MotoGP to fall on the same weekend as each other???....

As for the TV ratings then the races that will have a big fall in ratings are Bahrain, Russia, Spain, Monaco, Canada, Britain, Hungary, Belgium, Italy, Singapore and Abu Dhabi as they clash with major sporting events. I expect Austria might take a slight dive as well as it clashes with the Tour De France. Ratings have already tumbled and with a busy year or sport ahead I can only expect a further drop of ratings ahead of us...
popeye13
25-03-2016
Originally Posted by derek500:
“Do you think that FOM upgrading to UHD coverage from 2017 isn't related to the new Sky deal?”

Sky are not the only broadcaster in the world with UHD intent Derek!
Canal+ in France are moving fast with UHD as are some Asian broadcasters and they have been on the 4k path long before Sky!!
clewsy
26-03-2016
Originally Posted by derek500:
“Do you think that FOM upgrading to UHD coverage from 2017 isn't related to the new Sky deal?”

Yes. It's related to the changing interests and demands of all broadcasters. F1 switched to HD when it added value to the package and will do the same with UHD.

Bernie isn't going to be told what to do by any broadcaster. Sky are just a cash cow to him and he will know if they were bidding against BT it was him in a position to tell them what was on offer and name a price.
mossy2103
26-03-2016
Originally Posted by _SpeedRacer_:
“There's no way Bernie would be dictated to by a broadcaster about the race venues, he gives the historic venues a discount on their fee but he'd happily wipe them off the calendar if there were enough alternatives.”

And as F1 is viewed worldwide, and is not geared solely towards a UK audience, I doubt that Sky would have much control over the start times (or any other things that are deemed important to Sky).
Ten_Ben
26-03-2016
There are some incredible assumptions being made here, not least by both Sky and FOM. The world is changing fast and it's not impossible to imagine a perfect storm blowing up to make what £170m per year brings in 2019 look suicidal in, say, 2022.

Fewer viewers, increasing TV subscription charges, fewer sponsors, a sport that is struggling to produce exciting racing on a consistent basis and has no consensus on how it wants to move forward, technology in the real world that is potentially moving away from fossil fuels and even hybrids towards full electric etc etc. If manufacturers, sponsors, even personnel and drivers, see better potential marketing opportunities elsewhere, what is to keep them in F1? F1 only exists because it's attracted the teams, manufacturers, sponsors etc and if they start drifting away, F1 isn't going to be worth in the future what it is right now and TV rights will not have the same value either.

Okay, not all of this will come to pass, obviously, but the point is that no-one knows. Not you, not me, not Sky, not Bernie, not CVC. The latter two will try to shape things to their advantage, of course, but at the end of the day, it's not all in the their hands - they still need competitors, as the TV companies need both competitors and a strong, healthy formula. If another up and coming formula starts attracting the interest of manufacturers etc because it's looking as being more relevant to the future, i smore accessible and reaches more eyeballs at a lower cost, then F1 will be in trouble, full stop. It's a huge gamble to commit to paying eye-watering sums such as £170m pa five or six years hence. Five or six years is a long time given the rate of change these days. As Murray might say, anything could happen and it probably will....
tgabber
26-03-2016
Seems to me some people are forgetting that Bernie is 85. How much control does he really have now? And for how much longer? And can you trust his judgement these days anyway?
Ten_Ben
26-03-2016
Originally Posted by tgabber:
“Seems to me some people are forgetting that Bernie is 85. How much control does he really have now? And for how much longer? And can you trust his judgement these days anyway?”

Only one month ago he said that F1 is boring and he wouldn't pay to watch it.

A week ago he wanted to bin the elimination qualifying. Four days later he wants to keep it.

No, of course you can't trust his judgement.

After all, it's his judgement that has got F1 into the boring mess it's currently in.
stefmeister
26-03-2016
Originally Posted by derek500:
“Do you think that FOM upgrading to UHD coverage from 2017 isn't related to the new Sky deal?”

Sky likely pushed for it but FOM have had UHD equipment for a year or 2 & since late 2014 were running test's with Tata Communication to send UHD feeds back to Biggin Hill via Tata's fibre networks.

http://www.tatacommunications.com/ar...e#.VvaZEb_C-RI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pJiT6evJus
Jonpollak
26-03-2016
Nice post Ten_Ben.
Jp
Ollie_S98
26-03-2016
Am I right in saying that when it comes to UHD, the pictures used are completely different to those that you would see on normal HD or bogstandard SD.
What I'm getting at is whether Sky will need a second commentary team for the UHD pictures? BT Sport use different commentary teams for their UHD coverage, so will Sky have to do the same? And if so, who will they use?


Also I haven't commented yet on the Sky exclusive deal. This is a big blow for F1 and I have to say I'm very disappointed for C4, I really hoped they'd be given a chance to prove themselves and have a chance to take the rights back on FTA after 2018. Although that was perhaps rather naive of me! There's simply no way they could compete with the stupid money that Sky/BT were throwing at it and given the eye-watering amounts of money being offered it's understandable why FOM took the Sky option.
Also I think the FTA coverage of the British GP and highlights of all the other races will mean it will have to be on the BBC/ITV/C4. I imagine-as James Allen highlighted- it will not be enough to have it on Pick TV or Sky Sports Mix.

My final thought will go to an idea that hasn't really been spoken about on here. I very much imagine that Sky will want to reinvigorate their coverage come 2019 with a large advertising campaign and possibly some new faces. It wouldn't surprise me if they- over the next couple of years- tried alternatives to the likes of Lazenby and Herbert. If DC or Mark Webber or even Jenson Button were to become available I imagine that Sky will be very keen to get them on board. Hopefully the new deal will encourage Sky to go to the next level as opposed to just becoming complacent with their coverage whilst continuing to cut production costs.
BenFranklin
26-03-2016
Originally Posted by Ollie_S98:
“My final thought will go to an idea that hasn't really been spoken about on here. I very much imagine that Sky will want to reinvigorate their coverage come 2019 with a large advertising campaign and possibly some new faces. It wouldn't surprise me if they- over the next couple of years- tried alternatives to the likes of Lazenby and Herbert. If DC or Mark Webber or even Jenson Button were to become available I imagine that Sky will be very keen to get them on board. Hopefully the new deal will encourage Sky to go to the next level as opposed to just becoming complacent with their coverage whilst continuing to cut production costs.”

I agree with this. It's probably wishful thinking, but if Sky are really going all in on F1 we're going to see a step change with the coverage.
kriZbii
26-03-2016
With Sky having everything there's no need for them to put any effort in. Rather than investing more and improving their output, they can fill the races with ads, dump the F1 channel entirely and treat it like all other sports, with little outside of the live races.

Even football doesn't get full re-runs of games anymore, super league gets 15 minute highlights packages, cricket gets sightly longer highlights, but even then, when Sky Sports 2 is entirely devoted to cricket, most of the day is packed with 15-30 minute filler dross that's worse than the stuff that's shown when the F1 channel is off air.

Anyone who thinks Sky are going to go beyond current coverage levels with exclusive rights is kidding themselves.
solarflare
26-03-2016
In a way I kind of hope that the Sky coverage continues to degrade and the sport keeps shooting itself in the foot with crappy decisions and boring racing.

I've just got the "we're putting your subscription up" email (it's not even a letter and it's not even apologetic like the previous round of "we're putting your subscription up" fun). My payment's going up £4 per month from May.

It made me go back through my online banking history to see the progression of the Sky payments I've been making (these probably don't necessarily correlate to the actual dates of the rises but it was the easiest way for me to see the history).

Nov 2009: £37.50
Oct 2010: £40.75
Oct 2012: £43.25
Oct 2013: £45.75
Sep 2014: £49.25
Jun 2015: £52.50
Mar 2016: £55.50
May 2016: £59.50

Now of these increases only one (Mar 2016) is package change related - I took up an offer then. The rest are simply Sky milking me for more money...

I work that out to be nearly a 60% increase since 2009! Plus at that rate of progression it's going to be somewhere nearer £70 per month by the time 2019 and Sky exclusivity for F1 comes along

In a way would be quite happy for crap F1 and crap Sky coverage as it would make it much easier to justify cancelling, even if it meant no F1 at all any more, let alone only half of it live.
FOM Fan
26-03-2016
Originally Posted by Ollie_S98:
“Am I right in saying that when it comes to UHD, the pictures used are completely different to those that you would see on normal HD or bogstandard SD.
What I'm getting at is whether Sky will need a second commentary team for the UHD pictures? BT Sport use different commentary teams for their UHD coverage, so will Sky have to do the same? And if so, who will they use?”

No, 4k is just a higher resolution. The choice to use different angles/an alternate feed is entirely down to the artistic choice of whoever is producing the coverage. BT do it for their football because it's easier to do when you've only got a few cameras. Personally I don't see why they do it though, as 9 times out of 10, you're just looking at a picture that's slightly higher up or at a different angle to the HD one. And I can tell you now, BT's UHD coverage looks fine downscaled to 1080p on my 27" 1080p monitor.

I've been told that for F1, the 4k and HD feeds will be the same footage - the track footage will all be shot natively in 4k, and the HD feed will just be a downscale of the native 4k feed. It'll be interesting to note whether they shoot the thing natively in 4k progressively, or if they will still shoot it interlaced. BT's 4k channel is delivered to set top boxes as a 50fps progressive stream (I presume because the Set top boxes are too underpowered to de-interlace 4k video smoothly enough) - but they don't tell you whether the raw footage is actually shot at 50p, or at 25i - so it'll be interesting to see what FOM do (and also what Sky then do with the resulting footage - one would assume they would deliver it to users as a progressive stream too).
popeye13
26-03-2016
Originally Posted by FOM Fan:
“No, 4k is just a higher resolution. The choice to use different angles/an alternate feed is entirely down to the artistic choice of whoever is producing the coverage. BT do it for their football because it's easier to do when you've only got a few cameras. Personally I don't see why they do it though, as 9 times out of 10, you're just looking at a picture that's slightly higher up or at a different angle to the HD one. And I can tell you now, BT's UHD coverage looks fine downscaled to 1080p on my 27" 1080p monitor.

I've been told that for F1, the 4k and HD feeds will be the same footage - the track footage will all be shot natively in 4k, and the HD feed will just be a downscale of the native 4k feed. It'll be interesting to note whether they shoot the thing natively in 4k progressively, or if they will still shoot it interlaced. BT's 4k channel is delivered to set top boxes as a 50fps progressive stream (I presume because the Set top boxes are too underpowered to de-interlace 4k video smoothly enough) - but they don't tell you whether the raw footage is actually shot at 50p, or at 25i - so it'll be interesting to see what FOM do (and also what Sky then do with the resulting footage - one would assume they would deliver it to users as a progressive stream too).”

There is no interlacing in 4k. Its progressive only thankfully!

BT do different because as mentioned, they use different angles for some backward reason instead of the same ones and that costs them way more in terms of production instead of doing the entire game in 4K and then simply downscaling the pictures to HD and SD.
Atleast FOM TV will have the brains to only create one feed thus saving money and time and the need for broadcasters to need 2 comms teams should they take the 4K feed!
FOM Fan
26-03-2016
Originally Posted by popeye13:
“There is no interlacing in 4k. Its progressive only thankfully!

BT do different because as mentioned, they use different angles for some backward reason instead of the same ones and that costs them way more in terms of production instead of doing the entire game in 4K and then simply downscaling the pictures to HD and SD.
Atleast FOM TV will have the brains to only create one feed thus saving money and time and the need for broadcasters to need 2 comms teams should they take the 4K feed!”

Surely you can interlace footage at any resolution?
I think soon, BT may just shoot as much of their matches in 4k & downscale it for HD (rather than filming 2 separate feeds), I suppose for now they want to sell their Ultra HD content as being 'different' or 'especially for 4k screens' which is bollocks, cos quite frankly I prefer watching their 4k feeds even on a (relatively) small 27" HD monitor, as I prefer the camera angles used.
loyalsince
26-03-2016
Wider issue for Sky is that even if from 2019 or 2020 (forgot which at top of my head) if they lose ECB Cricket, they will still have some strong summer content exclusive
clewsy
27-03-2016
Originally Posted by solarflare:
“In a way I kind of hope that the Sky coverage continues to degrade and the sport keeps shooting itself in the foot with crappy decisions and boring racing.

I've just got the "we're putting your subscription up" email (it's not even a letter and it's not even apologetic like the previous round of "we're putting your subscription up" fun). My payment's going up £4 per month from May.

It made me go back through my online banking history to see the progression of the Sky payments I've been making (these probably don't necessarily correlate to the actual dates of the rises but it was the easiest way for me to see the history).

Nov 2009: £37.50
Oct 2010: £40.75
Oct 2012: £43.25
Oct 2013: £45.75
Sep 2014: £49.25
Jun 2015: £52.50
Mar 2016: £55.50
May 2016: £59.50

Now of these increases only one (Mar 2016) is package change related - I took up an offer then. The rest are simply Sky milking me for more money...

I work that out to be nearly a 60% increase since 2009! Plus at that rate of progression it's going to be somewhere nearer £70 per month by the time 2019 and Sky exclusivity for F1 comes along

In a way would be quite happy for crap F1 and crap Sky coverage as it would make it much easier to justify cancelling, even if it meant no F1 at all any more, let alone only half of it live.”

That's some hike.

Of course sky know that millions like you will keep paying and stick with them, despite the hikes. Until it reaches the point where many leave they will keep doing it.

It's like your "offer" price, despite sky discounting it, your still actually paying them more per month, which I suspect is their plan when offering out these discounts.

Can people cancel with these price hikes? Just thinking if someone got a movement going to collectively cancel, it could be interesting to see how sky react.
Smufter
27-03-2016
Originally Posted by solarflare:
“I work that out to be nearly a 60% increase since 2009! Plus at that rate of progression it's going to be somewhere nearer £70 per month by the time 2019 and Sky exclusivity for F1 comes along
In a way would be quite happy for crap F1 and crap Sky coverage as it would make it much easier to justify cancelling, even if it meant no F1 at all any more, let alone only half of it live.”

NowTV box.
£6.99 for a days sports pass, £10.99 for a weeks.
I like golf as well and these are the only two sports I watch.
I'll buy a day pass for F1 races that aren't shown on terrestrial, and a weeks pass if I want to watch the Masters or Open golf.
Works for me.
mjr
27-03-2016
Originally Posted by clewsy:
“Can people cancel with these price hikes?”

If you're in contract, then IIRC you can cancel if there's a raise of over 10%. But out of contract you can cancel whenever you want with a month's notice.
<<
<
73 of 226
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map