Sky to show F1 races without adverts in 2012

2012 F1 season

Start, Valencia, 2011

Start, Valencia, 2011

Sky has confirmed its F1 race coverage will be free of adverts when it begins in 2012.

A spokesperson told F1 Fanatic: “There won’t be any ad breaks. Every second of every race will be live and uninterrupted.

“It will be the only place to watch every race live.”

Sky’s plans are at an early stage having just announced the deal, and decisions are yet to be taken on who will be involved in its coverage.

While Sky has begun broadcasting some sports in 3D the spokesperson said it was “way too early to say” whether this could also be used for F1 – which has only made its debut in HD this year.

The spokesperson said the price of a Sky subcription would not increase before September 2012 and added: “We’ll give it the full Sky Sports treatment: it will be on Sky Sports News, Sky Sports dot com, across mobile and online.”

BBC/Sky F1 2012 deal

Image ?? Red Bull/Getty images

Advert | Go Ad-free

235 comments on Sky to show F1 races without adverts in 2012

1 2 3 7
  1. TommyB (@tommyb89) said on 29th July 2011, 11:29

    Shame I can’t afford it.

    • jake said on 29th July 2011, 11:47

      same, means absolutely nothing to me. They could do the greatest coverage ever, with no ad breaks, all the bells and whistles but for me and many other fans, the simple fact is, F1 has been taken away from us

      • snowman said on 29th July 2011, 11:59

        Unfortunately same for me, though I see this “no adds” as a marketing ploy by Sky and they will eventually phase in adverts then pay per view.

        • Derek said on 29th July 2011, 14:50

          There will be adds from 2013 season. Sky said no adds in 2012, that’s to pull people in from the BBC who don’t like adds.

          I cannot see the Beeb holding onto TV rights for long, and their presenters (at least the better ones) will jump-ship to Sky.

          • kinggp (@kinggp) said on 29th July 2011, 22:37

            shame loyal fans mean so little to the bbc.

            sky is going to be way overpriced and it already is. the majority of the schedual is made up of a game of S*** cricket being ‘played’ all day. not work £40 odd per month.

            sill not be tuning in again this year to show my disgust.

      • wasiF1 said on 29th July 2011, 12:00

        People I know it sound a bit weird but if you have around 10 F1 fan in a city can’t you all share the 600 grand between you?

        I honestly feel sorry for you all.Hope you will make a life out of it.

        • jonathan said on 29th July 2011, 12:05

          where did that figure come from? ratings for most races regularly top 6 million people. which would indicate that more than 10 people in a city watch it

          • jake said on 29th July 2011, 12:10

            i think he meant that if you found 10 people, you could split the price and all go round to theirs to watch the race. However, practicalities would make this pretty difficult, eg. Early morning starts, People working etc etc.

          • matt90 said on 29th July 2011, 12:17

            He means 600 quid subscription fee, not 600,000 people watching. Quid not grand.

          • Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta) said on 29th July 2011, 22:24

            Also, most rooms do not comfortably seat 10 people, and even £60 a person for 10 races is too steep for a lot of them.

            In practise, you’d be looking to charge more like £1-2 a head per race, at which point your living room would need 30-60 people in it.

      • John said on 25th August 2011, 9:34

        I for one will not be buying Sky, full stop.
        So as a lifelong fan of F1 since Moss and Hawthorn were racing I will not be seeing all the races.

    • Douglas 62500 said on 29th July 2011, 12:02

      and it would be even more of a shame if we could not see, or hear commentary from Brundle, Coulthard & EJ again….. such epic BBC F1 CREW.

    • matt90 said on 29th July 2011, 12:11

      I’m a die-hard fan. But I may be switching off now. I’d rather see ITV have it with ad-breaks. It somehow seems a bit pointless to watch only half a season.

      • Philip said on 30th July 2011, 14:22

        Agree – would be much better on ITV!

        How to destroy F1 in the UK.

        6 million fans sold out and outraged by The BBC, Bernie, FOTA and the sponsors of all the teams who will now be shunned. Their images leave a bitter taste.
        Why should anyone have to pay twice to watch the series!!? The BBC should withdraw and save the money all together, cause how can you pay so much for something that isn’t worth watching, judged by the people who did?

        Sold out!

    • Ben Curly (@ben-curly) said on 29th July 2011, 12:23

      I’m not going to pay £500 or even £600 to Murdoch, just to watch ten races in a year. That’s ridiculous.

      • We Want Turbos said on 30th July 2011, 9:42

        Get Virgin Media add the sky sports package and Murdoch gets naff all extra!! As Virgin pay sky a substantial amount for Sky sport but to my understanding it’s not based per head. Also cheaper-no extra for HD and I’d rather give my money to Branson than Murdoch.

    • Hoohah said on 29th July 2011, 15:08

      Yep, totally irrelevent as i won’t be watching F1

    • John H said on 29th July 2011, 15:26

      Still can’t believe we’re really talking about this. F1 on Sky. Oh the humanity!

    • bertie said on 29th July 2011, 15:51

      I am quite happy that the peasants have now been priced out of the market.

    • matt90 (@matt90) said on 29th July 2011, 17:23

      ‘Formula 1 boss Bernie Ecclestone told BBC Sport: “It’s super for F1. It will mean a lot more coverage for the sport.
      “There’ll be highlights as well as live coverage on two different networks now, so we get the best of both worlds.”‘

      From http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/9550930.stm

      There was already full races and highlights- just because t is split over 2 networks does not mean there is ‘more.’ Is he a toddler- has he not grasped that 2 small piles of toys is the same as one large pile, they’re just in 2 different places- and one of those is locked in a cupboard most people can’t get in to.

    • JerseyF1 (@jerseyf1) said on 29th July 2011, 18:54

      So many claims of people who can’t afford it and also that it will devastate viewing figures. As I understand it there are around 6m viewers watch a typical F1 race (in the UK) whilst Sky has over 10m subscribers. Obviously the 6m isn’t a subset of the 10m but I bet there’s a pretty large overlap. Thinking of my experience I can’t think of a single person at work or in my family who doesn’t have a Sky subscription and many (if not most) of those will have a sports package.

      Clearly some people will need to get a sky package (and will) and others may need to upgrade to include sports (and will). Most F1 fans will also be general sports fans so have a more than average chance of being a sports package subscriber anyway. My guess is most people who call themselves fanatics will install or upgrade.

      Viewing figures are more than likely going to be less, but I can’t see he devastation being talked about coming about.

      Is the cost really 60 pounds per year? I know when I had sky all I had to do was call them up once a year to say I wanted to end my subscription and they gave me a half price deal – assuming I do subscribe for next year I’ll work to get the best deal I can given I’ve got the equipment installed already anyway.

      Finally – saying you can’t afford it is almost certainly untrue for most on here, it’s a matter of choice and you may reasonably decide to spend that money on something else. I don’t have an HDTV, surround sound, fast broadband or a fast car but I will probably choose to pay for Sky next year. I couldn’t afford all of those things at the same time but that doesn’t mean I can say honestly I can’t afford any of them individually.

      I will choose to pay for Sky and will watch F1 live on my 10 year old cathode-ray tube because that’s the set of choices I make.

      • Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta) said on 29th July 2011, 22:32

        That is ridiculous. I for one have none of the things you say you will have instead of Sky and it still isn’t close to being an option financially. This is the case for a lot of people – remember that there are over 2 million unemployed people in the UK (and between 10000 and 20000 vacancies, so that’s not going to sort itself quickly) plus the large number of people reliant on other benefits.

        A lot of other people are on low-paid jobs, and the Sky deal works out at over a week’s wages even for someone on the average wage. Plus some people above average in wage will be in protected planning permission areas or houses where dishes (or extra dishes) cannot be fitted for various reasons.

        For a lot of people, not going to Sky next year isn’t a choice but a necessity.

      • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 30th July 2011, 12:10

        Is the cost really 60 pounds per year?

        No it’s far more than that – you’ve missed a zero off the end and then some.

        If you haven’t got Sky and want to continue watching F1 live and in HD next year, 12 months will cost you £610.

        Details here: So much for keeping F1 free-to-air

  2. Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 29th July 2011, 11:29

    Well at least that’s one bit of good news – the streams I watch won’t have adverts!

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 29th July 2011, 11:35

      Yeah that was worrying me as well!

    • TommyB (@tommyb89) said on 29th July 2011, 11:36

      Agreed. Now just need to hope there are good quality streams somewhere.

      The fact that BBC show half the races means the Sky subscription is an even bigger waste of money. Essentially you’ll be paying £600 to watch 10 Grand Prix. THAT’S £60 PER RACE!

      Save the £600, stream the 10 Grand Prix you won’t see on BBC and treat yourself to an F1 holiday in the process. Me and Katy managed to go to Germany for the Grand Prix for less than £600 last year.

      • T-Bone said on 29th July 2011, 11:41

        What about qualifying and practice? What about pre-race build up and post race analysis? All ruined by 5 minute advert breaks at every opportunity no doubt.

        Also, possible return for James Allen? Don’t see why the existing team couldn’t just do both Sky and BBC coverage but wouldn’t expect that to happen.

        • Charlie said on 29th July 2011, 13:32

          JA tweeted that he wasn’t interested in TV anymore

        • TommyB (@tommyb89) said on 29th July 2011, 15:52

          Sky will have John Watson surely? He’s already been on Sky Sports talking about what a great decision it is.

          I think it’ll be him and Ben Edwards.

          • dirgegirl (@dirgegirl) said on 29th July 2011, 19:31

            Nooooooooo! Please no! JW ruined the A1 GP coverage as far as this household was concerned! Ben Edwards was OK but not really comparable with the Brundle / Coulthard pairing.

      • zecks said on 29th July 2011, 12:12

        so presumably the races that the bbc will drop will be the non european GPs. lets all go to brazil!

    • PaulG said on 29th July 2011, 11:46

      Can you tell me how I can watch a stream of it. I have no intention of paying for Sky Sports as I am only interested in F1.

      • snowman said on 29th July 2011, 12:04

        haha Itchyes!!!! I’d rather not say to much about that online as I don’t want them streams taken away!!

        So Sky’s getting of the TV rights isn’t just going to suck its also going to make most of F1fanitics fan base break the law! hah

        • Apeman said on 29th July 2011, 14:15

          Damn right. The cost of Sky Sports is absolutely insane.
          There are several sites which stream Sky Sports 24/7. It would be foolish to name any here, but as always Google is your friend…

    • Fixy (@fixy) said on 29th July 2011, 14:58

      Streaming wouldn’t be used if the races were shown for free. Now I expect a peak in those.

      • antifia said on 29th July 2011, 15:57

        Boy, I feel like a dinossaur..but, could somebody tell what a stream is?

        • Mike said on 29th July 2011, 16:33

          Just means watching it over the internet.

          It’s kinda useful to keep quite about where to go for streams to prevent potential action being taken to stop them. However, if you get on F1FANATIC’s live chat people might help you out.

  3. Lee said on 29th July 2011, 11:30

    Well at least that is something. Still not going to be watching F1 anymore though. I can’t believe how devastated I feel today….. I feel like someones died!

  4. Magnificent Geoffrey (@magnificent-geoffrey) said on 29th July 2011, 11:30

    Get ready for lots of commercialisation of the coverage though, a la NASCAR. Even if they don’t go for full advertising breaks, they’ll still find a way of squeezing as many adverts and logos and sponsor’s names into the coverage as they possibly can.

    • RIISE (@riise) said on 29th July 2011, 11:37

      Hardly.

      • peteleeuk (@peteleeuk) said on 29th July 2011, 11:45

        In the uk, it is exactly this.

        • RIISE (@riise) said on 29th July 2011, 12:48

          Oh for heavens sake. So does having Football on Sky mean the death of that? No, if anything Sky have made it far more popular than ever before. With full commitment too F1 they could do the same.

          • Ashraf said on 29th July 2011, 13:09

            I have to agree with RIISE, it will not be the death of F1… If anything, it may be even better than on the BBC… No more Jake Humphries – that has to be a good thing…

          • Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 29th July 2011, 13:17

            Football is the most popular sport in the UK. Jack up the price. people will still pay or go to pubs to watch it.

            F1 is a sport followed by diehards but with a lot of casual fans who watch it just because it’s on during a boring part of the weekend. Take that away from them and viewing figures will drop, leading the BBC to get rid of all their coverage, which would mean even less coverage and there you go.

          • Adrian J said on 29th July 2011, 13:54

            For the price of 1 month’s subscription to Sky Sports you can go and see a football match.

            You can also go to your local pub to watch Premier League matches.

            If football, supposedly the national passtime can only attract 1-2million viewers on Sky Sports, how do they think F1 will attract more?

            As for me, the best news I’ve had this morning is that someone I know will let me use their Sky Anytime login to watch the online stream (assuming there is one – which there surely has to be).

            I also thought that it wouldn’t be so bad if the BBC was allowed to have the full race available on iplayer straight after the race – at least that way you wouldn’t be spending half the day avoiding the news etc.

          • SparkyJ23 (@sparkyj23) said on 29th July 2011, 16:03

            Well the teams can look forward to not caring how many people watch their sport – Sky has 9 million total subscribers of which 3 million get Sky Sports so any talk about bringing F1 to a wider audience is just lies.

            And that hugely popular Football that isn’t actually watched by more than 1.5 million at a time on Sky. 8.5 Million watched the FA Cup final free to air and 14.5 MILLION watched the Champions league Final on ITV.

          • Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta) said on 29th July 2011, 22:45

            It worked for football, partly due to it suddenly made home matches look cheap in comparison. It failed for every other sport Sky’s tried it on, but Sky keeps them simply because it makes a little extra profit for them. But F1′s so expensive that there would need to be a spectacularly high conversion rate from the BBC to Sky for it to break even, let alone make a profit.

            So if Sky can’t make a profit and most of the fans can’t see it, where does that leave F1? At least in other countries the pay TV people did their sums first.

  5. Mr Juggie said on 29th July 2011, 11:31

    Im sure this will make everyone feel better

  6. Joe R said on 29th July 2011, 11:32

    So it should be no ads, they’ll be getting enough money anyway
    http://twitition.com/98ahd

  7. I’m too much of a sucker for the sport not to watch it, I already have Sky (not sports). I don’t like the way this is going, especially for non-die hard fans… seems like they’ve got my by the short and curlies :-(

  8. Presto said on 29th July 2011, 11:33

    Note the use of “in 2012″. Sky HAVE to at least match the BBC’s race coverage else they’ll have no viewers at all in the shared races. If they eventually get exclusive rights of all races they’ll stick the adverts in, don’t you worry.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 29th July 2011, 11:37

      To be clear, there was no indication from them the situation will change after 2012.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 29th July 2011, 11:38

      pretty much certain,.

    • slr said on 29th July 2011, 11:42

      Maybe after 2012, Sky will put in adverts the same way they put in adverts for cricket.

      • bosyber (@bosyber) said on 29th July 2011, 11:44

        How is that, with the game in a small box in a corner, larger box with ad next to it or full screen behind?

        • slr said on 29th July 2011, 11:47

          They show one quick advert every now and then. So maybe for F1, they will show an advert every ten minutes.

          • Red Andy (@red-andy) said on 29th July 2011, 12:13

            For the cricket Sky show adverts whenever there is a break in play (between overs or after a wicket has been taken). There are no similar breaks in F1, which is how ITV got around the OFCOM requirement that adverts during sports events should be taken when there is a natural break in the action. If Sky wanted to show adverts during the F1 they’d just stick them in the middle of the race as ITV used to do.

          • Derek said on 29th July 2011, 15:02

            During a safety car period.

  9. Eggry (@eggry) said on 29th July 2011, 11:36

    of course they should!!!

  10. slr said on 29th July 2011, 11:36

    As a Sky Sports customer, this does console me a bit. However waking up to this news is terrible, I hope this is just a bad dream.

  11. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 29th July 2011, 11:36

    I’m sorry, but everyone who has been whinging about this for the past four hours no longer has any cause for complaint. Here in Australia, we’ve been living with regular ad breaks for years. In fact, for as long as there has been Formula 1 on the television, we’ve had ad breaks to go with it. We also have delayed telecasts, and no coverage of practice or qualifying. Formula 1 might be going to pay-per-view in England, but you know what? The coverage will still be better than anything Australia has ever had.

    • TommyB (@tommyb89) said on 29th July 2011, 11:40

      The thought of the coverage does disappoint me but 99.999999% of my annoyance is having to pay a fortune to watch a sport I love.

    • Lachie (@lachie) said on 29th July 2011, 11:48

      Don’t even try to make out we have it worse than what Britain is now going to have to deal with.

      Yes we’ve always had ads but we also don’t have to pay A CENT to watch the broadcast, assuming we own a digital ready TV and if you don’t and can’t afford it then you have bigger problems than watching a car race every two weeks.

      You’re one of the ‘name’ commenters around here PM so I wouldn’t have thought I’d need to explain to you that this is the equivalent of F1 going to Foxtel on a $60 per fortnight pay per view basis. It sucks for the UK and if you think us having to watch Greg Rust makes up for it you’re sorely mistaken.

      And where on Earth do you get the idea that we don’t get qualifying or live telecasts? Do you not actually have access to ONE HD?

      • F1fan55 said on 29th July 2011, 11:59

        Well said Lachie, I watch OneHD and I completely agree with you- I’d rather watch the OneHD coverage (which isn’t as bad as PM makes it out to be) than pay that much every fortnight.

      • Bleeps_and_Tweaks (@bleeps_and_tweaks) said on 29th July 2011, 12:15

        Great comment @Lachie.

        Prisoner Monkeys – there is absolutely no point complaining simply because you have to put up with adverts and we don’t. Those of us complaining about this are doing so because it’s going to cost £400-600 to watch the F1 season ‘properly’. I enjoy watching the odd practice session when I can, particularly FP3, we get the BBC iPlayer if anything is missed, the F1 Forum for analysis – all of this will be halved or possibly under the axe, but none of that has got anything to do with what you get or don’t get in Australia.

      • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 29th July 2011, 12:39

        if you don’t and can’t afford it then you have bigger problems than watching a car race every two weeks

        So I guess that means being a graduate student in his first year out of university on an award that pays considerably less than others in the same field (I have a Graduate Diploma in Education, but teachers with a Bachelor of Education get paid much more) is a serious problem.

        Do you not actually have access to ONE HD?

        No, I don’t. I usually watch races on the live feed when I can, but the application keeps crashing. Like in China, when it froze two laps before Hamilton passed Vettel.

    • peteleeuk (@peteleeuk) said on 29th July 2011, 11:49

      If this announcement does not effect you down under then why don’t you go and read something else while we discuss it? I don’t care how bad your coverage is and I’m guessing you don’t care about ours.

      The point is, you have coverage, as of next year we don’t. We have highlights.

      This will destroy the sport here.

    • Ral said on 29th July 2011, 12:07

      @PM:

      Rubbish. I’d much rather put up with commercial breaks than have to pay to watch it at all.

      Commercial breaks are flexible. My income and what I can afford to pay for my entertainment not so much.

    • Tyson Evans (@bobtehblob) said on 29th July 2011, 12:16

      Coverage ain’t to bad here in Australia any more. Almost always live and they actually care about the sport and really try their best with the placement of the ad breaks. Much better then 7′s coverage of the V8′s for instance. I was fuming when the apparently “live” telecast of Bathurst finished half an hour later on TV then the actual race…

      I have to admit though, I’m actually quite worried about what’s going to happen with coverage here in Aus. As I’m sure you already know PM, Ten has lost the rights to the footy and I’m scared that after next year. They might just throw in the towel all together with the 24/7 sports channel. They are already showing less and less sport as it is, and are just filling the gaps with movies and over Americanised car shows (as much as I love Pimp my Ride :P. In all honesty I wouldn’t mind seeing a similar rights deal to that off the footy from next year.

      Where you are getting 3 games a week live on FTA and all 8 live on Foxtel. It’s your choice. Maybe have the race broadcasted live on FTA,in much the same way it is now. Then with Practice, Qualifying, and the race broadcasted on a more dedicated show on Foxtel. Hopefully ad free. Just as long as it doesn’t go to channel 7…

    • Bellof said on 29th July 2011, 12:30

      and do you pay for this service in AUS like we do for the BBC in the UK??

    • Tom said on 29th July 2011, 12:36

      COTD. Because of everyone should get to see a perfect example of someone missing the bloody point.

    • I’m sorry, but everyone who has been whinging about this for the past four hours no longer has any cause for complaint

      I’m sorry but people who can’t afford to watch some races at all have it worse off than people who can watch it but with ad breaks.

      I know that in the UK we’re insanely lucky with the amount of coverage we have and especially for free but now a lot of that is going. The fortunate fans will be paying ridiculous fees to see half of the races while plenty won’t be able to do that. I know we’ve had a good deal for years but saying that UK viewers have nothing to complain about isn’t entirely true.

      • Chalky said on 29th July 2011, 13:28

        Thank you Steph. My thoughts exactly.
        At least you have full coverage in Australia, even with the adverts.

      • Jarred Walmsley (@jarred-walmsley) said on 30th July 2011, 2:22

        I think you don’t quite realise just how lucky you have been in the UK, in Aussie they have it free to air as well but with ads, which was worse than you but is now better.

        However in little old NZ, we have NEVER had it free to air, i have always had to pay the equivalent of £47 each month to watch F1 as that is what the Sky sports package costs here, and add to this the fact that I can’t even watch 75% of the races or qualifying live as they are at midnight and £30 a month for full uninterrupted coverage at decent times doesn’t really sound to bad now does it?

    • Hairs (@hairs) said on 29th July 2011, 13:46

      I’m sorry but someone who does not live in the affected area has no cause to stick his oar in to the discussion.

      Particularly when the oar is covered in a slime of antagonism, irrelevance and self importance.

      • matt90 said on 29th July 2011, 17:04

        I wish I could have put it so succintly when replying to PM on another thread. I suspect he is more happy than anything else that the UK no longer has significantly better coverage than him.

  12. Rich said on 29th July 2011, 11:37

    Please support petition for BBC F1

    License fee payers want free to air F1, and we should have been asked about the change

    http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/bbcf1 or
    http://bit.ly/q8dNsI

    *Please* Sign it, tweet it, and pass it on!

    • mename2332 (@mename2332) said on 29th July 2011, 12:58

      I’ve actually set up a petition on the direct.gov website – it should be avaliable on August 8th. Then all it needs is 100,000 signatures and it will be debated in the house of commons :)

  13. bosyber (@bosyber) said on 29th July 2011, 11:37

    If this means I could get an online stream from them for practice etc., I would still feel miffed.

    I had much rather that I could just watch it on a tv, but I anyway have my laptop present when watching F1, and right now, being outside of the UK, I can’t watch the FP’s on my tv anyway.

    Guess that’s what Adam Parr is referring to, and we talked about it earlier with newscorp being potentially interested too – F1 needs to do more with the new media and internet. And I do think that will have to mean for profit, or they can’t do it.

  14. Steve Evans said on 29th July 2011, 11:37

    a sad sad day. Been watching f1 since 1995, seemed like we were entering a golden age of f1 with coverage on the bbc and codemasters making the games. Can’t afford Sky like many others and will probably lose interest as a result. Bernie you have broken my heart and that of millions of uk f1 fans. Hoping FOTA can change things but i very much doubt it. Rest In Peace F1 x

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 29th July 2011, 11:42

      Bernie you have broken my heart and that of millions of uk f1 fans.

      Um, Bernie didn’t do this. The BBC elected not to renew their contract to broadcast all the races.

      • Wayne Young said on 29th July 2011, 11:52

        This is not strictly true. The BBC contract runs until 2013, they have made an arrangement to dip out early, passing rights onto Sky.

        This could not be done without Bernies involvement.

      • jake said on 29th July 2011, 11:56

        Bernie put the fee so high despite pointlessly high profits for him and CVC. If he was a fan of the sport as well as the rights holder, he would know that the BBC coverage is the best thing that has happened to F1 in years and would make it work.

      • bosyber (@bosyber) said on 29th July 2011, 12:02

        In that I think you are right. Bernie might share some blame for not being willing to reduce the FOM fee, but it was the BBC board that got this ball rolling.

        If anything, it gave Bernie and Sky a change to try and see how well they could do this, while still leaving some important races on free-to-air in the UK.

        But it still means a move away from access for most people, towards access for a smaller, perhaps richer, demographic; allowing the trend for ever more expensive races with lower attendance to continue.

        As such, I find it a sad development for the sport, though I hope it might eventually lead to easier casual access via more different media, and especially via internet.

        • Wayne Young said on 29th July 2011, 12:07

          The BBC already provide great access to F1 coverage. It’s on two channels, BBC1 & BBC1 HD. We can watch on IPlayer both live and after the event. You can also listen to the race on Radio 5 Live. They host a post race forum, offer great interaction through twitter & email.

          What is missing from that list? Sky have a tough act to follow.

          • bosyber (@bosyber) said on 29th July 2011, 12:31

            i-player is useless, as I don’t live in the UK.
            Same goes for the forum, and the practice sessions: only through streams.

            Since this September my cable company is going to reshuffle its offerings, getting rid of themed-channel packages and going for “basic”, “plus” and “extra”, and I’d need to get extra to keep the channels I care about.

            If I could just watch them online (from same company!), I could drop most of the swathe of uninteresting stuff, like football etc. sports, and in return pay for good online content,and make sure I can view it on my tv.

            But that is in reality not possible here, as far as I know. If Sky would help enable that (and not just on the way too small phone screen) I would like it.

            In effect, I don’t care about having it in Dutch, so a great quality international show in English would suit me just fine (I could live with German, but not with RTL Vettel racing), which I could order via creditcard or something.

          • Wayne Young said on 29th July 2011, 12:35

            In that case, I wouldn’t count on getting anything out of Sky without paying through the nose for it.

            A sad day for us all indeed.

      • Charlie said on 29th July 2011, 13:48

        Not true. The contract was still in place, it was to do with the BBC budget. BBC can’t afford it as (a) Bernie’s fee is too high, and (b) the government fixed the price of the licence fee for the next x years which means a reduction in their budgets in real terms.

        So if anyone’s to blame, it’s Bernie and the government, but I would say mainly Bernie.

1 2 3 7

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.