Seriously… part of the reason BBC had to give away the F1?
31st January 2012, 11:38 at 11:38 am #130844
Not strictly F1 but it’s related to the broadcasting of it…
First I’ve heard of this but under current regulations the BBC have to pay to have it’s content shown on Sky…and in the UK that content makes up 40% of their viewing figures (please don’t asks me where that figure came from, I just read it online)
There’s an online petition here to help stop this…http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_murdochs_bbc_robbery_2/?sbc
Please all sign it :-/31st January 2012, 11:47 at 11:47 am #191498
You have no proof that this is what happened. The BBC were not forced to give up their rights to broadcast Formula 1 by Sky. They had the rights to Formula 1, and could use them as they wished.31st January 2012, 12:20 at 12:20 pm #19149931st January 2012, 12:26 at 12:26 pm #191500
It’s insinuated. He presents this as “part of the reason why the BBC had to give away Formula 1″, and then links to a petition asking – demanding might be a better word, given the choice of words within the petition – that the government stop Sky from forcing the BBC to pay them millions. What else could his reasoning be? It’s clearly implied that the BBC were forced to give up their rights to Formula 1 by Sky, and with no alternative exaplanation for this offered, what am I supposed to think?31st January 2012, 12:36 at 12:36 pm #19150131st January 2012, 12:38 at 12:38 pm #191502
Imagine if BBC had resource for a dedicated channel, I reckon that would of been pretty good31st January 2012, 12:41 at 12:41 pm #191503
I’m not trying to hijack the debate. I’m simply trying to point out that there is nothing to prove that the BBC was forced to give up the Formula 1 rights to Sky. I don’t know what @jodrell was intended when he posted this, but he’s got a title that says “part of the reason why the BBC had to give away Formula 1″ and a link to a petition to stop Sky from taking money from the BBC and nothing in between. I’m sorry if I am misrepresenting what is being said, but it’s certainly not my intention here. I’m seeing the thread title and the link and nothing else to explain them but the implication that Sky forced the BBC to give up Formula 1.31st January 2012, 12:46 at 12:46 pm #191504
I have explained several times what you have done and why I consider it unacceptable. I have also now sent you a separate message about it so let us continue the discussion there if we must and leave this thread to its real subject which is whether the BBC should be forced to give money to Sky.31st January 2012, 14:10 at 2:10 pm #191505
“implication that Sky forced the BBC to give up Formula 1″ – nope, not what I said or intended.
They weren’t forced to BY Sky…they were forced to because of a lack of funds, partially because they have to pay Sky to get their content shown. That is dictated to them by the Government and that’s what the petition is about.31st January 2012, 16:57 at 4:57 pm #191506
This payment by the BBC (and presumably a similar one by ITV) to Sky baffles me a bit. As these two organisations have the largest viewing figures by far. Except for most sports these days and movies. What woud happen if they refused to pay.
All new TV’s come with Freeview tuners built in. Freeview boxes can be obtained for under a tenner (standard view) and under £100 for HD. Ok you can pay a lot if you want named brands and recording and/or two channel capabilities.
I just do not see why the terrestial channels need to be on Sky.31st January 2012, 21:28 at 9:28 pm #191507
OK so if 75000 people sign the petition what will happen?31st January 2012, 21:42 at 9:42 pm #191508
They weren’t forced to BY Sky…they were forced to because of a lack of funds, partially because they have to pay Sky to get their content shown.
Then why didn’t you say that in your opening post? It’s unclear, so you can see how I might have misunderstood it.
OK so if 75000 people sign the petition what will happen?
The petition will go to the government. Although I doubt it will do much, because if you read it, it’s very aggressive. It accuses Murdoch of extorting the BBC with the help of “cronies in government” (which suggests they are on his payroll, making it a conflict of interests and opening up the door to accusations of corruption). For one, that’s not a particularly diplomatic way of putting it, kind of biting the hand that feeds you. And secondly, if there are Murdochites in the government who wants this scheme to continue, then they’ll find a way to shut the petition down.31st January 2012, 21:59 at 9:59 pm #191509
For the races that arent being shown live, are full re-runs on the red button or am I completely wrong??31st January 2012, 22:02 at 10:02 pm #191510
They weren’t forced to BY Sky…they were forced to because of a lack of funds, partially because they have to pay Sky to get their content shown. That is dictated to them by the Government and that’s what the petition is about.
To gives examples as to why you are correct…
They spend around £50m a year on Wimbledon which draws in significantly less viewers than F1.
There’s the £160m deal to broadcast the six nations over the next five years
The unpopular move to Salford set them back a fair bit.
BBC3 costs £115m/year to maintain and that channel isn’t even on for half of the time.
They (fairly) recently announced ‘The Voice’ – An X-factor rival – £22m over two years.
And then there’s the Olympics which will bound to cost a hefty amount.
F1 has been bringing in the biggest UK audience and growing but the Beeb completely forgot to maintain Formula 1 because they’ve been focusing on too many unnecessary (except for the Olympics) things. They’ve shot themselves in the foot.31st January 2012, 22:13 at 10:13 pm #191511
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.