Seriously… part of the reason BBC had to give away the F1?

Tagged: ,

This topic contains 22 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by  matt90 5 years, 7 months ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 16 through 23 (of 23 total)
  • Author
  • #191512


    [Moderator hat on]

    Regardless of the exact wording of the original post, I think everyone is clear about what the meaning is now, so please stick to the discussion. Thanks.


    Prisoner Monkeys

    But nor should anyone assumed that everyone who reads a forum post will come to the poster’s same concllusions, regardless of how much was actually posted.



    Are you inherently incapable of realising you were at fault/error?

    To keep this a bit more on topic, it seems preposterous that the BBC funds sky in this way.



    I know that BBC spend £60m a year on Radio 4, if I remember correctly. Now I’m a bit torn if that’s too much or about right. The station is something of a national treasure. but the target age group is about 55 and that’s one station out of all the BBC’s radio output. Formula 1 appeals to all ages and intellects. What makes this is all a shame to me is that BBC did the coverage well. Really well.


    James Brickles

    @electrolite – I think you’re about right with the Radio cost, I seem to vaguely remember a figure in the £60m region.


    Roughly a pound per person per year. That’s not really much, is it?



    So let me get this straight, the BBC has to pay Sky so people can watch BBC channels through satellite? Surely the vast majority can watch them through a normal freeview box?



    Yeah, part of the reason that’s a joke is that I’m a licence payer, I don’t also have sky, so I in no way see the portion of my money (however small) that’s been sent to sky.

Viewing 8 posts - 16 through 23 (of 23 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.