GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: cosworth151 on April 22, 2011, 02:51:01 PM
-
Rumors are now saying that Rupert Murdoch might be trying to buy F1. The reason could be to take F1 to pay-per-view.
Murdoch, the model for Bond villain Elliot Carver in Tomorrow Never Dies, has been spreading the take-over rumors though his Sky News and his Times of London.
The Roman Emperor Tiberius supposedly made Caligula his successor so that people would think better of him by comparison. Could Bernie have the same idea with Rotten Rupert?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/andrewbenson/2011/04/will_f1_go_pay-per-view.html (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/andrewbenson/2011/04/will_f1_go_pay-per-view.html)
-
Bernie says talk of Murdoch buying F1 is all rubbish. For once I think Bernie might be telling the truth, he prefers free to air channels to get the biggest coverage for his own race & trackside sponsors. He can charge them an arm & leg then. ;)
The Concorde Agreement states that F1 must be shown free-to-air, as long as there are broadcasters in the region who can do this. This is clearly possible in the UK, where F1 is broadcast by the BBC - in a £40m deal which runs until 2013 - and many other channels around the world. This would mean Sky could not, for now, air the sport exclusively.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/8462301/Bernie-Ecclestone-denies-reports-that-News-Corporation-are-ready-to-table-a-bid-for-Formula-One.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/8462301/Bernie-Ecclestone-denies-reports-that-News-Corporation-are-ready-to-table-a-bid-for-Formula-One.html)
-
My worst nightmare is Sky getting F1, BBC by far has the best coverage, even better now it's in HD. I detest Sky so much that I would'nt subscribe and would have to be content with just the chatroom on racedays.
-
Bernie says talk of Murdoch buying F1 is all rubbish. For once I think Bernie might be telling the truth, he prefers free to air channels to get the biggest coverage for his own race & trackside sponsors. He can charge them an arm & leg then. ;)
The Concorde Agreement states that F1 must be shown free-to-air, as long as there are broadcasters in the region who can do this. This is clearly possible in the UK, where F1 is broadcast by the BBC - in a £40m deal which runs until 2013 - and many other channels around the world. This would mean Sky could not, for now, air the sport exclusively.
I agree - I can't see them being able to charge for F1 and cut their viewing audience into a small fraction without the sponsors having fits (not just Bernie's, but the team sponsors as well). Murdock's a moron...why doesn't he just go away and retire. Oh wait, we've been saying the same about Bernie for years. Maybe the two of them could go play poker for the F1 rights - they could televise it and make even more. ;) ;)
-
My worst nightmare is Sky getting F1, BBC by far has the best coverage, even better now it's in HD. I detest Sky so much that I would'nt subscribe and would have to be content with just the chatroom on racedays.
Without Sky I would have no F1 coverage here in NZ and I get BBC commentary so some good comes from it.
-
There is some doubt the EU would allow Newscorp to own F1 and broadcast it through a subsidiary like Sky. On the other hand English Premier League football pay per view nets each team a minimum of $40,000,000. That would just about cover the budget of the low to midfielders. I don't think I would pay to see it, I would hate to put any money in Murdock's pocket. :sick:
Lonny
-
Oh God i hope Sky doesn't get it and make it pay to view. It should be free for us to watch here in the UK. I get fed up with Sky getting all the good sports! It's bad enough when you have to have sky to watch certain sports anyway but to make it pay to view would be a very nasty cherry on top of a sour tasting cake!
I would be with you Ian, Chatroom on race days.
Ju
-
Keep F1 away form this scumbag, he makes Bernie look like a saint that doesn't have much care for money.
I won't pay to watch sport on TV, one of my other sports interests, far detached from F1, is darts. The only way to watch the premier league on TV is on Sky sports but I chose to watch on Justin TV on the internet so I don't have to pay the extra subscription. I do have Sky TV but if it was up to me it would be gone, the kids hold the cards on this issue.
-
I know we've already had this discussion.
I already pay to see F1, although paying extra to see it in HD isn't in the budget right now.
I wonder if the plan isn't to take F1 pay exclusive, but rather offer a tiered selection. A free 'basic' coverage, and then paying to get access to live cameras. That's how NASCAR is covered in North America (does Fox still show NASCAR?)
I know Bernie tried that, and it failed miserably, but I also think the idea was just ahead of its time.
I figure that some of our American friends would probably pay a small fee to watch F1, since they currently have no option but to bootleg the race.
-
I think the idea is you would pay for live coverage with a free edited broadcast later in the day. NASCAR in the US is free, split between Fox and ESPN, with Speed getting the Trucks and practice/qually, both of which are to me rather boring. Speed is in danger of being the NASCAR channel with something on almost every night.
Lonny
-
My definition of Pay-Per-View is "Watch Something Else" :o
-
Pay-per-view is not a realistic option for me, therefore I would have to find a different way of watching if that happened. Thankfully the probability of Sky getting F1 is exceedingly small (at least in the UK).
-
The F1 earnings model is quite different to most other sport as F1 teams get a very large percentage of their budgets from their own sponsors. Other major sports rely on TV revenue more than even gate receipts or sponsors.
Sure all the F1 teams would vote for more money from the TV rights, but if this means the income from their own sponsors may be lower because of a big drop in viewers with a switch to pay TV they may not be so keen.
Bernie knows his present model for F1 works but he is now speeding towards retirement, either because of frailty due his considerable age or, more likely, the owners want to safeguard against Bernie's ineviatable decline.
The next ringmasters view may well be very different, not least because they may well want to make their mark. Following such a legend will be a tough job and they'll likely be damned by some whatever, so they may feel change is the best route.
Bernie himself has not helped matters with no obvious succession plan, at least not one we are aware of. Are we really seeing the start of a fight for control of F1 in a post Bernie era? :DntKnw:
-
My definition of Pay-Per-View is "Watch Something Else" :o
Absolutely... :good:
-
I think Bernie's grooming old pal Flav for it.If Bernie were to
retire now or in the next few years Flav is young enough to
keep F1 screwed up as usual
-
My definition of Pay-Per-View is "Watch Something Else" :o
I agree. I was a huge fan of boxing until it went Pay-Per-View. Now, I couldn't even tell you who the heavyweight champ is.
Murdoch's only interest is himself. He took the legendary Wall Street Journal and turned it into a laughing stock. I'm sure he would show no more concern for F1. He'd milk it for every last farthing he could quickly wring out of it, then dump whatever was left.
-
I think that Bernies replacement is already there but we do not know who it is as a completely new face would not work.
Just my opinion!!
-
I think that Bernies replacement is already there but we do not know who it is as a completely new face would not work.
Just my opinion!!
Between FOM, FIA and FOTA, I don't see a nice clean succession happening. Even if CVC (or whoever owns FOM) has a clear replacement, both the FIA and FOTA are going to try to take bigger pieces of the pie. Who in the world can stare down both Todt and Luca?
(And I think that when Bernie goes, and he watches the whole thing from down below, he's going to laugh and laugh. >:D )
-
I was listening to a discussion on this on the radio a few days ago. I think this sums it up.
UK Viewing figures
Average football match = 1 million
Big name football match = 2 million
China F1 GP (6am!) = 5 million :swoon:
No wonder he wants it.
-
(And I think that when Bernie goes, and he watches the whole thing from down below, he's going to laugh and laugh. >:D )
I don't think Bernie's keen enough on Australia to spend his retirement there Jeri. :D :DD :DD :tease:
-
I was listening to a discussion on this on the radio a few days ago. I think this sums it up.
UK Viewing figures
Average football match = 1 million
Big name football match = 2 million
China F1 GP (6am!) = 5 million :swoon:
No wonder he wants it.
HOLY COW!!!! :o From a North American's perspective there's no way I would have ever bet on F1 getting those numbers over football! I had no idea it was more popular than football for TV audiences.
-
Keep in mind that there are 20 F1 races per year, while there are probably 20 matches per week (at least). The bottom line strongly favors football.
Lonny
-
The PPV model isn't right for the UK. We have by far the best coverage in the world now the sport is back on BBC. 3 Hours plus, No Breaks, analysis and insight far beyond that of any sport. It's a credit to the BBC that the majority of the UK press basically paraphrase all the BBC's interviews when covering the sport, there is a reason 5million people are up at the crack of dawn!
This level of coverage however isn't available worldwide due to all networks needing television advertising. A PPV model in other countries, which would provide coverage like ours is a feasable business solution, considering that quality of coverage is crucial to any sports long term viabilty. Thee will be some brands that contribute nothing to F1 which will, in some countries, be able to associate themselves with F1 through blanket advertising during F1's breaks, and the money will go to the broadcaster. If F1 is able to ensure that only brands which are part of F1 get the coverage, then it will be able to add the exclusivity of the F1 brand to its bargaining process. This would mean that car manufacturers searching for a good platform to advertise would need to invest in F1 teams, rather than pay for advertising in the breaks if they want to reach those audiences who are so obviously interested in car design. Volkswagen used to have massive ITV ad campaigns back in the day. But are they in F1? I imagine that F1 coverage away from the UK is chock full of adverts for Hondas and Toyotas, yet they aren't in F1 anymore. I imagine that this alone makes it very difficult for small teams to secure the revenues they need. If F1 could find a platform that offered exclusive coverage to its sponsors and the teams sponsors, then it would provide a far more attractive investment prospect and perhaps mean that F1 is a must for any major car manufacturer in reaching a wider audience
-
I was listening to a discussion on this on the radio a few days ago. I think this sums it up.
UK Viewing figures
Average football match = 1 million
Big name football match = 2 million
China F1 GP (6am!) = 5 million :swoon:
No wonder he wants it.
HOLY COW!!!! :o From a North American's perspective there's no way I would have ever bet on F1 getting those numbers over football! I had no idea it was more popular than football for TV audiences.
The figures are not straight like for like, the football viewership is on Sky subscription (PPV if you like the term} whilst the F1 is free on BBC. If the footbal was on free to air the figures would be in the tens of millions at least.
The main point of the comparison is, I think, that there is a very large audience prepared to make the effort at an ungodly hour in TV terms, a really commited audience ripe for the plucking in Murdoch's eyes.
-
I am one commited viewer that will become un-commited John, I have experienced Sky once and that was enough for me, I found them misleading to the point of untruthful. If it does go to Sky I shall just be on chat for the race, heartbreaking though it will be.
-
I am one commited viewer that will become un-commited John, I have experienced Sky once and that was enough for me, I found them misleading to the point of untruthful. If it does go to Sky I shall just be on chat for the race, heartbreaking though it will be.
Sounds like your experiences with Sky were a lot like mine with NTL cable (now Virgin) Ian. Everything was always extra and nothing was ever their fault as they advised all changes to terms and conditions via emails even though my web access was not working more than half the time and I was paying the extra to have paperbilling - which was essential to see just what extras they were trying to charge to you.
Oh and you had to have two phone lines from them, one for internet and the other for voice, despite the fact that we never made or received any calls on the voiceline as we kept our BT line, good job we did as it made getting internet from BT so much easier.
-
I was listening to a discussion on this on the radio a few days ago. I think this sums it up.
UK Viewing figures
Average football match = 1 million
Big name football match = 2 million
China F1 GP (6am!) = 5 million :swoon:
No wonder he wants it.
HOLY COW!!!! :o From a North American's perspective there's no way I would have ever bet on F1 getting those numbers over football! I had no idea it was more popular than football for TV audiences.
The figures are not straight like for like, the football viewership is on Sky subscription (PPV if you like the term} whilst the F1 is free on BBC. If the footbal was on free to air the figures would be in the tens of millions at least.
The main point of the comparison is, I think, that there is a very large audience prepared to make the effort at an ungodly hour in TV terms, a really commited audience ripe for the plucking in Murdoch's eyes.
Murdoch has been operating in the USA for so long, he probably can't imagine why people's taxes should pay for F1 coverage.
I know for a fact it would never fly in Canada. Even though CBC is publicly funded, the hockey games generate revenue (through advertising) and are run at a profit, not a loss.
If people won't let the government pay for hockey they'd never let the government pay for F1 coverage.
HOWEVER, given that F1 is funded mostly by advertising on the cars and track, let THEM pay for my F1 coverage. It doesn't seem right that a 2 hour commercial for Red Bull and Ferrari should be subsidised by Honda and Toyota...
-
Virgin Racing's sporting director Graeme Lowdon is against it:
http://www.planetf1.com/news/3213/6899925/-F1-Should-Be-Free-To-Air- (http://www.planetf1.com/news/3213/6899925/-F1-Should-Be-Free-To-Air-)
I'd rather not have the adverts, but I'm OK with it. Even if I could get pay-per-view, I wouldn't use it.
-
Virgin Racing's sporting director Graeme Lowdon is against it:
It would be an enornous shock if he was not against it, Virgin with it's national fibre optic cable network is Sky's only competitor for pay TV in Britain.
-
Virgin Racing's sporting director Graeme Lowdon is against it:
http://www.planetf1.com/news/3213/6899925/-F1-Should-Be-Free-To-Air- (http://www.planetf1.com/news/3213/6899925/-F1-Should-Be-Free-To-Air-)
I'd rather not have the adverts, but I'm OK with it. Even if I could get pay-per-view, I wouldn't use it.
Not to pick on Cos in particular, but what's the hate on PPV? Watching a 2 hour race for the same price as a two hour movie strikes me as fair. I wouldn't pay the same rates as boxing PPV, but $5 or $10 a race, with a proper pre/post race show and no commercials would be fine.
-
I pay £145.50 for a tv licence, this goes to the BBC who at the moment screen F1 so in effect I am on PPV. If F1 goes to Sky, I not only still have to pay £145.50 for the tv licence I also then have to pay Sky to watch it, so I am paying twice for the same thing. If that happens they can stick F1 where the sun does'nt shine. Sky has ruined football for the fans by dictating to the clubs when they play. A pox on Sky.
-
Not to pick on Cos in particular, but what's the hate on PPV? Watching a 2 hour race for the same price as a two hour movie strikes me as fair. I wouldn't pay the same rates as boxing PPV, but $5 or $10 a race, with a proper pre/post race show and no commercials would be fine.
It's more about the principle Jeri, F1 coverage has always been on terrestrial TV in Britain funded either from the licence fee or adverts when commercial TV showed it. There does not appear to be a sound reason behind a change, e.g. F1's financial health, so most of us over here can't see any merit in PPV. Indeed the big downside is we shall all have to pay for something we take for granted is already funded by us, either directly or indirectly. Any extra charge, however small it start's off at, will cause most of us to desert the official TV coverage >:( and maybe even F1. :'(
Now if F1 does go PPV the much hyped idea of a rival series, especially if it's on the so called 'free to air' channels could become an unstoppable force. Ferrari, Mercedes McLaren and almost certainly Red Bull would all gain a lot from such a breakaway. The first three would most likely do it to free themselves from the FOM & FIA constraints and keep their high income from sponsors, RBR for more straight forward commercial reasons - you can sell more cans if many more people see the racing. ;)
-
The last part of what John said is exactly why F1 will not become PPV. Boxing works because there are hardly any sponsors (and not many WANT to be sponsors) to see during a match. They needed PPV to survive as a broadcast sport.
F1 is the exact opposite. If there is a second in F1 where you can't see a logo of some kind, someone has not done their job properly. If F1 goes PPV, the sponsors will desert the sport and look for something else.
In the mean time, if somehow clear thinking doesn't understand that, and Murdock actually is able to bring it in until the breakaway series gets up and running, we will all have to wait for the pirate version of each race to pop up on the internet a day or two later.
-
What's to like about PPV. I'd have to almost double my monthly cable bill just to be able to get PPV. I'm already paying Time Worthless a small fortune every month. Why should I double that just so I can pay even more for what I'm already paying for.
If most people stopped paying for PPV, what would they do? Stop televising the sport or take it free again.
Back in the 90's, they tried to take the NASCAR race at Pocono PPV. The fans not only boycotted the broadcast, they boycotted the race, the race's title sponsor and anyone else involved. That was they end of NASCAR PPV.
-
For what its worth our local NHL hockey team had about 12-15 of their 82 games/year as PPV events. You had to call your local cable company and pay $12 for Slum-Def or $16 for HD to watch the game. They had been doing this for about the past 10 years I think.
Then suddenly this year there were no more PPV games and all 82 games were televised on regular cable. The games that would have been PPV were moved to a channel that required me to add another tier to my cable package but that only added about $4 to my monthly bill. Still a huge savings for me rather than purchasing 12 games @ $16 each!
So Cos is right. Stay away. Don't pay. They'll eventually see the light and come crawling back. They might control the media but we control them through our money.
-
Absolutely right! I am also paying double and now I’ll not do it
http://dashquid.com (http://dashquid.com)
http://fatlossprofessional.co.uk (http://fatlossprofessional.co.uk)
http://fatlossprofessional.co.uk/how-to-lose-weight-fast/ (http://fatlossprofessional.co.uk/how-to-lose-weight-fast/)
http://mobilehelper.co.uk (http://mobilehelper.co.uk)
http://securetrip.co.uk (http://securetrip.co.uk)
http://whichpetcover.com (http://whichpetcover.com)
http://youtube.com (http://youtube.com)
http://wikipedia.org (http://wikipedia.org)
http://twitter.com (http://twitter.com)
http://amazon.com (http://amazon.com)
-
I'd be willing to pay the Speed Channel a fair price for
monthly streaming,say $7 a month.They'd receive extra
income and many make many F1 fans happy,but it
won't happen
-
Bernie now says that he has an agreement with the EU to block this sale, though a couple of commentators already said the EU probably wouldn't permit it. What is being discussed is adding a PPV for a small fee that would provide extra coverage like more in car, more pit coverage etc. You might even be able to choose for example, a McLaren feed which would highlight the Mclaren Team. All very what if so far.
Lonny
-
As long as starting down that road doesn't lead to poorer coverage for the free-to-air version and more extensive for PPV.
-
As long as starting down that road doesn't lead to poorer coverage for the free-to-air version and more extensive for PPV.
Yeah, like "if you want the HD you gotta pay for it!" :nono:
-
I heard this on the way to work yesterday morning. NPR sports correspondent Frank Deford on how PPV killed boxing.
http://www.npr.org/2011/05/11/136149104/pacman-last-of-the-great-boxers (http://www.npr.org/2011/05/11/136149104/pacman-last-of-the-great-boxers)
-
I heard this on the way to work yesterday morning. NPR sports correspondent Frank Deford on how PPV killed boxing.
http://www.npr.org/2011/05/11/136149104/pacman-last-of-the-great-boxers (http://www.npr.org/2011/05/11/136149104/pacman-last-of-the-great-boxers)
PPV works fine for Wrestling and MMA. (Not that I'm suggesting it would work for F1... just pointing out that PPV isn't the problem with boxing.)
-
It looks like this idea died with Murdoch's bid for B-sky-B.
-
Hopefully Murdoch and F1 is a thing of the past. There are times when F1 doesn't cover itself in glory, and selling out to News International or News Corp or any Murdoch group at the moment wouldn't help. It seems to be a group without any conscience or sense of Justice.
-
It seems to be a group without any conscience or sense of Justice.
Sounds like a perfect fit for the FIA and Bernie. ;) :D
-
+1 :D ;) He and Bernie would be a perfect fit.
Lonny