The future for F1 now Bernie's "gone".

[JayCeeDee]

As title, I wonder which way F1 will go from here?

I first thought that with a US Media company buying it that Murdoch might have less of a stranglehold on it, but it appears he’s linked to the new CEO from previous long time associations and currently through 21st Century Fox!!

Edit – Forgot to add a link. HERE

[doctoryorkie]

More adverts.

More endless speculation.

Just hope they don’t ruin it.

Laptop T420 i5 8GB SSD 2x Spinners Optimus GFX
HTPC 5350 8GB SSD 2x Spinners Antec 300
Desktop 2700K 16GB Revo x2 GTX570SC Antec900
Server N54L 8GB SSD 6x Spinners HD6450

[Dave Rice]

Well that’s the only way Bernie was going to go.

Nice to see Ross Brawn back.

I would like to see the minor teams given more of a chance to compete and that probably comes down to the distribution of the money.

[Richard]

One of the grips is that the audiences have been falling, not so surprising when more and more events are going to subscription outfits like Murdock vision.I don’t bother now that it is no longer available for easy viewing, why bother?

As for the constant stream of adverts on many so called services, if it really is something of interest use the PVR and jump the adverts otherwise, there are other things to watch. Some adverts are so stupid, obnoxious or pointless that they somehow trigger the channel change button. I assume that stupid advert with blokes in shorts acting like defectives must be advertising women’s intimate products. Since I am not a customer and because it could be more tasteful that initiates channel change. Sometimes the off button.

[The Duke]

Sky sports f1 has less adverse than itv ever had, and less than channel 4 does today.

BBC killed f1 In Britain , taking it off itv, f1 needs to shoulder some of that responsibly. But it tools the Beebs money out of greed. The beeb couldn’t afford it and sky bailed them out.

And as much as I don’t like sky, f1 coverage has never been better in this country. Sky do sports very well, they spend alot of money and do it right. Though I would like it back on free TV, I have not issues with how sky has run its coverage.

BBC’s coverage was terrible. Itv and c4 have adds in the race. Sky have a great team, and no adds to miss and ruin potential major points in a race.

This is not something I’ve not said before, sky co deserve alot of stick sometimes, but they do sport well.

[The Duke]

As to changes , an equal spilt of the money . The spoet has been rigged for to long. That ome change would fix alot .

Also I’d like to see, it won’t happen , bit a total lift on testing, and most of the build rule thrown out, make them have a standard safety cell even closed top, I don’t care, then let the teams build what they like. Any aero, any engine the lot.

Also Burnie wanted to have two races a weekend, starting race two in the oppersite order to you finish in race one. Then you get twi lots of pints a weekend, he got laughed out the place. I loved that idea.

Imagine all the big hitters would win, than have to battle right through past the field to collect more points. I think it would be great .

[Richard]

The Duke wrote:

Sky sports f1 has less adverse than itv ever had, and less than channel 4 does today. BBC killed f1 In Britain , taking it off itv, f1 needs to shoulder some of that responsibly. But it tools the Beebs money out of greed. The beeb couldn’t afford it and sky bailed them out. And as much as I don’t like sky, f1 coverage has never been better in this country. Sky do sports very well, they spend alot of money and do it right. Though I would like it back on free TV, I have not issues with how sky has run its coverage. BBC’s coverage was terrible. Itv and c4 have adds in the race. Sky have a great team, and no adds to miss and ruin potential major points in a race. This is not something I’ve not said before, sky co deserve alot of stick sometimes, but they do sport well.

Well I never, Sky rip you off for a subscription and then subjects you to adverts to add insult to injury, wow.

Still that is one problem I will never face. No one here has even a remote interest in sport and if Murdock vision is the best source well it will remain for others to enjoy.

Yes, Murdock vision spend a lot in order to keep others out, but mutterings suggest that, e.g. football is not all sweetness and light in the UK and as for FIFA I guess the mafia must be jealous of their successes.

F1 has been losing entertainment value for some time and yes Bernie might well have really goofed up several times. It will be of passing interest to see if someone else can unravel the errors and bring some interest back, but it will be for others to judge.

Enjoy.

[The Duke]

I’m not a sky subscriber. But Richard it’s not for you to Decide it one person’s £40 sports package is a rip off for them or not. If they feel they get adequate benifites they they are not ripped off. In my younger days, I’d watch about 10 football games a week, across all leagues , so £40 is a bargain . Now I’d likely watch 4 a month.

But years back when I did have sky I always thought the argument, ”i pay a subsribtion therefore there shouldt be adds childish ” as if there wasn’t adds your subs would me alot more. And and with no subs you would have a USstyle  6.5minute add schedule.

One thing that that would annoy me if I was a sky subscriber and not a sports subscriber, is the amount you pay towards  sky sports. Every sky account holder pays about £5 per month in to the premier league kitty.

That would annoy me if I was a sky subscriber alot.

Now if you primarily had sky just to watch sports you don’t mind the adds as sport lends itself to adverts, given it has naterial breaks built in.

Now this is where itv and C4  EF it up, as they don’t use the natural breaks sports have and just stick to the 15m break scedual, which put adds over the sport coverage ( excluding football), sky don’t do that. Even in cricket they wait to between overs and squeez in shorter ad breaks.

I’ve said it before i, I hate sky co for many things, but their coverage of sport is second to non.

[Richard]

The Duke wrote:

I’m not a sky subscriber. But Richard it’s not for you to Decide it one person’s £40 sports package is a rip off for them or not. If they feel they get adequate benifites they they are not ripped off. In my younger days, I’d watch about 10 football games a week, across all leagues , so £40 is a bargain . Now I’d likely watch 4 a month. But years back when I did have sky I always thought the argument, ”i pay a subsribtion therefore there shouldt be adds childish ” as if there wasn’t adds your subs would me alot more. And and with no subs you would have a USstyle 6.5minute add schedule. One thing that that would annoy me if I was a sky subscriber and not a sports subscriber, is the amount you pay towards sky sports. Every sky account holder pays about £5 per month in to the premier league kitty. That would annoy me if I was a sky subscriber alot. Now if you primarily had sky just to watch sports you don’t mind the adds as sport lends itself to adverts, given it has naterial breaks built in. Now this is where itv and C4 EF it up, as they don’t use the natural breaks sports have and just stick to the 15m break scedual, which put adds over the sport coverage ( excluding football), sky don’t do that. Even in cricket they wait to between overs and squeez in shorter ad breaks. I’ve said it before i, I hate sky co for many things, but their coverage of sport is second to non.

I am sorry it is up to me to make a choice as to how I regard such as Murdock vision and its costs.

To clarify I do regard adding adverts to subscription paid service is adding insult to injury. Certainly £40 per month is something that I would never consider a sensible expense for anything less than an essential. Still if that is a price that someone is ready to pay that is their affair. I hate Murdock vision and have grave doubts about its corrosive effect on everything that it touches. Sure they offer some, (not me) a glitzy front, but what are they doing to the underlying product? Even if the ‘sports’ package was free I would not take it and as for having to pay a premium on some other ‘service’ to cross subsidise its lavish spending? That is nothing I would consider. Murdock vision is well hated for its packaging of what is popular into different bundles so you have to buy several bundles stuffed with tat in order to get a few items the subscriber wants. It is a marketing machine driven only by Murdock greed.

You have clearly set out how they have driven all competition away from their patch. By what I consider shafting, they have more money to fling at anything they want to target and I have grave doubts about the effects of this behaviour. As long as they are largely restricted to matters that do not affect me perhaps I should have no concerns. However, I do have concerns. I am concerned that once they have amassed enough money they will feel they can do anything to anyone, they are not about choice they are all about becoming the only money making option. Just look at their bundling options and how they mix dross and minority options with something expensive and to hell with the mug who wants just the minority option.

As long as they stick to profiting from sports I should have nothing to worry about – I notice that the BBC still has several (unwatched by me) sports cluttering up its schedules so Murdock vision still has some growth space left.

ITV does make a credible fist of BTCC with tea, coffee or bathroom breaks, oops sorry I meant adverts largely shoved into gaps in the action, thank heaven for the PVR to skip them. However, I can take that or leave it now and if rights ownership changed to a subscription I would not move a muscle, but just let it go.

 

[Robin Long]

Personally,  I have never subscribed to Sky Sports – and I never will. During normal TV programming, I have no real issue with adverts. If however, I was to pay for a specific service F1 or football for which the subscription rates are a: high and b: for an exclusive service I would want no adverts. Much the same as my issue with trailers on DVD’s I did not want or choose the trailers so why are they there??

We do however get off quite lightly with adverts compared to Canada and America, over there they pay subscriptions fees and can regularly expect 6 advert breaks in a 1 hour show.

I have stopped subscribing to sky in the last year and now get my content from either the free on demand services and via amazon and now TV.  ITV, C4 and 5 still bombard me with adverts whilst the BBC, Amazon and Now put ads at the start.  Though I do get the need for advertising on ITV, C4 and 5.

That said coverage of F1 has been going down hill since Murray left, the only reason skys coverage got as good as it did was because it was dragged from the analogue age into the digital age over night.  Hopefully with Bernie gone the sport can amend its self and heal some of the scars caused by the damage he did to the sport. At the end of the day though its a sport that requires millions of pounds to keep the fairground moving and if the money does not come from advertising where will it come from.

Cheers Knight,

RIP Spike09 Your Missed
If I'm not here, I'm there.

Finally joined Twitter! longr79

[The Duke]

Richard if you have zero interest in it, why you even commenting?

£40 a month for sport, isn’t really £40, as sky bace rate is (or was 21), then if wanted bace o)us movies or sport it was £35. So I’m reality the sport come to an extra £14 .

However taking the £40 price as a whole, is cheaper than attending one football match, so let I say it’s all relative. But to a football fan or an F1, rugnly league or union , it’s a good deal.

An afternoon at the football for a couple and a child, wihic is how I go about twice a month, cost between 150 and 300, for the day. Gate  rices vary, food prices, and fuel . The prices for rugby are similar and for f1 the entry ticket alone starts at about £200- £10k , so when you take all that into account, your £40, or rather £14 is very good value.

If you have not intest in sports it’s obviously going to have zero before to you, so it’s a waste . That want I mean by YOU are in no position to decide its a rip off. You obviously don’t see value others do.

I personally don’t no more, as I go games and don’t want the monthly bill, so pay £6 to watch a home via Sky’s  now TV, subscription free.

Also I do sun to now TV entertainment package, simpler because it’s £7 for want sky charge £21, who then give £5 of that to prop up sky sports.

It’s good to look at things obectivley, I don’t like sky, but I can put that to one side and look at some of the good it does and can understand why some would want to add sports.

Personally, I don’t get the movies package, that’s the same price as sports. But I don’t watch films, many do, but I’m not going to bash on them for enjoying entertainment I don’t like.

If I was them, andcopeted for the movie pagacke minus the sport package to save £7 ,  I’d be pissed though that over over £5 of the £35 I’m paying is going to sky sports.

The prices are probaly higher today, I’m going of my origanal research on sky on 2004 when I moved into our on freview signal home. The stats on the about of cash the non sports subs inadvertently pay to support the spots channels come from the American fox model, which is what is repeated here.

[Richard]

I recognise this is a personal subject but to me it ranks a bit like this. Having just bought a new car. I do not expect to drive down the road and have constant pop ups appearing suggesting that I drop into get a big mac, or have my shoes re-soled or go into some other emporium, or worse still find the journey is actually interrupted by being forced off the road to listen to a ‘message’.

In my mind prepay should mean just that, the item is prepaid for, but each to their own. Whether Murdock has added something or degraded the underlying fabric is a different story and I sit on the side. I feel that the saying money corrupts and that absolute money corrupts absolutely appears to be correct. Football is part of the finance industry and big business with a tiny link to entertainment.

But this is a personal feeling though one with which many referees now appear to side.

Time will tell and I will not lose any sleep over the matter, nor will I ever wish to do business with Murdock vision.

[JayCeeDee]

The main reason we have Sky TV is because whatever we have has to be SWMBO friendly – ie simple to use and simple to re-set when playing up. They really do have the PVR interface sewn up in that regard, plus it’s all in one package.
We do have Prime Video, it’s worth the overall cost for the odd series that they’ve done – Bosch was a good example of that – plus the Prime postage and kindle books etc.
We also have a NowTV account, which we use for Sky Cinema access, but both of these are only watched when I’m there as SWMBO couldn’t manage ( or likely remember ) all the neccessary TV input changes or the associated remote button combinations, to cope, and that’s when it’s all working properly!! For the non-technically minded, Sky have it off pat. Throw in the need for sub-titles and it’s almost a given.
Don’t even think about streaming to the TV because there’s even times I have problems with that!!:)
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Murdoch lover, quite the opposite in fact. I worked at the back of Fleet Street through the 80’s and drank in the local pubs, so knew a lot of the workers there that lost their jobs following the dispute. To this day I won’t have a copy of the Sun, nor the News of the Screws when it was still runniong, in our house.
But simple works, and that’s where he beats the opposition.

Regarding the F1, I hope that the races don’t become spectacles. Carey has said he’d like to see 20 “Superbowls”, which I think would be a step too far. The whole thing has always been about cutting edge performance and driving to the limits and beyond. Everyday driving has become safer ( and faster ) because of what has flowed from F1 to Joe Public’s cars. As Dave says, it would be nice for the smaller teams to be able to play ( and stay playing ) against the big boys, after all, that how Lotus got to where they are today. A great deal of technology was developed for F1, and these days Formula E, that has gone to make modern motoring what it is, and leagues apart from the cars I started driving in.
On the positive side, maybe we’ll see a few more names from Stateside involved in the cars that aren’t so Euro/Japanese-centric, although when they dropped the big V8/V6 power units for super/turbo charged small units the races became “tighter” as they were all on a level BHP quota.
Exciting times ahead.

[The Duke]

It will be interesting to see which way it goes. I’d like them to have saftey standards, and let the engineering run wild, but share the money out in a fair , not fairer , fashion .ATM it’s so set up to screw the small teams it’s a joke.

With Eddie gone, at leastwice we will see change. Tbh I didn’t even know he had gone.

[Richard]

The Duke wrote:

It will be interesting to see which way it goes. I’d like them to have saftey standards, and let the engineering run wild, but share the money out in a fair , not fairer , fashion .ATM it’s so set up to screw the small teams it’s a joke. With Eddie gone, at leastwice we will see change. Tbh I didn’t evenknow he had gone.

On that, I suspect we might all agree.

[Bob Williams]

I am very much in the same camp as John Davies regarding Sky. “SWMBO Friendly” says it all John, thanks for that;)

Whenever there is a Sky service hiccup, and until the last month there were several, there is an outcry from the lounge which can often be heard even in the garden. I eventually made the mistake of downloading and printing enough Sky Help Topics to make a manual. Big Error! Now I have to explain the home made manual as well… :unsure:  :wacko:

Today SWMBO learned from MSN, the site that she seems to believe is an Oracle of truth, that Sky are putting up prices in March. Instead of reading the whole report, she presented me with the intention that we should contact Sky and cancel the whole shooting match: TV, Box sets, Cinema, broadband, Talk and calls. On investigation, I learned that it was just the line rental price, up from £17.49 to £18.99 per month. As I already know from bitter experience, the “Sky Experts” number is an automated Q & A service which does nothing to answer a real query and is actually harmful to my state of mind. I learned early in my contract that these are the 2 best numbers to call if I need a human conversation and eventual results: 03300 412 558 is the “human” Experts Line, and for broadband: 0330 332 3037.  I hate the automated Q&A line with a real passion, it can send me into a rage. The human ‘expert’ was quite helpful and explained what I already knew: that BT leased the lines to Sky and we are all aware that BT have seen their share price nosedive as a result of the accounting shenanigans with their Mexican subsidiary.

I discovered an interesting fact about my Sky account. If the account has all component Sky Services billed as one package, and one or more service(s) is/are increased in price, the account holder may cancel the contract without penalties. So I sent an email to Sky, received Email confirmation that this was true, and immediately requested written confirmation of the fact. Now, I am not saying I will cancel and I was very careful to state that I was considering cancellation, but that is a choice I can make. I am already aware that BT raising line rental will cause all other ISP’s to do the same, and I think BT’s losses may mean further price rises down the line, so I will be cautious about this. This is not over. 🙁  :unsure:

When the Thought Police arrive at your door, think -
I'm out.

[Author]

Posts