F1 moving to Sky Sports!

knightstyle

I wonder if you could get a French satellite box plus an extra dish as they show the races in full free. Then turn the volume down and listen to Radio 5 Live!!! Real MSE.

peachyprice

I'd rather spend the £240 it's going to cost for Sky Sports for a year on F1 tickets and just watch the highlights of the non-beeb races.

It wouldn't have been half so bad if they'd insisted on it being shown on Sky 1, at least it would have a larger audience. Although, the teams haven't agreed yet, which they have to under the current Concord agreement, so you never know, that may still be an option.

brettcta

it's not going to cost £240 to watch it though is it, bearing in mind the f1 season only runs march - november.

8 months = £160 tops, unless you use the method i posted above, which would be £98 for the f1 season

System

I know people don't like paying for Sky but every sporting event that Sky starts broadcasting gets significantly better coverage than it did before, plus the way they cover sport is top notch. Football, cricket, darts, rugby etc. are all a significantly better viewing experience than they used to be on normal TV. I am looking forward to what sky will do to F1, I predict every race in 3D, camera's in every car that you can go to with the touch of a red button and unparrelled hours of coverage.

DCFC79

Already a thread about it here

patman99

goater78 wrote: »

I know people don't like paying for Sky but every sporting event that Sky starts broadcasting gets significantly better coverage than it did before, plus the way they cover sport is top notch. Football, cricket, darts, rugby etc. are all a significantly better viewing experience than they used to be on normal TV. I am looking forward to what sky will do to F1, I predict every race in 3D, camera's in every car that you can go to with the touch of a red button and unparrelled hours of coverage.

That's what ITV did. PLUS Sky does it no better than anyone else. As for 'improving every sport', I'd say the opposite is true.

Let's take football. With Sky paying ever-more money to hold on to the rights, the clubs (other than Man. Utd, Arsenal and Chelsea) have felt the need to spend more and more on players in an effort to 'be more attractive to Sky, and so get their games televised'.
Result, the clubs up their ticket prices and price-out the real fans in favour of the camera-chasers.

Last season they broadcast 2 of Colchester Utd's home games, in each case, the gate was 2,000 down on the same game in the previous season. Sky's fee for the match still left the club out of pocket.

As for cricket, ITV4 broadcast the IPL (and long may they continue to do so), it is one of the most exciting forms of cricket on TV at the moment.

System

patman99 wrote: »

That's what ITV did. PLUS Sky does it no better than anyone else. As for 'improving every sport', I'd say the opposite is true.

Let's take football. With Sky paying ever-more money to hold on to the rights, the clubs (other than Man. Utd, Arsenal and Chelsea) have felt the need to spend more and more on players in an effort to 'be more attractive to Sky, and so get their games televised'.
Result, the clubs up their ticket prices and price-out the real fans in favour of the camera-chasers.

Last season they broadcast 2 of Colchester Utd's home games, in each case, the gate was 2,000 down on the same game in the previous season. Sky's fee for the match still left the club out of pocket.

As for cricket, ITV4 broadcast the IPL (and long may they continue to do so), it is one of the most exciting forms of cricket on TV at the moment.

I'm not talking about the financial impact to the sport (which I believe is good anyway), i'm talking about the actual coverage. Compare sky broadcasting a football match with a match on terrestrial and its a far better viewing experience. Its sky who are the first to trial things like HD, 3DTV, multi angles. The actual viewing experience is fantastic on Sky. ITV famously missed the first England goal in the world cup and there was a similar problem in an FA cup game between Liverpool and Everton

As for your Colchester reference I don't get what you are saying? Are you basically saying that you don't think any TV channel should cover Colchester games because the club loses money as less people go to the game? If thats your argument then basically you are saying you don't believe any sport should be on TV as it discourages people to go? I would argue that in the short term they may be a few quid out of pocket but in the long term Colchester being live on TV to an audience of millions must be good for the football club? Certainly no terrestrial channel would show as many lower league games as Sky does

As for cricket, I believe the huge amounts of money that sky pay the ECB for the rights has led to innovations like central contracts for English players and I don't think its any coincidence that since the sky money has come into the sport the England cricket team has become one of the best in the world.

poppy_f1

paulsad wrote: »

Lets face it its the most expensive sport going and money definately does all the talking - majority of f1 fans are the well heeled so probably have/could have sky subs anyway. Lesser well off fans can club together if its that important.
Sends me to sleep personally.

you think every f1 fan is rich.......lol as if.... i wish i was

brettcta wrote: »

why not just get sky sports 1 or 2 and whenever sky are showing it, see which sky sports channel it's on and crossgrade.

i.e., if you have sports 1 and it's on 2, phone sky, ask them to remove sports 1 and put on sports 2. it won't affect your bill and, because it's a crossgrade, there's no need to give 30 days notice to take the unwanted sports channel off, it just gets swapped by the adviser.

£12.25 a month is better than £20 and if you're phone's with sky, the call's free aswell

but the problem is imo f1 will get relegated to SS3 or SS4 a lot of the time, look at the time a lot of the races start 1pm on a sunday theres usually football on then so football will come first on the main channels, and as far as i know you have to have SS1 and SS2 to get 3&4 - i know on virgin this is the case
some of the early start races or evening start races may be on SS1 or SS2

geordieracer

goater78 wrote: »

I know people don't like paying for Sky but every sporting event that Sky starts broadcasting gets significantly better coverage than it did before, plus the way they cover sport is top notch. Football, cricket, darts, rugby etc. are all a significantly better viewing experience than they used to be on normal TV. I am looking forward to what sky will do to F1, I predict every race in 3D, camera's in every car that you can go to with the touch of a red button and unparrelled hours of coverage.

No one else is allowed to film F1 or its racers apart from F1. All the pictures that you recieve are the same pictures that every TV station that shows it sees around the world.

Do you really think that the BBC take a full blown multi camera circus to every circuit and then install and film and produce every qualifier and live race? LOL

Sky wont be able to either. They are just paying more money to have the same pictures that the BBC will get for their races too.

Sky will only put more flashy graphics on the build up programmes.

System

F1 will do what the money tells them to do. If sky says they want 3d cameras and more angles that is what they will get. You're very naive if you don't believe that. Lol