[TV] F1 to Sky - will you pay? [thread closed]

[ChrisPage]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

Not me. I don't have Sky and won't be getting it.

You don't need 'Sky' to get Sky Sports. You can get it even without a Virgin / Sky Dish/Line

Originally Posted by BertMk2

Which is still far more than I'd be prepared to pay to watch a season of F1 races.

Like I say, fair enough. I don't want to pay for it and think it should stay free-to-air too. I was just saying £600 is a bit of a red herring.

[bella]

yep, i don't have sky either, but i do have freeview hd, and you can only get standard definition sky sports on the top-up tv scheme. even then it's £30 a month. so for me, the cost to watch f1 in the same manner in which i do now *would* be £600 for the year...

[medius]

I'd rather use the £600 to go see BTCC live every round.

[bella]

why on *earth* would you do that to yourself?

[ckBrenneke]

If Sky are showing it on Sky Sports 1 or 2, then I might finally sign up to get Sky Sports through my BT Vision box. About £14 a month, IIRC, but you can get deals on that by pushing BT. I recently got them to give me a new BT HomeHub, free unlimited anytime calls, 20mb broadband, and the full BT Vision package for £35 a month by signing a new year contract, whereas before it was costing significantly more to get it seperately.

But I certainly won't be signing up to the crooks at Sky. Been there, done that. Gave up Sky after Motors TV lost live BTCC and ITV 4 started showing it full and live.

BBC have made a massive mistake!

[chillibowl]

i probably shouldn't have voted because i dont live in the UK but since i already pay extra to get the channels necessary to watch F1 in Canada i would certainly pay extra to get it if i lived in the UK so i voted yes.

if you like something you should pay for it so i guess the question should be 'do you like F1 enough to pay for it?'

considering the level of real F1 fans (fans who are engaged enough to argue about it with strangers) which visit this site i am surprised so few would be willing to pay for it.

[Paradise City]

I know a guy. He's giving Sky the axe and taking Live RTL coverage via Astra at basement prices. He's switching on BBC 5 live for the commentary.

Most won't get Sky for two reasons:.

1. prices are loopy

2. resentment at the way they've been treated by F1

[safc_fan89]

No, for a variety of reasons. They won't do a better job than the BBC, I am not forking out 500 quid for additional TV channels, of which only one or two I would watch (I never understand why anyone bothers), no doubt some dodgy online feeds will be available to watch and I am hoping that some form of compromise happens. Bernie suggested that races might be shown in their entirety on the BBC later on in the day, in which case I would do that and keep myself occupied until whenever it is on.

[happyhammer]

Originally Posted by ChrisPage

I have Virgin but no sports channels (yet).

I would much prefer F1 to be on the BBC- the quality of coverage has gone up and up since my first viewing of a race in 1991, and I'd love it to stay free-to-air. I'm not sure of my full views on this yet - I see potential for this to be terrible, but also potential for it to have some benefits.

But I do know - I will pay up and I will watch on. I love motorsport in general, but F1 has been a key part of my life since that French GP in 1991 and I do not want to miss it.

There must be something about the French GP, I have followed F1 since the 1992 French GP (after the re-start)!.

From another motorsport forum I'm on, and the replies I've seen so far I would have to disagree with your comment elsewhere that most people are already paying a subscription (over and above the licence fee, which now has even more reason to be abolished).

My initial reaction was that I would have to get Sky (or the ability to watch Sky Sports), but the reality is I'm likely to be out marshalling or racing when the GP is on so it would be a bit of a waste to spend so much money (which would go along way for the racing I do) to see so few live GPs. Additionally, the first West Ham game of the season will be on BBC1 (live), so being a footy fan doesn't really add to the rationale for me getting Sky.

[dyewat808]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i probably shouldn't have voted because i dont live in the UK but since i already pay extra to get the channels necessary to watch F1 in Canada i would certainly pay extra to get it if i lived in the UK so i voted yes.

if you like something you should pay for it so i guess the question should be 'do you like F1 enough to pay for it?'

considering the level of real F1 fans (fans who are engaged enough to argue about it with strangers) which visit this site i am surprised so few would be willing to pay for it.

Fair enough except the only problem is that we end up having to pay for the same thing twice - the TV licence fee as well as the Sky/Sky Sports package, and one of those we don't even get a choice with. As well as this, the TV licence fee goes towards other programming as well, so we don't actually end up paying just for what we want at all!

The other thing is I don't like the payment model - like has already been mentioned a pay per race model would be great - then it would be clear which races don't deserve to be on the calendar. What would be even better is if the money from each race went towards that particular round, and then the races worthy of being watched would not only be the only ones on the calendar, but would possibly benefit from it as well! A win-win for everybody, if highly unrealistic.

[herowassenna]

I won't be paying to watch Sky, I'll just go down to the pub, nice meal on a Sunday and my wife and I can have a couple of drinks too, they have Sky there anyway.
Maybe I'm cynical, but Bernie does nothing off the cuff, he plans well ahead. Rumours of the BBC cutting costs have been doing the rounds for a little while. Sky has been mentioned taking over coverage since Bernie tried to get F1 to be PPV some 10 years ago. Remember when F1 coverage on free to view was some way behind what was available to the paying public on Canal 5 and RTL, but take up was minimal.

Isn't it funny how the casual viewing figures have gone up in the last few months with Pirelli encouraged to produce tyres that add significantly to the show, DRS to encourage artificial over-taking and Kers.

I believe this has been planned for some time, maybe 2 or even 3 years in the planning. F1 fans would turn their noses up at Sky, but the casual viewer may well pay for the subscription.
For me, F1 died when Senna was killed. I've watched it since but my passion for Ferrari diminished during the Schumacher years and whilst I enjoy seeing the red cars winning, I really can't be bothered to be honest.
MotoGP rules...

[Woolley]

I already have Sky Sports due to being fairly keen on rugby and cricket. However, mostly don't watch F1 anyway. Personally, I'd rather it had gone to ESPN so that I wouldn't be paying anything at all to Bernie. In fact, I'd swap all the F1 coverage for the Rugby final and the two Worcester matches they've knicked.

[Adam43]

A Worcester fan and you are worried about the final?

I get sky and ESPN so don't really mind.
The sky coverage will OK, but I agree with the other posters above, not as good as the beeb.

[G.Walker]

Sky will never have my hard earned money

F1 or no F1!

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by dyewat808

Fair enough except the only problem is that we end up having to pay for the same thing twice...

granted our system is a bit different. while we have no licensing fees we must still subscribe to a certain set of channels before we can opt to get the specialty channels of our own choosing.

all told in order for me to get the channels which broadcast F1 in Canada and in HD i am looking at CAN$120.00 to 150.00 a month (depending on the provider) which works out to well over 1,000 pounds a year. i can actually reduce that if i buy other services from them like telephone and internet but that is a different matter.

from what i gather that is more than what you must pay. perhaps that is neither here nor there for people in the UK its just that from my point of view things could be worse.

[Adam43]

Speciality channels you say...

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

if you like something you should pay for it so i guess the question should be 'do you like F1 enough to pay for it?'

Not to the point of having no money to do anything else, no. Or, indeed, have meals everyday.

Maybe if I still lived up north England it would be different, because there is genuinely sod all to do. But, to be honest, I doubt it.

And quite frankly, I bought enough merchandise in the past to contribute to F1's coffers. This idea that you aren't a real fan if you aren't willing to re-mortgage your house to fund watching it amazes me.

[Benny1664]

No way, I cannot believe that F1 has been sold to Sky. What a joke! This is one of the worst motorsport news stories for a long time. I wonder if teams will lose sponsors because of it as I gues some will have clauses in their agreements? Whats the viewing figures nowdays on F1 races, I bet that will drop massiveley in 2012!

[Joe Taylor]

No.

I'll happily pay a few quid for a month of Eurosport Player on occasion if there are events I want to watch, or to be able to watch an event like the Race of Champions online, but £15 per month for an additional half season of live F1 and occasionally Indycar is just not worth it.

[ghinzani]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

I know a guy. He's giving Sky the axe and taking Live RTL coverage via Astra at basement prices. He's switching on BBC 5 live for the commentary.

Most won't get Sky for two reasons:.

1. prices are loopy

2. resentment at the way they've been treated by F1

Yep Ive got F1 in German (I think) on my box pointed at 19E, so I think rather than spend more money with Sky I will ditch it completely. If a few hundred thousand people do that also Sky might reconsider. Maybe boycott F1 sponsor products and let them know too?

[Steven Humphrey]

I pay Sky enough anyway (basic tv, phone, broadband-no cable out here in the sticks so no choice really) so refuse to pay another wedge to watch half the F1 races. To be honest, I rarely get the chance to watch races live due to work/marshalling/family so watching a re-run on BBC won't be the end of the world for me.

[Aysedasi]

Pay?

You must be off your trolley.

[dyewat808]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

granted our system is a bit different. while we have no licensing fees we must still subscribe to a certain set of channels before we can opt to get the specialty channels of our own choosing.

all told in order for me to get the channels which broadcast F1 in Canada and in HD i am looking at CAN$120.00 to 150.00 a month (depending on the provider) which works out to well over 1,000 pounds a year. i can actually reduce that if i buy other services from them like telephone and internet but that is a different matter.

from what i gather that is more than what you must pay. perhaps that is neither here nor there for people in the UK its just that from my point of view things could be worse.

Yeah I agree, if we're honest this could certainly be a lot worse. Now the details have come out and we now know we are getting re-runs, I'm not sure this is as bad as we think. I know at least for me, a re-run and highlights would probably end up fitting better into my day, I rarely watch the GP's live and usually end up knowing the result before I watch them recorded, so really there will be no difference for me. At least with this deal, we are not being forced to pay for Sky, we still do have a bit of choice.

I'm also just interested to see what Sky will do with it, and what exactly they mean when they say it will get the "full Sky Sports treatment".

Like chillibowl said, this could be a lot worse!

[Another Bob]

No, not in a million years.

I really hope that the BBC team do not whore themselves commentate for sky.

Talk about hero to zero if they did.

[Adam43]

If they do both is there problem?