Formula 1 could have remained free-to-air for the foreseeable future had F1 bosses considered the bid presented by terrestrial broadcaster, Channel 4. The recent announcement that the BBC would share coverage of the 2012 to 2018 season with subscription service Sky, came as a shock to many fans, especially those that can't afford such a service which it's estimated would cost around £600 annually. It's believed the BBC blocked a rival bid from Channel 4, to instead partner with Sky in order to avoid one of their biggest rivals securing the rights' to host F1 free-to-air - leaving the BBC without any coverage. Bernie Ecclestone is also thought to have backed the BBC/Sky deal, despite earlier declaring that pay-to-view would be suicidal for the sport and its sponsors. The main motivator behind Ecclestone's reasoning is that Channel 4 offered £45 million a year for the contract, £5m more than the BBC currently pay, but £15m less than the announced BBC/Sky deal in which the BBC contributes £15m for half the races, with Sky paying the remaining £45m for exclusive rights to show all 20 grands prix live. Documents, which have now been removed, revealed that C4 produced a ten-point plan which would have seen the channel show all coverage live, including practice, alongside detailed analysis with several hours of documentaries and historical footage. C4 were among many others channel, including ITV and Channel 5 to have shown an interest in taking over the rights, however the deal offered by C4 was believed to be the only viable alternative with ITV and C5 wanting to takeover from 2013, rather than 2012. http://www.thef1times.com/news/display/04202
bbc and sky pretty much froze c4 out which is pretty much illegal to competition laws. this is one of the points I informed my MP with
I think channel 4 could have done a decent job with it. We know the BBC coverage is excellent, and that BskyB will make a complete mess of it, but channel 4 really could have done it. Interesting about the Beeb and Sky freezing them out though, and breaching the competition law, as Bando mentioned. Would this affect the rights ownership if this is considered illegal?
An interesting point Durant, and I agree. This is beside the point of the thread, and I intend no offence when I ask; did you use Google Translator to make your point? - I'm really intrigued as to the original language!
I must admit Bando, I do not read signatures unless they are small. I do not ever read big, loud ones, so if that was the case, no wonder I missed it! Cheers. ©
Why don't I believe him, maybe because he is saying it on the bbc http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula_one/14367183.stm
An update! not much of one yet but an update! As I have said above I sent a letter to my local MP David Ruffley about a month or more ago. Well last week I got a letter through from the House of Commons which said he has deffered a case with all my points to the Secretary of Culture and sport and he will get back to me with any news.... well 'er Indoors' has just sent me a text informing me I have another letter from the HoC. I wonder what it will say?
El_Bando: I'm very pleased you've taken this matter up with your local MP. And I very much hope that he has the guts to ask the right questions on your (our) behalf. And for this reason, I think it is worth us all being aware of the bigger picture. I have recently made the following points elsewhere but they are equally appropriate in this debate: We would do well to remember at all times, that the BBC is a government agency. We would do well to remember that our government has been collectively compromised by the phone hacking scandal, with the probability (rather than possibility) of various MPs also being compromised directly. We would do well to remember that our flagship Police Force also appears to have been compromised with illegal payments to senior officers, resulting in resignations and further allegations with implicate high-profile MPs; and that if such people exist, they are likely to prefer such truths to remain somewhere under the musty carpet at the bottom of this dungeon. And here's the rub: the media is the mechanism of control over such truths. - No prizes for guessing the Captain steering this particular ship - the very same person who the government would prefer to be friendly with, since he and his entourage give public access (or otherwise) to such information in the first place!! Should it really be a surprise that the government agency responsible for the dissemination of information; the BBC, also forms a convenient mechanism for the pacification of someone who appears to have betrayed the people of this country, who wholly expect leading figures to respect the law of this land (supposedly enforced by the Police) - whilst at the same time these laws force the hand of government to be seen to be firmly dealing with a breach of such laws? I've stopped short of using words such as 'bribery', 'blackmail', 'corruption', 'coercion', etc.; but I trust that the readership of this forum can see between my lines and draw conclusions about how and why a deal between the BBC and Sky might have been rather convenient… It's just tough for F1 fans that it's hit this sport; but since we are discussing a game of monopoly, we should not be surprised that Bernie became a willing partner. (Please remember that Bernie has made a few questionable payments over the years - and not only in this country!). Enough. Apologies for extending what was intended as a short comment. ©
Channel four sounds great, if we can find out some dodgy rule dealing with competition laws. It might mean adverts during races, but I'm sure sky would do that too, right?
Not good news guys. well the first page got my hopes up from my MP who said he has had a letter back from Ed Vaizey that will be of interest of me. so at this point I was thinking 'well ok the boys done well' so I read on And... its basically about how the BBC, BSkyB and FOM have every right to do what they want with the F1 coverage and the contrary to what you said Cosi, he states the BBC are independant of the government... He didnt however touch on my points of competition rights but I guess we will all hear more about that next month.
Yes, I know this is the official line Bando, since this country prides itself on what might be called a 'free-press'! But this is how politicians circumvent uncomfortable 'truths'. Just as a Driving Licence is pre-requisite to driving on public roads (and legally enforcible), the TV Licence is pre-requisite to using a TV (and legally enforcible): both are an absolute requirement of the land. The government are empowered to alter legislation applicable to both the DVLAgency and the BBC - which, like the DVLA, is not a private or publicly limited company either; and in spite of being able to claim a fudgey technicality that the BBC "are independent", their funding is entirely through the public who have no choice, just as with paying income tax and VAT etc. - which, in turn, is enforced by the government agency we call the Inland Revenue. So with reference to the BBC; avoiding the phrase "government agency" is mere semantics - which of course is the profession of politicians! It's a bit like claiming that coal is not black but very dark (which is also technically true).
[video=youtube;nl3so5Yzfs8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl3so5Yzfs8[/video] I thought they were chanting "No to sky" at the race but its too hard to tell. Keep on trying!
The government may well say that the BBC is independent, but they would have to say that as state TV is not legal in this country as it would be wrong for any government to control any media, only dictators can do that. But the BBC is state owned we pay for it therefor we own it. Now consider this IF the government has no influence or anything to do with the BBC how can they dictate what the beeb charges for the licence fee? This situation has come about because the licence fee has been frozen by the government (you know the ones that have no control of the broadcasting company) until 2017, also the government (who has no influence whatsoever over the BBC) appointed Lord Patten an ex Tory Minister as chairman of the so called independent BBC. If this isn't hypocrisy of the highest order then I spent last years holiday on the moon with Peter André's kids.
