I haven't actually done anything yet about spreading the word regarding a boycott, nor can I take credit for the original idea. To be honest, the utter contempt with which F1 teams (particularly team managers) the FIA and FOM treat the fans is leaving me wondering why I even bother with F1. At the moment I'm struggling to rationalise the anger I feel at, having not missed a race in over twenty years, the time and effort I've wasted on such a greedy, selfish, lying bunch of ingrates. Adam Parr said, "we are trying to keep the quality of the show." I'm sorry, but Pirelli are responsible for the quality of the show. People like Adam Parr have spent the best part of twenty years and countless billions of dollars trying to remove from F1 the entertainment, any aspect remotely connected to sport, and any input from the fans. On top of the turncoat Whitmarsh's capitulation, Parr's comments have destroyed the last vestige of integrity I believed still existed in F1. I'm not sure I can be bothered putting the effort into trying to organise a boycott. I don't want something so negative hanging over me but, whether I continue to watch F1 or not, I can't see it ever being the same again now.
The thing is that being greedy, selfish and lying is not localised to F1 it is human nature, so should we really be surpised or angry that people in F1 act, well, human?
I feel still totally confused by this whole issue. Who ever thought about the timing of the release of this should be congratulated. Well done, thanks for not having the balls to come clean. You did this when everyone is away and will not have to respond to anything. I do not feel any anger towards Sky, they have done what any other Predator at the top of the food chain would do, run in and devour the tastiest morsels. I do however feel great distain for the BBC feeding this predator. Other ways could have been found. If the contract with the BBC had been left to run next year as was, maybe C4 would have then been in position to formulize their bid. Again the BBC should be questioned as to why this has not been looked at as an option, oh sorry it has, the BBC would probably not want the “Crown Jewel” of F1 on a direct rival. The BBC has now hidden away any comments on this whole subject and is probably thinking the longer they have their heads in the sand the better and everything will go away. The lack of response from the BBC shows a complete disregard to their employers. IE us the license paying public. Comments from the likes of Whitmash and Parr I find incredible. How can these people honestly think they can ever be taken seriously again. Are they aware of there fans? It doesn’t look as if they are, as long as their own lifestyle doesn’t change it doesn’t matter that the average fan will now have to make cut backs if they want to watch the sport they love. Keep racing guys you enjoy it, I’m not too sure how many of us fans will be able to in the future! Will I pay the asking price to Sky? At the moment I don’t know. I don’t know if I can be bothered to watch anymore of the present season as I am so disillusioned by the whole lot of them, the teams, FOTA, BBC, Sky, Ecclestone etc. Know one involved is big enough to break cover and start answering questions, cowards the lot of them. Answer the fans questions that have been asked. Sorry for the rant. Yours truly, An ex-F1 Fan
That's not my experience of human nature generally, Mifune. Of course there is the odd individual so inclined and perhaps they all gravitate to the same centres of immorality, such as Westminster or Place de la Concorde. FOTA, however, has been at pains for some years to stress how its members listen to and care about the fans' opinions. It's the hypocrisy I'm angry about - the fact that (like Whitmarsh) Parr is trying to use the fans' dedication to and support for F1 to order us not to complain while they behave in a manner that's completely contrary to the interests of the fans. In one breath he says he's a crusader for cost-cutting and in the next the sport needs Milly Dowler money to continue wasting the billions it does now keeping failures like him in a job. I think that's worth a bit of anger.
Great questions Max. The one overriding factor for me is that, according to what I have read, Channel 4 tabled the same offer as Sky but the BBC pushed Bernie (or whoever) to opt for the Sky deal. I can ride with the financial cuts crap they are spouting, it's not a legitimate excuse but it is a "current" excuse and one that can be forced on to the unsuspecting masses. I can even ride with the fact that they ignored independant reports, which clearly highlight the huge success F1 coverage is on the BBC. The very same reports that show that, while a large capital outlay, the audience make it far cheaper than a lot of "media" shown on the BBC. What I cannot abide is the BBC denying the public an opportunity to receive F1 on free-to-air television, because of a perceived competitive advantage issue with another terrestial channel. Let me explain my thoughts: To my mind, the BBC is not the run of the mill company. It's not ITV, Channel 4 or Channel 5. It does not survive by using ratings to increase advertising revenue - it has no competitors that operate the same way, just regulators!! ITV/C4/C5 would look at this deal in a different manner to that of the BBC and as such, I'd expect them to opt for Sky over a "competitor". The BBC is a public service that utilises public funding to provide the nation with suitable streams of media. It has a duty to the nation in this respect. How then can the BBC fulfilling it's duty to the nation by forcing Formula 1 to be broadcast on Sky, a pay per view service that only reaches an estimated £10 million customers? (say 30million individuals, when considering wives/kids). Of those, lets be generous and say 75% subscribe to Sports, so 7.5m customers (22m individuals). Consider this Bernie, some races have attracted 75% of Sky's total customer base, with an average over 50% per race. I could go into how many of those Sky viewers will watch the football etc etc but it digresses from my point...I am not aware of how many indivuals receive and view a TV, but I'd hazard the differential is HUGE. Take a rough estimate based on the royal wedding - 24million peak viewers on the BBC, 661k on Sky. Yes I appreciate this is finger in the air stuff, but it paints a picture to show how bad the decision was by the BBC. In short: If acting in the interests of the people, the BBC should of shared F1 coverage with another terrestial provider, NOT SKY. /rant over
Absolutely, McLarwum. In fact this is a point I am keen to make as it appears that the BBC got into bed with Sly Sports to prevent their FtA rival Channel 4 from taking ratings and market share. Without this being put out to tender it is likely to have broken EU laws on state aid. Similarly I want ask whether the BBC is now acting as a commercial channel but using public funds. These things make me suspicious about whether the BBC continues to act as a "public service": 1. The total lack of any meaningful response to the 8000+ comments on Ben Gallop's blog. 2. Official complaints fobbed off with stereotyped non-responses 3. Requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act denied. 4. A total lack of news coverage on this burning issue. 5. Cutting F1 on the BBC despite the BBC Trust's assertion that it is a significant and highly cost-effective success. 6. £900m to "decentralise" to Salford; £13m a year on taxis; £3m a year on car allowances; £22m for 'The Voice' to rival X Factor after 'Fame Academy' already failed for them vs Pop Idol. 10. The zealous censorship of licence payers' complaints on BBC blogs. 11. BBC chose to go into business with Sky rather than lose F1 coverage to one of its free-to-air rivals, thus denying the public the chance to continue watching without subscription in order to protect itself and its ratings. I could go on but having defended the licence fee all my life, this F1 deal has opened a Pandora's box for me and the more I delve, the less I like what I see. One thing we have been told about this deal is that it was inevitable because the BBC could not continue to give the coverage it has offered until now. Perhaps it is also inevitable that in today's media world the BBC can only compete as a commercial concern and not, unfortunately, as a public service. Might it not even be possible that the new TV licence-funded £900m Salford media city is part of preparing for just such an eventuality? I don't know but I want some answers! Whether I'll get any is another matter.
To further make my point, the below is taken from the BBC Mission and Values statement: Our mission To enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain. Our vision To be the most creative organisation in the world. Our values •Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest. •Audiences are at the heart of everything we do. •We take pride in delivering quality and value for money. •Creativity is the lifeblood of our organisation. •We respect each other and celebrate our diversity so that everyone can give their best. •We are one BBC: great things happen when we work together
And yet Barbara Slater says we "must not" complain to her directly, if you complain to her directly. Andrew Benson's blog says we should not comment on the TV deal on his blog. Official complaints suggest people post their feelings on Ben 'BskyG' Gallop's blog - but his blog is closed to comments! The arrogance speaks volumes for the state of the BBC. Who do they think they are?
I think everyone has a base layer of selfishness/greed/violence/self-preservation but through your upbringing/experiences/etc you add more layers and dimensions to your nature. However it seems that when most people are confronted by large amounts of money or power they revert back to this base layer. So while I was angry at the announcement at the news of the new deal it also did not really suprise me that Bernie brokered such a deal. My anger was initially just a reaction to the news that I like many will lose out due to a small privileged minorities greed. However really I do not think it was because of that because like I said it was to be expected. I think it was like you Genji because of the hypocrisy and the pathetic attempts of key people in F1 to try and manipulate the fans. The thing that made it ten times worse was the sheer cheek of their hypocrisy, to try and turn their own words of wanting to listen to the fans and do what is best for them and to attempt to recycle their empty words to make it look that they have done what they said and that the new deal is great news for the fans is very disheartening and breaks the image that the people who run the sport that you love do actually care what you think and values your support. But instead it is a sinking confirmation that they will too revert back to that base layer and leave you out in the cold without even expressing regret but in turn look to rationalise their natural betrayal.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/57 In case you don't already know, here's the govt. e-petition. 100,000 = parliamentary debate. It doesn't work properly, incidentally and i don't know if my name has been added or not!
From BskyG's locked down blog: 8416. At 17:42 4th Aug 2011, 606 Sport Hosts wrote: This blog is now closed to comments. If you do wish to make a formal complaint about this announcement, or any aspect of it, you will be fobbed off at the BBC Complaints website (bbc.co.uk/complaints). This blog was kept well-hidden and open for shorter than usual because of the volume of responses coming in and the clear hostility to the subject matter. However, this blog is designed as a place to ignore heated issues, rather than a forum which responds to your concerns. We are contemptuous of the high levels of interest in this issue, and the time it has taken everyone to comment here. We have not explained the reasons behind the announcement in the initial blog post, and at this stage we are still hiding behind a wall of silence - but we have reviewed the comments although we do not care about them. Sport Hostilities
There's an option to complain about their comment. Join me in doing so... I put Complaint From: Moderation Reference: 32070168 about Post 109877389 You state there is nothing to add to your reasons for moving F1 to Sky - I disagree. You had opportunity to keep F1 on free-to-air by pushing for Channel 4 as the preferred partner, not Sky. You state financial reasons as a key driver for the decision, but £ per viewer, F1 was a fantastic performer. Your Mission Statement states: Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest - why get into bed with a clearly dishonest family, the Murdochs. Audiences are at the heart of everything we do - if true, you would not of done this
I did it too, as have others. They rejected my complaint, unsurprisingly. Anyway, in other developments, as they say, Czar Orac, mine of information from the old 606, says Marussia Virgin are not over keen on the new deal. Graeme Lowdon of MV says: "To be perfectly honest, I think it is up to the fans whether they think it is good news or not, and that is something that remains to be seen. For a team like us, we actually get very little of our revenue from TV rights, and it is very, very important for our entire commercial strategy that we maximise the global fan base and the number of people who watch our team in action, so obviously there are concerns there. I agree completely that the fans are the most important aspect as, ultimately, it's a very, very important part of the cycle of the commercial side of the sport that we are in. I am a great believer that the fans will tell us what they think and I think it is very difficult for us to speak on behalf of fans, that's for sure. Time will tell whether it is good for the fans or not and I am absolutely certain, especially in this day and age, that the fans will make their view pretty clear." Well, his words are guarded, but as with Webber and Paul Hembury, there are small cracks appearing in the unanimity of the F1 fraternity.
Absolutely, Mclarwum, although I'm starting to think we're the only two here who are still interested! If we fail, it won't be for lack of trying Incidentally, in case you don't know, people have moved over to Jake's blog on the BBC to comment. it's better natured than BskyG's blog and there's a lot of mutual encouragement going on. Do you think I should post the govt. e-petition as a new thread? What the hell, they can move it if they don't like it. We got mentioned briefly on channel 4 news, radio 1 news and the Guardian.
Sorry! I was starting to feel a bit demoralised myself but I'm starting to see a little bit of progress so I hope we can capitalise if we stick with it.
What do you expect? The BBC is the propaganda wing of the British government… No joke: I mean this quite literally.
