- 06 Mar 12, 12:32#292705
I have it on good authority from someone in the know that they were willing to share the races with the BBC, or they would have been just as happy to buy them out of the contract. What reeks about the deal is that Ben Gallop, who currently holds the position of Sports Editor with the BBC, has just been offered a job with SKY. Mark Thompson, when asked by The Culture, Media and Sport Committee why he hadn't at least picked up a phone to call CH4 and discuss any options with them, answered that he didn't feel that he needed to. Mr Thompson, who will also be leaving the BBC soon, is rumoured to have been offered a position at SKY too. If this is true then there needs to be a comprehensive inquiry into the whole sorry affair.
This point is where it all gets a bit murky. Under the current Concorde agreement, as I understand it, some live races must be made available to FTA TV channels. I don't believe the agreement discriminates between whether a TV channel is a commercial or Public Service Broadcaster. It is entirely possible that the parties involved in the deal have used this discrepancy to their advantage. Bernie himself confirmed that the BBC could have legally retained the option to show re-runs of all the races in the 2012 season as they had already paid to broadcast the entire season live anyway. The BBC chose to give away this option to SKY as part of the deal. What has irked so many fans is that the BBC has claimed that there were public consultations held to discuss the deal before it was signed, which is patently untrue.
Your point about Channel 4 is interesting, did they wish for exclusivity or were they paying to share with the BBC? Presumably Bernie could've played hardball and told the BBC he wanted the extra money from cooperation with Channel 4 and not Sky.
I suppose debating the ethics of the BBC in this case (assuming that Channel 4 were prepare to pay more than Sky for the same deal that Sky and the BBC currently hold) will depend on how far the BBC are suppose to act as an independent competitive commercial company versus a nice altruistic public service broadcaster.
I have it on good authority from someone in the know that they were willing to share the races with the BBC, or they would have been just as happy to buy them out of the contract. What reeks about the deal is that Ben Gallop, who currently holds the position of Sports Editor with the BBC, has just been offered a job with SKY. Mark Thompson, when asked by The Culture, Media and Sport Committee why he hadn't at least picked up a phone to call CH4 and discuss any options with them, answered that he didn't feel that he needed to. Mr Thompson, who will also be leaving the BBC soon, is rumoured to have been offered a position at SKY too. If this is true then there needs to be a comprehensive inquiry into the whole sorry affair.
Are the BBC really obliged to ensure that F1 remains free to air with Channel 4 even though it could negatively impact on themselves? Another point, I doubt Channel 4 wouldn't show adverts during the races.
This point is where it all gets a bit murky. Under the current Concorde agreement, as I understand it, some live races must be made available to FTA TV channels. I don't believe the agreement discriminates between whether a TV channel is a commercial or Public Service Broadcaster. It is entirely possible that the parties involved in the deal have used this discrepancy to their advantage. Bernie himself confirmed that the BBC could have legally retained the option to show re-runs of all the races in the 2012 season as they had already paid to broadcast the entire season live anyway. The BBC chose to give away this option to SKY as part of the deal. What has irked so many fans is that the BBC has claimed that there were public consultations held to discuss the deal before it was signed, which is patently untrue.
Last edited by synsei on 06 Mar 12, 13:02, edited 1 time in total.
"I don't make mistakes. I make prophecies which immediately turn out to be wrong..."
