BBC BLOGS - Roger Mosey
« Previous | Main | Next »

Running the BBC numbers for 2012

Post categories:

Roger Mosey | 16:17 UK time, Wednesday, 27 July 2011

Along with every major event - like today's One Year To Go celebrations - comes the ceremonial Twitterstorm followed by media inquiries about how many people the BBC has covering it.

So as part of our occasional series in which we try to explain the real stories behind the headlines, here's what we're up to.

We're providing the global feed to international broadcasters from Trafalgar Square and the Olympic Aquatics Centre for the special programme going out on BBC One, BBC World and our radio services tonight.

These OBs are providing many of the pictures you may have seen already - such as the Breakfast and lunchtime outside broadcasts from Aquatics. We've deliberately given these a high technical specification to capture the event well.

But we're also using today as part of training and familiarisation for staff who will be working on the Olympics next year.

Access to the Park is extremely restricted in normal times, so today at minimal cost, we can give people experience of where they'll be in 2012 - and they can contribute to the output too.

We don't want July 27th next year to be the first day our key staff set foot on the site, because there's no planning opportunity better than being there for live output.

That's why our total number of domestic output staff on site is just over 150.

In return for that, though, we're getting huge amounts of programming across multiple outlets.

I mentioned Breakfast television, but you may also have heard Garry Richardson on Today or Nicky Campbell on 5 Live from the Olympic Park earlier. BBC Sport's World Swimming show is there - which is cheaper than sending it to Shanghai.

London's year to go story has attracted worldwide interest

We then have BBC London presenting its main 6.30 programme from Stratford, alongside pretty much all of their radio station BBC London 94.9.

If these and other shows were not in Olympic Park, the same people would be producing them from a location just a few miles away - but without the face-to-face contact with guests like Boris Johnson, Mark Foster or Jeremy Hunt.

Nobody would have batted an eyelid to hear Chinese radio was live from Beijing's newly-built stadiums, so it shouldn't be a surprise that our UK programmes are using this opportunity.

On top of this we're making the most of the Park access for our services which will have little or no accreditation in 2012. So a number of our World Service language colleagues are there, as is BBC World News which is an international commercial channel.

Their audiences are hungry for news about 2012 and today they can be at the heart of the action.

In the coming months, as our final numbers for 2012 firm up, I'll publish them here.

It's worth underlining that major events need significant numbers of people. We will, as ever, keep costs under control.

But today is about involving audiences and our staff with the London 2012 story, and with free access to the Park this isn't an occasion to needlessly restrain the broadcasting ambitions.

Comments

Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    It's a shame you feel you need to be so defensive about doing what the viewers expect of the BBC - and a bit of common sense in regards of using it as a "test event" for next year.

    I do think today though kind of showed why moving BBC Sport, Breakfast and 5 Live out of London isn't the best idea the BBC ever had - had all those teams been based in Salford I doubt coverage would have been as wide, and with sports programming beginning to move to Salford from next month surely it's inevitable some people paid to relocate will have to have accomdation in London paid for next summer.

    I suspect though the biggest critics of the move to Salford will be the same people who've spent years moaning the BBC is too London centric anyway - and similarly with today's events you probably can't win either way, so don't waste your time worrying about the Daily Mail and just concentrate on providing the actual viewers with what they expect.

  • Comment number 2.

    Roger i agree with Brekkie, the Daily Mail will be having a hissyfit regarding the numbers, and no doubt they wll write about how the BBC is wasting Money,how BBC Staff are getting freebies/jollies, and also you are going to get Hundreds of Red arrows in the Daily Mail comment section, but ignore it, the BBC provide fantastic coverage on all major Sport events that they have rights to.

    As Brekkie said dont get defensive Roger, Chin up and dont let the doommongers get you down!!

  • Comment number 3.

    How much is the BBC spending to promote the London Olympics ?

  • Comment number 4.

    Just wondering, is there a chance that the BBC Beijing coverage will be made available in the run-up to July next year.

    I'm sure many of us would love to relive those memories - and it would provide another angle of coverage in displaying the amount of progression from the athletes over the four-year period.

  • Comment number 5.

    The recent coverage did seem a bit over the top to me. Isn't there a risk that people will be put off the whole thing if it's headline news every day for the next twelve months?

  • Comment number 6.

    More money wasted by the BBC. Of course Mr Mosey and co will have 'all the answers' as usual but if you ever attempt to get a direct answer to a specific question from the BBC down it is like trying to nail custard to a wall. They either spew out their usual standard answers, distort the facts (in some cases going as far as blatantly lying) or just ignore your correspondence completely.

    Why is it that over 200 years after the USA gained their indepedence we in the UK still have to put up with Taxation Without Representation in the form of the licence TAX? ....and so much for the current government getting rid of Quangos !!

    If Mr Mosey and co think that the BBC is so good why don't they put it to the test and lobby the government to make it a subscription service only so that viewers are given a choice?

    PS. before any BBC supporters have a go at me just ponder this one: I prefer to shop at Sainsburys but I wouldn't expect Tesco shoppers to subsidise my preference to the tune of £145 a year.

  • Comment number 7.

    In reverse order...

    Scrapthebbcnow in #6: I do my best to answer all questions here. But the polling evidence is clear that most people in this country support the BBC, and they absolutely don't want us to go to a subscription model with content behind pay-walls.

    Berrinho in #5: it's a risk, yes, but the live viewing figure for last night's show had a healthy peak of 3.4m.

    DannyW97 in #4: we should get back the online rights to Beijing some time ahead of next year's Games, yes, and we'll be seeing what we can do with the TV archive too.

    Maxmerit in #3: we'll publish our coverage costs next year.

    Fedster and Brekkie in #2 and #1: thanks for the support, and you're right we have no need to be defensive. All we try to do is explain when people make daft comparisons between the BBC - which was supplying dozens of world broadcasters with live event coverage yesterday - and other organisations which weren't.

  • Comment number 8.

    "I do my best to answer all questions here. But the polling evidence is clear that most people in this country support the BBC, and they absolutely don't want us to go to a subscription model with content behind pay-walls. "

    In 2009 an ICM Poll revealed that "The (licence) fee is backed by 43%, against 24% who think advertising should foot the bill and 30% who think people should pay to subscribe if they want to see BBC programmes.

    So there we are, nearly a third of people wanted subscriptions so maybe it is not as "absolute" as you would wish us to believe Mr Mosey.

    People's views on the BBC are to a large degree dependant on whether they like types of programmes that are broadcast. Just for example if you you live in the South East of England, and your sporting interests lean towards tennis, snooker & motor racing then you are undoubtedly getting a very much better deal than someone in lives in the north and prefers cricket and boxing.

    It seems unfair in the extreme that those of us whose viewing preferences are not being at all well served by the BBC are not allowed to opt out.

  • Comment number 9.

    I have to say that scrapthebbc now is not entirly accurate the F1 fans are now getting a very bad deal from the BBC and almost 1000 people (at last count)have posted to express their anger at the recent deal

  • Comment number 10.

    "But the polling evidence is clear that most people in this country support the BBC, and they absolutely don't want us to go to a subscription model with content behind pay-walls."

    I fail to see how this is relevant: the fact remains that the entirety of the population is faced with a punitive annual tax for a non-essential service that is copiously available from the private sector. Of course your supporters and the BBC itself vehemently oppose a change to the status quo: they and you are being subsidised by the rest of us who can't legally watch a television broadcast in this country without paying for the BBC.

    If the BBC is as confident of public support as you suggest then surely the time is right to remove the tax burden and move to a system where those that want the BBC pay for the BBC.

  • Comment number 11.

    Rasher in #10: you seem to be suggesting we should go for a system that 70% of the people of the UK don't want?

    The fact is that BBC services are consumed by well over 90% of the population each week. The licence fee is a guarantee of British news, drama, comedy and all the rest; and it allows the whole of the country to share the big moments like Royal Weddings, Olympic Games and World Cups.

  • Comment number 12.

    Rasher and scrapthebbcnow are perfectly entitled to their points of view. They don't however seem to have grasped that we live in a democracy and the licence fee system has been supported by all political parties since 1922. scrapthebbcnow in particular doesn't seem to understand what "taxation without representation" means.

    I furiously disagree with all sorts of things the BBC does but I will happily defend the BBC's existence against these critics. However this blog is about the BBC's Olympics coverage. Perhaps we could get back to that.

  • Comment number 13.

    Roger, the fact that you continue to respond to questions and criticism from the license fee payer is quite refreshing and I commend you for that. Keep up the good work.

  • Comment number 14.

    Would it be possible for the potential critics of the BBC to provide figures for the correct and legitimate number of BBC staff that need to be deployed for future events, figures that would not generate newspaper stories complaining about the wasteful use of resources? This would allow the BBC to make appropriate adjustments in advance.

  • Comment number 15.

    Since you're a big name Roger can I ask you this. Why is the F1 coverage which regually is the largest audience share in the UK on Sunday's being halved in a cost cutting exersize. When the BBC carry on wasting money, by sending OTT amounts of staff to events, and developing technologies which people are not likely to pick up; e.g. 3D TV and say a 12;45 ko for a premiership football match. Where you have Sky pictures a Final score reporter a MOTD reporter a 5 live radio com team and 2 local radio com teams. Surely saving money is slapping people in the face to cover 1 football match BBC needs to send 1 MOTD commentator who can also to final score reports as anyone who watches Motson will know he doesn't commentate 'live' it's always reflected, and 1 radio com team = money saved, that can be used on other sports and improving your coverage.

  • Comment number 16.

    jcb336 in #12: thanks - and to maxmerit in #13

    _marko in #14: yes, spot on

    knowledge is good in #15: you'll have seen Ben Gallop's blog on F1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/sporteditors/2011/07/f1_coverage_to_be_shared_betwe.html currently with 6000+ responses.

    On the wider point you make, we do try to drive down numbers but (a) the biggest cost by far for most live events or for Match Of The Day is the rights fee, which can be many multiples of what we pay talent; and (b) a lot of programmes do want reporters to appear on air at the same time - for instance when there's a goal - so there's a limit to how much one individual can do.

    By the way, I don't know about other grounds but certainly at the Emirates you can hear the MOTD commentators live throughout the back-of-stadium areas when it's a BBC OB.

  • Comment number 17.

    Can I point out to the anti-licence fee people that yes the Government could sell off the BBC and have it funded by advertising or make it subscription only etc but it would still be perfectly legal and entitled to charge a licence fee and keep the revenue for itself.

    As to staffing levels I think that the BBC at times does send too many people to the same event (and not just sporting bt also e.g. political events) but equally a lot of people simply don't understand that you do need a certain amount of people to be able to operate the cameras etc etc and these people can only work a certain number of hours. I wonder how many people would be happy for say MOTD to cover a match with only one camera? yes it would be cheap bt its hardly full coverage is it?

  • Comment number 18.

    It's also worth noting if the BBC went the advertiser funded route there wouldn't suddenly be another billion pound in the advertising market. ITV, C4 and Five especially would lose out substantially with money shifting to the BBC, and ultimately both the BBC and ITV would be weaker when it comes to fighting off Sky for the rights to almost any sporting event.

  • Comment number 19.

    Let's be realistic - as a broadcasting concept, the BBC is dead meat.
    The only real point of discussion is how long, and by what means, Britain will take to bury the corpse.
    I can hardly wait for the day when the whole arrogant, self-serving organisation is finally dismantled.

  • Comment number 20.

    Mr Mosey writes, 'Rasher in #10: you seem to be suggesting we should go for a system that 70% of the people of the UK don't want?'

    'Would you like to pay less tax?' I wonder what the response would be to that question?

    'The fact is that BBC services are consumed by well over 90% of the population each week. The licence fee is a guarantee of British news, drama, comedy and all the rest; and it allows the whole of the country to share the big moments like Royal Weddings, Olympic Games and World Cups.'

    Hiding behind the flag? Really? That's the best you can come up with in the 21st century?

    The 'fact' is that the BBC massively distorts the broadcasting market to the detriment of the country as a whole. In the past thirty years the role of the state has changed: we've seen that we can prosper without state intervention in many facets of life. Almost 100% of the population consume electricity each week, yet we don't feel the need for a state funded power distribution company. If the BBC is as wonderful as it is claimed to be then surely it will prosper in a commercial setting. After all, if Britain can survive without state-funded water, gas, power, shipbuilding, air transport, telecommunications and coal industries, are you seriously suggesting that drama and comedy need to be provided by the state? Orwell will be spinning in his grave.

  • Comment number 21.

    If the BBC spent the £3.6 licence fee prudently and responsibly then I would back it and them all the way.Unfortunately they don't and spend it on ludicrous management/presenter salaries, enormous pension pots and redundancy pay outs.The most anyone should pay for licence is £100 or alternatively have a subscription to BBC channels people actually want to watch.Lets make it easier for the consumer to actually have a choice to where their money goes instead of being bullied into it .

  • Comment number 22.

    Let's have an update on post number 9 here for those people out of the loop. Approximately 10,000 negative comments about the "deal" F1 fans are getting from the BBC has prompted them to close the blogs to comments including all of F1 presenter Jake Humphrey's entries. This is unprecedented censorship of their viewers' legitimate right to question their actions especially as the 6000 plus official complaints have been met with copy and paste responses and advice not to complain.

    Unfortunately this leaves their viewers in the position of having to make this known on blogs whose original subject may only loosely be connected with the way the BBC chose to spend it's money on F1 and other things, and which may have to remain open for longer than a couple of days.

  • Comment number 23.

    Hey SayNo - my old mukka! We have more than 10k comments across Ben's blog (8415) and two of Jake's blogs (1382 and 243) - all now closed (despite one from Jake being open since last September - that is 2010!!! - and closed within one day of a negative comment about BBC selling out to Sky. And one about women's footie which has also been open since September last year but was closed today after a few F1 comments.

    This is more reminiscent of the 1936 Olympics that 2012 wouldn't you say?

  • Comment number 24.

    Hi Roger, when will the BBC reverse the decision to sell out to Sky? Thanks. Hugh.

  • Comment number 25.

    @23 Zebbers - that or the 1980 Olympics yes.

  • Comment number 26.

    Hi Roger glad to see you're doing FULL COVERAGE of EVERY step of the Olympic Torch.

    Far better that than saving F1...

    Disgraceful!

  • Comment number 27.

    "The fact is that BBC services are consumed by well over 90% of the population each week. The licence fee is a guarantee of British news, drama, comedy and all the rest; and it allows the whole of the country to share the big moments like Royal Weddings, Olympic Games and World Cups. "

    Shame the license fee doesn't seem to cover F1 in it's entirety considering the amount of UK World champions we have produced and lets not forget that almost ALL of the teams in F1 are based right here in the UK.

    It's plainly obvious that due to the BBC Olympic commitment that something had to give, sadly it's F1 that's suffered.

    Lets see how many Gold medals we get, I bet it doesn't equal the amount of F1 wins UK drivers have had...

  • Comment number 28.

    Well said everyone! The idea that every tedious step of the Olynpic flame is being broadcast is what I would have expected someone who thinks removing half the F1 season from the BBC to come up with. Far better use of the Sport Depts money.

  • Comment number 29.

    As I said in another post, I was director of sport when we acquired Formula 1 - so I fully get the value of the sport, and the strength of feeling. But unfortunately we're now in much tougher financial circumstances, as Barbara Slater and Ben Gallop have explained.

    Just to be clear about the Torch: a lot of our coverage will be in the form of video for this website, and the total cost is likely to be a tiny fraction of one our major rights contracts.

  • Comment number 30.

    "Just to be clear about the Torch: a lot of our coverage will be in the form of video for this website, and the total cost is likely to be a tiny fraction of one our major rights contracts."

    How much cost exactly?

    Can you equate that into F1 races?

    My guess is at least 2 full live FTA races.

  • Comment number 31.

    Hi Roger,
    Firstly a big thank you for actually addressing us and our points.

    You say you get the strength of feeling, but you just repeat the "tough times" line which we have heard before from Ben Gallop and Barbara Slater before they disappeared.

    We all understand that money had to be saved and a decision had to be made. We are not unrealistic, don't forget we are now in a financial quandry ourselves about whether or not to pay for F1 coverage. We all understand that live F1 coverage is very expensive and we even understand that to have pulled out completely would have incurred huge financial penalties on the BBC.

    What we don't understand, and what the majority of us have been asking for for days on the various blogs, is why given the BBC had to share coverage with another broadcaster and CH4/5 had considered bidding for the rights to coverage, a deal could not have been done with either of them rather than bringing SKY to Ecclestone yourselves and shutting out the terrestrial competition to the detrement of your own licence fee payers? I appreciate this wasn't done by you personally but I am trying to get across the exact point we are trying to make so it is clear and you can address it properly.

    Surely the BBC's remit is to act in the best interest of the viewer, and given the tough financial circumstances we all find ourselves in, lumbering the F1 fan with a £600 annual bill for full live coverage (and I know you won't use the argument that half a season on the BBC is sufficient for an F1 fan as you have just said that you fully get the value of the sport in your above post) rather than seeking an alternative arrangement whereby the F1 fan could have enjoyed full free to air coverage seems only to be self serving and certainly not what any fan wanted. In the viewer's eyes this arrangement seems to have been made with both eyes firmly on keeping your jobs rather than what is in the best interest of the license fee payer. Perhaps this is not the case, but the silence and censorship of our questions only adds to our suspicions.

    Yes the BBC covered the sport really well but given a choice between paying Murdoch and a few ad breaks on CH4/5 we know what we would have taken.

    It is this question that is the burning issue, along with the way the BBC has dealt (or not) with the thousands of complaints, censored our reaction by closing its blogs and stonewalled us or fobbed us off with arrogant and inadequate responses.

    Please could you or someone at BBC Sport actually answer these questions?

  • Comment number 32.

    alos in addition to #31 , what is the cost differnce to showing the full defferd race as apose to the highlights , including the air time costs , costs to sky/cvc & prodution costs?

  • Comment number 33.

    I am yet another angry F1 fan who is sick of stock answers and the BBC'S wall of silence. I would also like to know if anyone has called the police yet as both Ben (skyboy) Gallop and Barbera (sell it all) Slater seem to have gone missing!

  • Comment number 34.

    I would like to agree with the abve and to say thank you for responding to comments. The current wall of silence by the people on the F1 pages has been intensely frustrating. I will also add that my voice to the questions from SayNoTaSilva and others.

  • Comment number 35.

    Probably the F1 agreement with Sky and FOM is already signed. Please, could you make sure that we at least get to see full reruns of all races and not highlights programs.

    And thanks for being brave enough to discuss F1 in regards to Channel4 option, the fines, the impact on Olympics etc with us.

  • Comment number 36.

    Hello Roger. On behalf of all of the 10,000 plus contributors I would like to apologise for your blogs becoming closed to comments in the next day or so.
    Also, thank you for actually responding to comments, you cannot believe how small a minority you are in. Thanks. Also, I am one of the people who feels VERY, VERY poorly served by the BBC's treachery in selling the best jewel in the business.

  • Comment number 37.

    Wow, I even received an email from Mr Mosey. So different from the standard "spin" replies we received from the proxy for Mr Gallop, called Neil Land.

  • Comment number 38.

    Another voice( probably in the wilderness) to continue the moan about the F1. It is a disgrace and the BBC will regret betraying millions of F1 fans.The coverage of F1 has been fantastic and the viewing figures must show how successful the show is. So what do you do? You sell out. I have zero interest in the Olympics, I hate football and all the useless reality bilge that is screened. I watch two things on BBC- Have I got News for You and the F1 coverage. I have already decided that I will not watch any F1 next year. I sincerely hope that the viewing figures will collapse and that FOTA will perhaps realise that something needs to be done- maybe a breakaway series out of the clutches of Mr Ecclestone but until then, F1 will cease to exist for me. I cannot tell you how painful this is for me after viewing for 34 years but I am so incensed. In fact I am not even sure I want to watch any more races- especially painful as I love Spa. I am cutting off my nose to spite my face I realise and some may say that I show disrespect to the current F1 coverage team. If so then I regret that. Jake, Martin & co have done a great job but there is no way I will buy Sky Sports subscription and I refuse to be a second class citizen and watch the highlights that the BBC decide I can see.If I do boycott the remaining coverage then that will make no difference but I have come to despise the BBC management.

  • Comment number 39.

    Can we just get a grip of reality here. Yes, Mr. Mosey has responded - and that is because we are angry F1 fans on his shiny new flagship 2012 Olympic blog so it is always going to be in his interest to respond when Slater/Gallop haven't - and to move us along now (a la Dixon of DG). But - and this is a big but - he really doesn't say anything except to say that he has said something about costs.

    Stop giving jollies to thousands of people to hundreds of events at our expense. If big business wants in then let them pay. Stop wasting money on 2 people reporting the news when we get half a sentence from each - although I guess that's where the idea with Sky came from. Stop sending a hundred people to cover one event for several BBC outlets when you could share the commentary - YOU ALL WORK FOR THE SAME COMPANY.

  • Comment number 40.

    Ah, the BBC losing F1. That's the reason for the riots then!

    Please F1 fans though can you show some respect for fellow posters and not flood off-topic blogs with comments. It's a shame the main blog had to close, but unsurprising considering the volume of comments - it's easy for the BBC to engage in conversation with us when it's a few dozen comments - but in the thousands it's almost impossible to have a meaningful discussion.

    Funny too how the people moaning about the licence fee and saying it should be less than £100 can't connect the fact that the reason the BBC is losing F1 is because of a freeze/real-term cut in the licence fee. Unfortunately though being politically neutral, despite what some might think, it's difficult for the BBC to come out and put the blame on the real people behind the cuts - the Government.

    The only question I think the BBC have to answer is when sharing rights with Sky do they bid independently of each other or together, as obviously a joint BBC/Sky bid which wins over a completely FTA bid from ITV for example isn't really in the nations interests.


    Back vaguely on topic and lets just hope this weeks events will be a distant memory come July 27th as unfortunately at the moment the threat of uncontrolled terror from within is far more terrifying than the threat of pre-meditated terror from outsiders. Unfortunately though now for the next few months at least the Olympics and riots will almost always be mentioned in the same breath.

  • Comment number 41.

    Dear Roger,

    I fully understand you when you say "I was director of sport when we acquired Formula 1 - so I fully get the value of the sport, and the strength of feeling"

    Does it not annoy you a little that the seed you have planted within the BBC such as THIS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzAQCdwEfQM is gone forever?

    You have commissioned WORLD CLASS BBC sporting coverage, and we're being told that this is gone now in favour of the Grand National and Wimbledon?

    Please Roger tell me that this isn't so?..

  • Comment number 42.

    bbc got rid of f1 to sky to stop ch4 from bidding on rights next year, it has nothing to do with cuts.
    the fee has been frozen and auntie spat her dummy out
    remember FROZEN not reduced
    they still get the same funding so why are they making cuts?
    why if they are making cuts are they spending £900 million on a new salford HQ?
    why did they get the rights to womens football and golf over f1?

  • Comment number 43.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 44.

    Sorry, meant to say...
    The real problem that we have is the 'you cannot complain about our actions or question our decision' attitude we are facing.

  • Comment number 45.

    @ brekkie

    This blog is about how the BBC is justifying its budget for 2012, since it has already come up that the BBC is facing cuts and other financial pressures it is legitimate for fans to ask how the budget for the games and all the other add onns has effected the funding for other sports people are now set to miss.

    You may not be able to have a conversation with thousands of comments, however when thousands of people have taken the time to comment how can the BBC justify not responding in any way? Whether you are on a blog with a few comments or many you should expect that the BBC would answer issues you have with their coverage.

    This blog had almost no contributions for the better part of a week before some F1 fans posted comments so I do not fear we are drowning out other opinions.

  • Comment number 46.

    it's easy for the BBC to engage in conversation with us when it's a few dozen comments - but in the thousands it's almost impossible to have a meaningful discussion.
    I disagree. How easy it would have been for the BBC to write a follow up blog where they replied to the questions asked by he 8400+ posters.

  • Comment number 47.

    @ Piet (46)

    How easy would it have been to write a follow-up blog? Probably not very easy at all. For example, the question about choosing to go with Sky to deny their rival Channel 4, thereby denying the licence-paying public the chance to continue watching free-to-air would not be an easy one to answer for a public service corporation.

    They already know that we will not be pacified with PR platitudes and the truth is ugly so, no, I don't think it would be easy for them to answer our questions at all.

    Thanks to this issue, I now see that the BBC is a law unto itself anyway; a public service in terms of funding only. Self-service is what we get and how dare we complain about it? Go away, little people and just be grateful for the highlights.

  • Comment number 48.

    bbc could have shared with ch4/ch5
    but they went straight to pay per view sky
    they need to answer why they did that
    ch4 is a self funded public broadcaster, but it is still public just like the bbc
    they could have run f1 with or without the bbc
    the bbc think we would prefer to pay sky for ad free f1, we dont
    we would prefer it free to air even if it had ad breaks

    sky wont be happy after they see the viewing figures after the first few races
    chances are they will drop it like they did last time

  • Comment number 49.

    @brekkie ''The only question I think the BBC have to answer is when sharing rights with Sky do they bid independently of each other or together, as obviously a joint BBC/Sky bid which wins over a completely FTA bid from ITV for example isn't really in the nations interests.''

    You have just answered your own question.... the BBC brought SKY to Bernie Eccleston with the deal, this is the main thing all us (10,000+) F1 fans are so upset about along with now a total blank from not just the most comments the BBC have ever had on any topic, complaints to every department people can get the email address for, systematically shutting down blogs day after day (they still haven't got rid of us!!) ...

    It's not acceptable to ignore your customers ... any other large organisation would be getting slated for this type of treatment.

    We just want the points in @31 (very well put) answered and some sort of discussion to take place.

  • Comment number 50.

    The BBC Trust's own report showed that Formula 1 was their best performing sport.

    F1 Cost per Viewer Hour = Hit
    F1 Cost per Viewer = Hit
    F1 Actual Reach 54% = Hit
    F1 Actual Live Rating = Hit

    Other sports in the report:

    Euro 2008 Cost per Viewer Hour = Miss
    Euro 2008 Actual Reach 35.2% = N/A
    Olympics 2008 Cost per Viewer Hour = Miss
    Olympics 2008 Actual Reach 42% = Miss
    Olympics 2008 live Rating = Miss
    Open Golf 2009 Cost per Viewer Hour = Miss
    Open Golf 2009 live Rating = Miss
    Snooker 2009 Cost per Viewer Hour = Miss
    Snooker 2009 live Rating = Miss

    Strange then that they should protect poorly performing sports, and drop (if only partially) their most successful.

    But then they did need to find £22 million for a karaoke show.

  • Comment number 51.

    Brekkie. The BBC didn't lose F1 - they gave it away, and we're not flooding this blog we're simply trying to retain a voice on the BBC. I should have thought also that the volume of comments on the closed blogs point to the absolute passion felt by F1 fans.

    There is not one shred of justification that can be offered by the BBC for their actions. It is a purely selfish and wanton act on their part without even the slightest regard for the fans. It is entirely possible that the championship deciding race will not be one of those shown by the BBC - so just how ridiculous is that!

  • Comment number 52.

    @50
    "Strange then that they should protect poorly performing sports, and drop (if only partially) their most successful.

    But then they did need to find £22 million for a karaoke show."


    A newer Version of "Fame Academy" & it will probably last just as long!!!!!

  • Comment number 53.

    Dear Roger,

    Perhaps you would explain the rationale behind the closing of blogs by the BBC.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/rogermosey/2011/07/year_to_go_landmark_approaches.html. This was opened on 12 July and closed on 3 August - when a couple of F1 comments were made.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/sporteditors/2010/09/womens_football_returns_to_the.html. This one was opened on 10 September 2010 and closed on 8 August 2011 after complaints about the Sky deal for Formula 1 were posted.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jakehumphrey/2010/09/what_its_like_being_an_f1_pres.html. This was opened on 27 September 2010 and closed on 8 August after complaints about the Sky deal were posted.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jakehumphrey/2011/08/looking_forward_to_a_rare_brea.html. This was opened on 1 August and closed on 7th, after 1382 comments.

    And this was opened specifically to address the concerns and complaints of Formula 1 fans and closed after only 7 days, but not before 8415 people had complained.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/sporteditors/2011/07/f1_coverage_to_be_shared_betwe.html. There was also a parting comment on this blog to the effect that it had been kept open longer than usual because of the high number of comments.

    Given the disparity of all the above your comments would be much appreciated.

    Thank you.

  • Comment number 54.

    Firstly - thank you Roger, for sticking your head above the parapet. I wish your colleagues had your backbone and sense of responsibility. It is much appreciated.

    Brekkie - We (the F1 fans) are absolutely furious for a number of reasons:

    1) The BBC appear to have acted AGAINST the interests of the viewing public, by ensuring that anyone who follows the sport will have to buy a Sky subscriptin to follow it. To do this, they have spent licence-payers money. How on earth can that be justified?

    2) The BBC are actively censoring any negative comment on the deal. Blog after blog has been closed for comments. The comments which have already been posted have been ignored. Is this acceptable behaviour from a publicly-funded organisation?

    3) The BBC are constantly reminging us how cash-strapped they are. Yet they find £900m for a pointless move to Salford (to make the BBC less London-centric). Presumably this means they employ staff who are so stupid that they have to be physically moved from London to realise that they should provide coverage of areas outside of London? They also seem to find plenty pf money for sports such as snooker, darts, women's football, horse racing, tennis, etc, etc - none of which are nearly as popular as F1

    4) It would appear that the BBC actively approached BSB in order to make a deal with Bernie possible. this means that they were doing their utmost to ensure that F1 remained on the BBC, and in so doing ensured that viewers would lose 50% of FTA coverage as a result. Why did they not approach ITV, C4 or C5 instead and thereby ensure that 100% of coverage could remain FTA? Is the BBC's remit to ensure that the interests of the BBC are paramount, or the interests of the viewing public are paramount?

    We will see massive amounts of money spent on the Olympics by the BBC next year. So far, the BBC have not seen fit to confirm what the budgets are for this coverage (conveniently), despite it being OUR money. Therefore, it becomes difficult to make the argument that the additional amount of money which would have been required to secure F1 for years could have been found from existing BBC Sport budgets by making a small reduction in the (already) over-the-top Olympic coverage.

    We have no other outlet on the BBC now, since they have seen fit to close every pther blog related to sport. They are avoiding the questions instead of answering them. That is why this blog has been "hijacked". Apologies to anyone who would like this to be about Olympic coverage only, but F1 coverage and Olympic coverage are inextricably linked as the BBC cannot (allegedly) do both. We want answers. We deserve answers. We are entitled to answers. And we will continue to demand answers until the BBC provide them. This will not go away.

  • Comment number 55.

    Here, here!

  • Comment number 56.

    A few quick thoughts from me.

    Everyone is entitled to raise points, though Brekkie in #40 - not for the first time - makes a lot of sense too.

    But on the licence fee: it is frozen, yes. But in real terms that adds up to a cut of about 16% over the coming years when you factor in inflation. We pay utility bills etc too. I'm no longer in BBC Sport but I can testify that the financial climate they're facing is much, much tougher than when I ran it 2005-9.

    On BBCsoldoutF1's question in #30: the answer is significantly less than that. But even if it were two races, it would be two races in 2012 alone. The new F1 deal goes forward 7 years, so the one-off impact of the Olympics isn't a factor in budgets beyond next year. And, as I've said, we'll publish our overall numbers during 2012.

  • Comment number 57.

    Roger, thanks for allowing a discussion on your blog.

    However, you have not addressed any of the points in my last post (31)

    Please could you read it and either you or someone else answer those points?

    Thanks.

  • Comment number 58.

    2009-2010
    bbc outgoings 3.7 billion
    bbc incommings 4.7 billion

    yes the bbc is poor lol
    900 million on a new office in salford
    80 million for bbc4
    112 million for radio 4
    22 million for poor mans version of xfactor
    bbc had loads of other areas to make cuts, not that they need to make cuts

    they did this deal to stop ch4 from taking 7+ million viewers away from the bbc on race weekends
    bbc should get a reduction in the fee seeing as they no longer have a major sport on their channels

  • Comment number 59.

    I don't have a problem with the Olympic budget, per se, it's a great event for sports fans and I'm looking forward to it. I did complain some months ago that the torch wouldn't be specifically passing through the "homes" of the mascots - particularly Much Wenlock - which is so signifcant to the modern olympics - but received the usual brush off. I do hope, however, that the money is spent on proper coverage of ALL events rather than paying large salaries to "names" who know nothing and just sit on a sofa for 2 weeks.

    Thank you Roger, for your broad thoughts on F1. However, any argument for the BBC's action being related to cuts is always going to fail. If the budget is tight then relinquishing F1 to another FTA broadcaster would have been the right thing to do. Giving us half a season for the next seven years will kill the sport long before this particular contract runs out.

  • Comment number 60.

    The end of the BBC and Formula 1 as we know it, shame on you both for the decision and the subsequent censorship taking place on your blogs

  • Comment number 61.

    The second paragraph in Zebbers' post 59 is what we all want to know the answer to or have a decent explaination of at the very least. This is what we were all intially so annoyed about before the debate widened because of the BBC's handling of the complaints and censorship of our views on their blogs.

  • Comment number 62.

    We all know cuts have to be made, but that does not mean to cut a championship in halve. If cuts had to be made within the F1 programming (you can choose not to) than it was better to stop F1 on BBC altogether and have a full championship on Channel 4 Free-to-Air.

  • Comment number 63.

    The censoring of comments is a despicable act by an supposedly respected organisation like the BBC. The fact that we directly fund it makes it even worse. Jumping into bed with an organisation such as Sky in (what appears to be) a crude attempt to stop any FTA channels bidding for the rights ( and in effect misappropriating the licence fee in doing so) will hopefully mark the end of the BBC in it's current guise.

  • Comment number 64.

    58 you're forgetting the women's football and the bowls. Maybe the BBC could show a revival of "Indoor League"?

  • Comment number 65.

    Run these numbers!! how much is tonights programing on BBC3 & BBC4 costing? as only 2 shows are NOT repeats

  • Comment number 66.

    Brekkie. Surely the BBC should be answering questions asked by a large number of people, rather than a few? Given the fact that other logs have been shut down by the censors, we are left posting on blogs like this one. Our questions are just as relevant here though. The Olympics (beyond athletics and a few other events) are of little interest to a lot of people. Why spend huge amounts televising it if cuts need to be made? I just don't understand why the BBC would take it's most popular product and hand it over to Murdoch, it just smacks of cluelessness!

  • Comment number 67.

    "On BBCsoldoutF1's question in #30: the answer is significantly less than that. But even if it were two races, it would be two races in 2012 alone. The new F1 deal goes forward 7 years, so the one-off impact of the Olympics isn't a factor in budgets beyond next year. And, as I've said, we'll publish our overall numbers during 2012."

    Roger, until we see the costs I will have to take what you say as true, however sending a team to cover the Olympic torch on every step of it's journey is madness. You could have easily covered a few milestones of the journey and people would be happy. It is the LONDON games after all so why is it going on such a journey?

    Regarding the F1 deal 'going forwards 7 years' it isn't! F1 has now gone backwards 7 years in terms of coverage. It would have been better to dump F1 completely from the BBC and let C4/C5 take over, at least then we would see every race on FTA!

    Once more point, if getting even one extra race this year meant not watching a silly torch run round the UK it would have been worth it!

    I'm so ashamed of the way the BBC is handling this!

  • Comment number 68.

    if they want to follow the torch fit it with a webcam
    no need to send a news crew around with it

    webcam would give a better view too

  • Comment number 69.

    @62 Piet Boon and @67 BBCsoldoutF1 (third paragraph)

    I think to pull out entirely from their contract (i.e. terminate it early) would have cost the BBC a giant breach of contract fee - I am sure Bernie had that one sewn up a treat. So, given that their only way to save money on F1 was actually to show SOME of the races, the question remains why did they bring Sky in and not CH4/5 who had shown some interest in acquiring the rights?

    The only logical answer appears to be that CH4/5 are direct terrestrial competitors to the BBC and the BBC didn't want to let either get a foot in the door, for their own reasons. These reasons go directly against what is in the best interest of the licence-fee payer and viewer, and should be looked into and questioned appropriately by the people that pay for them to exist, i.e. us. This very question is the one the BBC are trying to avoid and censor us from asking on the other blogs.

    As it stands we are still waiting for a satisfactory acknowledgement of the fact that this question has even been asked, let alone a decent answer. I suspect this is because they know we have already worked out the answer.

    The additional question of whether or not they should ever have signed such an ambitious 5 year deal if there was a good chance they would have to breach their contract or change it to the detriment of everyone but Sky and themselves, is another matter and one that perhaps Roger is best placed to answer given that he has said he was in charge at the time of signing.

  • Comment number 70.

    Just to say how much I agree with all the previous posters' criticism of the BBC's secrecy and censorship regarding its deal with Sky to remove half of the F1 races from FTA broadcasting.

    I have had the honour to have had one of my previous posts removed on a different blog (closure of the daily sports bulleting) after almost a full day of consideration. No clear idea why (certainly was not for naughty words) but it seems to have been because it might offend Barbara Slater the well known missing Director of Sport or her accomplice (sorry, colleague) Ben Gallop.

    So if you want to make sure your comments appear include some praise of Barbara Slater.

    For my part I believe she did a very good job for Britain in the 19... whatever Olympics. She is undoubtedly also doing a very good job now. I am sure the understandable secrecy in which she is obliged to operate (for reasons too secret to let anyone know) mean she cannot communicate in any way with licence payers beyond puerile banalities - sorry, I mean beyond useful information - and, if she goes on holiday, makes it necessary for anyone else privy to her secrets to be absent too.

    There is therefore a completely reasonable explanation for the BBC ignoring the thousands of complaints and critical comments it has received. (hope this is OK for the moderators)



    Do you really want to see all the F1 races? I am sure Ms Slater knows best and half will be preferable to any appearing on Channel 4 or, even worse, 5.

  • Comment number 71.

    The BBC approached Sky over the F1 deal.
    The reason was to scupper the Free to Air bid from Channel 4

    C4 were ready, offered £45 million for exclusive rights and had even commissioned the design pitch ...

    http://www.graphicalhouse.co.uk/#/projects/channel-4

    F1 The Power and the Glory ... Exclusive to Channel 4

  • Comment number 72.

    Well our moderators saw fit to cut my post so I'll try again without any reference to 'Certain parties'... Lets see if that is what upset them.

    Brekkie, since this debacle began I have read thousands of comments from people (over 8000 on Ben Gallops blog alone!) and I cannot recall reading one single moan about reducing the licence fee. In fact many have stated that they would rather pay more to the BBC than pay money to 'very nice people' like the Murdoch's to watch award winning television.
    The real problem that we have is the 'you cannot complain about our actions or question our decision' attitude we are facing..
    As I have said before on several other blogs, why can you not show the whole races delayed on BBC4? By doing that you will not only largely appease all of us, but you will astronomically increase the viewership on that channel. Surely it won't hurt to replace three hours of the current offerings with BAFTA winning, staggeringly high quality, multi-million viewer excitement?
    Surely it is a no-brainer?

  • Comment number 73.

    @71

    The BBC continue to try to pull the wool over licence-fee payers eyes while we can see for ourselves in the light of this evidence how to them anything was better than CH4 having coverage rights, even this outpouring of negativity which they are trying to suppress.

    What possible reason could they have for being so anti the CH4 bid? As far as I can see it can only have been to safeguard their own jobs, which I suppose is human nature. Whether or not it desirable to have a public service broadcaster stifling competition and colluding with the Murdoch empire in this way is definately a debate worth having.

    Lets wait to see what Roger has to say on this, however, before we condemn everyone working at the BBC.....

  • Comment number 74.

    Well, I was going to post the BBC4 schedule for the Spa subday, but it would appear that the BBC haven't actually worked out what they are going to be showing yet so here is the schedule for the 14th:
    19:00–20:10
    BBC Proms
    2011, Kathryn Tickell and Friends
    Northumbrian smallpiper Kathryn Tickell and friends celebrate the music of Percy Grainger.
    20:10–21:10
    Come Clog Dancing: Treasures of English Folk Dance
    Charles Hazlewood plans to stage a mass flashmob clog dance in Newcastle city centre. (R)
    21:10–22:20
    Mid-August Lunch
    A middle-aged man looks after his mother and three other women during a summer holiday.
    22:20–23:20
    Carluccio and the Leopard
    Antonio Carluccio travels to Sicily to discover more about Lampedusa's novel The Leopard. (R)
    23:20–00:20
    Time Shift
    Series 10, Italian Noir: The Story of Italian Crime Fiction
    5/9. The new wave of Italian crime fiction, full of corruption, unsolved murders and the mafia.(R)

    00:20–01:30
    Glastonbury
    2011, Beyonce
    Highlights of Beyonce's performance on Glastonbury's Pyramid Stage in June. (R)
    01:30–02:20
    Glastonbury
    2011, Janelle Monae
    Highlights from Janelle Monae's set on the West Holts Stage at the Glastonbury Festival. (R)
    02:20–03:30
    BBC Proms
    2011, Kathryn Tickell and Friends
    Northumbrian smallpiper Kathryn Tickell and friends celebrate the music of Percy Grainger. (R)

    Obviously all of the (R)'s are repeats. Can you really not show us the full rerun of the race instead of highlights?

  • Comment number 75.

    dont forget people ch4 is also a public broadcaster just like the bbc

    the bbc should fight with itv/ch5 for rights
    but with ch4 they should co-operate
    as far as i know ch4 is the ONLY other broadcaster to have funds from the license fee
    not for programmes for the digital switch over
    we need to see what all the MPs are going to say when government starts up
    we need to see if ofcomm thinks the deal is dodgy too

  • Comment number 76.

    Actually, I might have to rethink this, 'Come Clog Dancing' sounds really exciting!

  • Comment number 77.

    http://www.graphicalhouse.co.uk/#/projects/channel-4

    Looks awesome!

    Shame on you BBC!!!!

  • Comment number 78.

    I have seen written somewhere that Bernie said he considered C4 but they wouldn't be ready for 2012 season.... how true I don't know. It would beg the question if that was the case why a deal could still not be done with BBC to help them get ready in time.
    As has been said above the issues are the fact that the BBC brought SKY in and facilitated a way round the current Concorde agreement regarding terrestrial TV coverage (not sure that's spelt right but saves using free to air which is being misconstrued!?) and following that the total blanking of all comments and complaints and now seeming censorship of the license paying public.
    It's not acceptable for the BBC to treat it's customers in this way.

  • Comment number 79.

    C4 were planning extensive coverage, technical and engineering programme offshoots for the avid F1 fan ... While it seems Sky/BBC are set to dumb down the coverage.

  • Comment number 80.

    ch4 was bidding for 2013 season onwards
    bbc had rights till end of 2012
    bbc bought rights till 2018 then sold the exclusive part of rights to sky

  • Comment number 81.

    Mr Mosey,

    I'm afraid no words can explain the BBC's actions. Feel completely betrayed...

    http://www.graphicalhouse.co.uk/#/projects/channel-4

  • Comment number 82.

    I would just like to Roger Mosey for being the first BBC exec not to totally ignore us and to at least to try and answer some of the questions. I have to say that after seeing the Channel 4 document i am even angrier, i just cannot understand why the BBC was so anxious to join forces with Sky. Im very sad to say that this whole affair stinks of corruption and the guilty parties have gone into hiding!

  • Comment number 83.

    Sorry everyone i would just like to THANK Roger Mosey, seems to have missed a word out in the post above!

  • Comment number 84.

    I cannot believe what I am seeing!!! Channel 4 not only seem to have made a bid but put a lot of effort into the entire process, in response the BBC decide that INSTEAD of free to air TV coverage of all the races, it is a better deal for the licence fee payer to only see half of the races.

    This has gotten me incredibly angry with the BBC and Formula One Management, definately giving up on the sport at the end of the year unless something changes now and giving up on trusting anything the BBC say ever again.

  • Comment number 85.

    Just got this info from the facebook page:

    Ben Gallop will be on radiolemans on Wednesday at 8pm.We've got to get people to get questions in now you need to register
    radiolemans.com
    www.radiolemans.com

    so maybe he's not on holiday after all?

  • Comment number 86.

    a tie up with CH4 would have been great , what nonsense that they wouldnt be ready for 1012. the comentery could have been the same set up as sky & bbc have arranged for 2012 (MB&DC). so that wouldnt have been a problem , not sure how long the prodution team would take to arrange shows. flights dont take long to book , im sure if bernie/cvc/fom/fota & BBC wanted to keep it FTA there would have been no mountian not moved .The only bennifit to f1 is sky have very deep pockets & it would be much easyer to squeeze in the future for more revenue if sponsors start pulling out of the back running teams, because of lower viewing figures as veiwers may not have taken to a CH4 prodution, at least if veiwing drops in the uk sky maybe able to take up the slack & subsidise the smaller teams, lol

  • Comment number 87.

    Looking at the C4 document and comparing it to the single figure IQ stuff that was dished out on the Sky/Tony Jardine interview that we all also saw I have to say that I am completely disgusted with the BBC now. I suggest that we send links to both to each of the F1 teams and ask them if they think that this deal is a good idea. Particularly Adam Parr.
    Sorry Roger, would you care to comment on this?
    For reference here are the two approaches:
    http://www.graphicalhouse.co.uk/#/projects/channel-4
    http://www.skysports.com/video/inline/0,,12870_7067060,00.html

  • Comment number 88.

    I am as depressed as anyone about the simplistic and banale approach Sky is bound to take compared to what we could have had with CH4 but I am sure Roger is unlikely to comment on this specifically. If bombarded with too many different questions he will be able to avoid the main issue, which I am sure will be convenient.

    What we really want to know is, Roger, what could possibly be better for the viewer about the current deal than having the whole season live on terrestrial television of any channel?

  • Comment number 89.

    Just sent this to McLaren............

    Mr Whitmarsh,

    I don’t know how aware you are of the enormous reaction to the BBC/BSkyB announcement that is currently plaguing the BBC blogs at the moment, but one announcing how good this would be for the Formula 1 fans was swamped with over 8500 comments in seven days overwhelmingly condemning the deal, the way it has been handled, the disappearance of those responsible and the lack of response to those comments. Remember this is previously avid supporters of all things BBC who are contributing to this negative feedback and this response has prompted the BBC to close off the blog as ‘no longer topical’, probably in record time. This has now prompted your fans (and customers) to chase around the BBC’s blog community finding blogs to comment on and the BBC shutting them down after a few F1 Comments arrive. Jake Humphrey’s blogs are now all closed for comments, we even tried the Women’s football world cup blog but they shut that one down too! (and I'm not joking)

    If this is all news to you, and I do understand that you are all taking a VERY well earned break, please can you delegate someone to have a look at the BBC blog in question (Please do not do it yourself, you have enough on your plate finding those three or four (or five?) tenths for Lewis and Jenson). For convenience here is a link:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/sporteditors/2011/07/f1_coverage_to_be_shared_betwe.html

    The main bones of contention are pretty clear, largely very well articulated and pretty much in accord. Personally, despite completely accepting the global financial situation there are two points that I am deeply angered about (yes, I do love Motorsport that much. Always have and always will).

    The first is that despite being able to broadcast the entire race ‘as live’ but delayed, the BBC would appear to be only offering us ‘extended’ highlights (would YOU want to only see extended highlights?) of half of the races.

    The second is that it is BSkyB that is the primary broadcaster. Forget the pay TV aspect. If it was worth it I would find the extra money from somewhere in my budget as I want my children to experience formula 1 as I did when I was their age watching Jim Clarke and Co, but the vast gulf between what we might have got from the BBC or certain other terrestrial channels compared to what we can expect to get from Sky is, quite frankly, scary. The phrase ‘dumbing down’ doesn’t even begin to describe it.

    Can I please refer you to the two links below which show the two sides of the coin:

    http://www.graphicalhouse.co.uk/#/projects/channel-4

    http://www.skysports.com/video/inline/0,,12870_7067060,00.html

    I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions...............

    Finally, all the very best of luck to you all for the rest of the season. Ok, the constructors championship may be a bit optimistic, but one of the guys could still get the Drivers. I’ll be rooting for them and you all for the rest of the season!

    Thanks for reading this.

    Regards,

  • Comment number 90.

    Mr Mosey,

    Interesting to hear that the Head of Olympics does not work for BBC Sports

  • Comment number 91.

    SsebGF1 in #87, SayNoToSilva in #88 and others: just to say I obviously can't get into a long argument about F1 here because it's no longer part of my remit - though I'm happy, as I've done in earlier posts, to confirm the very tough financial backdrop against which the BBC is making decisions.

    But primarily I'm accountable for the BBC's London 2012 activity, and this blog exists so that people can question and debate that. Issues for BBC Sport need to go through their accountability and complaints procedures, which I know many of you have been using already.

  • Comment number 92.

    @91 Roger Mosey.

    We understand that you are accountable for London 2012, and that your blog exists so that people can question and debate that. Ben Gallop is responsible for the Formula 1 decision, his blog exists so that we can question and debate that, and debate we tried at 8500 comments with no response from Ben.

    His blog has now been closed, hence why we are reduced to trying to get answers (blood) from the BBC (stone) in other blogs.

    I suggest the BBC reopens Ben's blog, and Ben answers the questions.

  • Comment number 93.

    Complaints to the BBC are handled by the department the complaint is made to, so the people we complain about in the first place. So you must understand that undermentionrmed standard reply has made things worse. Because it does not deal with the real complaint made, but they simply repeat the original message we complaint about.

    The BBC's response

    We know that Formula 1 has an extremely passionate following in the UK and that some fans will be disappointed that not all races will be available exclusively live on the BBC from next season.
    We are operating in a very tough financial climate and in common with all areas of the BBC, BBC Sport is having to make significant cost savings over the next few years in order to operate within the constraints of the licence fee settlement, therefore we have to make some difficult choices.
    We believe this deal represents good value for money for licence fee payers. We retain live coverage of half of the race weekends and we will have extended highlights of the remaining races so we are pleased that all of the key action from Formula 1 for the next seven seasons will remain on BBC television. Online coverage of the race weekends that we broadcast will remain the same, and we will carry all the news and reports from the rest of the season. Radio coverage will not change whilst the most popular races - the British Grand Prix, the Monaco Grand Prix and the final race of the season will continue to be broadcast live on BBC One.

  • Comment number 94.

    @Roger Mosey - BBC Director, London 2012

    I'm sure you are aware, and if not you should make yourself aware, that the BBC complaints department(s) are not responding to complaints, they simply send out an auto-reply no matter what issue is being brought to their attention.

  • Comment number 95.

    It seems Channel 4 were going to show GP2, and maybe GP3 too.

    The BBC paid for GP2 but never showed it.

    The Channel 4 bid looks better by the day, adverts aside, it looks like UK F1 fans were robbed of the best coverage of Race Weekend action ever to be shown on UK FTA TV

  • Comment number 96.

    Where it says online covarage remains the same , does that mean the driver tracker will still be avalible along with the in-car view? if it does then i am extreemly happy as i can watch a live on-line euro stream , have 5 live on, have my in car & driver tracker . only thing i will be missin is the awsome show from jake DC & Eddie & the brilliant Comentry from MB & DC!! can we confirm all on-line covarage will be the same barr the BBC 1 covarage that usaully acompanys the content

  • Comment number 97.

    @barskie as far as I understood their standard reply, online coverage will remain the same only for those 10 races broadcast by the BBC

  • Comment number 98.

    Hello Roger

    It's good to see someone at the BBC cares enough to read our comments on F1 without shutting down one blog after another in an effort to supress our freedom of expression.

    I've just seen the Channel 4 bid documents.

    It is evident the BBC weren't thinking about the fans, they were thinking of themselves and their own sports portfolio.

    The BBC doesn't care about F1 fans/viewers at all, does it?

    As I said on Murray Walker's blog, I have now written to my MP again to bring his attention to this new information.

  • Comment number 99.

    ahh ! i see , i that case... BBC cant then dictate that this deal represents the best for licence fee payers! if i had said it i would be called a lier. how could costing an aditional £600 be best for any one of the licence fee payers, could any one from the BBC disect the statement a explain it in detail?
    We know that Formula 1 has an extremely passionate following in the UK and that some fans will be disappointed that not all races will be available exclusively live on the BBC from next season.
    They got that rite!
    We are operating in a very tough financial climate and in common with all areas of the BBC
    so is all of the working class of the uk , so we understand this!
    BBC Sport is having to make significant cost savings over the next few years in order to operate within the constraints of the licence fee settlement, therefore we have to make some difficult choices.
    ok i understand that , but why cripple your flagship sports show!
    We believe this deal represents good value for money for licence fee payers. We retain live coverage of half of the race weekends and we will have extended highlights of the remaining races
    How gullable do u have to be to belive that? how could that be better value that a tie up with CH4?
    lol post just came , my non sky didgit supller offerd sky sports for 75p a day wow, i want it for 10 days , but i got to pay for the other 355days i wont be using it , soooo unhappy

  • Comment number 100.

    Roger,
    We appreciate the fact that at least you are answering us, even if you are unable to address our specific questions about the F1 coverage deal. Unfortunately, or conveniently, depending on how you look at it, the BBC closed avenues of access to the people who could address our questions, and you are the only access point.

    You are obviously aware that we have all complained using the complaints system. Many of us are at the Neil Land Salford snail mail stage and are awaiting a response from him in the post to our complaints.

    There is no need to repeat the instructions about how to complain. There is no need to repeat the financial climate line either. We know about all this - this deal will cost me £600 x 7 years as it stands. That's £4200 to watch F1.

    We still need someone from the BBC to acknowledge that a deal could have been done with a terrestrial provider and that would have been in the best interests of the licence-fee payers rather than yourselves.

    Until we have a dialogue about the actual issues we are upset about and with someone who can actually discuss them with us properly, we will continue to post on your blog and others.

    When Spa comes around it is only going to be much worse as the debate will include those who hadn't realised about this deal yet, and those who were deflected by your blog-closing censorship tactics. The post-race forum will be an unusual broadcast if we have to sit through an hour of the presenters ignoring the elephant in the room.

    If you cannot or will not engage with us on this issue then at the very least could you find someone who can?

 

Page 1 of 2

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.