|
Not a chance I will be paying!
|
Originally Posted by SirFozzalot
(Post 10159896)
Same sort of thing happened to WRC coverage this year, Dave had a bit of coverage, not a lot, but a bit. Now there is more coverage but it's only on ESPN which is a subscription channel :(
Haven't really seen any TV coverage of the WRC this year. :( |
Coverage isn't great though and timings don't always seem to be correct as I've found when setting sky+ and it misses half the programme.
I was looking forward to the live power stages on the last day that ESPN show. |
meh wrc is boring as all hell these days anyway
|
Not missing anything then :lol1:
|
Originally Posted by Funkii Munkii
(Post 10159677)
It will be interesting to see how many of the No's become yes's after a few weeks of abstinence.
|
Originally Posted by Daryl
(Post 10160120)
LOL at all the haters who claim they won't subscribe to Sky on principle - talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! :brickwall
Or is it really because you can't afford to subscribe? I thought everyone on here was rich, but it seems like lots of folk can't afford a measly 50 or 60 quid a month to watch the best sports coverage in the world. :lol1: |
|
Self bragging internet boycots.
About as much use as a fuel protest. I will not be paying, because i dont pay sky in the first place, utter ****e! |
Thinking about it, I could probably go without Valancia and probably both the middle eastern circuits. Singapore is only interesting because it's run in the evening and the teams have to cheat to make it an interesting race.
Canada, Spa, Silverstone, all the far east races (assuming it's raining) and the yank one to see how many people don't turn up. I'll probably watch them. Think the teams really need to be sure they won't lose out - they may get some money from Sky but the viewing figures will drop and if I were a sponsor I'd not be happy with my brand only being seen by half the amount of viewers I expected for the money I'd spent. I already pay Sly £43 a month (HD, multiroom and a couple of the packages). Plus my BBC license fee of £12. I think thats more than enough for TV viewing. |
The beginning of the end for F1.
|
The BBC is running out of money to pay their exhorbitant salaries as well as for their stars. They had to start making cuts somewhere and this is one of them.
They will continue to show old programmes or cheap ones which are of little interest and I imagine they will eventually drop live F1 completely, just showing highlights. Whatever anyone thinks of Murdoch and the like, Sky still gives the best overall coverage, especially of world wide sport and all in HD too. I think that if you want to see sport in general with the best coverage, then Sky is the best way and is not that expensive when you compare it to paying to attend sport fixtures. Les |
One point worth mentioning is large amounts of the money Sky paid each association for the football/Cricket/RL/RU goes back into the sport as prize money for the leagues and cups, monies to each club when their games are broadcast live and into grass roots of those sports mentioned, with F1 it goes nowhere other than F1M....
|
Yep, I'll pay :thumb:
|
Originally Posted by f1_fan
(Post 10161006)
Yep, I'll pay :thumb:
astraboy. |
i will miss it
|
Originally Posted by astraboy
(Post 10161011)
BAN HIM!
astraboy. |
Originally Posted by f1_fan
(Post 10161006)
Yep, I'll pay :thumb:
|
|
So you will pay because you think Sky will provide better coverage?
|
See other thread
|
Originally Posted by RA Dunk
(Post 10160168)
It's a matter of principal really, some of us have them ;)
|
Originally Posted by STi wanna Subaru
(Post 10161752)
All those saying No will eventually pay if they can. You'll find a way to justify it. Why should F1 which is possibly the most commercially influenced sport not be on a pay to view platform?
|
a few people on here are saying people on here just cant afford 50 or 60 pound a month for sky i dont have sky and i can afford it no problem but the only difference is ive got a life and go somewere nearly every nite and dont watch telly that often waste of time. yea the f1 is good but not 60 pound a month good that could pay some ones car insurance imo
|
My arse i will pay, i already give Sky a fortune for multi room, don't have sky sports as it bores me as only sport i watch was F1.
BBC1 were doing a sterling job too :( |
The highlights shows are fine for me, so nothing lost and no need to pay.
|
i think id rather cut my cock off and choke on it to be fair
|
Originally Posted by ad uk
(Post 10161811)
a few people on here are saying people on here just cant afford 50 or 60 pound a month for sky i dont have sky and i can afford it no problem but the only difference is ive got a life and go somewere nearly every nite and dont watch telly that often waste of time. yea the f1 is good but not 60 pound a month good that could pay some ones car insurance imo
Out every night? Good for you? How old are you? 19? |
Originally Posted by ad uk
(Post 10161811)
a few people on here are saying people on here just cant afford 50 or 60 pound a month for sky i dont have sky and i can afford it no problem but the only difference is ive got a life and go somewere nearly every nite and dont watch telly that often waste of time. yea the f1 is good but not 60 pound a month good that could pay some ones car insurance imo
Where do you get £60/month from?? And F1 is generally shown on a Sunday afternoon in case you had not noticed. Maybe you should save the £60 and spend it on some English literature lessons. Chip |
Originally Posted by STi wanna Subaru
(Post 10161795)
or on benefits.
They are the ones with the biggest Plasmas and pay £100 a month for sky and keep QVC going!:D I'm a sportaholic.Don't really watch anything now Sky has it.Cricket (my main gripe) football,etc.None of it Not being tight...all these sportspeople are overpaid.It's only flipping sport! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:47 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands