Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Forum rules
Please read the forum rules
Post Reply
HS Thompson
Posts: 1416
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:41 am

Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by HS Thompson »

CNBC is reporting that Formula One might be bought out by a US/Qatari based group of investors. Nothing confirmed but stories are appearing on the net now with more details.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102781874

User avatar
red_alert
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 6:58 am
Location: Australia

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by red_alert »

I just read this and was about to post something.

Here is another article, same info rewritten.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/motorsport ... 7412245403
Aussie :: Ricciardo

User avatar
Exediron
Posts: 8132
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by Exediron »

Yeah, it's all over the web so there's definitely something to it. Doesn't mean it'll happen though.

Honestly, new ownership can hardly be worse, especially if one of their goals is to weaken Bernie's grasp on the whole business. What's the worst that could happen? They just try and squeeze a profit out of it at the detriment of the sport? Oh wait, that already happened.
PICK 10 COMPETITION (6 wins, 18 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017 & 2019
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion

HS Thompson
Posts: 1416
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:41 am

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by HS Thompson »

Exediron wrote:Yeah, it's all over the web so there's definitely something to it. Doesn't mean it'll happen though.

Honestly, new ownership can hardly be worse, especially if one of their goals is to weaken Bernie's grasp on the whole business. What's the worst that could happen? They just try and squeeze a profit out of it at the detriment of the sport? Oh wait, that already happened.


One stat that was in the article I linked to was that the TV ratings of the Austrian Grand Prix were down 40% this year. Forty percent!! That's an enormous drop.

w1Y!
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 8:19 am

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by w1Y! »

Well apparently they stiller a role in there for Bernie which is either pre deal politics or not and we are stuck with him.

I don't think he is as bad as you guys say he is though

HS Thompson
Posts: 1416
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:41 am

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by HS Thompson »

w1Y! wrote:Well apparently they stiller a role in there for Bernie which is either pre deal politics or not and we are stuck with him.

I don't think he is as bad as you guys say he is though


No matter what, Bernie's days in Formula One are drawing to a close. I dont think we'll see him with the power to cause things to happen the way he used to.

User avatar
MistaVega23
Posts: 1952
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:29 am

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by MistaVega23 »

HS Thompson wrote:
Exediron wrote:Yeah, it's all over the web so there's definitely something to it. Doesn't mean it'll happen though.

Honestly, new ownership can hardly be worse, especially if one of their goals is to weaken Bernie's grasp on the whole business. What's the worst that could happen? They just try and squeeze a profit out of it at the detriment of the sport? Oh wait, that already happened.


One stat that was in the article I linked to was that the TV ratings of the Austrian Grand Prix were down 40% this year. Forty percent!! That's an enormous drop.

Given the number of households who are no longer able to watch the race live (or at all) then this should be taken with a pinch of salt.
#KeepFightingMichael

mikeyg123
Posts: 17817
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by mikeyg123 »

In this case I thinks it a bit "better the devil you know"

shoot999
Posts: 3087
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:23 am

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by shoot999 »

MistaVega23 wrote:
HS Thompson wrote:
Exediron wrote:Yeah, it's all over the web so there's definitely something to it. Doesn't mean it'll happen though.

Honestly, new ownership can hardly be worse, especially if one of their goals is to weaken Bernie's grasp on the whole business. What's the worst that could happen? They just try and squeeze a profit out of it at the detriment of the sport? Oh wait, that already happened.


One stat that was in the article I linked to was that the TV ratings of the Austrian Grand Prix were down 40% this year. Forty percent!! That's an enormous drop.

Given the number of households who are no longer able to watch the race live (or at all) then this should be taken with a pinch of salt.


It does seem that PPV is the elephant in the room when F1 wrings their hands over falling figures and looks for solutions. In 2013 worldwide viewership fell by 50 million; but 46 million of those were from countries that switched to PPV. As Lee McKenzie said in a recent podcast more people watch FP3 when its live on the BBC than watch the race on Sky. So there is an audience there; they just don't want to pay through the nose for it.
It will be interesting to see which model any new owners seek to persue. Exclusivity through PPV, or a greater market reach for the sponsors through free to air, combined with various premium packages.

User avatar
Balibari
Posts: 3226
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by Balibari »

HS Thompson wrote:
w1Y! wrote:Well apparently they stiller a role in there for Bernie which is either pre deal politics or not and we are stuck with him.

I don't think he is as bad as you guys say he is though


No matter what, Bernie's days in Formula One are drawing to a close. I dont think we'll see him with the power to cause things to happen the way he used to.

Ecclestone can and will veto a sale to any company that doesn't keep him on as CEO of FOG (F1's controlling company ultimately owned - through SLEC and Delta Tepco - by CVC). I agree there are ever fewer opportunities for him to flex his muscles. But the one thing he says that I believe without question is that he'll be running F1 until the day he's physically incapable.

I also agree with w1Y! that he isn't as bad as some say. Few of F1's sporting problems are really down to him. The screwed up finances are, but Max is even more to blame. Either way the genie's out of the bottle now, F1 was essentially privatised when it was sold to CVC and from then on it became a cash cow. As Mikeyg says, better the devil you know. Bernie is at least a racer. For all his bluster he's pulled a lot of strings behind the scenes to try and bring about a fairer deal for smaller teams and keep them on the grid. He was instrumental in creating a problem, but he's now the only thing preventing that problem becoming much worse. When he's gone F1 will be run (not just owned) by people whose only interest is how much money can be wrung from it in the short term.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus

Lord Crc
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:06 pm

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by Lord Crc »

shoot999 wrote:It does seem that PPV is the elephant in the room when F1 wrings their hands over falling figures and looks for solutions. In 2013 worldwide viewership fell by 50 million; but 46 million of those were from countries that switched to PPV. As Lee McKenzie said in a recent podcast more people watch FP3 when its live on the BBC than watch the race on Sky. So there is an audience there; they just don't want to pay through the nose for it.


Heck, the cable company my condominium has signed a deal with, second largest cable companies in Norway, doesn't even provide the relevant pay channel in HD. So that means to view F1 in HD I need to get a satellite dish, just for F1... SD looks horrible on a big TV to the point of being unwatchable, so that's not an option.

So yeah, they sure don't make it easy...

Zoue
Posts: 25158
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by Zoue »

Balibari wrote:
HS Thompson wrote:
w1Y! wrote:Well apparently they stiller a role in there for Bernie which is either pre deal politics or not and we are stuck with him.

I don't think he is as bad as you guys say he is though


No matter what, Bernie's days in Formula One are drawing to a close. I dont think we'll see him with the power to cause things to happen the way he used to.

Ecclestone can and will veto a sale to any company that doesn't keep him on as CEO of FOG (F1's controlling company ultimately owned - through SLEC and Delta Tepco - by CVC). I agree there are ever fewer opportunities for him to flex his muscles. But the one thing he says that I believe without question is that he'll be running F1 until the day he's physically incapable.

I also agree with w1Y! that he isn't as bad as some say. Few of F1's sporting problems are really down to him. The screwed up finances are, but Max is even more to blame. Either way the genie's out of the bottle now, F1 was essentially privatised when it was sold to CVC and from then on it became a cash cow. As Mikeyg says, better the devil you know. Bernie is at least a racer. For all his bluster he's pulled a lot of strings behind the scenes to try and bring about a fairer deal for smaller teams and keep them on the grid. He was instrumental in creating a problem, but he's now the only thing preventing that problem becoming much worse. When he's gone F1 will be run (not just owned) by people whose only interest is how much money can be wrung from it in the short term.

I have a lot of time for Bernie and I think he's been great for the sport and instrumental in making it what it is today. But I also think he's taken some wrong turns recently and putting it on the wrong path. His insistence on making it more of a show is very short term IMO and ultimately damaging, as is his intransigence with some of the historic tracks in favour of chasing the money at places with almost zero following. I think both are in pursuit of short term cash but neither are in the sport's best interests. I agree he is a racer, but lately his judgement is clouded and I think he's holding the sport back in certain areas. It does worry me what will happen when he goes, though

User avatar
Balibari
Posts: 3226
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by Balibari »

Zoue wrote:
Balibari wrote:
HS Thompson wrote:
w1Y! wrote:Well apparently they stiller a role in there for Bernie which is either pre deal politics or not and we are stuck with him.

I don't think he is as bad as you guys say he is though


No matter what, Bernie's days in Formula One are drawing to a close. I dont think we'll see him with the power to cause things to happen the way he used to.

Ecclestone can and will veto a sale to any company that doesn't keep him on as CEO of FOG (F1's controlling company ultimately owned - through SLEC and Delta Tepco - by CVC). I agree there are ever fewer opportunities for him to flex his muscles. But the one thing he says that I believe without question is that he'll be running F1 until the day he's physically incapable.

I also agree with w1Y! that he isn't as bad as some say. Few of F1's sporting problems are really down to him. The screwed up finances are, but Max is even more to blame. Either way the genie's out of the bottle now, F1 was essentially privatised when it was sold to CVC and from then on it became a cash cow. As Mikeyg says, better the devil you know. Bernie is at least a racer. For all his bluster he's pulled a lot of strings behind the scenes to try and bring about a fairer deal for smaller teams and keep them on the grid. He was instrumental in creating a problem, but he's now the only thing preventing that problem becoming much worse. When he's gone F1 will be run (not just owned) by people whose only interest is how much money can be wrung from it in the short term.

I have a lot of time for Bernie and I think he's been great for the sport and instrumental in making it what it is today. But I also think he's taken some wrong turns recently and putting it on the wrong path. His insistence on making it more of a show is very short term IMO and ultimately damaging, as is his intransigence with some of the historic tracks in favour of chasing the money at places with almost zero following. I think both are in pursuit of short term cash but neither are in the sport's best interests. I agree he is a racer, but lately his judgement is clouded and I think he's holding the sport back in certain areas. It does worry me what will happen when he goes, though

I think the problem he, and we, have is that F1 was suddenly given the responsibility of generating lots of money. Whilst it was in the hands of FISA and the FIA, and even once Max 'gave' it to Bernie, it was controlled by racers who, at worse, wanted to make money. Now it's in the hands of investment bankers who need to make a hell of a lot of money. In terms of making money I think Bernie developed it as far as it could go before having to compromise the sport and its appeal. CVC obviously want/need to go further regardless of the potential damage to the sport. They prefer to do deals with moneyed pay TV over free to air, wealthy nations over European promoters. These decisions are driven by short term profit and are clearly harming the sport. I don't believe Bernie would have been so short sighted as to go as far as CVC have and I think he's genuinely displeased about it. He's beholden to them, he has to toe the corporate line up to a point so I understand why he's made the arguments he has and hasn't been more vocal. But I firmly believe if he had autonomy we wouldn't have such problems now. For example there's no way we'd be talking about leaving Monza if it were up to him, and although he's talked tough with regard to the minnow teams and most believe he wants rid of them, it was him who paid for Caterham to race in Austin, thereby giving them a chance of being saved.

There's a book waiting to be written about the sellout to CVC. In an interview I saw last year Bernie said selling to them was a mistake but that he didn't have a choice.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus

egnat69
Posts: 2432
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:54 am
Location: Austria

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by egnat69 »

Replacing a group of investors with a group of investors will hardly make a big difference, I'm afraid... You'd need an owner who can get other value from owning the rights than just money itself (like exposure)... Investors groups don't care about exposure...
How to fix F1:
1. Stop seeking consensuses on rules - it will always turn out to be the least favourible option for everyone involved...
2. Listen to the fans - there are plenty of them and they have good ideas...

Nosebuckle
Posts: 107
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by Nosebuckle »

Balibari wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Balibari wrote:
HS Thompson wrote:
w1Y! wrote:Well apparently they stiller a role in there for Bernie which is either pre deal politics or not and we are stuck with him.

I don't think he is as bad as you guys say he is though


No matter what, Bernie's days in Formula One are drawing to a close. I dont think we'll see him with the power to cause things to happen the way he used to.

Ecclestone can and will veto a sale to any company that doesn't keep him on as CEO of FOG (F1's controlling company ultimately owned - through SLEC and Delta Tepco - by CVC). I agree there are ever fewer opportunities for him to flex his muscles. But the one thing he says that I believe without question is that he'll be running F1 until the day he's physically incapable.

I also agree with w1Y! that he isn't as bad as some say. Few of F1's sporting problems are really down to him. The screwed up finances are, but Max is even more to blame. Either way the genie's out of the bottle now, F1 was essentially privatised when it was sold to CVC and from then on it became a cash cow. As Mikeyg says, better the devil you know. Bernie is at least a racer. For all his bluster he's pulled a lot of strings behind the scenes to try and bring about a fairer deal for smaller teams and keep them on the grid. He was instrumental in creating a problem, but he's now the only thing preventing that problem becoming much worse. When he's gone F1 will be run (not just owned) by people whose only interest is how much money can be wrung from it in the short term.

I have a lot of time for Bernie and I think he's been great for the sport and instrumental in making it what it is today. But I also think he's taken some wrong turns recently and putting it on the wrong path. His insistence on making it more of a show is very short term IMO and ultimately damaging, as is his intransigence with some of the historic tracks in favour of chasing the money at places with almost zero following. I think both are in pursuit of short term cash but neither are in the sport's best interests. I agree he is a racer, but lately his judgement is clouded and I think he's holding the sport back in certain areas. It does worry me what will happen when he goes, though

I think the problem he, and we, have is that F1 was suddenly given the responsibility of generating lots of money. Whilst it was in the hands of FISA and the FIA, and even once Max 'gave' it to Bernie, it was controlled by racers who, at worse, wanted to make money. Now it's in the hands of investment bankers who need to make a hell of a lot of money. In terms of making money I think Bernie developed it as far as it could go before having to compromise the sport and its appeal. CVC obviously want/need to go further regardless of the potential damage to the sport. They prefer to do deals with moneyed pay TV over free to air, wealthy nations over European promoters. These decisions are driven by short term profit and are clearly harming the sport. I don't believe Bernie would have been so short sighted as to go as far as CVC have and I think he's genuinely displeased about it. He's beholden to them, he has to toe the corporate line up to a point so I understand why he's made the arguments he has and hasn't been more vocal. But I firmly believe if he had autonomy we wouldn't have such problems now. For example there's no way we'd be talking about leaving Monza if it were up to him, and although he's talked tough with regard to the minnow teams and most believe he wants rid of them, it was him who paid for Caterham to race in Austin, thereby giving them a chance of being saved.

There's a book waiting to be written about the sellout to CVC. In an interview I saw last year Bernie said selling to them was a mistake but that he didn't have a choice.


Bernie's actions can be pretty easily explained by what is expected of him by his employers: the financiers want to pull as much profit as they can from the sport and they've tapped Bernie to do this while simultaneously trying to make it look like all of the shady moves aren't motivated by money. Bernie's losing this touch because people can smell his BS coming a mile away, hence all the ridiculous distractions he floats in a feeble attempt to deflect attention. I disagree that this a sort of a "better the devil you know" situation. Anyone who isn't entirely focused on short-term results and doing things the easy way would be an improvement. CVC doesn't care (or know, for that matter) about F1's fanbase, which is ultimately its biggest asset. It's worthless if nobody is watching it. This is less of a problem if you can get squeeze revenues from oil dictatorships and PPV telecoms but it's not sustainable because it erodes the fanbase. I'm gonna bet that new ownership might at least have an inkling of an idea that F1 very much needs to be able to diffuse the sport into the fanbase like many other pro sports do a lot better job of, so I'll welcome the new moneymen.

So while I agree that the current situation is bad, I don't think shaking up the management is going to be worse.

User avatar
Balibari
Posts: 3226
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by Balibari »

Nosebuckle wrote:
Balibari wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Balibari wrote:
HS Thompson wrote:
No matter what, Bernie's days in Formula One are drawing to a close. I dont think we'll see him with the power to cause things to happen the way he used to.

Ecclestone can and will veto a sale to any company that doesn't keep him on as CEO of FOG (F1's controlling company ultimately owned - through SLEC and Delta Tepco - by CVC). I agree there are ever fewer opportunities for him to flex his muscles. But the one thing he says that I believe without question is that he'll be running F1 until the day he's physically incapable.

I also agree with w1Y! that he isn't as bad as some say. Few of F1's sporting problems are really down to him. The screwed up finances are, but Max is even more to blame. Either way the genie's out of the bottle now, F1 was essentially privatised when it was sold to CVC and from then on it became a cash cow. As Mikeyg says, better the devil you know. Bernie is at least a racer. For all his bluster he's pulled a lot of strings behind the scenes to try and bring about a fairer deal for smaller teams and keep them on the grid. He was instrumental in creating a problem, but he's now the only thing preventing that problem becoming much worse. When he's gone F1 will be run (not just owned) by people whose only interest is how much money can be wrung from it in the short term.

I have a lot of time for Bernie and I think he's been great for the sport and instrumental in making it what it is today. But I also think he's taken some wrong turns recently and putting it on the wrong path. His insistence on making it more of a show is very short term IMO and ultimately damaging, as is his intransigence with some of the historic tracks in favour of chasing the money at places with almost zero following. I think both are in pursuit of short term cash but neither are in the sport's best interests. I agree he is a racer, but lately his judgement is clouded and I think he's holding the sport back in certain areas. It does worry me what will happen when he goes, though

I think the problem he, and we, have is that F1 was suddenly given the responsibility of generating lots of money. Whilst it was in the hands of FISA and the FIA, and even once Max 'gave' it to Bernie, it was controlled by racers who, at worse, wanted to make money. Now it's in the hands of investment bankers who need to make a hell of a lot of money. In terms of making money I think Bernie developed it as far as it could go before having to compromise the sport and its appeal. CVC obviously want/need to go further regardless of the potential damage to the sport. They prefer to do deals with moneyed pay TV over free to air, wealthy nations over European promoters. These decisions are driven by short term profit and are clearly harming the sport. I don't believe Bernie would have been so short sighted as to go as far as CVC have and I think he's genuinely displeased about it. He's beholden to them, he has to toe the corporate line up to a point so I understand why he's made the arguments he has and hasn't been more vocal. But I firmly believe if he had autonomy we wouldn't have such problems now. For example there's no way we'd be talking about leaving Monza if it were up to him, and although he's talked tough with regard to the minnow teams and most believe he wants rid of them, it was him who paid for Caterham to race in Austin, thereby giving them a chance of being saved.

There's a book waiting to be written about the sellout to CVC. In an interview I saw last year Bernie said selling to them was a mistake but that he didn't have a choice.


Bernie's actions can be pretty easily explained by what is expected of him by his employers: the financiers want to pull as much profit as they can from the sport and they've tapped Bernie to do this while simultaneously trying to make it look like all of the shady moves aren't motivated by money. Bernie's losing this touch because people can smell his BS coming a mile away, hence all the ridiculous distractions he floats in a feeble attempt to deflect attention. I disagree that this a sort of a "better the devil you know" situation. Anyone who isn't entirely focused on short-term results and doing things the easy way would be an improvement. CVC doesn't care (or know, for that matter) about F1's fanbase, which is ultimately its biggest asset. It's worthless if nobody is watching it. This is less of a problem if you can get squeeze revenues from oil dictatorships and PPV telecoms but it's not sustainable because it erodes the fanbase. I'm gonna bet that new ownership might at least have an inkling of an idea that F1 very much needs to be able to diffuse the sport into the fanbase like many other pro sports do a lot better job of, so I'll welcome the new moneymen.

So while I agree that the current situation is bad, I don't think shaking up the management is going to be worse.

I was thinking of a scenario in which Bernie was gone but CVC remain the owners, in which case I'd choose to keep Bernie over the corporate types CVC would inevitably appoint. There's a lot of talk about someone like Berger or Horner taking over from Bernie but that's not going to happen. It will be a businessman/men from outside the sport. But I see your point, a completely different set of owners might well have the sort of attitude we want. But I fear it all comes back to the base problem: F1's value. Nobody is going to invest $10-12 bn of their own money to buy it, even the Qatari royal family. As is the case with CVC they will essentially borrow the money from banks and/or venture capitalists. Once they've done that they need F1 to generate enough money for their tidy profit, interest on the loans and the loan repayments themselves. It's that unbearable need to generate huge income that's screwed F1, and it was created when Bernie sold it to CVC for so much money. Maybe the Qataris are interested in F1 for boasting rights, in which case the need to generate huge amounts of money may not be so pertinent. But it could mean other problems. What we need is a benevolent sugar daddy! But I suspect whoever ends up owning it it's just a matter of time until it's listed on the stock exchange. It's what CVC have been wanting to do and if they sell I assume it will be because they've given up hope of doing it in the short term (supposedly thanks to Bernie making it difficult for them, deliberately or otherwise).
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus

egnat69
Posts: 2432
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:54 am
Location: Austria

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by egnat69 »

Balibari wrote:I was thinking of a scenario in which Bernie was gone but CVC remain the owners, in which case I'd choose to keep Bernie over the corporate types CVC would inevitably appoint. There's a lot of talk about someone like Berger or Horner taking over from Bernie but that's not going to happen. It will be a businessman/men from outside the sport. But I see your point, a completely different set of owners might well have the sort of attitude we want. But I fear it all comes back to the base problem: F1's value. Nobody is going to invest $10-12 bn of their own money to buy it, even the Qatari royal family. As is the case with CVC they will essentially borrow the money from banks and/or venture capitalists. Once they've done that they need F1 to generate enough money for their tidy profit, interest on the loans and the loan repayments themselves. It's that unbearable need to generate huge income that's screwed F1, and it was created when Bernie sold it to CVC for so much money. Maybe the Qataris are interested in F1 for boasting rights, in which case the need to generate huge amounts of money may not be so pertinent. But it could mean other problems. What we need is a benevolent sugar daddy! But I suspect whoever ends up owning it it's just a matter of time until it's listed on the stock exchange. It's what CVC have been wanting to do and if they sell I assume it will be because they've given up hope of doing it in the short term (supposedly thanks to Bernie making it difficult for them, deliberately or otherwise).

well... once more, i think only red bull would be in a position where brand exposure would be a suitable ROI, as they are doing this all the time... they kind of "own" a lot of different sports (or actually the rights to it) and they enjoy having their brand all over it... like x-fighters, drift championship, air-race and stuff like that...

however, 11bn is a pretty hefty price tag... nonetheless, red bull could make some money from f1 in the way CVC did, but certainly could survive with less due to the ROI on brand exposure...
also, they would have to sell their 2 teams in quite a hurry...
How to fix F1:
1. Stop seeking consensuses on rules - it will always turn out to be the least favourible option for everyone involved...
2. Listen to the fans - there are plenty of them and they have good ideas...

ChopSchuey
Posts: 291
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by ChopSchuey »

Rumours of Horner being sacked....put 2 and 2 together.

mac_d
Posts: 4231
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by mac_d »

Hmmm.

The trouble is, anyone with $8bn of funds is probably in this to make money, we are beyond the eccentric billionaire who buys the sport because he loves it stage. I don't know if this will be a good thing or not. For all he has done negative for the sport, Bernie is both a larger than life figure (somewhat ironically) and one of the men who has really been steering the ship. He's done good and he's done bad, but perhaps most importantly, he's been very successful at it all.

The job needs someone who fully understands the sport, but I'd like if there was someone who also valued the history of the sport. I'm not saying every country that's ever had a race should keep it but I do think we should protect some of the races that have been on the calendar for a long time historically (except if it's unsafe or utterly unwilling). We'll see how it all turns out. Perhaps in 10-15 years there will be a topic about the good old days when Bernie was in charge, or perhaps we'll be celebrating the new era of Formula 1 that sprang up after Bernie left. I guess most likely, it'll be much the same.

User avatar
F1 MERCENARY
Posts: 2387
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Location: Miami, Florida

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by F1 MERCENARY »

Balibari wrote:As Mikeyg says, better the devil you know. Bernie is at least a racer. For all his bluster he's pulled a lot of strings behind the scenes to try and bring about a fairer deal for smaller teams and keep them on the grid. He was instrumental in creating a problem, but he's now the only thing preventing that problem becoming much worse. When he's gone F1 will be run (not just owned) by people whose only interest is how much money can be wrung from it in the short term.

I strongly disagree.

The current deal that sees Ferrari earning the biggest chunk in the sport regardless of how poorly they do, so they don't EVER lose, was influenced by Bernie and without his full support it would not have been approved. That same deal also sees that other teams get their handsome lump sum regardless of the final standings and I don't see how that helps the rest of the teams who have to fight tooth and nail for every last dollar they get back. The only time I can recall Bernie ever going up to bat firmly for a team is Manor for 2015 to grant them their earnings from last season ahead of time so they can take the grid for the season. And that was only because the field was already 4 cars and 2 liveries shy in 2 seasons' time. If he really cared about those teams he'd have busted out his wallet and either bought one or both teams in order to keep those teams in F1. It's not his obligation to do so, but with his wealth it would have been the equivalent of giving some poor homeless person $20 for a meal that day, and in this case they would have been people he knows quite well.
HAMILTON :: VERSTAPPEN :: LECLERC :: BOTTAS :: VETTEL :: SAINZ :: NORRIS
KVYAT :: RAIKKONEN :: RUSSEL :: ALBON :: RICCIARDO :: HULKENBURG :: PEREZ
STROLL :: MAGNUSSEN :: GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: GIOVANAZZI :: KUBICA

mikeyg123
Posts: 17817
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by mikeyg123 »

F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Balibari wrote:As Mikeyg says, better the devil you know. Bernie is at least a racer. For all his bluster he's pulled a lot of strings behind the scenes to try and bring about a fairer deal for smaller teams and keep them on the grid. He was instrumental in creating a problem, but he's now the only thing preventing that problem becoming much worse. When he's gone F1 will be run (not just owned) by people whose only interest is how much money can be wrung from it in the short term.

I strongly disagree.

The current deal that sees Ferrari earning the biggest chunk in the sport regardless of how poorly they do, so they don't EVER lose, was influenced by Bernie and without his full support it would not have been approved. That same deal also sees that other teams get their handsome lump sum regardless of the final standings and I don't see how that helps the rest of the teams who have to fight tooth and nail for every last dollar they get back. The only time I can recall Bernie ever going up to bat firmly for a team is Manor for 2015 to grant them their earnings from last season ahead of time so they can take the grid for the season. And that was only because the field was already 4 cars and 2 liveries shy in 2 seasons' time. If he really cared about those teams he'd have busted out his wallet and either bought one or both teams in order to keep those teams in F1. It's not his obligation to do so, but with his wealth it would have been the equivalent of giving some poor homeless person $20 for a meal that day, and in this case they would have been people he knows quite well.


He has done something like that before. He gave Minardi some money in 2004 I think and he also helped Jordan pay some bills when they were on the way out.

I agree Bernie does not always bat for the little teams but he is just about the only figure inside F1 that at least does it some times.

User avatar
moby
Posts: 8072
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by moby »

Ownership is of little relevance really. It is management that controls everything.

FringeUK
Posts: 1279
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by FringeUK »

Whatever happens, we, as fans, must remember that it is not really a sport in the real sense - but a collection of racing teams trying to make money. Granted some teams are more racing than business orientated but all require funds to continue. The 'investors' want a return on their money too, so, like all businesses 'used' to make money for investors, F1 will be squeezed some more!
It is a vicious circle of decline, I fear.
Consider fairground rides, which currently are a couple of quid (or more) a go, and at most fairgrounds the rides are half empty. A kids pocket money doesn't go far, so they have to pick and choose. Now consider that the ride price is halved and the rides are 'full' each time. The operator earns exactly the same money per ride, has exactly the same costs (fuel, etc) but has 'entertained' twice as many people - so, next years, the kids remember that they had twice the fun for the same cost and return again. It's not rocket science, but the fairground operators simply don't see it that way.
To my mind, F1 is in the same boat - 'pushing' people away or alienating them via increased ticket costs, PPV, etc, etc. I presume these idiots think that by making it more 'exclusive' (i.e. available to the rich) they will increase appeal? But in truth all they are doing is constantly shrinking the real marketplace to those with wealth.....which I suppose is fair enough except when you consider that wealthy types can take their wealth elsewhere at anytime, and especially if they get bored!
F1 needs your average Joe family to be involved - right across the board - from actual GPs to TV coverage - without keeping the, 'coming back' F1 is doomed to decline.
BTW - all of this has nothing to do with the current Merc dominance directly either - but clearly, if the sport is not providing a show - you have even less to 'sell' and have even less direct appeal!

HS Thompson
Posts: 1416
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:41 am

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by HS Thompson »

FringeUK wrote:Whatever happens, we, as fans, must remember that it is not really a sport in the real sense - but a collection of racing teams trying to make money. Granted some teams are more racing than business orientated but all require funds to continue. The 'investors' want a return on their money too, so, like all businesses 'used' to make money for investors, F1 will be squeezed some more!


What pro sport is not like this?

FringeUK
Posts: 1279
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by FringeUK »

HS Thompson wrote:
FringeUK wrote:Whatever happens, we, as fans, must remember that it is not really a sport in the real sense - but a collection of racing teams trying to make money. Granted some teams are more racing than business orientated but all require funds to continue. The 'investors' want a return on their money too, so, like all businesses 'used' to make money for investors, F1 will be squeezed some more!


What pro sport is not like this?


None - but most sports have 'other' leagues slightly lower down the pecking order. F1 is far more exclusive both in costs, setup and management, than the 'lower' motorsports. Put another way, what would happen to all the F1 teams and employees if F1 stopped? I'd suspect that there would be very few of them could get equivalent jobs in lower motorsports!
F1 put itself on a pedestal and has to deliver to maintain that status. The fact that the major controls have been removed from the 'sport' and are now in the hands of financial investors means they have gone down a dead end/cul de sac.
If a baker keeps baking the same bread and not listening to his customers (who want something different), his customers will go elsewhere. Unfortunately F1 teams have locked themselves into a commercial rights deal, etc and have in effect boxed themselves into doing whatever they are told!
As far as I am concerned the breakaway plan from a few years ago was the best thing that should have happened. I still think it is the way forward - kind of like a 'reset' button - but all teams (and their sponsors) need to see it as a fresh start and set up a less commercially controlling supervisory body. The current commercial value of F1 is pretty low I'd guess - hence it is unsustainable. Tweaking the show would only provide temporary relief. What is needed is a new start, from essentially a blank sheet of paper. All the main safety regs and ideas can still be used, perhaps even with FIA 'control' - but the rules and regs have to be 'set' and 'agreed' by the participants in the main. The current prize money BS distribution needs to change, etc, etc.

egnat69
Posts: 2432
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:54 am
Location: Austria

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by egnat69 »

FringeUK wrote:
HS Thompson wrote:
FringeUK wrote:Whatever happens, we, as fans, must remember that it is not really a sport in the real sense - but a collection of racing teams trying to make money. Granted some teams are more racing than business orientated but all require funds to continue. The 'investors' want a return on their money too, so, like all businesses 'used' to make money for investors, F1 will be squeezed some more!


What pro sport is not like this?


None - but most sports have 'other' leagues slightly lower down the pecking order. F1 is far more exclusive both in costs, setup and management, than the 'lower' motorsports. Put another way, what would happen to all the F1 teams and employees if F1 stopped? I'd suspect that there would be very few of them could get equivalent jobs in lower motorsports!
F1 put itself on a pedestal and has to deliver to maintain that status. The fact that the major controls have been removed from the 'sport' and are now in the hands of financial investors means they have gone down a dead end/cul de sac.
If a baker keeps baking the same bread and not listening to his customers (who want something different), his customers will go elsewhere. Unfortunately F1 teams have locked themselves into a commercial rights deal, etc and have in effect boxed themselves into doing whatever they are told!
As far as I am concerned the breakaway plan from a few years ago was the best thing that should have happened. I still think it is the way forward - kind of like a 'reset' button - but all teams (and their sponsors) need to see it as a fresh start and set up a less commercially controlling supervisory body. The current commercial value of F1 is pretty low I'd guess - hence it is unsustainable. Tweaking the show would only provide temporary relief. What is needed is a new start, from essentially a blank sheet of paper. All the main safety regs and ideas can still be used, perhaps even with FIA 'control' - but the rules and regs have to be 'set' and 'agreed' by the participants in the main. The current prize money BS distribution needs to change, etc, etc.

ok... well... looking at either baseball or american football, i can asure you that the situation is the same... the NFL is basically at the same time the american championship and the world championship, because all other countries are miles below it... and i actually play baseball - in austria - in the 4th level we have here ... it's more of a hobby league than actual amateur league and believe me, MLB is way more exclusive than that... same goes if you compare austrian soccer to champions league soccer... our top-league counts around 10k fans per match... compare that to the likes of real or barcelona...

f1 team employees? the engineers could either go to le-mans, indycar, the americas cup, car manufacturers, some could just go to composite manufacturers (carbon for bikes and other stuff), airplane-manufacturers (both civil or military) or space-travel stuff...
pit-crews can look at any other motor sports
other staff, like communications people, assistants and - ahm - cooks and waiters - well - they will have to look in their field anyway...

but what could soccer players do if the number one leagues were cut down... or what would NFL-players do if the NFL was shut down? they can hardly play tennis...
How to fix F1:
1. Stop seeking consensuses on rules - it will always turn out to be the least favourible option for everyone involved...
2. Listen to the fans - there are plenty of them and they have good ideas...

User avatar
dizlexik
Posts: 7796
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by dizlexik »

moby wrote:Ownership is of little relevance really. It is management that controls everything.

That isn't true. It all depends on many things.
eeee

User avatar
Balibari
Posts: 3226
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by Balibari »

F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Balibari wrote:As Mikeyg says, better the devil you know. Bernie is at least a racer. For all his bluster he's pulled a lot of strings behind the scenes to try and bring about a fairer deal for smaller teams and keep them on the grid. He was instrumental in creating a problem, but he's now the only thing preventing that problem becoming much worse. When he's gone F1 will be run (not just owned) by people whose only interest is how much money can be wrung from it in the short term.

I strongly disagree.

The current deal that sees Ferrari earning the biggest chunk in the sport regardless of how poorly they do, so they don't EVER lose, was influenced by Bernie and without his full support it would not have been approved. That same deal also sees that other teams get their handsome lump sum regardless of the final standings and I don't see how that helps the rest of the teams who have to fight tooth and nail for every last dollar they get back. The only time I can recall Bernie ever going up to bat firmly for a team is Manor for 2015 to grant them their earnings from last season ahead of time so they can take the grid for the season. And that was only because the field was already 4 cars and 2 liveries shy in 2 seasons' time. If he really cared about those teams he'd have busted out his wallet and either bought one or both teams in order to keep those teams in F1. It's not his obligation to do so, but with his wealth it would have been the equivalent of giving some poor homeless person $20 for a meal that day, and in this case they would have been people he knows quite well.

The argument that Bernie is so rich he should be reaching into his own pocket is ridiculous. Bernie should just buy teams to stop them going out of business? How would that encourage a more sustainable and sporting model for F1? And even the smallest teams are owned by millionaires, so why on earth should they be given private charity for their hobby/marketing exercise? I can think of a couple more valid charitable causes.

Bernie is not autonomous, despite what many think. The power structure of F1 is subtle and complicated, what he says publicly needs to be considered in a political light. He acts with a partial mandate from the sport's rights holders. As such there are many fields in which he has little authority and can only push for what he wants. What the teams and rights holders do with their revenue is one of those areas. You say the only time you know of Bernie helping a minnow is Manor earlier this season. There are endless examples of things like this, just last season he wanted Caterham to make it to Austin and convinced CVC to fund them, even though they were against it and even though Bernie supposedly wanted them to fail. You not being aware of such incidents doesn't mean they didn't happen. Ask Ross Brawn (Bernie was instrumental in getting Brawn the Merc engines), Frank Williams, peter Sauber or Eddie Jordan (all of whom are happy to admit Bernie has at some point saved their teams, often multiple times)... all have repeatedly referred to the invaluable help Bernie has given them over the years, and none will say a word against him because of it. He helped them because he thought they did a good job and deserved to be in F1. He isn't obliged to think that of all struggling teams.

Ferrari have a ridiculous deal and the top teams get too much money in general. I think it's hugely unfair and I've said many times I want the sport to split, it's too rotten and unjust to ever come back to sanity. But I understand why it's got where it is, there are political reasons for all the ridiculous deals that have been done. It isn't simply that Bernie's evil. He engineered the revised Concorde agreement that gave them such a sweet deal, but it also gives small teams substantially more than they did. And when that deal was signed off, the existing (intended) budget cap, engine costs and supposedly stable regs would have meant even the least successful minnow had a fair chance of survival. The teams as a whole now receive 67% of F1 revenue, not the 49% they used to, and they no longer have to wait two years to get it.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus

User avatar
minchy
Posts: 5304
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by minchy »

Absolutely nothing to do with a potential f1 buy out/take-over, but I did have to double check the thread title as I first read it as being 'Formula One overtake possibly underway in future'!!! :blush:
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

User avatar
moby
Posts: 8072
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by moby »

minchy wrote:Absolutely nothing to do with a potential f1 buy out/take-over, but I did have to double check the thread title as I first read it as being 'Formula One overtake possibly underway in future'!!! :blush:

Now there is unlikely speculation, then there is That

^try to stay in this universe will you :]

User avatar
F1 MERCENARY
Posts: 2387
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Location: Miami, Florida

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by F1 MERCENARY »

Bernie intervening years back was not called into question and I specifically did not do so because back then when Minardi & Jordan and Co. were viewed as "minnows", there was BIG TOBACCO dollars rampant throw even those "minnows". What they claimed and were viewed to be minuscule budgets were in fact considerable. Certainly larger than today's new startups.

To boot, HRT, Caterham and Marussia entered the sport believing the budget cap would be implemented, thereby leveling the playing field considerably in order to bridge the gap to the big boys so they'd have a chance to compete and earn points in order to procure precious dollars towards future seasons. And while many will claim mismanagement and say it was their own fault their business model was not a sustainable one, that is only so because the budget cap never came into affect and the small teams were literally screwed.

Manor is only here because they scored 2 measly points and special provisions were made so they had access to their winnings early. If not for that fact, they'd exist only in the memories of fans, media and the history books and the field would be 2 cars lighter which is something Bernie was trying to prevent almost at all costs, because a depleted field doesn't bode well for a series that is supposed to be the most elite on the planet and could cost them tens, even hundreds of millions in the way of sponsorship dollars, not to mention media generated revenues.
HAMILTON :: VERSTAPPEN :: LECLERC :: BOTTAS :: VETTEL :: SAINZ :: NORRIS
KVYAT :: RAIKKONEN :: RUSSEL :: ALBON :: RICCIARDO :: HULKENBURG :: PEREZ
STROLL :: MAGNUSSEN :: GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: GIOVANAZZI :: KUBICA

mikeyg123
Posts: 17817
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by mikeyg123 »

F1 MERCENARY wrote:Bernie intervening years back was not called into question and I specifically did not do so because back then when Minardi & Jordan and Co. were viewed as "minnows", there was BIG TOBACCO dollars rampant throw even those "minnows". What they claimed and were viewed to be minuscule budgets were in fact considerable. Certainly larger than today's new startups.

To boot, HRT, Caterham and Marussia entered the sport believing the budget cap would be implemented, thereby leveling the playing field considerably in order to bridge the gap to the big boys so they'd have a chance to compete and earn points in order to procure precious dollars towards future seasons. And while many will claim mismanagement and say it was their own fault their business model was not a sustainable one, that is only so because the budget cap never came into affect and the small teams were literally screwed.

Manor is only here because they scored 2 measly points and special provisions were made so they had access to their winnings early. If not for that fact, they'd exist only in the memories of fans, media and the history books and the field would be 2 cars lighter which is something Bernie was trying to prevent almost at all costs, because a depleted field doesn't bode well for a series that is supposed to be the most elite on the planet and could cost them tens, even hundreds of millions in the way of sponsorship dollars, not to mention media generated revenues.


Your first paragraph is not correct.

Minardi definitely ran on budgets no higher than the small teams of today and neither Minardi or Jordan had any tobacco advertising in 2004.

babararacucudada
Posts: 1673
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by babararacucudada »

shoot999 wrote:
MistaVega23 wrote:
HS Thompson wrote:
Exediron wrote:Yeah, it's all over the web so there's definitely something to it. Doesn't mean it'll happen though.

Honestly, new ownership can hardly be worse, especially if one of their goals is to weaken Bernie's grasp on the whole business. What's the worst that could happen? They just try and squeeze a profit out of it at the detriment of the sport? Oh wait, that already happened.


One stat that was in the article I linked to was that the TV ratings of the Austrian Grand Prix were down 40% this year. Forty percent!! That's an enormous drop.

Given the number of households who are no longer able to watch the race live (or at all) then this should be taken with a pinch of salt.


It does seem that PPV is the elephant in the room when F1 wrings their hands over falling figures and looks for solutions. In 2013 worldwide viewership fell by 50 million; but 46 million of those were from countries that switched to PPV. As Lee McKenzie said in a recent podcast more people watch FP3 when its live on the BBC than watch the race on Sky. So there is an audience there; they just don't want to pay through the nose for it.
It will be interesting to see which model any new owners seek to persue. Exclusivity through PPV, or a greater market reach for the sponsors through free to air, combined with various premium packages.


That is a key point.

Lots of companies want to be associated with F1 because of the coverage - from the advertising point of view. Reduced numbers of spectators/viewers is bad news for F1. I'm not going to pay through the nose to watch F1. It is a crap product at the moment. At least some of the other sports provide enough entertainment and good competition and skills. I'd be more likely to pay for sports channels for those. F1 is way down the list on value for money.

The NFL in America know how to produce a product to attract audiences. Its actually quite a technical sport and needs more 'knowledge' from fans than F1, but still produces a lot of competition.

It may not be a bad thing if someone with an NFL background is involved in looking after F1 from the point of view of making it a better product for spectators and viewers.

Zoue
Posts: 25158
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by Zoue »

mikeyg123 wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:Bernie intervening years back was not called into question and I specifically did not do so because back then when Minardi & Jordan and Co. were viewed as "minnows", there was BIG TOBACCO dollars rampant throw even those "minnows". What they claimed and were viewed to be minuscule budgets were in fact considerable. Certainly larger than today's new startups.

To boot, HRT, Caterham and Marussia entered the sport believing the budget cap would be implemented, thereby leveling the playing field considerably in order to bridge the gap to the big boys so they'd have a chance to compete and earn points in order to procure precious dollars towards future seasons. And while many will claim mismanagement and say it was their own fault their business model was not a sustainable one, that is only so because the budget cap never came into affect and the small teams were literally screwed.

Manor is only here because they scored 2 measly points and special provisions were made so they had access to their winnings early. If not for that fact, they'd exist only in the memories of fans, media and the history books and the field would be 2 cars lighter which is something Bernie was trying to prevent almost at all costs, because a depleted field doesn't bode well for a series that is supposed to be the most elite on the planet and could cost them tens, even hundreds of millions in the way of sponsorship dollars, not to mention media generated revenues.


Your first paragraph is not correct.

Minardi definitely ran on budgets no higher than the small teams of today and neither Minardi or Jordan had any tobacco advertising in 2004.

A comparable issue to the budgets is the current regulations IMO. When Jordan and Minardi were around things were a lot less tightly controlled, so innovation and creativity were rewarded and they didn't always have to go hand in hand with a lot of money (although of course it's always helped). But the rules now are so complex and restrictive that it's almost impossible for anyone to come up with anything new, since chances are it will be excluded by the regulations. So vast amounts are spent by the big teams on development in existing areas, which favours those teams with greater resources chasing ever diminishing returns. And as long as everything is so tightly controlled I don't see that changing. The order at the top may shuffle around from time to time, but minnows will always be minnows

egnat69
Posts: 2432
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:54 am
Location: Austria

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by egnat69 »

Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:Bernie intervening years back was not called into question and I specifically did not do so because back then when Minardi & Jordan and Co. were viewed as "minnows", there was BIG TOBACCO dollars rampant throw even those "minnows". What they claimed and were viewed to be minuscule budgets were in fact considerable. Certainly larger than today's new startups.

To boot, HRT, Caterham and Marussia entered the sport believing the budget cap would be implemented, thereby leveling the playing field considerably in order to bridge the gap to the big boys so they'd have a chance to compete and earn points in order to procure precious dollars towards future seasons. And while many will claim mismanagement and say it was their own fault their business model was not a sustainable one, that is only so because the budget cap never came into affect and the small teams were literally screwed.

Manor is only here because they scored 2 measly points and special provisions were made so they had access to their winnings early. If not for that fact, they'd exist only in the memories of fans, media and the history books and the field would be 2 cars lighter which is something Bernie was trying to prevent almost at all costs, because a depleted field doesn't bode well for a series that is supposed to be the most elite on the planet and could cost them tens, even hundreds of millions in the way of sponsorship dollars, not to mention media generated revenues.


Your first paragraph is not correct.

Minardi definitely ran on budgets no higher than the small teams of today and neither Minardi or Jordan had any tobacco advertising in 2004.

A comparable issue to the budgets is the current regulations IMO. When Jordan and Minardi were around things were a lot less tightly controlled, so innovation and creativity were rewarded and they didn't always have to go hand in hand with a lot of money (although of course it's always helped). But the rules now are so complex and restrictive that it's almost impossible for anyone to come up with anything new, since chances are it will be excluded by the regulations. So vast amounts are spent by the big teams on development in existing areas, which favours those teams with greater resources chasing ever diminishing returns. And as long as everything is so tightly controlled I don't see that changing. The order at the top may shuffle around from time to time, but minnows will always be minnows

exactly what many have been saying for years... teams spend tens of thousands of dollars on front wings, where the only difference is 3mm flap size, a slightly different flap shape or an added fin on the sideplate... big teams come with 2-3 different wings to a race and determine the best wing combination in back-to-back tests and i don't want to know how many are being prduced and tested in the factory...

that extends to all areas like turning vanes, badgeboards, vanes on the sidepods and then those almost unrecognizable little slots and fins on the floor right next to the rear tyre...

i remember a tv commentator asking alex wurz once how it could be possible for f1 cars to run with the endplate and half the cascade of the front wing missing - because what would be the use of those if they could still run reasonably without them... the answer: it is not always for downforce, it's also for stability, balance, drag-reduction, fuel-saving ... the teams then run calculations and introduce a bit of lift-and-coast instead of changing the wing... sometimes, the driver might just not get a 100% feedback to his liking with a damaged wing, which will hardly hamper im during the race but might have an effect in qualifying...

that was just to elaborate on the fact that teams spend millions (over a season) on changes, that might not even bring a measurable time-benefit because the areas of development are so tightly regulated, they have to exploit anything they can...
How to fix F1:
1. Stop seeking consensuses on rules - it will always turn out to be the least favourible option for everyone involved...
2. Listen to the fans - there are plenty of them and they have good ideas...

zneb67
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:40 pm

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by zneb67 »

Looks like Sky is also interested in a takeover.
Forget about FTA coverage if that happens
http://www.news.com.au/sport/motorsport/surprise-party-in-formula-1-takeover-bid/story-fnec578q-1227419502264

User avatar
Placid
Posts: 2467
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:14 am
Location: Chicago, Illinois, USA

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by Placid »

It will be interesting if the Dolphins owner gets Beanie (... oh ... Sorry!! Bernie) out of office and probably try to get a US driver on the grid other than Rossi (Alex that is).

GingerFurball
Posts: 1804
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:20 pm

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by GingerFurball »

shoot999 wrote:
MistaVega23 wrote:
HS Thompson wrote:
Exediron wrote:Yeah, it's all over the web so there's definitely something to it. Doesn't mean it'll happen though.

Honestly, new ownership can hardly be worse, especially if one of their goals is to weaken Bernie's grasp on the whole business. What's the worst that could happen? They just try and squeeze a profit out of it at the detriment of the sport? Oh wait, that already happened.


One stat that was in the article I linked to was that the TV ratings of the Austrian Grand Prix were down 40% this year. Forty percent!! That's an enormous drop.

Given the number of households who are no longer able to watch the race live (or at all) then this should be taken with a pinch of salt.


It does seem that PPV is the elephant in the room when F1 wrings their hands over falling figures and looks for solutions. In 2013 worldwide viewership fell by 50 million; but 46 million of those were from countries that switched to PPV. As Lee McKenzie said in a recent podcast more people watch FP3 when its live on the BBC than watch the race on Sky. So there is an audience there; they just don't want to pay through the nose for it.
It will be interesting to see which model any new owners seek to persue. Exclusivity through PPV, or a greater market reach for the sponsors through free to air, combined with various premium packages.


It baffles me - given that Sky offer F1 on a standalone channel - that there's not an option for F1 fans to take just that channel from Sky's premium channels.

User avatar
dizlexik
Posts: 7796
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm

Re: Formula One takeover possibly underway in future

Post by dizlexik »

I believe a broadcasters will be better than any investment fund.
eeee

Post Reply