Yeah, well there is a problem when commercial rights are owned by investors, not by people who are running the sport.
to be fair though the teams had the chance to own the rights, they CHOSE Bernie to run things for them
Posted 07 August 2013 - 12:47
Yeah, well there is a problem when commercial rights are owned by investors, not by people who are running the sport.
Advertisement
Posted 07 August 2013 - 13:03
At that time he was one of them.....to be fair though the teams had the chance to own the rights, they CHOSE Bernie to run things for them
Posted 07 August 2013 - 13:11
Lol, the history according to BE. He was representing the teams, did the deal with Max in which he mysteriously came to 'own' the commercial rights, then offered to sell a little bit back to the teams for a lot of money. Now the teams he used to represent are just things he uses for himself and the leeches.to be fair though the teams had the chance to own the rights, they CHOSE Bernie to run things for them
Posted 07 August 2013 - 13:12
Sounds like they need it.Deal is not done, they are working on it.
Posted 07 August 2013 - 13:16
Lol, the history according to BE.
Posted 07 August 2013 - 13:36
Bernie has said many times that it's up to the teams to control their spending. In a way i do agree with him, but i wouldnt mind a more equal distribution of FOM money.
Posted 07 August 2013 - 13:40
The distribution hasn't changed fundamentally for the past 15 years as far as i'm aware - and with the larger income, teams should be getting more from the pot than they did in the past. Sure, it's far from perfect and i agree that they should be getting more than the 50% they do now, but it is in their responsibility to adjust their spending according to their projected income. If they can't find sponsors, they shouldn't spend the money.Spending yes.
Getting an equitable share yes as well, and that is where the commercial rights holder fail miserably.
Posted 07 August 2013 - 13:41
Posted 07 August 2013 - 14:20
Advertisement
Posted 07 August 2013 - 14:43
Haven't thought about that yet, but it seems to be true to some point. Eric Boullier said so in an interview. (2:20)They are a top team because they have been spending way too much money. Had they spent what they could afford, they would be in the midfield.
Posted 07 August 2013 - 14:49
It took about 1 1/2 pages into the thread for LdM/Ferrari to somehow become the culprit of Lotus' financial problems. Congratulations for holding out so long.BE has been all for lowering costs for teams. It's LdM who always throws toys out of pram threatening to leave F1 every time it looks like something might actually be achieved.
Edited by four1, 07 August 2013 - 14:51.
Posted 07 August 2013 - 14:52
F1 business model is fine even for the teams, Lotus has been running without a main sponsor and the only big spot they've sold on the car is the engine cover. Greed, Boullier or whatever left them running red patches where the Honeywell logos should have been this season.The troubles at Lotus have been touched upon in other threads, as well as several articles at Autosport.
F1 is working of a broken business model, and unless the powers that is come to their senses, then Lotus may or may not fail, Sauber may or may not fail, Force India may or may not fail, Caterham may or may not fail, most tracks that hos F1 are operating at a loss but the commercial rights holder is doing fine.
It is clear and plain that the distribution of fiscal resources are not working, seems equally clear and plain that the commercial rights holder will do nothing to help fix the issues.
Posted 07 August 2013 - 15:12
#2 driver in championship but they can't get a sponsor to save their lives. Never seen anything like it before.
Posted 07 August 2013 - 15:14
The distribution hasn't changed fundamentally for the past 15 years as far as i'm aware - and with the larger income, teams should be getting more from the pot than they did in the past. Sure, it's far from perfect and i agree that they should be getting more than the 50% they do now, but it is in their responsibility to adjust their spending according to their projected income. If they can't find sponsors, they shouldn't spend the money.
There have always been teams overspending. Genii bought into the team in pretty difficult economic conditions, probably to sell it to whoever is interested a few years later when the economic climate had stabilized - and it's only now that a deal for a partial sale seems close. They got Lotus as a title sponsor in what was seen by some as a ploy to get their hands on Lotus Cars, but they lost them again when the Baharniverse collapsed and left the team with only the licence to use the name. So, since early 2012 they are without a real title sponsor and with the largest normal sponsors being Total, an energy drink i can't remember ever having seen on the shelves anywhere and an anti-dandruff shampoo. Yet they employ a probably not too cheap Kimi Raikkonen and are successfully competing with the top 4 teams, which is likely not only the result of some great work at their factory and garages, but also a substantial lump of money that should be accounted for.
Posted 07 August 2013 - 15:16
Posted 07 August 2013 - 15:21
Perfect storm of economic downturn, CVC/Bernie draining too much money from the sport and inter-team bickering preventing any effective limits on budgets.The F1 business model is rotten to the core and seems to be unravelling slowly at the moment. Bernie needs to go and it needs to be run properly, it's ridiculous that so many teams and tracks are in so much financial trouble.
Posted 07 August 2013 - 15:59
Hit the nail on the head!This might sound strange, but I actually think there's too much money in F1 - and its all in the wrong places.
I'm starting to wonder if Max might have been on to something with his budget cap.
Posted 07 August 2013 - 16:23
Posted 07 August 2013 - 16:33
Posted 07 August 2013 - 16:34
Marussia not getting a cent isn't really new. The Column-3 payments of $10m each for the competitors not qualifying for Column-1/2 payments were only introduced in 2009 to help the three new teams. They were also payed out of a special FOM fund, not the prize fund. Before that, only the top 10 teams received money from FOM and that's what Bernie wants to return to in the new CA.The distribution have been massively changed.
The case of Marussia not getting a cent is new, and a change of distribution, I think the various percentages of distribution have been changed repeatedly the past 15 years. Used to be only Ferrari who were getting a special cut, now even Red Bull is getting one, even though have only existed as Red Bull sine 2005.
Posted 07 August 2013 - 16:46
Oh sure. I don't suppose this was around the time Frank was desperate for cash?It's according to Sir Frank Williams, not Bernie
Posted 07 August 2013 - 16:47
If they are struggling to get sponsors with Kimi on board, then the team's income will absolutely dwindle without him. With midfield teams struggling to stay afloat, F1 is in a dire state. I can see Kimi being replaced by a young pay driver. How else will the team be able to keep up with the development race in 2014??
Edited by ForeverInLoveWithF1, 07 August 2013 - 16:52.
Posted 07 August 2013 - 17:19
Not going to happen and that's a good thing. The teams are unable to even keep something like FOTA working, are easily split over all kinds of matters and probably couldn't even decide on a name for a racing series. Ok, the last one isn't completely true, as we had the GPWC breakaway threat in 2004 and another one in 2010 over the budget cap row. Both collapsing after Ferrari switched back to F1 when Bernie tossed them some shiny coins.The teams need to start their own series. [...]
I'm not sure most of NASCAR's sponsoring deals would be of much use to F1 teams. According to this, a Sprint Cup sponsorship is in the range of $12-$15m per season. And that's probably for a top car, with 36 races, a huge single-country range and the complete car being painted in your corporate colours. I guess $15m is what Blackberry pays for a bit of branding on the side of the Merc tub and the head rest.the question is why arent sponsors coming forward, while say nascar, even 3rd division nascar has proper none paydriver linked sponsors.
lotus has been one of the more successful teams at getting stickers on their car too..
Edited by dau, 07 August 2013 - 17:32.
Posted 07 August 2013 - 17:24
Posted 07 August 2013 - 17:32
Posted 07 August 2013 - 17:53
It's poor value. In F1 $5m buys you almost nothing in terms of exposure. Step up to $50m and there are a lot of good-looking alternatives.the question is why arent sponsors coming forward, while say nascar, even 3rd division nascar has proper none paydriver linked sponsors.
lotus has been one of the more successful teams at getting stickers on their car too..
Posted 07 August 2013 - 17:55
The world as we know it is addicted to debt, it's not even worth them commenting on it. Late salaries on the other hand is a much bigger deal. Losing this team will be worse than losing Tyrrell was.
Posted 07 August 2013 - 18:33
And you look forward to that because?This Lotus bubble should finally blow up some day.
Why are those bad things? To me, it shows the team's sustenance and will power to stay on. Unless you are blessed with financial backing, most racing teams sustain their passion and business by changing hands, sponsors, names and personnel. I have lot more respect for such fight-and-live teams compared to those that enjoy luxurious financial backing. No offense to Sauber (their finances have always dictated them to be a midfield team), but the Enstone team gone a step ahead and have 4 WDCs and 3 WCCs. Sorry, don't disrespect a team that has faced so much struggle to survive, yet they have fought impressively, rising from the ashes often and winning championships at that. I consider all these to be very impressive.I really wouldn't miss this team so much, too many ownership and name changes. I'd miss Sauber more.
Edited by SpaMaster, 07 August 2013 - 18:44.
Posted 07 August 2013 - 19:19
The F1 business model is rotten to the core and seems to be unravelling slowly at the moment. Bernie needs to go and it needs to be run properly, it's ridiculous that so many teams and tracks are in so much financial trouble.
Advertisement
Posted 07 August 2013 - 19:29
Why are those bad things? To me, it shows the team's sustenance and will power to stay on. Unless you are blessed with financial backing, most racing teams sustain their passion and business by changing hands, sponsors, names and personnel. I have lot more respect for such fight-and-live teams compared to those that enjoy luxurious financial backing. No offense to Sauber (their finances have always dictated them to be a midfield team), but the Enstone team gone a step ahead and have 4 WDCs and 3 WCCs. Sorry, don't disrespect a team that has faced so much struggle to survive, yet they have fought impressively, rising from the ashes often and winning championships at that. I consider all these to be very impressive.
Posted 07 August 2013 - 20:01
The special agreements with Ferrari, Red Bull and McLaren only come into play with the new CA, which is not yet in effect as at least FIA's signature is still missing. These are also not being payed out of the prize fund like Ferrari's extra 2.5% was in the past, but a special fund created to reward the most successful teams in the past few seasons or something like that. The new CA also raises the team's share of F1's profit from 47% to 63%, so that alone will mean much more money for the teams.
Edited by Wingcommander, 07 August 2013 - 20:02.
Posted 07 August 2013 - 20:02
I always had the impression that Lopez was using the team to turn a quick buck, just like Alex Shnaider did with Jordan/Midland. Buy a floundering team, invest nothing, then flog it a quick as possible for a tidy profit. Not only that but you also get the added cachet of saying you owned a team plus the free publicity that comes with it.I think the real issue with Lotus isn't in their Renault-and-before past but what happened since. Genii have used smoke and mirrors to make the team seem stronger than it really is, which has the knock-on effect of putting off potential real investors and sponsors. I'm not sure what the game plan was originally; sell the team to Group Lotus? Use the team as leverage to buy Group Lotus?
I was dismayed when Genii got the nod over Prodrive because we've seen time and time again that you can't run racing teams as an investment. You have to run them as racing teams. Winning should be your motivation, not profit.
Edited by Arry2k, 07 August 2013 - 20:03.
Posted 07 August 2013 - 20:33
This might sound strange, but I actually think there's too much money in F1 - and its all in the wrong places.
I'm starting to wonder if Max might have been on to something with his budget cap.
Posted 07 August 2013 - 23:08
The same guy who sold away the commercial rights for 100 years to FOM to boot with, was on to something? Let me make an educated guess: His concern was to ensure that money was still flowing to those holding the commercial rights.This might sound strange, but I actually think there's too much money in F1 - and its all in the wrong places.
I'm starting to wonder if Max might have been on to something with his budget cap.
Posted 07 August 2013 - 23:39
Posted 08 August 2013 - 00:10
This.
I think it is evident that Formula 1 is becoming increasingly irrelevant - for both sponsors and public. Last week I had a discussion with a couple of mates who were not into F1 at all and I asked them if they could name one team, one sponsor and one driver. They replied with Ferrari, Marlboro and Schumacher. Back in the early 2000s Schumacher and Ferrari were icons drawing huge mainstream crowds, but nowadays it just isn't happening. My friends were asking me where they could see a race on telly on a lazy Sunday afternoon - and I replied to them that in most countries F1 is (partially) behind a paywall. I believe that this is one of the main causes for the current lack of sponsors in F1. For example, look at the liveries of the 2001 grid and the current grid. Even midtable teams such as Jordan, Sauber and Jaguar had title sponsors and sponsorship decals everywhere. On the current grid, even a team with heritage such as Williams does not have a title sponsor and the sidepods (one of the prime places for sponsorship logos) are eerily empty. F1 should become more accessible to the mainstream public by making sure that F1 remains FTA, that ticket prices will go down and that more races will be held in countries with a motorsport heritage. The same goes for all the artificial tyre and DRS rules that make racing just unnecessary complicated for the mainstream public. Keep F1 simple: just the fastest cars, the most challenging venues and the best drivers are just perfect and will draw huge crowds if it all comes together. F1 becomes increasingly irrelevant among the mainstream crowd and I believe that the mainstream crowd is vital for the sports' existence. Just look at Tony George and IndyCar...
Posted 08 August 2013 - 00:17
This.
I think it is evident that Formula 1 is becoming increasingly irrelevant - for both sponsors and public. Last week I had a discussion with a couple of mates who were not into F1 at all and I asked them if they could name one team, one sponsor and one driver. They replied with Ferrari, Marlboro and Schumacher. Back in the early 2000s Schumacher and Ferrari were icons drawing huge mainstream crowds, but nowadays it just isn't happening. My friends were asking me where they could see a race on telly on a lazy Sunday afternoon - and I replied to them that in most countries F1 is (partially) behind a paywall. I believe that this is one of the main causes for the current lack of sponsors in F1. For example, look at the liveries of the 2001 grid and the current grid. Even midtable teams such as Jordan, Sauber and Jaguar had title sponsors and sponsorship decals everywhere. On the current grid, even a team with heritage such as Williams does not have a title sponsor and the sidepods (one of the prime places for sponsorship logos) are eerily empty. F1 should become more accessible to the mainstream public by making sure that F1 remains FTA, that ticket prices will go down and that more races will be held in countries with a motorsport heritage. The same goes for all the artificial tyre and DRS rules that make racing just unnecessary complicated for the mainstream public. Keep F1 simple: just the fastest cars, the most challenging venues and the best drivers are just perfect and will draw huge crowds if it all comes together. F1 becomes increasingly irrelevant among the mainstream crowd and I believe that the mainstream crowd is vital for the sports' existence. Just look at Tony George and IndyCar...
Posted 08 August 2013 - 02:19
Edited by Thomas99, 08 August 2013 - 02:20.
Posted 08 August 2013 - 04:03
Does anyone know are the debt figures people are throwing around debt to creditors or debt to shareholders? Those are two VERY different problems.
If its Shareholder debt its not really an issue.
Posted 08 August 2013 - 04:34
I think the real issue with Lotus isn't in their Renault-and-before past but what happened since. Genii have used smoke and mirrors to make the team seem stronger than it really is, which has the knock-on effect of putting off potential real investors and sponsors. I'm not sure what the game plan was originally; sell the team to Group Lotus? Use the team as leverage to buy Group Lotus?
I was dismayed when Genii got the nod over Prodrive because we've seen time and time again that you can't run racing teams as an investment. You have to run them as racing teams. Winning should be your motivation, not profit.
Posted 08 August 2013 - 04:37
Posted 08 August 2013 - 04:40
you can't run racing teams as an investment. You have to run them as racing teams. Winning should be your motivation, not profit.
Posted 08 August 2013 - 04:55
Edited by MikeV1987, 08 August 2013 - 04:59.
Posted 08 August 2013 - 05:54
Posted 08 August 2013 - 06:42
Posted 08 August 2013 - 06:53
Posted 08 August 2013 - 07:34
Try explaining to a non-fan how much teams spend designing a front wing and they'll just laugh at you, and rightly so.
Posted 08 August 2013 - 07:54
Investment companies always try to make a buck, but IMO Genii got screwed here. I think Group Lotus has a lot to do with it, Danny Bahar made some bold promises back in late 2010, like expanding the company with 5 new models. He was later outsed and now all 5 models are now cancelled for good. All that wasted time and money for nothing, now Group Lotus struggles to sell 1000 cars a year, and Genii are left with a dying Formula 1 team that they intended to brand and sell to Group Lotus after their intended expansion.
Posted 08 August 2013 - 09:28
That's news to me, you have a source for that?Do the teams even need CA? The agreements about prize money are now a separate thing. The only reason for CA is to get a deal between FIA and Bernie.
Advertisement
Posted 08 August 2013 - 09:38