Jump to content


Photo

CVC and F1


  • Please log in to reply
275 replies to this topic

#1 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,309 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 21 June 2009 - 07:59

I want to talk a little bit about CVC and the way the sport is being run commercially. It seemed to make sense to split this from the 'breakaway' stuff because that is largely polluted by the debate for and against Mosley.

I've said from the start that this is only a tiny part of the problem, and that the key problem is rather CVC. Dieter Recken put it recently that if CVC wasn't around leeching half of the revenues, that the issues of governance would probably go away. Ed Gorman at the times characterised it the other way, that if Mosley went the problems with the financial sideo f things would go away.

That is dead wrong.

Finally in the media the debate seems to be turning to the way CVC and Bernie _exploit_ the sport. While it would seem the commercial arrangements ought to be largely transparent to teams and fans it has not been that way. The races in markets where fans exist have lost out because they run as commercial operations - not government sponsored propaganda events. Governments, in countries of mostly dubious attraction, looking to recover their investments slate us, fans, with ticket prices. They also gouge a bit more from accommodation. The few remaining events in Europe and Australia are now so expensive that you cannot justify at all taking your family.

Many of us grew to love F1 by going to races. You can be interested in something you see on TV, but it takes the whiff of brake dust and petrol along with the almighty roar to truly become a disciple of the sport. Bernie and CVC have squeezed fans in the heartlands for the best part of a decade and the result has been the aging of the population of F1 fans.

Most fans are those who grew to love F1 before the mid 90s, that means the demographics of the sport are skewed. Young people i.e. 14-24 simply haven't grown to love the sport like those of us a bit older.

Anyway Mark Hughes turned his attention to CVC in the times today and there's a wonderful paragraph which sums up my feelings:

http://www.timesonli...icle6543225.ece

At the most fundamental level, the teams question whether the rights were ever Ecclestone’s to sell. “The original arrangement was that the rights were leased to Foca,” said a team principal. “At some stage in the 1990s they transferred to Bernie’s own company. It was one thing being raped by Bernie, but it’s another being raped by a venture capital company, one that owes many of the teams a lot of money and whose value has plummeted recently. We don’t like how CVC uses this sport as a short-term cash cow with no thought or care about promoting it and investing in its future.” This has become a bigger issue for the teams with the advent of the credit crunch and their difficulty in raising sponsorship money from external sources. While the FIA has been attempting to impose cost controls as a solution, the teams — faced with considerable difficulty in downsizing in a short time frame — see cutting out the “vulture” that is removing half its income as a preferable solution.


What CVC is doing *is* rape, it is the rape of a sport all of us here love. And for as much of an issue that Mosley is, I think ridding Grand Prix racing of these pinstripe vultures is the best outcome from any breakaway.

Advertisement

#2 Slick

Slick
  • Administrator

  • 3,330 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 21 June 2009 - 08:10

In that sense, a breakaway is probably the only option as CVC own the rights to formula one, the only way to get the rights from them is either to buy them back which would be extraordinarilly expensive, or to remove it's value altogether by forming a breakaway series.

#3 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,309 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 21 June 2009 - 08:17

In that sense, a breakaway is probably the only option as CVC own the rights to formula one, the only way to get the rights from them is either to buy them back which would be extraordinarilly expensive, or to remove it's value altogether by forming a breakaway series.


Basically a rival series will kill F1's commercial value. A good idea would be to buy the commercial rights on the cheap from cvc's firesale, then go back to the FIA for 2011 from a position of strength.

The FIA should be the arbitrator, not the rule maker + abitrator. And CVC should in no way whatsoever be the profiteer.

#4 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 08:18

I have to say I think it's really Bernie/CVC that have been bringing down F1 in recent years, not so much Spanky. Spanky just ices the shit-cake with his stupid rules but Bernie's mob bake the shit-sponge and sell it to everyone at extrotionate prices. All the crappy new tracks, night races, evening races. Bernie has made F1 so anodyne, I think most people would enjoy F1 more if it wasnt so slick and superficial but had some nice tracks and quirkiness back again.

#5 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,309 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 21 June 2009 - 08:23

I have to say I think it's really Bernie/CVC that have been bringing down F1 in recent years, not so much Spanky. Spanky just ices the shit-cake with his stupid rules but Bernie's mob bake the shit-sponge and sell it to everyone at extrotionate prices. All the crappy new tracks, night races, evening races. Bernie has made F1 so anodyne, I think most people would enjoy F1 more if it wasnt so slick and superficial but had some nice tracks and quirkiness back again.


I agree. My personal view is this budget capping exercise is more about protecting CVC than F1 itself. And I don't understand why that is. Another good article on this is here:
http://www.guardian....ichard-williams

#6 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 08:27

I agree. My personal view is this budget capping exercise is more about protecting CVC than F1 itself. And I don't understand why that is. Another good article on this is here:
http://www.guardian....ichard-williams


Did anyone else think Bernie seemed quite depressed yesterday when he was interviewed? A good sign I think. Eddie Jordan seems to love him though.

#7 Motormedia

Motormedia
  • Member

  • 2,024 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 08:28

The teams should own the commercial rights. A structure that wouldn't go against any competition laws would have to be created. I think FOTA should have adressed that issue instead of trying to pin FIA against the wall.

It may very well be that the way Bernie aquired the rights are at the bottom of the conflict and that is why the teams get any money at all from the commercial rights holder. Other than that, I don't see why the teams should have any money at all...

Edited by Motormedia, 21 June 2009 - 08:30.


#8 JPW

JPW
  • Member

  • 3,335 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 08:30

The teams should own the commercial rights. A structure that wouldn't go against any competition laws would have to be created. I think FOTA should have adressed that issue instead of trying to pin FIA against the wall.

Wasn't it so that some years ago the teams had the opportunity to buy the commercial rights but they didn't?
I think I read an interview where that was mentioned.

#9 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,309 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 21 June 2009 - 08:30

The teams should own the commercial rights. A structure that wouldn't go against any competition laws would have to be created. I think FOTA should have adressed that issue instead of trying to pin FIA against the wall.


Unfortunately for that view is that Max has put himself between the teams and Bernie. And Bernie is just the frontman for CVC. And he's old. Very old. I swear he looks like he's aged 10 years in the past 12 months.

#10 Motormedia

Motormedia
  • Member

  • 2,024 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 08:33

Wasn't it so that some years ago the teams had the opportunity to buy the commercial rights but they didn't?
I think I read an interview where that was mentioned.


If that is correct, I don't see that the teams can make any claims whatsoever on any money from CVC. Anyways, morally fair or not, Bernie being handed the rights on a plate apparently wasn't illegal and CVC are not at fault here.

#11 Motormedia

Motormedia
  • Member

  • 2,024 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 08:35

Unfortunately for that view is that Max has put himself between the teams and Bernie. And Bernie is just the frontman for CVC. And he's old. Very old. I swear he looks like he's aged 10 years in the past 12 months.


At this point I see no better timing than to offer FOTA to buy the commercial rights from CVC, or at least becoming a part owner.

#12 JPW

JPW
  • Member

  • 3,335 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 08:37

Here's the quote:

Why didn’t the manufacturers buy the Formula One business? It would have been the easiest
way.


BE: Absolutely. That’s what they should have done.

MM: When we were doing the famous $300 million deal with Bernie for the TV-rights over the next 100
years, I got a call from Mr. Cantarella, who was at that time in charge of GPWC. He told me that they
were interested. I said, sure, make a bid. If they were prepared to offer more, we would have been
obliged to look at it.
We had a meeting in June, where Cantarella told me, that they were not able to make a decision before
September. I then said to the World Council ‘we have Bernie’s firm offer on the table, or we can wait
until September and maybe the manufacturers will offer more, but we can’t be sure’.
We weren’t talking about a billion dollars a year for five years. If they had offered $400 million, Bernie
would have either had to match it or we would have had to take it. The thing is, that they could not even
agree to offer $400 million to buy all the rights from 2010 to infinity.


MM and BE interview

#13 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,309 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 21 June 2009 - 08:37

If that is correct, I don't see that the teams can make any claims whatsoever on any money from CVC. Anyways, morally fair or not, Bernie being handed the rights on a plate apparently wasn't illegal and CVC are not at fault here.


They can quite easily make claims on money from CVC. The teams provide the show, what do CVC provide, and at what cost?

500 million seems a steep price for the 'service' they offer. I think the teams are best off saying, well you keep your rights, we're taking ourselves and our value with us. See ya.

#14 Motormedia

Motormedia
  • Member

  • 2,024 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 08:42

They can quite easily make claims on money from CVC. The teams provide the show, what do CVC provide, and at what cost?

500 million seems a steep price for the 'service' they offer. I think the teams are best off saying, well you keep your rights, we're taking ourselves and our value with us. See ya.



Of course, nothing is forcing the teams to be part of F1. But in reality they are not looking after anybodys interests except their own. They don't give a damn about the sport. The problem is the increased costs over the years and that the teams are not self sufficient, relying on handouts from owners and CVC. Cut the costs, make the sport commercially viable on its own and there would be no conflict.

#15 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,309 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 21 June 2009 - 08:45

Of course, nothing is forcing the teams to be part of F1. But in reality they are not looking after anybodys interests except their own. They don't give a damn about the sport. The problem is the increased costs over the years and that the teams are not self sufficient, relying on handouts from owners and CVC. Cut the costs, make the sport commercially viable on its own and there would be no conflict.


The teams have more interests aligned with fans than do CVC. So in that regard the teams are looking at peoples interests other than their own. It may not be deliberate, but it is certainly the case that we, fans, are better of with a series operated commercially by the participants than by investment bankers.

So your argument here holds no water whatsoever. Unless of course you think it's a great idea we have all these 'outsourced' Grands Prix and ludicrous ticket prices to pay off CVC's debt?

#16 Motormedia

Motormedia
  • Member

  • 2,024 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 08:52

The teams have more interests aligned with fans than do CVC. So in that regard the teams are looking at peoples interests other than their own. It may not be deliberate, but it is certainly the case that we, fans, are better of with a series operated commercially by the participants than by investment bankers.

So your argument here holds no water whatsoever. Unless of course you think it's a great idea we have all these 'outsourced' Grands Prix and ludicrous ticket prices to pay off CVC's debt?



I still think FOTA should accept the lay of the land at the moment, cut their costs and work for a long term change. Given CVC's financial difficulties there might be an opportunity for a solution that would satisfy the owners of CVC and the teams. Unfortunately, FOTA hasn't adressed the problem in the correct way.

#17 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 08:55

Here's the quote:



MM and BE interview


Yeah that's their side of what happened, what does the other side say?

#18 R2D2

R2D2
  • Member

  • 780 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 08:57

To me it's clear that the "budget cap" and the associated obtrusive financial snooping is a mechanism by which Bernie and Max can "justify" raping the sport of even more money, by tightly constraining the profit that the ("tin pot") competitors can make. While doing this they can make some concessions elsewhere (like reducing costs for certain tracks and maybe ticket prices) and attempt to keep the public/fans on board.

The teams pulling the plug is the best thing they can do.

#19 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 08:57

I still think FOTA should accept the lay of the land at the moment, cut their costs and work for a long term change. Given CVC's financial difficulties there might be an opportunity for a solution that would satisfy the owners of CVC and the teams. Unfortunately, FOTA hasn't adressed the problem in the correct way.


I disagree, why should FOTA bargain with CVC? CVC are, imo, ****. The teams have their own finances to worry about, they dont need CVC's as well.

Advertisement

#20 Motormedia

Motormedia
  • Member

  • 2,024 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 09:16

I disagree, why should FOTA bargain with CVC? CVC are, imo, ****. The teams have their own finances to worry about, they dont need CVC's as well.


Well, if it's down to business, not sport, then they should make a decision based on that. Would be good if the fans opened their eyes and realised that FOTA are not doing this for the sake of the sport. They want a bigger slice of the pie so that they can continue to waste money on technical refinement that could otherwise have been investested in the commercial side of the sport. Were the teams ever in a position to buy the commercial rights, or develop the commercial business of F1 into what it is today? If so, why didn't they? If FOTA wants to sacrifice F1 for their own incapability, go ahead! The opportunity for them to create better commercial terms is there, of course by investement of others, like CVC and through the brand value of F1. They got that for free...

#21 Supersleeper

Supersleeper
  • Member

  • 1,441 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 21 June 2009 - 09:34

At this point I see no better timing than to offer FOTA to buy the commercial rights from CVC, or at least becoming a part owner.

....it would be a "Bernie" of an idea wouldn't it......offer very little for the rights, or leave and destroy CVC's investment in it's entirety.

...and yes, the budget cap is all about ensuring CVC can make their loan repayments.

Edited by Supersleeper, 21 June 2009 - 09:35.


#22 krapmeister

krapmeister
  • Member

  • 5,607 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 21 June 2009 - 09:42

IMO if you want to get rid of Bernie and CVC - you also have to get rid of Max.

Max and Bernie are a team, and Bernie/CVC have only got to the position they have through the willingness of Max to go along with whatever they want.

And Max has been handsomely rewarded for it too.

Bernie and Max have made their money, now it's time for CVC to go under - debt is deadly remember :lol: - and restructure the sport both administratively and financially.

Edited by krapmeister, 21 June 2009 - 10:27.


#23 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,399 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:00

Correct me if I am wrong but I cannot think of any other sport where an outside commercial party (like CVC) has such a fundemental stake in a sport and extracts so much profit from it.

Bernie clearly did a great job in bringing structure to F1 and the teams encouraged him. Likewise the FIA under MM have done a great job on safety ( and the teams suported MM geting the job).

However Max and Bernie have been joined at the knee ever since and giving 100 year rights etc to CVC is beyond any rational behavoir by any governing body.

What started as all power to Bernie because he kept a set of secret contracts in his briefcase is now unsustainable with CVC holding the income stream. I think it is fair to blame Bernie heavily for theCVC situation because he choose to cash in his position by seling out to them for a huge suum. CVC ( as I understand it) did the usual private equity thing and financed his cash payment by borrowing heavily and so geared up their profit. Now they presumably can't give in because of the debt payment commitments.

I think that means that the F1 constructors would have to start a series without any CVC involvement and force CVC to write off its investmant in F1. Putting aside all the MM claims about Ferrari I can't se any legal reson stopping a new non CVC series. At a guess if Australia, China, Monaco, Monza, Indianapolis and Silverstone went with the new series then the TV problems would get fixed one way or another. Those races are where the manufacturers really care about things.

In terms of TV rights remember neither Murdoch nor ESPN have ever moved into "F1" and they have lawyers just as smart as Bernie so if FOTA Do start a series and get those key cucuits in place the TV problems could be solved and CVC will just have lose a lot of money (like many other private equity companies recently).

#24 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,879 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:09

Not so long ago, the FIA pledged to help the teams to get more money from FOM:

The teams' stance that they should get more income from Ecclestone has been supported by Mosley, who wrote to FOTA last month [November 2008] saying that the governing body wanted to push for an increased revenue share.

Mosley wrote in a letter about future cost cut plans: "The FIA would join with FOTA in seeking to persuade FOM to divide the prize money so that up to 12 teams are guaranteed at least $50m (€40m or £33m) each. This would ensure a full grid with a strong possibility that new teams will enter the championship, filling the two vacant slots as well as any additional vacancies."SOURCE



#25 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,696 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:09

ESPN/ABC used to cover F1 for America.

#26 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:12

Well, if it's down to business, not sport, then they should make a decision based on that. Would be good if the fans opened their eyes and realised that FOTA are not doing this for the sake of the sport. They want a bigger slice of the pie so that they can continue to waste money on technical refinement that could otherwise have been investested in the commercial side of the sport. Were the teams ever in a position to buy the commercial rights, or develop the commercial business of F1 into what it is today? If so, why didn't they? If FOTA wants to sacrifice F1 for their own incapability, go ahead! The opportunity for them to create better commercial terms is there, of course by investement of others, like CVC and through the brand value of F1. They got that for free...


You dont seem very able to grasp that CVC are not really interested in anything other than making money out of this. Private equity companies are always like this, Bernie was a complete and utter muppet getting them involved in the first place. the best route forward now as others have said is to break away and let CVC go to the wall. It's the only way their stranglehold can be broken.

#27 OnyxF1

OnyxF1
  • Member

  • 547 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:17

Fantastic post by Kar, I'm glad to see that somebody has got to the real issue here. Max Mosley is a gigantic pain in the ass who changes the rules every year to suit his needs but he is not the main problem. Bernie and CVC are. If it wasn't for CVC's debt sucking the life out of the sport, we probably could have raced at many of the great circuits people like. It also would have been more attractive to small teams to come in since they would have had a bigger share of the revenues. Instead we have night races and races with empty stands because the vulture fund needs government handouts to survive. The sad thing is that because of this it is tracks like Silverstone- and not empty, lifeless circuits like Turkey or Bahrain- which is going to kicked off the F1 calendar. Canada, which I believe had the greatest number of spectators and viewers is now gone from the calendar and France, which hosted the first ever grand prix back in 1906, is gone as well. The other fact is that moving to all these exotic locations is merely going to increase costs more as the sport moves further away from F1's heartland in Europe.

#28 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:25

Fantastic post by Kar, I'm glad to see that somebody has got to the real issue here. Max Mosley is a gigantic pain in the ass who changes the rules every year to suit his needs but he is not the main problem. Bernie and CVC are. If it wasn't for CVC's debt sucking the life out of the sport, we probably could have raced at many of the great circuits people like. It also would have been more attractive to small teams to come in since they would have had a bigger share of the revenues. Instead we have night races and races with empty stands because the vulture fund needs government handouts to survive. The sad thing is that because of this it is tracks like Silverstone- and not empty, lifeless circuits like Turkey or Bahrain- which is going to kicked off the F1 calendar. Canada, which I believe had the greatest number of spectators and viewers is now gone from the calendar and France, which hosted the first ever grand prix back in 1906, is gone as well. The other fact is that moving to all these exotic locations is merely going to increase costs more as the sport moves further away from F1's heartland in Europe.


Why cant the BBC get people like you to interview Bernie rather than sycophants like Eddie Jordan?

#29 wapcaplit

wapcaplit
  • Member

  • 94 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:28


I had been wondering (on another forum) whether CVC is exposed to badly priced assets (CDOs etc). That, to my mind, would explain rather a lot - why the dates for regulations and entry have been pushed so far forwards, why there is a big push on for the low end budget cap (i.e. to lower revenue to the teams) and so forth.

Many large companies are cutting off their own noses at the moment in a drive to lower costs - in fact I recently lost my contract for this very reason. For CVC there is probably no useful way to lower costs, but it is possible to increase their revenue share from F1.

#30 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,696 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:29

I love that we have CVC as the boogey man, I guess making huge profits in past years was okay?

#31 wapcaplit

wapcaplit
  • Member

  • 94 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:29

Why cant the BBC get people like you to interview Bernie rather than sycophants like Eddie Jordan?


Because the Beeb wouldn't then get the interviews. Have a squizz at some Chomsky sometime.

#32 pinnacle racing

pinnacle racing
  • Member

  • 430 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:30

How come we have yet to hear anything from CVC? Not a statement from Bernie, mind you. I meant a statement from a CVC spokesperson other than Bernie. There name is being dragged in the mud over this breakaway controversy and CVC doesn't even bother to explain their side?

#33 wapcaplit

wapcaplit
  • Member

  • 94 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:30

I love that we have CVC as the boogey man, I guess making huge profits in past years was okay?


/sigh

No, it wasn't.

Now it threatens the fabric of teh sport we love we're more vocal about it.

#34 nudger1964

nudger1964
  • Member

  • 336 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:31

Of course, nothing is forcing the teams to be part of F1. But in reality they are not looking after anybodys interests except their own. They don't give a damn about the sport. The problem is the increased costs over the years and that the teams are not self sufficient, relying on handouts from owners and CVC. Cut the costs, make the sport commercially viable on its own and there would be no conflict.


i dont understand what you are saying...it seems to be that you dont think the teams should be paid from the profits for participating in formula one? is that what you are saying?

#35 wapcaplit

wapcaplit
  • Member

  • 94 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:33

i dont understand what you are saying...it seems to be that you dont think the teams should be paid from the profits for participating in formula one? is that what you are saying?


Hehe yes they should be proper serfs.

#36 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:34

I love that we have CVC as the boogey man, I guess making huge profits in past years was okay?


Do you want to expand on this so we can actually see what you're getting at?

#37 Apollonius

Apollonius
  • Member

  • 601 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:35

I think that a lot of CVC defenders don't actually understand what venture capitalists do....

#38 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:38

Because the Beeb wouldn't then get the interviews. Have a squizz at some Chomsky sometime.


I certainly will have squizz sometime, I dont think I need to do that to understand your first sentence though. It was just wishful thinking.

#39 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:39

I think that a lot of CVC defenders don't actually understand what venture capitalists do....


Either that or they are venture capitalists...

Advertisement

#40 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 8,963 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:40

Do you want to expand on this so we can actually see what you're getting at?


Ah, you know Ross, cheeky posts, avoiding discussion ...

#41 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,696 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:41

I think they do actually, which is why they aren't surprised at this at all.

Regardless of CVC needing to pay off its loan, the teams like dropping historic races for the new fangled fly-aways. They fall for the emerging markets BS, they want the flashy garages, but most of all they want the extra money that comes with people like Abu Dhabi paying two or three times what the USGP would. The entrance of CVC just moved things along sooner rather than later.

#42 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:44

I think they do actually, which is why they aren't surprised at this at all.

Regardless of CVC needing to pay off its loan, the teams like dropping historic races for the new fangled fly-aways. They fall for the emerging markets BS, they want the flashy garages, but most of all they want the extra money that comes with people like Abu Dhabi paying two or three times what the USGP would. The entrance of CVC just moved things along sooner rather than later.


So why are they crying that there's no races in North America? Sorry Ross but I very rarely seem to agree with any of your posts, and I think it's because you make huge leaps in logic a lot of the time. (you make too many assumptions)

Edited by Madras, 21 June 2009 - 10:45.


#43 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,696 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:46

It's lip service mainly. F1 has no profile in America, and racing in America did little to change that. Whether there's a race in America, one in Canada, or both; affects the bottom line very little. Sure everyone enjoyed going to Montreal, but it wasn't a lynchpin of the series commercially.

#44 wapcaplit

wapcaplit
  • Member

  • 94 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:49

I think they do actually, which is why they aren't surprised at this at all.

Regardless of CVC needing to pay off its loan, the teams like dropping historic races for the new fangled fly-aways. They fall for the emerging markets BS, they want the flashy garages, but most of all they want the extra money that comes with people like Abu Dhabi paying two or three times what the USGP would. The entrance of CVC just moved things along sooner rather than later.


Are you serious?

Expenses vs Revenue.

Simple and probably highly inaccurate thought experiment: From FOM's perspective say the revenue is $100 and the expenses are $60 (i.e. 50% to CVC, a generous 10% to cover transport, admin and so on). The teams get 40%. Increase revenue to $105 (5% increase). CVC gets an extra 2.5%. The teams get an extra 2ish percent. Not much of a difference. Now drop CVC's take to 40%. The teams get an extra 10%.

If the situation is static, i.e. CVC stay in control and keep getting their 50% slice, I can see why the teams wouldn't mind going to a venue that will pay a little over the odds.

What the teams are fundamentally saying, though, is that 50% is just too damn high. I agree with them.

#45 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:51

You're also ignoring the fact many teams are complaining they arent getting paid by CVC.

#46 wapcaplit

wapcaplit
  • Member

  • 94 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:52

It's lip service mainly. F1 has no profile in America, and racing in America did little to change that. Whether there's a race in America, one in Canada, or both; affects the bottom line very little. Sure everyone enjoyed going to Montreal, but it wasn't a lynchpin of the series commercially.


Do you mean like Abu Dhabi, China and so forth?

#47 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,696 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:52

Mosley said the other day in his BBC interview several teams have been paid up front so without a copy of the ledger...

#48 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:55

Ross your original post in this thread I think was exceedingly ignorant as many of us have been against CVC from the moment we heard about it. We just didnt have a real chance to upturn them until now. That's what's so great about what is now happening, a lot of people who have felt that F1 has been stifled and led the wrong way for many years can now see a light.

#49 Apollonius

Apollonius
  • Member

  • 601 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:55

@ Ross:


Ah, but in lean times to cut off a potential source of mass exposure is not good business sense. I dare say that commercially North America holds a better prospect of exposure than say....Hungary.
Lets not forget that Canada has always had the one of the highest world wide viewing figures of all F1 races - now that is due to it's Europe prime time showing but also because it is an enjoyable race - it's madness to cut a track like that off the calendar, it's that exposure the manufacturers crave over the likes of Turkey and Bahrain. Sure the likes of Abu Dhabi pay well in the short term but it is the long term that the manufacturers behind the F1 teams want.
For the likes of Toyota the money income from F1/Bernie is nothing, they don't need it BUT when the CVC business model starts to affect exposure of their then that is when situations like this develop. This isn't just about the F1 racing world, it reaches far beyond that given that for the likes of BMW, F1 is a giant advertising hoarding which they pay a lot to get put on....

Edited by Apollonius, 21 June 2009 - 12:28.


#50 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:58

One of the most amusing things I've heard this year was Bernie moaning that there was only 20,000 spectators in Turkey.