Jump to content


Photo

CVC and F1


  • Please log in to reply
275 replies to this topic

#51 Orin

Orin
  • Member

  • 8,444 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:58

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.


That's wrong. Mosley only began pushing for this stupid Formula after Ecclestone started making noises about needing to decrease the share of revenue given to the teams. Both men have worked together to try to break up FOTA, just as they've worked together for the past 30 years. Who do you think sold the rights to Ecclestone? Who do you think turned a blind eye when he hawked them to CVC and made himself a billionaire in the process? Mosley is the central problem because he's Ecclestone's inside man. Money is an issue but it's Mosley who ensures that Ecclestone always has the upper hand in the negotiations.

Advertisement

#52 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 21 June 2009 - 11:00

we would still have the corruption though, with or without CVC. That side of the argument probably doesn't bother Ferrari fans so much but for fans of other teams who have had to watch their guys pissed all over by max down the years or dicked about to hamstring their title campaigns it is a very big part of the problem.

#53 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 11:04

we would still have the corruption though, with or without CVC. That side of the argument probably doesn't bother Ferrari fans so much but for fans of other teams who have had to watch their guys pissed all over by max down the years or dicked about to hamstring their title campaigns it is a very big part of the problem.


Nobody is saying Max isnt a problem too.

#54 Claudius

Claudius
  • Member

  • 2,309 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 21 June 2009 - 11:10

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.


The MMAS president (Motormedia) is only interested in bashing everything FOTA because they had the audacity to oppose his hero Max.


#55 Motormedia

Motormedia
  • Member

  • 2,024 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 11:52

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?


Yes.

#56 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 11:54

Yes.


That is why they have to break away from people like you.

#57 Motormedia

Motormedia
  • Member

  • 2,024 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 11:59

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.


You don't seem to be able to understand that it is exactly the way I understand things. CVC are there to make money. Why else have they invested in the commercial rights? They are not there to make handouts to the teams. The teams apparently had the chance to buy the rights a few years back but squandered the chance.

#58 Motormedia

Motormedia
  • Member

  • 2,024 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 12:02

That is why they have to break away from people like you.


I find the teams claim to CVC's money as ridiculous as if the fans would unite and claim money from CVC. Without us CVC wouldn't get the broadcasting companies to pay for the rights.

#59 nudger1964

nudger1964
  • Member

  • 336 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 12:29

Yes.



then that is an astonishing thing you expect from a professional sport. Would manchester united take part in the premiership if they did not get paid?
That IS how professional sport works, its what makes it professional. Hell, it even happens in amateur sport these days.

Advertisement

#60 Motormedia

Motormedia
  • Member

  • 2,024 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 12:32

then that is an astonishing thing you expect from a professional sport. Would manchester united take part in the premiership if they did not get paid?
That IS how professional sport works, its what makes it professional. Hell, it even happens in amateur sport these days.


Big difference. The clubs are shareholders in the Premier Leauge. I have no problem with a structure like that. In fact, I think that is what it should look like in F1 too, with the teams having a stake in the commercial rights.

#61 nudger1964

nudger1964
  • Member

  • 336 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 12:40

Hehe yes they should be proper serfs.


Ashamed to say, i had to look up "serfs"
i have concluded you either mean peasants working their Lords land for in return for use of the land....or they are Southern England Rocket Flyers

#62 nudger1964

nudger1964
  • Member

  • 336 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 12:41

Big difference. The clubs are shareholders in the Premier Leauge. I have no problem with a structure like that. In fact, I think that is what it should look like in F1 too, with the teams having a stake in the commercial rights.


they are not shareholders in the champions league....and it dosnt explain just about any other sport you could think of.

#63 Apollonius

Apollonius
  • Member

  • 601 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 21 June 2009 - 12:43

Big difference. The clubs are shareholders in the Premier Leauge. I have no problem with a structure like that. In fact, I think that is what it should look like in F1 too, with the teams having a stake in the commercial rights.



And the teams whom aren't shareholders? (there are only 20 members and it doesn't take in to account the influx and outflux of relagations/promotions), what if they were denied TV money? Would you expect them to be happy putting on a show for free?

#64 Motormedia

Motormedia
  • Member

  • 2,024 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 12:51

they are not shareholders in the champions league....and it dosnt explain just about any other sport you could think of.


UEFA owns the commercial rights to Champions League. As far as I know, FIA were forced to separate themselves from the commercial rights. So they did. The teams had a chance to buy them along the way but chose not to and someone else was willing to take the risk. You don't see a problem with the risk taker having to pay those who were unwilling to take it?


#65 Motormedia

Motormedia
  • Member

  • 2,024 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 12:52

And the teams whom aren't shareholders? (there are only 20 members and it doesn't take in to account the influx and outflux of relagations/promotions), what if they were denied TV money? Would you expect them to be happy putting on a show for free?



So what's your solution then?

Edited by Motormedia, 21 June 2009 - 12:53.


#66 nudger1964

nudger1964
  • Member

  • 336 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 13:00

UEFA owns the commercial rights to Champions League. As far as I know, FIA were forced to separate themselves from the commercial rights. So they did. The teams had a chance to buy them along the way but chose not to and someone else was willing to take the risk. You don't see a problem with the risk taker having to pay those who were unwilling to take it?


i simply do not understand your idea that professional sports teams/persons should not get paid for taking part in their sport out of the profits of that sport...i do not understand where you have come to that conclusion, i do not understand where you see any template for such a notion.

#67 Apollonius

Apollonius
  • Member

  • 601 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 21 June 2009 - 13:04

So what's your solution then?



Allow the teams to become involved in the rule making process by way of a vote system to sanction new rules and pay the teams the money they are owed with a fairer distribution of income. That is all FOTA are looking for here and I don't think it is a big ask.


#68 Motormedia

Motormedia
  • Member

  • 2,024 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 13:06

Allow the teams to become involved in the rule making process by way of a vote system to sanction new rules and pay the teams the money they are owed with a fairer distribution of income. That is all FOTA are looking for here and I don't think it is a big ask.


Those are two different issues. As I said before, if the money claim was the main driver behind this conflict, FOTA should have adressed the issue directly instead of holding FIA ransom.

#69 mattorgen

mattorgen
  • Member

  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 13:07

I have to say that the majority of the problem is not caused by CVC but by Bernie. CVC's involvement in F1 was cleared by Bernie and it is clear that most of their working practices mirror his perfectly. However, the big problem with working out the real cause of the sour financial situation is that there are so many errors in the reporting of the F1 industry. For example:

1. CVC is not a venture capital firm as Mark Hughes claims. It is a private equity firm.
2. CVC is not using F1 as a cash-cow as ark Hughes says. So far it has made a huge loss on it.
3. CVC is not using F1 revenues to pay off debt in other parts of its business. It is paying off the debt held by F1 itself.
4. CVC doesn’t owe the teams money. F1 does
5. Bernie doesn’t have a stake in CVC. He has a stake in F1.
6. F1 isn't the only sport owned by a private equity firm. MotoGP's Dorna is also owned in this way.
7. Bernie does not represent CVC. He represents himself as a shareholder.
8. The debt has no bearing on the team payment. The team payment is worked out from the revenue before the debt is deucted.

Edited by mattorgen, 21 June 2009 - 13:11.


#70 David M. Kane

David M. Kane
  • Member

  • 5,400 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 21 June 2009 - 13:20

A grandstand seat at Monaco was, I believe, US$760; and Abu Dhahi's were about the same before the hospitality companies bought the lot so they'll be even more. Sorry, but that's not on in this household. The money side of F1 is over the top.

The Greed in F1 matches that of the US Banks.

Edited by David M. Kane, 21 June 2009 - 13:21.


#71 nudger1964

nudger1964
  • Member

  • 336 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 13:21

Those are two different issues. As I said before, if the money claim was the main driver behind this conflict, FOTA should have adressed the issue directly instead of holding FIA ransom.



thats a fallacious argument. FOTA have said payments are an issue, but hardly the driver behind the conflict

#72 mattorgen

mattorgen
  • Member

  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 13:29

A grandstand seat at Monaco was, I believe, US$760; and Abu Dhahi's were about the same before the hospitality companies bought the lot so they'll be even more. Sorry, but that's not on in this household. The money side of F1 is over the top.

The Greed in F1 matches that of the US Banks.

I totally agree with this but I would say that this is certainly not down to CVC alone but rather the man that let them into the sport.

#73 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,891 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 21 June 2009 - 13:31

I'd say that's down to the free market at a race like Monaco or Abu Dhabi.

#74 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 13:38

That's wrong. Mosley only began pushing for this stupid Formula after Ecclestone started making noises about needing to decrease the share of revenue given to the teams. Both men have worked together to try to break up FOTA, just as they've worked together for the past 30 years. Who do you think sold the rights to Ecclestone? Who do you think turned a blind eye when he hawked them to CVC and made himself a billionaire in the process? Mosley is the central problem because he's Ecclestone's inside man. Money is an issue but it's Mosley who ensures that Ecclestone always has the upper hand in the negotiations.




True.

#75 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,310 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 21 June 2009 - 14:00

I'd say that's down to the free market at a race like Monaco or Abu Dhabi.


If it were a proper free market things would be okay. But when you have autocratic governments involved it skews the 'free market'.

It's no longer free, it's nationalised (by nations we don't terribly care about and whose citizens don't terribly care about the sport we enjoy).

#76 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,891 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 21 June 2009 - 14:17

But that has nothing to do with CVC. Monaco and weird places like Abu are always going to have ridiculous ticket prices.

#77 David M. Kane

David M. Kane
  • Member

  • 5,400 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 21 June 2009 - 14:34

CVC is like someone who comes to a pot luck dinner with nothing and then proceeds to eat 90% of everything. That sure doesn't work for me.

#78 mattorgen

mattorgen
  • Member

  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 14:39

CVC is like someone who comes to a pot luck dinner with nothing and then proceeds to eat 90% of everything. That sure doesn't work for me.

Except for the fact that CVC is being told how much to eat by the chef.

#79 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,310 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 21 June 2009 - 14:42

If it were a proper free market things would be okay. But when you have autocratic governments involved it skews the 'free market'.

It's no longer free, it's nationalised (by nations we don't terribly care about and whose citizens don't terribly care about the sport we enjoy).


We wouldn't be going to Abu Dhabi, let alone Bahrain or Shanghai. If it was a free market and these races had to run on a commercial basis, there is no way on earth they would be on the calendar because the business behind those races do not add up.

It's China subsidising its industry, and depreciating its currency - that is not free market. And that's effectively what has happened in F1 with CVC at the wheel.

Edited by kar, 21 June 2009 - 14:44.


Advertisement

#80 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,891 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 21 June 2009 - 14:56

No, governments have always been subsidising races, it has nothing to do with CVC.


CVC isn't someone who comes to dinner with nothing, they bought the restaurant.

#81 mattorgen

mattorgen
  • Member

  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 14:56

We wouldn't be going to Abu Dhabi, let alone Bahrain or Shanghai. If it was a free market and these races had to run on a commercial basis, there is no way on earth they would be on the calendar because the business behind those races do not add up.

Hang on, that's not true. The 'we' who choose where the F1 races are going is FOM and the business behind races like Abu Dhabi, Bahrain and Shanghai most certainly does add up for FOM. They pay FOM the biggest fees which is all FOM needs to know.

#82 EVO2

EVO2
  • Member

  • 754 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 21 June 2009 - 14:57

Like some other regulars, I've been keen to see CVC taken out of the sport for a long time - and been castigated by Ross for saying so on more than one occasion.

If Silverstone have to pay FOM / Bernie / CVC a rumoured £10m to stage the British GP and FOM keeps all the track side advertising revenue and all the income from paddock club hospitality etc, the spectators are paying the £10m.

Assuming 120,000 spectators, that's £83 per ticket and the circuit owner has little to put back into improvements.

That's why Montreal, Indianapolis and other circuits no longer host F1 events.

Take CVC out and the $500m can be put to good use supporting new teams, circuits and reducing ticket prices.

Clearly the drivers support the traditional races against the barren new desert circuits, Mark Webber went out of his way to say as much this afternoon.

So a new championship makes the most sense here as it gets rid of MM and allows the teams to take control of their own destiny and finances :

I'm sure that EU legislation will not allow FOM and the FIA to maintain a monopoly when the majority of the participants don't want to stay.

Edited by EVO2, 21 June 2009 - 14:57.


#83 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 14:58

No, governments have always been subsidising races, it has nothing to do with CVC.


CVC isn't someone who comes to dinner with nothing, they bought the restaurant.


Yes and the teams are starting a new restuarant. Perhaps CVC will regret paying so much for their restuarant now...on credit too...

#84 David M. Kane

David M. Kane
  • Member

  • 5,400 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 21 June 2009 - 14:58

Well Ross only 36,000 showed-up in Turkey and there were lots of empty seat in Monaco. So clearly it be a free world.

Congrats to the British fans who so hardily supported their GP for ALL 3 days! :up:

#85 Eastern

Eastern
  • Member

  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 21 June 2009 - 14:58

There is something fundamentally unwise in permitting an "asset" to be created by the simple stroke of a pen: a 100 year lease takes on the value of a freehold, and to then sell it on with a thumping great mortgage was always going to be asking for trouble.

There must have been other formats available to the FiA in order for it to comply with the EU injunction. There could have been shorter leases (despite Mosley claiming that anything shorter would not have been acceptable to the EU); there could have been reversion clauses; there could have been restraining clauses or covenants restraining the original rights holder selling on the asset without the consent and approval of the freeholder. But the way it was done created huge instant value - on paper at least, to start with - which allowed Ecclestone to flip it to a highly leveraged purchaser, for a monumental profit to himself.

Now that hard times have come, as indeed they were bound to do, the sport itself and its stakeholders are held to ransom by the financial exposure of the mortgagee.

Ecclestone and Mosley put this structure together: the consequences were foreseeable whatever anyone says: and for this I believe they should both of them be held accountable for the current situation.

#86 David M. Kane

David M. Kane
  • Member

  • 5,400 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 21 June 2009 - 15:06

What Mosley and BE did IMO is crimminal and as far as I'm concerned you can send them to jail and throw away the key. Fcuk free enterprise. But then we didn't punish any of those sleaze bags on Wall Street either, we bailed them out. Well clearly I don't think we should bail BE and his buddies at CVC out despite what Ross says fundamentally.

Edited by David M. Kane, 21 June 2009 - 15:10.


#87 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,891 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 21 June 2009 - 15:06

Take CVC out and the $500m can be put to good use supporting new teams, circuits and reducing ticket prices.



You are castigated because you are fundamentally incorrect. The revenue distribution was like this pre-CVC, they are relatively new to the party and aren't responsible for the revenue %s. What they have done is created a situation where you all but *have* to drop low paying races like Montreal in favour of Abu Dhabi, but that was going to happen eventually even without CVC.

#88 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 15:08

What they have done is created a situation where you all but *have* to drop low paying races like Montreal in favour of Abu Dhabi, but that was going to happen eventually even without CVC.



Was it? Why? And why speed up the process unnecessariliy even if it was, alienating the fans.

Edited by Madras, 21 June 2009 - 15:08.


#89 wapcaplit

wapcaplit
  • Member

  • 94 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 15:09

I'd say that's down to the free market at a race like Monaco or Abu Dhabi.


What free market would that be? There's only 1 game here, 1 rights holder, 1 commercial entity.

This is even more confusing than your last clanger.

#90 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,891 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 21 June 2009 - 15:09

Because apart from a passionate and vocal minority, it doesn't seem to have hurt F1's revenues. The fan base hasn't turn away so the TV revenues are there so if they are replacing one race with another one that pays more, overall income is up.

I liked Montreal too, and am not particularly impressed by the new tracks, but it's not enough to get me to do something else on Sunday afternoon.

#91 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,891 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 21 June 2009 - 15:10

What free market would that be? There's only 1 game here, 1 rights holder, 1 commercial entity.

This is even more confusing than your last clanger.



Those races control their own tickets. Additionally they are prestige events so will charge higher prices, and given the rush to buy tickets to those events it only drives the prices higher.

#92 mattorgen

mattorgen
  • Member

  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 15:11

You are castigated because you are fundamentally incorrect. The revenue distribution was like this pre-CVC, they are relatively new to the party and aren't responsible for the revenue %s. What they have done is created a situation where you all but *have* to drop low paying races like Montreal in favour of Abu Dhabi, but that was going to happen eventually even without CVC.

I have to say, I agree. If there is anyone to blame it's Bernie and also saps like Frank Williams who constantly come back to lick Bernie's boots regardless of how any times he has been screwed over by him.

#93 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 15:12

Because apart from a passionate and vocal minority, it doesn't seem to have hurt F1's revenues. The fan base hasn't turn away so the TV revenues are there so if they are replacing one race with another one that pays more, overall income is up.

I liked Montreal too, and am not particularly impressed by the new tracks, but it's not enough to get me to do something else on Sunday afternoon.


Ross how come CVC are struggling to make repayments? What is the reason for this? Perhaps they paid too much? Got too much on credit from an idiotic bank? Dont you think it could adversly affect their ability to run F1 properly? Because I do.

Edited by Madras, 21 June 2009 - 15:14.


#94 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,310 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 21 June 2009 - 15:12

You are castigated because you are fundamentally incorrect. The revenue distribution was like this pre-CVC, they are relatively new to the party and aren't responsible for the revenue %s. What they have done is created a situation where you all but *have* to drop low paying races like Montreal in favour of Abu Dhabi, but that was going to happen eventually even without CVC.


He's not fundamentally incorrect. Take out CVC (i.e. take out the fact someone takes 50% out of the sport for nothing) and indeed that frees up revenues to be distributed more sensibly - i.e. to the participants and investors in the sport.

While you're correct that it was even more unfair in the past, it doesn't make it reasonable to expect fundamental inequity to continue. The teams - wisely - have had enough.

And personally I think it is _this_ and not so much budget caps that is behind this spat. Why on earth should big brands that provide F1's value help propel an investment vehicle for a CRH that invests nothing in the sport?

While CVC may just be the most recent exploiter of this perverse commercial arrangement in F1, it doesn't make it reasonable or sustainable. F1 in its current format is pricing fans out of the sport, and it's moving races to regimes where no one really gives a toss about it, further pushing F1 out of the reach of people who otherwise would become fans.

Edited by kar, 21 June 2009 - 15:12.


#95 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,891 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 21 June 2009 - 15:15

If CVC leave FOM is still there and the %s are still the same. The only person who makes less money out of the CVC deal is Bernie because he now has to split his side of the profits with CVC to pay down their debt. Of course he was paid out up front so in the long run he's probably making a profit. But removing CVC doesnt mean the teams get more money.

#96 mattorgen

mattorgen
  • Member

  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 15:24

He's not fundamentally incorrect. Take out CVC (i.e. take out the fact someone takes 50% out of the sport for nothing) and indeed that frees up revenues to be distributed more sensibly - i.e. to the participants and investors in the sport.

Funny that the teams only cared about this after they found out that this 50% was being used to pay off someone else's debt. They were happy about it before...

Edited by mattorgen, 21 June 2009 - 15:25.


#97 wapcaplit

wapcaplit
  • Member

  • 94 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 15:25

If CVC leave FOM is still there and the %s are still the same. The only person who makes less money out of the CVC deal is Bernie because he now has to split his side of the profits with CVC to pay down their debt. Of course he was paid out up front so in the long run he's probably making a profit. But removing CVC doesnt mean the teams get more money.


Are we having the same discussion? The ONLY way CVC can be excised from the picture is a breakaway series - hence no CVC, no FOM.

The calculus the teams have presumably done (as many of us have) is that even if the pot shrinks by 49% the teams still get more money than now.

#98 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 21 June 2009 - 15:26

Funny that the teams only cared about this after they found out that this 50% was being used to pay off someone else's debt. They were happy about it before...


Did they though?

#99 mattorgen

mattorgen
  • Member

  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 15:26

Are we having the same discussion? The ONLY way CVC can be excised from the picture is a breakaway series - hence no CVC, no FOM.

The calculus the teams have presumably done (as many of us have) is that even if the pot shrinks by 49% the teams still get more money than now.

Actually, you can't even be sure that a breakaway will get rid of CVC but it seems likely.

Advertisement

#100 wapcaplit

wapcaplit
  • Member

  • 94 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 21 June 2009 - 15:26

Actually, you can't even be sure that a breakaway will get rid of CVC but it seems likely.


Pointless without it, surely?