Jump to content


Photo

Virgin to Manor, YouTube and Allen to US F1


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#1 Lukin83

Lukin83
  • Member

  • 754 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 26 June 2009 - 15:03

Have no idea about credibility of BBC's F1 Mole, but it sounds interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk...he-manor-b.html

Advertisement

#2 JensonF1

JensonF1
  • Member

  • 586 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 26 June 2009 - 15:06

Virgin seem to want a presense in F1, for now, at the lowest possible cost it doesn't matter where on the grid they are.

Allen replacing Winsor in terms of his journalist duties, I have no problem with as long as the guy doesn't get near another commentary box.

I must admit I find the whole US F1 stuff very interesting. It's really gonna bring that term closer to the fans in terms of the all access TV & Internet coverage and so the YouTube deal makes perfect sense.

Edited by JensonF1, 26 June 2009 - 15:07.


#3 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,529 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 26 June 2009 - 15:09

Hmm...sounds like a great place......Virgin Manor!

Anyways, quite a bold move by Branson if true, and quite a disaster for BrawnGP's future as it stands.

And hearing about actual sponsors for USF1 is great news. People have been doubting them quite a bit so far, saying that its nothing but a pipe dream. And Youtube is quite a surprising sponsor, too. Just hope they dont include it as part of the team name.

#4 craftverk

craftverk
  • Member

  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 26 June 2009 - 15:12

USGP will be sponsored by James Allen? Awesome. :clap:

#5 Gypsy

Gypsy
  • Member

  • 585 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 26 June 2009 - 15:12

Well, we already guessed the stuff about Allen, so hardly intrepid journalism there.

As for the rest.....eh. Virgin is no loss for Brawn, and I really don't think they're too worried about next year.

#6 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,026 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 26 June 2009 - 15:13

"We're sorry but the footage of the team we sponsor has been removed because of a copyright claim"

#7 wrighty

wrighty
  • Member

  • 3,620 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 26 June 2009 - 15:16

Won't there be a certain irony if USF1 are sponsored by Youtube but you won't be able to see USF1 race footage on Youtube due to Bernie's hounds removing all the footage due to copyright infringement?

<added> ah thank you Gareth, we thought of the same thing at the same time.....i pity you lol (just kidding)

Edited by wrighty, 26 June 2009 - 15:16.


#8 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,765 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 26 June 2009 - 15:17

Hmm...sounds like a great place......Virgin Manor!

Anyways, quite a bold move by Branson if true, and quite a disaster for BrawnGP's future as it stands.

Why should Brawn except peanuts, just to have a sponsor plastered on their car?

They need decent funding.

Not what a cheapskate like Branson is offering.

Edited by Timstr11, 26 June 2009 - 15:18.


#9 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 26 June 2009 - 15:25

I must admit I find the whole US F1 stuff very interesting. It's really gonna bring that term closer to the fans in terms of the all access TV & Internet coverage and so the YouTube deal makes perfect sense.


I hope so, that would be cool. When they announced I immediately thought "I bet this means finally a "reality show" on SpeedTv that I might want to watch". It would make sense for all parties involved: great promotion for USF1, a cool inside perspective for us, and a show for SpeedTv - OR YouTube....


#10 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,529 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 26 June 2009 - 15:33

Why should Brawn except peanuts, just to have a sponsor plastered on their car?

They need decent funding.

Not what a cheapskate like Branson is offering.

Of course, but I think Brawn was hoping that their results would give Branson an incentive to shell out some more moolah.

The point is that it leaves BrawnGP in the precarious position of having to search for a real title sponsor for next year. Not an enviable situation to be in, as its getting close to the time where they're gonna want some money to get the 2010 car in full-development.

#11 Gypsy

Gypsy
  • Member

  • 585 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 26 June 2009 - 15:37

Of course, but I think Brawn was hoping that their results would give Branson an incentive to shell out some more moolah.

The point is that it leaves BrawnGP in the precarious position of having to search for a real title sponsor for next year. Not an enviable situation to be in, as its getting close to the time where they're gonna want some money to get the 2010 car in full-development.

You assume much, and know little.

#12 Brawn BGP 001

Brawn BGP 001
  • Member

  • 2,659 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 26 June 2009 - 15:42

YouTube in F1, doubt Bernie would be happy.

#13 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,765 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 26 June 2009 - 15:42

The point is that it leaves BrawnGP in the precarious position of having to search for a real title sponsor for next year. Not an enviable situation to be in, as its getting close to the time where they're gonna want some money to get the 2010 car in full-development.

You reckon they're sitting on their laurels?

#14 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,529 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 26 June 2009 - 15:45

You assume much, and know little.

:confused:

Just like all of us on this board, right?

I've not claimed to know more than I really do, so I dont see what the problem is. If you have a counter-point to make, then make it. I'm happy to have conversation.

#15 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 26 June 2009 - 15:46

My understanding is that Virgin have a scaling deal with Brawn, ie they got 09 practically for free (cause it was convenient for Brawn wrg the Honda situation) and have increasing 2nd and 3rd year obligations. So I 'd take that Virgin to manor rumor with a pinch of salt

#16 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,529 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 26 June 2009 - 15:47

You reckon they're sitting on their laurels?

No, definitely not. But I dont think its unreasonable to assume that they probably wanted more out of their partnership with Virgin than they've got. Its much easier to have opportunity knocking on your door than to have to go look for opportunity on your own, if that makes any sense.

#17 Dudley

Dudley
  • Member

  • 9,245 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 26 June 2009 - 15:47

What possible advantage is there in YouTube (Known by everyone but haemorrhaging money) in advertising. Their parent company however is a slightly better bet.

#18 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,529 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 26 June 2009 - 15:47

My understanding is that Virgin have a scaling deal with Brawn, ie they got 09 practically for free (cause it was convenient for Brawn wrg the Honda situation) and have increasing 2nd and 3rd year obligations. So I 'd take that Virgin to manor rumor with a pinch of salt

What made you come to that 'understanding'? This is the first I've heard of that.

Edited by Seanspeed, 26 June 2009 - 15:48.


#19 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 26 June 2009 - 15:50

The point is that it leaves BrawnGP in the precarious position of having to search for a real title sponsor for next year. Not an enviable situation to be in, as its getting close to the time where they're gonna want some money to get the 2010 car in full-development.


In 2010, there are only 4 title sponsors for 13 teams. Vodafone, Marlboro, AT&T and Panasonic. It isn't mandatory, or even commonplace to have a title sponsor.


Advertisement

#20 27GV

27GV
  • Member

  • 363 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 26 June 2009 - 15:52

My understanding is that Virgin have a scaling deal with Brawn, ie they got 09 practically for free (cause it was convenient for Brawn wrg the Honda situation) and have increasing 2nd and 3rd year obligations. So I 'd take that Virgin to manor rumor with a pinch of salt


The last thing we need is more arrogant knobs in F1, and Branson is about as knobular as they come.

#21 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,765 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 26 June 2009 - 15:53

No, definitely not. But I dont think its unreasonable to assume that they probably wanted more out of their partnership with Virgin than they've got. Its much easier to have opportunity knocking on your door than to have to go look for opportunity on your own, if that makes any sense.

Well the opportunity surely did not come from Virgin. To sponsor a front running team yo need to bring more to the table. And I'm confident there are companies who offer a much better proposition. Wait and see. 2010 is not here yet.

#22 Don_Humpador

Don_Humpador
  • Member

  • 2,223 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 26 June 2009 - 15:53

"We're sorry but the footage of the team we sponsor has been removed because of a copyright claim"

:rotfl:


#23 BMW_F1

BMW_F1
  • Member

  • 7,670 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 26 June 2009 - 15:54

What possible advantage is there in YouTube (Known by everyone but haemorrhaging money) in advertising. Their parent company however is a slightly better bet.


I am sure decals for Google would be in there somewhere too if Youtube indeed becomes one of their sponsors.

#24 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,529 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 26 June 2009 - 15:56

In 2010, there are only 4 title sponsors for 13 teams. Vodafone, Marlboro, AT&T and Panasonic. It isn't mandatory, or even commonplace to have a title sponsor.

You dont think Renault aren't looking for another title sponsor to replace ING?

Red Bull and Force India dont have title sponsors because they are brands that own teams.

For BrawnGP, though, they've got nothing else. They have no manufacturer backing, and they certainly aren't any sort of brand company with piles of money in the coffers. You're right that they dont absolutely NEED a title sponsor, and could have lots of little ones, but its hard to deny that a title sponsor wouldn't be ideal for them as its a security of having a big-dollar deal.

Edited by Seanspeed, 26 June 2009 - 15:57.


#25 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,549 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 26 June 2009 - 15:58

I think the YouTube guy is one of the partners in USF1

#26 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,529 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 26 June 2009 - 15:59

Well the opportunity surely did not come from Virgin. To sponsor a front running team yo need to bring more to the table. And I'm confident there are companies who offer a much better proposition. Wait and see. 2010 is not here yet.

What I'm saying is that BrawnGP were probably pretty close(or thought they were close) to having a major sponsor, but it never amounted to much. I know that they aren't getting much for Virgin, but what I was saying is they were probably trying to get more from them.

#27 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 26 June 2009 - 16:06

They are getting $4m/year for displaying the Virgin logo on a blank canvas that is the leading car, I 'd say that's cheap :)

#28 wewantourdarbyback

wewantourdarbyback
  • Member

  • 6,358 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 26 June 2009 - 16:12

Well, we already guessed the stuff about Allen, so hardly intrepid journalism there.

As for the rest.....eh. Virgin is no loss for Brawn, and I really don't think they're too worried about next year.

If they get a big sponsor in....


No Honda money next year I imagine.

#29 Dudley

Dudley
  • Member

  • 9,245 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 26 June 2009 - 16:22

In 2010, there are only 4 title sponsors for 13 teams. Vodafone, Marlboro, AT&T and Panasonic. It isn't mandatory, or even commonplace to have a title sponsor.


Oh I think Red Bull counts :)

#30 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,529 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 26 June 2009 - 16:27

Oh I think Red Bull counts :)

And then you could count Kingfisher, too.

#31 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,529 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 26 June 2009 - 16:27

If they get a big sponsor in....


No Honda money next year I imagine.

I didn't think they were getting any money from them next year anyways?

#32 Gypsy

Gypsy
  • Member

  • 585 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 26 June 2009 - 17:02

If they get a big sponsor in....


No Honda money next year I imagine.

No, probably not, but the word coming from the team seems very optimistic for next year, so I'd rather sit it out than take any well-intended but misinformed 'projections' seriously.

Of course, if people learned how to express their opinion as just that....One can only dream.

#33 brabhamBT19

brabhamBT19
  • Member

  • 1,399 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 26 June 2009 - 17:12

"We're sorry but the footage of the team we sponsor has been removed because of a copyright claim"


:lol: :lol: :lol:

#34 brabhamBT19

brabhamBT19
  • Member

  • 1,399 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 26 June 2009 - 17:15

In 2010, there are only 4 title sponsors for 13 teams. Vodafone, Marlboro, AT&T and Panasonic. It isn't mandatory, or even commonplace to have a title sponsor.


no, expecially not in financial crisis

#35 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 27 June 2009 - 00:54

Anyways, quite a bold move by Branson if true, and quite a disaster for BrawnGP's future as it stands.

Maybe, maybe not. Back at Monaco there was the talk that Google might be involved in sponsoring Brawn in the future, and one of the Powers That Be from Coca-Cola was also seen in the paddock, though no-one seems to know who he was talking with.


#36 mattorgen

mattorgen
  • Member

  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 27 June 2009 - 01:48

Maybe, maybe not. Back at Monaco there was the talk that Google might be involved in sponsoring Brawn in the future, and one of the Powers That Be from Coca-Cola was also seen in the paddock, though no-one seems to know who he was talking with.

Wow - they were enjoying the paddock hospitality. Big difference between that and convincing their boards to spend any kind of money on F1. I think you will find that this year fewer sponsors have joined F1 than any other year in recent history and I imagine that the recent turmoil will not help matters. Maybe if we had more credible teams coming into F1 in 2010 than Manor, Campos and USF1 then F1 might stand a better chance of attracting big name sponsors. Prodrive/Aston Martin would be a safe pair of hands for blue chip brands but they aren't on the grid next year (yet). Maybe if they had gone with a Cosworth engine things would have been different......

#37 Chubby_Deuce

Chubby_Deuce
  • Member

  • 5,927 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 27 June 2009 - 01:53

If there's a company that needs to advertise it's definitely Youtube.

#38 pinnacle racing

pinnacle racing
  • Member

  • 430 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 27 June 2009 - 03:19

The odds of Prodrive making it to the grid for next year seem pretty slim to me. All slots have already been taken. All FOTA teams are commiting to stay in F1 until 2012 so no one's pulling out anytime soon. If Branson is really going to sponsor Manor then their chances of making it to the grid have just increased. USF1 seem to be pretty confident. I'm not up to date with Campos so somebody please enlighten me. Looks like the only way in for another team is if Torro Roso gets sold. I don't see Prodrive (a team based in the UK) buying Torro Roso (which is based in Italy).

Shame, as I was really looking forward to Prodrive / Aston Martin joining F1.

#39 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 27 June 2009 - 03:33

You assume much, and know little.


Ahh, the Racing Comments Forum Motto!

Ok so tell me anyone, how does Youtube, Google etc make all their worth? I don't see any ads etc and all their services are free ....

Advertisement

#40 Chubby_Deuce

Chubby_Deuce
  • Member

  • 5,927 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 27 June 2009 - 04:01

Google sells ad space. Youtube is NOT a profitable company.

In June 2008 a Forbes magazine article projected the 2008 revenue at US$200 million, noting progress in advertising sales.


That's gross. Bandwidth alone at that time was costing them $1 million per day.

#41 spacepig

spacepig
  • Member

  • 59 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 27 June 2009 - 05:44

Why does everyone assume this is a You Tube deal, and not a Chad Hurley deal? A multimillion dollar You Tube title sponsorship obviously makes little sense. Although they could clearly do some cool tie-ins and exclusive video things.

#42 hunnylander

hunnylander
  • Member

  • 4,448 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 27 June 2009 - 06:39

Why does everyone assume this is a You Tube deal, and not a Chad Hurley deal? A multimillion dollar You Tube title sponsorship obviously makes little sense. Although they could clearly do some cool tie-ins and exclusive video things.


:lol:

"We're sorry but the footage of the team we sponsor has been removed because of a copyright claim"

#43 Montoya1

Montoya1
  • Member

  • 571 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 27 June 2009 - 07:26

Chad Hurley does not own Youtube anymore, or so I thought.

#44 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 27 June 2009 - 07:34

Wow - they were enjoying the paddock hospitality. Big difference between that and convincing their boards to spend any kind of money on F1. I think you will find that this year fewer sponsors have joined F1 than any other year in recent history and I imagine that the recent turmoil will not help matters. Maybe if we had more credible teams coming into F1 in 2010 than Manor, Campos and USF1 then F1 might stand a better chance of attracting big name sponsors. Prodrive/Aston Martin would be a safe pair of hands for blue chip brands but they aren't on the grid next year (yet). Maybe if they had gone with a Cosworth engine things would have been different......

How exactly do you rationalise that? When Prodrive were set to appear in 2007, Dave Ricahrds said they woul be making annoucements at the 2007 British Grand Prix about "a sponsor who had never been invovled in Formula One before". But the British Grand Prix came and there was no annoucement before Prodrive's bid collapsed, and sponsors would know that. That was probably the main reason why they didn't get in this time, not some conspiracy theory surrounding Mosley's bid for a team loyal to him.

And how can you describe Manor, Campos and US-F1 as not being credible. None of these efforts were cooked up overnight. US-F1 has been in the works for years; Windsor and Anderson said they intended to lodge an entry for 2010 even if there was no budget cap. Campos have experienced success in GP2 for several years. Manor have had their own successes in F3 and the WSR. Prodrive, on the other hand have no experience in open-wheel racing at all. If anything, they have less credibility than the three teams that will be in.

#45 mattorgen

mattorgen
  • Member

  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 27 June 2009 - 13:03

How exactly do you rationalise that? When Prodrive were set to appear in 2007, Dave Ricahrds said they woul be making annoucements at the 2007 British Grand Prix about "a sponsor who had never been invovled in Formula One before". But the British Grand Prix came and there was no annoucement before Prodrive's bid collapsed, and sponsors would know that. That was probably the main reason why they didn't get in this time, not some conspiracy theory surrounding Mosley's bid for a team loyal to him.

Now just imagine if there was proof that the FIA had demanded that Prodrive use a Cosworth engine for it to get a grid slot. Wouldn't be a conspiracy theory then. In fact, it would be proof that the FIA had favoured a commercial entity (Cosworth) instead of being impartial as the FIA is mandated to be. I'm sure that the European Commission would love to hear about that....

#46 PNSD

PNSD
  • Member

  • 3,276 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 27 June 2009 - 13:17

Prodrive, on the other hand have no experience in open-wheel racing at all.


What, are you serious?

They were the massive force behind the 2003/2004 and I believe the 2005 BAR's.

They know how to make quick racecars, and they have a race team in the form of the lemans team.

#47 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,453 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 27 June 2009 - 13:20

Prodrive, on the other hand have no experience in open-wheel racing at all. If anything, they have less credibility than the three teams that will be in.



:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: You are kidding right?

#48 mattorgen

mattorgen
  • Member

  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 27 June 2009 - 13:29

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: You are kidding right?

He's towing the FIA line. The interesting thing is that Richards had a grid slot in 2008 but didn't get one next year. I bet he didn't get his entry fee back for 2008 which is not what one would expect from the FIA (though that's not a patch on an entry being rejected because of its engine choice of course...)

#49 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,549 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 27 June 2009 - 13:31

He didn't apply for 2009, and never did his 2008 entry, because he was expecting customer cars.

#50 mattorgen

mattorgen
  • Member

  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 27 June 2009 - 13:36

He didn't apply for 2009, and never did his 2008 entry, because he was expecting customer cars.

Who said he applied for 2009 and what do you mean by "never did his 2008 entry"? If by this you mean that Prodrive never took up the 2008 grid slot I agree of course but I would not say that the matter of customer cars, which brought this about, was Prodrive's fault. So I don't see why his fee should not have been refunded (if it wasn't of course...). Once this is cleared up let's focus our discussion on why Prodrive didn't get a slot in 2010 and whether the truth behind this will ever be allowed to come out.

Edited by mattorgen, 27 June 2009 - 13:36.