Bernie's Wealth
#1
Posted 05 March 2013 - 00:49
#3
Posted 05 March 2013 - 01:52
With all that money, he could end world hunger.
for what?? one day??? it doesn't work like that.
#4
Posted 05 March 2013 - 11:00
#5
Posted 05 March 2013 - 13:03
#6
Posted 05 March 2013 - 13:40
The Forbes article is not very accurate he has 3 children not 2 and his marital status is not divorced but married to that Flosi woman
JC
#7
Posted 05 March 2013 - 14:10
#8
Posted 05 March 2013 - 16:27
Mo money, mo problems.
#9
Posted 05 March 2013 - 19:34
#10
Posted 05 March 2013 - 20:43
I would suspect the business of f1 is what fundamentally drives him. He's probably too scared to stop for fear of the consequences!!I think 'Bernie's health' is more interesting... how long can this guy keep going?
#11
Posted 05 March 2013 - 21:55
I read in a paper today about high value divorces a figure of £504 million. Well done Slavica! The only person to come out of any sort of relationship with Bernie with more money than when they went in.I wonder how much the divorce cost him, was the 'trust' not in his wifes name for tax reasons? (allegedly)
Except possibly Max.
Edited by BRG, 05 March 2013 - 21:55.
#12
Posted 05 March 2013 - 22:25
#13
Posted 06 March 2013 - 12:15
Big difference though. Slim might put money INTO motor racing, whereas Bernie has been bleeding the sport dry for decades.Never mind Bernie, Carlos Slim at #1 could potentially be more important for F1.
#14
Posted 06 March 2013 - 18:15
Big difference though. Slim might put money INTO motor racing, whereas Bernie has been bleeding the sport dry for decades.
Yes and no.
On the one hand yes, the cut he takes from the money made in Formula One is probably to high for the sports own good but on the other hand without Bernie there wouldn't be so much money to be made, he is largely responsible for making F1 as successful as it now is, in both financial and sporting terms.
#15
Posted 06 March 2013 - 20:48
And who has profited out of it? HRT? Super Aguri? Arrows? All the others who fell by the wayside? The team personnel? The bankrupted track owners? The fans priced out of attending races?Yes and no.
On the one hand yes, the cut he takes from the money made in Formula One is probably to high for the sports own good but on the other hand without Bernie there wouldn't be so much money to be made, he is largely responsible for making F1 as successful as it now is, in both financial and sporting terms.
Maybe a few have managed to get rich on Bernie's loose change, but mostly Bernie has been a net drain on the sport, which would have been every bit as successful without him, but a good deal less money mad.
#16
Posted 06 March 2013 - 21:26
Eddie Jordan, Ron Dennis and Frank Williams come to mindAnd who has profited out of it? HRT? Super Aguri? Arrows? All the others who fell by the wayside? The team personnel? The bankrupted track owners? The fans priced out of attending races?
Maybe a few have managed to get rich on Bernie's loose change, but mostly Bernie has been a net drain on the sport, which would have been every bit as successful without him, but a good deal less money mad.
Many have profited from Bernie's business acumen and have become very rich themselves
Sure Bernie takes a very generous cut of the profit himself or for CVC but without him F1 wouldn't be the money making machine it is today
JC
Edited by JeanClaude, 06 March 2013 - 21:27.
#17
Posted 06 March 2013 - 22:27
And who has profited out of it? HRT? Super Aguri? Arrows? All the others who fell by the wayside? The team personnel? The bankrupted track owners? The fans priced out of attending races?
Maybe a few have managed to get rich on Bernie's loose change, but mostly Bernie has been a net drain on the sport, which would have been every bit as successful without him, but a good deal less money mad.
Those team fell on their own sword, its not Bernie's responsibility to make sure the team have a sustainable operation and the same applies to track owners, the smart track owners look beyond F1 and make their circuits sustainable through other events, be it motor sport, music gigs or whatever else they can host.
I do agree with your point about ticket prices, its not cheap and we'd all love to see prices lower but the circuits that charge so much do because they don't subside their costs elsewhere sufficiently enough so hike up the prices, again, not Bernie's look out.
And i doubt, highly doubt, Formula One would be what it is now without Mr. E. You just have to look across the pond at the whole IRL/Champcar mess to see what happens when a series doesn't have a strong switched on leader, Mr. E can be an ass sometimes but i think you're being a touch naive if you can't acknowledge what he has done for F1.
#18
Posted 06 March 2013 - 22:32
Those team fell on their own sword, its not Bernie's responsibility to make sure the team have a sustainable operation and the same applies to track owners, the smart track owners look beyond F1 and make their circuits sustainable through other events, be it motor sport, music gigs or whatever else they can host.
I do agree with your point about ticket prices, its not cheap and we'd all love to see prices lower but the circuits that charge so much do because they don't subside their costs elsewhere sufficiently enough so hike up the prices, again, not Bernie's look out.
And i doubt, highly doubt, Formula One would be what it is now without Mr. E. You just have to look across the pond at the whole IRL/Champcar mess to see what happens when a series doesn't have a strong switched on leader, Mr. E can be an ass sometimes but i think you're being a touch naive if you can't acknowledge what he has done for F1.
Completely agree. Bernie may have his faults, but there is no reason to suppose F1 would be a world leader in motor sports without him. The Champ/Indy comparison is a good one.
And no, Bernie's wealth could not solve world hunger.
#19
Posted 06 March 2013 - 22:34
Advertisement
#20
Posted 07 March 2013 - 04:40
Completely agree. Bernie may have his faults, but there is no reason to suppose F1 would be a world leader in motor sports without him. The Champ/Indy comparison is a good one.
And no, Bernie's wealth could not solve world hunger.
he didNOT create anything
he is an agent/manager/representative
I could see a 10% fee for what he does
he to date has sucked off more the 50% of the sports gross
and produced what that was not there before him ?
he sold tv rights at the right time to exploit them to the max
and now sold the sport to banks and holding CORPrats
I see the best hope for the future
as a revolt by the teams and track owners
and let them recapture the money and control of the sport
they are the capitalists who invest in the show
bernie never invested much back into the sport
but sure did suck alot out
and people like him who suck up the huge wealth
are the reason for world hunger as a class if not as individuals
#21
Posted 07 March 2013 - 06:37
he didNOT create anything
he is an agent/manager/representative
I could see a 10% fee for what he does
he to date has sucked off more the 50% of the sports gross
and produced what that was not there before him ?
he sold tv rights at the right time to exploit them to the max
and now sold the sport to banks and holding CORPrats
I see the best hope for the future
as a revolt by the teams and track owners
and let them recapture the money and control of the sport
they are the capitalists who invest in the show
bernie never invested much back into the sport
but sure did suck alot out
and people like him who suck up the huge wealth
are the reason for world hunger as a class if not as individuals
Entirely agree. Bertie & Max effectively stole the financial benefits of Grand Prix racing from the organisers, enthusiasts and above all the participants. Signing away the commercial rights for 100 years is simply swindling the FIA (which is now broke itself) and I have never understood why nobody has had the backbone to state the obvious,that Max was a power-crazed crook. His other personal interests are completely irrelevant, but of course the media chose to focus on the wrong thing.
Bertie's repeated attempts to cash in by taking his company public, before selling to CVC, told you all that you need to know. People forget that he is an employee nowadays, and because of that he has become a prisoner of his own creation. I have never met him,and understand that he can be charming when he wants to be (but then, most of us can). He has certainly been the creator of modern F1, but that is very much a poisoned chalice for somebody to inherit - with total dependence on government funded venues without local cultural bases, and very difficult relations with the actual participants of the show. And let's not even start on the subject of unsavoury places like Bahrain.
In the original FOCA, Bernie stood up for the interests of the teams - but since selling Brabham his interests have been different. Upgraded facilities, improved safety and the whole "show" is certainly to his credit - but he is also responsible for the financial train-wreck that is modern F1. Had this been a "normal" industrial or commercial activity, he would have been fired long ago.
If you want to see somebody who has created something lasting and worthwhile from racing, look at Ron Dennis. A guy with a great track record; possibly not the most loveable character either, but a person deserving of the highest respect for professional achievements.
#22
Posted 07 March 2013 - 20:17
This puts it very well.he didNOT create anything
he is an agent/manager/representative
I could see a 10% fee for what he does
he to date has sucked off more the 50% of the sports gross
and produced what that was not there before him ?
he sold tv rights at the right time to exploit them to the max
and now sold the sport to banks and holding CORPrats
I find it amazing how many people really believe that Bernie has been a force for good in the sport. Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas.
#23
Posted 07 March 2013 - 20:24
#24
Posted 07 March 2013 - 20:31
#25
Posted 07 March 2013 - 20:33
No.Am I the only one who read this topic as 'Bernie's Wreath'?
#26
Posted 07 March 2013 - 20:53
That's just the immediate benefits, the fact that the TV coverage both increased and improved meant that more & more sponsors and manufacturers wanted to come into F1 to help promote their product, even more money into the teams pockets thanks to Mr. E. He also put the first Concorde agreement into place, which further extended the TV right deal but also gave the sport more stability as it meant all the cars had to appear at all the races, which again increased sponsorship opportunities for the teams, even more money thanks to Bernie's work.
And just incase you thought Bernie didn't care one jot about the sport and was purely money grabbing, he not only appointed Sid Watkins as the medical doctor in '78 but, without haste, implemented any and all safety measures Sid wanted to help make the sport safer, not only for the drivers but for us, the fans, too.
But hey, Bernie did sh*t all for the sport, right?
He's not perfect and he has benefited massively out of F1 but then so has everyone else, F1 might not even exist as the global sport we now have without Bernie's work which started 30 odd years ago.
#27
Posted 07 March 2013 - 21:17
Bernie has done NOTHING that any competent agent could not have done for a tiny tiny fraction of what Bernie has taken. And it has ultimately come out of YOUR pocket. Remember that when you next read about his daughter spending £30,000 on drinks in a club.
#28
Posted 07 March 2013 - 21:33
That is completely fallacious. Do you seriously think that there would be no TV coverage for F1 without Bernie? How on earth did those other sports like football, tennis etc manage to get TV coverage without having some greedy gnome creaming off so much of the takings?
Bernie has done NOTHING that any competent agent could not have done for a tiny tiny fraction of what Bernie has taken. And it has ultimately come out of YOUR pocket. Remember that when you next read about his daughter spending £30,000 on drinks in a club.
Firstly i never said there wouldn't be any TV coverage of F1, just that it might not be so global, and as a result financially successful as it is now, it'd still exist, but maybe not the way we know it now.
Comparing football and tennis to F1 is somewhat invalid, the requirements to both play and broadcast each one is vastly different. You can't compare apples to oranges.
#29
Posted 07 March 2013 - 21:47
#30
Posted 07 March 2013 - 21:47
But hey, Bernie did sh*t all for the sport, right?
He's not perfect and he has benefited massively out of F1 but then so has everyone else, F1 might not even exist as the global sport we now have without Bernie's work which started 30 odd years ago.
Quite agree. I've been pretty happy with the entertainment that F1 has provided me the last few decades and happy how the sport is generally today.
Bernie has played a pivotal role in that, he was the one with the foresight/vision and helped it become the success it is today.
Should he be thanked for that, I think not the financial rewards have thanked him enough.
Should he be scolded or called names, I don't think so either.
I don't get why people get so uptight with Bernie (actually CVC) taking a large part of the revenue.
If the percentage going to the teams was higher nothing would really change for us anyway.
My guess is that it's mostly petty envy.
Why would I or anyone care that Bernie's daughter spends 30K on drinks in a club?
JC
Edited by JeanClaude, 07 March 2013 - 21:48.
#31
Posted 07 March 2013 - 22:56
Thanks Ollie and JC for some thoughtful posts
#32
Posted 08 March 2013 - 00:08
How on earth did those other sports like football, tennis etc manage to get TV coverage without having some greedy gnome creaming off so much of the takings?
Thank you. Best laugh of the day. In a positive way!
Edited by Wander, 08 March 2013 - 00:13.
#33
Posted 08 March 2013 - 00:09
I agree with both of those sentiments.Sepp Blatter and his cronies are almost infinitely more slimy than Bernie.
Thanks Ollie and JC for some thoughtful posts
Financial non-viability for competing teams and prohibitive ticket prices for spectators are ills from which football suffers at least as much as F1 does. This is the modern world, in which top-level sport is a platform for a TV show and its advertising and subscriptions, whereas once it stood on its own and TV sometimes came along to take a look.
There was little TV coverage of F1 before Ecclestone started to market the sport and negotiate the TV rights, at least not in the UK. I rather liked following motor racing in the old days, when every snippet of coverage had to be hunted down, the sport's followers were relatively rare, and most of our information came from magazines and books, but the World's a different place now. It's curious, though, that many of those who are most pointed in their condemnation of Bernie have become F1 enthusiasts only because of the exposure that his commercialisation has brought.
Certainly Bernie's made a lot of money out of F1, but it's hard to say whether there would have been much to be made without his taking control of the marketing. If someone else could have exploited the sport's commercial potential for just a modest commission, well, where were they? It's easy to look back with hindsight and say: "Anyone could've done that, if only they'd known what we know now."
My personal disappointment is that the commercial success of F1 has starved all other levels of the sport of attention. Formula One is now seen as a sport itself, rather than just the top of the pyramid, but I don't know whether that would have happened anyway, even without Bernie's F1-centric efforts.
#34
Posted 08 March 2013 - 11:53
Media coverage of everything has improved immeasurably over the same period. It was nothing to do with Bernie, it was to do with improvements that enabled a reliable, good quality, live transmission from anywhere in the world. The FIA could have easily negotiated TV coverage, just as other sports have done. Bernie got the rights in an underhand seedy way and has exploited them for his own benefit ever since.There was little TV coverage of F1 before Ecclestone started to market the sport and negotiate the TV rights, at least not in the UK.
He has brought no extra value to F1, instead he has been the root cause of the escalation of costs to astronomic levels. Why is it that race organisers cannot make even a modest profit on running a GP. Someone above suggested that they should cross subsidise the GP from their other race activities. Really? F1 needs to be subsidised by Formula Ford?? For the 2013 British GP, the cheapest General Admission ticket for race day is £145. For the 1984 event, it was £12.50. That's over 1000% increase. Thanks Bernie.
#35
Posted 08 March 2013 - 18:04
Entirely agree. Bertie & Max effectively stole the financial benefits of Grand Prix racing from the organisers, enthusiasts and above all the participants. Signing away the commercial rights for 100 years is simply swindling the FIA (which is now broke itself) and I have never understood why nobody has had the backbone to state the obvious,
Utter rubbish.
If you look back, you'll find that the teams did not understand business and simply couldn't be bothered with it, they were quite literally garagistes - men in sheds building cars.
For goodness sake, they didn't even have the business sense to group book freight transportation to save costs (which is where Bernie started).
Bernie saw a business opportunity and went to the teams and suggest he represent them.
"sure, whatever" they said, they didn't have the time to fully consider what he was talking about, they were too busy trying to work out how their rivals were making 20hp more than they were or how the rival car was 10lbs lighter.
In some respects they were naive - they didn't really consider that TV companies would actually pay to record races or that you could negotiate deals with tracks for prize money etc.
As soon as Bernie started getting things sorted they started to understand how valuable commercial rights could be and what they really meant. This is where the bitterness towards Bernie from various people comes from, people like Ron Dennis suddenly realised what they had signed up to. Too late.
Since those days F1 has become more business orientated, because teams need to make money to survive. They, in turn have used the exposure commercial rights gives them to sell sponsorship and bring money in to the teams.
Ollie has it spot on, I would add that everything that Bernie brought to F1 has propagated through motor sport world wide, especially the safety and medical aspects.
Nowadays you will not find a motor sport event without medical personnel/resources in attendance.
Everyone wears helmets/overalls tested to carefully planned safety standards, likewise personnel have proper training.
Competition vehicles must have certain safety features (roll cages, cut out switches etc).
That is because Bernie told everyone who mattered in no uncertain terms whatever Sid wanted, he got - tracks had to provide facilities and personnel, safety standards had to be put in place, vehicles made safer and so on. All of this has filtered down to other motor sports and many people are still alive today because of it.
Someone was lamenting the demise of unsuccessful teams.. It should be noted that Bernie has helped out many teams many times over the years. People like Frank Williams, Eddie Jordan, Colin Chapman have all gone to Bernie cap in hand at least once. If he hadn't of lent them money we might of seen many more teams disappear, some of them we regard as legends of the sport nowadays.
When Bernie finally does pop his clogs they'll need a group of people to replace him and they'll still
#36
Posted 08 March 2013 - 18:54
Firstly i never said there wouldn't be any TV coverage of F1, just that it might not be so global, and as a result financially successful as it is now, it'd still exist, but maybe not the way we know it now.
There is also the chance that it MIGHT have been more global. For all F1's success it never caught on in the U.S for example, which would have had HUGE value to sponsors (we buy a lot of crap we don't need ).