Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Press reports of serious financial problems at Lotus [split topic]


  • Please log in to reply
196 replies to this topic

#51 EthanM

EthanM
  • Member

  • 2,104 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 07 August 2013 - 12:47

Yeah, well there is a problem when commercial rights are owned by investors, not by people who are running the sport.



to be fair though the teams had the chance to own the rights, they CHOSE Bernie to run things for them

Advertisement

#52 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,486 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 07 August 2013 - 13:03

to be fair though the teams had the chance to own the rights, they CHOSE Bernie to run things for them

At that time he was one of them.....

#53 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 07 August 2013 - 13:11

to be fair though the teams had the chance to own the rights, they CHOSE Bernie to run things for them

Lol, the history according to BE. He was representing the teams, did the deal with Max in which he mysteriously came to 'own' the commercial rights, then offered to sell a little bit back to the teams for a lot of money. Now the teams he used to represent are just things he uses for himself and the leeches.

The problem is the advertising doesn't pay - the sponsorship needed to run an F1 team is too expensive for the extra business it generates for the sponsor. If they try to pay less the team drops down the grid and gets less exposure. It's a death spiral.

An F1 team makes sense as a hobby for a bullti billionaire or for a global motor company with €4bn profits or for the tobacco industry desperately needing some illegal promotion; no-one else.

And thanks to Bernie not only do these 3 have a huge budget to blow other teams away, they also get more money to make it a bit more so each year...

#54 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 10,506 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 07 August 2013 - 13:12

Deal is not done, they are working on it.

Sounds like they need it.

#55 EthanM

EthanM
  • Member

  • 2,104 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 07 August 2013 - 13:16

Lol, the history according to BE.


It's according to Sir Frank Williams, not Bernie

#56 pUs

pUs
  • Member

  • 2,543 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 07 August 2013 - 13:36

Bernie has said many times that it's up to the teams to control their spending. In a way i do agree with him, but i wouldnt mind a more equal distribution of FOM money.


In a way it is, sure, but take away a few more good teams and the total value of F1 as a whole will go down heavily. It's really in everyones interest (or should be) that we get to keep good performing teams in the sport.

#57 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,569 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 07 August 2013 - 13:40

Spending yes.

Getting an equitable share yes as well, and that is where the commercial rights holder fail miserably.

:cool:

The distribution hasn't changed fundamentally for the past 15 years as far as i'm aware - and with the larger income, teams should be getting more from the pot than they did in the past. Sure, it's far from perfect and i agree that they should be getting more than the 50% they do now, but it is in their responsibility to adjust their spending according to their projected income. If they can't find sponsors, they shouldn't spend the money.

There have always been teams overspending. Genii bought into the team in pretty difficult economic conditions, probably to sell it to whoever is interested a few years later when the economic climate had stabilized - and it's only now that a deal for a partial sale seems close. They got Lotus as a title sponsor in what was seen by some as a ploy to get their hands on Lotus Cars, but they lost them again when the Baharniverse collapsed and left the team with only the licence to use the name. So, since early 2012 they are without a real title sponsor and with the largest normal sponsors being Total, an energy drink i can't remember ever having seen on the shelves anywhere and an anti-dandruff shampoo. Yet they employ a probably not too cheap Kimi Raikkonen and are successfully competing with the top 4 teams, which is likely not only the result of some great work at their factory and garages, but also a substantial lump of money that should be accounted for.

#58 2ms

2ms
  • Member

  • 2,212 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 07 August 2013 - 13:41

BE has been all for lowering costs for teams. It's LdM who always throws toys out of pram threatening to leave F1 every time it looks like something might actually be achieved.

#59 KavB

KavB
  • Member

  • 1,091 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 07 August 2013 - 14:20

It would be a huge shame if they can't carry on or have to make huge cuts. They are punching far above their weight, and it's great to see a non manufacturer being able to fight for wins and the driver's championship.


Advertisement

#60 Radion

Radion
  • Member

  • 813 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 07 August 2013 - 14:43

They are a top team because they have been spending way too much money. Had they spent what they could afford, they would be in the midfield.

Haven't thought about that yet, but it seems to be true to some point. Eric Boullier said so in an interview. (2:20)
So they spend more than they actually should in order to stay in front. :stoned:

#61 four1

four1
  • Member

  • 456 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 07 August 2013 - 14:49

BE has been all for lowering costs for teams. It's LdM who always throws toys out of pram threatening to leave F1 every time it looks like something might actually be achieved.

It took about 1 1/2 pages into the thread for LdM/Ferrari to somehow become the culprit of Lotus' financial problems. Congratulations for holding out so long.

In the last 6-7 years, we also have had 2 very successful teams like Red Bull and Mercedes come into the sport. If your reasoning is consistent, does LdM/Ferrari get any credit for that?

Edited by four1, 07 August 2013 - 14:51.


#62 Cool Beans

Cool Beans
  • Member

  • 1,553 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 07 August 2013 - 14:52

The troubles at Lotus have been touched upon in other threads, as well as several articles at Autosport.

F1 is working of a broken business model, and unless the powers that is come to their senses, then Lotus may or may not fail, Sauber may or may not fail, Force India may or may not fail, Caterham may or may not fail, most tracks that hos F1 are operating at a loss but the commercial rights holder is doing fine.

It is clear and plain that the distribution of fiscal resources are not working, seems equally clear and plain that the commercial rights holder will do nothing to help fix the issues.

:cool:

F1 business model is fine even for the teams, Lotus has been running without a main sponsor and the only big spot they've sold on the car is the engine cover. Greed, Boullier or whatever left them running red patches where the Honeywell logos should have been this season.

#63 ElJefe

ElJefe
  • Member

  • 145 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 07 August 2013 - 15:12

#2 driver in championship but they can't get a sponsor to save their lives. Never seen anything like it before.


This.

I think it is evident that Formula 1 is becoming increasingly irrelevant - for both sponsors and public. Last week I had a discussion with a couple of mates who were not into F1 at all and I asked them if they could name one team, one sponsor and one driver. They replied with Ferrari, Marlboro and Schumacher. Back in the early 2000s Schumacher and Ferrari were icons drawing huge mainstream crowds, but nowadays it just isn't happening. My friends were asking me where they could see a race on telly on a lazy Sunday afternoon - and I replied to them that in most countries F1 is (partially) behind a paywall. I believe that this is one of the main causes for the current lack of sponsors in F1. For example, look at the liveries of the 2001 grid and the current grid. Even midtable teams such as Jordan, Sauber and Jaguar had title sponsors and sponsorship decals everywhere. On the current grid, even a team with heritage such as Williams does not have a title sponsor and the sidepods (one of the prime places for sponsorship logos) are eerily empty. F1 should become more accessible to the mainstream public by making sure that F1 remains FTA, that ticket prices will go down and that more races will be held in countries with a motorsport heritage. The same goes for all the artificial tyre and DRS rules that make racing just unnecessary complicated for the mainstream public. Keep F1 simple: just the fastest cars, the most challenging venues and the best drivers are just perfect and will draw huge crowds if it all comes together. F1 becomes increasingly irrelevant among the mainstream crowd and I believe that the mainstream crowd is vital for the sports' existence. Just look at Tony George and IndyCar...

#64 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,178 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 07 August 2013 - 15:14

The distribution hasn't changed fundamentally for the past 15 years as far as i'm aware - and with the larger income, teams should be getting more from the pot than they did in the past. Sure, it's far from perfect and i agree that they should be getting more than the 50% they do now, but it is in their responsibility to adjust their spending according to their projected income. If they can't find sponsors, they shouldn't spend the money.

There have always been teams overspending. Genii bought into the team in pretty difficult economic conditions, probably to sell it to whoever is interested a few years later when the economic climate had stabilized - and it's only now that a deal for a partial sale seems close. They got Lotus as a title sponsor in what was seen by some as a ploy to get their hands on Lotus Cars, but they lost them again when the Baharniverse collapsed and left the team with only the licence to use the name. So, since early 2012 they are without a real title sponsor and with the largest normal sponsors being Total, an energy drink i can't remember ever having seen on the shelves anywhere and an anti-dandruff shampoo. Yet they employ a probably not too cheap Kimi Raikkonen and are successfully competing with the top 4 teams, which is likely not only the result of some great work at their factory and garages, but also a substantial lump of money that should be accounted for.


The distribution have been massively changed.

The case of Marussia not getting a cent is new, and a change of distribution, I think the various percentages of distribution have been changed repeatedly the past 15 years. Used to be only Ferrari who were getting a special cut, now even Red Bull is getting one, even though have only existed as Red Bull sine 2005.

:cool:

#65 David Lightman

David Lightman
  • Member

  • 345 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 07 August 2013 - 15:16

The F1 business model is rotten to the core and seems to be unravelling slowly at the moment. Bernie needs to go and it needs to be run properly, it's ridiculous that so many teams and tracks are in so much financial trouble.

#66 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 10,506 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 07 August 2013 - 15:21

The F1 business model is rotten to the core and seems to be unravelling slowly at the moment. Bernie needs to go and it needs to be run properly, it's ridiculous that so many teams and tracks are in so much financial trouble.

Perfect storm of economic downturn, CVC/Bernie draining too much money from the sport and inter-team bickering preventing any effective limits on budgets.

#67 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 07 August 2013 - 15:59

This might sound strange, but I actually think there's too much money in F1 - and its all in the wrong places.

I'm starting to wonder if Max might have been on to something with his budget cap.

Hit the nail on the head! :up:

#68 sblick

sblick
  • Member

  • 479 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 07 August 2013 - 16:23

The teams need to start their own series. Their is no way financially to share more resources when, I think, 50-60% of all money earned has to go to debt repayment. A new series set along the path of the NFL with franchises that have to be bought. Share the wealth equally between teams of all TV revenue and then a world's championship bonus for a differentiator. Sponsors may not be needed considering the amount of money they could make from TV, internet, or any other media sources. The quote below is from Bloomberg so it is real. 4 billion a year!!!! You look at that and you say 2 billion for expenses, God knows why and then 2 billion to share between 12 teams. OK that is only the top 4-5 teams budgets but the smaller teams could easily survive on 166 million a year. A couple of sponsors and you are at 200 million a year.

"Rights fees for all three networks will increase by about 6 percent or 7 percent a year, according to three people with knowledge of the talks who were granted anonymity because they weren’t authorized to disclose the terms. The NFL currently receives about $4 billion a year in television rights fees from companies including Walt Disney Co. (DIS)’s ESPN and DirecTV. (DTV) "



#69 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,739 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 07 August 2013 - 16:33

the question is why arent sponsors coming forward, while say nascar, even 3rd division nascar has proper none paydriver linked sponsors.
lotus has been one of the more successful teams at getting stickers on their car too..

#70 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,569 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 07 August 2013 - 16:34

The distribution have been massively changed.

The case of Marussia not getting a cent is new, and a change of distribution, I think the various percentages of distribution have been changed repeatedly the past 15 years. Used to be only Ferrari who were getting a special cut, now even Red Bull is getting one, even though have only existed as Red Bull sine 2005.

:cool:

Marussia not getting a cent isn't really new. The Column-3 payments of $10m each for the competitors not qualifying for Column-1/2 payments were only introduced in 2009 to help the three new teams. They were also payed out of a special FOM fund, not the prize fund. Before that, only the top 10 teams received money from FOM and that's what Bernie wants to return to in the new CA.

The special agreements with Ferrari, Red Bull and McLaren only come into play with the new CA, which is not yet in effect as at least FIA's signature is still missing. These are also not being payed out of the prize fund like Ferrari's extra 2.5% was in the past, but a special fund created to reward the most successful teams in the past few seasons or something like that. The new CA also raises the team's share of F1's profit from 47% to 63%, so that alone will mean much more money for the teams.

#71 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 07 August 2013 - 16:46

It's according to Sir Frank Williams, not Bernie

Oh sure. I don't suppose this was around the time Frank was desperate for cash?

#72 ForeverInLoveWithF1

ForeverInLoveWithF1
  • Member

  • 52 posts
  • Joined: June 13

Posted 07 August 2013 - 16:47

If they are struggling to get sponsors with Kimi on board, then the team's income will absolutely dwindle without him. With midfield teams struggling to stay afloat, F1 is in a dire state. I can see Kimi being replaced by a young pay driver. How else will the team be able to keep up with the development race in 2014??



Sometimes I wonder what role does Kimi's reluctance to all the PR duties play in all this?
And NO, I am not Kimi hater...

Edited by ForeverInLoveWithF1, 07 August 2013 - 16:52.


#73 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,569 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 07 August 2013 - 17:19

The teams need to start their own series. [...]

Not going to happen and that's a good thing. The teams are unable to even keep something like FOTA working, are easily split over all kinds of matters and probably couldn't even decide on a name for a racing series. Ok, the last one isn't completely true, as we had the GPWC breakaway threat in 2004 and another one in 2010 over the budget cap row. Both collapsing after Ferrari switched back to F1 when Bernie tossed them some shiny coins.

the question is why arent sponsors coming forward, while say nascar, even 3rd division nascar has proper none paydriver linked sponsors.
lotus has been one of the more successful teams at getting stickers on their car too..

I'm not sure most of NASCAR's sponsoring deals would be of much use to F1 teams. According to this, a Sprint Cup sponsorship is in the range of $12-$15m per season. And that's probably for a top car, with 36 races, a huge single-country range and the complete car being painted in your corporate colours. I guess $15m is what Blackberry pays for a bit of branding on the side of the Merc tub and the head rest.

Edited by dau, 07 August 2013 - 17:32.


#74 seahawk

seahawk
  • Member

  • 3,132 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 07 August 2013 - 17:24

teams. They will be happy to see Lotus go, when the WCC money is divided between the remaining teams. Mosley was perfectly right pushing for the budget cap.

#75 Baddoer

Baddoer
  • Member

  • 1,495 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 07 August 2013 - 17:32

This Lotus bubble should finally blow up some day.

#76 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 07 August 2013 - 17:53

the question is why arent sponsors coming forward, while say nascar, even 3rd division nascar has proper none paydriver linked sponsors.
lotus has been one of the more successful teams at getting stickers on their car too..

It's poor value. In F1 $5m buys you almost nothing in terms of exposure. Step up to $50m and there are a lot of good-looking alternatives.

#77 August

August
  • Member

  • 2,124 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 07 August 2013 - 17:55

The world as we know it is addicted to debt, it's not even worth them commenting on it. Late salaries on the other hand is a much bigger deal. Losing this team will be worse than losing Tyrrell was.


I really wouldn't miss this team so much, too many ownership and name changes. I'd miss Sauber more.

#78 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 07 August 2013 - 18:33

This Lotus bubble should finally blow up some day.

And you look forward to that because?

I really wouldn't miss this team so much, too many ownership and name changes. I'd miss Sauber more.

Why are those bad things? To me, it shows the team's sustenance and will power to stay on. Unless you are blessed with financial backing, most racing teams sustain their passion and business by changing hands, sponsors, names and personnel. I have lot more respect for such fight-and-live teams compared to those that enjoy luxurious financial backing. No offense to Sauber (their finances have always dictated them to be a midfield team), but the Enstone team gone a step ahead and have 4 WDCs and 3 WCCs. Sorry, don't disrespect a team that has faced so much struggle to survive, yet they have fought impressively, rising from the ashes often and winning championships at that. I consider all these to be very impressive.

Edited by SpaMaster, 07 August 2013 - 18:44.


#79 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 835 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 August 2013 - 19:19

The F1 business model is rotten to the core and seems to be unravelling slowly at the moment. Bernie needs to go and it needs to be run properly, it's ridiculous that so many teams and tracks are in so much financial trouble.


Yes, interesting ...
- Get TV companies to cough up a ton of cash for the rights to show teams racing
then
- Get the tracks to pay you a fortune to come race there
then
- Take all the revenue from track advertising
then
- Tell the teams that they'll only get a pittance unless they end up right at the top (resulting in them having to spend a fortune to try to beat all of the others)
then
- Explain to potential sponsors that they are much better off investing in F1 than in individual teams

In other words, be nothing more than a middle-man and screw over everyone who actually puts on the show that you're selling.

How do they do it?

Advertisement

#80 Burai

Burai
  • Member

  • 1,005 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 07 August 2013 - 19:29

Why are those bad things? To me, it shows the team's sustenance and will power to stay on. Unless you are blessed with financial backing, most racing teams sustain their passion and business by changing hands, sponsors, names and personnel. I have lot more respect for such fight-and-live teams compared to those that enjoy luxurious financial backing. No offense to Sauber (their finances have always dictated them to be a midfield team), but the Enstone team gone a step ahead and have 4 WDCs and 3 WCCs. Sorry, don't disrespect a team that has faced so much struggle to survive, yet they have fought impressively, rising from the ashes often and winning championships at that. I consider all these to be very impressive.


I think the real issue with Lotus isn't in their Renault-and-before past but what happened since. Genii have used smoke and mirrors to make the team seem stronger than it really is, which has the knock-on effect of putting off potential real investors and sponsors. I'm not sure what the game plan was originally; sell the team to Group Lotus? Use the team as leverage to buy Group Lotus?

I was dismayed when Genii got the nod over Prodrive because we've seen time and time again that you can't run racing teams as an investment. You have to run them as racing teams. Winning should be your motivation, not profit.

#81 Wingcommander

Wingcommander
  • Member

  • 690 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 07 August 2013 - 20:01

The special agreements with Ferrari, Red Bull and McLaren only come into play with the new CA, which is not yet in effect as at least FIA's signature is still missing. These are also not being payed out of the prize fund like Ferrari's extra 2.5% was in the past, but a special fund created to reward the most successful teams in the past few seasons or something like that. The new CA also raises the team's share of F1's profit from 47% to 63%, so that alone will mean much more money for the teams.


Do the teams even need CA? The agreements about prize money are now a separate thing. The only reason for CA is to get a deal between FIA and Bernie.

Edited by Wingcommander, 07 August 2013 - 20:02.


#82 Arry2k

Arry2k
  • Member

  • 358 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 07 August 2013 - 20:02

I think the real issue with Lotus isn't in their Renault-and-before past but what happened since. Genii have used smoke and mirrors to make the team seem stronger than it really is, which has the knock-on effect of putting off potential real investors and sponsors. I'm not sure what the game plan was originally; sell the team to Group Lotus? Use the team as leverage to buy Group Lotus?

I was dismayed when Genii got the nod over Prodrive because we've seen time and time again that you can't run racing teams as an investment. You have to run them as racing teams. Winning should be your motivation, not profit.

I always had the impression that Lopez was using the team to turn a quick buck, just like Alex Shnaider did with Jordan/Midland. Buy a floundering team, invest nothing, then flog it a quick as possible for a tidy profit. Not only that but you also get the added cachet of saying you owned a team plus the free publicity that comes with it.

Didn't they get some loans from Renault to run the team when they announced they had bought it? If they did it was probably looking all rather rosey, as I imagine that they would have already been talking to a certain Mr Bahar about screwing over Tony Fernandes and selling the team outright to Group Lotus. Theis was probably the reason for GENII giving Lotus (free?) sponsorship on the car and changed the name of the team to smooth the transition from one owner to another. I dare say it was all fitting nicely into place until the plan was scuppered when a certain Mr Bahar got the proverbial elbow.

Now they are basically up the creek without a paddle, I wonder how long before the team gets liquidated to repay the seemingly immence debts run up by Lopez and Lux.

Btw this is just my take on the situation and if I am wrong please do point it out, as I am quite curious as to what is actually going on.

Edited by Arry2k, 07 August 2013 - 20:03.


#83 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,327 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 07 August 2013 - 20:33

This might sound strange, but I actually think there's too much money in F1 - and its all in the wrong places.

I'm starting to wonder if Max might have been on to something with his budget cap.


Like some of MM's later ideas it was a sticking plaster fix for the damage that his earlier decisions already done.

#84 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,242 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 07 August 2013 - 23:08

This might sound strange, but I actually think there's too much money in F1 - and its all in the wrong places.

I'm starting to wonder if Max might have been on to something with his budget cap.

The same guy who sold away the commercial rights for 100 years to FOM to boot with, was on to something? Let me make an educated guess: His concern was to ensure that money was still flowing to those holding the commercial rights.

Manufacturers leaving the sport made F1 less worthwhile for sponsors. That's something that was overlooked in the quest to control the sport too tightly, and squeeze money out of it like water from a sponge. Had the money model be more fair to everyone, then F1 wouldn't be in the hole it is right now.

Not saying that Lotus wouldn't be in money trouble, as everyone still needs to be careful financially these days.

#85 Seano

Seano
  • Member

  • 277 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 07 August 2013 - 23:39

And there is the fundamental problem with F1 - a secret and unfair financial rewards scheme at the patronage of Bernie's wallet stuffed with our stolen money .

I really can't see how F1 can have a sporting future unless this is cleaned up.

Seano



#86 Doughnut King

Doughnut King
  • Member

  • 476 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 08 August 2013 - 00:10

This.

I think it is evident that Formula 1 is becoming increasingly irrelevant - for both sponsors and public. Last week I had a discussion with a couple of mates who were not into F1 at all and I asked them if they could name one team, one sponsor and one driver. They replied with Ferrari, Marlboro and Schumacher. Back in the early 2000s Schumacher and Ferrari were icons drawing huge mainstream crowds, but nowadays it just isn't happening. My friends were asking me where they could see a race on telly on a lazy Sunday afternoon - and I replied to them that in most countries F1 is (partially) behind a paywall. I believe that this is one of the main causes for the current lack of sponsors in F1. For example, look at the liveries of the 2001 grid and the current grid. Even midtable teams such as Jordan, Sauber and Jaguar had title sponsors and sponsorship decals everywhere. On the current grid, even a team with heritage such as Williams does not have a title sponsor and the sidepods (one of the prime places for sponsorship logos) are eerily empty. F1 should become more accessible to the mainstream public by making sure that F1 remains FTA, that ticket prices will go down and that more races will be held in countries with a motorsport heritage. The same goes for all the artificial tyre and DRS rules that make racing just unnecessary complicated for the mainstream public. Keep F1 simple: just the fastest cars, the most challenging venues and the best drivers are just perfect and will draw huge crowds if it all comes together. F1 becomes increasingly irrelevant among the mainstream crowd and I believe that the mainstream crowd is vital for the sports' existence. Just look at Tony George and IndyCar...


I entirely agree. F1 and motorsport is vastly overvalued for the interest the public actually has in it.



#87 CHIUNDA

CHIUNDA
  • Member

  • 813 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 08 August 2013 - 00:17

This.

I think it is evident that Formula 1 is becoming increasingly irrelevant - for both sponsors and public. Last week I had a discussion with a couple of mates who were not into F1 at all and I asked them if they could name one team, one sponsor and one driver. They replied with Ferrari, Marlboro and Schumacher. Back in the early 2000s Schumacher and Ferrari were icons drawing huge mainstream crowds, but nowadays it just isn't happening. My friends were asking me where they could see a race on telly on a lazy Sunday afternoon - and I replied to them that in most countries F1 is (partially) behind a paywall. I believe that this is one of the main causes for the current lack of sponsors in F1. For example, look at the liveries of the 2001 grid and the current grid. Even midtable teams such as Jordan, Sauber and Jaguar had title sponsors and sponsorship decals everywhere. On the current grid, even a team with heritage such as Williams does not have a title sponsor and the sidepods (one of the prime places for sponsorship logos) are eerily empty. F1 should become more accessible to the mainstream public by making sure that F1 remains FTA, that ticket prices will go down and that more races will be held in countries with a motorsport heritage. The same goes for all the artificial tyre and DRS rules that make racing just unnecessary complicated for the mainstream public. Keep F1 simple: just the fastest cars, the most challenging venues and the best drivers are just perfect and will draw huge crowds if it all comes together. F1 becomes increasingly irrelevant among the mainstream crowd and I believe that the mainstream crowd is vital for the sports' existence. Just look at Tony George and IndyCar...


:up: :up:


#88 Thomas99

Thomas99
  • Member

  • 1,984 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 08 August 2013 - 02:19

Does anyone know are the debt figures people are throwing around debt to creditors or debt to shareholders? Those are two VERY different problems.

If its Shareholder debt its not really an issue.

Edited by Thomas99, 08 August 2013 - 02:20.


#89 evo

evo
  • Member

  • 347 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 08 August 2013 - 04:03

Does anyone know are the debt figures people are throwing around debt to creditors or debt to shareholders? Those are two VERY different problems.

If its Shareholder debt its not really an issue.



not being able to pay employees on time would probably lend itself to the former.

#90 packapoo

packapoo
  • Member

  • 731 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 08 August 2013 - 04:34

I think the real issue with Lotus isn't in their Renault-and-before past but what happened since. Genii have used smoke and mirrors to make the team seem stronger than it really is, which has the knock-on effect of putting off potential real investors and sponsors. I'm not sure what the game plan was originally; sell the team to Group Lotus? Use the team as leverage to buy Group Lotus?

I was dismayed when Genii got the nod over Prodrive because we've seen time and time again that you can't run racing teams as an investment. You have to run them as racing teams. Winning should be your motivation, not profit.


Thank you Burai. :up:

#91 packapoo

packapoo
  • Member

  • 731 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 08 August 2013 - 04:37

One problem's answer likely creates another - if sponsors are waiting for Kimi to commit I guess his price just went up?

#92 William Hunt

William Hunt
  • Member

  • 3,289 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 08 August 2013 - 04:40

you can't run racing teams as an investment. You have to run them as racing teams. Winning should be your motivation, not profit.


So you are saying that Lotus aren't trying to win?

#93 MikeV1987

MikeV1987
  • Member

  • 1,474 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 08 August 2013 - 04:55

Investment companies always try to make a buck, but IMO Genii got screwed here. I think Group Lotus has a lot to do with it, Danny Bahar made some bold promises back in late 2010, like expanding the company with 5 new models. He was later outsed and now all 5 models are now cancelled for good. All that wasted time and money for nothing, now Group Lotus struggles to sell 1000 cars a year, and Genii are left with a dying Formula 1 team that they intended to brand and sell to Group Lotus after their intended expansion.

Edited by MikeV1987, 08 August 2013 - 04:59.


#94 mlsnoopy

mlsnoopy
  • Member

  • 2,356 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 08 August 2013 - 05:54

F1 needs to reform itself, so that it will be cheap to produce a fast car.

#95 David Lightman

David Lightman
  • Member

  • 345 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 08 August 2013 - 06:42

Try explaining to a non-fan how much teams spend designing a front wing and they'll just laugh at you, and rightly so.

#96 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 08 August 2013 - 06:53

ElJefe 's point about Sky / pay tv is a good one. Any sponsor knows that 's going to become all the races soon. They also completely agreed with Bernie when he used to say F1 had to be free -to -air...

#97 F1ultimate

F1ultimate
  • Member

  • 2,861 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 08 August 2013 - 07:34

Try explaining to a non-fan how much teams spend designing a front wing and they'll just laugh at you, and rightly so.


Good point. People complain about premier league teams being wasteful in spending too much money on player salaries. F1 team on the other hand spend fortunes tweaking a wing in the pursuit of 2 tenths just for Spa and Monza.

Worth mentioning is that 2014 is crippling midfield team badly since they are having to devote an unhealthy amount of resources to designing a new car while improving an outgoing chassis.

#98 2ms

2ms
  • Member

  • 2,212 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 08 August 2013 - 07:54

Investment companies always try to make a buck, but IMO Genii got screwed here. I think Group Lotus has a lot to do with it, Danny Bahar made some bold promises back in late 2010, like expanding the company with 5 new models. He was later outsed and now all 5 models are now cancelled for good. All that wasted time and money for nothing, now Group Lotus struggles to sell 1000 cars a year, and Genii are left with a dying Formula 1 team that they intended to brand and sell to Group Lotus after their intended expansion.


:up:

There's an amazing amount of people trying to blame everything in the world except the primary and most obvious causes. The most obvious causes are the collapse of Lotus outside of the F1 team and the F1 team's amazing poor ability at managing sponsors. These are the things to blame. Any other causes are tertiary at best.

#99 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,569 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 08 August 2013 - 09:28

Do the teams even need CA? The agreements about prize money are now a separate thing. The only reason for CA is to get a deal between FIA and Bernie.

That's news to me, you have a source for that?


Advertisement

#100 Hans V

Hans V
  • Member

  • 354 posts
  • Joined: August 03

Posted 08 August 2013 - 09:38

For some reason F1 doesn't seem very attractive to big corporations these days. Of the worlds 100 largest companies, two (2) are title sponsors for F1 teams; Petronas for Mercedes (allthough I'm sure Mercedes pours in most money to the team and thus probably should be the title sponsor...) and PDVSA at Williams. There's about 10-15 of these top-100 companies that to larger og lesser degree are associate sponsors / partner, like Shell and Santander at Ferrari, Allianz at Merc, Total at Redbull and Lotus and a few more. All in all, large companies do, however, seem to find F1 irreleveant, which is very worrying.

To me the only way to get out of this mess seems to be budget cap. Since the teams cannot even agree on which day it is, budget capping is very unlikey unless FIA make some radical changes as to how the sport is run.