52 replies to this topic

[johnnycomelately1]

So you'd like to have someone's property taken from them to craft something for your personal enjoyment.  You wrongly state they current owners aren't entitled to be compensated for a business which was legally formed for which they paid for the rights.   If anything I'd say you aren't entitled to dictate what someone else does with their legally acquired property.  Co ops are nothing new, they've been around for quite a long while.   Your comparisons are simplistic and naive.  They are not grounded in the reality of the situation.  Making it a co op isn't going to be the magic bullet that will turn F1 into what you think it should be.  It's a solution in search of a problem.  And a poorly thought solution at that.

 

If you don't like the way F1 is going, don't watch.  It's that easy.  That's what will lead to any sort of change is people that are tuning in and going to races to not tune in and go to races.  Even then it will take the sponsors not wanting to fund the sport that will make the most impact.  Not liking a product isn't a sign that it's "failing".  It's a sign you don't like it and perhaps it's changed in a way to which you don't care for or can't relate.  While there are some issues with the revenue distribution to some teams in F1, it hardly calls for the forfeiture of property simply because you've ceased to enjoy the product. 

regarding "a business which was legally formed for which they paid for the rights.   If anything I'd say you aren't entitled to dictate what someone else does with their legally acquired property." - is jumping forward timewise from my point that "they" acquisition was an entity that was formed without sanction, as posted before (When Ecclestone bought the Brabham team during 1971 he gained a seat on the Formula One Constructors' Association and during 1978 became its president. Previously, the circuit owners controlled the income of the teams and negotiated with each individually, however Ecclestone persuaded the teams to "hunt as a pack" through FOCA.^[17] He offered Formula One to circuit owners as a package which they could take or leave. In return for the package almost all that was required was to surrender trackside advertising.)

 

a mutual is just a suggestion to remedy the profiteering.

is it right that we have teams racing for last place every race?

and that the ticket pricing is largely prohibitive?

and races are held as a paid advertisement for that country

and traditional countries are dropped

 

in regards to your second paragraph, why get personal? telling me what to watch; it is bad form.

this is a discussion forum, at least that is why i joined and i would hope it remains civilised.

if you disagree, just say so.

just like i disagree with you thinking that the financial situation is OK.

[johnnycomelately1]

Nonsense.  The mutuals demutualised because they voted to.  The same could happen in your envisioned F1.

 

And limiting it to "series" would seem to be relevant: if it is such a compelling argument to become one.  I note that not one non-financial institution was in teh sample you provided.  does that not tell you something?

it could not be demutualised if everyone had a vote and the articles of association did not let that happen (eg, a unanimous vote)

[Nathan]

Socialism comes to F1...

 

 

 

I certainly see the validity to this logic, but at the same time it's missing the point (not a point necessarily directed at you). A more equitable distribution of prize money resulting in a potential convergence of performance, assuming the smaller teams can now afford better drivers and personnel, might even have the effect of worsening the racing.

 

And even if the quality of the racing dipped, who would advocate inducing inequality amongst the teams as a solution? The point is to improve the standard of competition. It could be the fairest sport in all the land, but if the racing is garbage then nobody would care.

 

Where you lose me is when you say giving the teams more money isn't the same as rebalancing distribution. In the event that the distributions are balanced upwards, it is the same thing. It seems more plausible than to take cash away from the top teams and balancing it downwards.

It wasn't meant to make the equitable point because to me the OP was coming off suggesting if CVC's profits went to the racing teams, the quality of racing would be better.  I disagree with that. 

 

The quality of the racing would most likely increase if the prize fund was equally distributed, and understanding what you are saying in that if CVC profits were used to raise the bottom teams up to equality without hurting the top teams, but as that doesn't decrease the cost to go racing I won't be inclined to think about it that way.

As a human on Earth I'd much sooner CVC find ways to spend the $400 mln every year versus F1 teams.

Edited by Nathan, 12 July 2015 - 17:07.