88 replies to this topic

[Timstr11]

http://www.zdf.de/ZD...l-1-hat-Zukunft!

[ElJefe]

Oh dear. Do I have the stomach to watch this interview in its entirety? That being said, I don't know what's worse: the FIA being led by an invisible Todt or by a mad dictator like Mosley...

[Timstr11]

This is how Alex Wurz recommended the interview:

 

https://twitter.com/...817535464591360

[Marklar]

ZDF airing an English speaking interview without an annoying voice over of someone who translates the whole thing wrong? Madness!

Sportreportage

Edited by Marklar, 18 October 2015 - 21:01.

[Marklar]

To sum it up: Its all Jean Todts fault...

(And Prost is the best driver ever)

[Ellios]

last will and testament

[johnmhinds]

Pretty much the usual fluff from Bernie and Max saying what they'd do if they had all the power (taking the sport back to 1990 levels of tech and driver aids), but giving the same tired old excuses why they can't/wont do it, blaming the teams for everything.

[ANF]

That was actually a nice interview. I loved the smile on Bernie's face when the reporter brought up the 2017 rules. He doesn't think the Strategy Group will agree on anything for 2017! (But then, why would he? He doesn't believe in democracy...)

[Nathan]

And why isn't it the teams fault?  Are they pushing for less complicated cars and racing?

[Incast]

Pretty much the usual fluff from Bernie and Max saying what they'd do if they had all the power (taking the sport back to 1990 levels of tech and driver aids), but giving the same tired old excuses why they can't/wont do it, blaming the teams for everything.

 

The comment about Ken Tyrrell surprised me where they both laughed at his overreaction to a rules change.

 

Reminded me of a quote from him to Nigel Roebuck.

 

"You wait" Ken said. "Bernie will flog the rights on to a bunch of bloody asset-strippers" Source: http://www.motorspor...-them-eat-cake/

 

When I have just watched an interview where Bernie said the teams should spend less rather than get more than 65% of FOM's revenues, I fear Ken may be right. A large chunk of the sport's revenue leaves the sport under the current commercial structures and somehow the teams are held responsible.

[Nathan]

Why should teams have to spend $150-300 mln+ per year?

[johnmhinds]

And why isn't it the teams fault?  Are they pushing for less complicated cars and racing?

 

During the interview Bernie said that the ticket prices are so high because he has to pay the teams 65% of the money so they can run their overpriced teams.

 

And he sidestepped the fact that 35% of F1's income just leaves the sport for no reason each year to make him and his billionaire friends even richer. How is Bernie Ecclestone himself not overpriced for what he does?

 

If they weren't there making all these shitty deals so they can syphon off so much money the sport would be so much better off.

[pdac]

And why isn't it the teams fault?  Are they pushing for less complicated cars and racing?

 

One could argue that they are pushing for less complicated racing by insisting on complicated cars whose performace can be totally predicted by computers and totally controlled during the race to adjust for any slight deviation from the ideal model by those same computers. Not quite there yet, but that's what they are truely pushing for.

[Nathan]

John, I guess the difference between you and me is I don't mind 35% going to the outfit that turned the sport into a multi-billion revenue generator.  The teams didn't do that, yet they make near double.  At what point do you tell the guy making everyone else a ton money he has taken enough money himself?  How do you justify that?  Commercially F1 was nothing like it has been since Bernie.

 

"If they weren't there making all these shitty deals so they can syphon off so much money the sport would be so much better off."

 

Tangibly so much better off how?

 

Are the teams - the biggest benefactors of Bernie's "greed" and shitty deal making - asking him to ease up and deliver them less cash?  Are they saying "lets reduce costs/even distribution to make racing better"? Are you sidestepping the fact the top teams and engine suppliers have made the cost of racing so high two-thirds can no longer afford to compete, and simply refuse to reverse that?

Does democracy really work in competition??

Edited by Nathan, 18 October 2015 - 22:34.

[johnmhinds]

They don't "make near double", almost all of the TV and track fee money the teams get gets put back into the sport, none of it is taken out as profit by the teams.

 

The commercial rights holders are taking a very large chunk of money out of the sport every year and investing none of it back into making the sport better.

[jjcale]

So no questions about BE's recent German court proceedings ..... lets just dump that down the memory hole and pretend none of that ever happened.

[Fastcake]

John, I guess the difference between you and me is I don't mind 35% going to the outfit that turned the sport into a multi-billion revenue generator.  The teams didn't do that, yet they make near double.  At what point do you tell the guy making everyone else a ton money he has taken enough money himself?  How do you justify that?  Commercially F1 was nothing like it has been since Bernie.

 

"If they weren't there making all these shitty deals so they can syphon off so much money the sport would be so much better off."

 

Tangibly so much better off how?

 

Are the teams - the biggest benefactors of Bernie's "greed" and shitty deal making - asking him to ease up and deliver them less cash?  Are they saying "lets reduce costs/even distribution to make racing better"? Are you sidestepping the fact the top teams and engine suppliers have made the cost of racing so high two-thirds can no longer afford to compete, and simply refuse to reverse that?

Does democracy really work in competition??

 

Apart from the possible exception of Bernie Ecclestone himself, none of the shareholders of the Formula One Group in its 17 years of existence have contributed anything towards the sport. We've gone from having various media interests, who were solely interested in acquiring the media rights for their own distribution, to banks who acquired the shares through the bankruptcy of Kirch, to the present day asset-strippers (as Ken so aptly put it) who bought the shares from the previous owners and promptly leveraged the sport to pump it dry. Not one penny from any of them has actually gone into the sport, or had any impact on increasing the sports revenue. The sport has achieved that by itself, and benefited from the worldwide trend of massive sporting rights inflation, and the increasing number of authoritarian states willing to spend large amounts on prestigious sporting events.

 

If Bernie really cared about cost saving as much as he professes to, he would have attempted to do something about it. He could quite easily side with the FIA and the smaller teams to overrule the intransigence of the top teams, as he used to do with Max Mosley, and implement any number of cost control proposals. His talk of the team's spending too much is just a smokescreen to divert the money being leached out of the sport.

[jcpower13]

I don't see the FA taking out 35% of the EPL's TV money every year, so why should Bernie get a free-pass for doing so with the F1 money? The powers that run F1 have the responsibility to make sure the prize pay-outs are fair to all teams, their taking 35% of revenue is a huge up yours to the small teams and F1 as a whole.

[Nathan]

 Because the teams gave him the privilege. Let's not forget he offered the teams to match CVC's offer.  They had multiple chances over three decades.
 

They don't "make near double", almost all of the TV and track fee money the teams get gets put back into the sport, none of it is taken out as profit by the teams.

 

The commercial rights holders are taking a very large chunk of money out of the sport every year and investing none of it back into making the sport better.

 

What would FOM invest in?  F1 teams do make profits.  Have you ever seen the MTC??  The sport is full of excess. Surely half of what F1 teams spend is not critical to the sport.  Should Bernie upgrade the black bus into a traveling palace to justify things more?

 

Apart from the possible exception of Bernie Ecclestone himself, none of the shareholders of the Formula One Group in its 17 years of existence have contributed anything towards the sport. We've gone from having various media interests, who were solely interested in acquiring the media rights for their own distribution, to banks who acquired the shares through the bankruptcy of Kirch, to the present day asset-strippers (as Ken so aptly put it) who bought the shares from the previous owners and promptly leveraged the sport to pump it dry. Not one penny from any of them has actually gone into the sport, or had any impact on increasing the sports revenue. The sport has achieved that by itself, and benefited from the worldwide trend of massive sporting rights inflation, and the increasing number of authoritarian states willing to spend large amounts on prestigious sporting events.

 

If Bernie really cared about cost saving as much as he professes to, he would have attempted to do something about it. He could quite easily side with the FIA and the smaller teams to overrule the intransigence of the top teams, as he used to do with Max Mosley, and implement any number of cost control proposals. His talk of the team's spending too much is just a smokescreen to divert the money being leached out of the sport.

 

The 'possible exception'??   How is the sport being pumped dry when as John points out, some $1.3 bln is put into the sport via FOM payments?  What is FOM to invest in? Why are people not allowed to sell the fruits of their labour and capital?  I think it's a bit of a joke to suggest Bernie hasn't tried to reduce the cost to race, after all he addressed the issue in the very video we are commenting on. Most cost-cutting ideas I see in the media seem to come from him.   It only makes sense for him to pursue that avenue as it would reduce the whining from the last half of the grid, make the sport look more stable and increase the number of competitive cars on the grid.  Or, because profits are leaving, he has no right to speak about certain truths?  Do you disagree teams spend too much money in order to compete in 20 races?

Edited by Nathan, 19 October 2015 - 00:25.

[loki]

I was expecting to see the man the runs F1 and a teenage driving phenom.  Instead it was the man that runs F1 and a B&D aficionado...

[AustinF1]

Well, I just finished watching the interview and I must say that no matter your opinion of Max or Bernie, it was a fascinating interview. I highly recommend it if you have the time.

 

Bernie almost seemed to be laying out the roadmap for how to blow up F1 with the EU Commission complaint, and start all over again ... talking about how there are other ways in which F1 stifles competition for the smaller teams. Could it be that Bernie had a hand in getting that complaint started in the first place? He's spoken openly before about blowing it all up and how the revenue distribution is ruining F1, how it was his fault, and how there wasn't much he could do about it now. Maybe this is his way around that. 

 

What's also very intriguing, as always with Bernie, is why this interview with Max, in English, on German tv? I've always held the belief that nothing like this is ever an accident with Bernie, and probably for that matter Max either. For the two of them to get together for something like this right now seems very significant imho. The common thread seemed to be that the manufacturers are gaining too much power over the direction of F1 and then that Todt doesn't want to step on their toes to change that. With these two guys, it's just as important to examine why they're talking as it is important to examine what they're saying, imho.

Edited by AustinF1, 19 October 2015 - 05:21.

[pRy]

What's also very intriguing, as always with Bernie, is why this interview with Max, in English, on German tv? I've always held the belief that nothing like this is ever an accident with Bernie, and probably for that matter Max either. For the two of them to get together for something like this right now seems very significant imho. The common thread seemed to be that the manufacturers are gaining too much power over the direction of F1 and then that Todt doesn't want to step on their toes to change that. With these two guys, it's just as important to examine why they're talking as it is important to examine what they're saying, imho.

 

Yes it’s no coincidence. That’s a very specific and planned interview. It’s not as if they’ve been brought together to discuss some event and the interviewer happened to throw in a few questions about the engines. It wouldn’t surprise me if Bernie invited them over to discuss specific subjects that he wants to talk about and he needed Max present for that too. So very interesting in that respect. I think it's the first time I've seen Max and Bernie sat down together discussing the sport since he stepped down as FIA President.

 

What it means isn’t so certain. To me it seems to a clear hint at some sort of “war” going on between the engine manufacturers and the other teams.. perhaps a war that never really went away after FOTA. And on one side you have the big engine manufacturers and on the other you have the likes of Redbull.. the smaller teams and Cosworth. Note how many times they mentioned Cosworth during that interview. Adam Parr over at Cosworth tweeted last week that F1 is heading for a 3 car two tier format run by the engine manufacturers with Bernie frozen out. So that perhaps suggests there is something of a power struggle going on that may be coming to a head.

 

The example of Redbull effectively being forced from the sport because it can’t find an alternative engine will have been a wake up call to a lot of people that there is a serious issue with the sport. 

 

But on the other hand it may just be two old fellows who have lost control of the sport they effectively created and they’re lamenting over the fact they can do nothing about it. It’s all well and good Bernie pointing at Max and Max reminding us there is a line in the rules that says driver aids are prohibited and using it to force huge changes would upset a few people.. that’s great.. but the problem is the current FIA President doesn’t want to do that. Max can’t do that, he has no power. So what changes? Nothing.

 

Something is afoot however.. that much is clear.

[Nemo1965]

 

Yes it’s no coincidence. That’s a very specific and planned interview. It’s not as if they’ve been brought together to discuss some event and the interviewer happened to throw in a few questions about the engines. It wouldn’t surprise me if Bernie invited them over to discuss specific subjects that he wants to talk about and he needed Max present for that too. So very interesting in that respect. I think it's the first time I've seen Max and Bernie sat down together discussing the sport since he stepped down as FIA President.

 

What it means isn’t so certain. To me it seems to a clear hint at some sort of “war” going on between the engine manufacturers and the other teams.. perhaps a war that never really went away after FOTA. And on one side you have the big engine manufacturers and on the other you have the likes of Redbull.. the smaller teams and Cosworth. Note how many times they mentioned Cosworth during that interview. Adam Parr over at Cosworth tweeted last week that F1 is heading for a 3 car two tier format run by the engine manufacturers with Bernie frozen out. So that perhaps suggests there is something of a power struggle going on that may be coming to a head.

 

The example of Redbull effectively being forced from the sport because it can’t find an alternative engine will have been a wake up call to a lot of people that there is a serious issue with the sport. 

 

But on the other hand it may just be two old fellows who have lost control of the sport they effectively created and they’re lamenting over the fact they can do nothing about it. It’s all well and good Bernie pointing at Max and Max reminding us there is a line in the rules that says driver aids are prohibited and using it to force huge changes would upset a few people.. that’s great.. but the problem is the current FIA President doesn’t want to do that. Max can’t do that, he has no power. So what changes? Nothing.

 

Something is afoot however.. that much is clear.

 

 

Excellent post. I remarked in the Red Bull-quit-thread that Toto Wolff constant talking about third cars is a sign we are entering the last gambit of a chess-game about the future of F1 for the next, oh, five or ten years.

[Mohican]

Many comments about current situation overlooks the fact that the engine manufacturers willingly (more or less) spent large amounts of money in developing engines and drivetrains for either their works teams or official partners.

The possibility of selling/leasing/whatever the engines came up later, and while an obvious upside was probably not part of the original entry/investment decision - not least since demand could never be guaranteed, i.e. budgeted for.

 

From that springs the interesting legal question under which conditions a manufacturer can refuse to supply. In "normal" markets refusal to supply/sell to/deliver to is closely regulated, and the question is which such legislation to apply here. In general, capacity constraint is the only acceptable reason - which may be why Mercedes was quick to sign up Manor,  thereby ruling out accepting RBR as a customer.

[043Max]

damn, it's that Kinky-Max, and not The Superior Max in that interview......

[johnmhinds]

 Because the teams gave him the privilege. Let's not forget he offered the teams to match CVC's offer.  They had multiple chances over three decades.
 

 

What would FOM invest in?  F1 teams do make profits.  Have you ever seen the MTC??  The sport is full of excess. Surely half of what F1 teams spend is not critical to the sport.  Should Bernie upgrade the black bus into a traveling palace to justify things more?

 

 

The 'possible exception'??   How is the sport being pumped dry when as John points out, some $1.3 bln is put into the sport via FOM payments?  What is FOM to invest in? Why are people not allowed to sell the fruits of their labour and capital?  I think it's a bit of a joke to suggest Bernie hasn't tried to reduce the cost to race, after all he addressed the issue in the very video we are commenting on. Most cost-cutting ideas I see in the media seem to come from him.   It only makes sense for him to pursue that avenue as it would reduce the whining from the last half of the grid, make the sport look more stable and increase the number of competitive cars on the grid.  Or, because profits are leaving, he has no right to speak about certain truths?  Do you disagree teams spend too much money in order to compete in 20 races?

 

If the commercial rights holder wasn't taking such a huge cut then all the TV fees could be lowered and we wouldn't have a reliance on the Pay TV models.

 

If the commercial rights holder wasn't taking such a huge cut then all the track fees could be lowered, the tickets would be lower, and the tracks could invest in better facilities instead of making a loss every year.

 

If the commercial rights holder wasn't taking such a huge cut then all the smaller teams could have their fair share of the TV money and we'd have more competitive teams in the sport.

 

etc...etc...

 

It is them taking that cut of the money to fill their already fat bank accounts (locking up the money in a vault and making it useless to everyone) that is stifling investment and driving both fans and teams away from the sport.

[pdac]

It's become aparant to me that the whole issue with the Red Bull quit threat has highlighted the limitation of Bernie's power in F1. Prior to this it was always assumed that whatever came up, Bernie would step in and it would be settled. This has indeed proved to be the case over many years - a massive issue blows up and within a day of Bernie getting involved it's over.

 

With the Red Bull situation, however, it looks to me like he's been wielding his power with everyone - with Mercedes, with Ferrari, with the FIA and it's not been resolved - at least not resolved to his satisfaction. This, in my mind, is showing that he does not have the clout everyone thought he had. He's gone to Mercedes and they've flatly refused to entertain his demands. I think he's done the same with Ferrari and got the same result.

 

Now he's realised that he was the one that gave them all of this power - because they were happy to support hm in the past. But now he's frustrated that he cannot get the things he wants done any more and it's hurting.

[Nemo1965]

Many comments about current situation overlooks the fact that the engine manufacturers willingly (more or less) spent large amounts of money in developing engines and drivetrains for either their works teams or official partners.

The possibility of selling/leasing/whatever the engines came up later, and while an obvious upside was probably not part of the original entry/investment decision - not least since demand could never be guaranteed, i.e. budgeted for.

 

From that springs the interesting legal question under which conditions a manufacturer can refuse to supply. In "normal" markets refusal to supply/sell to/deliver to is closely regulated, and the question is which such legislation to apply here. In general, capacity constraint is the only acceptable reason - which may be why Mercedes was quick to sign up Manor,  thereby ruling out accepting RBR as a customer.

 

Really? I can not remember a court case the last decade in which a manufacturer - and not a citizen, an individual, a customer -  can 'force' delivery of goods from another business. For example: in the Netherlands a private hospital can not refuse a patient (if that patient is insured, does not have a contagious disease, etc), but a private or even a state-run hospital CAN prevent that any of her surgeons works for another hospital or any of her equipment being loaned or leased to another hospital. 

 

But I can be wrong. Perhaps Ensign or one of the other legal heads can sum up countless cases you can compare with the Red Bull/Mercedes case.

[SophieB]

 Because the teams gave him the privilege. Let's not forget he offered the teams to match CVC's offer.  They had multiple chances over three decades.
 

 

What would FOM invest in?  F1 teams do make profits.  Have you ever seen the MTC??  The sport is full of excess. Surely half of what F1 teams spend is not critical to the sport.  Should Bernie upgrade the black bus into a traveling palace to justify things more?

 

 

The 'possible exception'??   How is the sport being pumped dry when as John points out, some $1.3 bln is put into the sport via FOM payments?  What is FOM to invest in? Why are people not allowed to sell the fruits of their labour and capital?  I think it's a bit of a joke to suggest Bernie hasn't tried to reduce the cost to race, after all he addressed the issue in the very video we are commenting on. Most cost-cutting ideas I see in the media seem to come from him.   It only makes sense for him to pursue that avenue as it would reduce the whining from the last half of the grid, make the sport look more stable and increase the number of competitive cars on the grid.  Or, because profits are leaving, he has no right to speak about certain truths?  Do you disagree teams spend too much money in order to compete in 20 races?

 

The sport is 'being pumped dry' when race fees are raised until they are only affordable by the governments in places that don't give a shit about motorsport at the expense of classic circuits that do have a rich motorsport history but can't compete because they are paid for the oldfashioned way, by fans buying tickets.

[Nonesuch]

It's a nice calm discussion with some interesting thoughts - even if one doesn't agree. The interviewer doesn't really seem up to speed, but that doesn't matter as both have plenty to talk about.

 

Anyway, I thought Jochen Rindt was Ecclestone's favourite driver last week? Now it's Alain Prost?

 

The most amusing moment was undoubtedly Mosley's facepalm and Ecclestone head-nodding at Honda's engine penalties:

 

[Incast]

The sport is 'being pumped dry' when race fees are raised until they are only affordable by the governments in places that don't give a **** about motorsport at the expense of classic circuits that do have a rich motorsport history but can't compete because they are paid for the oldfashioned way, by fans buying tickets.

 

I fear you're right, unfortunately.

[Rinehart]

I no longer think it's a conspiracy theory that Bernie is in favour of the EU finding F1 is anti-competitive and thus the current Concorde Agreement needing to be binned. It's blatantly obvious that Bernie is in favour of that as the lever to "tear up the rules and rewrite F1 regulations" (vis vis his Victorian House analogy). Absolutely nailed on! Good for Bernie. 

Edited by Rinehart, 19 October 2015 - 13:05.

[Tsarwash]

I do think that Bernie has a point when he says that the huge amounts being spent are helping to kill the sport. If CVC only took 15% and the rest went to the teams, they would still spend that extra money and nothing would change. Something has to be done to stop the wealthier teams bulldozing the sport. But at the same time Bernie is of course being totally hypocritical at blaming the big teams of being greedy when his history has always been about chasing the money no matter what. Max made a lot of sense in that interview. It would be nice to think that they are both concerned about their legacy as they know their time is running out, but of course they both have massive ego's to satisfy, and it's more likely to be that which fueled the interview.

Interesting comment from Bernie about younger people watching from their laptop or where-ever they can, suggesting he is nowhere near as stupid as he makes out to be.

[Hyatt]

Someone should point Bernie to the GP2 season 2006 if he wants to check Lewis' driving without much assistence ....

Edited by Hyatt, 19 October 2015 - 13:14.

[pdac]

The sport is 'being pumped dry' when race fees are raised until they are only affordable by the governments in places that don't give a **** about motorsport at the expense of classic circuits that do have a rich motorsport history but can't compete because they are paid for the oldfashioned way, by fans buying tickets.

 

It's capitalism and the free market that causes these sort of things. Capitalism will always run riot unless regulations are in place.

[Brackets]

The sport is 'being pumped dry' when race fees are raised until they are only affordable by the governments in places that don't give a **** about motorsport at the expense of classic circuits that do have a rich motorsport history but can't compete because they are paid for the oldfashioned way, by fans buying tickets.

 

While I agree with the sentiment, it should be pointed out that Spa gets 10mln a year from me Wallonia. I'm sure it's the same at many of the other classic venues.

 

 

(For the sake of completeness: Wallonia is not a ticket buying fan, and neither am I)

[Timstr11]

I no longer think it's a conspiracy theory that Bernie is in favour of the EU finding F1 is anti-competitive and thus the current Concorde Agreement needing to be binned. It's blatantly obvious that Bernie is in favour of that as the lever to "tear up the rules and rewrite F1 regulations" (vis vis his Victorian House analogy). Absolutely nailed on! Good for Bernie. 

 

I don't see what the commercial agreement between the teams and FOM/CVC has to do with the technical regulations (which are governed by the FIA).

Those are two separate things. 

 

It's true he does not seem to be against an equal distribution of funds as he probably sees that unequal distribution helps to create a 2-tier F1.

Edited by Timstr11, 19 October 2015 - 14:20.

[Timstr11]

It's become aparant to me that the whole issue with the Red Bull quit threat has highlighted the limitation of Bernie's power in F1. Prior to this it was always assumed that whatever came up, Bernie would step in and it would be settled. This has indeed proved to be the case over many years - a massive issue blows up and within a day of Bernie getting involved it's over.

 

With the Red Bull situation, however, it looks to me like he's been wielding his power with everyone - with Mercedes, with Ferrari, with the FIA and it's not been resolved - at least not resolved to his satisfaction. This, in my mind, is showing that he does not have the clout everyone thought he had. He's gone to Mercedes and they've flatly refused to entertain his demands. I think he's done the same with Ferrari and got the same result.

 

Now he's realised that he was the one that gave them all of this power - because they were happy to support hm in the past. But now he's frustrated that he cannot get the things he wants done any more and it's hurting.

 

Key is that he does not have the same relationship with the FIA as he used to have. Todt is very different from Max.

Another key is that he does not have the same relationship he used to have with Ferrari as he used to have. Marchionne is not Montezemolo.

As a result, it's difficult for him to find allies and make things happen his way, via the more democratic system they now have in place.

Edited by Timstr11, 19 October 2015 - 14:27.

[pdac]

Key is that he does not have the same relationship with the FIA as he used to have. Todt is very different from Max.

Another key is that he does not have the same relationship he used to have with Ferrari as he used to have. Marchionne is not Montezemolo.

As a result, it's difficult for him to find allies and make things happen his way, via the more democratic system they now have in place.

 

Correct. In the past the 'democratic voting system' was not a problem because the way the votes were allocated, he and his allies would always win. Now he can no longer rely on the key players voting the way he wants them to.

[johnmhinds]

Key is that he does not have the same relationship with the FIA as he used to have. Todt is very different from Max.

Another key is that he does not have the same relationship he used to have with Ferrari as he used to have. Marchionne is not Montezemolo.

As a result, it's difficult for him to find allies and make things happen his way, via the more democratic system they now have in place.

 

The democratic system where half the grid doesn't get to vote or even offer opinions on regulation changes anymore? The one where they don't even get invited to the meetings. The system the bigger teams used to gift themselves more "historic" payments?

 

Yup, totally more democratic.

Edited by johnmhinds, 19 October 2015 - 15:15.

[Jvr]

Well first thanks Timstr11 for sharing this, it was indeed interesting to watch.

 

Now does anybody else get the impression that Renault historical payment is a problem because CVC is past their selling date (Bernie confirmed this during the interview) and if CVC would agree upon this it would lower the price they get from their shares since less money would be paid out to the new buyers. Personally I think this was the biggest revelation in this interview, albeit a lot of other interesting views they shared.

[loki]

Well, I just finished watching the interview and I must say that no matter your opinion of Max or Bernie, it was a fascinating interview. I highly recommend it if you have the time.

 

Bernie almost seemed to be laying out the roadmap for how to blow up F1 with the EU Commission complaint, and start all over again ... talking about how there are other ways in which F1 stifles competition for the smaller teams. Could it be that Bernie had a hand in getting that complaint started in the first place? He's spoken openly before about blowing it all up and how the revenue distribution is ruining F1, how it was his fault, and how there wasn't much he could do about it now. Maybe this is his way around that. 

 

What's also very intriguing, as always with Bernie, is why this interview with Max, in English, on German tv? I've always held the belief that nothing like this is ever an accident with Bernie, and probably for that matter Max either. For the two of them to get together for something like this right now seems very significant imho. The common thread seemed to be that the manufacturers are gaining too much power over the direction of F1 and then that Todt doesn't want to step on their toes to change that. With these two guys, it's just as important to examine why they're talking as it is important to examine what they're saying, imho.

For the EU complaint to proceed they have to find that there is/was harm to the consumer from the alleged anti competitive behavior.  The teams aren't the consumers and that's what's going to make this a difficult case.  If it gets heard at all.

[Ellios]

It's a nice calm discussion with some interesting thoughts - even if one doesn't agree. The interviewer doesn't really seem up to speed, but that doesn't matter as both have plenty to talk about.

 

Anyway, I thought Jochen Rindt was Ecclestone's favourite driver last week? Now it's Alain Prost?

 

The most amusing moment was undoubtedly Mosley's facepalm and Ecclestone head-nodding at Honda's engine penalties:

 

 

That bust behind these two really needs to be brought to life!

[Timstr11]

Well first thanks Timstr11 for sharing this, it was indeed interesting to watch.

 

Now does anybody else get the impression that Renault historical payment is a problem because CVC is past their selling date (Bernie confirmed this during the interview) and if CVC would agree upon this it would lower the price they get from their shares since less money would be paid out to the new buyers. Personally I think this was the biggest revelation in this interview, albeit a lot of other interesting views they shared.

Renault pulling out is also not good for the value so I doubt it. 

The prospective yield of the shares will be looked at over a longer period of ownership and is dependent on several factors.

[Timstr11]

The democratic system where half the grid doesn't get to vote or even offer opinions on regulation changes anymore? The one where they don't even get invited to the meetings. The system the bigger teams used to gift themselves more "historic" payments?

 

Yup, totally more democratic.

 

It's better than the Ferrari/FOM monopoly we had before. Still far from perfect I agree.

[Jvr]

Renault pulling out is also not good for the value so I doubt it. 

The prospective yield of the shares will be looked at over a longer period of ownership and is dependent on several factors.

While I agree, cumulative payout of tens of millions per year extra to Renault is a significant dent to the expected profits and need to be carefully assessed against what would be the impact to the revenues if Renault indeed left. I would based on the back of the envelope assessment say that paying Renault significant amount per year would be more damaging to the share valuation than if they left completely

[Timstr11]

While I agree, cumulative payout of tens of millions per year extra to Renault is a significant dent to the expected profits and need to be carefully assessed against what would be the impact to the revenues if Renault indeed left. I would based on the back of the envelope assessment say that paying Renault significant amount per year would be more damaging to the share valuation than if they left completely

Still, F1 is hugely profitable to the owners. I doubt that historical payments to Renault would weigh down on the profit to such a great extent.

[Jvr]

Still, F1 is hugely profitable to the owners. I doubt that historical payments to Renault would weigh down on the profit to such a great extent.

The problem is that the payment to Renault would come directly out of the CVC and other shareholder profits, it would not lessen the payments other teams receive (unless their deals would be renegotiated in the middle of this Concorde agreement which I doubt the teams would agree). If Renault leave, it could potentially reduce the total revenues that would impact also the payments that other teams receive i.e. relatively impact CVC or other shareholders to come less.

 

Edit: in this article you can see how the prize money is distributed according to the files that were published during the planned F1 flotation in HK 2013 that failed. If you go through the figures you see that if Renault will demand any historical payment it is the shareholders that will need to pay that from their profits and it would not impact the WCC prize fund, CCB fund that is shared by Ferrari, McLaren and RedBull (apparently Merc also has their cut nowadays) and any special Ferrari payment.

 

http://en.espn.co.uk...ory/104589.html

Edited by Jvr, 19 October 2015 - 18:36.

[Nemo1965]

The problem is that the payment to Renault would come directly out of the CVC and other shareholder profits, it would not lessen the payments other teams receive (unless their deals would be renegotiated in the middle of this Concorde agreement which I doubt the teams would agree). If Renault leave, it could potentially reduce the total revenues that would impact also the payments that other teams receive i.e. relatively impact CVC or other shareholders to come less.

 

Edit: in this article you can see how the prize money is distributed according to the files that were published during the planned F1 flotation in HK 2013 that failed. If you go through the figures you see that if Renault will demand any historical payment it is the shareholders that will need to pay that from their profits and it would not impact the WCC prize fund, CCB fund that is shared by Ferrari, McLaren and RedBull (apparently Merc also has their cut nowadays) and any special Ferrari payment.

 

http://en.espn.co.uk...ory/104589.html

 

Thank you for that. I've bookmarked that page for future reference. Always handy to have such ammunition at hand...

[Jvr]

Thank you for that. I've bookmarked that page for future reference. Always handy to have such ammunition at hand...

You are most welcome! What is missing from that page is how the historical payments are paid out. Here is one other page that is showing one assumption of the year 2014 also including those. However, I believe the flow chart is not entirely accurate since the CCB fund distribution is not aligned with the ESPN story percentages:

 

http://www.totalspor...-1-prize-money/

 

So assuming Renault would get the same figure as Merc and Williams, that would mean about 1.65% share of FOG profits or about $30M US annually meaning a reduction of about 5% to the shareholders' profits per year that surely would be enough to push the share price down.

Edited by Jvr, 19 October 2015 - 19:26.