88 replies to this topic

[AustinF1]

Great post by Kimi Nick on another board re: this topic...

 

 

 

 love them or hate them, the engine manufacturers are, in a sense, blackballing a multiple WCC team because that team represents a huge threat to their success. The notion that these manufacturers are either not willing to supply RBR or will only supply year-old engines makes it clear that they are doing so to disadvantage RBR. 

Red Bull and Newey have created the best chassis in F1. The lack of an engine on par with Mercedes or even Ferrari is the difference between RBR winning GPs and not. That there is no independent supplier with a good product effectively removes all of the non-manufacturer teams from contention for a WCC.

[Risil]

The fact that there's no independent supplier with a good product says everything about Red Bull's mismanaged priorities and little about their competitors.

[Jvr]

I think Merc F1 team posting £80M loss in 2014 despite of winning both championships tells even more. Who independent engine manufacturer could afford to invest in current formula not to mention it would be stand alone profitable?

[Nathan]

Things I ponder...

 

Is PPV the thing of the future?  Is Bernie once a little too ahead of himself again (digital TV)?  I can't help but notice over here in the America's a switch to league owned TV networks that sell you things to watch.  Purchase games you can't otherwise watch on free-to-air, access to pecial productions.  The consumer is being steered towards this, and frankly have a desire for pay what you watch TV and not what you don't.  It works for boxing and UFC.  It makes sense because there are so many video mediums now advertisers are spread thin.  They have developed other ways to leverage a sport.  You can't rely on sponsorship like you use to. Due to my experiences in life I feel in 10-15 years we are going to think PPV was a smart move.  Except for those unwilling to move along with the times.  Funny a 80-something year old has the guts to pull the trigger on something somewhat radical.  Unless he is too soon.. 

Honest question, when venues sell 100,000 tickets at some inflated rate, do they really need to lower the price of the tickets??  I pay a little under $300 every year to go to Montreal. It is a one time thing, and not many other events are as special to me.  Sure it would be nice if it only cost me $100, but it isn't like Silverstone/Montreal etc. could add another 50,000 capacity to full fill the new demand.  So why drop the price if you are selling 100,000 tickets for $/€/£300?  Do the likes of Silverstone, Monza, Montreal etc. pay the fees charged to Abu Dhabi, Malaysia, Azbetawadda?  I think not.  I do agree it is unfortunate hosting fees for historical race venues are so high as to force the owner into distress, infrastructure crumbles, and they can't honestly afford the asking rate.  This is why I value the tracks that pay an inflated rate.  It's a subsidy.  And 65% of it goes to drivers, teams, an isolated cottage industry, multiple shareholders, and eventually the bottom lines of the corporations that sponsor.

What is a teams "fair share"?  It can be easily argued some teams aren't worth paying what they get now.  How does FOM get $80 million in value from Sauber??  Can the current rate be judged to be "fair" for FOM? Why does Manor deserve $50 million+?  What do they provide to the revenue stream? Is it simply because they are on the grid??  The same people that say teams should get their "fair share" are also the same that whine about Ferrari's special deal.  Somehow 5% of revenue isn't Ferrari's "fair share".  I'd debate that.  If only the ACO could afford a better deal...


Interesting to talk about what countries deserve to host an F1 race.  Historical perspective is often asked for.  Snideness to races paid for by wealthy governments.  Tripoli, Morroco and Monaco GP's all have a historical and thus romantic air to them.  Guess how they began??  Singapore seems to have a good future.  How long did F1 fever take to really hit Japan?  15-years before it became pop culture? I imagine if the internet and this BB existed 50 years ago they would have whined about going to far flung, motorsport poor countries like Japan and Canada, or impoverished places like Brazil and Mexico.  What did such people think when the Monaco GP started? Selling out I'm sure.  Cash grab.

I also ponder if the countries Bernie has "sold out to" have really been bad decisions.  I look at Bahrain and Abuh-whatever, and I think that's total shite.  One middle-eastern race is great, and the UAE seems to be the best place to do it. But Turkey, India, China, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea.... can you blame a person looking to grow a sport for setting up shop in such places? When I see people from those nations living here in Canada, when they attain wealth they have a desire for automobiles, and luxury, and all the products F1 sponsors seem to sell.  And frankly the love of the auto is declining in western Europe and America.  It is almost like the 1st world baby boom all over again where cars are status and provide freedom.  So for me I think it makes total sense to plug away at the top developing nations because it will pay off.  I think the sport can take root in the cultures.  You can't shoot yourself in the foot by accepting a race in South Korea to be located in the timbers versus outside Seoul.  You can't bin races after 5-years. It takes time to root a new sport.

 

UK, France, Germany, Italy, Monaco, Belgium, Russia.  7 Euro races are more than enough for a 20-race calendar. 

Edited by Nathan, 19 October 2015 - 21:06.

[pdac]

Things I ponder...

 

Is PPV the thing of the future?

 

I think it depends on how many viewers you need to attract and at what price. I can only really speak from experience about the UK market. Here Sky show F1 live for every race as part of their general sports package. That sports package is extremely popular amongst those who follow sport in general - especially football (soccer). So before F1 was covered, a lot of subscriptions were already sold. Since adding F1, I don't think many more have been added, which tends to suggest that either there are not that many F1 fans who are not general sports fans or else those fans are not willing to pay for a full sports package just to get F1.

 

The UK is in a somewhat unusual situation in that all the races are available on the BBC - that's free-to-air. However, only half are shown live. Nevertheless, the BBC pull in a huge audience in comparison to the Sky subscription service. This suggests that most followers of the races are satisfied with free highlights over the live coverage that is part of a subscription sports package.

 

So the question is would a dedicated, pay-per-view F1 service attract the current free-to-air viewers should that service disappear. For me, personally, the answer would be no. My gut feeling is that this would be the case for a considerable number of the UK viewers that F1 currently pulls in. I think a lot of those viewers watch because it's something of interest to them and it's there on the free-to-air channel. I don't think they would necessarily go out of their way to pay to follow it. My evidence for this feeling is that I don't think the viewing figures for other motorsport coverage that is also on free-to-air, BUT NOT ON THE BBC, are not that great. I think there are still an awful lot of people who tune in to the handful of 'main' channels in the UK and watch whatever is on that looks interesting.

Edited by pdac, 19 October 2015 - 22:40.

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

When Max Mosley artificially laughed at Fernando Alonso's 45 places grid penalty because of power unit change, my mind automatically brought back 2006 Monza GP when they penalized Fernando Alonso for no logical reason.

[Tsarwash]

Things I ponder...

 

Is PPV the thing of the future?  Is Bernie once a little too ahead of himself again (digital TV)?  I can't help but notice over here in the America's a switch to league owned TV networks that sell you things to watch.  Purchase games you can't otherwise watch on free-to-air, access to pecial productions.  The consumer is being steered towards this, and frankly have a desire for pay what you watch TV and not what you don't.  It works for boxing and UFC.  It makes sense because there are so many video mediums now advertisers are spread thin.  They have developed other ways to leverage a sport.  You can't rely on sponsorship like you use to. Due to my experiences in life I feel in 10-15 years we are going to think PPV was a smart move.  Except for those unwilling to move along with the times.  Funny a 80-something year old has the guts to pull the trigger on something somewhat radical.  Unless he is too soon.. 

Honest question, when venues sell 100,000 tickets at some inflated rate, do they really need to lower the price of the tickets??  I pay a little under $300 every year to go to Montreal. It is a one time thing, and not many other events are as special to me.  Sure it would be nice if it only cost me $100, but it isn't like Silverstone/Montreal etc. could add another 50,000 capacity to full fill the new demand.  So why drop the price if you are selling 100,000 tickets for $/€/£300?  Do the likes of Silverstone, Monza, Montreal etc. pay the fees charged to Abu Dhabi, Malaysia, Azbetawadda?  I think not.  I do agree it is unfortunate hosting fees for historical race venues are so high as to force the owner into distress, infrastructure crumbles, and they can't honestly afford the asking rate.  This is why I value the tracks that pay an inflated rate.  It's a subsidy.  And 65% of it goes to drivers, teams, an isolated cottage industry, multiple shareholders, and eventually the bottom lines of the corporations that sponsor.

What is a teams "fair share"?  It can be easily argued some teams aren't worth paying what they get now.  How does FOM get $80 million in value from Sauber??  Can the current rate be judged to be "fair" for FOM? Why does Manor deserve $50 million+?  What do they provide to the revenue stream? Is it simply because they are on the grid??  The same people that say teams should get their "fair share" are also the same that whine about Ferrari's special deal.  Somehow 5% of revenue isn't Ferrari's "fair share".  I'd debate that.  If only the ACO could afford a better deal...


Interesting to talk about what countries deserve to host an F1 race.  Historical perspective is often asked for.  Snideness to races paid for by wealthy governments.  Tripoli, Morroco and Monaco GP's all have a historical and thus romantic air to them.  Guess how they began??  Singapore seems to have a good future.  How long did F1 fever take to really hit Japan?  15-years before it became pop culture? I imagine if the internet and this BB existed 50 years ago they would have whined about going to far flung, motorsport poor countries like Japan and Canada, or impoverished places like Brazil and Mexico.  What did such people think when the Monaco GP started? Selling out I'm sure.  Cash grab.

I also ponder if the countries Bernie has "sold out to" have really been bad decisions.  I look at Bahrain and Abuh-whatever, and I think that's total shite.  One middle-eastern race is great, and the UAE seems to be the best place to do it. But Turkey, India, China, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea.... can you blame a person looking to grow a sport for setting up shop in such places? When I see people from those nations living here in Canada, when they attain wealth they have a desire for automobiles, and luxury, and all the products F1 sponsors seem to sell.  And frankly the love of the auto is declining in western Europe and America.  It is almost like the 1st world baby boom all over again where cars are status and provide freedom.  So for me I think it makes total sense to plug away at the top developing nations because it will pay off.  I think the sport can take root in the cultures.  You can't shoot yourself in the foot by accepting a race in South Korea to be located in the timbers versus outside Seoul.  You can't bin races after 5-years. It takes time to root a new sport.

 

UK, France, Germany, Italy, Monaco, Belgium, Russia.  7 Euro races are more than enough for a 20-race calendar. 

Are you actually Bernie ?

[Tsarwash]

I think it depends on how many viewers you need to attract and at what price. I can only really speak from experience about the UK market. Here Sky show F1 live for every race as part of their general sports package. That sports package is extremely popular amongst those who follow sport in general - especially football (soccer). So before F1 was covered, a lot of subscriptions were already sold. Since adding F1, I don't think many more have been added, which tends to suggest that either there are not that many F1 fans who are not general sports fans or else those fans are not willing to pay for a full sports package just to get F1.

 

The UK is in a somewhat unusual situation in that all the races are available on the BBC - that's free-to-air. However, only half are shown live. Nevertheless, the BBC pull in a huge audience in comparison to the Sky subscription service. This suggests that most followers of the races are satisfied with free highlights over the live coverage that is part of a subscription sports package.

 

So the question is would a dedicated, pay-per-view F1 service attract the current free-to-air viewers should that service disappear. For me, personally, the answer would be no. My gut feeling is that this would be the case for a considerable number of the UK viewers that F1 currently pulls in. I think a lot of those viewers watch because it's something of interest to them and it's there on the free-to-air channel. I don't think they would necessarily go out of their way to pay to follow it. My evidence for this feeling is that I don't think the viewing figures for other motorsport coverage that is also on free-to-air, BUT NOT ON THE BBC, are not that great. I think there are still an awful lot of people who tune in to the handful of 'main' channels in the UK and watch whatever is on that looks interesting.

F1 is so predictable at the moment that if it was actually made difficult for me to watch it, I wouldn't bother. Only three race winners last year ? When did that last happen ? It was almost a Mercedes lockout for Quali last year. If F1 becomes predictable, people switch off without restrictions being mplaced on viewing. This is why Bernie is worried. 

[Peter0Scandlyn]

Instead it was the man that runs F1 and a B&D aficionado...

 

Shame you seem to be unable to concentrate on the bigger picture.....

 

This is a person who frequently talks sense and can see some positives to un-mire the present mire that is F1.

[Marklar]

What I find irritating is that his main problem seems to be that the same driver/team is winning always the races and that not necessarily the best driver is winning the races, it really sounds like if this is solved that he is completely happy (thats my impression at least), but this situation is nothing new: Schumacher won once 12 of the first 13 races for example, just two years ago Vettel won 9 consecutive races and Bernie never complained about that.

This can have just two reasons: Either the rumors that Bernie dislikes Mercedes and wants them out of F1 if possible is true. Or he want to delegate the blame to the team(s) like he already did with his bullsh* explanation about the high ticket prices. F1 has definetely bigger problems (artificial racing, predictibility, financial situation, cars etc) than the dominantion of one team, if not than F1 was for the longest time of its history in a crises....

I personally cant take Bernie serious (who could?) : he is in this interview blaming everyone else (the teams, Todt) and cant contribute a solution for that. Its easy to say that everything is sh*. While Mosley is contributing with good ideas and more objectivity.

Edited by Marklar, 20 October 2015 - 06:15.

[Marklar]

F1 is so predictable at the moment that if it was actually made difficult for me to watch it, I wouldn't bother. Only three race winners last year ? When did that last happen ? It was almost a Mercedes lockout for Quali last year. If F1 becomes predictable, people switch off without restrictions being mplaced on viewing. This is why Bernie is worried.

1988 for example...

[Hans V]

What are some of you people on about? Max and Bernie are responsible for pretty much everything that is wrong in F1

• FIA President Max sold Bernie the commercial rights for some 100-odd years for next to nothing. In fact it was so cheap, even at the time, that it should have led to a corruption investigation.

• This deal also allegedly included some sort of technical veto rights, making the FIA – and Jean Todt virtually powerless.  

• Bernie turned around and sold off F1 to various bankers who are not interested in anything else than squeezing as much out of it as they possible can. Bernie has pretty much robbed the sport blind for his own and his cronies’ benefit.

• Bernie’s predictable divide-and-conquer tactics, used towards the teams since the early seventies, has given him all the power, at their expense. Seems like a pretty easy ploys as the teams, despite their technical brilliance, are driven by fear, loathing and self-interest – and not able to see the overall picture nor cooperate.

• Bernie Ecclestone did not invent commercial sports-TV, although regularly credit with it. At least by the F1 community. The growth of F1s in the eighties and nineties would have happened regardless. Bernie has been quite good at exploring this, but compared to international football nowadays, he doesn’t seem like a particularly good negotiator. Given the (alleged) ratings, F1 should have much higher revenues.  

• Bernie is behind how the revenues are divided, not least Ferraris astoundingly unreasonable 100 million Euros starting money, and to hear him complain about this is just unbelievably shameless.  

• Selling TV rights to pay-per-view makes for short term profit, but the sport will suffer in the long run, as we see now with dwindling interest and huge fall in sponsor revenues for the teams.

• The commercial rights holder (Bernie) has been poaching sponsors from the teams.

• It was Mosley who pushed through the, now according to them, overcomplicated and very expensive, hybrid engines. This was an incentive to make F1 more relevant and attract manufacturers, who they now want to get rid of.

• This evil duo killed off Group C, which I never can forgive.

 

The only thing I can agree with the mop-haired microtwat (quote: sniffpetrol.com) on is (given that I interpret him correctly) that F1 needs to implode and start all over again. But where the sport owns itself, a professional and democratic management, cost control and a fair revenue distribution. And a dramatic cut in downforce.

[LuckyStrike1]

We made a mess of everything and now even we have realized it. But we'll blame someone else, and come back as savours taking care of our own mess. M'kay? 

[Marklar]

Funniest part was for me when Max ridiculed the teams attemp to make a breakaway series: Bernie was scared enough to give them more money and freedom..

[CHIUNDA]

This is a person who frequently talks sense and can see some positives to un-mire the present mire that is F1.

The bigger picture is also that this is the guy who created this mire when he was FIA president.

[Jejking]

When Max Mosley artificially laughed at Fernando Alonso's 45 places grid penalty because of power unit change, my mind automatically brought back 2006 Monza GP when they penalized Fernando Alonso for no logical reason.

 

Has got nothing to do with Monza. Nothing.
 

[YoungGun]

The UK is in a somewhat unusual situation in that all the races are available on the BBC - that's free-to-air.

 

The BBC feed is broadcast here to across the pond, on our basic cable package. So in part you can thank us for making free there. Would I pay extra to a speciality channel or PPV when the coverage provided by the BBC is more than acceptable to this viewer. No.

Edited by YoungGun, 20 October 2015 - 09:03.

[AlexLangheck]

The Max & Bernie double act; hmm seriously, why would you listen to what they've got to say? The reason the sport is in a mess is because of them.
As already said, virtually giving away the commercial rights to F1 - and having no control over anything. Not to mention the way the non F1 series were marginalised. Some of which have not recovered.

[Rinehart]

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. 

 

Really, you don't see the connection between the commercial, political and sporting landscapes? Okay... (it's only been the crux of F1 for 30 years, but anyway). 

Moreover through the strategy group they are anything but separate. 

Edited by Rinehart, 20 October 2015 - 09:51.

[Rinehart]

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

I don't think it is. I'd rather have a manufacturer that basically co-exists with F1 in bed with the powers than a volume manufacturer only here for a marketing foray. 

[wj_gibson]

I feel it a sign of just how ruthlessly Bernie and Max ruled the sport during the years of their double act that there are no younger figures in the sport with anything much to say about its future, or that anyone in the media is even approaching in order to respond to the views Ecclestone and Mosley have expressed in this interview. It's as though the teams became so cowed and so sullen during the period when they were all essentially scared of Mosley and Ecclestone that reticence has just become second nature and no one wants to stick their head above the parapet. I'm sure the likes of Toto Wolff or Claire Williams have ideas, in their own minds, about what they think the sport ought to be achieving, and how it could go about that, but no one wants to talk openly. It's a sign of the malaise that is essentially at the core of F1 and that lies (in my view) directly with the combination of Ecclestone's ongoing centrality to the sport and its ownership structure. Shame Red Bull sacked off FOTA at the earliest available opporrtunity in retun for money. Right now, a FOTA-type organisation could be having good input...

 

Where is Todt through all this? He's been silent for years. It's like having Calvin bloody Coolidge in charge of the FIA. Why is no one pressing him for comment? He represents the governing body that has been repeatedly trashed by Ecclestone (by default of him trashing the engine regs for 18 months) and now, it seems, Todt's own predecessor. He ought to be defending the current engine regs, surely? At the minute it seems that all the negative views are getting infinite airtime and no one is offering an alternative perspective.

Edited by wj_gibson, 20 October 2015 - 11:38.

[Hans V]

With regards to Todt, he is a sitting duck in all this. From Joe Sawards blog:

 

It is a little known fact that the Formula 1 rules, while being owned (and copyrighted) by the FIA are actually a part of the commercial agreements that govern the sport, which as far as I know are included in Schedule 7 and Schedule 8 of the agreements, which are signed between the FIA, Formula One World Championship Ltd and the signatory teams, as defined by the agreement. Thus, if the FIA publishes things that are at odds with the agreements, then the agreement is considered to be the primary document. Thus, it may well say in the FIA Sporting Regulations for 2016 that there will be 20 races, but clauses elsewhere will allow for 21st races and even beyond that.

[itsgreen84]

I never thought, even a few years ago, I would say: I am on team Bernie and team Max.

[SophieB]

With regards to Todt, he is a sitting duck in all this. From Joe Sawards blog:
 
It is a little known fact that the Formula 1 rules, while being owned (and copyrighted) by the FIA are actually a part of the commercial agreements that govern the sport, which as far as I know are included in Schedule 7 and Schedule 8 of the agreements, which are signed between the FIA, Formula One World Championship Ltd and the signatory teams, as defined by the agreement. Thus, if the FIA publishes things that are at odds with the agreements, then the agreement is considered to be the primary document. Thus, it may well say in the FIA Sporting Regulations for 2016 that there will be 20 races, but clauses elsewhere will allow for 21st races and even beyond that.

 
Also relevant to the 'Why isn't Jean Todt/ FIA more visible' question, they lost a bunch of income in the 100 year rights deal and yet were obliged to continue to meet the financial obligations as if the income still flowed in and thus had to compromise on power:
 

"... the fact is that the FIA was forced by a looming cash crisis to cut whatever deals it could due to the 100-year extension, which provided for no additional cash to administer the championship as demanded by the terms of the deal, yet all proceeds had previously flowed into the (ring-fenced) FIA Foundation.
It is important to note here that the 10-fold extension did not provide incremental funding, yet obliged the FIA to continue with its duties. Thus, in order to 'save' the FIA financially, Todt had to concede certain rights.

That said, under the current structure the FIA has a one-third vote in the Strategy Group, which is more than it had under the old Technical/Sporting Working Groups and F1 Commission procedure, plus it still retains right of veto via the World Motor Sport Council which ratifies all regulation changes."

 
source: "Mosley's rallying cry will amuse teams" by Dieter Rencken http://plus.autospor...0634.1429773030 (£ or subscription)

[AustinF1]

When Max Mosley artificially laughed at Fernando Alonso's 45 places grid penalty because of power unit change, my mind automatically brought back 2006 Monza GP when they penalized Fernando Alonso for no logical reason.

What was the penalty/circumstances? I can't remember.

[AustinF1]

F1 is so predictable at the moment that if it was actually made difficult for me to watch it, I wouldn't bother. Only three race winners last year ? When did that last happen ? It was almost a Mercedes lockout for Quali last year. If F1 becomes predictable, people switch off without restrictions being mplaced on viewing. This is why Bernie is worried. 

...and three race winners so far this year. Have there ever been 2 seasons in a row with only 3 race winners?

[johnmhinds]

What was the penalty/circumstances? I can't remember.

I assume he means Alonso's 5 grid spot penalty for impeding Massa during qualifying, despite him not being anywhere near him.

Not sure what that has to do with Max though.

[LuckyStrike1]

Not what I can remember. Not even during the dominant Ferrari years were there as few as three different winners during one season even. 

 

1988 had three winners. 1989 had five I think. 

 

The Red Bull years also had more than three winners each season, often far more than that. 

 

So a bit stale yes. 

[johnmhinds]

1996 Winners 4

1997 Winners 5

1998 Winners 4

1999 Winners 6

2000 Winners 4

2001 Winners 5

2002 Winners 4

2003 Winners 8

2004 Winners 5

2005 Winners 5

2006 Winners 5

2007 Winners 4

2008 Winners 6

2009 Winners 6

2010 Winners 5

2011 Winners 5

2012 Winners 8

2013 Winners 4

2014 Winners 3

2015 Winners 3 so far...

[Timstr11]

Really, you don't see the connection between the commercial, political and sporting landscapes? Okay... (it's only been the crux of F1 for 30 years, but anyway). 

Moreover through the strategy group they are anything but separate. 

 

 

There's the FIA Sporting/Technical regulations on the one hand and you have the commercial agreements that FOM has with individual teams on the other hand.

 

The strategy group is not a rule making body BTW. They only make recommendations or provide some general direction.

These recommendations are studied and eventually drafted into rules by the FIA.

The F1 Commission and WMSC are where the rules are voted on and rubber stamped.

 

Another thing is that the Strategy group has got nothing to do with the commercial agreements individual teams have with CVC/FOM.

These are supposed to be confidential anyway.

 

Just lumping everything together does not make it a clear debate.

Edited by Timstr11, 20 October 2015 - 15:15.

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

What was the penalty/circumstances? I can't remember.

 

FIA deleted Fernando Alonso's three fastest laps for undeliberately blocking Felipe Massa in qualifying despite there was a massive distance between Fernando Alonso and Felipe Massa and penalty wasn't reasonable. Max Mosley was a diehard fan of that penalty. I remember Mark Webber said that the penalty was ridiculous and Martin Brundle said that the penalty was unfair. Fernando Alonso said one of his famous quotes over there too "I do not consider F1 a sport anymore".

Edited by RYARLE, 20 October 2015 - 17:28.

[Rinehart]

There's the FIA Sporting/Technical regulations on the one hand and you have the commercial agreements that FOM has with individual teams on the other hand.

 

The strategy group is not a rule making body BTW. They only make recommendations or provide some general direction.

These recommendations are studied and eventually drafted into rules by the FIA.

The F1 Commission and WMSC are where the rules are voted on and rubber stamped.

 

Another thing is that the Strategy group has got nothing to do with the commercial agreements individual teams have with CVC/FOM.

These are supposed to be confidential anyway.

 

Just lumping everything together does not make it a clear debate.

Maybe your being a touch facetious? We all know (I assume), what bodies and groups are technically and ultimately responsible for what, but in the grand scheme of things the commercial landscape and rule making are inextricably linked. I don't know why your going to such lengths to define specifics in black and white when we're talking about the real world in light of Max and Bernies comments, which is many shades of grey.

This conversation is about comments made by Max and Bernie and my statement that an EU ruling of anti-competition would imo pave the way for a complete overhaul of F1 is true. Like it or not. I'm not sure what is unclear or even controversial about that to anyone who has a modicum of understanding about F1. Seems whatever you post on here, someone feels the need to challenge it. 

Edited by Rinehart, 21 October 2015 - 08:45.

[Imperial]

Just watched this and found it fascinating.

I've always warmed to Max (prepares for vicious backlash) so it was nice to see him again.

Bernie I find in equal doses very smart and intelligent, but prone to throwing in some stupid comments. This thing about why don't we put Hamilton in GP2 where there are no driver aids or engineers doing half the job, see how he gets on.... Consider Hamilton is a GP2 champion, that was an incredibly dumb thing to say.

He's also mischievous, I did enjoy the question re the 2017 rules. He just laughs, no answer offered or required!

But he's also a daft doddery old bloke too at times, isn't he? I think he is greatly overestimating that it's only "young people" have smartphones, tablets, laptops etc and spend a lot of time on them, including watching F1 on one while using another device for another task. That is bollocks, almost EVERYONE has all this stuff. Suggesting that only young un's have and engage with these devices shows he lacks an understanding of the wider world. No doubt some consultant is feeding him this crap.

Anyway, you don't often see these guys at the same time, so it was entertaining. I sometimes wonder though if Max and Bernie should have swapped roles at some point, given Bernie talks predominantly about rules and Max talks about money.

[AustinF1]

Well, Bernie is 84 years old, so "young people" may not mean the same to him that it means to most of us. 

[pRy]

Bernie I find in equal doses very smart and intelligent, but prone to throwing in some stupid comments. This thing about why don't we put Hamilton in GP2 where there are no driver aids or engineers doing half the job, see how he gets on.... Consider Hamilton is a GP2 champion, that was an incredibly dumb thing to say.

He's also mischievous, I did enjoy the question re the 2017 rules. He just laughs, no answer offered or required!

But he's also a daft doddery old bloke too at times, isn't he? I think he is greatly overestimating that it's only "young people" have smartphones, tablets, laptops etc and spend a lot of time on them, including watching F1 on one while using another device for another task. That is bollocks, almost EVERYONE has all this stuff. Suggesting that only young un's have and engage with these devices shows he lacks an understanding of the wider world. No doubt some consultant is feeding him this crap.

 

My understanding of his consumption point is back in the day you could rely on the primary method of consumption as being someone sat in front of a TV on a Sunday afternoon. As Bernie says.. there was nothing better to do and that was the only way you could watch the sport. His point is that now there are many other methods to consume content and it's no longer simply about being sat in front of a traditional TV. So his argument is you need to factor this in. I don't think he was saying only young people do this.. but it's certainly the case that young people consume content differently to older generations and have more distractions. I think that much is true. How many young teenagers are watching F1 on mobile devices however.. I'm not so sure about that. I don't think that will suddenly fill the hole in the audience figures. I've always seen F1 as being an adult sport that kids tagged along with their parents and become interested that way. 

 

I don't think he was saying Hamilton needs to go to GP2 to prove himself.. he suggested he'd win. His point was GP2 is a series that he feels is closer to where F1 needs to be in terms of less driver assistance and less input from the pit wall. He probably picked Lewis off the top of his head.

[Rob]

Not what I can remember. Not even during the dominant Ferrari years were there as few as three different winners during one season even. 

 

I think it's an inevitable consequence of the crusade to improve reliability. The teams still spend ridiculous sums of money, but one factor that introduced a little bit of variability has been taken out.

[BRG]

Good to see these two together again, if only to remind ourselves what a pair of nasty, corrupt, vicious, self-serving,manipulative and thoroughly evil ba***rds they are. Max'n'Bernie, how I don't miss that double act from Hell.

[SophieB]

Great article from Richard Williams on the Bernie and Max interview here, via f1enigma:

@f1enigma: F1 is in deep trouble and Bernie Ecclestone is not the man to save it | Richard Williams https://t.co/7CyPOuJQUs

If it is to survive, Formula One needs fast, intelligent and decisive action in the form of sensible policies imposed by clear-headed people motivated solely by a concern for the sport. So when Bernie Ecclestone and his old pal Max Mosley re-emerged in tandem this week to put themselves forward as its saviours, it was hard to stop laughing. These self-proclaimed saviours are the very people whose activities over a period of 30 years created the setting for the present mess, first when Mosley – as president of the FIA, the governing body – handed Ecclestone a 100-year contract for Formula One’s commercial rights, and then when Ecclestone sold a controlling interest in those rights to CVC Capital Partners, a private equity firm that has since taken vast sums out of the sport without making any kind of meaningful investment in its future.

[BRG]

Great article from Richard Williams on the Bernie and Max interview here, via f1enigma:

"So when Bernie Ecclestone and his old pal Max Mosley re-emerged in tandem this week to put themselves forward as its saviours, it was hard to stop laughing."

Indeed.  But it is like Sepp Blatter saying that only he can clear up all the corruption in FIFA that he has overseen.  These sort of people, like most politicians, lose the ability to see how their own actions have been the entire problem.