Grand Prix promoters criticize F1 owners Liberty Media [split]

May Bernie be up to something here?

Would be so funny if Bernie bought a load of the circuits and didn't renew the contracts as a final act before dying then leaving the circuits in his will to Max Mosely 

https://johnwallstre...ownership-sale/

Not sure I want to place much credence in a report that uses the acronym 'FWONK' for Formula One.  I suspect their sources may be a bit fwonky.

Edited by BRG, 12 February 2019 - 21:10.

Not sure I want to place much credence in a report that uses the acronym 'FWONK' for Formula One. I suspect their sources may be a bit fwonky.

https://johnwallstre...ownership-sale/

Second part of the article describes how some high-level motorsport execs are looking at forming a company to possibly acquire several @F1-hosting venues, per @HowieLongShort.

- Given the description, this group of execs may easily include some well-known names from the F1 and NASCAR worlds.

What is the business upside in buying and owning tracks just to get a single race fee reduced or even a group of fees?  Even if you spun it public I'm not seeing an upside with that amount of capital for what's relatively a small return.  All you have to do is work the numbers and see this isn't a very good investment.  What would make more sense is Liberty and another group buying tracks and doing an ISC sort of thing where the races are basically in house.  Even then it looks like the Frances are going to fold ISC in Nascar so they can sell the whole thing in one shot as an exit strategy.  

Several tracks won't be able to be acquired.  Monza is in a park.  Canada is in a park.  Mexico is in a park.  Russia is government owned and Bahrain and Abu Dhabi are government funded.  Azerbaijan, Monaco, Australia, Singapore and soon to be Vietnam are street races.  You're looking at possibly Silverstone, Nurburg and Hockenheim perhaps.  Where else?  Spain?  France? Spa?   The investment is well over US1$ billion in exchange for US$10 mil or so a track in circuit fee reduction.  Not to mention the fact those contracts are in effect and subject to the higher fees right now.

This is the same guy that said there were rumors of F1 being for sale.  No one that had any credibility substantiated that one either.

That's not the report's acronym. FWONK is the official "ticker symbol" under which Liberty Media Formula One trades on the NASDAQ, in the same way that Microsoft is MSFT, and so on.

Ah, OK, thank you for clarifying it, that makes it different.  Clearly it is NASDAQ that is fwonky.  But I still find the story a bit hard to credit.  Why would these execs want to waste their money acquiring circuits that operate at a loss because of the excessive fees charged by F1?  And loki has also pointed out that very few tracks would be available to purchase anyway.

Edited by BRG, 13 February 2019 - 20:31.

Ah, OK, thank you for clarifying it, that makes it different.  Clearly it is NASDAQ that is fwonky.  But I still find the story a bit hard to credit.  Why would these execs want to waste their money acquiring circuits that operate at a loss because of the excessive fees charged by F1?  And loki has also pointed out that very few tracks would be available to purchase anyway.

Well given that John Wall St is the same blog that last week told us Liberty was looking to sell F1 without having any source for that story either I wouldn't waste too much time on this. 

I was in Alzheimer/dementia care for some time and something I noticed is people with these diseases start to exhibit their childhood behaviours.  Maybe Bernie was a vindictive turd disturber growing up?

I dont think the sky deal is going to last the full duration. clearly there is too much opposition to it, the problem I guess is finding the least financially damaging way of exiting it as I expect sky would be due some compensation if it happened.

I dont think the sky deal is going to last the full duration. clearly there is too much opposition to it, the problem I guess is finding the least financially damaging way of exiting it as I expect sky would be due some compensation if it happened.

As long as Sky and FOM are fine with it that's the way it's going to be.  Compared to the Sky deal there is little money in free to air.  If a terrestrial broadcaster wanted to pay the going rate by submitting a competing bid they could have.  I see that many if not most of the Brits on the forum still don't realize that the modern TV business isn't about raw numbers of viewers.  You guys have been beating that horse for a couple/few years now.  This isn't about FOM selling the rights as it is people here not understanding the modern TV business.  It's about extracting the most revenue from the product.  Soccer is getting that way for you guys now.  The only reason the NFL and Nascar still have some terrestrial broadcasts is because the networks pay the high fees for the rights.  It's a bummer for you guys but thinking that FOM will ditch the Sky deal in a relatively small market to get less money only so more can see the broadcast is fantasy.  That's just not how the TV business works these days.

As long as Sky and FOM are fine with it that's the way it's going to be.  Compared to the Sky deal there is little money in free to air.  If a terrestrial broadcaster wanted to pay the going rate by submitting a competing bid they could have.  I see that many if not most of the Brits on the forum still don't realize that the modern TV business isn't about raw numbers of viewers.  You guys have been beating that horse for a couple/few years now.  This isn't about FOM selling the rights as it is people here not understanding the modern TV business.  It's about extracting the most revenue from the product.  Soccer is getting that way for you guys now.  The only reason the NFL and Nascar still have some terrestrial broadcasts is because the networks pay the high fees for the rights.  It's a bummer for you guys but thinking that FOM will ditch the Sky deal in a relatively small market to get less money only so more can see the broadcast is fantasy.  That's just not how the TV business works these days.

Precisely loki

The rights holder cares about making money, not about footprint, losing sponsors, making it more accessible. Same as software houses dropping DLC and loot boxes into games. Same as Amazon removing decent postage unless you pay them a tax of a certain amount every year and then fleecing anyone who rarely uses them. 

Pressure from sponsors will be appeased by clever PR people who can sell snow to Eskimos, and really there are no big sponsors in F1, a few but not many, and they will have been fleeced for millions to splatter their garbage all over the track in huge detail and less clutter.

As long as FOM are happy and SKYa re paying it could eve go as low as say Amazon or those kinds of firms. Netflix would be great, but they would not be interested.

The question is, as fans, what are you prepared to put up with?

Right now I feel more people are leaving F1 than coming, but if it gets good again, what will you do?

Precisely loki

 

The rights holder cares about making money, not about footprint, losing sponsors, making it more accessible. Same as software houses dropping DLC and loot boxes into games. Same as Amazon removing decent postage unless you pay them a tax of a certain amount every year and then fleecing anyone who rarely uses them. 

 

Pressure from sponsors will be appeased by clever PR people who can sell snow to Eskimos, and really there are no big sponsors in F1, a few but not many, and they will have been fleeced for millions to splatter their garbage all over the track in huge detail and less clutter.

 

As long as FOM are happy and SKYa re paying it could eve go as low as say Amazon or those kinds of firms. Netflix would be great, but they would not be interested.

 

The question is, as fans, what are you prepared to put up with?

Right now I feel more people are leaving F1 than coming, but if it gets good again, what will you do?

I don't agree with it, but that really is their role - to maximise the income from the commercial side of F1 (hence the tag "Commercial Rights Holder"). Bernie was the clever one in instigating the current system whereby they licences things to businesses and keep away from the nitty gritty of how/where the money is actually sourced. TV companies pay broadcast fees and circuits pay hosting fees - they are the ones who have to worry about whether the numbers add up, not FOM (who just have to ensure that someone takes up the TV rights or the hosting rights for their region).

The model is, of course, based on the assumption that there will be enough broadcasters and enough circuits that are interested in F1. If the number of paying punters continues to drop, then there will be a point where broadcasters and circuits will become less interested. Right now, though, that seems a good few years away.

The rights holder cares about making money, not about footprint, losing sponsors, making it more accessible.