143 replies to this topic

[AustinF1]

Upstream, someone said the FIA sold the F1 rights. Didn't they actually lease the rights to Bernie in 2000, for 100 or 110 years? Then Bernie sold the lease to CVC, who in turn sold the lease to Liberty Media et al. Not a huge difference in terms of control, however, I would imagine.

[AustinF1]

It's in Switzerland. 

And Poland. 

And Oregon. 

And Texas.

[Primo]

And Texas.

Anywhere near Paris?

[AustinF1]

Anywhere near Paris?

Nope. About 6-7 hours apart. Paris is in North Texas. Lenz is south of San Antonio.

[New Britain]

Or those nice and risk-averse previous owners of F1's broadcasting rights, Kirch Media.

Yes, they and the odious Gribkowsky were German, and CVC were British. But it's really always the fault of some Wild West cowboys, of course.

Brits, Continentals - their motives are pure as the driven snow, and, if you don't believe me, just ask them! 

[loki]

How can they sue someone for expressing an opinion?  If Warren Buffett had said this, would they sue him?  

They’re implying he has insider info which could introduce exposure.  However with how the agreement to split commercial and sporting parts I see it as a bigger issue if he did have insider access to that.  He’s not supposed to be involved in the commercial side details at all.  His wording is pretty crafty as well.  He’s loosely implying it but in a way where it could sound like “don’t just bring money, bring a vision for the sport”.   Malone an Co. are pissed off at him for challenging him.  He’s showing he’s not afraid to throw an elbow either.

[loki]

Anywhere near Paris?

He’s closer to Lyon…

Edited by loki, 25 January 2023 - 22:29.

[Clatter]

Or those nice and risk-averse previous owners of F1's broadcasting rights, Kirch Media.

Didnt BE still rule the roost, despite their shareholding?

[Clatter]

Upstream, someone said the FIA sold the F1 rights. Didn't they actually lease the rights to Bernie in 2000, for 100 or 110 years? Then Bernie sold the lease to CVC, who in turn sold the lease to Liberty Media et al. Not a huge difference in terms of control, however, I would imagine.

Was the lease ever extended, or is it getting shorter? How short would the lease need to be before it affects the value?

[loki]

The FIA sold the rights. If you sell something, you normally lose your control over it!

Unless you’re Finn Rausing trying to sell Sauber to the Andrettis…   

[Primo]

They’re implying he has insider info which could introduce exposure.  However with how the agreement to split commercial and sporting parts I see it as a bigger issue if he did have insider access to that.  He’s not supposed to be involved in the commercial side details at all.  His wording is pretty crafty as well.  He’s loosely implying it but in a way where it could sound like “don’t just bring money, bring a vision for the sport”.   Malone an Co. are pissed off at him for challenging him.  He’s showing he’s not afraid to throw an elbow either.

I disagree, I do not think his wording is crafty at all. It reads like an opinion piece by a journalist rather than carefully selected words from power. It must have lost him a lot and respect and general goodwill so unless it is a play aimed at increasing his own wealth, he made a terrible mistake that marks the end of his career at FIA.

[New Britain]

Unless you’re Finn Rausing trying to sell Sauber to the Andrettis…   

I was thinking of that when I wrote the post - but of course the Andretti deal never happened, supposedly for that reason (although I suspect that the real reason was that Rausing realised late in the day that he had undervalued the team in the new marketplace and he threw in that control requirement, which he knew Andretti would never in a million years accept, as a pretext when his real reason was merely to renege at the agreed price.)

[AustinF1]

Was the lease ever extended, or is it getting shorter? How short would the lease need to be before it affects the value?

Good question. I have no idea when it would become an issue. I've never heard anything about the lease period ever being extended.

[Wuzak]

The FIA sold the rights. If you sell something, you normally lose your control over it!

Upstream, someone said the FIA sold the F1 rights. Didn't they actually lease the rights to Bernie in 2000, for 100 or 110 years? Then Bernie sold the lease to CVC, who in turn sold the lease to Liberty Media et al. Not a huge difference in terms of control, however, I would imagine.

Yes, the FIA leased the commercial rights to the FOM. They didn't actually sell anything.

 

And leases can be broken.

 

Most sports "sell" the broadcasting rights for relatively short periods - 5 or 10 years. And the proceeds go to the governing body.

 

Initially the commercial rights were for ~10 years, IIRC, then extended for a further 99 or 100 years a few years after the initial lease was made. All for an upfront price that should have been the yearly fee.

Edited by Wuzak, 26 January 2023 - 09:14.

[Beri]

Was the lease ever extended, or is it getting shorter? How short would the lease need to be before it affects the value?

 

1995 saw the initial lease of 10 years commence. Only to become a 100 year lease from 2000 onwards. Which hasnt been extended or altered since.

[absinthedude]

Yes, they and the odious Gribkowsky were German, and CVC were British. But it's really always the fault of some Wild West cowboys, of course.

Brits, Continentals - their motives are pure as the driven snow, and, if you don't believe me, just ask them! 

 

The mess F1 is in started with the sale to CVC. Bernie may have made a pile out of it, but CVC paid over the odds....and understandably wanted to either make their money back somehow or divest themselves of F1. But that's when this all started to unravel. 

[pdac]

The mess F1 is in started with the sale to CVC. Bernie may have made a pile out of it, but CVC paid over the odds....and understandably wanted to either make their money back somehow or divest themselves of F1. But that's when this all started to unravel. 

 

The mess started (as mentioned earlier) when the FIA granted a 100 year lease period. That should have continued to be 10-year chunks. Once it became so long, the value of FOM became enormous. Looking back now (and seeing how Liberty are doing), it doesn't seem like CVC paid too much. What happened was that they trusted Bernie to be able to market the product for them. It looks like Bernie only knew one or two ways to market it and concentrated on maximising the income from the things he knew about (ignoring how things were changing). Also, Bernie saw far more benefit in the idea of lining up new buyers to keep the value up.

Edited by pdac, 26 January 2023 - 10:14.

[BRG]

'A bunch of power-hungry, greedy Americans'?

Yeah, I guess that would be the opposite of those deferential philanthropists and gentle souls, Britons Max Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone!

They are Americans.  Liberty is incorporated in Colorado (I think?) which is in America.  The key players are Americans.  They are greedy and power-hungry.

 

Yes, so were Bernie'n'Max, they were power-hungry, greedy Brits. 

 

Neither means that ALL Americans and ALL Brits are power-hungry and greedy.   Don't be so ridiculously sensitive

 

The point, which you allowed to wash past you in your haste to be outraged, was that the doings and sayings of some people based in the USA would cut little ice with the ASNs of Mozambique, Indonesia, Chile et etc and that pdac's doom-laden obituary for the FIA President was highly fanciful

[New Britain]

 

Yes, the FIA leased the commercial rights to the FOM. They didn't actually sell anything.

 

And leases can be broken.

 

Most sports "sell" the broadcasting rights for relatively short periods - 5 or 10 years. And the proceeds go to the governing body.

 

Initially the commercial rights were for ~10 years, IIRC, then extended for a further 99 or 100 years a few years after the initial lease was made. All for an upfront price that should have been the yearly fee.

 

Re your first point, I think the semantic difference relates to how one interprets 'rights', but it's neither here nor there. We all know that the contract was for 100 years, not forever. (It was reported at the time that the 100 years would commence when the extant contract expired, in I think 2010.)

Leases can be broken, with the consent of both parties or through legal intervention. I kind-of doubt that Liberty, or any future holder of the rights, is going to choose to break that contract, eh?

As for legal intervention, as I wrote above it has always seemed strange that no one at the time challenged the deal, which was patently outrageous. One supposes that the most likely plaintiffs in a suit would have been FIA members, but presumably none had the stomach for a protracted, very expensive legal battle with Mosley (and Ecclestone). The fee for the rights was (supposedly) used to set up and fund the FIA Foundation, a charity, which might have further complicated legal challenges to the deal.

Government authorities might have challenged it, as it made the FIA's previous conflict of interest look like child's play, but by this time the previous Competition Commissioner who was Dutch had been replaced by Mario Monti who was Italian, as was the team with which Mosley and Ecclestone had got into bed, so who knows? For example:

 

'Montezemolo said last month that Future Italy would run at the election by asking voters to back a second term for Prime Minister Mario Monti.'

https://www.reuters....E8LOG4L20121024

[New Britain]

1995 saw the initial lease of 10 years commence. Only to become a 100 year lease from 2000 onwards. Which hasnt been extended or altered since.

I'm not saying that this is accurate, but:

'In exchange for the money from SLEC, the FIA will agree to sign over the promotional rights to Formula 1 racing for a 100-year period, starting in 2010, when the current agreement ends.'

 

https://www.grandpri...deal-close.html

[New Britain]

The mess F1 is in started with the sale to CVC. Bernie may have made a pile out of it, but CVC paid over the odds....and understandably wanted to either make their money back somehow or divest themselves of F1. But that's when this all started to unravel. 

The mess started when Mosley became FISA president, then FIA president. Okay, as commercial rights holder Bernie was an exceptionally sharp businessman who could be relied on to pursue his self-interest, but that was essentially his job, and is the job of any other business person. He would have been expected to act like a selfish bastard (even though sometimes he didn't). Fair enough. Likewise CVC, who were worse than Bernie because, unlike Bernie, they knew nothing about motor racing, didn't care about motor racing, had a short-term time horizon, and were interested only in bleeding the sport dry. But here again, this was expected and not inconsistent with their position as a business.

 

It was the job of the FIA president to act in the best interests of motor sport, to go up against Ecclestone or CVC whenever the circumstances required it. Instead, as we sadly know, the two operated in tandem, Bernie looking after himself as was expected and Mosley looking after himself in terms of asserting power and bullying people whilst actively abetting Bernie's business interests (it has been alleged but never proved that, in exchange for the 100-year contract, Mosley got a nine-figure payoff, so he may have had a financial motive as well).

 

MBS now is doing what Mosley should have done and singularly failed to do - standing up to the commercial rights holder, rather than doing its bidding. Let's hope that he extends that attitude to things more important than merely opining on the trade-sale value of the commercial rights.

[New Britain]

They are Americans.  Liberty is incorporated in Colorado (I think?) which is in America.  The key players are Americans.  They are greedy and power-hungry.

 

Yes, so were Bernie'n'Max, they were power-hungry, greedy Brits. 

 

Neither means that ALL Americans and ALL Brits are power-hungry and greedy.   Don't be so ridiculously sensitive

 

The point, which you allowed to wash past you in your haste to be outraged, was that the doings and sayings of some people based in the USA would cut little ice with the ASNs of Mozambique, Indonesia, Chile et etc and that pdac's doom-laden obituary for the FIA President was highly fanciful

Liberty is indeed based in Colorado, always has been, although it is incorporated in Delaware (you will be happy to learn, as it is also in America).

No one would think that you were implying that 'ALL Americans' are 'power-hungry and greedy', but you did choose to throw the word 'Americans' into your critique - accurately but gratuitously.

 

As for the ASNs of non-G7 (shall we say?) countries, I could not say what would or would not cut ice with them. I do know that the majority of them gave us 28 years of Max Mosley and Jean Todt, which calls into question their (the majority's) judgment and probity in the first place.

[Wuzak]

The FIA is criticised for interfering in commercial matters.

 

Shouldn't that also go the other way?

 

For instance, sprint weekends is a brainchild of FOM. Arguably the format of races and composition of the weekend is a sporting matter, and should be solely the responsibility of the FIA.

 

The calendar is a grey area. Technically it should be up to the FIA, but because FOM charge lots of money for tracks to host races, they deem it to be a commercial matter.

 

Then we have the tyre supplier. As far as I know, every standard part supplier is chosen by the FIA. Except the tyres - which were chosen based on commercial interests, not technical or sporting requirements.

 

A few years ago when the tyre supply contract was being renewed, there were two option - Pirelli and Michelin.

 

The FIA assessed both as being suitable, but preferred Michelin. The FOM (under Bernie at the time) chose Pirelli based on a more favourable sponsorship deal.

[New Britain]

The FIA is criticised for interfering in commercial matters.

 

Shouldn't that also go the other way?

 

For instance, sprint weekends is a brainchild of FOM. Arguably the format of races and composition of the weekend is a sporting matter, and should be solely the responsibility of the FIA.

 

The calendar is a grey area. Technically it should be up to the FIA, but because FOM charge lots of money for tracks to host races, they deem it to be a commercial matter.

 

Then we have the tyre supplier. As far as I know, every standard part supplier is chosen by the FIA. Except the tyres - which were chosen based on commercial interests, not technical or sporting requirements.

 

A few years ago when the tyre supply contract was being renewed, there were two option - Pirelli and Michelin.

 

The FIA assessed both as being suitable, but preferred Michelin. The FOM (under Bernie at the time) chose Pirelli based on a more favourable sponsorship deal.

 

I'm not looking to get into a big debate on this point and turn it into another Racing Comments rabbit hole, but I am curious: why should the calendar technically be up to the FIA?

 

When they sold the commercial rights to Bernie back in '81, the deal was that Bernie would fund and organise a racing series that had originated years before under the auspices of the FIA, which therefore held the intellectual property rights to it. Bernie was to do all the heavy lifting, whilst the FIA oversaw the results and regulated matters relating to safety and fair competition, neither of which was commercial.

A contract can say (pretty much) whatever its counterparties want it to say, but especially now, when the FIA is barred from getting involved in the commercial side of F1, it is hard to see how the FIA could, or even why the FIA would want to, choose circuits and dates, the product of which is something like $800m in fees paid to the Commercial Rights Holder.

[eab]

The mess started when Mosley became FISA president, then FIA president.

Ok so just to be clear now. Are we talking about the "dishonest jingo", "foaming-at-the-mouth psychopath", or the "empty suit" here?

[absinthedude]

The FIA is criticised for interfering in commercial matters.

 

Shouldn't that also go the other way?

 

For instance, sprint weekends is a brainchild of FOM. Arguably the format of races and composition of the weekend is a sporting matter, and should be solely the responsibility of the FIA.

 

The calendar is a grey area. Technically it should be up to the FIA, but because FOM charge lots of money for tracks to host races, they deem it to be a commercial matter.

 

Then we have the tyre supplier. As far as I know, every standard part supplier is chosen by the FIA. Except the tyres - which were chosen based on commercial interests, not technical or sporting requirements.

 

A few years ago when the tyre supply contract was being renewed, there were two option - Pirelli and Michelin.

 

The FIA assessed both as being suitable, but preferred Michelin. The FOM (under Bernie at the time) chose Pirelli based on a more favourable sponsorship deal.

 

Yep, the teams and FOM were crying foul when the FIA were highly dubious about increasing the number of sprint races. Again I am firmly with the FIA on that one, and it would appear to be the FIA's area of responsibility and not FOM's. So the teams and FOM basically want it both ways.

 

Something's got to give soon. And I hope it's not MBS and the FIA. It could get messy and may take years for the ripples to die out. But it might just be worth it. 

 

Gods, I remember the FISA/FOCA war of the early 80s and the ripples of that were still felt a decade later. But in that instance, FOCA effectively won and that was the right outcome at the time. 

[New Britain]

 

Ok so just to be clear now. Are we talking about the "dishonest jingo", "foaming-at-the-mouth psychopath", or the "empty suit" here?

 

The foaming-at-the-mouth psychopath, of course.

I am not aware that Mosley was a jingo; at various times he lived in Germany, Ireland, France, and Monaco, in addition to Britain, and indeed he seemed to be a man devoid of any patriotic sentiment.

Todt was the empty suit; during his 12 years as president, he seemed to have no effect on anything (apart from exploiting the FIA to advance his wife's career). In contrast, Mosley had a profound effect on many things. If Mosley during his years as FIA president had done as little as Todt did, Formula One would be in a far, far better place than it is today.

[Clatter]

Yep, the teams and FOM were crying foul when the FIA were highly dubious about increasing the number of sprint races. Again I am firmly with the FIA on that one, and it would appear to be the FIA's area of responsibility and not FOM's. So the teams and FOM basically want it both ways.

 

Something's got to give soon. And I hope it's not MBS and the FIA. It could get messy and may take years for the ripples to die out. But it might just be worth it. 

 

Gods, I remember the FISA/FOCA war of the early 80s and the ripples of that were still felt a decade later. But in that instance, FOCA effectively won and that was the right outcome at the time. 

 

I thought the teams were against sprint races. I think that one is all on FOM.

[New Britain]

I thought the teams were against sprint races. I think that one is all on FOM.

I might be wrong, but I thought that the teams' reservations about the sprint races were mainly about the additional expense, especially for repairing crash damage (for which the cost cap regs have an allowance) and, to a lesser degree, the extra workload on the mechanics.

[pdac]

I might be wrong, but I thought that the teams' reservations about the sprint races were mainly about the additional expense, especially for repairing crash damage (for which the cost cap regs have an allowance) and, to a lesser degree, the extra workload on the mechanics.

 

Yes, it's just like trade unions - if you want to change anything, then the participants ask "where's our extra money?". They are only against it until the bonus offered becomes satisfactory to them.

[New Britain]

Yes, it's just like trade unions - if you want to change anything, then the participants ask "where's our extra money?". They are only against it until the bonus offered becomes satisfactory to them.

In fairness, under cost cap regime sprint races increase the likelihood of crash damage, so it is not unreasonable for the teams to request cap relief to allow for that.

[GlenWatkins]

I thought the teams were against sprint races. I think that one is all on FOM.

The teams originally complained that their gear boxes weren't designed for the additional wear & tear.

[pdac]

In fairness, under cost cap regime sprint races increase the likelihood of crash damage, so it is not unreasonable for the teams to request cap relief to allow for that.

 

I'm not disagreeing that it's not unreasonable, just that it's to be expected that the teams will tend to be against changes until there's money on the table. In their minds (perhaps, rightly) any change means more costs to them.

Edited by pdac, 27 January 2023 - 17:51.

[New Britain]

I'm not disagreeing that it's not unreasonable, just that it's to be expected that the teams will tend to be against changes until there's money on the table. In their minds (perhaps, rightly) any change means more costs to them.

Yes, but I think it is less about the absolute expense and rather because the cost cap constrains what can be spent on performance.

[pdac]

Yes, but I think it is less about the absolute expense and rather because the cost cap constrains what can be spent on performance.

 

Yep, that's why future issues like this will also meet with calls for an increase in the budget cap.

Edited by pdac, 27 January 2023 - 22:52.

[Nathan]

He is 100% on point. If a group was to pay 20 BILLION (USD) for f1, how will they make that money back?
 

 

By selling it for 30, 35 or 40 down the road.  

[Wuzak]

I'm not looking to get into a big debate on this point and turn it into another Racing Comments rabbit hole, but I am curious: why should the calendar technically be up to the FIA?

Because the calendar is not, strictly, a commercial matter. It is a sporting one.

 

At the end of the day the FIA still has to approve the calendar, albeit it is mostly a rubber stamp. It would not be that way if it was a purely commercial matter.

 

When they sold the commercial rights to Bernie back in '81, the deal was that Bernie would fund and organise a racing series that had originated years before under the auspices of the FIA, which therefore held the intellectual property rights to it. Bernie was to do all the heavy lifting, whilst the FIA oversaw the results and regulated matters relating to safety and fair competition, neither of which was commercial.
A contract can say (pretty much) whatever its counterparties want it to say, but especially now, when the FIA is barred from getting involved in the commercial side of F1, it is hard to see how the FIA could, or even why the FIA would want to, choose circuits and dates, the product of which is something like $800m in fees paid to the Commercial Rights Holder.

They didn't sell the commercial rights to Bernie in '81.

 

The only reason the calendar could be considered a commercial matter are the fees charged to tracks, but fees weren't always. 

 

The hosting fees are why we have far too many mid-eastern races now, for example, and why the FOM is keen on expanding the calendar.

[New Britain]

Because the calendar is not, strictly, a commercial matter. It is a sporting one.

 

At the end of the day the FIA still has to approve the calendar, albeit it is mostly a rubber stamp. It would not be that way if it was a purely commercial matter.

 

They didn't sell the commercial rights to Bernie in '81.

 

The only reason the calendar could be considered a commercial matter are the fees charged to tracks, but fees weren't always. 

 

The hosting fees are why we have far too many mid-eastern races now, for example, and why the FOM is keen on expanding the calendar.

Depends on what you mean by 'sporting'. Motor racing is a sport, but professional motor races are commercially based because they cost money to hold and that money is not coming from the FIA. As a practical matter, in order to hold a motor race commercial motives and actions are indispensable. In contrast, the FIA's involvement is not indispensable (although, as a legal matter, in some series it is).

 

Now that the FIA is barred from involvement in the commercial side of F1, would it make sense for the FIA to be negotiating which circuits would be used in the season and how much each promoter would pay to the Commercial Rights Holder? Why would the FIA want even to interpose itself in those negotiations?

 

As for the FIA's necessary consent to the calendar reflecting whether choice of circuits is a sporting or commercial matter: if I buy a car, that is a commercial matter between the car dealer and me. For safety and environmental reasons the government must have approved for road use the car that I am buying, but the requisite government approval does not make the exchange between the dealer and me any less commercial. To put it another way, the government may dictate what cars I may not drive on public roads, but it may not dictate what car I do drive on public roads. Veto power is different from affirmative choice.

 

As to when Bernie acquired the commercial rights, I was going by this:

 

'On 19 January 1981, after thirteen straight hours of negotiation, all parties present signed the first Concorde Agreement, named after the square in which the negotiations took place... perhaps most importantly, the agreement granted FOCA the right to televise Formula One races — this right was "leased" to Formula One Promotions and Administration, a company established and owned by Bernie Ecclestone.'

https://en.wikipedia...ent#cite_note-2

 

I don't know why you say that the year stated is inaccurate, but, if it is, it doesn't matter. The point was that commercial rights were sold to a third party, which made sense because there was, and remains, no evidence that the FIA has the skills, the resources, or the willingness to operate the commercial side of motor racing on its own. 

 

I agree with your final point. The last thing we need is more races (or even as many races as we have now) at circuits where the deciding factor is the hosting fee paid to Liberty. Then again, to have charged Monaco no fee has seemed a bit silly as well.

[Primo]

Apparently he has said "nor do I like women who think they are smarter than men, for they are not in truth". 

https://www.bbc.com/...rmula1/64432277

[BRG]

 "nor do I like men who think they are smarter than women, for they are not in truth".

 

I guess that would be acceptable, no?  You have to love equality....

[Wuzak]

Depends on what you mean by 'sporting'. Motor racing is a sport, but professional motor races are commercially based because they cost money to hold and that money is not coming from the FIA. As a practical matter, in order to hold a motor race commercial motives and actions are indispensable. In contrast, the FIA's involvement is not indispensable (although, as a legal matter, in some series it is).

Nor is it coming from the CRH (except for Las Vegas this year).

 

The individual race promoter creates, and maintains the track, the marshals are volunteers, the officials are FIA, except for at least one of the stewards, who is a member of the track's national motorpsorts body (an affiliate of the FIA).

 

The weekend format is set out in FIA regulations. 

 

The CRH broadcasts the event.

 

Now that the FIA is barred from involvement in the commercial side of F1, would it make sense for the FIA to be negotiating which circuits would be used in the season and how much each promoter would pay to the Commercial Rights Holder? Why would the FIA want even to interpose itself in those negotiations?

Why would, or should, each race pay money to the CRH? That is the only reason why it would be considered a commercial matter.

 

The FIA could easily select a set number of tracks to hold races, without a fee payable to the CRH.  

 

As for the FIA's necessary consent to the calendar reflecting whether choice of circuits is a sporting or commercial matter: if I buy a car, that is a commercial matter between the car dealer and me. For safety and environmental reasons the government must have approved for road use the car that I am buying, but the requisite government approval does not make the exchange between the dealer and me any less commercial. To put it another way, the government may dictate what cars I may not drive on public roads, but it may not dictate what car I do drive on public roads. Veto power is different from affirmative choice.

I'm not sure that analogy is applicable.

 

Aren't we in a situation where the dealer pays you to take the car to drive on public roads?

 

As to when Bernie acquired the commercial rights, I was going by this:
 
'On 19 January 1981, after thirteen straight hours of negotiation, all parties present signed the first Concorde Agreement, named after the square in which the negotiations took place... perhaps most importantly, the agreement granted FOCA the right to televise Formula One races — this right was "leased" to Formula One Promotions and Administration, a company established and owned by Bernie Ecclestone.'
https://en.wikipedia...ent#cite_note-2
 
I don't know why you say that the year stated is inaccurate, but, if it is, it doesn't matter. The point was that commercial rights were sold to a third party, which made sense because there was, and remains, no evidence that the FIA has the skills, the resources, or the willingness to operate the commercial side of motor racing on its own.

"right to televise Formula One races".

 

Prior to this each event had its own broadcaster. 

 

The current situation comes from the Mosley/Ecclestone era in the mid 1990s/early 2000s where the FIA leased the commercial rights for a total of 110 years.

 

The 100 year lease extension was a deal to maximise FOM's value for sale in the future.  Not for the benefit of F1.

 

 

 

I agree with your final point. The last thing we need is more races (or even as many races as we have now) at circuits where the deciding factor is the hosting fee paid to Liberty. Then again, to have charged Monaco no fee has seemed a bit silly as well.

More races is a function of the CRH's need for more money.

 

No fees for Monaco may have been a myth. Certainly they didn't pay as much as most other circuits, but whether they didn't pay anything I don't know.

 

The other sticking point for FOM with Monaco is that they retained the right to broadcast the race themselves, and to sell trackside advertising.

[New Britain]

Nor is it coming from the CRH (except for Las Vegas this year).

 

The individual race promoter creates, and maintains the track, the marshals are volunteers, the officials are FIA, except for at least one of the stewards, who is a member of the track's national motorpsorts body (an affiliate of the FIA).

 

The weekend format is set out in FIA regulations. 

 

The CRH broadcasts the event.

 

Why would, or should, each race pay money to the CRH? That is the only reason why it would be considered a commercial matter.

 

The FIA could easily select a set number of tracks to hold races, without a fee payable to the CRH.  

 

I'm not sure that analogy is applicable.

 

Aren't we in a situation where the dealer pays you to take the car to drive on public roads?

 

"right to televise Formula One races".

 

Prior to this each event had its own broadcaster. 

 

The current situation comes from the Mosley/Ecclestone era in the mid 1990s/early 2000s where the FIA leased the commercial rights for a total of 110 years.

 

The 100 year lease extension was a deal to maximise FOM's value for sale in the future.  Not for the benefit of F1.

 

 

 

More races is a function of the CRH's need for more money.

 

No fees for Monaco may have been a myth. Certainly they didn't pay as much as most other circuits, but whether they didn't pay anything I don't know.

 

The other sticking point for FOM with Monaco is that they retained the right to broadcast the race themselves, and to sell trackside advertising.

 

So your cavil at my comment that the FIA sold the commercial rights to Bernie in 1981 is that the FIA sold only some of the commercial rights in 1981? Insofar as the precise year was completely irrelevant to the point being made, thank you for the academic clarification.

 

Clearly, unforgivably, the 100-year sham deal was intended solely to benefit Ecclestone and Mosley. The problem that that outrage was falsely claimed to rectify was that the FIA was manipulating the calendars of other series (operated by Bernie's competitors) that it regulated in order to benefit F1 and thereby benefit itself.

Even the current Commercial Rights Holder would admit that they are in it for the money. Their main defence would be that the fans vote with their wallets, and if they are now paying more for more F1 stuff, that must mean that Liberty have added value, and in theory economic efficiency is a good thing. People such as you and I might slash our wrists if, say, Vegas ended up replacing Spa, but I think that falls in the Crap Happens category.

 

Regarding the analogy of my freedom to choose my car versus regulatory approval of that car for public road use, I think it was quite applicable. Regulation is a function, but it is not the only function out there, and having regulatory authority does not in itself justify that organisation's complete control over the activity. Sure, there could be a structure in which the FIA chose the calendar, and the sport might be better for that (protecting Silverstone and Monza, dumping some of the boring modern venues for either entertainment or ethical reasons), but as long as the teams want more money, and a big chunk of the money comes from promoters' fees, things ain't going to change.

[Stephane]

Thing is, for me, F1 was not as organised then to really sell a commercial side of something. It wa smore lile races were the commercial thing and then the points were added to make it a championship.

[loki]

Nor is it coming from the CRH (except for Las Vegas this year).

 

The individual race promoter creates, and maintains the track, the marshals are volunteers, the officials are FIA, except for at least one of the stewards, who is a member of the track's national motorpsorts body (an affiliate of the FIA).

 

Miami is a co-promote/revenue split with Stephen Ross’ group.  That and Vegas are the only ones where Liberty have skin in the game.